In its general application, assimilation is defined as the “act or process of assimilating, or bringing to a resemblance, conformity, or identity,”[[353]] or “the act or process of making or becoming like or identical; the act or process of bringing into harmony”;[[354]] or again, “the action of making or becoming like; the state of being like; similarity, resemblance, likeness; ... the becoming conformed to; conformity with.”[[355]] It is evident from these definitions that the essence of assimilation is likeness or conformity; this of necessity implies a type to which such likeness approaches. It appears that it would not be incorrect to speak of assimilation when there is nothing more than resemblance; it seems equally clear that complete assimilation involves identity. This is particularly evident in reference to the special application of the term, which is the one generally in mind when it is used, viz. the assimilation of food in the body. In this sense the process is described as “the reformation of biogen molecules by those already existing, aided by food-stuffs.”[[356]]
It is this physiological analogy which underlies the term assimilation when applied to population, and the whole matter may be best understood by keeping that analogy in view. When nutriment is taken into the system of a living organism, it passes through certain processes by which it ultimately becomes an integral part of the physical body of that organism. It is then said to be assimilated. Every suggestion of separate origin disappears, each new constituent entering harmoniously into relation with the others, new and old, and fulfilling its own functions. While it is true that certain food elements contribute particularly to certain portions of the organism, yet the whole is a coördinated unit. Any portion of the food which created disturbance with reference to the body would not be said to be assimilated.
This is only an analogy, and analogies are dangerous if used as arguments. But it may contain a helpful suggestion. Transferred to the field of population, it means that true and complete assimilation of the foreign elements in the United States involves such a complete transformation and unification of the new constituents that all sense of difference between the new and the old completely disappears. The idea of a type, into conformity with which the new elements must be brought, is here present also. In the case in point, this is manifestly the “American type.” Just what this is, it might be difficult to say. Some writers appear even to question its existence. But the very idea of assimilation presupposes a type. In general terms, this type in the United States is the “native American.”[[357]]
A foreigner, or the descendant of a foreigner, can be truly said to be assimilated only when the natives around him are conscious of no feeling of alienation on account of his origin, and when the newcomer himself feels no degree of separateness, nor possesses divergent interests or loyalties traceable to the source from which he came. This is not inconsistent with the fact that certain elements contribute more fully to specific characteristics of the body politic than others. The political, religious, or artistic aspects of the national life may, in fact, owe their character more to one element of the population than to another. But if assimilation is complete, there can be no disturbances or friction arising from differences of origin among the members of the nation.
Perhaps the most efficient test of entire assimilation is that of free intermarriage. If marriage might take place between any man and woman in the country, without suggesting differences of race or ethnic origin to either contracting party, or their families, it is a safe evidence of complete assimilation. There may be objections on the grounds of wealth, social station, or religion; there must be none based on race.
This may seem like strong doctrine. It may, indeed, not be necessary for the welfare of the country that assimilation should be so thoroughgoing as this. It is possible that different racial groups within the body politic do not constitute a menace. But if so, the fact should be stated by saying that complete assimilation is not necessary, rather than by saying that the absence of serious difficulties or evils arising from a composite population is a proof of complete assimilation.
It is disheartening to note the frequency with which even careful writers on the subject accept trivial and superficial indications as evidence of the assimilation of our foreign residents. The wearing of American clothes, the laying of carpets on the floors, the abandonment of sleeping in the kitchen and taking large numbers of boarders, the use of better food, and most of all the knowledge of English are taken as proofs of assimilation.
Not all of these improvements, to be sure, are in themselves trivial. They may indicate a great advance in living conditions, and in so far an approach to Americanization; but they are superficial as proofs of assimilation. Particularly is this true of the knowledge of English, upon which so much emphasis is laid, and which is often accepted as an evidence of essential assimilation. Now the knowledge and use of the English language is of the greatest importance, and is one of the first steps—perhaps the most essential one—toward assimilation. But it is not assimilation itself. Missionaries in China, Turkey, and other foreign lands learn to speak the languages almost perfectly, and sometimes their children speak the language of the country more readily than they do English. But that is no proof that either the missionaries or their children are assimilated into the nations in which they reside. The outlook for foreign missions would indeed be dark, were it so. The importance of the knowledge of English to our foreign residents must not be underemphasized. The lack of it is an almost insuperable bar to assimilation. But the two should not be confused. Even people whose native tongue is English may need to go through a process of assimilation before they become Americans. The following incident may serve as an illustration of this point.
Two young men, one an American and the other an Englishman, both teachers in a foreign city, were discussing the conditions in the armies of their native lands. The Englishman remarked that in his country the officers were chosen from the noble families, and that it was a fine system, as it caused the men to look upon their superiors with great respect. The American replied that in America officers were chosen for bravery, ability, or distinguished conduct, and that made the men respect them much more. “Oh, no,” said the Briton, “it is impossible that such a system as that could result in as profound a respect as exists in our army.” The point was argued for half an hour, with naturally not the slightest alteration of opinion on either side. It is probable that that young Englishman might have lived all the remainder of his life in the United States, without actually getting the American point of view. But until he did, in this respect as well as others, he could not be said to be truly assimilated, although he might have been a very useful citizen.[[358]]
Regarding the matter of assimilation from the American point of view, there are two questions to be asked. First, are our immigrants being thoroughly assimilated? Second, is complete assimilation necessary or desirable? As to the first of these queries, it seems that there can be but one answer, as far as the immigrants themselves—those of the first generation—are concerned. We have seen in how large a proportion of this class the first step, the mastery of the English language, has not been taken. In the various other conditions of life, which we have studied, it is apparent that a large part of the foreign-born are very far from American standards. With length of residence, an approach to Americanization is made. Yet it is very doubtful if it is possible for even the most exceptional adult immigrant, from the southeastern European races, at least, to become thoroughly assimilated in his lifetime. The barriers of race, set for the most part by Americans, can hardly be broken down. The immigrant is still an Italian, or a Slav, or a Greek, as long as he lives, and Americans regard him as in a measure a stranger, no matter how cultivated, or wealthy, or broad-minded he may be. The mental habits, also, which are the result of long race inheritance, are very deep-seated, and can hardly be altered even after a long residence in a foreign country.[[359]] Assimilation for the adult means the abandonment of one set of mores and the adoption of another. But the mores of a race become too thoroughly ingrained into individual character and thought to be subject to complete revision in a changed environment, even under the most favorable circumstances. And when attention is directed to the slums, the question of assimilation becomes almost a mockery. These matters are so obvious as to be almost an axiom, and even the adherents of the “liberal” policy of immigration have come to lay little stress in their arguments upon the assimilation of the first generation. The attention of all is turned to the children of the foreign-born—the immigrants of the second generation.