new lifestyle of chin at owners

8/3/2019 New Lifestyle of Chin at Owners

1/6

"Life Style" of Chinatowners in San Francisco and OaklandAuthor(s): Mary L. New and Peter Kong-ming NewSource: The Midwest Sociologist, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Spring, 1956), pp. 29-33Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Midwest Sociological SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25514951Accessed: 11/05/2010 02:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mss.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Midwest Sociological Society andBlackwell Publishing are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access to The Midwest Sociologist.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25514951?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=msshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=msshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25514951?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/6

MIDWEST SOCIOLOGIST 29ANALYSIS OF RELIGIOUS CHAPTERS IN SOCIOLOGY TEXTBOOKS*

1 ?* 1? - * a 3

Sect and Denomination Analysis XXXScience Vs. Religion XXXXReligion and Social Action XXXRoutine Functions XXXXXXXXClass Analysis of Membership XXXSecularization XX XXPrimitive Origins X X X X X XDiscussion of Philosophical X X X X XXBasis of Religious BeliefReligion and Capitalism XChurch and State Relationship X

* Chart is based on content study of chapters on religion in the following books: Sutherland & Woodward, Introductory Sociology, J. B. Lippincott, 1952 ; Green, Sociology, McGraw Hill, 1952 ; Cuber, Sociology, Appleton Century Crofts, 1951 ; Ogburn & Nimkoff, Sociology, Houghton Miflin, 1950 ; Bogardus, Sociology, MacMillan, 1954 ; Martindale & Monachesl, Sociology, Harpers, 1954 ; Bossiard, Lunden, Ballard, Foster, Introduction to Sociology,Stackpole, 1952 ; Lundberg, Schrag, Larsen, Sociology, Harpers, 19'54.

"Life Style" of Chinatowners inSan Franciscoand Oakland*byMary L. New

University of MichiganandPeter Kong-ming New

Community Studies, Inc.Kansas City, MissouriDuring the past ten years there havebeen some drastic changes of populationin California, resulting in an increase of

approximately four million residents.According to recent studies,1 most of theincrease might be attributed to the immigration of population from other states.

A consequence of such heavy migrationin and out of the state might be thechanges in the social structure of thecommunities. One would also expectsome concomitant changes in the "lifestyle"2 of an important minority groupin California, the Chinese. During this

*A paper read at the Midwest Sociological Society Meeting1, Des Moines, Iowa, April 23,1955. 1Conrad Taeuber, "Recent Population Trends in the United States with Special Emphasis on the Pacific Coast States," a paper read at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting, Berkeley, California, December 29, 1954 ;Walter T. Martin,"Recent Trends in Urbanization with Special Emphasis on the Pacific Coast Region," a paper read at the same meeting.


3/6

30 MARY L. NEW and. PETER KONG-MING NEWperiod of rapid increase of populationin California, 1940-1950, when the statepopulation rose fifty-one per cent, theChinese population also increased someforty-seven per cent in the state. However, the proportion of Chinese residents in San Francisco-Oakland to allChinese in the United States did notchange much (twenty-seven per centin 1940 as against thirty per cent in1950). Of all the Chinese living in California, seven per cent more lived in the

Bay area in 1950 than a decade before.3Nevertheless, recent observations toy thewriters on the patterns of living ofChinatowners4 in the San Francisco-Oakland area seem to suggest that they areimmune to any of the changes which"have gone on around them.

The purpose of this paper, then, is topresent some of these observations whichhave been broadly formulated into someworkable hypotheses on the basis ofcurrent census tracts reports,5 and tosuggest additional studies of Chinatowners along four lines: work, play, association, and socialization. The determinant of life styles of Chinatowners inthese four areas is the degree of assimilation and/or acculturation.6

Method.?So far as studying the social areas in the Bay region is concerned, Shevky and Bell7 and Tryon8have suggested various methods of dealing with them. They attempt to view thechanges of these areas through statistical

methods, by utilizing census tracts datawhich are incorporated into a numberof indices.9 It is not within the realm ofthis paper to discuss the values of eachof these methods but merely to pointout that these may not be adequate in

explaining some of the changes whichmay occur to any sub-cultural groups, orto be more specific, the ethnic minorities.

In the present paper, the writers arenot going to be overly statistical; theydo not wish to "prove" or "disprove"any of the hypotheses which may be introduced below. Rather, they wish topoint out that recent articles on theChinese have usually neglected the lifestyles of the American-Chinese in favorof more specific "problem areas."10 Evenin the specific problem areas approach,e.g., assimilation, an understanding of lifestyles would shed light on some of thereasons of "anti-melting pot" feelings ofthe Chinese.In undertaking any research on Chinatown, the initial difficulty lies in thelack of census data on the Chinese, bycensus tracts. Usually, these data arereported by "other races" and any statements about Chinese must preclude specific knowledge with regard to the areaswhere the predominant residents areChinese. In San Francisco three censustracts have over eighty-five to ninetyeight per cent Chinese residents: A-13,

A-14, and A-15; in Oakland, Chinese concentrate in tracts 23 and 24, with approximately one-fourth of the Chinese inOakland living in tract 24. Any mentionof Chinatowners, henceforth, will belimited, to a large extent, to these aforementioned areas.

Work.?Although most Chinatownersare in some service occupation and smallfamily businesses, there appears to be agrowing number of Chinese who seeknigher education. Most of these return toChinatown to work, but some who have

aThe term "life style" is adopted from a recent unpublished paper by Prof. David Riesman. It is used in this paperi to denote "a way of life" of the Chinese residents in SlanFrancisco-Oakland Chinatowns.3United States Bureau of the Census, Sixteenth Census of the United States, (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1940), "Characteristics by Non White Population,"p. 85 ;United States Bureau of the Census, Seventeenth Census of the United States, (Wiashington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1950), P-E 38, p. 68.4 '^Chinatowners" will henceforth be used to denote "Chinese residents in Chinatowns ofSan Francisco-Oakland."8The writers are well acquainted with the area? where Chinatowners constitute the predominant "other races" which are tabulated by U.S. Bureau of the Census in San FrancdsvoOakland.eThis is suggested by Rose Hum Lee, "The Decline of Chinatowns in the United States,"American Journal of Sociology, 54 (March, 1949), 422-433.7Eshref Shevky and Wendell Bell, Social Area Analysis, (Stanford: Stanford UniversityPrieiss, 195-5).8Robert C. Tryon, "Social Areas of the Bay Region," a paper read at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting, Berkeley, California, December29, 1954.9 Shevky and Bell have three indices: social rank, urbanization, and segregationi; Tryonalso has three: family life, assimilation, and socio-economic independence.10One exception is Paul Siu, "The Sojourner," American Journal of Sociologry, 58 (July,1952), 34-44.


4/6

MIDWEST SOCIOLOGIST 31gone into the professions have movedout of the area.11 Even though some ofthe ex-Chinatowners have moved outof the immediate Chinatown area, as inthe case of those engaged in professionalactivities, most of them still establishtheir place of work in Chinatown andhave Chinatowners for their clients. Forthose who have utilized college as ameans of upward social mobility, there

might be a certain amount of frustration after they leave college surroundings. In their academic pursuits, mostlikely their levels of aspiration are setmuch higher than what could be gained in the broader society once the de

grees are obtained. There is probably agood deal of "economic frustration" inthat the opportunity for Chinese in thelabor market is rather limited.

With the rise of more professional people, there seems to be developing an intense rivalry between the business people and those who went into the professions. A derogatory term is often appliedto the latter, "young professionals," designating "that snooty bunch who thinkthey're too good for us." (Part of thisill-feeling could be attributed to thefact that the professionals, who probably have higher incomes, could affordto move into better residential areas andlimit their association with Chinatowners to the clients. On the part of the business people in the community, necessity of continuous close contact withChinatowners in order to enhance theirtrade, and hence reluctance to move Outof the area, may give rise to a gooddeal of this hostility. As would be ex

pected, there are few professionals in theChinatown area as compared with thenumber of professionals in the Bay region, four per cent as against eleven percent whereas "service" people dominatethe occupational hierarchy in Chinatown areas, more than thirty-six percent as against twelve per cent for thecity.i2

When one speaks of the "young professionals" versus the "young business"conflict, the first thing which comes tomind is the matter of stratification in

Chinatown. There is little doubt thatChinatowners stratify themselves; however, results of any study along theWarner or Centers type of orientationwould ibehighly misleading. Stratificationin Chinatown is based on occupation andincome and "X." This unknown factor isthe highly complex interrelations (between the actor and alter, the latter being Chinatowners. A Chinatowner mustmaintain a certain amount of equilibrium in his associations: if he has bothAmerican and Chinese friends, it wouldbe preferable for him to spend moretime with Chinese or at least acceptthe values placed on in-group relationship. If a Chinatowner should spend moretime with Americans and attempt to dissociate himself completely from Chinatowners, he will not have much status,no matter what his occupation or income might be. The relationship pattern of ego and others, in ego's questfor status, is a highly complex one deserving more intensive study.

Play, Association, and Socialization.?Not much has been reported on theleisure time activities of Chinatowners.Although the younger generation probably pursue the same type of recreationas most Americans, the older generation still stick fairly closely to the traditional Chinese past time of mall Jong.Since the median income of Chinatowners is approximately $1,500 below that ofthe city (in 1950),13 it may be hypothesized that many Chinese engage ingambling as a means of supplementingtheir present low wages. The disproportionate number of males to females(two and a half to one in most areas)14

many also result in a high rate of prostitution.The association pattern of Chinatowners is almost wholly that of the in-group(Chinese vs. Chinese) rather than mixedtype of interaction (Chinese vs. Americans). So far as sooial conditions go,Chinese probably have access to different places where the negroes are notallowed. Yet, the ghetto-style of livingaccentuates the in-group feelings. Language serves as one source of "voluntary11Beulah Ong Kwoh, "The Occupational Status of the American-born Chinese Male College Graduates," American Journal of Sociology, 53:192-201, November, 1947.12United States Bureau of the Census, Seventeenth Census of the United States, (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1950), P-D 49, p. 68.13United States Bureau of the Census, Seventeenth Census of the United States, (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1950), P-D 49, p. 68."Ibid., p. 25.


5/6

32 MARY L. NEW and PETER KONG-MING NEWsegregation." Sai-yup, a form of Can

tonese, is spoken by Chinatowners.Those Chinese who do not converse inthis dialect may be considered an "outsider." Even though school age childrenare attending American schools, mostparents still send them to the Chineseschools afterwards in order to have themremain "Chinese." If one wishes to viewthe adoption of the tongue of the dominant group as a means to assimilation,Chinatowners tend to discourage this.

As a result of constant in-group relationship, Chinatowners have very littleopportunity to associate with Americanson a primary group level and thus theirconcepts of the dominant group is oftendistorted. The high value placed on ingroup association, as was noted previously, serves as a constant reminder toChinatowners that excessive association

with Americans is not desirable. Thereinforcement of these feelings via localdances, chamber of commerce types of

meetings, may represent one way whereby Chinatowners are discouraged from

moving out of the area even thoughthey may secretly wish to remove themselves from the area. This frustrationof not being able to leave the area maybe the source of hostility toward the"young professionals." The professionalswho do not wish to maintain in-group relationship may also experience the dilemma of being forced to seek their clientsin Chinatown and thus have to maintain some sort of relationship with themfor good public relations purposes. Thesmaller merchants and those in the service occupations may not exhibit anyjealous symptoms toward the young professionals, but there may be a good dealof friction between the professionals andbusiness people as more of the lattergroup graduate from colleges.The solid in-group relationship probably means "traditional" types of rearingof children, as was done in China. So longas the population had to live in the "ghetto"of Chinatown, there will not be a muchopportunity to observe other forms ofchild rearing processes. Before the SinoJapanese War, quite a number of Chinese youths were sent back to China to

be reared. This may be due to the factthat the Chinese who< migrated to theU.S. did not wish to have their childrenlose the traditions and sentiments ofChinese culture. This may also serve

to strengthen the rationalization on thepart of the oldsters that they would someday return to China.15

Thus, to a large extent, social customswith regard to rites de passage?birth,engagement, marriage, death?followmuch the same patterns of ceremony asin China. One reason may account forthis: most of the Chinatowners migratedfrom one area in 'South China. The pop

ulation is rural and homogeneous, andthe migrants still tend to carry on manyof the rural customs. Possibly ruralityplus segregation, voluntary or otherwise,

may account for a stronghold of traditional values. Although for the otherminority groups in America there wasmore opportunity and desire to be dispersed, by marriage or by migration toother parts of the United States, Chinatowners seem to do the reverse.

Summary and Conclusions.?Researchon the Chinese minority group in sociological literature has thus far been stressing various specific "problem areas."16However, there has not been much research done on the life style of Chinatowners. Research in the four areas of

work, play, association, and socializationmay explain why Chinatowners are not

integrated into the broader American'Society. Where there is a large numberof Chinese residing in an area, successful integration into the larger society isdifficult unless one wishes to live as amember of the outcast in a tightly knit

primary group atmosphere. Even thoughthere is evidence now that certain individuals are removing themselves fromthe Chinatowners,17 those who continueto reside jn Chinatown will developambivalent feelings of wishing to beaccepted by the dominant group, yet not

being able to seek the "correct" methodof breaking away.18 Those who do so areusually ridiculed as being "too high hatted for us."It cannot be denied that Chinatowners

15Siu, op, cit.18Rose Hum Lee, "Research on the Chinese Family," American Journal of Sociology, 54(May, 1949), 497-505.17Rose Hum Lee, "The Decline of Chinatowns in the United States," op. cit.18Jade Snow Wong, The Fifth Chinese Daughter (New York: Hartper and Brothers,1950). This is an interesting autobiography of an American-Chinese girl, raised in SanFrancisco Chinatown, who was able to break away.


6/6

MIDWEST SOCIOLOGIST 33are going through a very rapid stage oftransition, especially since many of theyoungsters now associate more with Americans and tend to identify themselveswith dominant group values. In termsof parent-child relationships, the youngsters will probably circumvent theirparents' wishes by avoiding them or byspeaking English so that the non-Englishspeaking parents are prevented fromprying into their secrets. During thistransitional stage, the value-systems will

be upset and quite a bit of conflict willexist between the younger generation andthe older Chinatowners. It is during thisperiod that sociologists interested in assimilation and/or acculturation patternsof Chinatowners, whether in the Bayarea or other parts of the United States,

may be able to seek some answers byviewing the "life style" of the Chinese.Sociologists who have formulated hypotheses on Chinatowners will not havelong to wait to verify their ideas.

The Urban Sex RatioChester AlexanderWestminister CollegeThe study of personality attaches considerable importance to the changeswhich are taking place in population.One of the most significant of thesetrends is in the increasing proportionof women in the cities.The 1940 United States Census disclosed that the population division by

sex was 66,061,592 males and 65,607,683females, leaving a surplus of 453,909males. Many people would consider thisto be a normal situation since there are105 boys born per 100 girls, and thatimmigration tended to bring more menthan women into the country. A decadelater, however, the scene had changed,for the 1950 Census reported that therewere 74,833,239 males and 75,864,122 females in America, which meant 1,030,833more finales than males, a historic turning point in the population.

Referring again to the 1940 Census,this time to the population of Americancities, we note that there were 36,363,706male and 38,059,996 female urbanites,the latter leading by 1,696,290 persons.Then, in 1950, there were 46,891,782 malesand 49,575,904 females, the latter havingan advantage of 2,684,122, a gain of 987,832 in 10 years, or 98,783 per year. Whilethe imbalance of the sex ratio for thetotal population is new, it is by nomeans recent for urban areas. A studyof 100 of the largest cities in the United

States for each census period from 1900to 1950 inclusive shows that the meanratio for these cities has been steadilyfalling, with the exception of 1019.1The mean ratios for 100 cities are asfollows: 1900^100.7; 1910?103.3; 1920?

100.4; 1930?96.8; 1940?94.3; 1950?93.7.The mean for the 100 cities for the sixcensuses is 98.249, while 38% of themhave not had a ratio of 100 during the20th century. In 1950 only 4 cities helda sex ratio over 100,2 while 13 are under90,3 and at the present rate of decrease6 more cities will fall below 90 before1960. If that trend continues by the timethe next census is taken, 19% of the largest American cities will have 10% morewomen than men, and by the year 2000this figure will have increased to 42%.What will the social consequences be?

These changes are of interest to students of social psychology because of theeffects they will have on personality, thefamily and vocations. Having noted thedrift over the past fifty years one wouldlike to ask how they will affect sociallife in the cities. Indeed, this questionmight as well ask about the psychologicaleffects on the whole population sincethe urban areas have been increasinglysetting patterns of social behavior forthe people of the villages and farms aswell as those in the cities.Several suggestions appear but the1Metropolitan areas are not included in these calculations.2Norfolk 124.60, San Diego 1*03.70, San Francisco 101.1, South Bend 102.0.^Albany, Atlanta, Birmingham, Charlotte, Chaittanooga, Jacksonville, Little Rock, Memphis, Nashville, Pasadena, Richmond, Savannah and Washington D.C.

new lifestyle of chin at owners

Documents