Lanphier 1

Joshua Lanphier

Dr. Luke Fetters

Intercultural Communications

Final Project Paper

December 11, 2012

The Marginal Man: A Collective Definition

Introduction

The marginal man is a term that was used during this semester while we talked about

communicating across cultures. To understand the full aspect and definition of the marginal man,

there are a number of terms that you will need to be familiar with, and a number of studies that

will need to be taken into account. However, first it is necessary to understand the premise to the

concept of the marginal man.

Robert E. Park first proposed the concept of the marginal man in his 1928 study from the

American Journal of Sociology, titled “Human Migration and the Marginal Man.” He studied the

first generation children of migrants to the United States, proposing they did not fully fit into the

culture of their parents or their newly found culture in America (Rogers, Steinfatt, 1999, p 45).

The definition that is used to define the marginal man is, “an individual who lives in two

different worlds – and is stranger in both” (Rogers, Steinfatt, 1999, p 45)

The concept of the marginal man has a direct impact on a number of other important

terms from cross-cultural communication and intercultural studies, because if an individual does

not feel a part of any culture present to them they will experience a number of different things.

Other things that are influenced by talking about the concept of the marginal man, include, but

are not limited to, the stranger, assimilation, and cultural identification.

Lanphier 2

The Original Marginal Man

As stated above, the first to propose the concept of the marginal man was Park (1928).

His concept of the marginal man revolved mainly around the migration factor, and presented the

argument that individuals whom experience migration to a new culture, forced or willing, are the

ones who will experience the feeling of being marginal. Being a marginal man is a battle that

takes place in the mind of the individual as they try to find their place in the new culture.

“It is in the mind of the marginal man that the moral turmoil which new cultural contacts

occasion manifest itself in the most obvious forms. It is in the mind of the marginal man–

where the changes and fusions of culture are going on–that we can best study the

processes of civilization and of progress” (Park, 1928, 893).

To Park (1928), the marginal man is someone who is on the edge of two or more cultures,

which are never are fully understood and connected together. He argues that the Jewish people

were the original marginal men (892). The Jews had a culture that they had been raised with,

being Jewish, but more than likely they were also submersed in another European culture,

surrounded by people who were not necessarily Jewish. They had to discover for themselves

how to fit into their surroundings–they had to figure out how to be European–while still

maintaining their Jewish culture and heritage. However, the Jewish people were not the only

ones Park discussed as being people who had to overcome being marginal men; the white and

Hindu populations in Southeast Africa and the West Indies fit into these guidelines as well.

Park proposed that until assimilation, “the degree to which an individual relinquishes an

original culture for another” (Rogers and Steinfatt, 1999, 265), takes place, the different cultures

will continue to face the problem of being a marginal man. Whether it be through crossbreeding

Lanphier 3

of the cultures, or one culture taking dominance over the other culture, Park suggests that the

opposing cultures will remain marginal.

When multiple cultures begin to migrate to a new area, that area starts to become a

melting pot, an area where multiple cultures have fused together to form a new culture with their

own distinct societal rules and norms. While the process of creating a melting pot, does help

lessen the feelings of a man being on the edge, and being marginal, it does not help maintain the

historic values of the older cultures that were created. Park argues, that it is through constant

migration and creation of melting pots that is making old cultural values disappear.

“What took place in Greece first has since taken place in the rest of Europe and is now

going on in America. The movement and migration of peoples, the expansion of trade

and commerce, and particularly the growth, in modern times, of these vast melting-pots

of race, and cultures, the metropolitan cites, has loosened local bonds, destroyed the

cultures of tribe and folk, and substituted for the local loyalties the freedom of the cities;

for the sacred order of tribal custom, the rational organization which we call civilization”

(Park, 1928, 890).

While Parke argues that the marginal man becomes more and more irrelevant as the

cultural lines begin the become blurred, and slowly merge into one culture, he also presents the

argument that for the first generation of individuals who are a result of the cross-cultural

breeding, the feelings of being marginal are most prevalent. He suggests that crossbreeding must

take place for the cultures to fully merged into one, but the first results of the first steps toward

mixing the cultures into one will leave people feeling marginal, and those are the most common

type of marginal men.

Lanphier 4

“Ordinarily the marginal man is a mixed blood, like the Mulatto in the United States or

the Eurasion in Asia, but that is apparently because the man of mixed blood is one who

lives in two worlds, in both of which he is more or less of a stranger. The Christian

convert in Asia or in Africa exhibits many if not most of the characteristics of the

marginal man–the same spiritual instability, intensified self-consciousness, restlessness,

and malaise” (Park, 1928, 893).

Even though Park first came up with this theory in 1928, it is still prevalent today. He argues that

as cultures begin to merge there will be people on the outside stuck between the way things were,

and the way things are starting to become. With the world slowing moving toward a

globalization feel, it is slowly beginning to lose some of its cross culture differences. That is

leaving some people in today’s world on the outside. It is leaving them on the margins. Park’s

theory suggest that the next generation of people will feel more comfortable with the more

globalized culture, but they will then be facing the next wave of cross-cultural acceptance.

Meaning that if you agree with the concept of the marginal man proposed by Park in 1928, you

will always have people who are experiencing the feeling of being on the edge of society and

being a marginal man.

Opposition to Park’s Marginal Man

It is important to note that there have been a number of sociologist and other scholars that

have not quite agreed with Park and his definition of the marginal man. One of those people is

Everett V. Stonequist, author of “The Problem of the Marginal Man” in 1935. While Stonequist

would agree that the marginal man exists, he would disagree with Park on the definition and the

prevalence of the marginal man.

Lanphier 5

The first thing that Stonequist argues is that most of the world will never have to contend

with being or experiencing the feelings of being a marginal man.

“Probably the great majority of individuals in the world live and have their being within a

single cultural system. Each individual is likely to be born, mature, and die within the

boundaries of one tribal or national tradition, learning to communicate in one tongue,

developing loyalties to one sovereign government, conforming to the expectations of

one moral code, believing in the way of life approved by one religion, the deepest

part of his personality–his sentiments, conception of self, style of life and

aspirations, whether articulate or inarticulate, conscious or unconscious–are formed out of an

identified with these more or less harmonious patters of social heritage” (Stonequist,

1935, p 1-2).

With this many people are being born, living their whole life, and dying in one and only one

culture, the concept of the margin man is not as relevant as what Park suggest. Stonequist

acknowledges the presence of the marginal man, he just argues that that it has a different amount

of impact on society than what Park would suggest.

Similar to Park, Stonequist is quick to mention the concept of migration and the melting

pot in connection to the marginal man. “Migration has transplanted individuals and cultures to

such an extent that nearly every land and every city is something of a melting-pot of races and

nationalities” (Stonequist, 1935, p 2). Stonequist proposes that while a culture that is deemed a

place of a melting pot, it is only the minority group within that melting pot that could potentially

face the problem of feeling like a marginal man. “This is true particularly of those who are

expected to do most of the melting, that is, those who belong to a minority group, or to a group

which has an inferior status in the land” (Stonequist, 1935, p 2). The cultural majority and

Lanphier 6

leaders of the melting pot do not face the fear of losing their traditions, in fact they are not the

ones that are faced with melting in to a newer culture. It is the minority cultures, he proposes,

that are the groups that are the ones losing their culture and giving things up, in order to fit into

the society around them.

However, Stonequist presents the fact that just because someone is of a minority culture,

or of the culture that is expected to do the melting, does not mean that they have to melt into the

new culture, or that they have to feel marginal. He says that it is completely possible for a person

to go through their entire life as the minority culture, and be satisfied with who, what, and where

they are. “Some of the members of the subordinate or minority group are able to live their lives

within their own cultures, or at least to live them sufficiently not to be greatly disturbed by the

culture of the dominant group” (Stonequist, 1935, p 2). This also minimizes the people that the

concept of the marginal man effects, showing again how Stonequist disagrees with the number of

people that are effect as members of the marginal man group. Additionally, Stonequist (1935)

points out the fact that all people have different personality types, and therefore it is not correct

to assume that everyone that fits into all the criteria assume the feelings of being a marginal man

(p 10). Due to personality types, there are people who do not experience the same amount of

feelings of rejection or anxiety in a new cultural situation. Therefore, “the intensity of the inner

conflict varies with the situation itself, the individual experience with this situation, and perhaps

certain inherited traits. With some individuals, it appears to be a minor problem” (Stonequist,

1935, p 10).

Stonequist continued to further limit the number of people that he feels are effected with

Park’s concept of the marginal man when he presented his concept of the life-cycle. He argues

that individuals traits change with their development, and that there are three stages of

Lanphier 7

development people go to when presented with a new culture. The first stage is a stage of

preparation. Stage two is the stage of crisis, and stage three is the response stage (Stonequist,

1935, p 10).

In stage one, the individual begins to get ready to enter into the new culture, many times

this is limited to a child starting to experience culture outside of their own home. In this stage

there is some assimilation that unknowingly must take place, because “without at least partial

assimilation the individual would not later experience the conflict of loyalties” (Stonequist, 1935,

p 10) that defines the marginal man. While this is a part of the cycle, it is not until the person is

into stage two and stage three in their life cycle that they begin to experience the feelings of the

marginal man.

Stage two, classified above as the stage of crisis, is when the individual begins to

recognize the differences of the new culture, compared to what he is used to. This may come

from one direct incident, or it may be from several small incidents that have built up over time.

Either way, this is where the feelings of being marginal begin to creep in.

“the typical traits of the marginal man arise out of the crises experience and in response

to the situation. The individual’s life-organization is seriously disturbed. Confusion, even

shock, restlessness, disillusionment, and estrangement may result; a new self-

consciousness develops to mirror the newly realized situation” (Stonequist, 1935, p 10-

11).

It is then in stage three where the individual that is beginning to feel marginal response to

his feelings and situations. In this stage there are several different responses that the marginal

man could take. First they could keep assimilating themselves into the dominate group, which

could lead to them becoming a full member of that culture or society. On the other hand they

Lanphier 8

could reject the main culture, stopping their assimilation, and return to the comfort of their

already known culture. Additionally, they could flee or abandon the situation that has cast them

into being a marginal man, leaving the situation (Stonequist, 1935, p 11). All of these potential

scenarios limit number of people who actually end up feeling as a marginal man. The final

option is for the person to stay where they are, with those feelings of being lost, unwanted, and in

limbo, but Stonequist argues that just isn’t very many people who choose that option, therefore

limiting the marginal man.

The Marginal Culture

Milton Goldberg in “A Qualification of the Marginal Man Theory” (1941) continued to

expand upon Park’s original concept of the marginal man. While he was someone who was

critical of some of the exact points, explanations, and definitions of Park and Stonequist’s work,

he was supported of the concept of the marginal man. He agrees that the marginal man exist;

however, he argues that the marginal man is often times actually the marginal culture. The

concept of the marginal culture, while similar to the marginal man, has a few different

implications.

The marginal culture, sometimes termed as the marginal area, is defined as “a region

where two cultures overlap and where the occupying group partakes of the traits of both

cultures” (Goldberg, 1941, p 52.) This means there are not always people who are of minority

cultures, but, he argues, often times there are minority groups of different cultures. This results

when there is two cultures that are crossing over, or when there is a mass migration from one’s

original culture into a new culture.

Goldberg has four instances in which he argues that people that could be classified as

marginal men–under the definitions provided by Park and Stonequist–are actually not marginal

Lanphier 9

men. His first qualification is “if the so-called ‘marginal’ individual is conditioned to his

existence on the borders of two cultures from birth” (Goldberg, 1941, p 53). This means if the

only reality that someone has known is immersed in two cultures, then they are in fact a

byproduct of the duel cultures, and not in fact a marginal man. The individual feels comfortable

in the realm of the duel cultures, even if people from their own home do not feel as comfortable

as the younger individual does.

The second qualification of Goldberg (1941) is, “if he shares this existence and

conditioning process with a large number of individuals in his primary group. (p 53), he would

contest does not make an individual a marginal man. In this argument, Goldberg is suggesting if

the individual goes through the assimilation process with a large number of people, similar to

themselves, then they are not a marginal man, but instead apart of a marginal culture. The reason

for this is simple, the individual still has a large group of people amongst which they still feel a

part of, and still feel comfortable with; the individual is not isolated. Their identity remains

intact, even if it is shifting, because the people that they identify with are also shifting identities.

His third qualification is similar to the second qualification, “if his years of early growth,

maturation, and even adulthood find him participating in institutional activates manned largely

by ‘marginal’ individuals like himself” (Goldberg, 1941, p 53). Similar to the second

qualification, this presents the clause that if someone experiences life by individuals he can

identify with, then they are in a marginal culture, not necessarily marginal men. This is true even

if they don’t identify with anyone from the main culture, they only need to be able to identify

with people that they are experiencing life with.

Goldberg’s final qualification is “if his marginal position results in no major blockages or

frustrations of his learned expectations and desires, then he is not a true “marginal” individual in

Lanphier 10

the defined sense” (Goldberg, 1941, p 53). This qualification simply means this: if the individual

does not experience the feelings of being a marginal man, the frustrations of being isolated, then

in fact he is not a marginal man. Instead of being a marginal man, he is experiencing a marginal

culture. The example the Goldberg uses for his illustration of the marginal culture is the Jewish

community in America. While they are in American culture, they still maintain their Jewish

traditions and culture. They are able to be American, while still sending their children to Hebrew

school, and still attending the synagogue. They can be fully Jewish, and fully American at the

same time. Since, this co-culture has been available to multiple generations, they are

experiencing a marginal culture, instead of being marginal men. Whereas Park and Stonequist

would argue that the marginal man would disappear after multiple generations of assimilation,

Goldberg (1941) sees the marginal culture as something that does not have to be assimilated or

lost over generations.

“The problem of the marginal culture, then, as long as it existence is conceived as

necessary or desirable, would seem to be on of fulfilling its major goals of providing its

members security, adequate facilities for participation in group life, and the opportunity

to express their own cultural interests, without at the same time making them in

appearance and behavior distinguishable from the members of the dominant culture” (p

58).

Redefining the Marginal Man

Ever since Park first wrote his definition of the marginal man in 1928, experts have been

attempting to make edits, redefine, or omit parts of Parks definition. I have discussed two of the

people who have made those attempts already in this paper, but the fact of the matter is that there

have been numerous other attempts as well. This fact was also pointed out and discussed in a

Lanphier 11

paper in 1972 by Roy Dean Wright and Susan N. Wright titled “A Plea for Further Refinement

of the Marginal Man Theory.”

In this paper, the authors outline the all of the redefining attempts, including the attempt

by Stonequist and the attempt by Goldberg. They point out how from the original concept of the

marginal man people have developed different terms underneath the Park’s initial concept. From

the first concept of the marginal man there has developed marginality, the marginal man, the

marginal culture, social marginality, and psychological marginality. While these terms are now

in existence, they are often studied as synonymous terms. It is the authors’ assertion that these

terms need to be studied separately (Wright & Wright, 1972, p 365).

The first term the authors look at is the concept of marginality. They define marginality

as “a reference to the general and all-inclusive situation that exists when a group is situated on

the periphery of, has continuous interaction with, has a dependency upon, and deviates in certain

socially normative patterns from, a more dominant group” (Wright & Wright, 1972, p 365). This

means that marginality could occur in a wider verity of situations. It is not limited culture, race,

or religion, as suggest previously. Instead, it is an all-encompassing term that could be applied to

almost any situation when someone feels like their view or belief is alone in a larger group. If

there is to be one blanket term, it should be marginality, not a marginal man.

The second classification for Wright and Wright is the marginal man. Having already

looked at the marginal man, we know how this term is defined, and these authors would agree

with how the marginal man was defined by Stonequist. The marginal man occurs when there are

at least two groups of people with one in dominance over the other. This could take the shape of

race, religion, or a number of other things. One important thing that must be noted within this

concept of the marginal man is the idea that assimilation into the dominant culture will take

Lanphier 12

place, even if the assimilation was not wanted by the individual or the smaller group (Wright &

Wright, 1972, p 365).

Along with the marginal man, the authors use the term cultural marginality, which is

synonymous with the term used by Goldberg, marginal culture. In cultural marginality the

marginal individuals are much more specific. It limits them to being defined within a culture, and

as previously discussed the marginal culture does not have to assimilate into a different culture,

unlike the concept of the marginal man.

The final two terms that Wright and Wright use to distinguish between the different types

of marginality are new to our study of the marginal man. The first term they use is psychological

marginality. This is defined as a

“reference to the commonly shared attitudes of a marginal group (or marginal man

group), the deviation of these attitudes from the more dominant group, and the impact of

various psychological (and/or social psychological) patterns found in the marginal group

as a direct result of membership within that marginal group” (Wright & Wright, 1972, p

365).

This means that a member of a psychological marginal group was most likely at one time a

member of the larger group. However, due to their own specific ideas or beliefs, they no longer

belong within the main group. If other people hold the same beliefs that they do, the other

individuals will join them in the newly formed psychological group.

The fifth and final marginality group that is presented is the social marginality group.

Wright and Wright (1972), define this as “the primary emphasis of social marginality is the

patterned inter-relationships that can be observed as uniquely characteristic of the marginal (or

marginal man) as well as the dominant group” (p 365). The social marginality refers to the

Lanphier 13

difference between the two groups. The authors argue that it is when this social gap is studied,

observed, and approached that proper and healthy assimilation can take place.

It is important to understand that Wright and Wright do not offer their five categories of

marginality as the only possible categories. However, they do suggest that simply studying the

“marginal man,” studying “marginality,” or using any of their other proposed five terms, but

applying the same criteria to them, is beneficial. So, they suggest these five categories to help

better understand the specific marginal situations, but also issue the warning that there could

potentially be more categories possible. They suggest that whatever terms you decided to use,

you specifically define that term. They do not want you to leave any room for error; error they

felt was prevalent in the study of marginality previously.

Conclusion

After examining all of these works on the concept of the marginal man, I have come to a

conclusion: not much has changed since Park first drafted his original concept of the marginal

man in 1928. Since then people have tweaked his definition, adding some, deleting some, putting

in qualifiers, or making adjustments. However, the work on the marginal man does not oppose

what Park presented in 1928. It only adds to it, and that is what happens in most all fields of

study.

The researchers who have since written on the concept of the marginal man make good

points, they make good adjustments to the original concept, but the basics of the concepts remain

the same. I recognize that it is important that all marginal individuals be studied under the same

concept of the marginal man, there are potentially countless forms of marginality as proposed by

Wright and Wright (1972). So, instead of defining the marginal man, and having a broad

definition, it is necessary to define marginality. Marginality is the experience of any individual,

Lanphier 14

or group that is different than the dominant group. If you want to define marginal man, you will

have to be much more specific, speaking of what type of margins the individual is on.

Lanphier 15

References

Goldberg, M. M. (1941). A qualification of the marginal man theory . American

Sociological Review , 6(1), 52-58. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2086343

Stonequist, S. V. (1935). The problem of the marginal man.American Journal of

Sociology, 41(1), 1-12. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2768176

Park, R. E. (1928). Human migration and the marginal man.American Journal of

Sociology, 33(6), 881-893. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2765982

Rogers, E., & Steinfatt, T. (1999). Intercultural communication. Long Grove, IL:

Waveland Press.

Wright, R. D., & Wright, S. N. (1972). A plea for a further refinement of the marginal man

theory. Pylon,33(4), 361-368. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/273681.pdf?acceptTC=true