Chapter 39 The "second generation of marginalized people", or the age of citizens?

A certain Mr. made a "discussion" on my essay "Turning "Marginal People" into Stability Factors", reminding me that the social and psychological qualities of the "second generation of marginal people" are different from their parents, and they may tend to be "radical".This reminder is important.In fact, I have not neglected this point, and we will use his topic to deepen the discussion. In the sociology of immigration, the study of the second generation of immigrants has always been a very important field.The value system, psychological state and social roles of this generation are definitely different from those of the previous generation, and these changes may form a vicious circle, exacerbating their conflict with mainstream society, or form a virtuous circle, promoting their integration with mainstream society.In the former case, as Mr. X said, the "second generation of marginalized people" will become more "radical", but in the latter case, they will become more "conservative" and more inclined to maintain social stability , and these two situations make it impossible to extend the living conditions of the "first generation of marginalized people".Mr. X only mentioned the former possibility, which of course cannot be regarded as mere unfounded worry.Data from places such as Soweto in South Africa show that under the apartheid system, the second generation of immigrant black laborers there were not only more politically radical than their parents, but also had a higher criminal crime rate in social life.The logic of this change is just as what Mr. X said.However, when we make cautionary remarks, we should also point out the second possibility: In the 1970s, many scholars discovered in the process of studying the history of the radical movement against mainstream society in the United States that this radical tendency against order was indeed originally related to immigrants. attitude related.Even without accounting for racial discrimination, there was greater economic inequality within the white working class in the United States than in Europe at the end of the nineteenth century.The main reason is that native-born American workers (who were actually early immigrants) saw the influx of cheap foreign labor as a threat to themselves, so most American trade unions at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries were xenophobic and guild-oriented , and has done serious damage to new groups of immigrant workers.

But this in itself does not necessarily mean whether it is beneficial or detrimental to the radical rebellion movement in the United States, because workers’ division and guild tendencies are not conducive to the radical movement, but if the immigrant group is kept in a low status of exclusion for a long time, this in itself will Promote anti-order tendencies or "some kind of radicalism" among immigrant groups.In continental Europe, the various extreme left tendencies among immigrants and Jews are far more active than among the native peoples, and this is the reason.In fact, American radicalism in the late 19th century was indeed brought from Europe to a certain extent by some cynical immigrants at that time (conversely, generations of European radical leftists from Irving and Cabet to Lenin and Trotsky were also particularly bullish on the US, and not only in the late 19th century. This may have also increased the proportion of activists among Europeans immigrating to the US at the time).So much so that the saying: "Those who spread radical ideas in the United States are down-and-out Germans who have no one to follow."

However, it is precisely the American-style system of free competition and equal opportunity that makes the guild-style exclusion of native workers towards immigrant workers only play a limited role.What makes people laugh is that American capitalists "exploit" native workers and immigrant workers "equally" and that the competition mechanism in the US labor market is fairer than that in Europe, which has greatly accelerated the process of "economic integration" of immigrant workers .At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, immigrants generally shared the same “economic characteristics” as native workers within a generation of their arrival in the United States. P. Roberts cites 1911 wage data to prove: "When the immigrant himself was in a very bad situation, the wage structure of his children was basically the same as that of the native workers."

It is this mechanism that quickly replaces the "radical view of equality" among the new immigrants in the United States with the "liberal view of equality" of the next generation, thereby dispelling the "immigrant radicalism" and even making immigrant workers from the population of their home countries Those with a greater preference for radicalization became "immune to the bacillus of radicalization".As the 20th century progressed, radical groups like the Socialist Party of America found support harder among immigrant workers than among native workers.Of course, this by no means means that immigrant workers are more resigned to being "exploited" by others. On the contrary, immigrant workers are often more combative than native workers in their struggles with employers, but this is an "anti-capitalist rather than anti-capitalist" approach. Doctrine" struggle.As Roberts describes the condition of American Slavic immigrant workers: Slavs join unions and fight for higher wages and better working conditions...they will follow a labor leader with religious devotion, they have stamina in battle ,Hardworking.But all of this is done for economic motives.The Slavs love the dollar and want to keep it at the end of the conflict, are you trying to call him to overthrow the market economic order?He will never do it.

The second generation of American immigrant workers is more "conservative" than their parents, while the second generation of South African immigrant workers is more "radical" than their parents. Can this be explained by the so-called "culture"?Even if it is possible, it is not convincing, because as mentioned above, the "conservatism" of the second generation of North American immigrants occurs in immigrant groups with different cultural backgrounds such as Germans, Slavs, and Jews. It can be seen that it is related to a specific "culture" It doesn't matter.In fact, the reasonable explanation is very simple: the market mechanism of fair competition and the protection of basic human rights have curbed the xenophobic tendencies of "natives", especially the opening of the labor market and the acquisition of individual civil rights and freedom of employment for North American immigrants. more equal opportunities, bridging the gap between them and the "locals".And this gap has implications for their parents.So how can they not be "conservative"?On the contrary, it is difficult for South African immigrant workers to change their “status” inequality under the apartheid system, but their second generation has a stronger demand for equality than their parents. The conflict between this demand and reality will naturally make them more Parents are more "radical".

At the same time, the above analysis also reminds us: For those "disadvantaged groups" who are discriminated against based on status, their equality demands are firstly based on the premise of freedom (free access to the labor market).It can be imagined that the guild xenophobia of local workers’ unions is also based on “equality” for members themselves, to resist “oppression of the market” and to resist “globalization” or “modernity”, but for immigrants it is The injustice is worse than "equal exploitation".Aren't liberty and equality one and the same here?Who can say that this kind of freedom is just an "abstract right" and has no use for the disadvantaged?Of course, once market access is achieved, migrant workers will also need unions, just like the Slavs mentioned above.At this time, the significance of trade unions will be discussed later.

China is neither the United States nor South Africa, but the reasoning above is the same.Nowadays, "urban people" have concerns about "migrant workers" or "farmers entering the city", but as citizens of the republic, equal rights for both of them is the general trend.Perhaps, the issue of the "second generation of marginalized people" itself should not exist: now is the era of citizens, not the era of caste, and the phenomenon of "marginalized people" should not continue to the "second generation".