Acculturation: Definition and Context
The study of acculturation is the study of one aspect of culture change. The two processes are related but are not identical. In itself, “acculturation comprehends those phenomena which result when groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact with subsequent changes in the original culture patterns of either or both groups.” 1 To put the matter more succinctly, “Acculturation is the study of the cultural transmission process.” 2
Toward a Refinement of the “Marginal Man” Concept
Tj~HE phenomenon of marginality, though fairly widespread in the modern world, J has received scant attention from social scientists.' Marginality, I would suggest, refers to a social situation characterized by the following: 1. Two cultures (or subcultures) are in lasting contact. 2. One of them is dominant in terms of power and reward potential. This is the non-marginal culture of the two. Its members are not particularly influenced by or attracted to the other, the marginal culture. 3. The boundaries between the two are sufficiently permeable for the members of the marginal culture to internalize the patterns of the dominant culture as well as that of their own. 4. These patterns, in their entirety, cannot be easily harmonized. 5. Having acquired the goals of the non-marginal culture, members of the marginal group are pulled by the promise of the greater rewards offered. 6. The barriers between the two tend to be hardened by discrimination from the one side, and by pressure against "betrayal" from the other. 7. Marginality acquires particular intensity when the clash persists through more than one generation. On the basis of this characterization of marginality, we can distinguish it from other foci of attention within the general field in which it lies, namely, culture contacts-the study of the laws of development of cultures and social structures under the impact of inter-societal contact. The study of marginality is different from that of: (1) the diffusion of culture between relatively independent societies; (2) the relations between groups in contact with relatively impermeable boundaries, e.g., situations of classical imperialism; and (3) the relatively rapid acculturation and assimilation of individuals orfragmented groupings, emigrants from one culture to another which is hospitable and accepting, e.g., "old" immigration to the United States. Marginality is also to be distinguished from alienation and anomie. It is often said that our society is characterized by these, by no one quite feeling that he belongs anywhere. This is different from the state where one has ties to two partially incompatible societies, and does not wholly belong to either. One can be anomic without being marginal, and marginal without being anomic. It is also frequently argued that modern society is nought but a complex of subcultures, and that, inasmuch as each of us is a member of a class, ethnic, religious, and possibly of other subcultures whose bounds rarely coincide, we are all marginal. Multiple subculture membership can, indeed, be marginal, if there is a conflict between the values and patterns of the subcultures involved, and a sense of belonging to both simultaneously is difficult to achieve. To the extent that this is so, marginality is not to be seen as a phenomenon limited to immigrant groups and their children. I would also call attention to that part of the above characterization of marginality which stresses the superior reward potential of the nonmarginal group. Without this differential, that is, were there no goals which could better or only be realized in the dominant group, members of the marginal group would scarcely be pulled away from it. * Expanded version of a paper read at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Society, September 1955. Appreciation is expressed to the Department of Scientific Research of the American Jewish Committee for support of the study upon which this paper is based. 1 Of the seven published articles in sociological journals in the last dozen years which deal with marginality, only two derive from empirical studies. The others are discussion papers. In 1929 Karl Mannheim placed his hope on the " 'socially unattached intelligentsia'" as those who would evolve a "progressively comprehensive and rational understanding of reality." Freedom, Power and Democratic Planning (New York: Oxford University Press, 1950), p. ix. Since intellectuals are marginal men, studying marginality becomes a matter of self-study, a difficult and uncomfortable affair. This may, in part, explain the neglect of this aspect of reality.
Marie Curie's doctoral thesis: Prelude to a Nobel Prize
This paper is a critical account for the most significant body of Marie Sklodowska Curie's scientific work, presented in the hopes that she be remembered for more of the "right" reasons. It also offers some new insights into her methods and results.