RA "Testing Huntington"

Testing Huntington is four professors' inspection of the consequences of Hispanic immigration on American identity. The basic structure of the argument comes down to this: Hispanic immigration does not threaten the American national identity because Hispanic immigrants, even by the most recent data from the most Hispanic areas demonstrate a generational assimilation into mainstream American culture and language.

The article structures much of its argument refuting a book by Samuel Huntington which asserted that Hispanic immigration posed a threat to American identity. Note that, with the exception of one professor (Kathryn Pearson,) all writers are from UC Berkeley whereas Samuel Huntington is from Harvard. Also Mr. Huntington is in his eighties, versus the younger doctoral candidate status of two of the authors. Both culture, academic tradition, and age separate the two groups. This is evident as they introduce the argument: they take care to quote the words "Anglo-Protestant" and "heaven on earth" on the first page.


The article contains a fairly thorough evaluation of data sources. The US census is criticized for changing its surveys from one census to the next making it difficult to compare changes over time. Other surveys and sources are referenced and evaluated. The weaknesses of each survey are briefly discussed. The reasoning argues that while the number of immigrants has grown beyond expectation, the patterns of acculturation have not changed: third generation from immigrants seem to be more similar to mainstream culture than to their grandparents' culture.

To make their argument complete the article acknowledges that some of Huntington's concerns may prove correct in the future: however the current data do not support it. Instead they point to mainstream culture embracing multiculturalism which would mean much the same thing, however as a cause of the "embrace of multiculturalism among elites." While perhaps true, the argument is more on the side of pathos here than logos.

The rhetoric is relevant to the topic, as well as seeming typical of academic writing. (Actually it seems much chattier than most academic papers, but much more toned down than most rhetoric for which Poli Sci professors are renowned, especially coming form Berkeley. It is complete in that it considers both sides of the issue while presenting one side in the stronger light. The authors acknowledge that their data do not accurately reflect the Hispanic population in the USA as the data excludes the illegal immigrant population. However they discount this population as being relatively secluded and non-voting hence non-important to overall cultural change.


It's a good article, good reference point to find data sources and arguments.