Search

Minority groups differ from one another, among other things, in the extent to which they are integrated into or apart from the societies to which they belong. The extent of this integration or apartness is reflected in the various ways in which the minorities differ from the rest of the population, such as in the effect of economic class upon voting. No minority group is ever completely integrated into its society, for complete integration is tantamount to the extinction of group identity. No minority group is ever completely apart, for the term "minority" implies the existence of a majority with which the minority forms a common society. The dimension of integration-apartness is related to but not identical with the dimension of assimilation. Assimilation refers to the replacement or modification of group characteristics as a consequence of out-group contacts. Integration refers to the extent a minority actually forms a part of the body politic of its society. Thus, German "non-Aryan" Christians were fully assimilated but, in the Third Reich, certainly not integrated into the German society. In general, the term "integration" is applicable at various levels of analysis. We talk of the integration of individuals into groupings, the integration of these groupings into further units, and the integration of these into larger units in turn. In the case of our study, individuals are more or less integrated into their respective minority groups, and these in turn are more or less integrated into their respective societies. We are concerned in this paper with developing a measure for the degree of integration of minority groups into their societies. The basic proposition of this paper is: The more apart a minority group is from its society, the more will it differ from that society as a whole in the effect of economic class upon voting. An analysis of the voting of two minorities in Central Europe illustrates the above proposition. This is followed by comments on minority group voting in the United States and Canada. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For many years sociologists have done research on race relations in the United States, especially between Negroes and whites. In the past decade, hospitals and the health professions have also been popular objects of sociological inquiry. But thus far, there has been relatively little study of race relations in health organizations. Although some attention has been paid to the contribution of low-status hospital workers to the therapeutic process, the extent to which the race of the low-status worker may influence the contribution has not been studied. This paper presents some data contrasting patient perceptions of subprofessional low-status Negro hospital workers with patient perceptions of the professional high-status white hospital staff. The data suggest that from the patient's point of view (1) Negro aides, orderlies, housekeepers, food service personnel, etc. are more effective in meeting the patients' needs for expressive care than white nurses and physicians; and (2) these individuals' low status, Negro race, and sub-professional affiliation directly contribute to their effectiveness. If supported by further research, these hypotheses would have important implications for the sociology of race relations and for professional practice in patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]