All Roads Lead to Rust

All Roads Lead to Rust How Acculturation Erodes Latino Immigrant Trust in Government Melissa R. Michelson

Abstract: Political trust is an important determinant of individual political behavior and government effectiveness and an indication of the health of civil society. Declining trust among Americans is well documented. Surveys of Latino immigrants indicate that they are also cynical about government, but it is not clear whether this distrust takes the same form or is distinctive due to a racialized outlook and experience. This essay analyzes a set of 56 interviews with California immigrants of Latino (mostly Mexican) descent. The results indicate that some Latino immigrants distrust the government because they believe the government is racist, suggesting they have acculturated into an ethnic minority subculture. But others are more like Anglo Americans in their cynicism, citing concerns such as lying politicians; this suggests they have socially incorporated into the American mainstream. Still other responses are less predictable, the result of a nuanced acculturation process. These findings reflect the multiple identities adopted by immigrants and the multiple borders they face as they adapt to life in the United States.

Political researchers have long been interested in the causes and consequences of trust in government, generally understood as “a basic evaluative orientation toward the government founded on how well the government is operating according to people’s normative expectations” (Hetherington 1998, 791). Existing research establishes that political trust is not only an important determinant of individual political behavior and government effectiveness, but may also measure the health of civic society. Although a “healthy skepticism of citizens is a prerequisite of democracy” (Levi 1998, 96), an excess of distrust has notable negative consequences, including decreased capacity of the state to govern and decreased citizen compliance with government regulations, laws, and judicial decisions. At extreme levels, distrust can lead to widespread antagonism to government policy and Aztlán: A Journal of Chicano Studies 32:2 Fall 2007 © University of California Regents

21

Michelson

even active resistance (Levi 1998; Scholtz and Lubell 1998; Tyler 1998). Cynical voters are less likely to choose major party candidates and more likely to vote for third-party candidates (Hetherington 1999; Peterson and Wrighton 1998; Southwell and Everest 1998). Trust translates into warmer feelings toward elected officials and political institutions, which “provides leaders more leeway to govern effectively,” while distrust creates an environment in which it is difficult for those in government to succeed (Hetherington 1998, 803). Virginia Chanley, Thomas Rudolph, and Wendy Rahn find that “declining trust in government in turn leads to less positive evaluations of Congress and reduced support for government action to address a range of domestic policy concerns” (2001, 239). Recent debates about social capital inspired by the work of Robert Putnam (1995) indicate that public cynicism may also be a measure of the health of civil society (see Brehm and Rahn 1997; Levi 1996). These studies clearly establish the importance of political trust, and they raise concern about the dramatic decline in trust in government since the mid-1960s. Conventional wisdom holds that the decades-long trend of increasing cynicism among Americans is due to the series of political tragedies and scandals that have plagued the nation since the 1960s, including the Vietnam War, Watergate, and the Iran-Contra affair. Although much of this distrust has centered on the national government, local and state governments have also suffered losses in confidence (Jennings 1998). Political trust among Latinos is less well understood. Early research, in the 1970s, found that Latinos had more trust in government than African Americans did but less than Anglos (non-Latino whites) did (Garcia 1973; Guzman 1970). The Latino National Political Survey of 1989–90 found that Mexican American trust was slightly higher than Anglo trust (de la Garza et al. 1992). Anne Schneider and Helen Ingram’s (1993) work on the social construction of target populations suggests that Latino trust in government is in part a reflection of the stereotypes about Latinos that are communicated through various state and local government policies.1 Among immigrants, conditions in the sending country may also affect feelings of trust in government: Sergio Wals Aparicio (2006) finds that Mexican immigrants with higher levels of trust in the Mexican government Melissa R. Michelson is an Associate Professor of Political Science at California State University, East Bay. Her research focuses on the political incorporation of Latino immigrants and field experiments in voter mobilization of minority communities. She has recently published work in Social Science Quarterly, Latino(a) Research Review, Journal of Political Marketing, and Polity. She can be contacted at [email protected].

22

All Roads Lead to Rust

are more likely to trust the American government. Studies of Mexican American youths have found that they become increasingly distrustful as they reach adolescence (Garcia 1973). Youths who identify as Chicano are more cynical than those who identify as Mexican American (Gutierrez and Hirsch 1973), and those living in cities with more Mexican American political influence are more trusting (Buzan 1980). More recent work finds that Mexican American citizens are more cynical than noncitizens of Mexican descent (Michelson 2001), that Puerto Ricans born in the mainland United States are less trusting than Puerto Ricans born on the island (de la Garza 1995; Michelson 2003a), and that Mexican American adults who are more acculturated or who see more discrimination against those of Mexican descent are more cynical than those who are less acculturated or see less discrimination (Michelson 2003b).

Rethinking Acculturation This sketch of recent findings does not paint a complete picture of cynicism among Latinos. Those who are more acculturated may be more aware of discrimination, as they are more likely to have encountered “harsh reality” (Garcia 1973), or they may simply be disillusioned by the same sorts of government misbehavior as are other Americans. Multivariate analysis (Michelson 2003b) shows that Latino cynicism increases with acculturation and with perceptions of discrimination. But that cross-sectional analysis of survey data does not provide much insight into how important each variable (acculturation and perceived discrimination) is to the corrosion of political trust, nor does it clarify the nuances of how immigrants translate their experiences in American society into political attitudes. How important are perceptions of government racism? What is the impact of the basic cultural learning that accompanies incorporation into a host culture—in other words, the awareness that it is the “American way” to distrust politicians and the government? How, if at all, do these two major influences on political attitudes interact to create feelings of belonging or not belonging, trust or distrust, among Latino immigrants? Why does it matter? Rodolfo de la Garza, Angelo Falcón, and Chris Garcia (1996) note that the American public and many political elites believe that Latinos are resistant to cultural assimilation and therefore pose a threat to the nation. Their finding that Mexican Americans are more patriotic than Anglos belies that argument and suggests instead that Mexican Americans may be incorporating into the political mainstream

23

Michelson

more rapidly and more completely than did previous immigrants of European ethnic origin. Latino resistance to political incorporation, to the extent that it exists, may reflect immigrants’ resistance not to acculturation but to the racism that they perceive in the host society. This study is designed to further counter arguments that Latino immigrants resist cultural assimilation by demonstrating that Latino cynicism is in many ways proof of social, if not political, incorporation. Trust in government, as noted above, is an important determinant of individual political behavior and government effectiveness and may also measure the health of civil society. But the theories explored here go beyond those academic debates to address how the social incorporation of Latino immigrants is influenced and structured by socialization experiences, including perceived racism and discrimination by the host society. Although this research explores feelings of political trust (as opposed to interpersonal trust), the type of individual incorporation that generates those feelings of trust (or distrust) is social incorporation, not political incorporation. Generally, political incorporation is understood to include political empowerment or political voice. The sort of incorporation examined here, better understood as social incorporation, includes the degree to which immigrants feel a sense of belonging to, and adopt the beliefs of, the host culture. Latino immigrants, citizens or not, live and work in American society, send their children to American schools, and are exposed to American culture. Even if they do not become politically empowered, they are a part of American society and this is their home. As a result, their attitudes about government may change to more closely reflect opinions held by most Americans, such as distrust in government. In other words, they may as part of their cultural assimilation become more cynical toward government. On the other hand, social incorporation may mean the kind of cultural learning that is associated with group membership and minority identity. Rather than adopting the political attitudes of mainstream (Anglo) Americans, they may instead adopt the political attitudes that are generally characteristic of their shared national-origin group (e.g., Mexicans or Puerto Ricans) or of their larger pan-ethnic group (Latinos), much as they learn political partisanship (see Alvarez and García Bedolla 2003). The complication in examining learned attitudes about trust in government is that both theories predict the same outcome. In other words, if Latino immigrants are socially incorporating into mainstream American culture, then they will become cynical because most Americans are cynical.

24


If, on the other hand, they are socially incorporating into a minority group culture, then they will become cynical because members of their group are cynical. In either case, trust in government is expected to decline as time spent in the United States increases. However, the distrust should take different forms. For those following the first (mainstream) path, distrust should be more general, associated with politicians being liars or not keeping their promises. For those following the second (minority group) path, distrust should be linked to beliefs about racism and anti-Latino or anti-immigrant bias in government and elected officials. This study investigates Latino immigrant cynicism through a series of semi-structured open-ended interviews. Evidence about which mode of acculturation is being followed by Latino immigrants is examined, and two hypotheses are explored. If immigrants are being incorporated into mainstream society in the manner predicted by classic assimilation theory, then they are expected, when asked about their feelings of trust in government, to bring up mainstream concerns such as government scandals, officials lying to the public, or wasted tax money. If, on the other hand, immigrants are assimilating as a racialized ethnic group, then they are expected to mention government unfairness toward Mexican Americans, Latinos, or immigrants. In addition, the mode of acculturation is expected to relate to the amount of discrimination against Latinos that the individual believes exists in U.S. society. Those who see more discrimination are expected to acculturate as members of a racialized minority group, while those who see little or no discrimination are expected to acculturate into mainstream society. It is further hypothesized that time spent in the United States, as well as age at time of immigration, will influence levels of trust and the model of acculturation followed. More time spent in the United States is expected to increase cynicism. Immigration at a young age, with childhood socialization occurring in the United States, is expected to encourage mainstream acculturation; immigration as an adult, with childhood socialization occurring in the country of origin, is expected to encourage minority group acculturation.

Multiple Paths, Multiple Identities The two paths outlined above correspond to two major threads of acculturation theory. Acculturation at the individual level refers to the cultural learning that occurs when immigrants come into contact with a new culture. As posited by classic assimilation theory, individuals gradually

25

Michelson

change their attitudes and behaviors to become more like majority group members, and the differences between the races are slowly erased (Berry 1980; Gordon 1964; LaFromboise, Coleman, and Gerton 1993; Warner and Srole 1945). As posited by ethnic competition theory (also known as the separation mode of acculturation), individuals choose to resist acculturation and instead maintain the separate ethnic identity, attitudes, and behaviors of their original culture (Mendoza and Martinez 1981).2 Although Lawrence Fuchs (1990) claims that Mexican immigrants are acculturating into the dominant society of the United States along the lines described by classic assimilation theory, there are reasons to believe that they are instead following the separation mode of acculturation. Israel Cuéllar, Bill Arnold, and Roberto Maldonado argue that ethnic competition acculturation is encouraged by “significant historical barriers (personal or otherwise) based on animosity and hatred toward the new culture” (1995, 279). Alejandro Portes, Robert Parker, and Jose Cobas observe that “the better immigrants understand the host country language and the more they endorse its values . . . the more skeptical they are of the realities of that society and of their actual condition within it” (1980, 220). Portes and Rubén Rumbaut argue that assimilation should not be considered “a straight-line movement into the social and economic mainstream” (1996, 247); rather, individual outcomes will differ (become segmented) as a result of racism, the concentration of immigrants in poor inner cities, and the lack of upward mobility opportunities. This “context of reception” causes individual immigrants to pursue different types of acculturation, perhaps resistant and with a strong perpetuation of a distinct ethnic subculture. Mexican Americans who see more discrimination against those of Mexican origin or who have personally experienced discrimination have less trust in government (Michelson 2001). This suggests that Latino immigrants will be more likely to follow the ethnic competition model of acculturation if they are more aware of or perceive hostility to their own culture on the part of the host society. This dichotomized view of the acculturation process, while intellectually useful, does not completely reflect the myriad ways in which Latino immigrants incorporate into American society. Portes and Rumbaut (1996) describe a variety of modes of acculturation that depend on the degree to which parents (the first generation) and children (the second generation) learn American culture and language and are a part of an ethnic community, the degree of discrimination they encounter, and the availability of family and community resources. A similar point is made by Luis Fraga et

26


al. in their discussion of a series of focus groups conducted in preparation for a new national Latino political survey: If the literature and public debates about Latino immigrant identity wish to paint a picture of stark contrasts between “assimilation” and “transnationalism,” the data here suggest that these contrasts are very much overstated. As the results from the focus groups indicate, Latinos express attachments to the United States, and see themselves as remaining in this country. However, there is also some ambivalence, particularly among first-generation immigrants, about their sense of belonging; this is not translated, however, into a desire to return. . . . Ties to countries of origin . . . are apparent, but these are tempered by what appear to be stronger ties to the country of residence. (2004, 14) 3

These findings mirror those of Portes and Robert Bach (1985), who found that Mexican immigrants’ perceptions of discrimination increased markedly during the first few years of residence in the new country, but that respondents nevertheless expressed strong satisfaction with their life in the United States and intended to stay. In other words, the absence of a sense of belonging, or even the presence of feelings of not being wanted, does not necessarily mean that immigrants will fail to socially incorporate into American society. This point is illustrated by the tendency of Latino immigrants, in the wake of the anti-Latino atmosphere of the mid-1990s, to become U.S. citizens and to vote in U.S. elections. Even as the host society was making them feel unwelcome and working to bar them from receiving government services, Latinos did not choose retreat (return to the country of origin), but instead chose to become more involved in the American political system (Michelson and Pallares 2001). Lisa García Bedolla notes that the physical border into the United States is just the first border that immigrants have to cross in the process of becoming Americans. Multiple boundaries, both physical and psychological, are involved in their politicization: In terms of geography, migrants clearly have chosen to cross a line dividing nation-states. After arriving in the United States, they encounter additional physical boundaries as they settle in places that provide differential access to transportation, jobs, services, and housing. These boundaries affect their everyday lives and chances for socioeconomic mobility. In terms of psychological borders, immigrants leave their home countries with a certain understanding of self and nation, but this will evolve with time as they experience life in the United States. . . . Because they are members of a marginal group in the United States, Latino immigrants and their children confront multiple boundaries that affect

27

Michelson

their socialization into the U.S. political system—boundaries that they are not always empowered to cross. (2005, 2)

According to García Bedolla, Latinos determine their sense of place in the United States political system based on the interaction of two spheres: psychological capital, or individual feelings of personal agency, and contextual capital, including membership in community organizations, the local political institutional environment, and the racial makeup and politicization of individual social networks. Feminist theorists Gloria Anzaldúa and Emma Pérez offer additional caveats. Anzaldúa writes that Chicanos “straddle the borderlands”—they are neither Anglos nor Mexicans: We don’t identify with the Anglo-American cultural values and we don’t totally identify with the Mexican cultural values. We are a synergy of two cultures with various degrees of Mexicanness or Angloness. (1987, 63)

This struggle of identities varies by individual, and it reinforces the idea that a dichotomous choice between acculturation outcomes is insufficient to describe the internal identity conflicts faced by Latinos in the United States. Pérez argues that assimilation, or acculturation, should be understood as a “weaving” of cultures, worlds, and borders: Leaving home because the socioeconomic conditions there force migration, thus traveling to a host country/region that may offer some economic and political reprieve, but at the same time racism and discrimination, compels these new cultural survivors to be as creative as possible as they move through power. (1999, 81)

Pérez argues that studies about Mexican immigrants should keep in mind a “diasporic subjectivity”—an understanding that “Aztlán, the mythic homeland, shifts and moves beneath and around us” (78). Even as Latino immigrants acculturate, assimilate, and in other ways adapt to the United States, they keep within themselves the culture of Aztlán. These arguments about multiple identities and multiple borders suggest that dividing Latino immigrants into two groups—mainstream acculturators and ethnic competition acculturators—oversimplifies the way in which individuals socially and politically incorporate into American society. Although such a division is intellectually useful and helps structure this research project, it is not a complete picture of the Latino immigrant experience.

28


The Interview Process Interviews were conducted on site at the Big Fresno Fair in Fresno, Cali fornia.4 The fair is an annual event that draws a wide variety of local residents who enjoy livestock exhibits, horse racing, skill games, carnival rides, and shopping. It is the fifth largest fair in California, drawing over a million visitors. The first day of interviewing took place on Sunday, October 6, 2002. This was expected to be a good day on which to interview Latino immigrants because it was not a work day, and also because there was a famous Mexican American performer (Lupillo Rivera) scheduled to sing that evening. Interviews were conducted from about 10:30 a.m. until about 3:30 p.m. Additional interviews took place on Wednesday, October 9, from 2:30 to 5:00 p.m. This was Seniors Day (free admission to those age sixtytwo and over) and many more respondents on that day were older. A total of 56 interviews were completed, including 28 males and 28 females. Individuals were approached randomly and asked if they had time to answer a few questions. The interviewing team (the author and one bilingual undergraduate student) introduced themselves as being from Fresno State University and said that they were doing a “project for school.” This was expected to increase the likelihood that individuals would agree to participate, as the university enjoys a very good reputation in the community. Rather than trying to eyeball the crowd to judge who might be a Latino immigrant, the team approached people randomly and asked an initial set of two questions designed to establish their identity: whether they were born in the United States, and if they were not, which country they were from. Those who did not identify themselves as Latino immigrants were asked a simple question about trust in government and thanked for their time; their responses are not included in this analysis. Those who did identify as Latino immigrants were asked a longer series of questions. On the first day, interviews were completed with 41 individuals ranging in age from sixteen to over seventy. On the second day, interviews were completed with an additional 15 respondents aged twenty-three to eighty-six, with over half of the respondents older than sixty-five.5 Interviews were initiated in English, but the interviewing team quickly switched to Spanish if the respondent or anyone with the respondent indicated that they did not understand. In order to encourage respondents to be honest, given the possibility that some might feel uncomfortable going on record as criticizing the government, responses were recorded with pen and paper rather than tape-recorded.6 Still, it is possible that some people

29

Michelson

may have censored themselves because they knew that their answers were being written down. Each respondent was asked his or her first name, country of origin, number of years in the United States, and current age. Those who were Latino immigrants were then asked how much of the time they thought they could trust the government. The interviewing team probed for specific reasons behind the level of trust indicated, such as feelings about specific government policies, laws, or actions. Once this question was answered (or abandoned, as some respondents simply could not explain their feelings), respondents were asked two follow-up questions about whether they had ever experienced discrimination and how much discrimination they thought existed in the United States against people of Mexican or Latino origin. A list of the basic questions used to structure the interviews can be found in the appendix. Two current issues were mentioned frequently by interview respondents. One was national security and the war against terrorism, including whether the United States should stage a preemptive strike on Iraq (the interviewing took place in October 2002, six months before the start of the war). The other was a measure vetoed by Governor Gray Davis of California just days before the field interviews were conducted, that would have allowed some undocumented immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses. Davis had indicated at one point that he might sign the bill, but in the end he vetoed it, citing national security concerns. Another contextual frame for the interviews, albeit not mentioned explicitly by respondents, was the imminent gubernatorial election between Davis and his Republican challenger, Bill Simon, which took place a few weeks later. Many Latinos were conflicted about the election, with their usual Democratic tendencies somewhat offset by their anger at Davis for vetoing the driver’s license bill.

Results Analysis of the interview material focused on discerning patterns in responses associated with two sets of respondent characteristics: their feelings about and experiences with discrimination, and their age at immigration and length of residence in the United States.

30


Patterns by Feelings about Discrimination Responses were first examined for patterns based on answers to the questions about personal experiences with discrimination and perceptions of discrimination against Latinos or Mexicans. Those who reported that they had personally experienced discrimination or who thought discrimination was a serious problem were expected to be more cynical and to mention immigrant or minority concerns when discussing why they did not trust the government. Conversely, those who did not see discrimination as a problem were expected either to be more trusting or to cite mainstream concerns when explaining their lack of trust in government. Thirteen of the people interviewed said that they had personally experienced discrimination and thought there was a considerable amount of discrimination in the United States against Latinos or Mexicans. As would be predicted by ethnic competition theory, 9 of these 13 respondents were cynical about the government and specifically mentioned immigrants or discrimination when explaining their answers. Elena, a thirty-four-yearold who had lived in the United States for fourteen years, said she doesn’t trust the government very much because of broken promises, specifically those regarding “ayuda al campesino, inmigración, licencias, papeles” (help for laborers, immigration, licenses, documentation). Elvia, a fortyfive-year-old woman who had lived in the United States for about thirty years, commented: Como en sus campañas prometen mucho y [después] no cumplen. Como uno que es inmigrante que se les promete ayuda de los doctores y seguros. [In their campaigns they promise a lot and then they don’t come through. Like if you’re an immigrant, they promise you help with doctors and insurance.]

The remaining four individuals in this “discrimination-aware” category, however, gave responses that were less predictable. One individual, citing national security issues, said that she was very trusting of the government; the remaining three were cynical but gave more mainstream explanations for their answers. Alma, a thirty-two-year-old immigrant who had been here for eleven years, said she had suffered from discrimination and thought it was a major problem, but she linked her distrust to President George W. Bush’s foreign policy: “Right now the war, I don’t like the way he’s . . . I know he’s trying to defend the United States but it’s impossible.” John, a sixty-three-year-old who immigrated at age six, said he had experienced a lot of discrimination personally, but his cynicism stemmed from mainstream

31

Michelson

issues: “They talk about Social Security issues and Medicare and prescription drugs. . . . They say one thing but they do another.” Another nine individuals had not personally experienced discrimination but thought that there was a considerable amount of discrimination against Latinos or Mexicans in the United States. Irma, a thirty-nine-yearold who had lived in the United States for about thirteen years, said she trusted the government completely. Her answer indicated that she was comparing the U.S. government to the government of her home country, Mexico: “One hundred percent. Está hablando de los Estados Unidos, no?” (You’re talking about the United States, right?) Irma also cited national security in her answer. Many of the other individuals in this category referred to immigrant issues or racism. Noel, a twenty-three-year-old who had lived in the United States for two years, was very concise in explaining why he doesn’t trust the government: “Una ley: que no quieren dar licencias.” (One law: that they didn’t want to give licenses.) However, not all of the cynical respondents in this category mentioned such immigrantspecific concerns; some cited mainstream issues such as lying politicians and broken promises. For example, Maria, a thirty-two-year-old who had been in the United States for four years, commented: Prometen y no cumplen a tiempo. . . . Hacen muchas promesas, y bueno, no vemos resultados. Dicen que van a ayudar, y hay mucha gente y no les dan trabajo.” [They make promises and don’t fulfill them in time. . . . They make lots of promises, and, well, we don’t see results. They say they’re going to help and there are many people and they don’t give them jobs.]

Fifteen individuals said that they had never experienced discrimination and that they did not think that any (or very much) discrimination existed against Latinos or Mexicans. More than half of these 15 respondents (8) thought that the government could be trusted all the time or almost all the time. Several of them cited national security or Iraq when explaining their answers. Maria, a twenty-eight-year-old who had lived in the United States for seven years, commented, “Por que en todo cumplen y cuidan mucho a los niños en la escuela con mucha seguridad.” (Because they come through on everything and they take good care of children in school, with a lot of security.) David, a twenty-three-year-old who had lived in the United States for ten years, said that he trusts the government quite a bit because of “everything with the terrorist attacks, all of that.” Among those in the no-discrimination category who said they don’t trust the government, only one cited an immigrant issue (the driver’s license

32


bill). Others talked more about the misbehavior of politicians. Israel, a seventy-two-year-old who had lived in the United States for forty-two years, said that he doesn’t trust the government at all “porque todo lo que dicen casi no se hace” (because almost all they say is never actually done). Specifically, Israel mentioned promised improvements in health care, housing, and schools. Javier, an older man (he would not give his age) who immigrated in 1974, also mentioned broken promises: Mucha de las veces, hay veces que prometen cosas y no las cumplen. Entonces allí están faltando a las promesas que ellos prometen como las ayudas que a veces dan o que tratan de hacer, las cumplen pero ya al ultimo. [A lot of times they promise things and then don’t follow through. They don’t keep their promises about things like the assistance they sometimes give or try to give, [or] they do it but only at the last minute.]

Two respondents said that they had personally experienced discrimination in the past but that very little discrimination still exists today. Both were distrustful of government, one citing broken promises and one citing Bush’s foreign policy. Manuel, a thirty-six-year-old who had lived in the United States for twenty-two years, said: No creo que el Presidente Bush tenga tanto que andarse metiendo en otros países. ¿Por qué no está principalmente preocupándose con este país, intensamente? [I don’t think that President Bush should be getting involved in other countries so much. Why doesn’t he mainly concern himself with this country, intensely?]

Opinions were more varied among the 17 individuals who had not personally experienced discrimination but who thought that it did exist to a small degree. Three felt that the government could be trusted, citing Bush’s tax rebate and national foreign policy or just the system in general. None mentioned immigrant concerns. Of the 13 who were not so trusting of government, about half (7) mentioned immigrant concerns such as the driver’s license bill. Juan, a thirty-three-year-old who had lived in the United States for three years, commented: Por las leyes que han hecho. . . . Pues, no le dan licencias a los que ya están aquí. Tienen que ir a trabajar y les quitan los carros. [Because of the laws they have passed. They don’t give licenses to those who are already here. They have to go to work and they take away their cars.]

Several in this more cynical group mentioned the former Republican governor of California, Pete Wilson, who is strongly associated with

33

Michelson

Proposition 187, a 1994 initiative that sought to deny most social services to undocumented immigrants. Others mentioned the fact that politicians lie. Juan, a forty-nine-year-old who had lived in the United States for ten years, said he doesn’t trust the government “porque son una bola de mentirosos. Casi no cumplen lo que prometen.” (Because they are just a bunch of liars. They almost never do what they promise.) Patterns by Age at Immigration and Length of Stay Responses were then examined for patterns by age at immigration and years spent in the United States. Those who had come to the United States as young children were expected to be more likely to cite mainstream concerns when discussing their cynicism, as they would be the most acculturated. Conversely, those who had only recently immigrated were expected to be more likely to cite immigrant or minority concerns. Those who had spent more time in the United States were also expected to be more cynical, due to adoption of the mainstream culture of distrust or to disillusionment caused by life experiences in the United States. Eight immigrants had come to the United States as infants or children up to ten years old. None of these individuals mentioned racism or immigrant concerns when discussing their feelings of political trust. Instead, they cited issues such as Social Security, health care, fraud, and national security, and they often mentioned that politicians lie. For example, Nancy, a thirty-three-year-old who was brought to the United States as a baby, commented, “I don’t know, all this fraud that’s going on at this time. Big people getting in trouble all the time, you know.” Risalda, a sixteen-year-old who has lived here since she was four years old, said her cynicism stemmed from feelings of insecurity following the terrorist attacks: “I feel if my life depended on them, I wouldn’t trust them.” Two men in this group, Albert, thirty years old, and Felipe, eighty-six years old, both of whom immigrated at age ten, compared the United States to other countries. Explaining why he trusts the government, Albert said, “because I’ve lived in another country and this country has a good economy. It’s a good country.” Felipe said he always trusts the government “because this is the best country in the world. Here, you, everyone has a lot more opportunities than other countries. A lot of countries are poor and they don’t let them do whatever they want.” Fourteen individuals had immigrated to the United States from Mexico as teenagers aged thirteen through seventeen. Four of them, those who

34


had been in the United States for a shorter period of time, mentioned racism or immigrant concerns when explaining why they do or do not trust the government. Maria, a twenty-five-year-old who immigrated at age seventeen, commented: Creo que muchas leyes que le han ayudado a las personas que no tienen, como ayuda, son a veces como racistas. . . . Debe haber como una igualdad entre toda la raza, y hay leyes que perjudican a personas. [I think that a lot of laws that have helped people that don’t have, like, help, are sometimes a bit racist. . . . There should be equality between all the races, and there are laws that harm people.]

Those individuals who immigrated as teenagers but had been in the United States for a longer time had more varied feelings of political trust, but all mentioned foreign affairs or national security rather than issues related to immigrants or Latinos. Delia, a thirty-four-year-old who immigrated at age fourteen, specifically limited her distrust to Republicans; she explained her cynicism by saying, “I don’t know about anything that they did. I guess the war going on, the war with Iraq now.” Among those who immigrated as adults, a clear connection emerges between the level of trust and the explanations of those feelings. Respondents who said that they trusted the government only a little or not at all were much more likely to mention racism or immigration issues, while those who trusted the government most or all of the time did not tend to mention such issues. There were no clear differences based on how many years the person had lived in the United States. Graciela, a fortysix-year-old who had lived here for fourteen years, said she does not trust the government “porque siento discriminación” (because I feel discrimination). She further commented: “algo malo pasa y los Latinos, siempre los Latinos, somos los que hacen mal” (whenever something bad happens it’s the Latinos, always the Latinos, we’re the ones doing wrong). Lucina, a forty-year-old who had lived in the United States for twenty years, said that she doesn’t trust the government “porque siempre discriminan, y más a uno que no es de aquí” (because they always discriminate, and more against those who are not from here). Asked to be more specific, Lucina commented: “pues cuando uno, para aplicar para ayuda, aunque está uno legalmente aquí, siempre lo hacen a uno sentir muy invalido” (when you go to apply for help, even though you are here legally, they always make you feel like you’re doing something wrong). Antonio, a fifty-year-old who has lived here for about fifteen years, only trusts the government some of the time,

35

Michelson

because “yo veo que está mal que discriminen a uno, como uno Latino” (I think that it’s a bad thing that they discriminate against us, as Latinos). Maria, a seventy-one-year-old who has lived in the United States for about forty-five years, said she does not trust the government at all, “porque dicen puras mentiras cuando quieren agarrar el poder” (because they tell pure lies when they want to grab power). Maria mentioned former governor Pete Wilson as a cause for her cynicism, but she also disapproved of thengovernor Gray Davis because “Davis dijo que iba a dar ayuda para que unos agarraran licencia y no lo cumplió” (Davis said he was going to give his support for some people to get licenses but he didn’t keep his word). The only Latino not of Mexican descent who was interviewed was Javier, a seventy-three-year-old immigrant from Cuba who has been living in the United States since 1980. He seemed to have been acculturated into the Mexican-dominant Latino culture of California, as illustrated by his reference to immigrant concerns when explaining why he doesn’t trust the government: Por las promesas que no se hacen realidad. . . . Como las promesas que hacen a todos inmigrantes las promesas de dar, ¿cómo se llama? la amnistía. Y no la cumplen. [Because of the promises that never come true. . . . Like the promises that they make to all the immigrants, the promises to give, what is it called, amnesty. And they don’t follow through.]

Not all of the cynical individuals who had immigrated as adults mentioned such issues. Others had more mainstream explanations for their lack of trust. For example, José, a seventy-year-old who had lived here for forty-seven years, compared politicians to men courting women: I see that there are some that promise but when it comes down to it nothing happens. When they come into office they promise a lot, like when a man loves a woman: he tells her and promises the most beautiful things that he can but when he has her it’s not the same anymore.

Individuals who were more trusting of government were more likely to cite national security or other issues unrelated to immigrants or Latinos. For example, Francisca, a fifty-eight-year-old who had lived in the United States for fourteen years, said she trusts the government, but she couldn’t say exactly why: “Pues porque aquí son, ¿cómo le dire? estrictos y llevan todo en orden. Porque me gusta el sistema de aquí.” (Because here they are, how can I say, strict, and they keep everything in order. Because I like the system here.) Along similar lines, Consuelo, a sixty-three-year-old who

36


had lived here for fourteen years, said he trusts the government because “son fuertes” (they are strong) and because “ayudan a muchas personas” (they help many people). Carmen, a seventy-six-year-old who had lived in the United States since 1976, was full of praise for the federal government. He cited the Gulf War and the recent tax rebate as examples of trustworthy government activities: Nosotros no hemos tenido problema con el, por ejemplo cuando hubo la Guerra del Golfo nos gusto como se trabajo. . . . También, si, porque nosotros cuando hemos necesitado cosas así, el gobierno, si ha respondido bien. Uno puede, por ejemplo, confiar en la policía. . . . Hay otra cosa que nos gusto, que ningún presidente había hecho: nos regresaron un reembolso de los impuestos. Y este George Bush lo dio y nosotros nunca habíamos agarrado eso, solo habíamos pagado y pagado. [We’ve never had problems with this government, for example when the Gulf War was going on we liked how it was handled. . . . Also, when we have needed help with things the government has responded well. For example, you can trust the police. . . . Another thing we like, that no other president had ever done: they gave us a refund on our taxes. It was George Bush who gave it and we had never gotten this money before; we had only paid and paid.]

Discussion Several patterns emerge from close examination of the interview notes. The first is that those individuals who believe that a significant amount of discrimination exists in the United States against Latinos or Mexicans, and particularly those who have personally experienced discrimination, were more likely to cite immigrant issues or racism in explaining their feelings of cynicism. In contrast, those who do not believe that much (or any) discrimination exists were more likely to cite general political misbehavior, such as lying or not delivering on campaign promises. But the patterns are not as decisive as existing acculturation theory might lead one to expect. Of the 39 respondents who said that discrimination against Latinos is a problem in the United States, only two-thirds were cynical in a manner predicted by ethnic competition theory. Of the remaining third (n=13), 4 were trusting and 9 gave answers that would be predicted by classic acculturation theory, with no evidence of a particularly racialized outlook. In other words, even among those who feel that discrimination is a problem and who would be expected to be most likely to reject and feel

37

Michelson

apart from mainstream American culture, a significant portion of Latino immigrants gave interview responses exactly in line with mainstream responses. This is true even for 3 individuals (of 13 total) who claimed that they had personally experienced discrimination and who believed discrimination to be a major problem. The corrosive effect of acculturation on trust in government is clearly more complex than would be predicted by the two major theories outlined above.7 The patterns related to age of immigration are more robust. Those who immigrated as young children were more likely to have acculturated as predicted by classic assimilation theory, focusing their mistrust on the tendency of politicians to lie rather than on Latino- or immigrant-related concerns. Among those who immigrated as adults, there was a much stronger tendency to be concerned about immigrant-related issues, particularly among those who were very cynical about government, as would be predicted by ethnic competition theory. Another important pattern is that respondents who claimed to be very trusting of the government were likely to cite national security and to refer to the federal government, while those who were cynical were more likely to mention the state government, in particular the policies of then-governor Gray Davis or former governor Pete Wilson. This suggests that individuals may actually hold both opinions—that the same individual may trust the national government but not trust the state government, or vice versa. The implications for political behavior, given the continuing debate about what questions of trust are actually measuring, are unclear. Studies of the impact of political trust have generally treated “government” as a monolithic entity, without making distinctions between federal, state, or other levels of government. If citizens (and/or residents) are making these distinctions and are coming to different conclusions about the degree to which government at various levels can be trusted, then researchers should do so as well. Recent scholarship indicates that distrust leads to increased support for third-party candidates and an environment in which it is more difficult for government action to address domestic policy concerns positively, but this research focuses exclusively on the federal government. Are there similar consequences for state-level government? What about individuals who trust one level of government but not the other—how is their political behavior affected? Disaggregation of the various levels of government in future research on political trust will help answer these questions. Further research at different time periods, and in different geographic areas, will also help clarify how Latino immigrant attitudes about trust in

38


government are formed and change in response to political events. While this study takes us closer to understanding the process, it is of course limited in its external validity due to its focus on Latinos in central California in the weeks just prior to a gubernatorial election. It remains to be seen whether similar responses, or patterns of responses, would persist in different contexts. Additional information from respondents, such as occupational/class status, preferred political party, citizenship status, and attitudes about political participation, will be helpful as further research delves deeper into the causes and patterns of Latino trust in government. That such information was not gathered in these interviews limits the extent to which firm conclusions can be drawn. For example, it is possible that those who mentioned racism or immigrant issues such as the driver’s license bill or amnesty were more likely to be noncitizens, while those who mentioned mainstream issues such as national security or taxes were more likely to be citizens. However, respondents were not asked about citizenship status in order to prevent individuals from becoming suspicious and censoring themselves, or even refusing to participate, so it is difficult to determine whether this is the case. Even without being asked such a sensitive question, many of the individuals who were interviewed for this study were clearly not completely at ease.

Conclusions Various studies have demonstrated the importance of political trust for American society, and the potential dangers of excessive distrust. Trust among Latino immigrants is particularly significant because it is a measure of how well we are incorporating new members of the polity. Understanding the acculturation process that causes Latino cynicism helps us understand how it should be interpreted. If immigrants adopt the sort of distrust shared by most Americans, focused on the perception that politicians lie and break their promises, then immigrant cynicism can be considered a healthy skepticism that helps keeps government power in check and as a sign that Latino immigrants are being incorporated into mainstream society. If the distrust stems from a sense of being targeted and focuses on the perception that politicians are racists, then the concerns about a divided culture raised by observers such as Samuel P. Huntington (2004) may be more accurate—not because Latino immigrants want to create a separate society, but because mainstream American society will not accept them.

39

Michelson

While some studies have found that Latino trust in government exceeds that of Anglos, other research finds that Latinos tend to be quite cynical. This holds true for the 56 individuals interviewed for this study. For some respondents, their cynicism resembles that of Anglos, as predicted by classic assimilation theory. As they incorporate into American society, they learn that politicians cannot be trusted, break their promises, and refuse to listen to the public. For other respondents, American society is marked by racism and discrimination; the government cannot be trusted because elected officials do not keep their promises to immigrants and because they mistreat immigrants and Latinos. As predicted by ethnic competition theory, these immigrants are acculturating not into mainstream American society but into a racialized Latino community. However, as mentioned above, the paths to cynicism are not so clearcut. The complexities of social incorporation lead many Latino immigrants to adopt a type of distrust in government not well predicted by their perceptions of discrimination. Contrary to expectations, despite experiences with and perceptions of racism that would theoretically lead immigrants to reject American culture in favor of a Latino subculture, many individuals seem nevertheless to have adopted that aspect of American culture that relates to evaluations of the government. Even as they feel targeted, either individually or as members of a minority subgroup, they are becoming part of mainstream society. Much like the patriotic Latinos discussed by de la Garza, Falcón, and Garcia (1996), these Latino immigrants provide evidence that Latinos are incorporating into American society and adopting the attitudes, if not the behavior, of the mainstream culture. There are myriad ways in which individuals negotiate the acculturation process. What is notable here is that even among Latino immigrants who feel rejected by American society, who lack a sense of belonging and who may feel targeted as members of a racialized minority group, many individuals are adopting mainstream American political attitudes. The evidence that some Latino immigrants are becoming cynical in a manner predicted by classic assimilation theory, including some “discriminationaware” respondents, belies the arguments by certain political elites that Mexican American immigrants are resistant to political incorporation. Even when immigrants feel targeted, they are able to incorporate into mainstream society (although on the issue of trust, that acculturation takes the form of increased cynicism). This reflects the multiple identities and multiple borders that immigrants must negotiate as they incorporate into American society, as noted by García Bedolla (2005), Alzaldúa (1987),

40


and Pérez (1999). Those who see discrimination as a major concern are not necessarily resistant to political incorporation; they are more likely to incorporate into their racialized group rather than into mainstream society, but a significant number adopt a perception of government seemingly unrelated to that aspect of their identity. In either case, the immigrants are acculturating, although perhaps not always in a manner that elite critics would prefer. This suggests that the problem of Latino social incorporation may come not from the Latinos who see discrimination and are disillusioned by it, but from the host society that allows that atmosphere of racism and discrimination to persist. What does this say about the health of civil society in America, if a popular and predictable path of acculturation is characterized by racialization and a sense of not belonging? Despite our much-heralded history as a nation of immigrants, despite the inspiring call of Emma Lazarus to “bring me your tired, your poor,” the reality is that American society can be quite hostile to Latinos. And yet, Latino immigrants, rather than retreating, have chosen to stay, to endure, and even, as demonstrated by the spring 2006 marches, to take to the streets to proclaim their presence and their opinions. A major conclusion from this research is that many Latino immigrants are incorporating into mainstream American culture, and this is true even of some who perceive an atmosphere of racism in the host society. The fact that Latino immigrants often adopt a racialized outlook and incorporate into a minority subculture should not be interpreted as a failure by those immigrants or by American culture. The harsh reality is that racism does persist in America. That Latino immigrants are aware of this reality and adapt their mode of acculturation to reflect it is a sign not only of their resilience and determination to make their lives in the United States successful, but also of American society’s self-awareness. In other words, the very existence of a minority subculture into which Latino immigrants can acculturate is a healthy and logical reaction to the reality of racism. While we can hope for, and work for, a color-blind future, that subculture provides Latinos with important psychological resources for negotiating the America of today.

41

Michelson

Appendix: Interview Questions 1. What is your first name? [¿Que es su primer nombre?] 2. Were you born in the United States or in another country? [¿Nació usted en los Estados Unidos u otro país?] 3. Which country is that? [¿Cuál país es ese?] 4. How long have you lived in the United States? [¿Hace cuantos años vive usted en los Estados Unidos?] 5. How old are you? [¿Cuantos años tiene usted?] 6. How much of the time do you think you can trust government officials to do what is right? [¿Con que frecuencia cree usted que puede confiar en que las personas manejando el gobierno hagan lo correcto?] 7. What makes you say that? Why do you think you feel that way? [¿Por qué dice usted eso? Por qué piensa usted que se siente así?] 8. Is there anything specific you are thinking of when you say that about your level of trust in the government? [¿Hay algo especifico en que usted piensa cuando dice eso sobre su nivel de confianza en el gobierno?] 9. Have you ever experienced discrimination? [¿Usted siente que ha sido discriminado en alguna ocasión?] 10. How much discrimination do you think exists in the United States against people of Mexican descent? [¿Cuánta discriminación piensa usted que existe en los Estados Unidos contra gente de origen mexicano?]

Notes 1. Schneider and Ingram hypothesize that different target populations in American society (e.g., minorities, immigrants) receive different messages from public policy that reflect their position in society (weak or powerful, deserving or undeserving). This in turn encourages particular patterns of citizen participation (active or passive) as well as particular attitudes toward government (supportive or suspicious). 2. Assimilation theory is, of course, much more nuanced and diverse than this dichotomy suggests. Classic assimilation theory (Warner and Srole 1945; Gordon 1964) argues that immigrants as they assimilate become more like middle-class Protestant whites, and that the host society is unchanged by the addition of new groups. Ethnic communities are perhaps useful as temporary way stations, but true success comes only with full abandonment of one’s native culture. Pluralist assimilation theory argues that in the contemporary world,

42


individuals need not abandon their ethnic culture and institutions to enjoy the advantages of the host society; preserving them may in fact bring advantages, such as enhanced cognitive abilities derived from bilingualism or livelihood opportunities in ethnic subeconomies (Portes and Rumbaut 1996, 2001; Portes and Bach 1985; Portes and Manning 1986; Zhou and Bankston 1998). Reviving older ideas about assimilation from the Chicago School of Sociology (Park 1930), neo-assimilation theory recognizes that change can occur among both the host culture and the culture of immigrant groups. This school of thought redefines assimilation as “the decline of an ethnic distinction and its corollary cultural and social differences” (Alba and Nee 2003, 11). 3. Transnationalism, in the immigration context, is “the existence of social networks, institutions, and ties that link immigrants to their countries of origin” (Jones-Correa 2004, 18). It can also mean more explicitly political ties, as when immigrants contribute to political campaigns in their country of origin, vote in its elections (or lobby for the vote if migrants do not yet have that right), and even run for office in the home country while residing in the United States (DeSipio et al. 2003). As noted by de la Garza (2004), the relationship between immigrants and their countries of origin has been changed by the increasing availability of airline travel, cell phones, and international banking services, and some have argued that this creates resistance to assimilation by immigrants, who view themselves as sojourners rather than permanent residents of the United States. However, not only are explicitly political transnational activities relatively uncommon (DeSipio et al. 2003), but almost all Latino immigrants reject the notion that they are here only temporarily. Although they may retain significant ties to their country of origin and often remit large sums of money to their family members and hometowns, they are here to stay, and they know it (Jones-Correa 2004). 4. Although California is generally a liberal, Democrat state, the Fresno area (which is in the San Joaquin Valley of central California) is much more conservative and Republican than some other parts of California, particularly the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles. That said, it cannot be assumed that those interviewed were liberals or conservatives, Democrats or Republicans. 5. The average age of interview subjects is more than the average age of Latino immigrants. This is a limitation on the external validity of the results, but it is not expected to bias them in any systematic way. 6. The first few interviews were conducted with a handheld tape recorder. Respondents claimed to be very trusting of the government, but this was attributed to random chance. The interviewing team then approached a pair of older Latino gentlemen. At this point, the recorder was not in full view (it was in the hand of one of the interviewers) but it was still recording. The two men were asked to participate in the survey, and when informed of its subject manner they began making derogatory remarks about government officials. When the tape recorder was held up closer to their faces to conduct the official interview, however, they changed their tone entirely and, like those before them, claimed to be very trusting of the government. The switch was extreme and sudden and was clearly due to the presence of the tape recorder. That interview and those before it were discarded and are not used in this analysis, and interviewing was resumed with pen and

43

Michelson

paper. Respondents then began to give a much wider variety of opinions about government, including some that were quite critical, although many individuals were curious about what was being written down. 7. That the interview questions about discrimination were asked after the questions about trust in government supports the argument that these are true distinctions of opinion, not the result of a question framing effect.

Works Cited Alba, Richard D., and Victor Nee. 2003. Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Alvarez, R. Michael, and Lisa García Bedolla. 2003. “The Foundations of Latino Voter Partisanship: Evidence from the 2000 Election.” Journal of Politics 65, no. 1: 31–49. Anzaldúa, Gloria. 1987. Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. San Francisco: Spinsters/Aunt Lute. Berry, John W. 1980. “Acculturation as Varieties of Adaptation.” In Acculturation: Theory, Models and Some New Findings, ed. Amado M. Padilla, 9–25. Boulder, CO: Westview. Brehm, John, and Wendy Rahn. 1997. “Individual-Level Evidence for the Causes and Consequences of Social Capital.” American Journal of Political Science 41, no. 3: 999–1023. Buzan, Bert C. 1980. “Chicano Community Control, Political Cynicism and the Validity of Political Trust Measures.” Western Political Quarterly 33, no. 1: 108–20. Chanley, Virginia A., Thomas J. Rudolph, and Wendy M. Rahn. 2001. “The Origins and Consequences of Public Trust in Government: A Time Series Analysis.” Public Opinion Quarterly 64, no. 3: 239–56. Cuéllar, Israel, Bill Arnold, and Roberto Maldonado. 1995. “Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II: A Revision of the Original ARSMA Scale.” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 17, no. 3: 275–304. de la Garza, Rodolfo O. 1995. “The Effects of Ethnicity on Political Culture.” In Classifying by Race, ed. Paul E. Peterson, 333–53. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ———. 2004. “Latino Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science 7: 91–123. de la Garza, Rodolfo O., Louis DeSipio, F. Chris Garcia, John Garcia, and Angelo Falcón. 1992. Latino Voices: Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban Perspectives on American Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview.

44


de la Garza, Rodolfo O., Angelo Falcón, and F. Chris Garcia. 1996. “Will the Real Americans Please Stand Up: Anglo and Mexican-American Support of Core American Political Values.” American Journal of Political Science 40, no. 2: 335–51. DeSipio, Louis, Harry Pachon, Rodolfo O. de la Garza, and Jongho Lee. 2003. “Immigrant Politics at Home and Abroad: How Latino Immigrants Engage the Politics of Their Home Communities and the United States.” Research report, Tomás Rivera Policy Institute, Los Angeles. Fraga, Luis, John A. Garcia, Rodney Hero, Michael Jones-Correa, Valerie MartinezEbers, and Gary M. Segura. 2004. “A New Generation of Latino Voices: Identity, Attitudes and Participation.” Paper presented at annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Portland, OR, March 11–13. Fuchs, Lawrence H. 1990. The American Kaleidoscope: Race, Ethnicity and the Civic Culture. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England. Garcia, F. Chris. 1973. Political Socialization of Chicano Children: A Comparative Study with Anglos in California Schools. New York: Praeger. García Bedolla, Lisa. 2005. Fluid Borders: Latino Power, Identity, and Politics in Los Angeles. Berkeley: University of California Press. Gordon, Milton M. 1964. Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origin. New York: Oxford University Press. Gutierrez, Armando, and Herbert Hirsch. 1973. “The Militant Challenge to the American Ethos: ‘Chicanos’ and ‘Mexican Americans.’” Social Science Quarterly 53, no. 1: 830–49. Guzman, Ralph. 1970. “The Political Socialization of the Mexican American People.” PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles. Hetherington, Marc. 1998. “The Political Relevance of Political Trust.” American Political Science Review 92, no. 4: 791–808. ———. 1999. “The Effect of Political Trust on the Presidential Vote, 1968–96.” American Political Science Review 93, no. 2: 311–26. Huntington, Samuel P. 2004. “The Hispanic Challenge.” Foreign Policy, no. 141: 30–45. Jennings, M. Kurt. 1998. “Political Trust and the Roots of Devolution.” In Trust and Governance, ed. Valerie Braithwaite and Margaret Levi, 218–44. New York: Russell Sage. Jones-Correa, Michael. 2004. “Transnationalism and Dual Loyalties.” In The Hispanic Challenge? What We Know about Latino Immigration, ed. Philippa Strum and Andrew Selee, 18–23. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. LaFromboise, Teresa, Hardin L. Coleman, and Jennifer Gerton. 1993. “Psychological Impact of Biculturalism: Evidence and Theory.” Psychological Bulletin 114, no. 3: 395–412. Levi, Margaret. 1996. “Social and Unsocial Capital: A Review Essay of Robert Putnam’s Making Democracy Work.” Politics & Society 24: 45–55. ———. 1998. “A State of Trust.” In Trust and Governance, ed. Valerie Braithwaite and Margaret Levi, 77–101. New York: Russell Sage.

45

Michelson

Mendoza, Richard H., and Joe L. Martinez Jr. 1981. “The Measurement of Acculturation.” In Explorations in Chicano Psychology, ed. Augustine Baron Jr., 71–82. New York: Praeger. Michelson, Melissa R. 2001. “Political Trust among Chicago Latinos.” Journal of Urban Affairs 23, no. 3/4: 323–34. ———. 2003a. “Boricua in the Barrio: Political Trust among Puerto Ricans.” Centro: Journal of the Center for Puerto Rican Studies 15, no. 1: 138–51. ———. 2003b. “The Corrosive Effect of Assimilation: How Mexican-Americans Lose Political Trust.” Social Science Quarterly 84, no. 4: 918–33. Michelson, Melissa R., and Amalia Pallares. 2001. “The Politicization of MexicanAmericans: Naturalization, the Vote, and Perceptions of Discrimination.” Aztlán: A Journal of Chicano Studies 26, no. 2: 63–85. Park, Robert Ezra. 1930. “Assimilation, Social.” In Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, ed. Edwin Seligman and Alvin Johnson, 281. New York: Macmillan. ———. 1950. Race and Culture. New York: Free Press. Pérez, Emma. 1999. The Decolonial Imaginary: Writing Chicanas into History. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Peterson, Geoff, and J. Mark Wrighton. 1998. “Expressions of Distrust: Third Party Voting and Cynicism in Government.” Political Behavior 20, no. 1: 17–34. Portes, Alejandro, and Robert Bach. 1985. Latin Journey: Cuban and Mexican Immigrants in the United States. Berkeley: University of California Press. Portes, Alejandro, and Robert Manning. 1986. “The Immigrant Enclave: Theory and Empirical Examples.” In Competitive Ethnic Relations, ed. Susan Olzak and Joane Nagel, 47–68. New York: Academic Press. Portes, Alejandro, Robert Nash Parker, and Jose A. Cobas. 1980. “Assimilation or Consciousness: Perceptions of the U.S. Society among Recent Latin American Immigrants to the United States.” Social Forces 59, no. 1: 201–24. Portes, Alejandro, and Rubén G. Rumbaut. 1996. Immigrant America: A Portrait. Berkeley: University of California Press. ———. 2001. Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation. Berkeley: University of California Press. Putnam, Robert D. 1995. “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital.” Journal of Democracy 6, no. 1: 65–78. Schneider, Anne, and Helen Ingram. 1993. “Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy.” American Political Science Review 87, no. 2: 334–47. Scholtz, John T., and Mark Lubell. 1998. “Trust and Taxpaying: Testing the Heuristic Approach to Collective Action.” American Journal of Political Science 42: 398–417. Southwell, Priscilla Lewis, and Marcy Jean Everest. 1998. “The Electoral Consequences of Alienation: Nonvoting and Protest Voting in the 1992 Presidential Race.” Social Science Journal 35, no. 1: 43–51. Tyler, Tom R. 1998. “Trust and Democratic Governance.” In Trust and Governance, ed. Valerie Braithwaite and Margaret Levi, 269–94. New York: Russell Sage.

46