Ethnoracial Composition of US Macroregions Population in the Early 21st Century: Quantitative Analysis of Intergroup Interaction

The article provides an assessment of the current ethnoracial composition of the US population in structural and territorial aspects based on US Census data from 2000, 2010 and 2020. To describe the model of ethnoracial development in the United States, the author introduces the index of group distance in society, taking into account intergroup marriage preferences, and the index of interracial integration of the population, based on the calculation of social distances between racial groups. Intergroup distance of racial groups is calculated on the basis of data on multiple origins of origin, as the resulting characteristics of the most important type of interaction between different groups – marriage. Based on the calculated values of the intergroup distance index, a diagram of the modern racial and ethnic organization of the US population is proposed, reflec- ting the specifics of the ethnic development of the state. Two opposing trends in the transformation of the ethnoracial structure of the US population are identified: ethnic development according to the “melting pot” principle among the representatives of the “old immigration” within racial groups and in “contact zones” and the fragmentation of society according to the “salad bowl” principle. For macroregions of the United States, in accordance with the calculated values o f the index of interracial integration of the population for 2010, the prevailing options for ethnoracial development are indicated in accordance with the deve- lopment of assimilation processes, or, conversely, fragmentation of society. Further, based on the data from the 2010 and 2020 censuses, a quantitative assessment of the transformation of intergroup marital interaction in the macroregions of the United States was made. In conclusion, the results of the quantitative analysis of intergroup marital interaction are correlated with the potential risks of local or large-scale interracial conflicts in macroregions of the United States. The greatest risks of social and political destabilization are found the states that are part of macroregions with a low index of interracial integration and, accordingly, high social tension: the states of the Southeast and Northeast of the Center and the South Atlantic.

1. Advani A., Reich B. (2015). Melting Pot or Salad Bowl: The Formation of Heterogeneous Communities. IFS Working Papers. No. W15/30, 49 pp. DOI: 10.1920/wp.ifs.2015.1530.

2. Berray M.A. (2019). Critical Literary Review of the Melting Pot and Salad Bowl Assimilation and Integration Theories. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies. Vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 142–151. DOI: 10.29333/ejecs/217.

3. Chertina Z.S. (2000). Melting Pot. Paradigms of Ethnic Development in the USA. Moscow: Institute of World History of the RAS, 163 pp. (in Russian).

4. Daragan N.Ya. (1984). The ratio of ethnic and religious communities in the USA. Soviet Ethnography. No. 1, pp. 60–72 (in Russian).

5. Etnologiya… (1989). Veselkin E.A., Tishkov V.A. (eds.). Ethnology in the USA and Canada. Moscow: Nauka, 330 pp. (in Russian).

6. Glazer N., Moynihan D. (1994). Beyond the Melting Pot: The Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians, and Irish of New York City. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 363 pp.

7. Gordon M.M. (1964). Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion and National Origins. New York: Oxford University Press, 287 pp.

8. Kelman Yu.F. (2014). Geographical analysis of the ethnocultural diversity of the US population. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta, Seriya Geografiya. No. 5, pp. 22–29 (in Russian).

9. Lichter D.T. (2013). Integration or fragmentation? Racial diversity and the American future. Demography. Vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 359–391. DOI: 10.1007/s13524-013-0197-1.

10. Lurie S.V. (2018). Interethnic marriages in the modern Russian national scenario. St. Petersburg Sociology Today. No. 10, pp. 122–148 (in Russian). DOI: 10.25990/socinstras.pss-10.414k-p077.

11. Lykke L.C., Rendall M.S. (2017). Interracial and Inter-ethnic Marriage and Cohabitation and Self-Rated Health. Maryland Population Research Center Working Paper. No. 009, 46 pp.

12. Palmer H. (1976). Mosaic versus Melting Pot?: Immigration and Ethnicity in Canada and the United States. International Journal. Vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 488–528. Smirnyagin L.V. (1989). Regions of the USA: A Portrait of Modern America. MosTravkina N.M. (2011). Modern demographic trends in the USA (results of the 2010 census). USA and Canada: Economics, Politics, Culture. No. 12, pp. 3–24 (in Russian).

13. Turner F.J. (1920). The Frontier in American History. New York: H. Holt and company, 394 pp.

14. Wagener A. (2009). In the melting pot: Integration, assimilation, and uniform societies. Institute of Social Policy Working Paper. 22 pp. Available at: https://www.wipol.uni-hannover.de/fileadmin/wipol/publications/Wagener_In_the_Melting_Pot.pdf, accessed

15. 10.2023.cow: Mysl Publ., 232 pp. (in Russian). Smith D.M. (2012). The American melting pot: A national myth in public and popular discourse. National Identities. Vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 387–402. DOI: 10.1080/14608944.2012.732054.

16. Soroko E.L. (2014). Ethnically mixed married couples in the Russian Federation. Demographic Review. No. 4, pp. 96–123 (in Russian). DOI: 10.17323/demreview.v1i4.1804. Travkina N.M. (2011). Modern demographic trends in the USA (results of the 2010 census). USA and Canada: Economics, Politics, Culture. No. 12, pp. 3–24 (in Russian).

17. Turner F.J. (1920). The Frontier in American History. New York: H. Holt and company, 394 pp.

18. Wagener A. (2009). In the melting pot: Integration, assimilation, and uniform societies. Institute of Social Policy Working Paper. 22 pp. Available at: https://www.wipol.uni-hannover.de/fileadmin/wipol/publications/Wagener_In_the_Melting_Pot.pdf, accessed 10.10.2023.