Categorical Usages and Complex Realities: Race, Ethnicity, and Religion in the United States

Abstract

This article compares and comments on the sociologies, that of the journals and monographs and that of the introductory textbooks. The principal concern is with the treatments of race, ethnicity, and religion. The principal argument is that the categorical usages found in the textbooks hide significant ongoing social changes. To address these questions we present data from the 1972-98 NORC General Social Surveys. The evidence presented does not support a range of standard claims found in the five leading textbooks. Those textbooks do not adequately reflect well-known findings reported in the discipline's specialties. Although easy and convenient, categorical usages are often seriously misleading, as may be seen with respect to three frequently used terms: race (black and white), ethnicity (defined by national origin), and religion (Protestant, Catholic, and Jew). The categorical statements provide few qualifications, indicate no exceptions, and neglect deviating or minority experience. For these reasons, they also fail to recognize change and, accordingly, say nothing about rates or causes. This article argues the need for more qualified formulations, ones that recognize differentiation and change within all three of these categories. The specialized literature, sociology's journals and monographs, understandably provide detailed and differentiated readings. The categorical-usage problem appears in its most serious form in introductory sociology textbooks. A serious gap has appeared between these two literatures in that the findings of the specialized literature are not reflected in the introductory texts.