Third-Generation Principle

Hansen's Remarks

In the most significant and familiar passage from the essay, Hansen contended that what the second generation wishes to forget, the third generation wishes to remember. The argument he advanced, which has come to be called the third-generation principle, was a decidedly social psychological one. The second generation was depicted as insecure, suffering from status anxiety brought about by second-generation members' tense relationship with their parents—who were often seen as backward thinking and thus an embarrassment. At the same time, second-generation members were sensitive to any indication of exclusionary beliefs and practices by the host society. To address their seemingly precarious status, they sought to abandon all that reminded them of the homeland culture.

In contrast, the third generation was construed to be at ease in the United States, fluently speaking English without a trace of an accent. These people understood and embraced the nation's folkways and mores. In short, they had succeeded in assimilating. Whereas for certain strains of assimilation theory these changes signaled the erosion of the ethnic element in their lives, Hansen proposed that the psychological security possessed by the third generation made it possible for these people to return to their ethnic backgrounds. Freed of a sense of inferiority, they were in a position to appreciate the sacrifices made by the immigrant generation and, sometimes with a romanticizing cast, take pride in elements of their ancestry.

About 2 weeks after his address to the Augustana Historical Society, Hansen elaborated on these themes in a little-known talk at the National Conference of Social Work held in Indianapolis. In his speech, “Who Shall Inherit America,” he speculated about the possibility of a revival of immigrant cultures. Noting that ethnic communities had established homeland connections, that there were, to use today's language, transnational ties, he distinguished between political and cultural relationships with the countries of origin. The former, he cautioned, were to be avoided in a period of heated nationalism because immigrants and their offspring were likely to be caught up in partisan conflict. For this reason, he thought, a cultural revival needed to take place largely on U.S. soil.

...