Ethnic Enclave

Formation of Ethnic Enclaves

Three prominent factors have contributed to the formation of ethnic enclaves. They have come into being either through immigration, the changing legal status of the territory, or the redesigning of territorial boundaries. Ethnic enclaves occupy contiguous space based on linguistic affinity (Spanish Harlem as a barrio), religious tradition (the Jewish Quarter in Paris), or ethnicity (the Italian neighborhood in Montreal). In contrast, other urban enclaves are based on proximity to employment (African Americans in Harlem), same social class status (Russian Hill in San Francisco), same profession (Soho or the artists' quarter in Lower East Manhattan), or same sexual orientation (the Castro district in San Francisco).

The social standing of ethnic enclaves is reflected in their portrayal by the mainstream community, which places them in a hierarchical axis. Some are considered to be a miniature town, a duplicate, or a pole of a continent (Little Africa), of a country (Chinatown, Little Italy), or of the capital city of the homeland (Manilatown, Little Havana). In contrast, the mainstream refers to its site not as a town but as a “new” city (“New” York, “New” Orleans, “New” Jersey) to inscribe in space the superiority of its status vis-à-vis the others. To draw a line and distinguish itself from the non-Anglo Europeans in the United States, it also refers to their ethnic enclaves as “Hill” such as Russian “Hill” in San Francisco.

Jewish quarters, Spanish barrios, Black ghettos, and Chinatowns have been the focus of most of the historical, political, sociological, and geographical studies of ethnic enclaves. Since World War II, because of mass migration, other groups have joined the fray and established their diasporic neighborhoods in North America, the European Union, and elsewhere: the Bangladeshi neighborhood in East London, the Korean neighborhood in Tokyo, the Turkish neighborhood in Berlin, the Caribbean neighborhood in Toronto, and the Brazilian neighborhood in New York.

Interpretations of Ethnic Enclaves

Interpretive approaches to ethnic enclaves see them in binary but complementary terms. On the one hand, they are singled out as “communities,” with their own institutions (churches, schools, newspapers, businesses) and their distinct cultural practices that glue the members together; and on the other hand, they are seen as “administrative units” that have their own needs in terms of housing, street electrification, water supply, and employment but are capable of influencing wider election results because of their ability to vote for candidates of their preference. The community approach privileges the culture and ethnicity of the group, whereas the administrative perspective prioritizes the integration factor that needs to be managed in its various facets.

...