Until now, there has been a huge body of literature either discussing the importance of various boundary making strategies or the meaning of intergroup contact in changing relations between in- and outgroup members. However, I argue that there is a great overlap between both approaches, describing similar phenomena, but giving them different notations. I aim at describing the importance, contact between different groups can have on making, changing or reinforcing the boundaries between them and furthermore, try to prove the existing, but underappreciated overlap between boundary-making approach and contact theory.
To understand those processes, it is first of all significant to give a proper definition regarding the meaning of symbolic and social boundaries. I therefore refer to the commonly cited definition of Lamont and Molnár (2002), who describe symbolic boundaries as means to categorize objects or people into different groups and create memberships. They can, if there is a consensus about them, be transformed into social boundaries, making them a necessary condition of the latter. Contrary, social boundaries can be described as manifested differences, which limit social opportunities and lead to inequality in the access of material and nonmaterial resources for different individuals and groups. Boundaries can be drawn based on various characteristics and in different fields. A broad range of previous literature has discussed boundaries drawn based on racial, moral, cultural and socioeconomic factors, thus distinguishing between ethnic, moral cultural and class boundaries, whose existence could be proved in various countries. For instance, Sachweh (2013) utilized quantitative survey data and conducted qualitative interviews, to analyse the types of symbolic boundaries present in the German society. He found evidence for the existence of moral, socioeconomic and cultural boundaries drawn by different groups. The same is true for the study of Lamont (1992), comparing symbolic boundaries drawn by upper middle class men in France and the USA, demonstrating the varying importance across countries. Lamont and Molnar (2002) have also shown that boundaries are meaningful in different research fields, discussing examples of research in e.g. gender inequality, social and collective identity, professions and science or national identities.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Boundary Making Approach
2.2. Contact Theory
3. Interplay of Contact Theory and Boundary Strategies
4. Discussion
5. Bibliography
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper aims to explore and demonstrate the significant, yet underappreciated, overlap between the boundary-making approach and contact theory within sociology, arguing that both frameworks describe similar intergroup phenomena despite using different terminology.
- Definition and classification of symbolic and social boundaries
- Analysis of ethnic boundary-making strategies (Wimmer’s typology)
- Examination of the contact hypothesis and its modern refinements
- Comparison of boundary-making strategies with contact theory models
- Investigation of how intergroup interactions influence, reinforce, or modify social boundaries
Excerpt from the Book
2.1. Boundary Making Approach
The boundary making approach, also called the group formation perspective, was coined by Wimmer (2009), and is concerned with the making of ethnic boundaries. Contrary to earlier approaches, the boundary making approach doesn´t recognize ethnic groups as spontaneously emerging, self-evident units of observations, but rather to be a result of social processes of boundary making. Furthermore, its focus lies on the process of group making and regards ethnic boundaries as marked with subjective characteristics, an objective observer would probably not ascribe to them.
However, there already were various studies pre Wimmer, concerned with establishing typologies of different boundary making strategies, which however differ in their extent. Lamont and Bail (2005, cited in Wimmer 2008a) only describe two strategies of boundary making, namely universalizing and particularizing. While the former aims at stressing moral human values to draw boundaries between individuals that meet those values and those that do not, the latter argues for a more favourable reinterpretation of the originally stigmatized group.
Zolberg and Woon (1999, cited in Alba 2005), differentiate three strategy types of ethnic boundary making, as possible outcomes from negotiation processes between in- and out-groups. They state that actors pursuing the strategy of boundary crossing aim at moving from one side of the boundary to the other, without changing the boundary as such, while the strategy of boundary blurring aspires a decrease in the meaning of the original categorizes of differentiation, and stresses the importance of others. Finally, boundary shifting intends to change the boundaries´ location, incorporating former out-group members into the in-group.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: The author outlines the scope of the paper, aiming to prove that there is a substantial overlap between the boundary-making approach and contact theory, which describe similar social processes.
2. Theoretical Background: This chapter provides the conceptual framework, detailing the boundary-making strategies proposed by Wimmer and the historical development and current status of the contact hypothesis.
3. Interplay of Contact Theory and Boundary Strategies: The author analyzes the conformities between specific boundary-making strategies and contact theory models, presenting a comparative overview of how they intersect.
4. Discussion: The paper synthesizes the findings, confirming the theoretical overlap and suggesting that further qualitative and empirical research is needed to understand the mechanisms behind these intersections.
5. Bibliography: A comprehensive list of academic sources and literature cited throughout the paper regarding sociology, intergroup relations, and ethnic boundaries.
Keywords
Boundary Making Approach, Contact Theory, Intergroup Contact, Symbolic Boundaries, Social Boundaries, Ethnic Boundaries, Group Formation, De-categorization, Common In-group Identity, Subtyping, Subgrouping, Prejudice Reduction, Social Inequality, Wimmer, Allport
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental premise of this paper?
The paper argues that despite being treated as separate fields, the boundary-making approach and contact theory share a significant conceptual overlap, describing similar phenomena in intergroup relations with different notations.
What are the primary theoretical themes covered?
The work focuses on the categorization of symbolic and social boundaries, various strategies for modifying these boundaries, and the conditions under which intergroup contact reduces prejudice.
What is the main objective of the research?
The primary goal is to bridge these two sociological approaches by demonstrating how contact situations can lead to boundary shifting, modification, or blurring, thereby influencing social hierarchies.
Which scientific methods are utilized?
The paper employs a theoretical analysis and literature review, synthesizing existing sociological typologies—most notably Wimmer's work—and comparing them with established contact theory models.
What content is covered in the main body?
The main body examines the definitions of boundaries, details Wimmer's typology of strategies, explores the evolution of the contact hypothesis, and provides a comparative analysis (Table 1) linking both theories.
Which keywords best characterize the research?
The core themes are captured by terms such as boundary making, intergroup contact, symbolic boundaries, group formation, and prejudice reduction.
How does the author define symbolic versus social boundaries?
Following Lamont and Molnár, symbolic boundaries are defined as conceptual tools to categorize people, while social boundaries are defined as manifested differences that lead to unequal access to resources.
What does the author suggest for future research?
The author recommends using qualitative studies to analyze specific case studies where boundary strategies were applied, in order to understand why contact sometimes fails to alter boundaries.
What is the role of the 'Table 1' in the paper?
Table 1 serves as a synthesis of the findings, mapping specific boundary-making strategies (e.g., expansion, contraction) to their functional equivalents in contact theory models (e.g., Common-In-group Identity, Subgrouping).
- Arbeit zitieren
- Annika Frings (Autor:in), 2016, Boundary Making Approach and Contact Theory. An underappreciated overlap, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/438615
