Seite 25 [25]
HERNÁN OTERO
talks of ordinary people and intellectual debates, although we must recognize
that the traditional myth according to which "Argentinians descend from
ships" has been losing its force. Ihe historical distance from the period of
mass migration, the economic and political crises of the 20th century, and
the revival of indigenous identity, among many other aspects, have produced
the emergence of a more Latin American point of view.
There are, at least, two ways to study migratory integration and its main
result: national identity. First, there is a more discursive or philosophical
approach, that analyses the reflections of intellectuals, politicians, writers,
and so on about identity (or its lack) and economic and social features
(positive or negative) of the mass migration period as a whole. This approach
has focused on the cultural aspects (the levels of xenophobia and prejudice,
the conflicts, for example) using qualitative sources (such as the press,
literature, etc.). Second, there is a more sociological or statistical approach,
using quantitative sources (such as censuses, surveys, etc.). The distinction
between both approaches is in some way artificial but useful for our purposes
Briefly, there are two academic schools of migratory integration in
Argentina. On the one hand, there is the Melting Pot Theory (or Crisol de
Razas in the Argentine version, another icon of national identity), proposed
by the Italian sociologist immigrated to Argentina, Gino Germani, one of
the fathers of Modernization Theory. According to Germani, Argentina
underwent a fast process of “fusion” (not assimilation like in the United States)
between natives and foreigners, produced by two factors: the stopping of
immigration in the 1930s and the demographic “weakness” of the host society,
that is, the scarce proportion of the native population in relationship with the
migratory “avalanche”. On the other hand, there is the theory of Cultural
Pluralism, proposed by North American authors such as Mark Szuchman
and Samuel Baily and the Argentinian Fernando Devoto.’ According to this
interpretation, migratory integration in Argentina would have been slower
and more complex than Germani suggests. The followers of this school use
internal sources of ethnic institutions and case studies, deeper but also more
biased (the middle classes are overrepresented in these societies). The debate
between both schools has been rich and powerful and it has produced many
important results in essential indicators such as marriage integration, spatial
segregation and ethnic associations.”
Mark Szuchman: Mobility and Integration in Urban Argentina. Cordoba in the Liberal
Era, Austin, The University of Texas Press, 1980; Samuel Baily: Immigrants in the Lands of
Promise. Italians in Buenos Aires and New York City, 1870-1914, Cornell University Press,
1999.
An eclectic review of the debate in Devoto and Otero: Veinte afios después. Una lectura
sobre el Crisol de Razas, el Pluralismo Cultural y la Historia Nacional en la historiografia
argentina, Estudios Migratorios Latinoamericanos, 2003, 50, 181-227.
+ 24e