Relying on nationally representative data from the most recent wave of the National Survey of Black Americans (NSBA), the current study examines how past and present neighborhood racial composition is associated with feelings of closeness toward black Americans, black Africans, and black West Indians. In addition, this research tests whether race-based socialization messages received from caregivers or religious socialization messages explain this relationship among a sample from the adult black US population. The findings show that past neighborhood composition is associated with present feelings of closeness toward black Americans and black West Indians but are not associated with close feelings toward black Africans. Current neighborhood racial composition is not associated with feelings of closeness toward any of the groups. Racial socialization messages are associated with closeness towards them all but are found to be largely a function of having a two-parent family during childhood. Religious socialization is also associated with intraracial feelings of closeness. Results suggest that neighborhood racial composition is important to help facilitate positive feelings toward others who share the same race but a different ethnicity.
Dating back to The Chicago School [
To clarify, race is a social grouping of individuals who are treated as distinct based on certain physical characteristics (such as skin color) that have been assigned as socially important. In the US context, white and black are the two consistent racial groupings. Similarly, ethnicity is a social group within a larger cultural context and social system that share what they believe to be common origins and experiences, and they feel an affinity for one another that leads to congregation [
Where racial and ethnic groups live in the US is not randomly patterned. Due to various social policies and structural conditions designed to maintain racial homogamy across place, neighborhoods, particularly in metropolitan areas, are often racially segregated. However, while there are some findings that suggest that racial residential segregation is declining for blacks [
Residential segregation between blacks and whites has declined over time, but it remains high [
In light of these statistics, the literature has not provided a thorough understanding of how neighborhood racial composition affects how close one feels towards individuals within one’s race (but not one’s
In addition to the lack of research exploring how contextual influences this population, little is known about the role of family context in outlining this relationship, that is, how families contribute to the neighborhood effects on social phenomena. The family context, in particular, is generally regarded as the most influential agent of socialization that solidifies a sense of self and connection to others. It is possible that parents and other persons in the household may hold negative feelings towards members of a particular racial/ethnic group, which could be adopted by other members within that household. However, the root of these negative feelings may come from many sources, including prior socialization messages passed on intergenerationally, one-on-one interactions among people within the neighborhood with similar feelings or general malaise regarding the changing urban landscape and population.
This study addresses the complexity of major social institutions (i.e., families, neighborhoods, and religion) in understanding feelings of closeness among blacks. Specifically, this research adds to the prior literature in two distinct ways. First, this research considers interethnic intimacy within black Americans as a locus of interest. Within the social sciences, there has been a recent push to expand upon “blackness” and its meaning within certain ethnic groups such as West Indians and Africans [
Second, this research adds to the literature by exploring the mediating role of family context in the explanation of how neighborhoods influence interethnic intimacy. By incorporating family-level indicators, this research can illuminate the multitiered processes by which individuals identify with members of their own race and within their own ethnicity. To clarify, it is important to know how both neighborhood characteristics and family dynamics dictate feelings of closeness among members of the pan-African diaspora.
Racial and ethnic identity is commonly defined as a feeling of closeness toward other individuals or groups who share similar ideologies, feelings, and thoughts
The family context is generally regarded as the most influential agent of socialization, as it solidifies a child’s sense of self and connection to others. Thus, the extent to which a child is racially and religiously socialized is central to understanding black identity. Childhood socialization through the family occurs through the number of family members present and through the presence of intergenerational members within the household. Often this socialization occurs within the household or within the neighborhood in which one resides. In addition to childhood socialization, family structure serves as a factor that influences black identification. The interpersonal relations with family and friends are important contexts for formation of attitudes toward self and others and is highly and positively associated with feelings of closeness [
As conduits, black parents judge whether race is more or less salient than their past experiences [
In addition to the family as a unit of socialization, another important interpersonal dimension of black socialization is religion. The church provides opportunities for blacks to occupy a role within an institution and commune in a racially congruent place. Both could be denied to blacks in the wider society. Religion also bolsters feelings of self-respect and self-evaluative sentiments towards one racial group [
The neighborhood is often an agent of socialization that enhances any family and institutional socialization that people may experience. As evident in the African proverb, “it takes a village to raise a child,” members of various communities feel that positive socialization within their neighborhood is paramount in ensuring the success of children living in those neighborhoods. Indeed, research suggests that parents in neighborhoods with high levels of neighborhood-child involvement were more likely to socialize their children with a balance of cultural socialization emphasis and egalitarianism [
While one may be exposed to these negative outcomes living in low-income, majority-minority neighborhoods, it is not the case that parental involvement is irrelevant to socialization. Some research suggests that the socialization messages that parents receive is not predicted by the number of low-income families in their neighborhoods [
Further, if neighborhoods are going through transitions brought about through macrochanges (such as gentrification or neighborhood revitalization), there could be resentment towards members of the groups that could be a source of conflict [
Research on the residential placement differences among blacks is mixed. Across nativity status, Black immigrants, both from Africa and the Caribbean, were less likely to live in the suburbs than white Americans. In contrast, they were more likely to live in the suburbs than native-born blacks [
This study uses data from the fourth wave of the National Survey of Black Americans (NSBA). The NSBA is a nationally multistage probability sample of blacks with the specific focus of capturing neighborhood-community integration, religion, and racial dynamics. The full sample is comprised of 2,107 self-identified blacks, 18 years of age and older. These black Americans were interviewed in 1992 and theoretically include a diverse pull of ethnic groups that include African Americans, West Indians, and Africans. We include respondents who had valid measures on all variables used in the analyses, resulting in a sample of 1,049 blacks.
Cross-ethnic intimacy or feelings of closeness toward groups outside of one’s ethnicity are captured by three variables for this black sample. It is important to note that this is only one of many ways to define and operationalize closeness. In this study, respondents were asked how close they feel toward black Americans. This measure was created using responses on how the respondent felt toward specific black American subgroups. These subgroups include variables such as income, age, and religion (poor blacks, religious church-going blacks, young blacks, middle-class blacks, working-class blacks, and older blacks). Using 4-item Likert scale, individuals were asked to choose one of the following responses: very close, fairly close, not too close, or not close to all. We then averaged the score on these subgroups, leading to a range of 0 to 3 for the composite measure. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.78, indicating strong internal consistency between the items that comprise the scale.
The other two dependent variables measure how close the respondent feels toward black Africans and black West Indians. Unlike the black American closeness variable, these two variables are taken directly from the survey questionnaire and are not made into a scale. However, each of the dependent measures ranges from 0 to 3. All closeness variables were reverse-coded such that higher scores reflect more perceived closeness toward that particular ethnic group.
Neighborhood racial composition is captured by two variables. First, survey participants were asked to think back retrospectively to the neighborhood that they lived in during childhood. Then, they were asked to specify on a scale of 1–5 the extent to which their past neighborhood was all white or all black. The qualitative attributes for this variable are all black, mostly black, about half black, mostly white, and all white. This variable was reverse-coded such that higher values on this ordinal measure correspond to increasing blackness of the neighborhood.
Similar to the previous measure, participants were also asked to think of the neighborhood where they presently reside. In a similar fashion, they were asked to specify on a scale of 1–5 the extent to which their current neighborhood was all black or all white. This variable was reverse-coded such that higher values on this ordinal measure correspond to increasing blackness of the neighborhood.
Two institutions that are essential to one’s socialization are explored in this research: the family and religion. Several measures are used to capture family socialization. Family structure is coded into six distinct categories that correspond to who were present in the household up to age 16: dual parent family (either intact family or stepfamily), single parent family (mother or father present only), dual parent extended (with grandparents or great-grandparents living in household), single parent extended, and extended family only (solely with grandparents or great-grandparents living in household). Respondents who lived in other family formations (e.g., respondents reared by aunts or friends) were removed from the analytic sample.
In addition, racial socialization corresponds to a series of questions that asks what were some of the important racial things that were told to respondents about being black, likely from their familial upbringing. Respondents were asked if there were things that their caretakers taught them about what it meant to be black. There are 45 responses for this question, and these responses were categorized as being in one of four types: white-focused, black-focused, race-absent, and no messages. White-focused messages are statements that emphasize a deference to or defiance of whites. Examples of such statements are “Stay away from whites” and “try to get along with/understand whites.” Black-focused messages are statements that emphasize a deference to or defiance of blacks. Examples of such statements are “I was taught that being black meant you were less/that you couldn’t amount to nothing” and “be proud of being black.” Race-absent messages emphasize individual messages of success that do not mention race in the statement. Examples include “You are as good as anyone else” and “You must work hard to get a good education/job.” Individuals who stated that they did not receive any messages, did not remember any messages, or did not have family or parents were coded as having not received any socialization messages. It is important to note that respondents could select up to three of these responses. However, less than 10 percent chose more than one option. For those individuals, only their first mention was used in this categorization.
For religion, survey participants were asked to evaluate how important religion was to him/her while growing up. Higher values on this scale (with a range of 0−3) indicate that religion was increasingly important. In addition, religious affiliation is used to capture socialization. Based on Steensland et al.’s [
Respondents were asked to evaluate how satisfied he/she is with the current neighborhood. Higher values correspond to greater satisfaction of the current neighborhood. Length of residence, which was captured in the original data as an ordinal measure, is divided into the following categories: less than 2 years, 2–5 years, 5–10 years, and greater than 10 years. Closeness to neighbors is an ordinal variable that indicates the number of the respondent’s neighbors that know the respondent well enough to visit or call. Responses range from none to many. In order to maximize sample size retention, individuals who indicate having no neighbors were recoded as “none.” Neighborhood involvement is a binary variable that indicates whether the respondent is involved in at least one neighborhood group (block club, community association, social club, helping groups, etc.).
Residential mobility and constraints are also included as control variables. The number of relatives that reside in the current neighborhood is continuous variables where respondents were asked to count the number of their kin who currently live in the same neighborhood as the respondent. Health status is an ordinal variable: respondents were asked to self-report their current health as excellent, good, fair, or poor. The number of moves is an ordinal measure, indicating if the respondent has never moved or moved once or twice or more than two times during their lifetime.
Sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents are also employed in this research as controls. These measures include gender, educational level (measured by years of education), employment status, and age in years.
Since the dependent measure is approximately continuous, weighted ordinary least squares (OLS) regression is employed using Stata 12.1 [
Table
Descriptive statistics of all variables.
Variable | Mean/% | Range |
---|---|---|
Feelings to closeness | ||
Closeness to black Americans | 2.12 | (0–3) |
Closeness to black Africans | 1.63 | (0–3) |
Closeness to black West Indians | 1.36 | (0–3) |
Neighborhood racial composition | ||
Past neighborhood composition | 3.29 | (0–4) |
Current neighborhood composition | 3.06 | (0–4) |
Family socialization | ||
Family structure | ||
Dual parent | 19.94% | (0-1) |
Single parent | 5.71% | (0-1) |
Dual parent, extended | 52.44% | (0-1) |
Single parent, extended | 16.25% | (0-1) |
Extended family only | 5.66% | (0-1) |
Socialization messages | ||
White-focused | 35.84% | (0-1) |
Black-focused | 15.73% | (0-1) |
Race-absent | 40.61% | (0-1) |
No messages | 7.82% | (0-1) |
Religious socialization | ||
Importance of religion | 2.69 | (0–3) |
Religious affiliation | ||
Black Protestant | 66.67% | (0-1) |
Mainland Protestant | 17.04% | (0-1) |
Evangelical Protestant | 4.38% | (0-1) |
Catholic | 6.40% | (0-1) |
Others or no religion | 4.87% | (0-1) |
Individual control measures | ||
Neighborhood satisfaction | 2.18 | (0–3) |
Length of residence | 2.28 | (0–3) |
Closeness to neighbors | 1.45 | (0–3) |
Involved in neighborhoods | 14.92% | (0-1) |
Relatives in current neighborhood | 24.64 | (0–62) |
Health status | 2.33 | (0–3) |
Number of moves in lifetime | 0.54 | (0–2) |
Male | 38.26% | (0-1) |
Education | 10.93 | (0–17) |
Employed | 57.41 | (0-1) |
Age | 43.00 | (17–101) |
|
1,049 |
For the family measures, more than half of the sample (52.4%) was raised in a dual parent extended family. Over 72 percent (72.4%) of the sample was raised in at least a dual parent family. There is similar representation of single parent and extended families (5.7%); however, there are a sizable percentage of single parent extended families in this sample (16.3%). In addition, the majority of this sample received no race-based socialization messages (40.1%), although a sizable percentage of this black American sample did receive white-focused messages (35.8%). Still only 15.7% received black-focused messages and 7.8% received no socialization messages at all.
For the religion measures, the average score on the importance of religion is 2.7, indicating that on average the sample was socialized to view religion as important. Two-thirds (66.7%) of the sample are of the black Protestant denomination. Mainline Protestants represent 17% of the sample. Evangelical Protestants and those indicating non-Christian faith have similar percentages in this sample (4.4% and 4.9%, resp.). Catholics are slightly higher in representation, with about 6.4% of the sample following that religion.
The control measures suggest that the sample is diverse in their neighborhood characteristics, mobility constraints, and sociodemographic information. On average, the sample is satisfied with their current neighborhood. This fact is also echoed by the average duration of their residence, which is about 2–5 years. However, on average, the sample does not feel close to their neighbors. Yet, 14.9% of the sample is involved in their neighborhood. So while respondents on average are satisfied with their neighborhood, they are also very removed from it, which could be, in part, driving their satisfaction. The mean number of relatives in their neighborhood is around 25. On average, the sample is in good health. On average, respondents have made about 1-2 moves by survey date. The sample is overwhelmingly female (61.7%). The average number of years of education approaches 11th grade (10.9 years). The majority of the sample is employed (57.4%). Lastly, the average age of the respondents is 43 years.
Tables
OLS estimates of closeness to black Americans.
Variable | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Neighborhood racial composition | |||||
Past neighborhood composition |
|
|
|
|
0.02 |
Current neighborhood composition | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
|
Family socialization | |||||
Family structure (dual parent) | |||||
Single parent |
|
|
|||
Dual parent, extended | −0.05 |
| |||
Single parent, extended |
|
|
|||
Extended family only |
|
|
|||
Socialization messages (race-absent) | |||||
White-focused |
|
| |||
Black-focused |
|
| |||
No messages |
|
| |||
Religious socialization | |||||
Importance of religion |
|
| |||
Religious affiliation (black Protestant) | |||||
Mainland Protestant |
|
|
|||
Evangelical Protestant |
|
|
|||
Catholic |
|
| |||
Others or no religion |
|
|
|||
Individual control measures | |||||
Neighborhood satisfaction |
| ||||
Length of residence |
| ||||
Closeness to neighbors |
| ||||
Involved in neighborhood |
| ||||
Relatives in current neighborhood |
| ||||
Health status |
| ||||
Number of moves in lifetime | −0.01 | ||||
Male | 0.05 | ||||
Education |
| ||||
Employed | −0.01 | ||||
Age |
|
||||
|
|||||
Constant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
1.69 |
|
|
Adjusted |
0.00 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.14 |
OLS estimates of closeness to black Africans.
Variable | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Neighborhood racial composition | |||||
Past neighborhood composition |
|
|
|
|
|
Current neighborhood composition |
|
|
|
|
|
Family socialization | |||||
Family structure (dual parent) | |||||
Single parent |
|
|
|||
Dual parent, extended |
|
| |||
Single parent, extended |
|
|
|||
Extended family only |
|
|
|||
Socialization messages (race-absent) | |||||
White-focused |
|
| |||
Black-focused |
|
| |||
No messages |
|
|
|||
Religious socialization | |||||
Importance of religion |
|
| |||
Religious affiliation (black Protestant) | |||||
Mainland Protestant |
|
|
|||
Evangelical Protestant |
|
|
|||
Catholic |
|
| |||
Others or no religion |
|
| |||
Individual control measures | |||||
Neighborhood satisfaction |
| ||||
Length of residence |
|
||||
Closeness to neighbors |
| ||||
Involved in neighborhood |
| ||||
Relatives in current neighborhood |
| ||||
Health status |
| ||||
Number of moves in lifetime |
| ||||
Male |
| ||||
Education |
| ||||
Employed |
|
||||
Age |
| ||||
|
|||||
Constant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjusted |
|
|
|
|
|
OLS estimates of closeness to black West Indians.
Variable | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Neighborhood racial composition | |||||
Past neighborhood composition |
|
|
|
|
|
Current neighborhood composition |
|
|
|
|
|
Family socialization | |||||
Family structure (dual parent) | |||||
Single parent |
|
|
|||
Dual parent, extended |
|
|
|||
Single parent, extended |
|
|
|||
Extended family only |
|
|
|||
Socialization messages (race-absent) | |||||
White-focused |
|
|
|||
Black-focused |
|
|
|||
No messages |
|
|
|||
Religious socialization | |||||
Importance of religion |
|
| |||
Religious affiliation (black Protestant) | |||||
Mainland Protestant |
|
| |||
Evangelical Protestant |
|
| |||
Catholic |
|
| |||
Others or no religion |
|
| |||
Individual control measures | |||||
Neighborhood satisfaction |
|
||||
Length of residence |
| ||||
Closeness to neighbors |
| ||||
Involved in neighborhood |
| ||||
Relatives in current neighborhood |
| ||||
Health status |
| ||||
Number of moves in lifetime |
| ||||
Male |
| ||||
Education |
| ||||
Employed |
| ||||
Age |
| ||||
|
|||||
Constant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjusted |
|
|
|
|
|
Table
In Model 3, past neighborhood racial composition is positively associated with feelings of closeness net of any racial socialization messages that were learned during childhood. Compared to having race-absent (or achievement-focused) socialization messages, receiving black-focused messages is associated with an increase in closeness towards black Americans (
The full model (Model 5) has some interesting changes in results from the previous models. The past neighborhood racial composition is no longer statistically related to feelings of closeness toward black Americans, holding the other variables constant. Further, the current neighborhood racial composition is statistically significant and is negative, suggesting that an increase in the number of blacks in the current neighborhood is associated with decreased closeness to blacks Americans (
There are several controls that predict closeness to black Americans. Being close with one’s neighbors is positively associated with closeness (
Table
Table
In Model 3, past neighborhood racial composition is still statistically associated with feelings of closeness net of any racial socialization messages that were learned during childhood (
The full model (Model 5) has some interesting changes in results from the previous models. The past neighborhood racial composition is no longer statistically related to feelings of closeness toward black West Indians, holding the other variables constant. After controlling for neighborhood, mobility, and sociodemographic variables, several statistically significant effects are attenuated (i.e., having a dual parent extended family, no socialization messages, and religious importance). The effects that remain in the full model are the negative effect of being in an extended only family that has feelings of closeness to black West Indians (
This study examined the effect of neighborhood composition, family structure, and family socialization on how close blacks feel towards members of the pan-African diaspora. The established link between minority members in a neighborhood and racial identification created the impetus for this research. Because of the nature of minority status within American society, it was important to look at various blacks in American society in order to tease out how blacks felt about other black Americans, black Africans, and black West Indians. It was also important to see whether family structure and socialization mediated the effect of the presence of minority members in a neighborhood and racial identification as proxied by perceived closeness to a racioethnic group.
The results suggested that black Americans differed in how they rate their closeness to other black ethnic/cultural groups. Indeed, the group that they felt the closest to was other black Americans, and this closeness accounts for age and social class. In contrast, black Americans felt the least close to black West Indians. Ethnic differences in intraracial closeness have been shown in other works [
The lack of significant findings regarding black Americans’ feelings of closeness toward black Africans serves as a research note and a direction for new research to investigate. Individual, family, and neighborhood characteristics did not explain the low ratings of closeness that this population felt for black Africans. Some research indicates that immigrants tend to maintain their ethnic identity and remain separate from the black American community, although this phenomenon stems from research on individuals from West African and the Caribbean [
The neighborhood experiences were found to shape black’s feelings of closeness toward other black ethnic groups. Past neighborhoods with black representation were found to be positive forces in maintaining feelings of closeness toward other black Americans. This finding provides some evidence of a benefit for black Americans to being reared in racially consonant neighborhoods. However, the opposite was found in the case of West Indians. That is, racially consonant neighborhoods in which black Americans grew up were associated with a decline in the feeling of closeness toward black West Indians. According to some research, black immigrants are more likely to express a common racial identity if they did not live in neighborhoods with many other blacks and more likely to express a differing identity if they lived with more blacks [
One of the more interesting statistical findings is the divergent but attenuated effect of past neighborhood racial composition on closeness. Having more black representation in the neighborhood where one was reared was associated with a greater feeling of closeness toward black Americans but a lesser feeling of closeness toward black West Indians. It may be true that there is social distancing between black Americans and black West Indians that stems from what both groups learn about the other group in their respective cultures [
Religiosity had a positive effect on how close black Americans felt toward all other black groups (i.e., black Africans and black West Indians). This finding suggests that, as an institution, religion confers psychosocial benefits that can increase feelings of closeness to black diasporic groups (black Africans and black West Indians). Religion integrates people into a group of individuals who may be a part of these black groups. If individuals are having positive interactions with these groups in their religious establishment, it could increase positive feelings. Also, generally, religious messages tend to be altruistic and supportive in nature, which could potentially increase one’s disposition to feel close toward all individuals. The religiosity effects were more statistically significant than religious affiliation, suggesting that the importance of religion itself, regardless of one’s denomination, can confer feelings of closeness for black Americans. Future research should attempt to explore whether this effect is seen in a more diverse black population.
This study was not without its limitations. First, the sample was entirely black American, so it would have enhanced the findings if we were able to capture different black racioethnic groups. Second, this study drew from the final wave of the NSBA which was taken in 1992. Future research should use more current data to test whether these effects are contemporaneous or cohort effects. Third, the sample is somewhat homogenous. The majority of the sample heavily predominated in one category of the variables in this study. Blacks in the sample were in majority dual parent extended families when growing up, received race-absent socialization messages, were black Protestant, and were middle-aged females. Additionally, there are no objective measures of neighborhood racial composition. Given that this information was self-reported, some of the information may be slightly inaccurate and subject to recall bias. As such, the generalizability of these findings for blacks in the United States is partially compromised.
Even though this study embodied limitations, there are many strengths as well. First, the study assesses black Americans’ closeness towards members of the pan-African diaspora. This feat has not been done in the literature and thus is a great strength of this paper. Second, this study uses retrospective measures of socialization from childhood to assess current feelings of closeness. By using childhood measures, direct and indirect links can be made about how childhood influences permeate throughout adulthood. Third, this study has provided an analytical framework to identify how both family structure and family socialization affect identity. Thus, future research can employ this framework to assess inter- and intraracial consciousness.
A version of this paper was presented at the 2008 annual meeting of the American Sociological Association in the Regular Session on Blacks and Black Americans in Boston, MA.
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.