Robert E. Park first proposed the concept of the marginal man in his 1928 study from the American Journal of Sociology, titled “Human Migration and the Marginal Man.” He studied the first generation children of migrants to the United States, proposing they did not fully fit into the culture of their parents or their newly found culture in America (Rogers, Steinfatt, 1999, p 45).
The definition that is used to define the marginal man is, “an individual who lives in two different worlds – and is stranger in both” (Rogers, Steinfatt, 1999, p 45). The mental health of the marginal man adversely affects due to the mismatch between his culture and the newly adopted culture.
The Original Marginal Man
As stated above, the first to propose the concept of the marginal man was Park (1928). His concept of the marginal man revolved mainly around the migration factor and presented the argument that individuals whom experience migration to a new culture, forced or willing, are the ones who will experience the feeling of being marginal. Being a marginal man is a battle that takes place in the mind of the individual as they try to find their place in the new culture. The battle leads to identity issues and individual manifest density crises and feels isolated.“It is in the mind of the marginal man that the moral turmoil which new cultural contacts occasion manifest itself in the most obvious forms. It is in the mind of the marginal man– where the changes and fusions of culture are going on–that we can best study the processes of civilization and progress” (Park, 1928, 893).
To Park (1928), the marginal man is someone who is on the edge of two or more cultures, which are never are fully understood and connected. He argues that the Jewish people were the original marginal men (892). The Jews had a culture that they had been raised with, being Jewish, but more than likely they were also submerged in another European culture, surrounded by people who were not necessarily Jewish. They had to discover for themselves how to fit into their surroundings–they had to figure out how to be European–while still maintaining their Jewish culture and heritage. However, the Jewish people were not the only ones Park discussed as being people who had to overcome being marginal men; the white and Hindu populations in Southeast Africa and the West Indies fit into these guidelines as well.
Park proposed that until assimilation, “the degree to which an individual relinquishes an original culture for another” (Rogers and Steinfatt, 1999, 265), takes place, the different cultures will continue to face the problem of being a marginal man. Whether it be through crossbreeding of the cultures, or one culture taking dominance over the other culture, Park suggests that the opposing cultures will remain marginal.
When multiple cultures begin to migrate to a new area, that area starts to become a melting pot, an area where multiple cultures have fused to form a new culture with their own distinct societal rules and norms. While the process of creating a melting pot, does help lessen the feelings of a man being on edge and being marginal, it does not help maintain the historical values of the older cultures that were created. Park argues that it is through constant migration and creation of melting pots that are making old cultural values disappear.
“What took place in Greece first has since taken place in the rest of Europe and is now going on in America. The movement and migration of peoples, the expansion of trade and commerce, and particularly the growth, in modern times, of these vast melting-pots of race, and cultures. The metropolitan cities have loosened local bonds, destroyed the cultures of tribe and folk, and substituted for the local loyalties the freedom of the cities; for the sacred order of tribal custom, the national organization which we call civilization” (Park, 1928, 890).
While Parke argues that the marginal man becomes more and more irrelevant as the cultural lines begin the become blurred, and slowly merge into one culture, he also presents the argument that for the first generation of individuals who are a result of the cross-cultural breeding, the feelings of being marginal are most prevalent. He suggests that crossbreeding must take place for the cultures to fully merged into one, but the first results of the first steps toward mixing the cultures into one will leave people feeling marginal, and those are the most common type of marginal men.
“Ordinarily the marginal man is mixed blood, like the Mulatto in the United States or the Eurasian in Asia, but that is apparently because the man of mixed blood is one who lives in two worlds, in both of which he is more or less of a stranger. The Christian convert in Asia or Africa exhibits many if not most of the characteristics of the marginal man–the same spiritual instability, intensified self-consciousness, restlessness, and malaise” (Park, 1928, 893).
Even though Park first came up with this theory in 1928, it is still prevalent today. He argues that as cultures begin to merge, there will be people on the outside stuck between the way things were, and the way things are starting to become. With the world slowing moving toward a globalization feel, it is slowly beginning to lose some of its cross-cultural differences. That is leaving some people in today’s world on the outside. It is leaving them on the margins. Park’s theory suggests that the next generation of people will feel more comfortable with the more globalized culture, but they will then be facing the next wave of cross-cultural acceptance. Meaning that if you agree with the concept of the marginal man proposed by Park in 1928, you will always have people who are experiencing the feeling of being on the edge of society and being a marginal man.
Opposition to Park’s Marginal Man
It is important to note that there have been some sociologist and other scholars that have not quite agreed with Park and his definition of the marginal man. One of those people is Everett V. Stonequist, author of “The Problem of the Marginal Man” in 1935. While Stonequist would agree that the marginal man exists, he would disagree with Park on the definition and the prevalence of the marginal man.The first thing that Stonequist argues is that most of the world will never have to contend with being or experiencing the feelings of being a marginal man.
“Probably the great majority of individuals in the world live and have they're within a single cultural system. Each is likely to be born, mature, and die within the boundaries of one tribal or national tradition. He is learning to communicate in one tongue and developing loyalties to one sovereign government, conforming to the expectations of one moral code, believing in the way of life approved by one religion, the deepest part of his personality–his sentiments, a conception of self, style of life and aspirations. Whether articulate or inarticulate, conscious or unconscious–are formed out of an identified with these more or less harmonious patterns of social heritage” (Stonequist, 1935, p 1-2).
With this many people are being born, living their whole life, and dying in one and only one culture, the concept of the margin man is not as relevant as what Park suggests. Stonequist acknowledges the presence of the marginal man; he argues that it has a different amount of impact on society than what Park would suggest.
Similar to Park, Stonequist is quick to mention the concept of migration and the melting pot in connection to the marginal man. “Migration has transplanted individuals and cultures to such an extent that nearly every land and every city is something of a melting pot of races and nationalities” (Stonequist, 1935, p 2). Stonequist proposes that while a culture that is deemed a place of a melting pot, it is only the minority group within that melting pot that could potentially face the problem of feeling like a marginal man. “This is true particularly of those who are expected to do most of the melting, that is, those who belong to a minority group, or to a group which has an inferior status in the land” (Stonequist, 1935, p 2). The cultural majority and leaders of the melting pot do not face the fear of losing their traditions; in fact, they are not the ones that are faced with melting into a newer culture. It is the minority cultures, he proposes, that are the groups that are the ones losing their culture and giving things up, to fit into the society around them.
However, Stonequist presents the fact that just because someone is of a minority culture, or of the culture that is expected to do the melting, does not mean that they have to melt into the new culture, or that they have to feel marginal. He says that it is completely possible for a person to go through their entire life as the minority culture, and be satisfied with who, what, and where they are. “Some of the members of the subordinate or minority group can live their lives within their own cultures, or at least to live them sufficiently not to be greatly disturbed by the culture of the dominant group” (Stonequist, 1935, p 2). It also minimizes the people that the concept of the marginal man effects, showing again how Stonequist disagrees with the number of people that are effective as members of the marginal man group. Additionally, Stonequist (1935) points out the fact that all people have different personality types, and therefore it is not correct to assume that everyone that fits into all the criteria assumes the feelings of being a marginal man (p 10). Due to personality types, some people do not experience the same amount of feelings of rejection or anxiety in a new cultural situation. Therefore, “the intensity of the inner conflict varies with the situation itself, the individual experience with this situation, and perhaps certain inherited traits. With some individuals, it appears to be a minor problem” (Stonequist, 1935, p 10).
Stonequist continued to limit further the number of people that he feels are affected by Park’s concept of the marginal man when he presented his concept of the life-cycle. He argues that individuals traits change with their development and that there are three stages of development people go to when presented with a new culture. The first stage is a stage of preparation. Stage two is the stage of a crisis, and stage three is the response stage (Stonequist, 1935, p 10).
In stage one, the individual begins to get ready to enter into the new culture; many times this is limited to a child starting to experience the culture outside of their own home. In this stage, there is some assimilation that unknowingly must take place, because “without at least partial assimilation the individual would not later experience the conflict of loyalties” (Stonequist, 1935, p 10) that defines the marginal man. While this is a part of the cycle, it is not until the person is into stage two and stage three in their life cycle that they begin to experience the feelings of the marginal man.
Stage two, classified above as the stage of a crisis, is when the individual begins to recognize the differences of the new culture, compared to what he is used to be. It may come from one direct incident, or it may be from several small incidents that have built up over time. Either way, this is where the feelings of being marginal begin to creep in.
“The typical traits of the marginal man arise out of the crises experience and in response to the situation. The individual’s life-organization is seriously disturbed. Confusion, even shock, restlessness, disillusionment, and estrangement may result; a new self- consciousness develops to mirror the newly realized situation” (Stonequist, 1935, p 10- 11).
It is then in stage three where the individual that is beginning to feel a marginal response to his feelings and situations. In this stage, there are several different responses that the marginal man could take. First, they could keep assimilating themselves into the dominate group, which could lead to them becoming a full member of that culture or society. On the other hand, they could reject the main culture, stopping their assimilation, and return to the comfort of their already known culture. Additionally, they could flee or abandon the situation that has cast them into being a marginal man, leaving the situation (Stonequist, 1935, p 11). All of these potential scenarios limit the number of people who end up feeling as a marginal man. The final option is for the person to stay where they are, with those feelings of being lost, unwanted, and in limbo, but Stonequist argues that just isn’t very many people who choose that option, therefore limiting the marginal man.
The Marginal Culture
Milton Goldberg in “A Qualification of the Marginal Man Theory” (1941) continued to expand upon Park’s original concept of the marginal man. While he was someone who was critical of some of the exact points, explanations, and definitions of Park and Stonequist’s work, he was supported by the concept of the marginal man. He agrees that the marginal man exists; however, he argues that the marginal man is often actually the marginal culture. The concept of the marginal culture, while similar to the marginal man, has a few different implications.The marginal culture, sometimes termed as the marginal area, is defined as “a region where two cultures overlap and where the occupying group partakes of the traits of both cultures” (Goldberg, 1941, p 52.) It means there are not always people who are of minority cultures, but, he argues, often there are minority groups of different cultures. This results when two cultures are crossing over, or when there is a mass migration from one’s original culture into a new culture.
Goldberg has four instances in which he argues that people that could be classified as marginal men–under the definitions provided by Park and Stonequist–are not marginal men. His first qualification is “if the so-called ‘marginal’ individual is conditioned to his existence on the borders of two cultures from birth” (Goldberg, 1941, p 53). This means if the only reality that someone has known is immersed in two cultures, then they are a byproduct of the duel cultures, and not, in fact, a marginal man. The individual feels comfortable in the realm of the dual cultures, even if people from their own home do not feel as comfortable as the younger individual does.
The second qualification of Goldberg (1941) is, “if he shares this existence and conditioning process with a large number of individuals in his primary group. (p 53), he would contest does not make an individual a marginal man. In this argument, Goldberg is suggesting if the individual goes through the assimilation process with a large number of people, similar to themselves, then they are not a marginal man, but instead apart of a marginal culture. The reason for this is simple; the individual still has a large group of people amongst which they still feel a part of, and still feel comfortable with; the individual is not isolated. Their identity remains intact, even if it is shifting because the people that they identify with are also shifting identities.
His third qualification is similar to the second qualification, “if his years of early growth, maturation, and even adulthood find him participating in institutional activates manned largely by ‘marginal’ individuals like himself” (Goldberg, 1941, p 53). Similar to the second qualification, this presents the clause that if someone experiences life by individuals he can identify with, then they are in a marginal culture, not necessarily marginal men. This is true even if they don’t identify with anyone from the main culture; they only need to be able to identify with people that they are experiencing with life.
Goldberg’s final qualification is “if his marginal position results in no major blockages or frustrations of his learned expectations and desires, then he is not a true “marginal” individual in the defined sense” (Goldberg, 1941, p 53). This qualification means this: if the individual does not experience the feelings of being a marginal man, the frustrations of being isolated, then, in fact, he is not a marginal man. Instead of being a marginal man, he is experiencing a marginal culture. The example the Goldberg uses for his illustration of the marginal culture is the Jewish community in America. While they are in American culture, they still maintain their Jewish traditions and culture. They can be American, while still sending their children to Hebrew school, and still attending the synagogue. They can be fully Jewish, and fully American at the same time. Since this co-culture has been available to multiple generations, they are experiencing a marginal culture, instead of being marginal men. Whereas Park and Stonequist would argue that the marginal man would disappear after multiple generations of assimilation, Goldberg (1941) sees the marginal culture as something that does not have to be assimilated or lost over generations. “The problem of the marginal culture, then, as long as its existence is conceived as necessary or desirable, would seem to be on of fulfilling its major goals. The goals are providing its member's security, adequate facilities for participation in group life. Furthermore to provide the opportunity to express their cultural interests, without at the same time making them in appearance and behavior distinguishable from the members of the dominant culture” (p 58).
Redefining the Marginal Man
Ever since Park first wrote his definition of the marginal man in 1928, experts have been attempting to make edits, redefine, or omit parts of Parks definition. I have discussed two of the people who have made those attempts already in this paper, but the fact of the matter is that there have been numerous other attempts as well. This fact was also pointed out and discussed in a paper in 1972 by Roy Dean Wright and Susan N. Wright titled “A Plea for Further Refinement of the Marginal Man Theory.”In this paper, the authors outline all of the redefining attempts, including the attempt by Stonequist and the attempt by Goldberg. They point out how from the original concept of the marginal man people have developed different terms underneath the Park’s initial concept. From the first concept of the marginal man, there has developed marginality, the marginal man, the marginal culture, social marginality, and psychological marginality. While these terms are now in existence, they are often studied as synonymous terms. The authors assert that these terms need to be studied separately (Wright & Wright, 1972, p 365).
The first term the authors look at is the concept of marginality. They define marginality as “a reference to the general and all-inclusive situation that exists when a group is situated on the periphery of, has continuous interaction with, has a dependency upon, and deviates in certain socially normative patterns from, a more dominant group” (Wright & Wright, 1972, p 365). This means that marginality could occur in a wider verity of situations. It is not limited culture, race, or religion, as suggested previously. Instead, it is an all-encompassing term that could be applied to almost any situation when someone feels like their view or belief is alone in a larger group. If there is to be one blanket term, it should be marginality, not a marginal man.
The second classification for Wright and Wright is the marginal man. Having already looked at the marginal man, we know how this term is defined, and these authors would agree with how the marginal man was defined by Stonequist. The marginal man occurs when there are at least two groups of people with one in dominance over the other. This could take the shape of race, religion, or some other things. One important thing that must be noted within this concept of the marginal man is the idea that assimilation into the dominant culture will take place, even if the assimilation was not wanted by the individual or the smaller group (Wright & Wright, 1972, p 365).
Along with the marginal man, the authors use the term cultural marginality, which is synonymous with the term used by Goldberg, marginal culture. In cultural marginality, marginal individuals are much more specific. It limits them to being defined within a culture, and as previously discussed the marginal culture does not have to assimilate into a different culture, unlike the concept of the marginal man.
The final two terms that Wright and Wright use to distinguish between the different types of marginality are new to our study of the marginal man. The first term they use is psychological marginality. This is defined as a
“reference to the commonly shared attitudes of a marginal group (or marginal man group), the deviation of these attitudes from the more dominant group, and the impact of various psychological (and/or social psychological) patterns found in the marginal group as a direct result of membership within that marginal group” (Wright & Wright, 1972, p 365).
This means that a member of a marginal psychological group was most likely at one time a member of the larger group. However, due to their specific ideas or beliefs, they no longer belong within the main group. If other people hold the same beliefs that they do, the other individuals will join them in the newly formed psychological group.
The fifth and final marginality group that is presented is the social marginality group. Wright and Wright (1972), define this as “the primary emphasis of social marginality is the patterned inter-relationships that can be observed as uniquely characteristic of the marginal (or marginal man) as well as the dominant group” (p 365). Social marginality refers to the difference between the two groups. The authors argue that it is when this social gap is studied, observed, and approached that proper and healthy assimilation can take place.
It is important to understand that Wright and Wright do not offer their five categories of marginality as the only possible categories. However, they do suggest that simply studying the “marginal man,” studying “marginality,” or using any of their other proposed five terms, but applying the same criteria to them, is beneficial. So, they suggest these five categories to help better understand the specific marginal situations but also issue the warning that there could potentially be more categories possible. They suggest that whatever terms you decided to use, you specifically define that term. They do not want you to leave any room for error; error they felt was prevalent in the study of marginality previously.
Conclusion
After examining all of these works on the concept of the marginal man, I have concluded: not much has changed since Park first drafted his original concept of the marginal man in 1928. Since then people have tweaked his definition, adding some, deleting some, putting in qualifiers, or making adjustments. The maladjustment are leading mental health issues among marginal man. However, the work on the marginal man does not oppose what Park presented in 1928. It only adds to it, and that is what happens in most fields of study.The researchers who have since written on the concept of the marginal man make good points, they make good adjustments to the original concept, but the basics of the concepts remain the same. I recognize that it is important that all marginal individuals be studied under the same concept of the marginal man; there are potentially countless forms of marginality as proposed by Wright and Wright (1972). So, instead of defining the marginal man, and having a broad definition, it is necessary to define marginality. Marginality is the experience of any individual, or group that is different than the dominant group. If you want to define the marginal man, you will have to be much more specific, speaking of what type of margins the individual is on.