In class last week we discussed the changing patterns of immigration in the United States as well as the challenges of assimilation that immigrants have faced over the years. The written work of Aguilar-San Juan poses an interesting discussion in regards to the sociological differences felt between Vietnamese Americans who reside in Orange County, CA and those who reside in Boston, MA. My expert question stems from this reading, where I asked classmates to think more in depth about the importance of physical place when establishing a sense of community and identity for these immigrants. More specifically, I asked people to think about the significance of how Vietnamese Americans feel a stronger sense of belonging when they live in an area that is culturally similar to where they originate, thus placing an emphasis on the implications of territorializing. Further, I asked classmates to think about how territorializing can be seen at Bowdoin. Aside from pre existing clubs, are there more subtle ways in which people establish their own niches and sense of place on campus in order to feel more assimilated? How is this similar to what we read about the Vietnamese Americans and their sense of identity in a place?

To quickly summarize the reading, Aguilar-San Juan discusses his findings in that Vietnamese Americans found a stronger sense of place and establishment in the smaller population of Orange County than those who lived in the diverse city of Boston. This contradicts what we had learned a previously in class that “cities tend to enhance ethnic distinction” (Aguilar-San Juan, 48). The reading went on to discuss the meaning behind this contradiction and explained how this group of immigrants do not feel as strong a sense of place in Boston because they are grouped in with other minorities and are not recognized by the general population as their own established group. In Boston, Vietnamese Americans are grouped in with the Chinatown population and are labeled as “Asian” instead of their distinct Vietnamese culture. In Orange County, Vietnamese Americans are recognized as their own cultural group because the settlement is less ethnically diverse and they do not have to share an identity with another ethnic group.

Several classmates raised interesting points in regards to my expert question. We discussed how because Boston is already diverse, it is much more difficult for the Vietnamese to establish their own identity. We discussed placemaking at Bowdoin and which groups are successful in producing enclaves due to the lack of critical mass on campus. More specifically, classmates raised interesting points about the LASO group on campus and how there is a language barrier that serves as both an inclusionary and exclusionary aspect for students who are interested. We talked about the consequences of how people integrate themselves into large communities such as the hierarchy of groups that is produced on campus that could be reflective of economic power. We then discussed how different communities are developed based on majors and that there are designated study spaces for certain majors where students studying similar subjects gather to a common space which fosters a community in itself.

Our discussion got me thinking about how much the size of population matters when we think about how these enclaves form. Would we see similar results in specific communities forming if there were twenty people in a room vs two thousand on a college campus? Is it the cultural similarities that draw specific people into communities or do other economic and social factors take precedence?

The works of Driskell and Lyon, Goodspeed, and Kidder all examine the changing meaning of community during modern times and illustrate how technology is playing a major role in the formation and strength of people’s relationships. My expert question discussed the implications addressed in Driskell and Lyon’s piece of how the increase of communication through technological devices and forms of social media hinders individuals from creating the same close, personal ties with one another as they would if they communicated face to face. More specifically, I asked whether we as individuals are creating less authentic relationships nowadays due to our lack of direct communication and whether people believed that our perception of being “close” with an individual is different from what people fifty years ago valued as a “close” relationship.

Several classmates raised interesting points in regards to my question. We discussed how we cannot expect to accurately compare relationships nowadays to those of the past because of the drastic generational differences in circumstance between the two time periods. We argued that nowadays, virtual relationships can be viewed as very close and that social media and technology today allows people to remain closer with their friends and loved ones. In other words, technology is a tool that can be used to bolster already-existing and established relationships. These virtual communities provide people with an avenue to remain in contact and further their relationships through the virtual world. This being said, we also talked about how there can be discrepancies when translating virtual world relationships to real world relationships. For example, being virtual “friends” with a person on Facebook might not hold the same strength and meaning when the relationship is translated to the physical world. We also discussed how this phenomenon has taken different forms and has been repeated throughout the past few decades due to ever-improving technology. While nowadays individuals use social media to stay in touch, we considered stories that our parents had told us about how they would be given a hard time by their parents for talking on the landline when they should be forming face to face relationships instead. We then conversed about how today, younger adolescents  consider “quality” time with their friends to be sitting in the same room with one another on their phones playing games.

I found our class discussion in response to my question to be very interesting. While I understand the point that Nisbet made in Driskell and Lyon’s piece that the “decline in identification with the territorial community is related to the decline in Gemeinschaft-like interpersonal relations” (376), I also believe that my classmates made compelling points in saying that virtual relationships are one with the modern times. Driskell and Lyon also pose the question of whether the virtual community can provide common ties and social interaction without the establishment of physical place. After our class discussion, I argue that social media in itself could be considered a common place in these modern times. I believe that the “place” aspect of community is ever changing as our technology becomes more advanced.