Search results

Purpose – To provide a demographic portrait of Latinos in the Washington Metropolitan Area.

Design/methodology/approach – This is a descriptive analysis using published results from the 2010 U.S. Census and authors’ tabulations from the U.S. Census Bureau's 2009 American Community Survey.

Findings – According to the 2010 U.S. Census, more than 700,000 Latinos lived in the Washington metropolitan area. In many ways, Washington's Latino population is unique when compared to Latino populations in other U.S. metropolitan areas. For example, unlike other metropolitan areas, no single Hispanic origin group is in the majority in Washington. And while the largest Hispanic origin group in other metropolitan areas is often of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, or Dominican origin, in the Washington metro area Salvadorans are the largest group. In other ways too, the Capital Region's Latino population is unique. It has the nation's largest Bolivian community. It has a greater share of immigrants than Latino populations in most other metropolitan areas. It has a higher share of college graduates among its Latino population than any other metropolitan area nationwide. And it is dynamic – growing fast and dispersing across the region.

Originality/value – This chapter provides a detailed demographic portrait of Latinos in the Washington, DC, area using the latest data sources available.

The place of G. H. Mead’s works in symbolic interactionism is both central and paradoxical. It stands at the very foundation of Hebert Blumer’s initial invention of symbolic interactionism with respect to Mead’s social behaviorism and has been discussed and debated ever since because of the problems caused by such a presumed direct filiation. Returning to Mead in order to broaden the perspective offered by Blumer is a must and has to face some fundamental issues raised in this context. This article starts by examining the ontogenetic and phylogenetic processes involved in Mead’s concept of society, in order to show the multiple dimensions involved in significant symbols. An illustration of Mead’s wider perspective is given in reference to the feminist movement as analyzed first by Mead’s student, Jessie Taft, and goes back to the origin of the movement with Mary Wollstonecraft. This leads to the analysis of the debate about the place of power in symbolic interactionism, initiated by Peter M. Hall, and addresses the alternative between domination and emancipation. This alternative has been worked out by Lonnie Athen’s radical symbolic interactionism analysis of domination on the one side, and by Kathy Charmaz and Norman K. Denzin on the other side of emancipatory symbolic interactionist practices. Another solution is proposed to this alternative, with the analysis of power being intrinsically constituted by domination and emancipation, in their respective contribution to the understanding of the symbolic dispositions of autonomy – a concept that remains relatively undeveloped in Mead’s works.