Theories of Ethnicity

-What is the nature of ethnicity?

-What forces create and sustain ethnicity?

-Three theoretical perspectives help to elucidate the aforementioned questions: (1) the
primordialist school (2) the constructionist school (3) the instrumentalist school.

What is ethnicity?

It can be understood as an affiliation or identification with an ethnic group. Synonyms of

ethnicity may include ethnic group membership, ethnic affiliation and ethnic identity.
There is a nuance dividing ethnicity and ethnic group in that the latter is based on
ancestry, culture or national origin while ethnicity refers to affiliation or identification with
an ethnic group.

Ethnicity is also subjective as it is the product of the human mind and sentiments. It is a
matter of sense of belonging or identification to a particular ethnic group. It can also be
objective as it must be based on some objective characteristics and constructed by
social forces and power relations. As such, ethnicity is the outcome of subjective
perceptions based on some objective characteristics like physical attributes, presumed
ancestry, culture or national origin.

Nature and basis of ethnicity

Marxist and modern theorists have predicted that as society undergoes industrialization
and modernization, ethnicity will fade and gradually die out. Assimilationists and
advocates of the melting pot paradigm have supported the claims that ethnic
assimilation and amalgamation will lead to the withering of ethnic identification.
However, these claims have not yet materialized. In fact, now more than ever, the
vitality of ethnicity is undeniable.
Ethnicity affects the opportunities that people have in being included in several domains
of society. The prevalence of ethnicity can be proved through growing ethnic conflicts
(Israel-Palestine), collisions (Majority Hindu, Minority Muslim and Sikhs), warfare
(Rwanda- majority Hutu and minority Tutsi), fighting (ruling Sinhalese and minority
Tamils), divisions (Yugoslavia & Bosnia), strife and separation (Northern Ireland,
Quebec and European countries) and racial tensions (Rwanda). These conflicts have
only exacerbated throughout the years.
The tenacity of ethnic identities verifies the centrality of ethnicity in modern human
societies.
The Primordialist Thought

(1) Ethnicity is an ascribed identity or assigned status, something inherited from

one’s ancestors.
-Ethnicity is deemed very deeply rooted, primal bond to one’s ancestral bloodline.

(2) Ethnic boundaries which allow demarcation for who is and is not a member of an
ethnic group are fixed or immutable.
-Ethnicity is static; one may not change one’s membership to another group.

(3) Common ancestry determines ethnicity.

-People belong to a certain ethnic group because members of that group all
share common biological and cultural origins.

As such, primordialist is used to characterize this school of thought as it stresses the

role of primordial factors like lineage and cultural ties in determining ethnicity. To
primordialists, it is the primordial bonds that give rise to and sustain ethnicity (Geertz,
1973; van den Berghe, 1981).

What has become known as the primordialist position, expressed by Clifford Geertz'
article, explains ethnicity in terms of "givens" or "congruities of blood, speech, custom,
and so on, [which] are seen to have an ineffable, and at times overpowering,
coerciveness in and of themselves."

The primordialist thought is fragmented into at least two variant views: the
sociobiological perspective and the culturalist perspective.

Sociobiological perspective
-rep by Pierre van den Berghe who emphasizes the importance of the sociological
factor of kinship in determining ethnicity.
-He (1981) argued that ethnicity is an extension of kinship-ethnic affiliation stems from
membership in the nuclear family, then the extended family and finally the ethnic group.
-Ethnic identity develops and persists due to the common ancestral bonds of group
members. This implies that ethnicity will never perish as kinship always exists.

Culturalist perspective
-highlights the importance of a common culture in the determination of a ethnic group
membership.
-As per this view, common culture in the form of a common language, a common
religion determines the genesis and tenacity of ethnic identity even in the absence of
common ancestors.
-Different racial groups of people originating from the same country can form an ethnic
group and develop a common ethnic identity even if they do not have any common
biological bonds.
E.g Hispanic identity wherein common language-Spanish, determines ethnic belonging
rather than biological bonds.

-The primordialist school of thought grasps the sentimental/psychological origins of

ethnicity to provide a plausible explanation for the rise and tenacity of ethnic
attachment.

Critiques

Jones (1998:68–72) summarizes four major critiques of primordialist theory:

1. Primordial approaches are either too general or too obscure to possess a great deal
of explanatory power; “the intangible aspects of the primordial approach constitute at
best ex post facto argument. In searching for the givens of social existence, the
primordial approach explains everything and nothing.”

2. Primordial approaches suggest that ethnic identity is a determining and immutable

dimension of an individual’s self-identity because the primordial attachments that
underlie ethnicity are involuntary and coercive. However, such an approach cannot
explain the fluid nature of ethnic boundaries, the situational quality of ethnic identity at
the level of individual, nor the fact that the importance of ethnicity itself varies
significantly in different social contexts and between different individuals.

3. Primordial explanations suggest that ethnic groups are formulated in a social and
political vacuum.

4. Primordialist approaches also fail to consider the historically situated and culturally
constructed nature of the very concepts that are central to their argument, most notably
“ethnic group” and “nation.”
-There are however, several drawbacks to primordialism.
Firstly, it cannot explain why some ethnic memberships or identities of individuals and
groups change.
Secondly, it cannot account for the formation of new ethnic identities such as Asian
American which emerge among biologically and culturally diverse groups and why
ethnic identities wane and disappear.
Thirdly, it tends to overlook the larger historical and structural conditions that
construct/deconstruct and reinforce/undermine ethnic loyalties.
Finally, it neglects the economic and political interests closely associated with ethnic
sentiment and practice.

Primordialists tend to offer affirmative answers when questioning the nature and tenacity
of ethnic affiliation. Constructionists and instrumentalists dissent.

The theory, however, has been sharply criticized by Fredrik Barth, because the
approach "allows us to assume that boundary maintenance is unproblematic and
follows from the isolation which the itemized characteristics imply.... We are led to
imagine each group developing its cultural and social form in relative isolation...."
Alternatively, Barth proposes a focus on the intersection, or "boundary," between ethnic
groups, citing the possibility of "cultural givens" to transmute across such boundaries
and between "ethnicities."

Many anthropologists agree with Barth's central tenet of ethnic theory, namely that
ethnic groups "cannot exist in isolation but only contrast to other I 7 groups

The Constructionist Thought

-As of the 1970s, the constructionist school of thought began to dominate. Prior to that
more importance was given to the primordialist thought.
-The answers of the constructionist thought stand in sharp contrast to primordialist
thought.
-They come up with three main arguments:

(1) Ethnicity is a socially constructed identity, something that is created. The whole
idea behind the social construction gives it the name ‘constructionist’.
(2) As an extension of constructed identity, ethnic boundaries are flexible or
changeable. Ethnicity is therefore dynamic.
 (3) Ethnic affiliation or identification is determined or constructed by society. Ethnicity
is a reaction to changing social environments.

-Constructivist approaches to ethnicity entail a further retreat from any notion of

"boundedness" or essentialism.
-R. Neeman described the constructivist perspective as one in which "ethnic cultures
are fluid, changing, and even invented, subject to the interpretations and choices of
groups and individuals."

- " Most anthropologists agree that ethnicities cannot be classified simply by noting
differences in traits and customs but instead it is the "social boundaries" between
groups formed by their encounter and "not the cultural content enclosed by the
boundary" that allow for discourse on ethnic identity

-The focus on boundaries, encounter and even "conflict," allow anthropologists to

establish clear analytical methodologies while avoiding the essentializing tendencies of
primordialism.

-Levine elaborates on Barth's insights, "Demarcating self from other, in-group from
out-group, the boundary component of ethnicity remained stable while society and
culture changed. Individuals, moving across boundaries in response to changing
conditions, could choose their ethnic identities from those available to them.
-In this explanation, Levine highlights another aspect anthropologists have incorporated
since Barth: the element of multiple ethnic identities, especially in postcolonial contexts.

-Within the constructionist thought itself, several different perspectives which emphasize
different components exist.

‘Emergent ethnicity’ perspective

-rep by William Yancey et al. (1976) who downplayed the aspect of cultural heritage and
saw ethnicity as an ‘emergent phenomenon’ created by structural conditions.
-They relay the focus on the experiences of Italian, Polish and Jewish immigrants in
America around the turn of the century.
-Yancey and his colleagues maintained that the formation, crystallization and
development of ethnic communities, cultures and identities were shaped by structural
conditions closely associated with the industrialization process in the host society and
the positions of ethnic groups within it.
-More specifically, the industrialization process led to the creation or expansions of
certain industries (garment, steel or construction industry) and occupations associated
with these industries.
-Immigrant groups with the different occupational skills moved into the different
industries and occupations at different times.
-This led to occupational concentrations of ethnic groups with similar lifestyles, class
interests, and work relationships.
-Due to the transportation conditions at that time, immigrants working in the same
industry and occupation tended to live in the same area, resulting in residential
concentration.
-Common occupations and residence led to the use of the same institutions and
services such as churches, schools and financial institutions.
-All of these structural conditions resulted in the formation and development of Italian,
Jewish and Polish ethnic communities, ethnic cultures and ethnic identities by
reinforcing the maintenance of kinship and friendship networks.
-As per this view, ethnicity emerges as a response to structural changes in society.

Theory of ethnicization

-rep by Jonathan Sarna (1978) who maintained that ethnicity is created by two
conditions: ascription and adversity.
-Ascription refers to the assignment of individuals to particular ethnic groups by
outsiders such as the government, churches, schools, media, natives and other
immigrants.
-Adversity includes prejudice, discrimination, hostility and hardship.
-Sarna contended that adversity forces members of the same group to unite and helps
create group identity and solidarity.
-Sarna’s theory most probably downplays the active role of ethnic groups in shaping
their identities while increasing the effects of outside forces.
-However, the merit of Sarna’s theory lies in its call to locate the creation of ethnic
identity in relation to the larger society.

Resurgent ethnicity

-Some scholars focus on the resurgence of old ethnic identities and boundaries that
previously existed. In other words, ethnic identity is constructed around formerly
recognized historical boundaries.
-Resurgent ethnicity was noted prominently among white ethnic groups.
-A few studies (Alba, 1990; Bakalian, 1993; Waters, 1990) show that although ethnic
boundaries among the white population are weakening due to intermarriage, language
loss, religious conversion or declining participation, white Americans increasingly
identify with their group of origin.
-Some have also argued that social changes since the 1960s and shifting societal
emphasis from assimilation into the Anglo culture to ethnic distinctiveness have resulted
in resurgent ethnicity among whites.
-On the other side, Gans (1979) contended that ethnic revival among whites is nothing
more than “symbolic ethnicity” or symbolic allegiance to, love for and pride in the culture
and tradition of the immigrant generation and the country of origin, without having to be
incorporated in everyday behavior. Simply put, symbolic ethnicity is “feeling ethnic”
rather than being ethnic.

Social constructionist perspective

-It explicitly emphasizes the social construction of ethnicity and race and the dynamic
process of ethnic/racial formation.
-Werner and Sollars (1989) suggested the notion of “the invention of ethnicity”.
-By challenging the primordialist thought which supposes that ethnicity is an irrational
form of cultural attachment, Sollars argued that ethnic identity is embedded in tradition
which is created, sustained and refashioned by people.
-Nagel (1994) contended that ethnicity is socially constructed and reconstructed by
internal forces-actions taken by ethnic groups themselves like negotiation, redefinition
and reconstruction of ethnic boundaries and external forces-social, economic, political
processes and outsiders.
-She also emphasizes that ethnicity is a dynamic, constantly changing property of
individual identity and group organization.
-Focusing on the centrality of race, Omi and Winant (1994) demonstrated how the
meanings and categories of race both shape and are shaped by the political process.

All in all the constructionist school of thought pinpoints the centrality of social
construction in ethnic formation and retention; it highlights historical and structural
forces that creates and sustains ethnicity and it better explains the volatility of ethnicity.
Nevertheless, it tends to ignore the ancestral basis of ethnicity and deemphasize the
limitations of social construction.
Like the primordialist thought, it also pays insufficient attention to the role of political and
economic interest in the construction of ethnicity.

The Instrumentalist thought

-This school of thought views ethnicity as an instrument or strategic tool for gaining
resources, hence the term instrumentalist.
-As per this theoretical framework, people become ethnic and remain ethnic when their
ethnicity yields significant returns to them. In other words, ethnicity exists and persists
because it is useful.
-Portes and Bach (1985) assert that the functional advantages of ethnicity range from
“the moral and material support provided by ethnic networks to political gains made
through ethnic bloc voting.
-Glazer and Moynihan (1975) who are among the pioneers of this school, believe that
ethnicity is not simply a mix of affective sentiments, but like class and nationality it is
also a means of political mobilization for advancing group interests.
-Ethnic groups are also interest groups.

-The most extreme version of instrumentalism attributes the acquisition and retention of
ethnic membership or identity solely to the motivation of wanting to obtain comparative
advantage.
-Orlando Patterson (1975) asserted that “The strength, scope, viability and bases of
ethnic identity are determined by, and are used to serve, the economic and general
class interests of individuals.”
-Hence, interests are the sole determinant of ethnic identity and ethnic affiliation tends
to be transient and situational as the benefits of ethnicity shift.

-The more moderate variant of instrumentalism combines advantages of ethnicity with

affective ties.
-For example, Bell (1975) states that “Ethnicity has become more salient because it can
combine an interest with an affective tie.”
-Cohen (1969) suggested that cultural homogeneity of people facilitates their effective
organization as an interest group and boosts ethnic solidarity and identity.

-Another recent formulation of instrumentalism is rational choice theory (Banton, 1983).

As a social theory, RCT assumes that people act to promote their socioeconomic
positions by minimizing the costs of, and maximizing the potential benefits of their
actions.
-As an application to ethnic identity, RCT maintains that ethnic affiliation is based on the
rational calculation of costs and benefits of ethnic association.
-For the advocates of RCT, ethnicity is an option.
-People choose one ethnicity over one another or avoid an ethnic group because of the
utility or cost of such affiliation.
-Some people favor an ethnic affiliation because it is beneficial, while other people hide
or deny an ethnic identity because it will bring disadvantages.
-RCT can help us understand the change of ethnic identity. However, it has its
limitations as well.
-Firstly, ethnic choice is limited. Since ethnic choice is subject to ancestral constraints
defined by a society, not everyone can freely choose ethnic identity.
-Nagel (1996) stated, “We do not always choose to be who we are; we simply are who
we are as a result of a set of social definitions, categorization schemes and external
ascriptions that reside in the taken-for-granted realm of social life.”
Alternative ethnic options become possible only when an ethnic status quo is
challenged and replaced.
-Secondly, not all ethnic choices are rational and materialistic.
-Some people choose an ethnic affiliation not for the material gains, rewards or access
to resources and services but for psychological satisfaction which includes emotional
fulfillment, social attachment or recreational pleasure.
-The notion of symbolic ethnicity suggested by Herbert Gans (1979) comes closest to
this function of ethnicity.
-This type of ethnic option is symbolic, nonrational and nonmaterial-driven.

Critiques

Jones (1997:76–79) outlines five major critiques of instrumentalist theory:

1. Many instrumentalist approaches fall into a reductionist mode of explanation whereby
ethnicity is defined in terms of the observed regularities of ethnic behavior in a particular
situation.

2. The reduction of ethnicity to economic and political relationships frequently results in

the neglect of the cultural dimensions of ethnicity. This neglect is a consequence of the
idea that ethnic categories provide an “empty vessel” into which various aspects of
culture may be poured.

3. The reductionist model of analysis in many instrumentalist studies also results in the
neglect of psychological dimensions of ethnicity. Research has suggested that cultural
ascriptions of ethnic identity may comprise an important aspect of an individual’s sense
of self, creating conflict for people whose social relations and cultural practices become
removed from their sense of identity.

4. The assumption in many instrumentalist approaches that human behavior is

essentially rational and directed toward maximizing self-interest results in an
oversimplification of the perception of interests by culturally situated agents, and
disregards the dynamics of power in both intragroup and intergroup relations.
 5. As a result of the tendencies to define ethnicity as a politicized or mobilized group
identity, and to neglect the cultural and psychological dimensions of ethnicity, it is
difficult to distinguish ethnic groups from other collective-interest groups (e.g., race,
class).