Ministry of Science and Higher Education

Unit Five Identity, Inter-

Ethnic Relations and
Multiculturalism in Ethiopia
 IDENTITY, ETHNICITY AND RACE: IDENTIFICATION AND
SOCIAL CATEGORIZATION

What is Ethnicity?

Boundary/Ascription as a
Defining Feature of Culture as a Basic Defining
Feature of Ethnicity
Ethnicity
 CULTURE AS A BASIC DEFINING FEATURE OF
ETHNICITY
The criteria which constitute ethnicity vary. For a long time it was
common to equate ethnic groups with cultural groups; any
category of people who had a shared culture was considered as
an ethnic group. However, this position has become difficult to
justify. This is because; the sharing of cultural traits frequently
crosses group boundaries and, moreover, people do not always
share all their ‘cultural traits’ with the same people. One may
have the same language as some people, the same religion as
some of those as well as of some others, and the same economic
strategy as an altogether different category of people. In other
words, cultural boundaries are not clear-cut, nor do they
necessarily correspond with ethnic boundaries. Ethnicity is an
aspect of relationship, not a cultural property of a group. If a
setting is wholly mono-ethnic, there is effectively no ethnicity,
since there is nobody there to communicate cultural difference to.
The Ethiopian constitutional triplet of "Nations, Nationalities,
and Peoples" (the Amharic behieroch, behiereseboch, ena
hezboch) are defined in Article 39 of the Federal Constitution
defines as: "a group of people who have or share a large
measure of a common culture, or similar customs, mutual
intelligibility of language, belief in a common or related identity,
and who predominantly inhabit an identifiable, contiguous
territory.“
There are three main kinds of ethnic community in the
historical record. These are: ethno linguistic communities, in
which language is the most salient and vital element in the
definition of ethnicity and the mobilization of ethnic
sentiments; ethno-religious communities, which have been
defined and have defined themselves, primarily in terms of
religious beliefs, practices, and symbols; and ethno-political
communities, that have defined themselves, and been defined,
by historical memories and political traditions
 BOUNDARY/ASCRIPTION AS A DEFINING
FEATURE OF ETHNICITY

Ethnic group is a group of people who identify with one another, or are so identified by others, on
the basis of a boundary that distinguishes them from other groups. Fredrik Barth (1969a) argues
that: the focus ought to be the boundaries which delimit the group and not the ‘cultural stuffs’ it
encloses. Cultural variation may be an effect and not a cause of boundaries. If the mutual
dichotomization between two groups (that were formerly same group) continues and the national
borders between their states become permanent, it is likely that languages as well as other
aspects of culture of the two will gradually become more distinctive.

In other words, an ethnic group is defined through its relationships to others, highlighted through
the boundary. Ethnicity refers to aspects of relationships between groups whose members
consider themselves, and are regarded by others, as being culturally distinctive. When cultural
differences regularly make a difference in interaction between members of groups, the social
relationship has an ethnic element. There is no ethnicity unless groups have a minimum of
contact with each other and entertain ideas of each other as being culturally different from
themselves. Ethnicity is categorical as ascriptions between ‘Us’ and ‘Them’.
 CONT…
All approaches agree that ethnicity has something to do with the
classification of people and group relationships. Ethnicity is
the application of systematic distinctions between
insiders and outsiders; between Us and Them.
Dichotomization between insiders and outsiders; the process of
self-ascription/attribution and ascription by others shapes the
process of interaction among groups. If no such principle (social
contact) exists there can be no ethnicity. However, ethnic
boundary may change through time; it may shrink or expand,
blurred or glared depending on situations and contexts. The
compass of the ‘We’ category may expand and contract
according to the situation. Depending on situations, different
levels of group membership could be activated. There are
different Us and Them groups. In some cases, ethnic identities
are imposed from outside, by dominant groups, on those who do
not themselves want membership in the group to which they are
assigned.
In spite of the difference in scholarly views of ethnicity
among anthropologists, the 'basic social anthropological
model of ethnicity' can be summarized as follows:
Ethnicity is a matter of cultural differentiation - although, to
reiterate the main theme of social identity (Jenkins 2004),
identification always involves a dialectical interplay
between similarity and difference.
Ethnicity is centrally a matter of shared meanings - what we
conventionally call 'culture' - but is also produced and
reproduced during interaction.
Ethnicity is no more fixed or unchanging than the way of life
of which it is an aspect, or the situations in which it is
produced and reproduced.
Ethnicity, as an identification, is collective and individual,
externalized in social interaction and the categorization of
others, and internalized in personal self-identification.
ETHNIC GROUPS AND ETHNIC IDENTITY
Some social anthropologists use to define ethnic groups
basically based on objective criteria
criteria, others mainly depend
on subjective elements
elements, and still some others use a mix of
objective and subjective ethnic elements.
Smith (1986) defined ethnic groups as a named human
population (a collective name) with myths of common
ancestry/descent, shared historical memories, elements of
common/shared culture, a link with a homeland (specific
territory) and a sense of solidarity among at least some of
its members.
Max Weber (1968 ) defined ethnic groups as human groups
that entertain a subjective belief in their common descent
because of similarities of physical types or customs or both,
or because of memories of colonization and migration
(Weber 1968). Some ethnic groups may be marked by
shared culture; some others may be defined by shared
religion, language, and/or customs. Nonetheless every
ethnic group tends to have notions of common ancestry
justifying their unity.
For Isajiw (1992), ethnic group refers to either a community-
type group of people who share the same culture or to
descendants of such people who may not share this culture
but who identify themselves with this ancestral group.
By considering the various definitions of ethnicity, Hutchinson and Smith (1996) identified six
main features that are predominantly constituted in the definition of an ethnic group:

1. A common proper name, to identify and express the “essence” of the community;

2. A myth of common ancestry that includes the idea of common origin in time and place and that
gives an ethnic group a sense of fictive kinship;

3. Shared historical memories, or better, shared memories of a common past or pasts, including
heroes, events, and their commemoration;

4. One or more elements of common culture, which need not be specified but normally, include
religion, customs, and language;

5. A link with a homeland, not necessarily its physical occupation by the ethnic group, only its
symbolic attachment to the ancestral land, as with Diaspora peoples;

6. A sense of solidarity on the part of at least some sections of the ethnic’s population.
 ETHNIC IDENTITY

Ethnic identity is an affiliative construct, where an individual is

viewed by themselves and by others as belonging to a
particular ethnic or cultural group. An individual can choose to
associate with a group especially if other choices are available
(i.e., the person is of mixed ethnic or racial heritage). Affiliation
can be influenced by racial, natal, symbolic, and cultural
factors (Cheung, 1993).
Racial factors involve the use of physiognomic and physical
characteristics, natal factors refer to "homeland" (ancestral
home) or origins of individuals, their parents and kin, and
symbolic factors include those factors that typify or exemplify
an ethnic group (e.g., holidays, foods, clothing, artifacts, etc.).
Symbolic ethnic identity usually implies that individuals
choose their identity, however, to some extent the cultural
elements of the ethnic or racial group have a modest influence
on their behavior.
 CONT…
Ethnic identity can be defined as a manner in which persons,
on account of their ethnic origin, locate themselves
psychologically in relation to one or more social systems,
and in which they perceive others as locating them in
relation to those systems. By ethnic origin is meant either
that a person has been socialized in an ethnic group or that
his or her ancestors, real or symbolic, have been members
of the group. The social systems may be one's ethnic
community or society at large, or other ethnic communities
and other societies or groups, or a combination of all these
External and internal aspects of ethnic identity.
External aspects refer to observable behaviour
behaviour, both cultural
and social, such as (1), speaking an ethnic language,
practicing ethnic traditions, (2), participation in ethnic
personal networks, such as family and friendships, (3),
participation in ethnic institutional organizations, such as
churches, schools, enterprises, media (4), participation in
ethnic voluntary associations, such as clubs, 'societies,' youth
organizations and (5) participation in functions sponsored by
ethnic organizations such as picnics, concerts, public
lectures, rallies, dances.
The internal aspects of ethnic identity refer to images, ideas,
attitudes, and feelings. We can distinguish at least three
types of internal aspects of identity: (1) cognitive, (2) moral,
and (3) affective.
The cognitive dimensions of EI include the self image of the people
towards their own ethnic group; and the knowledge of ethnic
members about their heritage and historical past.
The moral dimension of EI is basically associated with the feeling of
group obligation in the form of the importance a person attaches to
his/her group. Eg., of teaching the ethnic language to one’s children,
of helping members of the group in times of difficulty.
The affective dimension of EI constitutes the feeling of attachment
to one’s group which can be manifested in the associative preference
for members of one’s group & the feeling of security and comfort
with the cultural patterns of the group.
Le (2009) also identified two forms of ethnic identity. The first is
“resurgent ethnic identity” in which the traditional or ancestral
identities reemerge through historical events and particular
circumstances.
The other is “emergent ethnic identity” which involves the creation of
new forms of group identity due to the convergence of particular
circumstances. “More specifically, because of demographic changes
or competition and conflict with other groups, a new ethnic identity
based on group solidarity and similarity of experiences might form”.
 RACE –THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF RACIAL IDENTITY
Race is an elusive concept like ethnicity –used in a variety of
contexts and meanings; sometimes interchangeably with ethnicity,
where the relationship between the two concept remain complex.
When first appeared, ethnicity/ethnic identity was used in synonym
with race or racial identity, which complicated their relation.
Moreover, the boundary between the two concepts is historically
variable; what was 'racial' before 1945 may be more publicly
acceptable as 'ethnic' today. Race/racial identity as a social
construction of group categorization and identification, and come
up with the significant distinctions among the races and the major
difference between race/racial identity and ethnicity/ethnic identity.
Race is the idea that the human species is divided into distinct
groups on the basis of inherited physical and behavioral difference.
Race generally refers to a group of people who have common some
visible physical trait, such as skin colors, hair texture, facial features
and eye formation.
RACIAL CLASSIFICATION: A SHORT HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

For some time, it was common to divide humanity into four

main races, which recognized both on the scientific and folk
notions of the concept. In this regard, race was used both as
a system of human classification and social stratification as
follows:
Europeaeus: White; muscular; hair – long, flowing; eyes blue
– Acute, inventive, gentle, and governed by laws.
Americanus: Reddish; erect; hair – black, straight, thick; wide
nostrils – Obstinate, merry, free, and regulated by custom.
Asiaticus: Sallow (yellow); hair black; eyes dark – Haughty,
avaricious, severe, and ruled by opinions.
Africanus: Black; hair –black, frizzled; skin silky; nose flat; lips
tumid – Crafty, indolent, negligent, and governed by caprice
or the will of their masters.
‘Race’ is human groups defined by itself or others as distinct by
virtue of perceived common physical characteristics that are held to
be inherent. In this sense of the concept, race is a group of human
beings socially defined on the basis of physical traits. At this level,
concept of race would be important to the extent that it will inform
people's actions; where it exists as a cultural construct, whether it
has a "biological" reality or not.
Racism, obviously, builds on the assumption that personality is
somehow linked with hereditary characteristics, which differ
systematically between "races", and in this way race may assume
sociological importance even if it has no "objective" existence.
Social scientists who study race relations need not themselves
believe in the existence of race, since their object of study is the
social and cultural relevance of the notion that race exists. Hence, in
societies, where they are important, ideas of race may therefore, be
studied as part of local discourses on ethnicity.
‘Racial group’ is a group of people, defined by itself or others as
distinct by virtue of perceived common physical characteristics that
are held to be inherent.
Many scholars argued that while there is much overlap
between race and ethnicity, they are distinct concepts that
need to be distinguished. For example,
a) Max Weber (1922): proposed that a blood relationship was
necessary for racial identification but not for ethnic
identification.
b) John Rex (1973): explained that ethnicity is a wider
classificatory or organizational principle than 'race'. In the
case of ethnic groups, a far wider set of situations are based
upon cultural differentiation of groups than those which are
commonly called racial. But, few of ethnic groups have
anything like the same conflictual consequences like racial
situations do. That means, few ethnic conflicts are as bloody
as 'racial' ones.
C) Gerald Berreman (1972, 1981): viewed ethnicity as something
linked in a dichotic relationship with race:
racial stratification/ categorizations is associated with birth-
ascribed status based on physical and cultural characteristics
defined by outside groups.
ethnicity is also ascribed at birth, but the ethnic group normally
defines its cultural characteristics itself.
Thus, racial categorizations are normally laced with inaccuracies
and stereotypes, while ethnic classification is normally more
accurate of a cultural group because it is defined by the group itself.
Yet, ethnic classifications can also be defined and used by outside
groups to stereotype an ethnic community in ways that are often
oversimplified and that view ethnicity as a static cultural group.
Some scholars claim that the external ethnic boundaries [i.e. the
boundaries that are defined from the outside] are the source of
racial distinctions and of race as a group phenomenon. That means,
race is a response to external categorization and exclusion and
whatever internal dynamics race generates, it is always a response
to external exclusion rather than to internal identity generating
forces.
 THEORIES OF ETHNICITY: PRIMORDIALISM, INSTRUMENTALISM AND
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM

Perspective Description

Primordialist Ethnicity is fixed at birth. Ethnic identification

approach is based on deep, ‘primordial’ attachments to
a group or culture.
Instrumentalist Ethnicity, based on people’s “historical” and
approach “symbolic” memory, is something created and
used and exploited by leaders and others in
the pragmatic pursuit of their own interests.
Constructivist Ethnic identity is not something people
approach “possess” but something they “construct” in
specific social and historical contexts to
further their own interests. It is therefore fluid
and subjective.
THE PRIMORDIALIST PERSPECTIVE ON ETHNICITY & ETHNIC IDENTITY
Primordialism is the idea that nations or ethnic
identities are fixed, natural and ancient. They
argued that individuals have a single ethnic
identity which is not subject to change and which
is exogenous to historical process.
In the extreme case, ethnicity is treated as an
extension of a pre modern social bond, an innate
aspect of human identity, something that people
are born with where attachment among ethnic
members and its persistence is attributed to the
ties of blood.
CONT…
Another version of the primordial perspective primarily
equates ethnicity with culture. An enduring character of
ethnicity is viewed as the outcome of cultural and linguistic
features. Ethnicity is treated as something we are socialized
into through which the cultural meanings related to ethnicity
(e.g. language, history, and values) develops into durable
tendencies and become self-evident frame of reference.
This latter version of primordialism views cultural ties as
indefinable with a deeper psychological effect on members
of the group. In general, the primordial theory argues that
there is something fundamental about the nature of
ethnicity that ties individuals together and provides a sense
of communal anchorage and protection lacking in other
forms of organization.
Clifford Geertz (1973): who systematized the primordial
model articulated ethnicity as a natural phenomenon
with its foundations in primordial ties deriving mainly
from kinship, locality and culture. He recognizes the role
of culture in defining the primordial 'givens' that strength
of such primordial bonds, and the types of them [i.e.
primordial bonds] that are important differ from person
to person, from society to society, and from time to time.
What matters analytically is that ties of blood, language
and culture are seen by actors to be indefinable and
obligatory; that they are seen as natural. Geertz argues
that in some respects these putative 'primordial
attachments' are actually likely to be stimulated and
quickened by the political modernization of nation-
building. In its general sense then, it can be said that
ethnicity is something given, ascribed at birth, deriving
from the kin-and-clan-structure of human society, and
hence something more or less fixed and permanent
 Anthony D. Smith (1986) also theorized the defining elements of
ethnic identification as psychological and emotional, emerging from a
person’s historical and cultural backgrounds. He illustrated that the
‘core’ of ethnicity resides in the myths, memories, values, symbols and
the characteristic styles of particular historic configurations, i.e., what
he calls ‘a myth symbol complex’. The durability of the ethnie (ethnic
group) resides in the forms and content of the myth-symbol complex.
Of pivotal importance for the survival of the ethnie is the diffusion and
transmission of the myth-symbol complex to its unit of population and
its future generations. He emphasizes the “extraordinary persistence
and resilience of ethnic ties and sentiments, once formed” and argues
that they [ethnic ties and sentiments] are essentially primordial since
they are received through ethnic socialization into one’s ethnie and are
more or less fixed. Smith (1986) regards primordial ties as the basic
organizing principles and bonds of human association throughout
history. He concluded that, ‘primordialism’ makes two distinct claims:
firstly, ethnicity and ethnic attachment is “natural and innate”, which
would never change over time, and secondly, it is “ancient and perennial”
.
The primordialist theory has been criticized for presenting a
view of ethnicity and ethnic identity alternatively characterized
as static, fixed, involuntary, compelling, essentialized and
naturalistic. Although cultural traditions are shared,
transmitted and internalized by people and are sources of
internal cohesion and belongingness; they are not like “natural
species” but dynamic and changing. The primordialist
perspective is also inadequate to explain observed
geographical variations in the expression of cultural identity
by sub groups of people from the same ethnic origin. The
primordial view is unable to adequately account for the
observed flux in ethnic solidarity. It cannot account for ethnic
change and dissolution, and the dynamics of ethno-genesis.
The theory of primordialism also misses the fact that
individuals’ attachments vary across situations, and identity
shifts do occur. It is observed that in several cases where no
“primordial ties” can be shown to have existed historically,
ethnic mobilization has actually taken place as a result of
socioeconomic and political factors.
 THE INSTRUMENTALIST THEORY OF ETHNICITY & ETHNIC
IDENTITY
The instrumentalist theory views ethnicity as an intentional or
conscious strategy, an adaptive response to the conditions
governing the contest for acquisition of desired resources and a
strategy to defend or seize resources. The reasons for a group
asserting and maintaining an ethnic identity are said to be
economic and political rather than psychological. Ethnic
identification is encouraged by the pursuit of collective interests.
The persistence of ethnicity is attributed to the functions it
fulfills in terms of interest aggregation and group mobilization
in pursuit of economic or political gain. When people can see no
net usefulness in such group memberships, they will tend to
attempt to disassociate themselves from it. The change in
ethnic identity is explained in line with the cost-benefit
calculations of individuals.
CONT..
Banks (1996) explained the instrumentalist understandings
of ethnicity as an instrument of group mobilization for
political and economic ends. Ethnicity is something that
can be hanged, constructed or even manipulated to gain
specific political and/or economic ends. Proponents of
instrumentalism advocate that bin the contexts of modern
states, leaders (political elites) use and manipulate
perceptions of ethnic identity to further their own ends and
stay in power. Ethnicity is created in the dynamics of elite
competition within the boundaries determined by political
and economic realities” and ethnic groups are seen as a
product of political myths, created and manipulated by
culture elites in their pursuit of advantages and power.
Abner Cohen (1974), emphasizes on the ethnic group as a
collectively organized strategy for the protection of economic and
political interests. Ethnic groups share common interests, and in
pursuit of these interests they develop “basic organizational
functions such as: distinctiveness or boundaries (ethnic identity);
communication; authority structure; decision making procedure;
ideology; and socialization” .
Abner Cohen’s perspective on ethnicity defines ethnic organization
essentially as a kind of political organization. Ethnic ideology offers
answers to the questions of origins, destiny and, ultimately, the
meaning of life. However, Cohen argues that ethnicity must also
have a practical function in order to be viable. He argued that
ethnicity is an instrument for competition over scarce resources,
which is nevertheless circumscribed by ideologies of shared culture,
shared origins and metaphoric kinship. This may or may not be
acknowledged by the agents themselves. Only by focusing on this
aspect is it possible to explain why some ethnic groups thrive while
others vanishes, and why only some ethnic identification assumes
great social importance.
Daniel Bell (1975) and Jeffrey Ross (1982) also emphasize
the political advantage of ethnic membership choice.
Ethnicity is "a group option in which resources are mobilized
for the purpose of pressuring the political system to allocate
public goods for the benefit of the members of a self-
differentiating collectivity" (Ross, 1982).
Rational choice and elite theories are examples of the
instrumental perspective. Predicated on the ‘theoretical
primacy’ of the individual, not the group, rational choice
theory holds that individual actors act rationally and in their
own best interests. It sees any action as determined by a
rational motive and as the basis for the pursuit of scarce
resources.
CONT…
The instrumentalist theory underplays the emotional
power and affective dimension of ethnic bonds. In its
tendency to reduce ethnic phenomena to purely
material motives the instrumentalist approach lack
an adequate account of the emotive strength, and
often apparently irrational power or pull associated
with ethnic identities. The subjective import of ethnic
group membership does not lie just simply in one’s
pursuit of practical interest, but also in one’s feelings
and a complex conception of identity. It has been
shown that a number of ethnic categories reproduce
their identity even if it actually reduces their chances
of attaining prosperity and political power.
 THE CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORY OF ETHNICITY AND ETHNIC IDENTITY
The constructivist theory is an intermediate perspective. It
recognizes that ethnicity cannot be simply taken as a given or
conceptualized as an independent variable without also
acknowledging its dependent status. Constructivism holds that
ethnicity is constructed and that ethnic identities are not singular, nor
are they fixed; they may change over time and differ in their relative
significance. Ethnicity is subject to fluctuation depending upon a
group’s solidarity and position in society. It is the circumstances that
locate groups in particular situations and encourages them to define
themselves in such a way that their interests are met. Therefore,
ethnic identity has to be conceived of as a process, affected by history
as well as contemporary circumstances, and by local as well as global
dynamics. Ethnic identities are (re)constructed as narratives from the
political–economic–cultural facts and fictions of history told in
contemporary settings.
The central idea of constructivism is that ethnic groups are artificial
and constructed rather than natural and eternal and they cab created,
they can also destroyed.
CONT…
Because the emphasis is on construction, this
theory borrows a great deal from the
instrumentalists’ focus on specific contexts and
circumstances whether they are economic or
political, immediate, or structural. It explains ethnic
group solidarity and the maintenance of ethnic
group bonds underlining historical, structural and
cultural contingencies and circumstantial aspects
in ethnic relations. Ethnicity is viewed not as
something that people possess as a property of a
group but as aspects of relationships between
groups and is constructed in certain situations.