DEFINING ETHNICITY, Study notes of Anthropology

Ethnicism is defined as a “movement of protest and resistance on behalf of [ethnics] against oppres- sive and exploitative outsiders” (Hutchinson and Smith 1996 ...

Typology: Study notes

2021/2022

Uploaded on 09/12/2022

ekavaria
ekavaria 🇺🇸

4.3

(40)

262 documents

1 / 3

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
12
The SAA Archaeological Record
September 2004
ARTICLE
What is ethnicity? Ethnicity has been best defined with-
in cultural anthropology, but it has been a debated
topic and there is no single definition or theory of
how ethnic groups are formed. According to John Hutchinson
and Anthony Smith (1996:4–5), the term “ethnicity” is relatively
new, first appearing in the Oxford English Dictionary in 1953, but
its English origins are connected to the term “ethnic,” which has
been in use since the Middle Ages. The true origins of “ethnic”
have been traced back to Greece and the term ethnos, which was
used in reference to band, tribe, race, a people, or a swarm.
In more recent colonial and immigrant history, the term “eth-
nic” falls under the dichotomy of “Us” and “Them.” The “Us,”
the majority, are viewed as non-ethnics and the “Them,” new
immigrants or minorities, as ethnic. Variations of the term
have developed, including ethnic identity, ethnic origin, ethno-
centrism, and ethnicism (Hutchinson and Smith 1996:4–5).
Ethnic identity or origin refers to an individual’s ancestral her-
itage. Ethnocentrism is a belief that your cultural community
or ancestry is superior to all others, resulting in dislike or
hatred of any material, behavioral, or physical characteristics
different than your own. Ethnicism is defined as a “movement
of protest and resistance on behalf of [ethnics] against oppres-
sive and exploitative outsiders” (Hutchinson and Smith 1996:5).
Overall, an ethnic group or ethnicity has been defined in
numerous ways. Hutchinson and Smith’s (1996:6–7) definition
of an ethnic group, or ethnie, consists of six main features that
include:
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 com-
mon origin in time and place and that gives an ethnie 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 lan-
guage;
5. a link with a homeland, not necessarily its physical occupa-
tion by the ethnie, only its symbolic attachment to the
ancestral land, as with diaspora peoples; and
6. a sense of solidarity on the part of at least some sections of
the ethnie’s population
In a broader context, Gerald Berreman (1972, 1981) defines eth-
nicity as one level of social stratification or social inequality that
also includes race, class, kinship, age, estate, caste, and gender.
Berreman provides clear distinctions between ethnicity and
race or class. Ethnicity is linked in a dichotic relationship with
race. It is differentiated from race in that racial stratification is
associated with birth-ascribed status based on physical and cul-
tural characteristics defined by outside groups. Ethnicity is also
ascribed at birth, but the ethnic group normally defines its cul-
tural characteristics itself. Thus, racial categorizations, which
are defined by the outsider, are normally laced with inaccura-
cies 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 process. Ethnicity is differentiated from class in
that “social class membership and ranking . . . is based on
attributes regarded as extrinsic to the people who comprise the
class. . . . such as amount of income, occupation, education,
consumption patterns, and ‘life-style’” (Berreman 1981:15).
Thus, an individual’s class is not predetermined at birth; an
individual’s accomplishments during his or her life can help an
individual to rise or fall in social status within the community.
Primordial and Instrumental Theories of Ethnicity
The work of Sian Jones (1997) contains one of the better sum-
maries of anthropological theories concerning ethnicity and its
application to archaeology. Overall, Jones (1997:xiii) outlines
three major terms related to “ethnic”: ethnicity, ethnic identity,
and ethnic group. Ethnicity is defined as “all those social and
psychological phenomena associated with a culturally con-
structed group identity.” Ethnic identity is defined as “that
aspect of a person’s self-conceptualization which results from
identification with a broader group in opposition to others on
the basis of perceived cultural differentiation and/or common
descent.” An ethnic group is classified as “any group of people
who set themselves apart and/or are set apart by others with
DEFINING ETHNICITY
Timothy Baumann
Timothy Baumann is an Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the University of Missouri, St. Louis.
pf3

Partial preview of the text

Download DEFINING ETHNICITY and more Study notes Anthropology in PDF only on Docsity!

12 The SAA Archaeological Record • September 2004

W

hat is ethnicity? Ethnicity has been best defined with- in cultural anthropology, but it has been a debated topic and there is no single definition or theory of how ethnic groups are formed. According to John Hutchinson and Anthony Smith (1996:4–5), the term “ethnicity” is relatively new, first appearing in the Oxford English Dictionary in 1953, but its English origins are connected to the term “ethnic,” which has been in use since the Middle Ages. The true origins of “ethnic” have been traced back to Greece and the term ethnos , which was used in reference to band, tribe, race, a people, or a swarm.

In more recent colonial and immigrant history, the term “eth- nic” falls under the dichotomy of “Us” and “Them.” The “Us,” the majority, are viewed as non-ethnics and the “Them,” new immigrants or minorities, as ethnic. Variations of the term have developed, including ethnic identity, ethnic origin, ethno- centrism, and ethnicism (Hutchinson and Smith 1996:4–5). Ethnic identity or origin refers to an individual’s ancestral her- itage. Ethnocentrism is a belief that your cultural community or ancestry is superior to all others, resulting in dislike or hatred of any material, behavioral, or physical characteristics different than your own. Ethnicism is defined as a “movement of protest and resistance on behalf of [ethnics] against oppres- sive and exploitative outsiders” (Hutchinson and Smith 1996:5).

Overall, an ethnic group or ethnicity has been defined in numerous ways. Hutchinson and Smith’s (1996:6–7) definition of an ethnic group, or ethnie, consists of six main features that include:

  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 com- mon origin in time and place and that gives an ethnie 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 lan- guage;
  5. a link with a homeland , not necessarily its physical occupa- tion by the ethnie, only its symbolic attachment to the

ancestral land, as with diaspora peoples; and

  1. a sense of solidarity on the part of at least some sections of the ethnie’s population

In a broader context, Gerald Berreman (1972, 1981) defines eth- nicity as one level of social stratification or social inequality that also includes race, class, kinship, age, estate, caste, and gender. Berreman provides clear distinctions between ethnicity and race or class. Ethnicity is linked in a dichotic relationship with race. It is differentiated from race in that racial stratification is associated with birth-ascribed status based on physical and cul- tural characteristics defined by outside groups. Ethnicity is also ascribed at birth, but the ethnic group normally defines its cul- tural characteristics itself. Thus, racial categorizations, which are defined by the outsider, are normally laced with inaccura- cies 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 process. Ethnicity is differentiated from class in that “social class membership and ranking... is based on attributes regarded as extrinsic to the people who comprise the class.... such as amount of income, occupation, education, consumption patterns, and ‘life-style’” (Berreman 1981:15). Thus, an individual’s class is not predetermined at birth; an individual’s accomplishments during his or her life can help an individual to rise or fall in social status within the community.

Primordial and Instrumental Theories of Ethnicity

The work of Sian Jones (1997) contains one of the better sum- maries of anthropological theories concerning ethnicity and its application to archaeology. Overall, Jones (1997:xiii) outlines three major terms related to “ethnic”: ethnicity, ethnic identity, and ethnic group. Ethnicity is defined as “all those social and psychological phenomena associated with a culturally con- structed group identity.” Ethnic identity is defined as “that aspect of a person’s self-conceptualization which results from identification with a broader group in opposition to others on the basis of perceived cultural differentiation and/or common descent.” An ethnic group is classified as “any group of people who set themselves apart and/or are set apart by others with

DEFINING ETHNICITY

Timothy Baumann

Timothy Baumann is an Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the University of Missouri, St. Louis.

September 2004 • The SAA Archaeological Record 13

whom they interact or co-exist on the basis of their perceptions of cultural differentiation and/or common ancestry.”

Within her work, Jones (1997) summarizes and critiques the two major theoretical paradigms of ethnicity—“primordialists” and “instrumentals”—and suggests an alternative approach that combines portions of both in “practice theory.” Primordialists believe that ethnicity is a natural phenomenon with its founda- tions in family and kinship ties (Geertz 1963; Shils 1957); eth- nicity emerges out of nepotism and reproductive fitness, nar- rowing down the social concept into biological terms. A model by Isaacs (1974), for example, developed “a concept of primor- dial ties as a means of explaining the power and persistence of ethnic identity which he called ‘basic group identity’” (Jones 1997:65–66). Isaacs’s basic group identity was linked to ethnic identity, which was argued to be assigned at birth and more fun- damental and natural than other social links. An added compo- nent of Isaacs’s model is a psychological theory that addresses conflict between intertribal or ethnic groups. This latter concept is often tied to nationalist movements in modern societies.

A major critique of the primordialist’s origins of ethnicity has been that it represents a very static and naturalistic viewpoint. It does not take into account culture process and other social factors that manipulate or formulate ethnic communities. Jones (1998:68–72) summarizes four major critiques of pri- mordialist 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 exis- tence, 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 under- lie ethnicity are involuntary and coercive. However, such an approach cannot explain the fluid nature of ethnic bound- aries, 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 for- mulated in a social and political vacuum.
  4. Primordialist approaches also fail to consider the historical- ly situated and culturally constructed nature of the very concepts that are central to their argument, most notably “ethnic group” and “nation.”

In contrast, instrumentalists believe that “ethnicity is socially constructed and people have the ability to cut and mix from a

variety of ethnic heritages and cultures to form their own indi- vidual or group identities” (Hutchinson and Smith 1996:9). Instrumentalist theory has been characterized as concerned “with the role of ethnicity in the mediation of social relations and the negotiation of access to resources, primarily economic and political resources” (Jones 1997:72). Jones (1974:75) argues that instrumentalists fall into two categories: “those who focus on the socio-structural and cultural dimensions of ethnicity and adopt a more objectivist approach; and those who focus on the interpersonal and behavioral aspects of ethnicity and take a more subjectivist stance.”

The origins of the instrumentalist movement has been tied to the work of Fredrik Barth (1969) and Abner Cohen (1974). Barth viewed ethnic identity as an “individualistic strategy” in which individuals move from one identity to another to “advance their personal economic and political interests, or to minimize their losses” (Jones 1997:74). Following Barth, eth- nic identity forms through boundary maintenance and interac- tion between individuals. Depending on each social interac- tion, a person’s ethnic identity can be perceived or presented in various ways. Overall, interaction between individuals does not lead to an assimilation or homogenization of culture. Instead, cultural diversity and ethnic identity are still maintained, but in a nonstatic form. Cultural traits and even individuals can cross over ethnic boundaries, which in turn can transform an ethnic group over time.

In contrast to Barth, Cohen (1974) “placed [a] greater emphasis on the ethnic group as a collectively organized strategy for the protection of economic and political interests” (Jones 1997:74). Ethnic groups share common interests, and in pursuit of these interests they develop “basic organizational functions: distinc- tiveness or boundaries; communication; authority structure; decision making procedure; ideology; and socialization” (Cohen 1974:xvi–xvii). Overall, Jones (1997:74) suggests that both Barth and Cohen “focus on the organizational features of ethnicity, and ethnicity is regarded as constituting the shared beliefs and practices that provide a group with the boundary maintenance and organizational dimensions necessary to maintain, and compete for, socioeconomic resources.”

Jones (1997:76–79) outlines five major critiques of instrumen- talist 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 particu- lar situation.
  2. The reduction of ethnicity to economic and political rela- tionships frequently results in the neglect of the cultural dimensions of ethnicity. This neglect is a consequence of