Ethnicity is a fundamental category of social organization which is based on membership defined by a sense of common historical origins and which may also include shared culture, religion or language. It is to be distinguished from kinship in so far as kinship depends on biological inheritance. The term is derived from the Greek noun ethnos, which may be translated as ‘a people or nation’. One of the most influential definitions of ethnicity can be found in Max Weber’s Economy and Society (1968 [1922]) where he describes ethnic groups as ‘human groups (other than kinship groups) which cherish a belief in their common origins of such a kind that it provides a basis for the creation of a community’.
The difficulty in reaching a precise definition of the term is reflected in the many different words employed in the literature to describe related or similar concepts, such as race and nation. While usage varies, ‘race’, like kinship, has biological connotations, although these are frequently without foundation, and nation implies a political agenda—the goal of separate statehood beyond that generally associated with ethnic groups. According to Weber (1968 [1922]), ‘a nation is the political extension of the ethnic community as its members and leadership search for a unique political structure by establishing an independent state’.
In predominantly immigrant societies, like the USA, Argentina, Australia and Canada, the study of ethnic groups forms a central theme of their social, economic and political life. Systematic research on American ethnic groups can be traced to the sociologists of the Chicago School during the 1920s, led by W.I.Thomas and Robert Ezra Park (Lal 1990), who were concerned with the processes of ethnic group assimilation into the dominant white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant (WASP) mainstream. Park’s ‘race relations cycle’, outlining a sequence of stages consisting of ‘contact, competition, accommodation and assimilation’, implied that successive ethnic groups would be absorbed into a relatively homogeneous US society. The underlying assumption of ethnic group theory was that a gradual process would result in the disappearance of separate ethnic groups into an American melting pot.
This unilinear interpretation gave way to more pluralistic conceptions of ethnicity in the USA, in which various dimensions of assimilation were identified by sociologists like Milton Gordon (1964). Gordon distinguished between cultural assimilation (acculturation) and structural assimilation, the former signifying the adoption of the language, values and ideals of the dominant society, while the latter reflected the incorporation of ethnic groups into the institutions of mainstream society. While cultural assimilation did not necessarily result in an ethnic group’s inclusion within the principal institutions of society, structural assimilation invariably meant that assimilation on all other dimensions—from personal identification to intermarriage—had already taken place.
This conceptualization contrasts with that of M.G. Smith (1987), who argued that the key issue involved in a general theory of ethnic relations was the differential incorporation of ethnic groups into larger social units. Smith distinguished between three types of social incorporation: the universalistic type, where individuals are incorporated directly and on identical conditions in a common society; the differential mode, which is the same process except that individuals are incorporated on an unequal basis, either in a superior or inferior position; and segmental incorporation, where ethnic groups are incorporated in a common society ‘as units of equivalent status on identical terms’. In this third case, individuals are incorporated indirectly, either on an egalitarian or unequal basis, giving a variety of possible ethnic outcomes.
Scholarly concern with ethnicity and ethnic groups has become increasingly salient since the 1960s. Faced with the proliferation of separatist movements throughout the world, and the rise of the so-called ‘unmeltable ethnics’ in North America, the inadequate assumptions underlying theories of modernization have been exposed in all types of societies, whether they are in the capitalist, socialist or developing world. The notion that modernity would result in a smooth transition from gemeinschaft (community) to gesellschaft (association), with the gradual dissolution of ethnic affiliations, simply did not fit the facts. Some social scientists argued that there was a primordial basis to ethnic attachments (Geertz 1963), while others explained the apparent persistence of ethnicity in largely instrumental terms, as a political resource to be mobilized in appropriate situations (Glazer and Moynihan 1975). Not only has ethnic loyalty taken on new meaning in many industrial societies (Esman 1977), but also ethnic divisions have continued to frustrate the efforts of nation-building in most post-colonial societies. Even the countries of the Communist bloc could contain the ethnic demands of their multinational, subject populations only by a judicious blend of co-optation and political oppression (Connor 1984; 1994).
The focus of research on ethnicity has shifted away from studies of specific groups to the broad processes of ethnogenesis, the construction and perpetuation of ethnic boundaries, and the meaning of ethnic identity. The question of the ethnic origin of nations (A.Smith 1986) has produced the same tension between those who stress the continuity of ethnic history and others who emphasize its situational nature. While most social scientists recognize the flexibility of ethnic identification, that under certain circumstances ethnicity becomes salient whereas in others it remains a dormant capacity waiting to be mobilized, some take the position that its impact has been greatly exaggerated. It is often merely ‘symbolic ethnicity’ (Gans 1979), or its influence is largely an illusion based on the ‘invention of tradition’ (Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983) to serve the interests of ethnic political entrepreneurs or, in the neo-Marxist literature, the ruling class.
One of the most influential writers on ethnic boundaries has been the anthropologist Fredrik Barth (1969), whose stress on the processes of group inclusion and exclusion can be seen as a parallel development to the sociological insights of Max Weber. Weber pointed to the tendency of social groups to attempt to monopolize wealth, prestige and political power by systematically excluding outsiders from achieving membership. Immigration restrictions are one way this can be attempted in modern societies. Another is the manner in which citizenship is defined by the state, so that in the case of Germany, for example, the dominant principle reflects a sense of shared ancestry, jus sanguinis, while in France the critical factor has been residence, jus soli (Brubaker 1992). While some writers have stressed the voluntary nature of ethnic group membership and the variety of ethnic options available to individuals in many post-industrial societies (Waters 1990), others point to the coercive element to be found in all forms of ethnic stratification that can be viewed as more crucial in most situations than any hypothetical elements of preference and choice (Jenkins 1994).
A central concern of social scientists has been the attempt to understand the nature of ethnic conflict and violence. Few issues have been of greater practical importance as the post-Cold War era has been marked by a resurgence of ethnic warfare and genocide in societies as diverse, and remote from each other, as Bosnia and Rwanda. In other societies, like South Africa, a relatively peaceful transfer of power in the elections of April 1994, from a white minority to the black majority, rests on a volatile sub-structure of ethnic divisions and fragile compromises (Adam and Moodley 1993).
A wide variety of theoretical perspectives can be found supporting contemporary studies of ethnicity and ethnic conflict (Rex and Mason 1986). Some, like rational choice theory, are methodologically individualistic and apply a cost-benefit formula to account for ethnic preferences and to explain the dynamics of ethnic group formation. These have been criticized on the grounds that they fail to appreciate the collective dynamics of much ethnic behaviour and underestimate the irrational side of ethnic violence. Other common perspectives focus on ethnic stratification: neo-Marxist theories stress the economic components underlying much ethnic discrimination; while those following in the tradition of scholars like Weber and Furnivall provide a more pluralistic interpretation of differences in ethnic power. In general, these originate from conquest and migration, and are used to account for the hierarchical ordering of ethnic and racial groups. Further theories point to psychological factors, like prejudice and ethnocentrism, as important explanations for the persistence of ethnicity. Two highly controversial arguments centre on genetic imperatives, which operate through the mechanism of kin-selection, and form part of the application of sociobiological thinking to ethnic relations; and neo-conservative theories that concentrate attention on cultural characteristics, which (it is asserted) are disproportionately distributed among certain ethnic groups (Sowell 1994; van den Berghe 1990). Such theories have been vigorously challenged because of their deterministic implications. The heat of the debate reinforces the conclusion that no one theory provides a generally accepted and comprehensive paradigm to explain the complexity of ethnic group formation or the persistence of ethnic conflict in the world today.
John Stone
George Mason University
References
Adam, H. and Moodley, K. (1993) The Opening of the Apartheid Mind, Los Angeles, CA.
Barth, F. (1969) Ethnic Groups and Boundaries, Boston, MA.
Brubaker, R. (1992) Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany, Cambridge, MA.
Connor, W. (1984) The National Question in Marxist-Leninist Theory and Strategy, Princeton, NJ.
——(1994) Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding, Princeton, NJ.
Esman, M. (1977) Ethnic Conflict in the Western World, Ithaca, NY.
Gans, H. (1979) ‘Symbolic ethnicity’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 2.
Geertz, C. (1963) ‘The integrative revolution: primordial sentiments and civil politics in the new states’, in C.Geertz (ed.) Old Societies and New States, New York.
Glazer, N. and Moynihan, D.P. (eds) (1975) Ethnicity: Theory and Experience, Cambridge, MA.
Gordon, M. (1964) Assimilation in American Life, New York.
Hobsbawm, E. and Ranger, T. (eds) (1983) The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge, UK.
Jenkins, R. (1994) ‘Rethinking ethnicity: identity, categorization and power’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 17.
Lal, B. (1990) The Romance of Culture in an Urban Civilization, London.
Rex, J. and Mason, D. (eds) (1986) Theories of Race and Ethnic Relations, Cambridge, UK.
Smith, A. (1986) The Ethnic Origin of Nations, Oxford.
Smith, M.G. (1987) ‘Some problems with minority concepts and a solution’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 10.
Sowell, T. (1994) Race and Culture: A World View, New York.
van den Berghe, P. (ed.) (1990) State Violence and Ethnicity, Boulder, CO.
Waters, M. (1990) Ethnic Options: Choosing Ethnicities in America, Berkeley, CA.
Weber, M. (1968 [1922]) Economy and Society, New York.
