From Ethnic Studies: Issues and Approaches by Philip Q. Yang State University of New York Press 2000 CHAPTER 3 THEORIES OF ETHNICITY rhat is the nature of ethnicity? What forces create and sustain cth- nicity? These are the basic questions that theories of ethnicity must answer. This chapter organizes the existing theoretical perspectives on the nature and basis of ethnicity into three schools of thought: the pri- mordialist school, the constructionist school, and the instrumentalist school. It introduces and analyzes the basic ideas and specific variants of each school. Furthermore, the chapter presents a synthetic approach that attempts to integrate the competing theories of ethnicity. CONCEPT OF ETHNICITY Before we discuss the theories of ethnicity, itis essential to clarify the meaning of “ethnicity.” At first glance, ethnicity is seemingly a straight- forward concept, but in fact itis subject to different interpretations. Some understand it as ancestry, and others perceive it as physical attributes. ‘The following familiar situation should help clarify the meaning of this concept. You have been filling out forms all your life. They are required every time you apply for schools, jobs, scholarships, grants, and a myriad of other occasions. These forms often ask the question: “What is your cth- nicity?” You are given categories to check, either broad categories such as 940 | Major Issues in Ethnic Studies white, black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American, or specific categories such as Chinese, Japanese, Mexican, Puerto Rican, and so on, What does the question /zerally mean in this context? The question can be rephrased as follows: What is your ethnic group membership? Which ethnic group are you affiliated with? Which ethnic group do you identify yourself wich? If you agree with the interpretation of this ques- tion, then etinicity may be defined as an affiliation or identification with an ethnic group. Other synonyms of ethnicity include eéhnic group member- ship, whnic affiliation, and exhnic identity. On the one hand, ethnicity is sub- jective since itis the product of the human mind and human sentiments, Itis a matter of identification ora sense of belonging to a particular ethnic group (Yetman 1991, 2). On the other hand, ethnicity is objective because it must be based on some objective characteristics and is constructed by social forces and power relations. It is to a large extent independent of in- dividuals’ desires. On balance, ethnicity is the outcome of subjective per- ceptions based on some objective characteristics such as physical attrib- utes, presumed ancestry, culture, or national origin. As mentioned in chapter 1, this book uses the broad definition of ethnic group, which in- cludes both culturally defined ethnic groups and racial groups. Hence, af- filiation or identification with a racial group is part of ethnicity. ‘The terms etficity and ethnic group are often used interchangeably. In actuality, although the two terms are closely related, there is a nuance di- viding them. While ethnic group is a social group based on ancestry, cul- ture, or national origin, ethnicity refers to affiliation or identification with an ethnic group.' This book treats them as two interrelated but separate concepts rather than as synonyms. NATURE AND BASIS OF ETHNICITY: BASIC QUESTIONS ‘Theorists of both Marxism and modernism have predicted that as a soci ety becomes industrialized and modernized, ethnicity will fade and even- tually die out. Likewise, assimilationists and advocates of the “melting 1. In some contexts, interchanging the two terms will not make much difference ia ‘meaning, a in the questions, “What is your ethnicity?” and “What is your ethnic group?” In other contexts, however, the meanings of the ewo terms vary. For example, in the ques tions, “What determines ethnicity?” and “What determines ethnic group?” “ethnicity” and “ethnic group” are obviously not synonyms.Theories of Ethnicity [41 pot" paradigm have envisaged a withering of ethnic identification as are- sult of ethnic assimilation and amalgamation. However, nonc of these presages has materialized. On the contrary, not only has ethi maineda vital and important part of contemporary life, butts significance bas been on the ascendence at certain times and in certain places. In America, for instance, the vitality of ethnicity is undeniable. Ethnicity affects the opportunities of members of different ethnic groups in schools, jobs, income, housing, poverty, crime, and politics. Through- out the world, there is no sign that ethnicity is vanishing. In reality, the importance of ethnicity is even on the rise. As we have seen in the past ten years or so, the broad “Soviet” identi iled to override ethnic divi- sions in the former Soviet Union; ethnic division has torn Yugoslavia apart and led to the ongoing war in Bosnia; ethnic strife and separation have | continued in Northern Ireland, Quebec, and other European countries; | Isacli-Palestinian conflict has lingered on despite the peace-making | process; ethnic collision between majority Hindus and minority Muslims | and: Sikhs in India has intensified; ethnic fighting between ruling | Sinhalese and minority Tamils has killed eight thousand and forced more } than 200,000 Tamils into refugee camps; in South Aftica, racial tension re- + mains despite the abolition of apartheid; and in Rwanda, ethnic warfare between the majority Hutu and the minority Tutsi erupted in 1994, Not only has conflict along the ethnic lines remained a constant global theme, butichas intensified in many parts ofthe world. Almost five million peo- | ple lost their ives and more than fifey million were displaced in the macl- | strom of intergroup conflict between 1990 and 1996. Ethnic memberships often demarcate the lines of intergroup conflicts. Throughout history peo- ple have often used ethnic distinctions to rank members of a society. The tenacity of ethnic identities verifies the centrality of ethnicity in modem human societies. ‘To understand the emergence and persistence of ethnicity, we need to answer the following two interrelated questions: 1, What is the nature of ethnicity? Is ethnicity something that is in- herited or something that is constructed? 2. What determines ethnic affiliation or identification? In other words, what is the basis of ethnicity? ‘Theories of ethnicity attempt to answer these fundamental questions in ethnic studies. Over the years, scholars have developed many theories42 | Major Issues in Ethnic Studies of ethnicity, which may be grouped into three schools of thought: (1) pri- mordialism, (2) constructionism, and (3) instrumentalism. The remainder of this chapter first presents the central ideas of these three paradigms and some specific versions of arguments within each school and then focuses on the formulation of an integrated approach. It should be noted before proceeding that the three schools of thought are ideal types. Often a spe- cific theory may not be pigeonholed under a single category. Neverthe- less, most theories have a tendency to lean toward a particular school. Itis, the presente of an intrinsic underlying view that is used to classify a the- ory under a particular heading. ‘THE PRIMORDIALIST SCHOOL How docs the primordialist school answer the two questions posed above? ‘Three arguments are at the heart of this school of thought. First, ethnicity is an ascribed identity or assigned status, something inherited from one’s ancestors. For example, if your ancestors are Chinese, then you are also Chinese because you inherit physical and cultural characteristics from your forebears. Ethnicity is a very deeply rooted, primal bond to one’s an- cestral bloodline, ; Second, as an important corollary of ascribed identity, ethnic bound- aries, which demarcate who is a member of an ethnic group and who is not, are fixed or immutable. Ethnicity is static. If yots were born Chinese, you will be forever Chinese, and you can’t change your membership to another group. Finally, common ancestry determines ethnicity. In other words, peo- ple belong to an ethnic group because members of that group all share common biological and cultural origins. “Primordialist” is used to charac- terize this school of thought because it stresses the role of primordial fac- tors, such as lineage and cultural ties, in determining ethnicity, To primor- ialists, itis the primordial bonds that give rise to and sustain ethnicity (Geertz 1973; Isaacs 1975; van den Berghe 1981). Within the primordialist framework, there arc at least two variant views. The sociobiological perspective represented by Pierre van den Berghe emphasizes the importance of a sociobiological factor—kinship— in-determining ethnicity. Van den Berghe (1981) argued that ethnicity is an extension of kinship. Ethnic affiliation originates fram membership in a nuclear family, then an extended family, and finally the ethnic group.t Theories of Ethnicity | 43 _ Ethnic identity develops and persists due to the common ancestral bonds of group members. An implication of this view is that ethnicity will never perish because kinship always exists. ‘Asecond current of primordialism is the culturalist perspective, which lunderscores the importance of a common culture in the determination of ethnic group membership. According to this view, a common culture (c.g. a common language, a common religion) determines the genesis and tenacity of ethnic identity even in the absence of common ancestors. For instance, Hispanic identity is determined by a shared language, Spanish, rather than by people’s shared ancestry. Different racial groups of people originating from the same country can form an ethnic group and develop a common ethnic identity even though they have no common biological bonds. Grasping the sentimental or psychological origins of ethnicity, the pri- mordialist school provides a plausible explanation for the rise and tenacity of ethnic attachment. However, primordialism contains several draw- backs, First, this perspective cannot explain why ethnic memberships or identities of individuals and groups change. Second, it cannot fully ac- ‘count for why new ethnic identities, such as Asian American, emerge among biologically and culturally diverse groups, and why ethnic identi- ties wane and disappear. Third, it tends to overlook the larger historical and structural conditions that construct/deconstruct and reinforce/under- mine ethnic loyalties. Finally, it neglects the economic and political inter- ests closely associated with ethnic sentiment and practice (Glazer and ‘Moynihan 1963; Greenberg 1980). Itis undeniable that ethnicity requires some common origins, such as common ancestry or common culture; but how important are common ori- gins in determining ‘ethnic affiliation, and is ethnicity completely as- cribed? Primordialists tend to offer affirmative answers to these questions. Constructionists and instrumentalists, however, dissent. ‘THE CONSTRUCTIONIST SCHOOL ‘The primordialist school was the dominant way of thinking until the 1970s, and many people are still accustomed to this way of thinking today. Starting in the 1970s, the constructionist school began to ascend. The an- swers of the constructionist school to the two questions stand in sharp contrast to those of the primordialist school. Constructionists have ad-44 | Major Issues in Ethnic Studies vanced three major arguments: First, ethnicity is a socially construcea identity, something that is created. The emphasis of this school on the so- cial construction of ethnicity breeds the label of “constructionist” school, Second, as an extension of constructed identity, ethnic boundaries are flexible or changeable, Ethnicity is dynamic. Lastly, ethnic affiliation ot identification is determined or constructed by society. Ethnicity is areac- tion to changing social environment, ‘The constructionist school also encompasses several different per- spectives which emphasize different components, William Yancey et al. (1976) proposed an “emergent ethnicity” perspective. They downplayed the effect of cultural heritage and viewed ethnicity as an “emergent phe- nomenon” created by structural conditions, Focusing on the experience of Italian, Jewish, and Polish immigrants in America around the turn of this century, Yancey and his associates 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, Specifically, the industrialization process led to the ore ation or expansions of certain industries (e.g, the garment industry, steel industry, construction industry) and occupations associated with these in- dustries; immigrant groups with different occupational skills moved into different industries and occupations at different times, leading to occupa- tional concentrations of ethnic groups with similar life styles, class inter- ests, work relationships; because of 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 oc- cupations and residence led to the use of the same institutions and ser- vies, 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 eth- nic identities by reinforcing the maintenance of kinship and friendship networks (Yancey et al. 1976, 392). According to this view, ethnicity emerges as a response to structural changes in sociery. Yancey et al.'s work, ‘was among the pioneering attempts to explore the sources of ethnicity de- rived from the structural forces of society. Jonathan Sarna, a historian, developed a so-called “theory of eth- nicization,” which somewhat differs from the emergent ethnicity per- spective formulated by sociologists such as Yancey et al. Sarna (1978) maintained that ethnicity is created by two conditions: ascription and ad-Theories of Ethnicity 145. versity. Ascription refers to the assignment of individuals to particular ethnic. groups by outsiders such as governments, churches, schools, media, natives, and other immigrants. Adversity includes prejudice, dis crimination, hostility, and hardship. Sarna contended that adversity forces members of the same group to unite and helps create group identity and solidarity. Sara's theory probably understates the active role of ethnic groups in shaping their identities while inflating 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. Other scholars focus on the resurgence of old ethnic identities and boundaries that previously existed. In other words, ethnic identity is con- structed around formerly recognized historical boundaries. They found that “resurgent ethnicity” is particularly evident among white ethnic goups. For instance, quite a few studies (e.g., Alba 1990; Bakalian 1993; Kivisto 1989; 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 increas- ingly identify with their group of origin. Some argue that social changes since the 1960s and shifting societal emphasis from assimilation into the Anglo culture to ethnic distinctiveness have resulted in resurgent ethnic- ity among whites. On the other hand, Gans (1979) contended that ethnic revival among whites is nothing more than “symbolic ethnicity,” or sym- bolic allegiance to, love for and pride in the culture and tradition of the immigrant generation and the country of origin, without having to be in- corporated in everyday behavior. Simply put, symbolic ethnicity is “feel- ing ethnic” rather than being ethnic. ‘The more recent social constructionist perspective explicitly empha- sizes the social construction of ethnicity and race and the dynamic process of ethnic/racial formation, For example, Werner Sollars (1989) suggested the notion of “the invention of ethnicity.” Challenging the primordialist assumption that ethnicity is an irrational form of cultural attachment, Sollars argued that ethnic identity is embedded in tradition, which is cre~ ated, sustained, and refashioned by people. Joane Nagel (1994, 1996) con- tended that ethnicity is socially constructed and reconstructed by internal forces (ic, actions taken by ethnic groups themselves such as negotia- tion, redefinition, and reconstruction of ethnic boundaries) and external forces (i.e., social, economic, and political processes and outsiders), and that ethnicity is a dynamic, constantly changing property of individual identity and group organization, Focusing on the centrality of race,46 | Major Issues in Ethnic Studies Michael Omi and Howard Winant (1994) demonstrated how the mean-' ings and categories of race both shape and are shaped by the political’ process. ‘The constructionist school pinpoints the centrality of social construc- tion in ethnic formation and retention; it highlights historical and struc- tural forces that create and sustain ethnicity; and it better explains the. volatility of ethnicity. Nevertheless, the constructionist school tends to ig- nore the ancestral basis of ethnicity and deemphasize the limitations of social construction. Like the primordialist school, it also pays insufficient atcention to the role of political and economic interest in the construction of ethnicity. ‘THE INSTRUMENTALIST SCHOOL Unlike the primordialist school and the constructionist school, the instru- mentalist school views ethnicity as an instrument or strategic tool for gain- ing resources. Hence, the “instrumentalist” tag is affixed to this school. ‘According to this theoretical framework, people become ethnic and re- main ethnic when their ethnicity yields significant returns to them. In other words, ethnicity exists and persists because it is useful. The func- tional advantages of ethnicity range from “the moral and material support provided by ethnic networks to political gains made through ethnic bloc voting” (Portes and Bach 1985, 24). To Nathan Glazer and Daniel ‘Moynihan (1975), who are among the pioneers of this school, 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 acquis tion and retention of ethnic membership or identity solely to the motiva- tion of wanting to obtain comparative advantage. For example, Orlando Patterson (1975, 348) asserted that “The strength, scope, viability, and bases of ethnic identity are determined by, and are used to serve, the eco- nomic and general class interests of individuals.” Hence, interests are the sole determinant of ethnic identity, and ethnic affiliation tends to be tran- sient and situational as the benefits of ethnicity shift. A more moderate variant of instrumentalism combines advantages of ethnicity with affee- tive ties. For instance, Daniel Bell (1975, 169) stated that “Ethnicity has become more salient because it can combine an interest with an affectiveTheories of Ethnicity |47 tie.” Cohen (1969) suggested that cultural homogeneity of people facil tates their effective organization as an interest group and boosts ethnic solidariry and identity, ‘Another recent formulation of instrumentalism is rational choice theory (anton 1983; Hechter 1986, 1987; Hechter et al. 1982). As a social theory, rational choice theory assumes that people act to promote their socioc notnic positions by minimizing the costs of, and maximizing the potential benefits of, their actions. As an application to ethnic identity, rational choice theory maintains that ethnic affiliation is based on the rational cal- culation of the costs and benefits of ethnic association. For the advocates of rational choice theory, ethnicity is an option. People choose one ethnic- ity over another or avoid association with an ethnic group because of the utility or cost of such affiliation. Some people favor an ethnic affliat because it is beneficial, while other people hide or deny an ethnicidentity because it will bring disadvantages. Rational choice theory can help us understand the change of ethnic identity, but it has limitations as well. t, ethnic choice is limited. Since ethnic choice is subject to ancestral constraints defined by a society, not everyone can freely choose ethnic identity. ‘As Joane Nagel (1996, 26) stated, “We do not always choose to be who we are; we simply are who we areas a result of a sctof social definitions, categorization schemes, and ex- tommal 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 superseded. Second, not all ethnic choices arc ra- tional and materialistic, Some people choose an ethnic affiliation not for material gains, rewards, oraccess to resources and services but for psycho- logical satisfaction, which includes emotional fulfillment, social attach- ment, of recreational pleasure. The notion of symbolic ethnicity sug- gested by Herbert Gans (1979) comes closest to this function of cthnicity. ‘This type of ethnic option is symbolic, nonrational, nonmaterial-driven. AN INTEGRATED APPROACH ‘The foregoing review of the three schools of thought on the nature and basis of ethnicity reveals the varying degrees of validity of their argu- ments as well as their limitations. We do not have to rely on the either/or logic of thinking; rather, an integration of valuable ideas is possible and worthwhile. ‘The balance of this scction formulates an integrated ap-498 | Major Issues in Ethnic Studies roach of my own that builds upon some useful insights of these theories and incorporates strands from all three paradigms. Targue that ethnicity (including race) is socially constructed partly on the basis of ancestry or presumed ancestry and more importantly by soci ety, that the interests of ethnic groups also partly determine ethnic affili tion, and that ethnic boundaries are relatively stable but undergo changes from time to time. This argument contains four specific propositions, Proposition 1. Ethnicity is partly ascribed because itis partly based om ances- try or presumed ancestry that normally carries certain physical or cultural char- acteristics and national or territorial origins. Few people would deny the relevance of ancestry to ethnicity. “Perception of common ancestry, both real and mythical, has been impor- tant to outsiders’ definitions and to ethnic groups’ self-definitions” (Feagin and Feagin 1993, 9). For Max Weber (1961, 1:306), one of the founding fathers of sociology, cthnic groups are “human groups that en- tertain a subjective belief in their common descent—because of similari- ties of physical type or of customs or both, or because of memories of col- nization or migration—in such a way that this belief is important for the continuation of the nonkinship communal relationships.” Hence, ances- try must be an imperative condition for ethnic affiliation or identification. ‘The social construction of ethnicity or race cannot be undertaken without some reference to common ancestry or presumed common ances- try. Each individual is assigned by society to a particular ethnic group ot identifies himself/herself with a particular ethnic group in part because of that person's ancestry or presumed ancestry. For instance, a person is cat- egorized as Japanese American or identifies himself/herself as Japanese American, partly because his/her ancestors originated in Japan. Similarly, roots in Africa partly define people originating from that continent as “African Americans.” The same rule applies to a person from Britain, Italy, Mexico, or any other country, “Hispanic American” is defined partly because of the shared language of various groups. Ethnic choice also partly depends on ancestral ties, It is true that eth: nic options have become increasingly open in America over time. Take the U.S. population census—a premier means of categorizing people's ethnicity and race—as an example, Before the 1960s, census takers checked the race/ethnicity category of the census form for individuals based on their observations of the physical characteristics of respondents.‘Theories of Ethnicity 49 Since the 1960s, individuals have been given the responsibility to check their racial/ethnic categories for themselves. People have had a certain degree of freedom to choose their ethnic affiliations or identities, but the freedom to choose is not absolute. If you are to select a category for a form, you cannot choose whatever you want. You make your choice at least partly based on your knowledge of your ancestry. Your choice has to be recognized by other people who make their judgment following a set of rules for ethnic categorization established by society. If a person of pure Chinese descent declared himself white, black, Latino, or Indian, most people would think he had made a mistake, or he was a liar or, even worse, insane, ‘The majority of people do not get to choose their ethnicity; they are born into it according to a set of rules defined by society. There are limita- tions to the learning of ethnicity. Listening to black music, learning Ebonics, and hanging around with black students won't make a nonblack person black. Similarly, enjoying Mexican food and learning to speak Spanish won't make one Mexican. The basic rule accepted by American Society is ancestry in terms of the family tree. Proposition 2, Ethnicity is largely constructed by society. ‘There are at least four mechanisms through which society constructs ethnicity. The first mechanism is that society largely determines people's ethnic group memberships through written or unwritten rules for assign- ing its members to different ethnic categories. Ethnic definitions and cat- cegories are social constructs and arbitrary decisions that reflect intergroup power relations, Individuals are often born into an ethnic or racial cate~ gory defined by society, and they normally have little control over the ethnic group memberships. The story of Susie Guillory Phipps helps il- lustrate this point (Sam Francisco Chronicle 1982, 1983). Susie Phipps, the wife of a wealthy seafood importer in Louisiana, looked white and always considered herself white, but on her birth certifi- cate she was designated “colored” because her great-great-great-great grandmother was the black mistress of an Alabama plantation owner back in 1760? According to a 1970 Louisiana law, any person with one thirty- second of “Negro blood” should be designated as colored regardless of 2. Phipps was exactly three thirty-seconds black. “Colored” and “black” are some- ties used interchangeably, such as in the National Assocation for the Advancement of Galored People—a prominent Afiean Americen organization.50 | Major Issues in Ethnic Studies that person’s skin color, In order to change her race from “colored” td “white,” she sued the Louisiana Bureau of Vital Records in 1982-1983, Her attorney argued that designating a race-category on a person's birth: certificate was unconstitutional and that in any case the one thirty-second, criterion was inaccurate. However, she lost the case and the court upheld Louisiana's law quantifying “racial identiy” and affirmed the legal princ ple of assigning persons to specific “racial” groups. Susie Phipps wai, made black because of the law decided by society: Ironically, one drop of black blood made. ‘her black, but the bulk of white blood could not. maak her white. Ethnic/racial categorization rules vary from one society to sited and therefore the same person could be categorized into different ethnic or racial groups in different societies. For instance, in the United States, ancestry, rather than physical appearance, plays a crucial role in determin- ing one’s ethnicity or race. In Brazil, however, a person’s total physical ap* pearance (e.g., skin color, hair texture, facial features) is the primary de: tetminant of his/her racial classification. Hence, many lighter-skinned | blacks in America would be defined as whites in Brazil. In addition to physical appearance, Brazil also uses other factors as ethnic or racial deter- minants. One of the important factors is social class. People with a higher | social class status are more likely to be classified as white than those with ‘lower socal atu. ‘The Brazilian saying, “a rich Neg is white, and «| poor white is a Negto,” vividly reflects this “money whitens” rule. i Sometimes, race/ethnicity-assigning rules, normally based on physi- | cal appearance or ancestry, may not be written in books but are widely ac: knowledged and practiced in society. In the United States, for instance; ' although the “one drop” rule was rejected, its influence has still lingered today. When members of white ethnic groups intermarried, the race of their descendants remained white. However, up to now the descendants of a white person and a black person are viewed as blacks in the eyes of the American public, Many immigrants with mixed ancestries of black and white from the West Indies often have a turning-black experiences For example, in Jamaica, an island nation in the West Indies, the mixed ancestry of black and white is a norm, and the mixed-blood Jamaicans are not defined as blacks in their society. However, when Jamaicans come td the United States, they and their descendants “become” black, evea though many Jamaicans do not like to be so categorized. Although there 3, Susie Phipps's filed suit later prompred « legislative reform, which led to the abg> lition of che law in 1983 (San Francisco Ghronicle 1983).