Ethnic group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search
"Ethnicity" redirects here. For other uses, see Ethnicity (disambiguation).
"Ethnicities" redirects here. It is not to be confused with the academic journal.

Anthropology

Before the 1970s, the Korowai people of

Papua were an uncontacted people. Their population numbers no more
than 3,000.

 Outline
 History

Types[show]

Archaeological[show]

Biological[show]

 Social

 Cultural

[show]

Linguistic[show]

Research framework[show]

Key concepts[hide]
 Culture
 Development
 Ethnicity
  Evolution
o sociocultural
 Gender
 Kinship and descent
 Meme
 Prehistory

Race
 Society
 Value

 Colonialism / Postcolonialism

Key theories[show]

Lists[show]

 v
 t
 e

An ethnic group or ethnicity is a category of people who identify with each other, usually on the
basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry or on similarities such as
common language or dialect, history, society, culture or nation.[1][2] Ethnicity is often used
synonymously with the term nation, particularly in cases of ethnic nationalism, and is separate from
but related to the concept of races.
Ethnicity is usually an inherited status based on the society in which one lives. Membership of an
ethnic group tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin
myth, history, homeland, language or dialect, symbolic systems such
as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, art or physical appearance. Ethnic groups
often continue to speak related languages and share a similar gene pool. By way of language
shift, acculturation, adoption and religious conversion, it is sometimes possible for individuals or
groups to leave one ethnic group and become part of another (except for ethnic groups
emphasizing homogeneity or racial purity as a key membership criterion).
The largest ethnic groups in modern times comprise hundreds of millions of individuals (Han
Chinese being the largest), while the smallest are limited to a few dozen individuals
(numerous indigenous peoples worldwide). Ethnic groups may be subdivided into subgroups
or tribes, which over time may become separate ethnic groups themselves due
to endogamy or physical isolation from the parent group. Conversely, formerly separate ethnicities
can merge to form a pan-ethnicity (such as Han Chinese) and may eventually merge into one single
ethnicity. Whether through division or amalgamation, the formation of a separate ethnic identity is
referred to as ethnogenesis.

Contents

 1Terminology
 2Definitions and conceptual history
o 2.1Approaches to understanding ethnicity
o 2.2Ethnicity theory
 3Ethnicity and nationality
 4Ethnicity and race
 5Ethno-national conflict
 6Ethnic groups by continent
o 6.1Africa
o 6.2Asia
o 6.3Europe
o 6.4North America
o 6.5South America
o 6.6Oceania
 6.6.1New Zealand
 6.6.1.1Australia
 7See also
 8References
 9Further reading
 10External links

Terminology[edit]

Ethnic sari dress in Kerala

The term ethnic is derived from the Greek word ἔθνος ethnos (more precisely, from the adjective
ἐθνικός ethnikos,[3] which was loaned into Latin as ethnicus). The inherited English language term for
this concept is folk, used alongside the latinate people since the late Middle English period.
In Early Modern English and until the mid-19th century, ethnic was used to
mean heathen or pagan (in the sense of disparate "nations" which did not yet participate in
the Christian oikumene), as the Septuagint used ta ethne ("the nations") to translate the
Hebrew goyim "the nations, non-Hebrews, non-Jews".[4] The Greek term in early antiquity (Homeric
Greek) could refer to any large group, a host of men, a band of comrades as well as
a swarm or flock of animals. In Classical Greek, the term took on a meaning comparable to the
concept now expressed by "ethnic group", mostly translated as "nation, people"; only in Hellenistic
Greek did the term tend to become further narrowed to refer to "foreign" or "barbarous" nations in
particular (whence the later meaning "heathen, pagan").[5]
In the 19th century, the term came to be used in the sense of "peculiar to a race, people or nation",
in a return to the original Greek meaning. The sense of "different cultural groups", and in American
English "racial, cultural or national minority group" arises in the 1930s to 1940s,[6] serving as a
replacement of the term race which had earlier taken this sense but was now becoming deprecated
due to its association with ideological racism. The abstract ethnicity had been used for "paganism" in
the 18th century, but now came to express the meaning of an "ethnic character" (first recorded
1953). The term ethnic group was first recorded in 1935 and entered the Oxford English Dictionary in
1972.[7] Depending on the context that is used, the term nationality may either be used
synonymously with ethnicity, or synonymously with citizenship (in a sovereign state). The process
that results in the emergence of an ethnicity is called ethnogenesis, a term in use
in ethnological literature since about 1950. The term may also be used with the connotation of
something exotic (cf. "ethnic restaurant", etc.), generally related to cultures of more recent
immigrants, who arrived after the dominant population of an area was established.
Depending on which source of group identity is emphasized to define membership, the following
types of (often mutually overlapping) groups can be identified:
 Ethno-linguistic, emphasizing shared language, dialect (and possibly script) – example: French
Canadians
 Ethno-national, emphasizing a shared polity or sense of national identity – example: Austrians
 Ethno-racial, emphasizing shared physical appearance based on genetic origins –
example: African Americans
 Ethno-regional, emphasizing a distinct local sense of belonging stemming from relative
geographic isolation – example: South Islanders of New Zealand
 Ethno-religious, emphasizing shared affiliation with a particular religion, denomination or sect –
example: Jews
In many cases more than one aspect determines membership: for instance, Armenian ethnicity can
be defined by citizenship of Armenia, native use of the Armenian language, or membership of
the Armenian Apostolic Church.

Definitions and conceptual history[edit]

Ethnography begins in classical antiquity; after early authors like Anaximander and Hecataeus of
Miletus, Herodotus in c. 480 BC laid the foundation of both historiography and ethnography of the
ancient world. The Greeks at this time did not describe foreign nations but had also developed a
concept of their own "ethnicity", which they grouped under the name of Hellenes. Herodotus
(8.144.2) gave a famous account of what defined Greek (Hellenic) ethnic identity in his day,
enumerating

1. shared descent (ὅμαιμον - homaimon, "of the same blood"),[8]

2. shared language (ὁμόγλωσσον - homoglōsson, "speaking the same language")[9]
3. shared sanctuaries and sacrifices (Greek: θεῶν ἱδρύματά τε κοινὰ καὶ θυσίαι - theōn
hidrumata te koina kai thusiai)[10]
4. shared customs (Greek: ἤθεα ὁμότροπα - ēthea homotropa, "customs of like fashion").[11][12][13]
Whether ethnicity qualifies as a cultural universal is to some extent dependent on the exact definition
used. According to "Challenges of Measuring an Ethnic World: Science, politics, and reality", in
Challenges of Measuring an Ethnic World: Science, Politics and Reality : Proceedings of the Joint
Canada-United States Conference on the Measurement of Ethnicity, April 1–3, 1992, Joint Canada-
United States Conference on the Measurement of Ethnicity, Department of Commerce, Statistics
Canada, 1993,[14] a conference organised by Statistics Canada and the United States Census
Bureau (April 1–3, 1992).[15] Many social scientists, such as anthropologists Fredrik Barth and Eric
Wolf, do not consider ethnic identity to be universal. They regard ethnicity as a product of specific
kinds of inter-group interactions, rather than an essential quality inherent to human groups.[16][irrelevant
citation]

According to Thomas Hylland Eriksen, the study of ethnicity was dominated by two distinct debates
until recently.

 One is between "primordialism" and "instrumentalism". In the primordialist view, the participant
perceives ethnic ties collectively, as an externally given, even coercive, social
bond.[17] The instrumentalist approach, on the other hand, treats ethnicity primarily as an ad-hoc
element of a political strategy, used as a resource for interest groups for achieving secondary
goals such as, for instance, an increase in wealth, power, or status.[18][19] This debate is still an
important point of reference in Political science, although most scholars' approaches fall
between the two poles.[20]
 The second debate is between "constructivism" and "essentialism". Constructivists view national
and ethnic identities as the product of historical forces, often recent, even when the identities are
presented as old.[21][22] Essentialists view such identities as ontological categories defining social
actors, and not the result of social action.[23][24]
According to Eriksen, these debates have been superseded, especially in anthropology, by scholars'
attempts to respond to increasingly politicised forms of self-representation by members of different
ethnic groups and nations. This is in the context of debates over multiculturalism in countries, such
as the United States and Canada, which have large immigrant populations from many different
cultures, and post-colonialism in the Caribbean and South Asia.[25]
Max Weber maintained that ethnic groups were künstlich (artificial, i.e. a social construct) because
they were based on a subjective belief in shared Gemeinschaft (community). Secondly, this belief in
shared Gemeinschaft did not create the group; the group created the belief. Third, group formation
resulted from the drive to monopolise power and status. This was contrary to the prevailing naturalist
belief of the time, which held that socio-cultural and behavioral differences between peoples
stemmed from inherited traits and tendencies derived from common descent, then called "race".[26]
Another influential theoretician of ethnicity was Fredrik Barth, whose "Ethnic Groups and
Boundaries" from 1969 has been described as instrumental in spreading the usage of the term in
social studies in the 1980s and 1990s.[27] Barth went further than Weber in stressing the constructed
nature of ethnicity. To Barth, ethnicity was perpetually negotiated and renegotiated by both external
ascription and internal self-identification. Barth's view is that ethnic groups are not discontinuous
cultural isolates, or logical a prioris to which people naturally belong. He wanted to part with
anthropological notions of cultures as bounded entities, and ethnicity as primordialist bonds,
replacing it with a focus on the interface between groups. "Ethnic Groups and Boundaries",
therefore, is a focus on the interconnectedness of ethnic identities. Barth writes: "... categorical
ethnic distinctions do not depend on an absence of mobility, contact and information, but do entail
social processes of exclusion and incorporation whereby discrete categories are maintained despite
changing participation and membership in the course of individual life histories."
In 1978, anthropologist Ronald Cohen claimed that the identification of "ethnic groups" in the usage
of social scientists often reflected inaccurate labels more than indigenous realities:
... the named ethnic identities we accept, often unthinkingly, as basic givens in the literature are
often arbitrarily, or even worse inaccurately, imposed.[27]

In this way, he pointed to the fact that identification of an ethnic group by outsiders, e.g.
anthropologists, may not coincide with the self-identification of the members of that group. He also
described that in the first decades of usage, the term ethnicity had often been used in lieu of older
terms such as "cultural" or "tribal" when referring to smaller groups with shared cultural systems and
shared heritage, but that "ethnicity" had the added value of being able to describe the commonalities
between systems of group identity in both tribal and modern societies. Cohen also suggested that
claims concerning "ethnic" identity (like earlier claims concerning "tribal" identity) are often colonialist
practices and effects of the relations between colonized peoples and nation-states.[27]
According to Paul James, formations of identity were often changed and distorted by colonization,
but identities are not made out of nothing:
[C]ategorizations about identity, even when codified and hardened into clear typologies by
processes of colonization, state formation or general modernizing processes, are always full of
tensions and contradictions. Sometimes these contradictions are destructive, but they can also be
creative and positive.[28]

Social scientists have thus focused on how, when, and why different markers of ethnic identity
become salient. Thus, anthropologist Joan Vincent observed that ethnic boundaries often have a
mercurial character.[29] Ronald Cohen concluded that ethnicity is "a series of nesting
dichotomizations of inclusiveness and exclusiveness".[27] He agrees with Joan Vincent's observation
that (in Cohen's paraphrase) "Ethnicity ... can be narrowed or broadened in boundary terms in
relation to the specific needs of political mobilization.[27] This may be why descent is sometimes a
marker of ethnicity, and sometimes not: which diacritic of ethnicity is salient depends on whether
people are scaling ethnic boundaries up or down, and whether they are scaling them up or down
depends generally on the political situation.
Approaches to understanding ethnicity[edit]
Different approaches to understanding ethnicity have been used by different social scientists when
trying to understand the nature of ethnicity as a factor in human life and society. As Jonathan M.
Hall observes, World War II was a turning point in the ethnic studies. The consequences of Nazi
racism discouraged essentialist interpretations of ethnic groups and race. Ethnic groups came to be
defined as social rather than as biological entities. Their coherence was attributed to shared myths,
descent, kinship, a common place of origin, language, religion, customs and national character. So,
ethnic groups are conceived as mutable rather than stable, constructed in discursive practices rather
than written in the genes.[30]
Examples of various approaches are: primordialism, essentialism, perennialism, constructivism,
modernism and instrumentalism.

 "Primordialism", holds that ethnicity has existed at all times of human history and that modern
ethnic groups have historical continuity into the far past. For them, the idea of ethnicity is closely
linked to the idea of nations and is rooted in the pre-Weber understanding of humanity as being
divided into primordially existing groups rooted by kinship and biological heritage.
o "Essentialist primordialism" further holds that ethnicity is an a priori fact of human existence,
that ethnicity precedes any human social interaction and that it is basically unchanged by it.
This theory sees ethnic groups as natural, not just as historical. It also has problems dealing
with the consequences of intermarriage, migration and colonization for the composition of
modern day multi-ethnic societies.[31]
o "Kinship primordialism" holds that ethnic communities are extensions of kinship units,
basically being derived by kinship or clan ties where the choices of cultural signs (language,
religion, traditions) are made exactly to show this biological affinity. In this way, the myths of
common biological ancestry that are a defining feature of ethnic communities are to be
understood as representing actual biological history. A problem with this view on ethnicity is
that it is more often than not the case that mythic origins of specific ethnic groups directly
contradict the known biological history of an ethnic community.[31]
o "Geertz's primordialism", notably espoused by anthropologist Clifford Geertz, argues that
humans in general attribute an overwhelming power to primordial human "givens" such as
blood ties, language, territory, and cultural differences. In Geertz' opinion, ethnicity is not in
itself primordial but humans perceive it as such because it is embedded in their experience
of the world.[31]
 "Perennialism", an approach that is primarily concerned with nationhood but tends to see
nations and ethnic communities as basically the same phenomenon, holds that the nation, as a
type of social and political organisation, is of an immemorial or "perennial" character.[32] Smith
(1999) distinguishes two variants: "continuous perennialism", which claims that particular nations
have existed for very long spans of time, and "recurrent perennialism", which focuses on the
emergence, dissolution and reappearance of nations as a recurring aspect of human history.[33]
o "Perpetual perennialism" holds that specific ethnic groups have existed continuously
throughout history.
o "Situational perennialism" holds that nations and ethnic groups emerge, change and vanish
through the course of history. This view holds that the concept of ethnicity is basically a tool
used by political groups to manipulate resources such as wealth, power, territory or status in
their particular groups' interests. Accordingly, ethnicity emerges when it is relevant as
means of furthering emergent collective interests and changes according to political
changes in the society. Examples of a perennialist interpretation of ethnicity are also found
in Barth, and Seidner who see ethnicity as ever-changing boundaries between groups of
people established through ongoing social negotiation and interaction.
o "Instrumentalist perennialism", while seeing ethnicity primarily as a versatile tool that
identified different ethnics groups and limits through time, explains ethnicity as a mechanism
of social stratification, meaning that ethnicity is the basis for a hierarchical arrangement of
individuals. According to Donald Noel, a sociologist who developed a theory on the origin of
ethnic stratification, ethnic stratification is a "system of stratification wherein some relatively
fixed group membership (e.g., race, religion, or nationality) is utilized as a major criterion for
assigning social positions".[34] Ethnic stratification is one of many different types of social
stratification, including stratification based on socio-economic status, race, or gender.
According to Donald Noel, ethnic stratification will emerge only when specific ethnic groups
are brought into contact with one another, and only when those groups are characterized by
a high degree of ethnocentrism, competition, and differential power. Ethnocentrism is the
tendency to look at the world primarily from the perspective of one's own culture, and to
downgrade all other groups outside one's own culture. Some sociologists, such as Lawrence
Bobo and Vincent Hutchings, say the origin of ethnic stratification lies in individual
dispositions of ethnic prejudice, which relates to the theory of ethnocentrism.[35] Continuing
with Noel's theory, some degree of differential power must be present for the emergence of
ethnic stratification. In other words, an inequality of power among ethnic groups means "they
are of such unequal power that one is able to impose its will upon another".[34] In addition to
differential power, a degree of competition structured along ethnic lines is a prerequisite to
 ethnic stratification as well. The different ethnic groups must be competing for some
common goal, such as power or influence, or a material interest, such as wealth or territory.
Lawrence Bobo and Vincent Hutchings propose that competition is driven by self-interest
and hostility, and results in inevitable stratification and conflict.[35]
 "Constructivism" sees both primordialist and perennialist views as basically flawed,[35] and rejects
the notion of ethnicity as a basic human condition. It holds that ethnic groups are only products
of human social interaction, maintained only in so far as they are maintained as valid social
constructs in societies.
o "Modernist constructivism" correlates the emergence of ethnicity with the movement
towards nation states beginning in the early modern period.[36] Proponents of this theory,
such as Eric Hobsbawm, argue that ethnicity and notions of ethnic pride, such as
nationalism, are purely modern inventions, appearing only in the modern period of world
history. They hold that prior to this, ethnic homogeneity was not considered an ideal or
necessary factor in the forging of large-scale societies.
Ethnicity is an important means by which people may identify with a larger group. Many social
scientists, such as anthropologists Fredrik Barth and Eric Wolf, do not consider ethnic identity to be
universal. They regard ethnicity as a product of specific kinds of inter-group interactions, rather than
an essential quality inherent to human groups.[16] Processes that result in the emergence of such
identification are called ethnogenesis. Members of an ethnic group, on the whole, claim cultural
continuities over time, although historians and cultural anthropologists have documented that many
of the values, practices, and norms that imply continuity with the past are of relatively recent
invention.[37]
Ethnic groups differ from other social groups, such as subcultures, interest groups or social classes,
because they emerge and change over historical periods (centuries) in a process known as
ethnogenesis, a period of several generations of endogamy resulting in common ancestry (which is
then sometimes cast in terms of a mythological narrative of a founding figure); ethnic identity is
reinforced by reference to "boundary markers" - characteristics said to be unique to the group which
set it apart from other groups.[38][39][40][41][42]
Ethnicity theory[edit]
Ethnicity theory says that race is a social category and is but one of several factors in determining
ethnicity. Some other criteria include: "religion, language, 'customs,' nationality, and political
identification".[43] This theory was put forth by sociologist Robert E. Park in the 1920s. It is based on
the notion of “culture”.
This theory was preceded by over a century where biological essentialism was the dominant
paradigm on race. Biological essentialism is the belief that white European races are biologically
superior and other non-white races are inherently inferior. This view arose as a way to justify slavery
of Africans and genocide of the Native Americans in a society which was supposedly founded on
freedom for all. This was a notion that developed slowly and came to be a preoccupation of
scientists, theologians, and the public. Religious institutions asked questions about whether there
had been multiple genesis's (polygenesis) and whether God had created lesser races of men. Many
of the foremost scientists of the time took up idea of racial difference. They would inadvertently find
that white Europeans were superior. One method that was used was the measurement of cranial
capacity.[44]
Ethnicity theory was based on the assimilation model. Park outlined his four steps to assimilation:
contact, conflict, accommodation, and assimilation. Instead of explaining the marginalized status of
people of color in the United States with an inherent biological inferiority, he instead said that it was
a failure to assimilate into American culture that held people back. They could be equal as long as
they dropped their culture which was deficient compared to white culture.
Michael Omi and Howard Winant's theory of racial formation directly confronts both ethnicity theory's
premises and practices. They argue in Racial Formation in the United States that ethnicity theory
was exclusively based on the immigration patterns of a white ethnic population and did not account
for the unique experiences of non-whites in this country.[45] While this theory identities different
stages in an immigration process – contact, conflict, struggle, and as the last and best response,
assimilation – it did so only for white ethnic communities.[45] The ethnicity paradigm neglects the
ways that race can complicate a community's interactions with basic social and political structures,
especially upon contact.
And assimilation – shedding the particular qualities of a native culture for the purpose of blending in
with a host culture – did not work for some groups as a response to racism and discrimination as it
did for others.[45] Moreover, once the legal barriers to achieving equality had been dismantled, the
problem of racism became the sole responsibility of already disadvantaged communities.[46] It was
assumed that if a Black or Latino community was not 'making it' by the standards that had been set
by white ethnics, it was because that community did not hold the right values or beliefs. Or they must
be stubbornly resisting dominant norms because they did not want to fit in. Omi and Winant's critique
of ethnicity theory explains how looking towards a cultural defect for the source of inequality ignores
the "concrete sociopolitical dynamics within which racial phenomena operate in the U.S."[47] In other
words, buying into this approach effectively strips us of our ability to critically examine the more
structural components of racism and encourages, instead, a “benign neglect” of social inequality.[47]

Ethnicity and nationality[edit]

Further information: Nation state and minority group

Part of a series on

Political and
legal anthropology

Basic concepts[hide]

Status and rank

 Ascribed status
 Achieved status
 Social status
 Caste
 Age grade/Age set
 Leveling mechanism
Leadership
 Big man
 Patriarchy
 Matriarchy
 Pantribal sodalities
 Chief
 Paramount chief
Polities
 Band society
 Segmentary lineage
 Tribe
 Chiefdom
 House society
 Ethnic group
 Theatre state
Law and custom
 Customary law
 Legal culture
 Case studies[show]

Related articles[show]

Major theorists[show]

Social and cultural anthropology

 v
 t
 e

In some cases, especially involving transnational migration, or colonial expansion, ethnicity is linked
to nationality. Anthropologists and historians, following the modernist understanding of ethnicity as
proposed by Ernest Gellner[48] and Benedict Anderson[49] see nations and nationalism as developing
with the rise of the modern state system in the 17th century. They culminated in the rise of "nation-
states" in which the presumptive boundaries of the nation coincided (or ideally coincided) with state
boundaries. Thus, in the West, the notion of ethnicity, like race and nation, developed in the context
of European colonial expansion, when mercantilism and capitalism were promoting global
movements of populations at the same time that state boundaries were being more clearly and
rigidly defined.
In the 19th century, modern states generally sought legitimacy through their claim to represent
"nations." Nation-states, however, invariably include populations that have been excluded from
national life for one reason or another. Members of excluded groups, consequently, will either
demand inclusion on the basis of equality, or seek autonomy, sometimes even to the extent of
complete political separation in their own nation-state.[50] Under these conditions – when people
moved from one state to another,[51] or one state conquered or colonized peoples beyond its national
boundaries – ethnic groups were formed by people who identified with one nation, but lived in
another state.
Multi-ethnic states can be the result of two opposite events, either the recent creation of state
borders at variance with traditional tribal territories, or the recent immigration of ethnic minorities into
a former nation state. Examples for the first case are found throughout Africa, where countries
created during decolonisation inherited arbitrary colonial borders, but also in European countries
such as Belgium or United Kingdom. Examples for the second case are countries such
as Germany or the Netherlands, which were relatively ethnically homogeneous when they attained
statehood but have received significant immigration during the second half of the 20th century.
States such as the United Kingdom, France and Switzerland comprised distinct ethnic groups from
their formation and have likewise experienced substantial immigration, resulting in what has been
termed "multicultural" societies especially in large cities.
The states of the New World were multi-ethnic from the onset, as they were formed as colonies
imposed on existing