Unit 5
5. Identity, Inter-Ethnic Relations and Multiculturalism in Ethiopia
5.1. Identity, Ethnicity and Race: Identification and Social Categorization
5.1.1. Ethnicity: What’s in a name?
After the end of the second world war, words like “ethnicity”, “ethnic groups” “ethnic conflict”
and “nationalism” have become quite common terms in the English language, and they keep
cropping up in the press, in TV news, in political program and in casual conversations. There has
been a parallel development in the social sciences with a growing interest in such studies. During
the 1980s and early 1990s, we have witnessed an explosion in the growth of scholarly
publications on ethnicity, ethnic phenomenon and nationalism across different disciplines, within
social sciences.
An important reason for the current academic interest in ethnicity and nationalism is the fact that
such phenomena have become so visible in many societies that it has become impossible to
ignore them. In the early twentieth century, many social theorists held that ethnicity and
nationalism would decrease in importance and eventually vanish as a result of modernization,
industrialization and individualism. This never came about. On the contrary, ethnicity and
nationalism have grown in political importance in the world, particularly since the Second World
War. Ethnic and national identities also become strongly pertinent following the continuous
influx of labor migrants and refugees to Europe and North America, which has led to the
establishment of new, permanent ethnic minorities in these areas. During the same period,
indigenous populations (such as Inuits& Sami) have organized themselves politically, and
demand that their ethnic identities and territorial entitlements should be recognized by the some
situations – but not to others? Finally, the political turbulence in Europe has moved issues of
ethnic and national identities to the forefront of political life.
5.1.2. Ethnicity – A Short Historical Overview
The study of ethnicity and ethnic relations has in recent years come to play a central role in the
social sciences, to a large extent replacing class structure and class conflict as a central focus of
attention. This has occurred on an interdisciplinary basis involving social anthropology,
sociology, political theory, political philosophy and history (Erikson, 2002). In this regard, the
academic and popular use of the term ‘ethnicity’ is fairly, modern.
5.1.3. The term itself –Ethnicity
The English origin of the term ‘ethnicity’ is connected to the term “ethnic,”–which is much older
and has been in use since the Middle Ages. The word is derived from the Greek term ‘ethnos’
(which in turn, derived from the Latin word ‘ethnikos’), which literally means “a group of people
Page 1 of 9
bound together by the same manners, customs or other distinctive features” (Vanderwerf et al.,
2009).
5.2. Conceptualizing Ethnicity –What’s it?
Quite suddenly, with little comment or ceremony, ethnicity has achieved a nomni present status.
Even a brief glance through titles of books and monographs over the past few years indicates a
steadily accelerating acceptance and application of the terms “ethnicity” and “ethnic” to refer to
what was before often subsumed under ‘culture’, ‘cultural’, or ’tribal’.
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 identification, is collective and individual, externalized in social interaction
and the categorization of others, and internalized in personal self- identification.
5.3. Ethnic Groups and Ethnic Identity
The concept of ethnic group is the most basic, from which the others are derivative. It refers to
ethnicity as the collective phenomenon. Ethnic identity refers to ethnicity as an individually
experienced phenomenon. Ethnicity itself is an abstract concept, which includes an implicit
reference to both collective and individual aspects of the phenomenon.
Ethnic Group
Notably, the term ‘ethnic group’ is also attached with various meanings as ethnicity. Scholars
have been trying to conceptualize it from different perspectives and as a result, different
definitions have been proposed to define ‘ethnic group’. In this regard, earlier conception of
ethnic group once again associated with Max Weber. According to Weber, an ‘ethnic group’ is
based on the belief in common descent shared by its members, extending beyond kinship,
political solidarity vis-a-vis other groups, and common customs, language, religion, values,
morality, and etiquette (Weber, 1978). Anderson (1983), in his part described ethnic groups as
“an imagined community” that possesses a “character and quality” (Anderson, 1983).
Schermerhorn (1996), on the other hand, conceptualize ethnic group as a unit of population
having unique characteristics in relation with others, binding with common language, myth of
origin, and history of ethnic allegiance (1996).
Page 2 of 9
Scholars mainly use it to explain contact and inter-relationship between groups. Taking
Bateson’s (1979) ideas, Eriksen states that since ethnic categories created out of the very contact
between groups, dealing with ethnic groups in total isolation is as absurd as to speak of the sound
from one hand clapping (Eriksen, 2002). In this regard, other scholars including F. Barth (1969),
define ethnic groups as a self-defined group based on subjective factors and/or fundamental
cultural values chosen by members from their past history or present existing conditions in which
members are aware of-and-in contact with other ethnic groups.
Ethnic groups constitute an identity as defined by outsiders who do not belong to the group but
identify it as different from their own groups and by “insiders” who belong to the same group.
This generally becomes the basis of mobilizing group’s consciousness and solidarity and which
in certain situation result in political activities (Kasfir, 1976).
By considering the various definitions provided to define ethnicity, Hutchinson and
Smith’s(1996) identified six main features that the definition of an ethnic group, predominantly
consists. This includes;
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; and
6. A sense of solidarity on the part of at least some sections of the ethnic’s population
(Hutchinson and Smith, 1996:6-7).
Ethnic Identity
Definitions of ethnic identity vary according to the underlying theory embraced by researchers’
and scholars’ intent on resolving its conceptual meanings. The fact that there is no widely agreed
upon definition of ethnic identity is indicative of the confusion surrounding the topic.
Typically, 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,
Page 3 of 9
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 (Kivisto & Nefzger, 1993).
On the individual level, ethnicity is a social-psychological process, which gives an individual a
sense of belonging and identity. It is, of course, one of a number of social phenomena, which
produce a sense of identity. 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 (Isajiw, 1990). Locating oneself in relation to a community and
society is not only a psychological phenomenon, but also a social phenomenon in the sense that
the internal psychological states express themselves objectively in external behaviour patterns
that come to be shared by others. Thus, individuals locate themselves in one or another
community internally by states of mind and feelings, such as self-definitions or feelings of
closeness, and externally by behaviour appropriate to these states of mind and feelings.
Behaviour according to cultural patterns is thus, an expression of identity and can be studied as
an indication of its character.
We can thus distinguish external and internal aspects of ethnic identity. External aspects refer to
observable 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. These, of
course, are interconnected with the external behaviour. But, it should not be assumed that,
empirically, the two types are always dependent upon each other. Rather, they may vary
independently, as for example, a third-generation person may retain a higher degree of internal
than of external aspects. We can distinguish at least three types of internal aspects of identity: (1)
cognitive, (2) moral, and (3) affective.
5.4. 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.
Page 4 of 9
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. This sub-section will provide a discussion about 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. But, few words should be said initially about ‘race’ in order to stress
that it has dubious descriptive value.
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.
(Source: Linneaus (1758), SystemaeNaturae).
The folk Notions of the concept on the other hand, perceived race as a non-overlapping and
distinguishable categories of people; which is fixed and/or natural (immutable) in its character.
These, “folk” and “scientific” notions of race however, begin to diverge in the early 20th
century. Modern genetics abandon race as a variable in biomedical research and tends not to
speak of races, and this has two main reasons:
1. There has always been so much interbreeding between human populations that it would be
meaningless to talk of fixed boundaries between races.
2. The distribution of hereditary physical traits does not follow clear boundaries. In other words,
there is often greater variation within a "racial" group than there is systematic variation between
two groups.
When used as a social construction of human categorization ‘Race’ is human groups defined by
it 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
Page 5 of 9
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. As a social construction of human categorization ‘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.
In such contexts however, the question remains do race/racial relation or identity distinguishable
from ethnicity/ethnic relations or identity? Different anthropologists and other scholars have
different views on this.
Ethnicity is also ascribed at birth, but the ethnic group normally defines its cultural
characteristics itself. Thus, racial categorizations, which are defined by the outsider, 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 process.
Despite this however, some scholars claims that the external ethnic boundaries are the source of
racial distinctions and of race as a group phenomenon. As a social phenomenon, 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.
To return briefly to the quotation from John Rex, it appears that ethnicity is a more general social
phenomenon than racism or 'racial' categorization. It is equally clear that ethnicity, although its
emphasis may conventionally be thought to fall upon group identification, is routinely
implicated, through the signification of cultural or ethnic markers, in processes of categorization.
Race or skin colour as such is not the decisive variable in every society.
5.5. Theories of Ethnicity: Primordialism, Instrumentalism and Social Constructivism
5.5.1. The Primordial Model of Ethnicity
The Primordialist approach is the oldest in anthropological literature. It was popular until the
mid-1970s. Primordial is an “objectivist or essentialist theory” which argues, that “ultimately
there is some real, tangible, foundation for ethnic identification.”
The anthropologist, Clifford Geertz (1973: 255-310), who systematized the primordial model
articulated ethnicity as a natural phenomenon with its foundations in primordial ties - deriving
Page 6 of 9
mainly from kinship, locality and culture (Geertz 1963). Geertz explicitly recognizes not only the
role of culture in defining the primordial 'givens', but also that strength of such primordial bonds,
and the types of them that are important, differ from person to person, from society to society,
and from time to time (Geertz 1973: 259). Further, Geertz is perfectly clear that what matters
analytically is that ties of blood, language and culture are seen by actors to be ineffable and
obligatory; that they are seen as natural. He is also concerned with the terms in which
attachments are understood and mobilized locally; with what people believe. Geertz further
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 (Geertz,
1963; Isaacs, 1975; Stack, 1986).
A model by Isaacs (1974) further illustrated the concept of primordial 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 fundamental and natural than other social links.
Primordialist theories view human society as a conglomeration of distinct social groups. At birth
a person “becomes” a member of a particular group. Ethnic identification is based on deep,
‘primordial’ attachments to that group, established by kinship and descent. One’s ethnicity is
thus “fixed” and an unchangeable part of one’s identity.
Anthony D. Smith (1986), one of the articulators of this perspective, in his part, 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.
Smith emphasizes the “extraordinary persistence and resilience of ethnic ties and sentiments,
once formed” and argues that they are essentially primordial since they are received through
ethnic socialization into one’s ethnie and are more or less fixed. And, regards primordial ties as
the basic organizing principles and bonds of human association throughout history.
To sum, Smith 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” (Smith, 1986). By this, ethnicity is an ascribed status and ethnic
membership is fixed, permanent and primarily ascribed through birth.
5.5.2. Instrumentalist (Situational) Theory of Ethnicity
Page 7 of 9
The instrumentalist theorists view ethnicity as situationally defined, depending on rational
calculations of advantage and stimulated by political mobilization under the leadership of actors
whose primary motives are non-ethnic (Eidheim, 1971, Cohen, 1974a, and Esman,
1994). Given this, Banks (1996) explained the instrumentalist understandings of ethnicity as an
instrument of group mobilization for political and economic ends (Banks, 1996: 40). By this,
ethnicity is something that can be changed, constructed or even manipulated to gain specific
political and/or economic ends.
Proponents of this perspective (e.g., Abner Cohen, Paul Brass and Ted Gurr) advocate that in the
contexts of modern states, leaders (political elites) use and manipulate perceptions of ethnic
identity to further their own ends and stay in power. In this regard, ethnicity is created in the
dynamics of elite competition within the boundaries determined by political and economic
realities” and ethnic groups are to be seen as a product of political myths, created and
manipulated by culture elites in their pursuit of advantages and power.
Abner Cohen (1974), one of the leading advocator of this perspective, in contrast to Barth,
“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: such as
distinctiveness or boundaries (ethnic identity); communication; authority structure; decision
making procedure; ideology; and socialization” (Cohen 1974: xvi–xvii).
Accordingly, Daniel Bell (1975) and Jeffrey Ross (1982) emphasize the political advantage of
ethnic membership choice. Hence, 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). In more general terms, it refers to
the actor's pliant ascription of ethnic identity to organize the meaning of his social relationships
within the requirements of variously structured social situations (Okamura, 1981). In his
anthropological research on New York Chinatown, Enoch Wan has found that the “Chinese
ethnicity” of this immigrant community is circumstantial, flexible, fluid and instrumental.
Taken to its extreme this would suggest that the ethnic group should be regarded not as a
community at all but as a rational and purposive association. A more moderate view is that there
is indeed a cultural content in an ethnic community, but that the boundaries of the group, which
has that culture, depend upon the purpose in hand. The pursuit of political advantage and/or
material self-interest is the calculus, which is typically, held to inform such behaviour.
5.5.3. Social Constructivist Theory of Ethnicity
The basic notion in this approach is that ethnicity is something that is being negotiated and
constructed in everyday living. It regards ethnicity as a process, which continues to unfold. It has
Page 8 of 9
much to do with the exigencies of everyday survival (ethnicity is constructed in the process of
feeding, clothing, sending to school and conversing with children and others).
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this approach is its subjectivist stance, which sees
ethnicity as basically a social-psychological reality or a matter of perception of "us" and "them"
in contradistinction to looking at it as something given, which exists objectively as it were "out
there". By this, ethnicity is more dependent on the socio-psychological experience of individuals,
where it focuses on the interpersonal and behavioral aspects of ethnicity. However, this does not
mean that all “subjectivists” reject all objective aspects of ethnicity. Some, in fact give them
significant attention. But, they all tend to make it dependent on the socio-psychological
experience.
F. Barth is the leading figure of this approach. 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,
ethnic identity forms through boundary maintenance and interaction between individuals.
Depending on each social interaction, a person’s ethnic identity can be perceived or presented in
various ways. In fact, Barth himself took a rather extreme position. For practical purposes, he
jettisoned culture from the concept of ethnicity. For him, ethnic boundaries were psychological
boundaries; ethnic culture and its content were irrelevant. 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 non-static form. Cultural traits and even
individuals can cross over ethnic boundaries, which in turn can transform an ethnic group over
time. Ethnic group is hence a result of group relations in which the boundaries are established
through mutual perceptions and not by means of any objectively distinct culture.
In general, constructivists conceive ethnicity as situational, flexible and variable dealing with
inter-personal ethnicity without initially reifying a concept of culture.
Page 9 of 9
