Unit Five

Inter-Ethnic Relations, Identity and

Multiculturalism in Ethiopia
5.1 Ethnic Groups and Ethnic Identity
The concept of ethnic group is the most basic,
from which the others are derivative.
Ethnic Group
Notably, the term ethnic group‘ is attached with
various meanings.
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.
Max Weber :“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: ethnic groups as an imagined
community that possesses a ―character and
quality‖.
Schermerhorn : 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).
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.
Barth (1969) further illustrated that, in a context
of inter-ethnic interaction, group distinctiveness
strongly depends on identification of self and
ascription by others and members of a certain
ethnic group will be evaluated in accordance with
their ‗performance‘ of the value standards and
‗possession‘ of diacritical features designing the
group against other.
This entailed that, ethnic group are defined out
of group interaction in which members of a group
keep their social solidarity, identified themselves
as belonging to specific group based on their
subjective communalities (language, myth of
origin, and shared cultural entities) that defined
in reference with others (Abbink, 2004).
 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 & Smith‘s (1996) identified six
main features that the definition of an
ethnic group, predominantly consists.
This includes;

Ethnic Identity
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 ቁርኝት can be influenced by racial,
natal, symbolic, and cultural factors (Cheung,
1993).
Racial factors involve the use of
physiognomic and physical characteristics.
Natal factors refer to "homeland" (ancestral
home) or origins of individuals, their parents and
kin.
Symbolic factors include those factors that
typify or exemplify an ethnic group (e.g.,
holidays, foods, clothing, artifacts, etc.).
የሚያመለክቱ ወይም ምሳሌ የሚሆኑ
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 and Nefzger, 1993).
On the individual level:
Ethnicity is a social-psychological process,
which gives an individual a sense of belonging
and 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 behavior 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
behavior appropriate to these states of mind
and feelings.
Behavior according to cultural patterns is thus,
an expression of identity and can be studied
as an indication of its character.
We can thus distinguish objective and subjective
aspects of ethnic identity. External and
internal aspects.
Objective aspects refer to observable
behavior, both cultural and social, such as:
o Speaking an ethnic language, practicing
ethnic traditions.
o Participation in ethnic personal networks,
such as family and friendships
o Participation in ethnic institutional
organizations, such as belief systems, social
organizations etc.
The subjective aspects of ethnic identity refer
to images, ideas, attitudes, and feelings.
 These, of course, can also be interconnected with
the objective aspects.
 But, it should not be assumed that, empirically,
the two types are always dependent upon each
other.
There are many empirical cases in Ethiopia
where the subjective aspects have become
important factors, even when the objective
markers are significantly weakened.
A third-generation person may retain a higher
degree of subjective aspect of identity than
objectively visible markers.
We can distinguish at least three types of
objective /internal/ aspects of identity:
1. Cognitive
2. Moral
3. Affective
5.2. Ethnicity: Identification and Social
Categorization
Introduction
All animals recognize differences between ―self‖
and ―other‖.
In human societies, these differences take on
enormous significance, partly because humans
are so individualistic - rather than being clone-
like automatons, humans have individual
personalities.
Society validates that individualism by giving
infants unique names.
Those names also keep track of who‘s related to
whom, sometimes for generations back into the
past.
Why am I named ―X‖ rather than ―Y,‖ and why
do we go further, adding categorical identifiers
such as ―ethnic X‖ or ―race Z‖ to our
identifications?
To understand themselves as a species, humans
have to also understand themselves as
individuals within networks of other
individuals.
Brubaker (2004), inculcate that identity more
generally is not real, either, in the sense that it
is not a ‗thing‘ that people can be said to
have or to be.
Instead, we should talk about ongoing and open-
ended processes of identification.
By this logic, identity does not impel people to
do anything; it is, rather, people who engage in
identification. ሰዎች ምንም እንዲያደርጉ አይገፋፋም
It is certainly true, that whatever reality can be
attributed to groups depends on people
thinking that groups exist and that they
belong to them.
It is also certainly true that identity depends on
processes of identification and does not
determine, in any mechanistic or causal
sense, what individuals do (Jenkins, 2008).

5.2 .1. Ethnicity: What’s in a name?

 Introduction
 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 programmes 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.
35 of 37 major armed conflicts in the world in
1991 were internal conflicts, and most of them -
from Sri Lanka to Northern Ireland - could
plausibly be described as ethnic conflicts.
In addition to violent ethnic movements, there
are also many important non-violent ethnic
movements, such as the Québecois
independence movement in Canada.
In many parts of the world, further, nation-
building - the creation of political cohesion
and national identity in former colonies – is
high on the political agenda.
Ethnic and national identities also become
strongly pertinent following the continuous
influx of labour migrants and refugees to
Europe and North America, which has led to
the establishment of new, permanent ethnic
minorities in these areas.
  በየጊዜው ወደ አውሮፓና ሰሜን አሜሪካ የሚጎርፉ የጉልበት ስደተኞች እና

ስደተኞች በእነዚህ አካባቢዎች አዲስ ቋሚ አናሳ ብሄረሰቦች እንዲፈጠሩ

ምክንያት የሆነው ብሄር እና ብሄራዊ ማንነትም ጠንከር ያለ ጉዳይ እየሆነ
መጥቷል
During the same period, indigenous
populations (such as Inuitsand Sami) have
organized themselves politically, and demand
that their ethnic identities and territorial
entitlements should be recognized by the State.
 Finally, the political turbulence in Europe has
moved issues of ethnic and national identities to
the forefront of political life.
 At one extreme of the continent, the erstwhile
Soviet Union and Yugoslavia have split into
over a dozen ethnically based states.
With the disappearance of the strong Socialist
state in the countries of Central and Eastern
Europe, issues of nationhood and minority
problems are emerging with unprecedented
force. ታይቶ በማይታወቅ
On the other extreme of the continent, the
situation seems to be the opposite, as the
nation-states of Western Europe are moving
towards a closer economic, political and possibly
cultural integration.
 But here, too, national and ethnic identities have
become important issues in recent years.
Many people fear the loss of their national or
ethnic identity as a result of a tight European
integration, whereas others consider the
 possibilities for a pan-European identity to
replace the ethnic and national ones.
 The process reveled how personal identities are
intimately linked with political processes and that
social identities, e.g. as Danes or Europeans,
are not given once, and for all, but are
negotiated over.
Both of these insights are crucial to the study of
ethnicity.
The same is true for Ethiopia, where issue of
ethnic and national identities is contested
and ethnicity has become the official organizing
principle of the state since 1991.

5.2 .2. Ethnicity – A Short Historical Overview

The study of ethnicity and ethnic relations
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.
According to John Hutchinson and Anthony
Smith (1996), the term ―ethnicity‖ is relatively
new, first appearing in the Oxford English
Dictionary in 1953.
5.2.3. 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 bound together by the
same manners, customs or other
distinctive features‖ (Vanderwerf et al.,
2009).
In the context of ancient Greek, the term
refers to a collectivity of humans lived and
acted together -which is typically translated
today as people‘ or nation‘ (not political unit
per say, but group of people with shared
communality) (Jenkins, 1997).
Contrary to its literal meaning however,
ancient Greeks were using the term ethnos‟ in
practice to refer to non-Hellenic, people who
are non-Greek and considered as second-class
peoples.
Likewise, in early England, it used to refer to
someone who was neither Christian nor
Jewish (to refer to heathen or pagan). አረማውያንን
ወይም ጣዖትን ለማመልከት)
In its modern sense, it was only after the end
of II World War that the term widely adopted
and begins to use.
Before World War II:
 The term tribe‖ was the term of choice for
pre-modern‖ societies and
 The term race‖ was used to refer modern
societies (Jenkins, 2001).
Due to the close link between the term race‖
and Nazi ideology, after the end of II WW, the
term ethnic‖ gradually replaced race‖ within
both the North American tradition & the
European tradition.
The North American tradition adopted
‗ethnic‘ as a substitute for minority groups
within a larger society of the nation-state.
By referring to the:
 Jews, Italians, Irish and
 other people considered inferior to the
dominant group of largely British
descent.
 The European tradition regularly adopted to
use ‗ethnic group‘ as a synonym for
nationhood, defined historically by descent or
territory (Vanderwerf et al., 2009:5).
 At the same time both traditions shared a joint
aim to replace what had become a popular, but
heavily compromised (due to the Nazi
experiment), concept of ‗race‘.
 Nevertheless, popular discourses, in both Europe
and North America, have racialized‟ the
concept of ethnicity, that is ‗race‘ was largely
preserved (in its quasi-biological sense) and
has only now been used interchangeably with
‗ethnicity‘.
 Furthermore, the collapse of the colonial
world in the 1950s and 1960s has brought
even more confusion on questions of ‗race‟,
‗culture‘ and ‗ethnicity‟.
 The homelands of former European colonizers
have become populated with new, post-colonial
immigrants, who are visibly different.
 Following the consolidation of North American
popular and legislative discourse these groups
have also become defined as ethnic’, thus,
simultaneously:
 Preserving old definitions of historical
ethnicity by descent or territory
 i.e., Welsh, Flamans, Walloons, etc.
 While adding the new definition of ethnicity
as an immigrant minority.
 i.e., Pakistani, West Indian, Sri Lankan, etc.).
 As Jack David Eller put it, ―some of the most
perplexing problems arise from the vagueness
of the term and phenomenon called ethnicity
and from its indefinite and ever-expanding
domain…ethnicity is ―vague, elusive and
expansive‖ (Eller, 1999).
 ክ ዴቪድ ኤለር እንዳስቀመጠው፡- “አንዳንዶቹ ግራ የሚያጋቡ ችግሮች
የሚመነጩት ጎሳ ተብሎ ከሚጠራው ቃል እና ክስተት ግልጽነት የጎደለው እና
ላልተወሰነ እና ከጊዜ ወደ ጊዜ እየሰፋ ከሚሄደው ግዛቱ ነው።
 The fall of communism and the breakup of
the Soviet-style federations along ‗ethnic‘
lines and the emergence of ‗ethnic cleansing‘
policies in the Balkans and the Caucasus have
further complicated these definitional issues.
 With the wars on former Yugoslav soil,
extensive and influential mass media coverage of
‗ethnic conflict‘ has seen the term ‗ethnic‟
degenerate into a synonym for tribal,
primitive, barbaric and backward.
 Finally, the ever-increasing influx of asylum
seekers, refugees and economic migrants to
Western Europe, North America and
Australia, who do not necessarily express
visible or significant physical, cultural or religious
differences to their hosts, together with their
uncertain legal status (i.e., waiting for a decision
 on asylum), has relegated the term ‗ethnic‟ to a
quasi-legislative domain.
 በመጨረሻም፣ ወደ ምዕራብ አውሮፓ፣ ሰሜን አሜሪካ እና አውስትራሊያ

የሚጎርፉት ጥገኝነት ጠያቂዎች፣ ስደተኞች እና ኢኮኖሚያዊ ስደተኞች

የግድ የሚታዩ ወይም ጉልህ የሆነ የአካል፣ የባህል ወይም የሃይማኖት
ልዩነቶችን ለአስተናጋጆቻቸው የማይገልጹ እና እርግጠኛ ካልሆኑ ህጋዊ
ሁኔታዎች ጋር (() ማለትም የጥገኝነት ውሳኔን በመጠባበቅ ላይ) "ጎሳ"
የሚለውን ቃል ወደ quasi-legislative domain አውርዶታል።
 In this context, the term ethnicity‟ often refers
again to non-citizens who inhabit our land‟,
just as it did in the days of ancient Greece and
Judea; that is, to second-class peoples.
 Such a plasticity and ambiguity of the concept
allows for deep misunderstandings as well as
political misuses.
5.3 Conceptualizing Ethnicity –What’s it?
 Quite suddenly, with little comment or ceremony,
ethnicity has achieved a 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 ተደብቋል under
‗culture‘ cultural‘, or ‘tribal‘.
 New journals have appeared using the terms in
their titles, and special programs of ethnic
studies are showing up in university catalogs.
 Almost any cultural-social unit, indeed any
term describing particular structures of
continuing social relations, or sets of regularized
events now can be referred to as an "ethnic" this
or that.
 This can be seen in the proliferation of titles
dealing with ethnic groups, ethnic identity, ethnic
boundaries, ethnic conflict, ethnic cooperation or
competition, ethnic politics, ethnic stratification,
ethnic integration, ethnic consciousness, and so
on.
 Name it and there is in all likelihood, someone
who has written on it using ethnic‖ or ―ethnicity‖
qualifiers to describe his or her special approach
to the topic.
 Nevertheless, most scholars who uses
―ethnicity‖ find definition either unnecessary or
they are reluctant to provide general framework
for the concept.
 Isajiw looked at studies of ethnicity in
anthropology, and sociology and found only 13
that defined the term.
 Writers generally take it for granted that the
term refers to a set of named groupings,
singled out by the researcher as ethnic units.
 Membership in such group is then shown to have
an effect on, or correlation with, one or more
dependent variable(s).
 In this sense, ethnicity is widely used as a
significant structural phenomenon.
 But that is hardly a definition.
 So it is important to be clear about what our
subject – ethnicity - is and about what it is not.
 None of the founding fathers of anthropology and
sociology - with the partial exception of Max
Weber granted ethnicity much attention.
Max Weber, in his work entitled ―Economy
and Society‖, first published in 1922
(1978:385-98), provided the early and influential
sociological conceptions of ethnicity and
ethnic group.
According to Weber, an ethnic group‖ is based
on the belief in common descent shared by
it members, extending beyond kinship,
political solidarity vis-a-vis other groups,
and common customs, language, religion,
values, morality, and etiquette.
In other words, ethnic groups are those human
groups that entertain a subjective belief in
their common descent because of similarities
or physical type or of customs or both, or
 because of memories of colonization and
migration.
 It does not matter whether or not an objective
blood relationship exists, but whether it is
believed to exist.
 Perhaps the most significant part of Weber‘s
argument is that: ―ethnic membership does
not constitute a group; it only facilitates
group formation of any kind, particularly in
the political sphere.
 On the other hand, it is primarily the political
community, no matter how artificially organized
that inspires the belief in common ethnicity‖
(1978:389).
 Weber seems to be suggesting that the belief in
common ancestry is likely to be a consequence
of collective political action rather than its cause;
people come to see themselves as belonging
together – coming from a common background –
as a consequence of acting together.
Collective interests thus, do not simply reflect or
follow from similarities and differences between
people; the pursuit of collective interests does,
however, encourage ethnic identification. In
terms of collective action, this form of ethnic
communality is a form of monopolistic social
 closure: it defines membership, eligibility and
access.
Any cultural trait in common can provide a basis
for and resources for ethnic closure:language,
ritual, economic way of life, lifestyle more
generally, and the division of laboure, are all
likely possibilities in this respect. Shared
language and ritual are particularly implicated in
ethnicity: mutual intelligibility of the behavior of
others is a fundamental pre-requisite for any
group, as is the shared sense of what is ‗correct
and proper‘ which constitute individual ‗honor
and dignity‘. By this token, an ethnic group is a
particular form of status group. Finally, Weber
argues that since the possibilities for collective
action rooted in ethnicity are ‗indefinite‘, the
ethnic group, and its close relative the nation,
cannot easily be precisely defined for sociological
purposes.
As Weber (1968) emphasized, it is the
effectiveness of social action and, above all, a
political aspect of group action that ‗inspires
belief in common ethnicity‘ and transforms group
membership into a political community. For Max
Weber, an ethnic group is based, on the belief in
common descent shared by its members
because of similarities or physical type or of
 customs or both, or because of memories of
colonization andmigration.
And ―it does not matter whether or not an
objective blood relationship exists‖, but believed
to exist.
The next great contribution to our understanding
of ethnicity comes from the influential works of
the Norwegian anthropologist, named Frederik
Barth (1969).
Barth in an exceptionally brilliant „Introduction‟
part of a collection of scholarly work entitled
―Ethnic Groups and Boundaries”(1969),where
he was the editor,provided nothing short of a
Copernican revolution in the study of ethnicity –
in and outside anthropology.
Hence, current anthropological conventional
wisdom about ethnicity for the larger part is
stems from this influential work of Barth.
In his introduction to the collection of ―Ethnic
Groups and Boundaries”, Barth (1969), outlined
in detail a model of ethnicity.
Barth began with what actors believe or think:
ascriptions and self-ascriptions.
A categorical ascription is an ethnic ascription
when it classifies a person in terms of his basic,
most general identity, presumptively determined
by his origin and background.
To the extent that actors use ethnic identities to
categorize themselves and others for purposes of
interaction, they form ethnic groups in this
organizational sense.
95
Barth focused not upon the cultural characteristics
of ethnic groups but upon
relationships of cultural differentiation, and
specifically upon contact between
collectivities thus differentiated, 'us' and 'them'
(Eriksen, 2002). Barth's emphasis
was not so much upon the substance or content of
ethnicity, what he called the
'cultural stuff', as upon the social processes, which
produce and reproduce - which
organize, if you like-boundaries of identification
and differentiation between ethnic
collectivities. As illustrated by Barth, it is important
to recognize that although ethnic
categories take cultural differences into account:
we can assume no simple one-to-one relationship
between ethnic units and
cultural similarities and differences. The features
that are taken into account
are not the sum of 'objective' differences, but only
those which the actors
themselves regard as significant…not only do
ecological variations mark and
exaggerate differences; some cultural features are
used by the actors as
signals and emblems of differences, others are
ignored, and in some
relationships radical differences are played down
and denied (Barth, 1969:
14).
The cultural contents of ethnic dichotomies would
seem analytically to be of two
orders: (i) overt signals or signs - the diacritical
features that people look for and
exhibit to show identity, often such features as
dress, language, house-form, or
general style of life, and (ii) basic value
orientations: the standards of morality and
excellence by which performance is judged. Since
belonging to an ethnic category
implies being a certain kind of person, having that
basic identity, it also implies a
claim to be judged, and to judge oneself, by those
standards that are relevant to that
identity. Neither of these kinds of cultural
'contents' follows from a descriptive list of
cultural features or cultural differences; one cannot
predict from first principles which
features will be emphasized and made
organizationally relevant by the actors.
Indeed, ethnic categories provide an organizational
vessel that may be
given varying amounts and forms of content in
different socio-cultural
systems. They may be of great relevance to
behavior, but they need not be;
they may pervade all social life, or they may be
relevant only in limited
sectors of activity. There is thus an obvious scope
for ethnographic and
comparative descriptions of different forms of
ethnic organization. In its
96
most general notion, for Barth, ethnicity is seen as
a ‗social organization
of culture difference’. But, the concept of ‗culture‘,
in Barth‘s model unless
clearly explained found problematic one. This very
ambiguity in the
designation of ethnic groups in terms of cultural
differences has been taken
on as a challenge by anthropologists.
These are complicated questions, but need to be
answered. Before Barth, cultural
difference was traditionally explained from the
inside out – social groups possess
different cultural characteristics, which make them
unique and distinct (common
language, lifestyle, descent, religion, physical
markers, history, eating habits, etc.).
Culture was perceived as something relatively or
firmly stable, persistent and intact.
Cultural difference was understood in terms of a
group‘s property. According to
Frederik Barth (1969), Cultural difference per se
does not create ethnic collectivities.
It is the social contact with others that leads to
definition and categorization of an ‗us‘
and a ‗them‘; hence, cultural difference between
two groups is not the decisive
feature of ethnicity. Indeed, ethnicity is essentially
an aspect of a relationship, not a
property of a group.
Nonetheless, Barth turned the traditional
understanding of cultural difference on its
head. He defined and explained ethnicity from the
outside in: it is not the
‗possession‟ of cultural characteristics that makes
social groups distinct but rather it
is the social interaction with other groups that
makes that difference possible, visible
and socially meaningful. Shared culture is, in this
model, best understood as
generated in and by processes of ethnic boundary
maintenance, rather than the
other way round: the production and reproduction
of difference vis-a-vis external
others is what creates the image of similarity
internally, vis-a-vis each other. Barth
and his collaborators ushered in an increasing
awareness on the part of many
Reflect your views on the following questions.
 Does this imply that ethnic groups don’t
necessarily have
a distinctive culture?
 Can two groups be culturally identical and yet
constitute
two different ethnic groups?
 What‘s the relationship between culture and
ethnicity, after
all?
97
anthropologists that 'culture' is a changing,
variable and contingent property of
interpersonal transactions, rather than a reified
entity, somehow 'above' the fray of
daily life, which produces the behaviour of
individuals.
In Barth‘s own words: ‗the critical focus of
investigation from this point of view
becomes the ethnic boundary that defines the
group, not the cultural stuff that
it encloses‘ (1969: 15). The difference is created,
developed and maintained only
through interaction with others (i.e., Frenchness is
created and becomes culturally
and politically meaningful only through the
encounter with Englishness, Germaness,
Danishness, etc.). Hence, the focus in the study of
ethnic difference has shifted from
the study of its contents (i.e., the structure of the
language, the form of the particular
costumes, the nature of eating habits) to the study
of cultural boundaries and social
interaction. The boundaries to which we must give
our attention are of course social
boundaries, though they may have territorial
counterparts. If a group maintains its
identity when members interact with others, this
entails criteria for determining
membership and ways of signaling membership
and exclusion. Ethnic groups are not
merely or necessarily based on the occupation of
exclusive territories; and the
different ways in which they are maintained, not
only by a once-and for-all
recruitment but by continual expression and
validation, need to be analyzed.
In other words, ethnic boundaries are explained
first and foremost as a product of
social action. Cultural difference per se does not
create ethnic collectivities: it is the
social contact with others that leads to definition
and categorization of an ‗us‘ and a
‗them‘. At this point, we should note that contrary
to a widespread commonsense
view, cultural difference between two groups is not
the decisive feature of ethnicity.
‗Group identities must always be defined in
relation to that which they are not – in
other words, in relation to non-members of the
group‟ (Eriksen, 1993: 10). Thus, in
emphasizing boundaries between groups, and their
production and reproduction,
Reflect your views on the following questions.
 What is an ethnic boundary?
 Is an ethnic boundary physical/territorial
boundary per se?
 Why, when and how do individuals and groups
maintain
ethnic boundaries?
98
Barth immediately shifted the analytical center of
gravity away from this or that
settled, bounded group - or 'society' - and towards
complex universes of
relationships between groups and their members.
In doing so, Barth emphasized
that ethnic identity is generated, confirmed or
transformed in the course of interaction
and transaction between decision-making,
strategizing individuals. Barth‘s work has
transformed and shifted the study of ethnic
difference from the study of cultural
contents (language, religion, and customs) to the
study of the interaction
processes in which cultural characteristics are
―picked up‖ as markers of differences
in the interaction process. Cultural differences per
se do not create ethnic
collectivities: The social contact with others leads
to the definition and categorization
of an ―us‖ and ―them‖.
For instance, two distinctive, endogamous groups,
say, somewhere in Ethiopia, may
well have widely different languages, religious
beliefs and even technologies, but
that does not entail that there is an ethnic
sameness/difference between them. For
ethnicity to come about, the groups must have a
minimum of contact between them,
and they must entertain ideas of each other as
being culturally different from
themselves. If these conditions are not fulfilled,
there is no ethnicity, for ethnicity is
essentially an aspect of a relationship, not a
property of a group. Conversely, some
groups may seem culturally similar, yet there can
be a socially highly relevant (and
even volatile) inter-ethnic relationship between
them. This would be the case of the
relationship between Serbs and Croats following
the break-up of Yugoslavia, or of
the tension between coastal Sami and Norwegians.
There may also be considerable
cultural variation within a group without ethnicity
(Blom, 1969). Only in so far as
cultural differences are perceived as being
important, and are made socially
relevant, do social relationships have an ethnic
element. Ethnicity is an aspect of
social relationship between agents who consider
themselves as being culturally
distinctive from members of other groups with
whom they have a minimum of regular
interaction.
Furthermore, Barth‘s research established a
foundation for understanding ethnicity in
universalist rather than in particularist terms. Since
culture and social groups
emerge only through interaction with others, then
ethnicity cannot be confined to
minority groups only. As Jenkins (1997) and Isajiw
(2000) rightly argue, we cannot
study minority ethnic groups without at the same
time studying the majority ethnicity.
99
Generally speaking, Barth understanding of
ethnicity has been central to pretty much
all subsequent anthropologizing about ethnicity.
Nevertheless, although his was
arguably the most systematic model in depth and
detail, the most securely grounded
in wider theoretical arguments about social forms
and social processes (e.g. Barth
1959, 1966, 1981), and has certainly been the
most influential, Barth was not alone
in establishing the current anthropological
understanding of ethnicity.
Reflecting, on the one hand, the practical
ethnographic concern with the everyday
lives of real people, i.e., their ‗actually existing‘
social relationships (Radcliffe-Brown,
1952:190), and on the other, the pursuit of
verstehen (‗understanding‘), advocated
by Weber and Simmel, Clifford Geertz has
elegantly defined ethnicity as the 'world of
personal identity collectively ratified and publicly
expressed' and 'socially ratified
personal identity' (1973:268, 309).
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, as an identification, is collective and
individual, externalized in social
interaction and the categorization of others, and
internalized in personal self-
identification.
Culture is conceived here partially in the traditional
anthropological sense as
involving a total way of life. The total way of life,
however, does not necessarily mean
simply a set of distinct everyday customs, although
it may include these. Rather, it
refers to a unique historical group experience.
Culture is in essence a system of
encoding such experience into a set of symbolic
patterns. It does not matter how
different the elements of one culture are from
another culture. A distinct culture is a
manifestation of a group's distinct historical
experience. Its product is a sense
of unique peoplehood. Ethnicity is not a single
unified social phenomenon but a
congeries, a ―family,‖ of related but analytically
distinct phenomena. The foundations
of ethnicity, the ―markers‖ of ethnicity, the history
of ethnicity, the aims and goals of
ethnicity—these vary from case to case‖ (Eller,
1999).
100
The emphasis on culture as the point of departure
for our understanding of the
nature of ethnicity is not intended to mean that
members of an ethnic group must
always share one and the same culture to the
exclusion of any other. Rather, it is
intended to mean that persons who include
themselves in an ethnicity would have a
relation to a group who either now or at some point
in the past has shared a unique
culture.

5.4 Theories of Ethnicity: Primordialism,

Instrumentalism & Social Constructivism
Since the middle of twentieth century, when
ethnicity as an analytical concept entered the
academic arena, a lot has been written and
debated on its conceptual definitions, its
manifestations in social or group
 interaction, the role it plays in group
mobilization for ‗common ends‘, and so forth.
 Over the years, this has turned into a perennial
and argumentative debate about the nature of
ethnicity/ethnic identity.
 This argument takes its place alongside a range
of theoretical controversies about the capacity of
humans to intervene in their own lives, to
determine or to be determined.
 In general, the Primordialist, Instrumentalist
and Constructivist are the dominant
theoretical approaches in anthropology
envisaged to understand the nature and
characteristics of ethnicity, ethnic identity and
ethnic interaction.

Table 1 - Three Basic Anthropological

Approaches for Understanding Ethnicity
Perspect Description
ive
Primordiali Ethnicity is fixed at birth.
st Ethnic identification is based on deep, „primordial‟
Approach attachments to a group or culture

Ethnicity, based on people‟s “historical” and

Instrument “symbolic”memory, is something created and used
alist and exploited by leaders and others in the pragmatic
Approach pursuit of their own interests.

Constructiv Ethnic identity is not something people “possess” but

ist something they “construct” in specific social and
Approach historical contexts to further their own interests

 These theories broadly reflect changes of

approach in anthropology over the past 20 years,
i.e. the shift from cultural evolution theories,
to structural-functionalist theories, to
conflict theories, and finally to postmodern
theories.
 These changes are related to the twin forces of
modernity and globalization.
 Globalization started as an economic
phenomenon and end up as a phenomenon of
identity.
 Traditional ways people defined who they were
have been undermined.
 Modernity has, remade life in such a way that
―the past is stripped away, place loses its
significance, community loses its hold, objective
 moral norms vanish, and what remains is
simply the self.”
 The result of this process has been a loss of
identity resulting in fragmentation and
rootlessness (anomie) at the personal level
and the blurring of identities at the
collective level.
 Some scholars claim that there have been
irreconcilable and unbreakable barriers between
the above divergently contending, but dominant
approaches of ethnicity.
 For instance, Banks (1996) portrayed the
divergences between the leading theories of
ethnicity as follows: ...the contents of ethnic
identity versus its boundary, the primordial gut
feeling of an identity versus its instrumental
expression, the individuals versus the group,
ethnicity as an all-inclusive general theory versus
ethnicity as a limited approach to particular
problems are the polar extremes central in
theories of ethnicity…. (Banks, 1996:47).
These divergently contending models of ethnicity
are discussed briefly as follows.
5.4.1. The Primordial Model of Ethnicity
The Primordialist approach is the oldest in
anthropological literature.
It was popular until the mid-1970s.
The roots of Primordialist thinking can be traced
back to the German Romantic philosophers,
especially Johann Gottfried von Herder
(1744–1803).
He proclaimed the primacy of emotions and
language, and defined society a deep-seated,
mythical community.
Herder envisaged that every Volk (people) had
its own values, customs, language and
‗spirit‘ (Volksgeist) and argued for the
―atavistic power‖ of the blood and soil (Blut
und Boden) that bound one closely with one‘s
people (das Volk).
Indeed, Primordialism 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
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.

5.4.2. Instrumentalist (Situational)

Theory of Ethnicity
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 :
 Abner Cohen
 Paul Brass and
 Ted Gurr
They 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), 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 behavior.
5.4.3. Constructivist Theory of Ethnicity
The basic notion in this approach is that ethnicity
is something that is being negotiated and
constructed in everyday living.
However, construction does not take place out of
the blue.
It depends on historical, social and the presence
of ethnic raw material to be utilized.
It regards ethnicity as a process, which continues
to unfold.
It has 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 and the role of
individual agencies and circumstances in
triggering the historical and social factors.
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.
Jenkins (1997) further noted that, as far as the flow
of individuals from one ethnic
group to another is possible, it is possible to argue
that the boundaries of ethnicity
are permeable and osmotic (Jenkins, 1997: 53).
This provoked that ethnicity is
dynamic that changes through time and space; and
ethnic identities are constructed,
deconstructed and reconstructed.
5.5 Unit Summary
In this Unit we have tried to explain the concepts of
identity, ethnicity as identity
categorization. Ethnicity has got a widespread
mainstream use in end of 20th c. It is
employed to describe an expanding range of social
and political concerns. As we
have seen as the term has gained popularity, so
have its meanings shifted. Most
social scientists from Weber to Barth agreed today
that ethnicity is a constructed,
artificial category the characteristics and
boundaries of which have been
renegotiated, redefined over the years to suit
different contexts and objectives. There
also seems a confusion between race and
ethnicity. Most people seem to consider
race as a biological construct fundamentally
explained in terms of phenotypical
expressions. However, as it has been already
elucidated race itself is human
construct. We have also seen the three prominent
theories of ethnicity. Primordialism
holds that ethnicity has existed at all times of
human history and that modern ethnic
groups have historical roots far into the past with
an understanding of humanity as
being divided into primordially existing groups
rooted by kinship and biological
heritage. Constructivism sees the primordialist
views as basically flawed, and 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. We have also
Reflect your views on the following questions.
 Can you draw a clear line between the major
arguments
of primordialism, instrumentalism and social
constructivism about the nature and characteristics
of
ethnicity?
 Is it wrong to assume instrumentalism as another
version
of constructivism? Why?