First part can be accessed here

Introduction

Ethnic identity is not a single fixed social phenomenon but a conglomeration of related analytically distinct experiences. Ethnicity has been conceptualised[1] as a fixed category in which individuals are born and one containing multiple identities that become politically salient in different ways in different contexts. The markers of ethnicity vary from case to case. For instance, in some cases, it may be religion, and in other cases, language, history or race can act as a marker or point of distinction for different ethnicities. Thus, the concept has a sense of elusiveness, which is mostly responsible for its conceptual expandability. Hutchinson and Smith note that the concept of ethnicity is not static. They write:

On the one hand, we encounter highly durable ethnies, some of them indeed tracing their origins over several centuries, even millennia. On the other hand, we observe the rise of new ethnies and the dissolution of older ones, as well as the many transformations of culture that existing ethnies have undergone (Hutchinson and Smith 1996).[i]

This short essay aims at examining some of the theoretical approaches that have been popular in the study of ethnicity. While studies of ethnic groups have a long history in sociology and social anthropology, considerable interest in the field has been shown by scholars of international relations. A plausible reason for this could be the proliferation of interstate conflicts presumably stemming from inter-ethnic conflicts in the post-cold war. However, a proliferation of books on ethnicity from the 1970s suggests a shift in terminology. What was occurring was the term ethnic or ethnicity was being referred to what was earlier referred to as culture/cultural or tribe/tribal. This prompts one to make some cautionary remarks before discussing the three approaches that this essay seeks to examine: primordialists, social constructionists and instrumentalists.

Some cautionary points

There are a couple of cautionary points that need to be made. First, concepts emerge in specific historical contexts reflecting societal changes and within scholarly attempts to make sense of the changes. Second, when we confine our focus on any set of approaches, the idea is not that there may not be other ways of approaching the study of ethnicity. Third, these approaches are different ways of understanding ethnicity. Still, one may find it difficult to treat them in a compartmentalised fashion or try and fit one or the other approach to defining a specific ethnic group. The distinctions we would see do tend to blur even as they offer analytical help to make sense of the social phenomena.

The Primordialist

It has been argued that a hard primordial approach may not even define ethnicity. They would proceed with it as a given. When ethnic identities are fixed and innate, it is assumed that observers and objects of study use similar ethnic classifications, making further explanations irrelevant. For these primordialists, ethnicity is a naturally formed concept articulated over a period of time. According to this school, ethnicity is a form of ascribed identity or an assigned status. It is inherited from one’s ancestors and passes on from one generation into the next.

However, there is a historical underpinning premised on ancestry and shared experience for others. Both biology and culture would play a role. In other words, people belong to an ethnic group because they, as members of that group, share common biological and cultural origins. Clifford Geertz, who is generally associated with the primordialist approach, argues:

[b]y a primordial attachment is meant one that stems from the “givens” or, more precisely, as culture is inevitably involved in such matters, the assumed “givens” of social existence: immediate contiguity and kin connection mainly, but beyond them the givenness that stems from being born into a particular religious community, speaking a particular language, or even a dialect of a language, and following particular social practices. These congruities of blood, speech, custom and so on are seen to have an ineffable, and at times overpowering, coerciveness in and of them. One is bound to one’s kinsman, one’s neighbours, one’s fellow believers, ipso factor; as the result not merely of personal affection, practical necessity, common interest, or incurred obligation, but at least in great part by virtue of some un-accountable absolute import attributed to the very tie itself. [ii]

Thus, according to primordialists, the ethnic identity of a group can never change and remains until the group cease to exist.

However, the story gets a little complicated when primordialists argue that ethnic identity can also be used as a tool by groups and individuals who face downward mobility and those who seek to achieve upward mobility. The very word tool suggests an instrumental element.

To an extent, the identity articulation in Bodoland Movement can be stated to be drawing from their primordial attachment to their territory. Roy has highlighted that Bodos were the earliest settlers in the Brahmaputra valley plains and must have predated the other settlers, i.e., the Alpine, Aryans, Dravidian and other Mongoloid settlers who followed them into Assam.[iii] This point highlights that the Bodos consider themselves the actual original inhabitants of Assam and were of the opinion that they were denied their due privileges and rights; which can be stated to be one of the main reasons they demand a separate state of their own now.

The primordialists discourse thus can be analysed through two perspectives- sociological and cultural. The sociological perspective of primordialism is mainly associated with Peter Van den Berghe, who highlighted the importance of a sociobiological factor – kinship, which has a role in defining ethnicity. Thus, according to him, ethnicities are an extension of kinship ties. He believed that ethnic groups have a shared belief and consider the groups unique and, as such, strive hard to maintain this distinctiveness. The existence of this sense of commonality and belief on shared history aids in maintaining the distinctiveness of the ethnic group.[iv]

The cultural perspective is mostly associated with the works of Clifford Geertz and Steven Grosby. According to this perspective, a common culture is very important in determining ethnic group membership. A common culture (e.g., a common language or a religion) determines the genesis of ethnic identity even in the absence of common ancestors. Here we see how the distinctions of approaches get blurred. The primordialists thus would also refer to the role of culture and instrumental interests.

The constructionist school

According to the constructionist school, whichemerged sometime around the 1970s, ethnicity is a socially constructed identity. Its ethnic association is ascertained by the society (which is subjected to a changing social environment). In addition, as an extension of constructed identity, ethnic boundaries are flexible or changeable. The recent developments in the constructionist perspective mostly emphasise the social construction of ethnicity and race and the dynamic process of ethnic formation. For instance, Werner Sollars, who suggested the notion of “the invention of ethnicity”, asserts that ethnic identity is embedded in tradition, created, sustained, and refashioned by people.[v] Further, Joane Nagel also asserted that ethnicity is socially constructed and reconstructed by internal forces (i.e., actions taken by ethnic groups themselves, such as negotiation, redefinition, and reconstruction of ethnic boundaries) and external forces (i.e., social, economic, and political processes and outsiders).[vi] This school points out the centrality of social construction in ethnic formation and retention and the importance of the historical and structural forces that create and uphold ethnicity.

The instrumentalist school

The instrumentalist view asserts that ethnic identity is not fixed and can vary in accordance to

time and situation. As such, an individual can possess the liberty and freedom to identify with any form of ethnic identity, which they feel will benefit them the most. The instrumentalist school can be discussed through two perspectives – the elite perspective and the social engineering perspective. The elite perspective is associated with the work of Paul Brass. Brass emphasises the role of elites in the formation and perseverance of ethnic identity. According to him

…[e]lites and counter-elites within ethnic groups select aspects of the group’s culture, attach new value and meaning to them, and use them as symbols to mobilise the group, to defend its interests, and to compete with other groups.[vii]

In ascribing the ethnic identity of a group, Brass points out that ethnic and ethnonational identities are at times created through “the selection of particular dialects or religious practices or styles of dress or historical symbols from a variety of available alternatives”.[viii] Although identities are made with essential artefacts, this does not necessarily mean that such artefacts are always primordial. As such, the elite’s idea of formulating a group’s ethnic identity shouldn’t be considered the ultimate aspiration of an ethnic group.

On the other hand, the social-engineering perspective suggests that a more systematic and official set of processes are at play in the formation and articulation of ethnicity. Eric Hobsbawm and Ernest Gellner’s works can be discussed in this context. Hobsbawm believes that societal traditions which many ethnic and national groups assume and showcase may appear to be ancient or primordial. Still, in actuality, they deliberately originate or appear.[ix] Although Hobsbawm’s contribution indeed helps explain the process of articulation and preservation of ethnic identities, it fails to emphasise why individuals need to pay importance to a shared past and history to legitimise the present or, indeed, the future. Whether such behaviour is owed to something primordial in human nature or contemporary social conditioning is debatable.

On the other hand, Gellner attributes the setting up of identity formation to the institutions of the state and, in particular, those related to education. He asserts that cultures “possess a complexity and richness, most usually sustained by literacy and by specialised personnel”[x], however, they are unstable and can face problems if the distinctiveness is not maintained by specialised institutions, which promote learning about these cultures. Gellner mentions that ethnic groups have ‘dedicated personnel’ who work towards fulfilling goals. For instance, the existence of cultural groups, student wings, etc.

Looking at the possibility of an integrated approach

An analysis of these schools of thought on the nature and basis of ethnicity highlights the varying degrees of validity of the arguments about the concept. However, scholars such as Volkman, Ballard, Lewins, Scott and others have emphasised the possibility of a synthesis of these approaches. [xi] In fact,we can formulate an integrated approach and incorporate strands from all three paradigms. For instance, Lewins asserts that ethnic groups form and continue to exist because of many factors. Some of these factors are derived from the cultural heritage, while others are situational. Similarly, Scott also proposes a requirement to link the primordial sentiments with the circumstances or the situations in which they have been aroused or maintained.[xii]

Numerous studies suggest that the concept of ethnicity and ethnic group can be understood fruitfully in these alternative approaches – primordial dimension and the constructivist and instrumental context[xiii]. For instance, in the context of research on the concept of ethnicity and ethnic boundaries of the Sino-Vietnamese in Victoria and Canada, Woon[xiv] highlighted that the Sino-Vietnamese utilised ethnic charters, including national origin, language and ancestry, to obtain instrumental help and comparative advantages. Nevertheless, along with these factors, other necessary factors such as the individual’s self-esteem, a sense of the past, and belonging are equally important. In another study where Bun and Kiong attempted to analyse the primary and secondary factors impacting the ethnicity of the Chinese in Thailand, the Chinese used their ethnic identity for both primordial and utilitarian ends in that society.[xv]

Thus, to arrive at a comprehensive theoretical analysis of ethnicity, one must consider both the primordial and instrumental aspects.[xvi] Ethnicity can be socially constructed based on ancestry or influenced by society. However, the interests of ethnic groups also partly determine ethnic affiliation, and those ethnic boundaries are relatively stable but undergo a change in accordance to time.

Ethnic identity is more or less a product of both primordial and instrumental factors. However, this is not to say that ethnicity can be comprehended only based on these approaches. It is difficult to arrive at a universally accepted definition based on either one of these approaches. The attempt to understand ethnicity is an ongoing process. The larger question that needs to be dealt with is to look for a mediating point through which we can overcome the theoretical limitations of all the approaches and provide a holistic interpretation of ethnicity. For instance, Seol writes about the ethnicity of the Korean Australians, which mediates between diverse human relations and different values and norms are expressed, which are then accordingly expressed and utilised at both the individual and collective levels.[xvii] Ethnicity is intrinsically subjective, and it is necessary to understand this varying nature.

[i] Hutchinson, John and Smith Anthony D. (1996). Introduction. in John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith (eds.), Ethnicity. OUP.p.7.

[ii] Geertz, Clifford. (1996). Primordial Ties. in Hutchinson and Smith (eds.), Ethnicity(pp.41-42). OUP.

[iii] Roy, Ajay. (1995). The Bodo Imbroglio. Spectrum Publications. p.3.

[iv] See Connor, W. (1994). Ethno-Nationalism: The Quest for Understanding. Princeton University Press, p.202.

[v] See Sollors, Werner, ed. (1989). The Invention of ethnicity. Oxford University Press.

[vi] See  Nagel, Joane. (1996). American Indian Ethnic Renewal: Red Power and the Resurgence of Identity and Culture. OUP; Nagel, Joane. (1994). Constructing ethnicity: Creating and recreating ethnic identity and culture. Social Problems. 41(1): 152-176.

[vii] Brass, P. (1979). Elite Groups, Symbol Manipulation and Ethnic Identity among the Muslims of South Asia. in D. Taylor & M. Yapp(eds.), Political Identity in South Asia, (pp.40-41). Curzon Press.

[viii] Brass, P. (1991). Ethnicity and Nationalism: Theory and Comparison. Sage. p.25.

[ix] Gellner, E. (1983). Nations and Nationalism. Cornell University Press.p.1.

[x] Ibid., p 50.

[xi]  See Volkman, Toby Alice.(1984). Great Performances: Toraja Cultural Identity in the 1970s. American Ethnologist.11(1):152-169; Ballard, Roger. (1976). Ethnicity: Theory and Experience: A Review Article.New Community.5(3):196-202 ;  Lewins, Frank W. (1978). Race and Ethnic Relations. in Ann Curthoys and Andrew Markus (eds.), Who are Our Enemies? Racism and the Australian Working Class(pp. 10-19).Hale and Iremonger. ; Scott, George M. Jr. (1990). A Resynthesis of the Primordial and Circumstantial Approaches to Ethnic Group Solidarity: Towards an Explanatory Model. Ethnic and Racial Studies.13(2):147-171.

[xii] Scott, George M. Jr. (1990). A Resynthesis of the Primordial and Circumstantial Approaches to Ethnic Group Solidarity: Towards an Explanatory Model. Ethnic and Racial Studies.13(2):147-171.

[xiii] See Esman, Milton J. (1977). Scottish Nationalism, North Sea Oil and the British Response. in Milton J. Esman (ed.), Ethnic Conflict in the Western World(pp.251-286.) Cornell University Press.

[xiv] Woon, Yuen-Fong. (1985). Ethnic Identity and Ethnic Boundaries: The Sino-Vietnamese in Victoria, British Columbia. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology.22(4):534-558.

[xv] Bun, Chan Kwok and Tong Chee Kiong. (1993). Rethinking Assimilation and Ethnicity: The Chinese in Thailand. International Migration Review.27(1):140-168.

[xvi] See De Vos, George A.91995). Ethnic Pluralism: Conflict and Accommodation. in Lola Romanucci-Ross and George A. De Vos (eds.), Ethnic Identity: Creation, Conflict and Accommodation (3rd ed.) (pp. 15-47) Altamira Press.

[xvii] See Seol, Byung-Soo. (2002). Hoju Nae Hanindeului Sogyumo Saeopgwa Jongjok Jawonui Du Eolgul (Small Business Activities of Koreans in Australia and the Duality of their Ethnic Resources. Hanguk Munhwa Ilyuhak (Korean Cultural Anthropology). 35(2):275-302 (in Korean); Seol, Byung-Soo (2008). Ethnicity in the Process of Acculturation of Korean Australians: Focused on Family Life Patterns. International Area Review.11(1):169-189.

***

Cihnnita Baruah is a Doctoral Candidate in the Centre for the Study of Law and Governance (CSLG), Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi.