Ethnicity Confers to Relationship Aspect but Not a Property of a Group - Coursework Example

ETHNI CONFERS TO RELATIONSHIP ASPECT BUT NOT A PROPERTY OF A GROUP (ERIKSEN). DISCUSS WITH APPROPRIATE ETHNOGRAPHIC EXAMPLES Professor (Tutor) Course City/State Date Introduction The meaning and significance of the proposition that ethnicity is a state of the relationship and not a property of a group is debatable. When, why and how do people start recognising their distinctiveness from others? In relations, people start feeling the state of how different they are from others. Each people have their unique characteristics that define whom they are 1. However, in the ancient times, ethnic groups lived a little bit more isolated from others and merely did the evaluation of how distinct they were from each other arise. Following inventions and migrations that increased communication and interaction between communities such as computers, trade, the mass media and tourism, people started recognising their distinctive characters. In the world today, there is an increasingly high number of ethnic groups in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas and elsewhere in the world who are seeking their self-determination as a people with a distinct and superior character. There have been fights for these ethnic groups to be accepted as independent nations 2. These ethnic groupings are presented as having sufficient knowledge about their rights. They view the state as having a clearly defined group identity that confers special advantages. In this direction of the argument, are prompted to imagine that ethnicity is a product of a group? The provide answers to such questions cannot be easy to hunt and get anyhow. It requires a critical analysis of various concepts that surround the definition ethnicity as embraced in different categorisations in the world today 3. Moreover, why is it that as people relate more, the more the conflict between them has increased? Ethnic conflicts have been the defining aspect of the differences that are cherished by varied groups of people. The increase in the interaction between people has also resulted in more stereotypes about the race, culture and ethnic groups. The cultural differences between groups of people have gradually been lost through globalisation. However, people have continued to get different in newly invented ways. To say that ethnicity is an aspect of a relation informs us that the sustained dialogue between individuals and groups is necessary. Ethnicity as a relation has its humble beginning in the relation between two persons. Each has a distinctly defined cultural background. The aspect then extends to the interaction and communication between and within local and global organisations. Ethnicity and related Concepts Defined The concept and meaning of ethnicity depend on the definitions of the concepts of ethnic identity and ethnic group. The ethnic group, a more basic concept from which others are derived refers to ethnicity as a collective phenomenon 4. Ethnic identity, on the other hand, describes ethnicity as a phenomenon that is individually experienced. Ethnicity, therefore, is an epitomic concept that includes an implicit reference to the individual and collective aspects of the phenomenon. According to Eriksen, the term ethnicity was first publicly used by David Riesman, an American Sociologist in 1953. Eriksen postulates that the term ‘ethnic’ is derived from the Greek terminology ‘ethnos’, which means pagan or heathen in its original context. It was then that references to the ‘racial’ characteristics began to emerge gradually. In the modern society, Eriksen observed that people no longer talk about the tribe. Instead, they talk about ‘ethnic groups with the term ‘ethnic’ being used in the place of ‘racial’. An essential distinction between the words race and ethnic is the negative aspect of categorisation in the term ‘race and the positive aspect of identification in the name ‘ethnic. Therefore, ethnicity refers to the sense of a group feeling 5. It describes the historical process of individuation of a people’s roots and identity that is produced and transmitted from one generation to another. The sense of the group feeling gets changed during the process and is conferred to subsequent generations in altered forms from the previous ones. Ethnicity keeps evolving across the generations. Ethnicity leads to identification with a particular group. Eriksen observes that just like the majorities and dominant groups, the minorities too are ethnic groups 6. He notes that differences in class are not the same as ethnic differences. For example, an individual from the lower class that holds a good position remains to be a member of the ethnic minority. His class and status and class do not make him change his ethnic identity. Eriksen postulates that whatever the differences are in thinking of people, they are not innate. He notes that the patterns of thinking and behaviour are learned. Therefore, one is not born ethnic, they learn to be ethnic. As a concept, ethnicity has an objective and a subjective dimension. The actual dimension of ethnicity includes aspects such as the observable facts in the existence of institutions, particularly those of descent and kinship and the overt individual behaviour patterns. The subjective dimension of ethnicity constitutes the values, attitudes and preconceptions for which the context of the communication process is used to interpret meaning. The term ‘ethnic’ refers to that which relates to the large groups of persons categorised according to the national, tribal, racial, religious, cultural or linguistic origin 7. It shows the aspect of belonging to a particular group with a distinct identity. From an anthropological perspective, we derive the information concerning individuals from the categories to which they are assigned. Categorisation, therefore, refers to the classification of individuals into appropriate groupings in order to acquire the potential targets to place their contexts in analysing their character 7. In categorisation, the underlying assumption of uniformity is brought to operation. It should be noted that in assigning certain properties to certain individuals and classifications such as ethnic groups and race, inappropriate assignments may be made resulting in misleading categorization. Anthropologically, Deconstruction is the process of exploring the ethnic concepts and categories imposed by tradition leading to reformulations. The standard social anthropological perspective presents a comprehensive view of the political identity. Political identity arises from political categorisation 8. People with varied ethnic groupings most often identify themselves with different political personalities and categorisations. Political identity refers to an action; organisation or political ideology that openly represents a group’s designated interests with reference to their ethnic origins and identity. The aggregate legitimacy of a political categorisation is ideally supported by the segments that define the particular groups cultural and ethnic identity. Unlike membership in any other political grouping, membership in a political category is usually ascribed. The differences between various political identities within the ethnic context results in heightened conflict between the varied political identities 9. In India, for example, these conflicts have been increasing over time due to the differences and parallels between the people. The one thing that Indians ethnically shared in common was the location of the temple in the 1990s. Their differences are founded on the identity and culture. Similar tragic and brutal ethnic conflicts have been witnessed in Fiji and Yugoslavia among many other countries of the world. Anthropological Definition of Culture The concept of different cultures forms the point of departure in the contemporary understanding of the nature of ethnicity. From the anthropological viewpoint, culture is conceptualised as involving the total way of life. However, the total way of a people’s life may not be limited to the inclusion of customs even though they form its part 10. The total way of life involves the unique historical experience of a group. In essence, culture is a system that encodes these experiences into sets of symbolic patterns. Different ethnic groups embrace different elements and strands of culture. A groups distinct historical experience manifests the disparities between itself and many other cultures. It represents a broad sense of the unique peoplehood that is shared in ethnic relations 11. With the anthropological conceptualisation of culture taken into account, it would be misleading to conceive exclusively the assumption that an ethnic group cannot accommodate people with varied cultural experiences. Ethnicity as an aspect of the relationship: The use of Ethnographic examples. Eriksen (2003), refers to ethnicity as a social that is defined by a fictive or metaphoric kinship. In his endeavour to explain the concept of ethnicity as a relation, Eriksen argues that ethnicity concerns group relationship and the classification of people. In 2000, Eriksen further developed this idea by postulating that for groups that are habitually, conventionally or linguistically close to one another, ethnicity plays a significant importance. There are cases in the modern society where cultural variations have been embraced as something of great importance. In Finland, for example, the Finland-Swedes and the Finns share a lot in common. However, language differences have been embraced to the extent of creating tensions. Ethnicity as an aspect of relation patrols beyond the language boundary and becomes a question of acceptance of one ethnic group by the other. Then what is the significance of ethnicity in a relation? History has a countless number of times presented situations that provide answers to the question. There is yet much left of this significance in relation to the ideology of dominating and belonging to a higher class that supposedly has exclusive rights. There are human needs that cannot be satisfied if a group of people or even individuals lived in isolation from the others 12. One needs a sense of belonging, self-actualisation, recognition and even contact. The listed fundamental needs cannot be achieved if one lived in isolation. They can only be actualised through contact with other people, whether groups or individuals. Contact and interaction are necessary. When people identify themselves as primarily belonging to a particular group and sharing the same identity, contact between them starts taking roots. The shared characteristics act as a bond that keeps people fitting in the same ethnic grouping collectively endeavouring for the maintenance of their identity. There is a common and shared joy that accrues to the community in which a new baby is born. Absolute care is extended to the new-born by all those that identify themselves as belonging to the human grouping 13. Those unique features of humanity that are shared by people across cultures are the binding force that keeps members of the society united in this course. They express the relation between them. The importance of relationships is static and fundamentally does not change. For Eriksen, Ethnicity is not just a thing. Instead, it is an aspect of an ever-changing social process. Language is deeply rooted in culture. It carries with it the customs, values, and traditions of a culture 14. It may be contested whether people that learn other people’s language adopt their culture as well. One can easily be tricked into such a belief. However, learning a language and embracing the cultural ties that come along with it are to distinct phenomena. A foreigner, as observed by Dahl, remains an alien. They only use the learnt language verbally. He articulated that there should always be the foreigners and actuality in embracing the language as an important factor in ethnicity. The role of language in relations cannot be undermined 15. If it were not for understandable languages, not a single person would understand the values and customs they share in common with another. Language has widely been conceptualised as the most important factor in defining what constitutes an ethnic group. It is the indicator of a shared provenance as contained in a group’s language. Cultures have been globalised in the sense that they have changed in a manner that did not define their nature and scope earlier. Globalisation in the modern society has resulted in the interaction of the world. On interacting, people formulate new relationships, though with foreigners 16. The maintenance of these relationships requires the construction and deconstruction of our values to accommodate others. Although learned culture may not have a significant effect on the degree to which culture could change, their contribution cannot be undermined. Our modern cultures and relationships between people have been corrupted by complex institutions different from those that we inherited from previous generations. These adjustments have been affected due to the recognition of the value attached to relations. In 1969, Barth in his model ‘Ethnic Groups and Boundaries sets out sinuous and subtle frontiers for the interconnectedness of ethnic identities, ethnic boundaries and the continuity of the ethnic groups. His work and contributions to understanding ethnicity have been severally referred to as bearing a messianic nature 17. A number of assertions are used in the model including those of increasing structural similarities, stigmatised identities and the political organisation of the ethnic groups. The effective and successful application of his theory in the present times requires a critical review of the omissions, the exaggerations and oversimplifications observable in the model. In particular, his work on the content of cultural practices, the potential for a multiplicity ethnic identity, conflict and power plays within the nations and the traditions and symbols should be reflected on. The contributions made by Barth on ethnicity helps the people of the modern times to reconsider the world around them and comprehend their social spheres better 18. According to Barth, ethnicity maintains its relevance and makes sense for the people of the 2st century. His is a theory of understanding the dynamics, ambiguities and complexities of the identities of groups and social organisations. Together with his collaborators, Barth through his work rejects the notion that existed in 1969 of the ethnic groupings that were ascribed to primordial bonds. Formed by responses to ecological factors, these groups appeared rigid and bounded. His theoretical framework constitutes a significant contribution of the time towards understanding ethnicity. The groundwork for the constructivist approach that later came to be adopted was laid in the work of Barth ‘Ethnic Groups and Boundaries’ which challenged the social sciences and the foundations of anthropology. At the time of inception of the work of Barth, ethnicity was conceptualised as culture and a culture that was shared 17. The deviation from the cultural dimension of defining ethnicity was introduced under the Boundaries in Barts work. The acute perceptions and the valuable insights accruing from his theory help us comprehend the intricate social mechanisms that create and shape the communities. Despite the erosion of the original identities of the ethnic groups, Barth observes that these groups possess the power to promote and create new cultural identities. The affirmation and assertion of these groups in the modern times especially on the frontier of human rights make it possible for them to create and embrace new identities. More recent works by Scholars on the ethnicity present a bigger thought that encompasses the advancement and expansion of modern politics and how ethnicity plays in it. The influence of the nation-state and economics and the globalisation and modernity on the ethnic groups and ethnicity have been rethought widely. The later critiques have expressed concerns that Barths model of ‘Ethic Group and Boundaries is inadequate to justify how the ethnic categories arise. The major critique of the work of Barth lies in the cognitive process of ethnic identity acquisition advanced by Levine. He further postulates that Jenkins model of categorisation has no bearing on the explanation of how classification works 19. Eriksen quotes Burma and Moerman’s ethnographic fieldwork of 1965 that was carried out on the Lue people of Northern Thailand. He presents a highlight of the incongruity of the political, linguistic and cultural boundaries between these people 11. The ethnic boundaries expressed in the day-to-day life of the people of Thailand is not identifiable through the objective discontinuities in culture, language, territory and policy. Instead, ethnic boundaries between these people are the interaction between the various ethnic groups and the positions held by each group. According to Moerman, the Lue people of Thailand share much common material and linguistic characteristics with their neighbours. Characteristics that were identified as Lue traits in this ethnographic study varied from one group of the Lue people to another. Eriksen then quotes the conclusion made by Moerman from the study that in order for one to define the ‘Lueness of the Lue people, he cannot view them in isolation. It would be paramount for anybody endeavouring to attain such a goal to define the Lue people as a tribe and try to understand their survival mechanisms in the modern Thailand. The Lue cannot be in a sense be identified or said to exist in isolation. The ethnographic account of the Lue people of Thailand was drawn in the 1960s and 1970s in order to produce new processes that are involved in the maintenance of the ethnic identities. The account was essential for the production of later theories on ethnicity 11. From recent ethnographic researches in Ruam Chai, a remote and large village in Northern Thailand, nationalistic consciousness and ethnic identities were identified to have emerged among the Tai people. These findings were arrived at from the context of state development, nation-building and the history of the Northern Thailand in the 20th century. Tai, who are referred to as the Shan, form a group of predominant residents of the multi-ethnic frontier in the Northern Thailand. The multi-ethnic community was historically occupied by Khun Sa, a notorious opium warlord before the administrative control by the Thai state in 1982. The varied ethnic occupant groups in the Northern Thailand are believed to have migrated into the region from the Myanmars Shan state for different reasons and at different times in history. Due to the illegality behind their immigration, the Thai state today classifies them into non-citizen statuses based on the registration records and the migration periods. The documented Thailand-born offspring of the displaced groups in Thailand and the revised Thai Nationality Act, in consideration of the non-Thai ethnic categories, have provided for their naturalisation. Both the Lue and the Tai people embrace their ethnic identities and diversity at a village level. There are established conventional and logical systems of identification among themselves 20. These groups have maintained ethnic boundaries in the process of interactions with members of neighbouring different ethnic origins. External and internal forces encountered in such interactions have resulted in reconstructions of the ethnic identities of these groups over time 21. The spirit of nation-building has instilled a greater sense of belonging to Thailand to the pre-existing and current generations of these immigrant groups. The interactions across the international borders that involve movements to and from Thailand have also contributed significantly to the shaping of these ethnic identities. The illustrations of the ethnographic examples of the people of Thailand is an affirmative confirmation of Eriksen’s proposition that ethnicity is an aspect of relation and not a property of a group. Another important ethnographic example draws from the Creoles of Sierra Leone in the 1960s as explained in Cohen’s work 13. Cohen advances that at the time in history, a small group of the Creoles I Sierra Leone were economically and politically dominant. The Creoles are said to have embraced their distinct identity and perceived themselves different from the major ethnic groups; Mende and Temne in Sierra Leone. The Creoles used their origin mythology to justify their separate ethnic identity by postulating that they were descendants of liberated slaves. The belief in this myth was made a culture among the Creoles and embraced in language and many other ways 22. Unfortunately, as a minority identity in Sierra Leone, the Creoles were not recognised as an ethnic group. They were therefore compelled to downplay publicly their ethnic identity and only express it in informal ways in the reproduction of their community. As argued by Cohen, Freemasonry was the Creoles primary form of informal organisation 10(Cohen, Kaplan and McRae, 1993). There was a large coincidence between the extent of Creoledom and the masonry networks operating among the Creoles. The unanimity in the two aspects that defined the Creole identity enhanced the flow of immaterial and material resources that were crucial for the build-up of their elite position amid misrecognition. The very character of relations between the Creoles owing to their common origin and the sharing of a common ethnic identity made them strive to maintain their uniqueness as a social group. The demonstration of such a minority group is a significant validation of the importance of relations between members of an ethnic identity as stipulated by Eriksen. According to Cohen (1993), ethnic elites mute their social identity and attempt to deny that they are a bounded group. He observes that this becomes an important method of obtaining and retaining privileges among the elite category. Eriksen (1998) notes that Cohens statement cannot be advanced as a general principle. He argued that the proposition that elites mute their social identities to seek and retain privileges did not apply to all groups. In Mauritius, for example, Eriksen stipulated that ethnic groups are regularly involved in highly visible identity politics. He observes that the Sino-Mauritians, with a notable Chinese descent, who are economically powerful but numerically weak distant themselves from the political and social discourse over language, culture and pluralism. The strategy advanced by Cohen is necessary and makes reasonable good sense in communities where egalitarian and democratic values are strong but hardly are they elsewhere. However, in colonial plantations, where the politically and economically dominant group happened to form the minority, Cohen’s proposition takes hold. The ethnic markers of the particular dominant group would constitute the official norm of the society. Another aspect of ethnicity is manifested in the case of the Mauritian Muslims’ as an invented ethnic group as postulated by Eriksen 4. The socio-religious idioms of ‘Umma’ and ‘Jamaat’ have been associated with the development of political consciousness among the Mauritian Muslims. The group of Muslims is believed to have immigrated as labourers and later turned to small landowners in the 19th century in Mauritius. The rise of socio-economic as well as the cultural and personal emancipation is attributed to re-Islamisation that acted as a cornerstone of the process. Despite sharing the common characteristic of indentured plantation labourers with the Hindu, re-Islamisation gave the Muslims a separate identity. Forming 17% of the total Mauritian population, the Muslims realised their minority status in the 1950s. It was at that time that political opportunities started opening up for them. They had the options of teaming up with the majority Hindu or joining other minority groups to counter the influence of Hindu. Any of the available options had the potential to result in a strong ethnic identity in negotiating the strength with those who wielded power. Although the Mauritian political system has attained political stability reasonably, Eriksen observed that democracy in the island-state is merely achieved. Amid the prevailing majoritarian system of governance, the minority Muslims in Mauritius has emerged as an invented ethnic group with a distinct identity. For many years, the southern highlands of the Papua New Guinea have been in conflict 23. The historical inter-group rivalries that trace their roots back to the colonial times have escalated following a fight for resources within the communities of the southern highlands. The Mendi area, primarily affected by the conflict has suffered the closure of essential services. From the perspective of the measures of ethnolinguistic diversity, the state is said to be the most fragmented in the world 26. The macro-level political effect of the diversity in Papua New Guinea has reduced rather than increase the conflict between the varied ethnic identities. Contrary to the effects of ethnic diversity on other societies in the world, the consequential effects of ethnic conflicts at the state are at the local rather than the national level. At the national level, the communities of the western and the southern highlands have consistently maintained the national identity. Levine’s account of the cognitive process is important in understanding how ethnic groups formulate the knowledge about their identities and the reactions associable to their construction and deconstruction. Interpretation is the first step that people analyse the general picture of the shared values and beliefs 24. Instrumentation helps these groups to interact and integrate their perceptions with the view of accommodating the perceived commonalities. Upon interaction, the groups establish and sustain fulfilling and productive relationships 25. Finally, the inner direction results in the achieving of malleable self-insights that help inform the self-launching of the shared identities. Conclusion The meaning and significance of ethnicity as an essential aspect of a relationship is real. The interactions between communities and different ethnic groups have continued to the formulation of identities that are new in certain respects. Communication and globalisation have increased the interactions between ethnic groups sometimes resulting in new relationships. The shared characteristics of the many ethnographic examples presented in the argument appear to be the defining tools of the shared identity. The anthropological and the psychological aspects of ethnicity as advanced by varied authors confirm ethnicity as a string of relationships between groups and individuals. References Barnard, A. and Spencer, J. (1996). Encyclopaedic dictionary of social and cultural anthropology. Routledge. Barth, F. (1969). Ethnic groups and boundaries. Boston: Little, Brown. Brubaker, R. (2004). Ethnicity without groups. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Brubaker, R. (2004). Ethnicity without Groups. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carrier, J. (2012). A handbook of economic anthropology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Cohen, M., Kaplan, W. and McRae, D. (1993). Law, policy and international justice. Montreal, Que.: McGill-Queens University Press. Cohen, R. (2001). Global Diasporas. London: Routledge. Collins, P. (2004). Black Nationalism and African-American Ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edensor, T. (2002). National identity, popular culture and everyday life. Oxford: Berg Publishers. Eriksen, T. (2001). Small places, large issues. London: Pluto Press. Eriksen, T. (2002). Ethnicity and nationalism. London: Pluto Press. Eriksen, T. (2003). Globalisation. London: Pluto Press. Eriksen, T. (2004). Ethnicity, Class, and the 1999 Mauritian Riots. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eriksen, T. (2010). Ethnicity and nationalism. London: Pluto Press. Hagmann, T. and PeÌclard, D. (2011). Negotiating Statehood. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Hastings, A. (1997). The construction of nationhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hughes, P., Suwanbubbha, P. and Chaisri, J. (2008). The Nature of Spirituality among Young People in Australia and Thailand. Social Compass, 55(3), pp.359-372. Jenkins, R. (2008). Rethinking ethnicity. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Jones, S. (1997). The archaeology of ethnicity. London: Routledge. Levine, M. (2002). A mind at a time. New York: Simon & Schuster. May, S., Modood, T. and Squires, J. (2004). Ethnicity, nationalism and minority rights. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Nederveen Pieterse, J. (2004). Ethnicities and Multiculturalisms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Parekh, B. (2004). Redistribution or Recognition? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wu, D. (1977). Adaptation and Ethnicity: Chinese Entrepreneurship in Papua New Guinea. Asian Journal of Social Science, 5(1), pp.85-95. Young, I. (2004). Two Concepts of Self-Determination. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yuval-Davis, N. (2004). Borders, Boundaries, and the Politics of Belonging. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read More