Political Theory

Ethnicity and Multiculturalism

Yonas T.

Department of Governance and Development Studies Jimma University

What do we mean by ethnicity?

Ethnicity: Three Theories

Etymology The term ethnicity is relatively new both as a subject in academic fields and as a word in English language.
Eriksen (1996:28-31) said that it is first used by an American sociologist, David Reisman, in 1953. Nevertheless, the word ethnic is much older.

It is derived from the Greek word ethnos.

 Although it has been used arbitrarily in daily conversation, the term ethnic refers to different things for different people. Eriksen: the term ethnicity refers to relationships between groups whose members consider themselves distinctive (Ibid). On the other hand, the term ethnic group refers to:

a collectivity within a larger society having real or putative common ancestry, memories of shared historical past, and a cultural focus on one or more symbolic elements defined as the epitome of their peoplehood (Ibid).

 Examples of such symbolic elements are: -kinship patterns, -physical contiguity (as in localism), -religious affiliation, -languageetc. The list of key elements may vary depending on the perspective from which the term is viewed. However, most commonly mentioned features are: -a myth of common ancestry; -shared historical memories; -common culture/language; and, -a sense of solidarity.

 Discourses on ethnicity and ethnic identity are, in all, characterized by contradictory explanations. As a result, there are a number of competing theories that seek to explain ethnicity and ethnic identity. Highly influenced by scholars of sociology and anthropology, there are three commonly accepted theoretical explanations: -Primordialism -Instrumentalism -Social Constructionism

1. Primordialism The Primordialist School is perhaps the earliest and most frequently cited in many academic works (Jack and Reed, 1993).

It was pioneered by Edward Shilss 1957 seminal article. Its further developed and popularized by subsequent works of Clifford Geertz (Ibid). It is considered as one of the two dominant theory of ethnicity alongside Instrumentalism.

 Primordialism views ethnicity as an identity marker which is biological.

Hence, loyalties and self-identifications to ones ethnic group are seen as innate/inherent. Shils (1957) stated that ethnic attachments are: not merely to the other family members as a person, but as a possessor of certain especially significant relational qualities. the relations are not sheer outcomes of social interaction since certain ineffable significance is attributed to blood ties.

 Thus, such an attachment can only be described as primordial. Similarly, Geertz argued that individuals ethnic attachment and loyalty is mainly attributable to fixed characteristics. Thomas Szayna, although not a primordialist himself, explains what primordialists are actually claiming. Primordialist views begin by asserting that certain primitive (or basic) sociological groupings exist in a society (Szanya, 2000).

 These primitive groupings however do exist a priori. Primitive groupings are natural units that derive their cohesion from some inherent biological, cultural or racial traits. The then become instruments of social differentiation (Ibid). Therefore, for primordialists, it would be wrong to try to reduce ethnicity/ethnic identity to mere results of socialization.

 All in all, ethnicity can be perpetuated by: (a) socialization of ones distinctiveness, (b) perceptions of uniqueness; and (c) sense of separateness from other social formations (Ibid). Key terms in Primordialism are: - a priority, -ineffability and -affectivity of ethnicity/ethnic identity.

2. Instrumentalism
The Instrumentalist school emerged in response to the weaknesses of the Primordialist arguments.

Early instrumentalists such as Abner Cohen and subsequent writers emphasize on the malleability of ethnic ties unlike primordialists.
They treated ethnicity and ethnic identity as situational (Hutchinson and Smith, 1996). Put differently, they consider ethnicity and ethnic identities as negotiable and alterable.

 For them, the two are characterized by extensive subjection to elite manipulation both for individual as well as collective goals. Instrumentalists particularly study the nature of ethnic relations to show how dynamic ethnicity is. They refute primordialists claim that ethnicity is a priori, fixed and ineffable. For Instrumentalists, ethnicity is a crucial instrument or strategic tool which is used by competing elites (Erikson, 1993).

 Elites aspiring to control political power and/or economic resources manipulate linguistic and religious differences (Ibid).

This is true where societies undergo uneven rates of social change and mobilization (Ibid). Thus, they assert that ethnicity is not different from other forms of social identities.
Rhetoric: us vs. them or ours vs. theirs

 Generally, what instrumentalists are actually saying is that: ethnicity is not simply a mix of affective sentiments, but like class and nationality it is also a means of political mobilization for advancing group interests (Yang, 2000). Hence, ethnic groups are also interest groups, and accordingly, ethnic attachments are highly influenced by calculated gains or benefits (Ibid). Therefore, instrumentalism posits that ethnicity exists and persists mainly due to these advantages.

3. Social Constructionism
It has recently become equally dominant in the lingering debate regarding ethnicity. It is well-known in the fields of sociology and anthropology. Fredrik Barths 1969 seminal work, Ethnic Groups and Boundaries is considered to have notable impact on the constructionist approach (Jenkins, 2003).

The article was partly a reaction to what he described as the static quality of Primordialism:

 Barth, in reaction to the limits of Primordialism, said that: the key to ethnicity is not a catalogue of objective racial or cultural traits []but rather persons and groups that define and construct their own ethnicity as they go. According to Yang (2000), social constructionists principally argue that: 1)Ethnicity is a socially constructed identity. Thus, ethnicity is something which is created by society; 1)As an extension of constructed identity, ethnic boundaries are flexible or changeable. Hence, ethnicity is dynamic; and

3) Ethnic affiliation or identification is determined or constructed by society. Therefore, ethnicity is a reaction to changing environment. Based on the above argument, social constructionists assert that membership in an ethnic group is fully socially constructed. The idea of ethnicization of individuals and groups is indispensable social constructionist view. This view is first developed by an American historian, Jonathan Sarna.

 J. Sarna said that there are two conditions that determine ethnicity, i.e., ascription and adversity. Ascription:-refers to the assignment of individuals to particular ethnic groups by outsiders such as: -governments, -churches, -schools, -media, -natives and other immigrants. Adversity: includes prejudice, discrimination, hostility, and hardship.

 Multiculturalism is a theory and practice concerned with the proper way to respond to cultural diversity. Will Kymlicka is one of the most influential scholars of multiculturalism. Encapsulated in the term multiculturalism is: -abandoning the myth of homogeneous and monocultural nation-states; -recognizing rights to cultural maintenance and community formation; -linking these to social equality and protection from discrimination.

Multiculturalism

 In these sense, multiculturalism represents a kind of corrective to assimilationist approaches/policies. In policy terms, multiculturalism frames procedures, representations, materials and resources in public institutional sphere such as: -education, health, welfare, etc.

Nevertheless, multiculturalism is associated with many discourses, institutional frameworks and policies.

 That is, multiculturalism may refer to any of the following: 1) a demographic description, 2) a broad political ideology, 3) a set of specific public policies, 4) a goal of institutional restructuring, 5) a mode of resourcing cultural expression, 6) a general moral challenge, 7) a set of new political struggles, and 8) a kind of feature of postmodernism.

Minimalist Multiculturalism: Criticisms

Some scholars challenged what they call minimalist multiculturalism. For instance, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown (2000) is critical of what she identifies as consumer or boutique multiculturalism: -Artistic and style multiculturalism, corporate multiculturalism and role model multiculturalism. In the same token, W. Kymlicka (2012) argues that: -It ignores issues of economic and political inequality.

 It can encourage a conception of groups as hermetically sealed and static, each reproducing its own distinct practices. This may lead to the strengthening of prejudice and stereotyping, and the polarization of ethnic relations (Ibid). This in turn may end up reinforcing power inequalities and cultural restrictions within minority groups (Ibid). Thus, both Kymlicka and Alibahi-Brown suggest that multiculturalist policies should go beyond the minimalist approaches.

 Hence, multiculturalists contend that the proper response to cultural diversity is to supplement the common set of civil, political, and social rights (Song, 2010).

It should focus on a set of group-differentiated rights and accommodations for marginalized groups.

Weak vs. Strong Multiculturalism

Ralph Grillo (2000) distinguishes between the two.

Multiculturalism is characterized by one of these two in countries that claim to have adopted it.

1.Weak Multiculturalism a situation in which cultural diversity is recognized in the private sphere,

but a high degree of assimilation is expected of immigrants and ethnic minorities in the public sphere. 2. Strong Multiculturalism: marked by institutional recognition of cultural difference in the public sphere including political representation.

Liberal/Libertarian and Communitarian Theories

Liberalism
A political philosophy based on belief in progress, and the autonomy of the individual, It stands for the protection of political and civil liberties. Liberals are ethical individualists. They insist that individuals should be free to choose and pursue their own conceptions of the good life. They give primacy to individual rights and freedom over community life and collective goods.

Liberal Multiculturalism
It is based on intellectual racial equality. It fails to acknowledge power differences between groups, Superficially, it acknowledges identified groups.

Left-Liberal Multiculturalism
It over-emphasizes cultural differences. It describes cultures in a narrow manner. It fails to acknowledge diversity within given cultures.

 W. Kymlicka has developed the most influential theory of multiculturalism based on the liberal values of autonomy and equality (Song, 2010). Culture is said to be instrumentally valuable. He says that there is a deep and general connection between a self-respect and the respect and recognition accorded to the cultural group of which a person is a part. He moves from these premises about the value of cultural membership to the claim that minority groups are entitled to special protections.

Communitarianism
Emphasizes the need to balance individual rights and interests with that of the community as a whole.

It argues that individual people (citizens) are shaped by the cultures and values of their communities. A philosophical foundation for multiculturalism can be found in the communitarian critique of liberalism (Song, 2010).
Communitarians reject the idea that the value of social goods can be reduced to their contribution to individual well-being (Ibid).

 They instead embrace the view that social goods as irreducibly social (Ibid). Charles Taylor (cited in Song, 2010) combines a holistic view of collective identities and cultures to a normative case for a multicultural recognition.

If diverse cultural identities and languages are irreducibly social goods, then there should be a presumption of their equal worth.
Recognition of the equal worth of diverse cultures requires replacing the traditional liberal regime of identical liberties and opportunities for all.

End of Session!