(from Wilder and King)
Nagata (1975) indicates that the term 'ethnicity' is often misused and ambiguous and sometimes equated with 'primordialism'. In the work of Geertz, for example, 'plural groups' are described in terms of basic loyalties stemming ties of kinship, descent, race and place of origin. The problem in concentrating on the 'basic givens' of identity is that, as Dentan indicates, they translate too easily into a notion of ethinicity which sees ethnic groups as static, homogeneous, exclusive and bounded, and as carrying their own sets of cultural views and practices. On the contrary, when we study ethnicity we are concerned with the social and cultural processes and factors which give rise to similarity and difference, and the ways in which groupings of people construct, maintain and transform their social and cultural identities.
Boundaries are created for the purposes of social interaction and avoidance. It is in this connection that Lehman (1967), for example, sees ethnic identities or categories as rather like 'roles' which people adopt and play out, and Barth proposes that ethnic groups can be conceptualised as an 'organisational type' which involves social processes of 'exclusion' and 'incorporation' and the choice by the actors themselves of these socio-cultural features which are deemed to be significant for purposes of identity and boundary construction. Shared ethinicity is not only premised on biological self-perpetuation but also on membership of a shared field of interaction and communication based on shared values and behaviour.
In examining the relationships between ideas of identity and social relationships some anthropologists have also made the distinction between and 'ethnic category' (as the conceptual dimension of identity by which individuals assign themselves and are assigned by others to a particular unit within a classification system of units) and 'ethnic group' (as pertaining to the dimension of social interation and communication) (Rousseau 1990).
Ethnic identity is first and foremost a matter of self-identification, and it is premised on assumed common origins; people of the same ethnic category claim that they share the same roots, and that their identity is a basic 'given'; it is fixed and in this respect it closely resembles the anthropological category 'kinship'. As with kinship, ethnicity commands primary loyalty; descent is claimed from common ancestors and frequently uses biological justification including shared 'blood' or other kinds of natural imagery. Often in Southeast Asia, when people are asked to identify themselves, they provide the most direct kind of identification, which is both natural and cultural, that they are 'a man', 'a woman' or a 'person': they and their kind are 'human' and physically share 'human-ness', with the implication that 'other people' different from them are in some sense less than human.
Origins can also be expressed in terms of shared physical or territorial space or real or presumed birth place. People might claim a common geographical origin, that they came to their current residence from 'uphill' or 'across the sea' or from a named location. The criterion of place is also often associated with a particular habitat and ecology so that individuals might identify themselves or be identified by others as hill or sea people, or as gardeners or fishermen. Indeed, Barth argues that ecological circumtances 'mark and exaggerate differences (1969), and often give rise to the development of complementary and interdependent trading and other relationships.
Ethnicity is obviously expressed as a product of the past, evoking common origins, social linkages and shared cultural values and traits like language and religion. However, the historical dimension for identity also demonstrates that rather than identities being constant and immutable they frequently change and can be acquired. Rather than focusing on the contents of identities, argues Barth, one should examine the mechanisms of boundary maintenance and how boundaries are not only crossed but transcended. Ethnicity is relative, and ethnic categories and groups do not exist in isolation one from another.
In examining the relationships between ideas of identity and social relationships some anthropologists have also made the distinction between and 'ethnic category' (as the conceptual dimension of identity by which individuals assign themselves and are assigned by others to a particular unit within a classification system of units) and 'ethnic group' (as pertaining to the dimension of social interation and communication) (Rousseau 1990).
Ethnic identity is first and foremost a matter of self-identification, and it is premised on assumed common origins; people of the same ethnic category claim that they share the same roots, and that their identity is a basic 'given'; it is fixed and in this respect it closely resembles the anthropological category 'kinship'. As with kinship, ethnicity commands primary loyalty; descent is claimed from common ancestors and frequently uses biological justification including shared 'blood' or other kinds of natural imagery. Often in Southeast Asia, when people are asked to identify themselves, they provide the most direct kind of identification, which is both natural and cultural, that they are 'a man', 'a woman' or a 'person': they and their kind are 'human' and physically share 'human-ness', with the implication that 'other people' different from them are in some sense less than human.
Origins can also be expressed in terms of shared physical or territorial space or real or presumed birth place. People might claim a common geographical origin, that they came to their current residence from 'uphill' or 'across the sea' or from a named location. The criterion of place is also often associated with a particular habitat and ecology so that individuals might identify themselves or be identified by others as hill or sea people, or as gardeners or fishermen. Indeed, Barth argues that ecological circumtances 'mark and exaggerate differences (1969), and often give rise to the development of complementary and interdependent trading and other relationships.
Ethnicity is obviously expressed as a product of the past, evoking common origins, social linkages and shared cultural values and traits like language and religion. However, the historical dimension for identity also demonstrates that rather than identities being constant and immutable they frequently change and can be acquired. Rather than focusing on the contents of identities, argues Barth, one should examine the mechanisms of boundary maintenance and how boundaries are not only crossed but transcended. Ethnicity is relative, and ethnic categories and groups do not exist in isolation one from another.
No comments:
Post a Comment