Constructivist Theory of Ethnicity

Ethnic identity is not something people "possess" but something they "construct"
in specific social and historical contexts to further their own interests. It is
therefore fluid and subjective.

Theoretically, this approach lies somewhere between Michel Foucault's emphasis

on construction of the metaphor and Pierre Bourdieu's notions of practice
and habitus as the basic factors shaping the structure of all social phenomena.
The basic notion in this approach is that ethnicity is something that is being
negotiated and constructed in everyday living. Ethnicity is a process which
continues to unfold.

The central idea of constructivism is that ethnic groups are artificial and

constructed rather than natural and eternal, and, just as they can be created, they
can also be destroyed or, in the postmodernist vocabulary, fragmented and
deconstructed.
The constructivism theory, which can be traced back to historical arguments
made by French and English philosophers, states that ethnic identities are
constructed, reconstructed, and mobilized in accordance with social and political
factors. For instance, the English language is a result of the linguistic influences of
the various groups of people (the Celts, the Danes, the Romans) who invaded and
settled down in the country (Dawisha 10). In other words, according to
constructivism, the primordialist approach of understanding a group’s attributes
as natural characteristics which emerge from physiological traits and
psychological predispositions, is incorrect. Moreover, constructivists argue that it
is wrong to assume that an ethnic group’s members have an internalized “singular
social experience” that everyone in the group is exposed to through their group
consciousness (Cerulo 387). Instead, they suggests that ethnic groups are a social
construction, which means that they are fabricated and refabricated based on
reigning cultural norms. For example, in 1992, 31% of the population living in
Britain considered themselves to be English; however, less than a decade later,
this number increased to 41% of the population even though there were no
exceptional rates of fertility or migration in the area (“Constructivist Theories of
Ethnic Politics” 4). To put this another way, the increase in the number of English
people in Britain was due to the fact that the number of people who identified
themselves as English increased. Constructivists also argue that individuals do not
belong to only one ethnic category. Chandra, for example, maintains that when
analyzing a single ethnic group, one notices that this supposed single ethnic group
is actually a mixture of several other cultural identities. In other words, ethnic
groups are made up of several different identities that are unified under one
salient category (“Why Ethnic Parties Succeed” 4). Moreover, Cerulo supports this
claim by brining to attention the idea that there are individuals who have mixed
ancestries; and thus, they can choose which ethnic identity they want to stress
based on the circumstances that they find themselves in (Cerulo 389).
Furthermore, according to this theory, ethnicities are not inherently conflictual. In
fact, most ethnic groups accomplish their goals in a peaceful manner through
established political channels (Lake and Rotchild 43). That being said,
constructivists argue that it is possible to use the concept called the security
dilemma to predict the probability of a conflict amongst different ethnic groups.
First, ethnic conflicts are likely to happen when political regimes collapse because
they often leave behind a number of noncohesive cultural groups who are forced
to compete with one another in order to gain a sense of security (Ellingsen 235).
Second, ethnic conflicts can arise due to competitive elections that utilize ethnic-
based political parties. This is the case because the minority ethnic group could
perceive the election results as a threat to their group’s identity. Third, ethnic
conflicts can take place during times of modernization if an ethnic group’s
expectations are not met and if an ethnic group believes that they are at a
disadvantage relative to another ethnic group.
There are scholars who believed that the constructivist theory has several flaws.
First, the constructivist theory cannot explain how some ethnic groups are able to
remain the same for very long periods of time, even during times of changing
political and social contexts (Jesse and Williams 12). Second, the constructivists
fail to recognize that mass literacy hardens people’s ethnic identities, which
makes it very unlikely that the ethnic group can be reconstructed. Third, scholars
argue that the constructivist approach does not reveal why some ethnic identities
persist even though they harm the members of the group instead of benefiting
them. According to the constructivists, modern ethnic identity is an ideology that
results from intentional political efforts and accidents of history. Standardizing
languages, drawing maps, taking census and writing national histories constructs
the social reality of a nation. The viability and attraction of the constructed nation
depends upon its ability to establish its legitimacy in history. Nations and ethnic
identities' define themselves, in a sense, by what they are not— what is outside
the identity. Thus, some identities base themselves upon opposition to outsiders.
Nineteenth and twentieth century colonial nationalists, for example, identified
themselves and their nations as "not European."
Postmodern theories are concerned more with nations and nationalism than with
ethnicity and will be explored in more detail in that section of the literature
review.  With the rise of the postmodern paradigm, attention shifted to the issue
of group boundaries and identity.  Scholars operating in this paradigm felt that
terms like "group," "category" and "boundary" connotate a fixed identity,
something they wanted to avoid.  This has resulted in much confusion as various
interest groups are now exploiting the elastic nature of the term ethnicity.
When is a group an ethnic group? There are no hard-and-fast rules or standards
by which to judge. The answer, as unsatisfying as it is, is that social collectivity, of
any nature and antiquity, can don the mantle of ethnicity one of the most elastic
of social concepts and stake a successful claim to identity and rights as a group.
The point is this: it does not matter if any particular group is "really" an ethnic
group, or what a "real" ethnic group is; instead, ethnicity has become so central
to social discourse and social competition that its salience and effectiveness have
become attractive to all sorts of collectivities.

Wan and Vanderwerf (2009) highlight a partial agreement between the

constructionists’ and postmodern views on ‘ethnicity’. Although the
postmodernists’ theoretical views are more concerned with ‘nations’ and
‘nationalism’ than with ‘ethnicity’, their approach was rooted in the works of
‘Michael Foucault’s emphasis on the construction of the metaphor’ and ‘Pierre
Bourdieu’s notions of practice and ‘habitus’ as basic factors shaping the structure
of all social phenomena’. Similarly, some modern proponents of primordialism
like Clifford Geertz and Edward Shils have expanded further on this claim. In
agreement with Biblical scholars (Ezra and Nehemiah), these scholars
acknowledge that the concept of ‘ethnicity’ is more than a function of interaction
because of its strong root and long-lasting affiliation based on kinship, shared
territory and traditions. Ethnicity is by default, ineffable and overpowers
coerciveness (Brett, 2002). In contrast, it could be argued that the expressions in
the works of the ‘constructivist’, ‘instrumentalist’ or ‘circumstantialist’ represent
a diversion since these 42 schools of thought concluded that ethnicity is more
manipulable and variable (Brett, 2002). For instance, the constructionists mention
that because the concept of ‘ethnicity’ is a process that continues to unfold, the
basic notion of this knowledge is that in everyday life, ‘ethnicity’ is constantly
being negotiated and constructed (Wan and Vanderwerf, 2009).

For this theory, ethnicity socially constructed in the course of social

interaction & process of everyday living.

It regards ethnicity as a process, which continues to unfold & has much to

do with the exigencies of everyday survival.

F. Barth, the leading figure of this approach, argued that the identity of a
group is not a matter of a “quality of the container” (i.e., an essence or a
fixed, objective reality), but what emerges when a given social group
interacts with others;

by this, ethnic identity emerges out of process of group interaction with

other social groups;

The central aspects of this approach is its subjectivist stance;

Ethnicity, Barth insisted, is based on the perception of “us” and “them”; not
on objective reality belonging to a cultural group.

Ethnic boundaries were psychological boundaries; ethnic culture and its

content were irrelevant.

Ethnic group is hence a result of group relations in which ethnic boundaries

are established through ‘Mutual Perception’ of them” & “us; not by means
of objectively distinct culture.

Emphasizing on Ethnic identity Barth illustrated that;

Ethnic identity is an “individualistic strategy” in w/h individuals move from

one identity to another to “advance their personal, economic and political
interests or to minimize their losses”.

Depending on each social interaction, a person’s ethnic identity can be

perceived or presented in various ways.

To sum, for the social constructivist model:

ethnicity is dynamic that changes through time & space (it is a dynamic
aspect of social organization);

Ethnic identities are constructed, deconstructed & reconstructed.

To conclude:

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, and redefined over the years to suit different
contexts and objectives.