Cultural encounters // Categorization and power

16/12-2022

Submitting exam question 1

By Joakim K. Genz

Number of characters: 12.873

Page 1 of 9
Table of Content
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 3

DEFINITION OF ETHNICITY .................................................................................................. 3

CONSTRUCTION AND NEGOTIATION OF ETHNIC BOUNDARIES ......................................... 4

CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 7

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 9

Page 2 of 9
Introduction
The construction and negotiation of ethnic boundaries is a complex and dynamic process
that is influenced by a range of factors. In order to understand this process, it is important
to first consider the definition of ethnicity and the various theoretical approaches that can
be used to study it. In this paper, I will examine the ways in which ethnic boundaries are
constructed and negotiated within contemporary societies, using examples from urban
settings where cultural exchange and integration are more likely to occur. I will also
discuss the impact of globalisation on the reconstruction of ethnic boundaries, and the
challenges and opportunities that this presents for different ethnic groups. Overall, my aim
is to provide a deeper understanding of the construction and negotiation of ethnic
boundaries, and the implications of these processes for contemporary societies.

Definition of ethnicity
Without regards to the definition of the term ethnicity it is firstly a means of
categorization. Like all categorizations the term ethnicity itself is announcing differences
and highlights ethnic boundaries. In order to understand the evolution and construction of
these boundaries we must first choose and understand the definition.
Galal defines ethnicity as being part of a group or a community but underlines the
importance of understanding the basis of placing individuals in these communities (Galal,
2012). He draws inspiration from Brubaker when he argues that ethnicity can be studied
with three theoretical approaches:
“first as group belonging, second, as identification and representation, and,
third, as social practice.” - (Galal, 2012, p. 1).
This underlines the fact that ethnicity can be the main theme of analysis in social sciences,
but the results can vary due to the different methodologies that identify ethnic
communities. Being part of an ethnic community is not only about sharing a cultural
background or religious belief but as a member you are taking part in social cohesion. This
is therefore an important identificatory of an ethnic group is:
“The difference that makes a difference depends on which group(s) the ethnic
group defines itself and is identified in relation to” - (Galal, 2012, p. 3)

Page 3 of 9
Meaning that the communities form their own identity in addition to belonging. This
relates the three approaches earlier mentioned.
I argue that Jenkins definition of ethnicity is closely associated with Galal’s second and
third approach as Jenkins highlights ethnicity as a social phenomenon (Jenkins, 1997).
Jenkins argues that:
“ethnicity is both collective and individual, externalized in social inter-action
and internalized in personal self-identification.” - (Jenkins, 1997, p. 165)
This means that boundaries within ethnicity can be socially challenged and moved within a
society. Jenkins makes a case based on historical background that this altering of the
meaning of ethnicity is to a limited extend as:
“These issues and themes come together in the recognition that, although
ethnic identity is socially constructed, it is not infinitely variable, malleable
or negotiable.” - (Jenkins, 1997, p. 169)
However, there are examples of ethnic boundaries being constructed and negotiated in
contemporary societies, as I will discover in the following section.

Construction and negotiation of ethnic boundaries

An example of ethnic boundaries being constructed and negotiated within a contemporary
society is given by Parzer and Astleithner in their journal on the usage of immigrant shops.
Especially when being an ethnic minority in a cosmopolitan setting there is a big tendency
of distance when going to a store that only sells “foreign” food. This is what Parzer and
Astleithner describes as othering when they state that:
“Immigrant grocery shops and supermarkets, restaurants or cultural
entrepreneurs offer a wide range of opportunities to engage with different
‘cultures’, often right on one’s own doorstep” - (Parzer & Astleithner, 2018, p.
1117).
They also mention that this is mostly in urban areas “as ‘the other’ is immediately
available” - (Parzer & Astleithner, 2018, p. 1118). This means that in modern day
metropolitan societies there is an uprising in the creation of a social framework of
interaction with different social structures that take place within an already established
social dynamic. Developing into cultural integration and cultural exchange and causing
contemporary societies to become global. Something also addressed by Massey when she
states:

Page 4 of 9
 “Time-space-compression refers to movement and communication across
space, to the geographical stretching-out of social relations, and to our
experience of all this.” - (Massey, 1991, p. 24)
This pattern of culture being able to spread across the world more and more freely creates
the essential need for reconstruction of boundaries between ethnicity as culture clashes
will become more and more frequent.
This also adds an important layer to the interactions that takes place in the practice of
shopping at a minority shop. The action of cultural groups sharing customs have a high
probability of enhancing the perception of each other (Parzer & Astleithner, 2018). The
essential aspect of this is the redrawing of the boundaries that are associated with the
exchange and adaption of cultural costumes and traditions as demonstrated by Parzer and
Astleithner:
“there is some evidence of positive classification within interethnic
encounters, consumption in immigrant shops also goes along with the
(re)drawing of both ethnic and class boundaries.” - (Parzer & Astleithner,
2018, p. 1118)
There are also examples of this having a negative and reinforcing impact on ethnic
communities. Having ethnic based shops, whether it is with the purpose of grocery
shopping or dining, can cause a financial layer where ethnic communities support each
other via a segregated economy (Parzer & Astleithner, 2018). This is a possible scenario
that would emphasize the social and self-identification point made by Galal and Jenkins. If
the self-identification of the group has a custom of being dependent on services within
their own respective culture. Then a more dominant boundary will occur also making it
less vibrant as there is little to no influence and exchange between ethnic communities. It
is difficult to imagine a totally segregated society due to social services such as healthcare
and education but even in education you can find examples of communities limiting their
learning environment and social life to an arena within their social values. This
phenomena has especially had a negative discourse in politics and created bad
connotations with the term “a ghetto” (Parzer & Astleithner, 2018).

Having a negative discourse of segregated cultures will only make the boundaries more
fixed as it will most likely discourage ethnic majorities to interact with ethnic minorities.
This gives the ethnic majorities an important role of power when it comes to activating the

Page 5 of 9
possibility of moving the boundaries. This is both in a social and economic sense as Parzer
and Astleithner states:
“As such, ethnic majority customers in immigrant businesses are considered
to be important actors not only economically but also symbolically, referring
to aspects of integration and social cohesion.” - (Parzer & Astleithner, 2018,
p. 1120)
But there is still a big difference in accepting multicultural societies when it comes to
constructing boundaries that expand further into the roots of a society than an interaction
at a local shop.
“that individual interethnic encounters do not automatically dissolve
prejudice towards immigrants in general.” - (Valentine as cited in Parzer &
Astleithner, 2018, p. 1120)
This is since despite ethnic majorities in larger cities are undergoing a trend of adopting
new habits that include welcoming foreign cultures into their own there is still a
characteristic about the action of going to a multicultural market. That is the reproduction
of othering. Creating a clear difference between us and them (Parzer & Astleithner, 2018).
It may have a positive effect to society and communities’ wealth as:
“an increasing interest in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods by members of
the middle classes who do not only contribute to processes of gentrification
but use their engagement with ‘the other’ as a means of social distinction” -
(Parzer & Astleithner, 2018, p. 1121)
But when constructing boundaries, it is important to focus on the social distinction that
will limit the possibility of cultural exchange outside constructed social frameworks such
as a grocery shop. This then creates a group boundary that maintain ethnic groups
separated as they only have the possibility to interact based on a very clear purpose. That
purpose might be grocery shopping but outside of that setting an ethnic community might
interact on the basis of language or religion taking us back to the importance of definition
and theoretical approach previously mentioned (Galal, 2012).
Prejudices can force social ideas on how these different communities then might interact
on the background of social behaviour. You might act differently when approaching
someone based on their ethnic background and you act in a certain way due to yours.
“it enables investigators to critically reflect on the differentiation that is
made between the ‘majority’ and the ‘minority’, emphasising that this

Page 6 of 9
 boundary is socially constructed and therefore characterised by
contingency.” - (Parzer & Astleithner, 2018, p. 1122)
This gives action a key role when it comes to create boundaries but also maintain them as
they become a result of socialisation.

This socialisation creates some stereotypes and prejudices towards cultures in general. It
becomes visible in Lavanya’s blogpost when she writes that:
“But it’s time to stop talking about ethnic food as though we’re Columbus and
the cuisines served up by immigrants are ours for the conquering.” -
(Lavanya, 2015)
This is a clear critique of cultural dining creating an image of othering. It is especially the
term ethnic food that is the problem when creating open boundaries within cultures. The
term emphasizes that something ethnic is usually different but also worse.
“Ethnic cuisines are considered low, and fusion cuisines are considered haute
cuisines,” - (Forman as cited in Lavanya, 2015)
Food within almost any culture is a big identification and different cuisines being spread
across the globe due to time-space-compression means that the way food is talked about in
the social discourse have a direct impact on the cultures it is associated with. Lavanya
argues that:
“When we hear our cuisine described as exotic, hodgepodge, greasy or cheap,
you might as well be remarking disdainfully about our clothes or skin color.”
- (Lavanya, 2015)
This means that when exchanging culture, whether it is within the arena of a grocery shop
or an Indian restaurant in the US, taking the action of doing so is not enough. You must
embrace the culture you are faced with in a matter that makes the social boundaries more
and more insignificant in order for foreign cultures to become less and less foreign within a
contemporary society.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the definition of ethnicity is a means of categorization that highlights ethnic
boundaries. Different theoretical approaches can be used to study ethnicity and being part
of an ethnic community involves social cohesion and the formation of group identity.
Ethnic boundaries can be constructed and negotiated in contemporary societies, and

Page 7 of 9
globalisation has led to the need for reconstruction of boundaries between ethnic groups.
This can be seen with shops in urban areas, which offer opportunities for cultural exchange
and integration. Overall, the construction and negotiation of ethnic boundaries is a
complex and dynamic process that is influenced by a range of factors.

Page 8 of 9
References

Galal, L. P. (2012). Ethnicity. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied

Linguistics (p. wbeal0397). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0397

Jenkins, R. (1997). Rethinking Ethnicity. In Rethinking Ethnicity (pp. 165–170). SAGE

Publications Ltd.

Lavanya, R. (2015). Why everyone should stop calling immigrant food ‘ethnic’. The

Washington Post.

Massey, D. (1991). A Global Sense Of Place. Marxism Today, 38, 24–29.

Parzer, M., & Astleithner, F. (2018). More than just shopping: Ethnic majority consumers

and cosmopolitanism in immigrant grocery shops. Journal of Ethnic and Migration

Studies, 44(7), 1117–1135. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1358080

Page 9 of 9