SALALE UNIVERSITY: DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY: ACADEMIC YEAR 2023/24

CHAPTER FIVE
ETHNIC GROUPS, ETHNICITY, AND ETHNIC IDENTITY

5.1. Identity

Identity in its basic sense is a characteristic that identifies one thing, person or group of persons
from one another. Objects have also their identity. Therefore, identity is something that identifies
something, someone and some group as who they are in relation to other individuals or groups.

A. Social Identity
Identities attached to humans can have two types: group and individual. Individual identities are
studied by psychologists while group or social identities are studied by sociologists, social
anthropologists, and other related disciplines. Individual identities are, in a psychological sense,
inner-psychological ones. Identities that are attached to social groups are called social identities.
Factors of social identity formation include ethnic identity, gender, age, religion, place of origin
(America, Europe, Ethiopia, a particular town), political affiliation, job (pilot, instructor),
occupation (blacksmith, weaver), relationship (mother, father, youth, teenager…) etc. Here ethnic
identity is one part of social identity. Social groups identified by ethnic identities are called ethnic
groups.

B. Ethnic Identity and Ethnic Groups

Ethnic identity refers to a set of characteristics that make a social group “ethnic”. It is not easy to
determine variables that make a group ethnic since they vary depending on time, place and
circumstances. Social groups having “ethnic” identities are called “ethnic groups”. Smith (1996)
state an ethnic group usually exhibits, albeit in varying degrees, six main features. These are
proper name, common ancestry, shared historical memories, common culture, a link with
homeland and a sense of solidarity.

1) Proper Name
Proper name is a name used for an individual person or things, or a group of persons or things.
The first letter of a proper name is written in capital letters. Every society bestows a proper name
for children upon their birth, and has a variety of cultural norms in giving personal names. Thus,
every society gives a personal name for its members since they have identified one person from
another. Likewise, an ethnic group must have a proper name to identify itself from another. In
Ethiopia, we have many ethnic groups which we call by their name. A proper name gives an

Anthropology (Anth1012) Lecture Note Page 1

SALALE UNIVERSITY: DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY: ACADEMIC YEAR 2023/24

essence for an ethnic group as it gives for a person. So, the name is a basic element of identity for
an ethnic group.

2) Common Culture
Elements of cultural identity include language religion, customs, values, and norms. Language is
the most obvious aspect of ethnic identity. It is obvious in the sense that people can easily
determine a language is different from another so that its speakers also different. People’s identity
can be easily noticed from the language they speak. Linguistic identity can be part of a cultural
identity since using one’s own language is a way of practicing and preserving one’s own culture.

3) Common ancestry/shared historical memories

Ethnic groups also have a myth of common ancestry, a myth that includes the idea of a common
origin in time and place that gives an ethnic/a group/sense of fictive kinship. Moreover, they also
have shared actual or fictive historical memories, or better, shared memories of a common past,
including heroes, events, and their commemorations.

4) A link with homeland

Ethnic groups also identify themselves or are identified by others in relation to their homeland. A
homeland can be an actual or imagined physical place where members of a given ethnic group
live or lived in the past. Places often give a symbolic attachment to the ancestral land. In the
current Ethiopian social and political organization, place is a defining feature of an ethnic group.
Each ethnic group in Ethiopia, in principle, is associated with a given homeland. The Ethiopian
administrative boundaries are formed based on an ethnic group inhabiting a certain land. The
1995 FDRE constitution under article 39 (5) defines ethnic groups have “predominantly
contiguous territory”.

5) A sense of solidarity
A sense of solidarity on the part of at least some sections of an ethnic group is important. If ethnic
groups have concrete features of identity that makes them different from other groups, they are,
from the point of view of identity, useless at least some members of a group are conscious about
it. There must be knowledge on the part of the group about their own identity. A group may not
like their own identity and want to be assimilated to another, or they may like their identity very
much and want to coerce the whole world to accept them.

-
Anthropology (Anth1012) Lecture Note Page 2
SALALE UNIVERSITY: DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY: ACADEMIC YEAR 2023/24

5.2. Ethnicity

Parsons (1975) considers that ethnicity is ‘a defined group with a unique sense of identity’.
Parsons states that the main feature of ethnicity is a specific form of group solidarity basically as
the result of ‘transgenerational common cultural tradition and voluntary adherence to that group’.
In other words, there are two conditions of ethnicity in this definition. First, there must be
aggregate groups that have common history and tradition and second, there must be the solidarity
of these groups, solidarity not essentially based on specific function but based on that they belong
to the same ethnic group. This concept lies mainly in intra-group relationships than inter-group
ones. It views ethnicity as an in-group sense of solidarity, a voluntary action of group affiliation
as the result of common cultural tradition. Erikson (2002) states ethnicity is an aspect of
relationships between groups that consider they together belong to a given group. Erikson is
putting a different perspective. He refers to an intergroup relationship rather than the relationship
among members of the same group.

Identity has an implication or consequence for the people who bear it. For example, what does it
mean to be an adolescent? What does it mean to be a Muslim or a Christian? What does it mean
to be one or another ethnic group member? Identity has implications for the bearer. While ethnic
identity provides the raw material for differentiation, ethnicity refers to a framework for
socialization and relationship within and across groups. “Ethnic identity” simply refers to an in-
group content of identification but ethnicity refers to a framework of interaction. While “ethnic
identity” refers to a fact, ethnicity is a post facto phenomenon. By this argument, when we talk
about ethnic conflicts, we are referring to ethnicity. In a way, we can also consider ethnicity as a
broader term which also presupposes ethnic identity and ethnic group.

Ethnic identity Ethnicity

Raw material for differentiation Raw material consumed/interpreted
A priori condition Comes after the fact, ethnic identity and then ethnic groups
must first exist for ethnicity to exist
Group of people Situation

Since ethnicity is a sense of belongingness, solidarity, commitment to one’s ethnic group identity,
then we can realize that there are different levels of expression of ethnicity. Ethnicity may range
from a group having the most extreme sentiment which urges to consider their own ethnic group
Anthropology (Anth1012) Lecture Note Page 3
SALALE UNIVERSITY: DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY: ACADEMIC YEAR 2023/24

alone as the best others are inferior. Thus, ethnicity can range from the weakest manifestation of
solidarity or even negative solidarity to vanity which refers to a situation when an ethnic group
considers itself as the only center of the world.

Ranges of Ethnicity
First Stage Second Stage Third Stage
 Group denies itself  Group accepts and recognizes  Group considers itself as a superior
(negative consequences itself as a distinct a group. while others are inferior
about itself).  It also recognizes others as  Would be destroyed or assimilated
 The result would be distinct groups. by force.
assimilation.  This result would be mutual  This can be the stage of vanity.
respect.

Thus, as ethnicity escalates into the level of vanity, there will be ethnic conflict. As one ethnic
group boasts against others, it will trigger other ethnic groups to boast too. As one ethnic group
wants to take advantage of another, another ethnic group will likely start to resist. On the other
hand, when the relationship between ethnic groups becomes moderate, cooperation and peaceful
coexistence will likely exist. Otherwise, there will be conflict.

Immoderate manifestation of ethnicity has become a global problem. After the end of the Second
World War, words like “ethnicity”, “ethnic groups” “ethnic conflict” and “nationalism” have
become quite common terms in the English language, and they keep cropping up in the presses,
TV news, political programs and casual conversations. Also, there has been a parallel
development in the social sciences with a growing interest in such studies. During the 1980s and
early 1990s, we have witnessed an explosion in the growth of scholarly publications on ethnicity,
ethnic phenomenon and nationalism across different disciplines within the social sciences.

An important reason for the current academic interest in ethnicity and nationalism is the fact that
such phenomena have become so visible in many societies that it has become impossible to ignore
them. In the early twentieth century, many social theorists held that ethnicity and nationalism
would decrease in importance and eventually vanish as a result of modernization, industrialization
and individualism. This never came about. On the contrary, ethnicity and nationalism have grown
in political importance in the world, particularly since World War II.

Anthropology (Anth1012) Lecture Note Page 4

SALALE UNIVERSITY: DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY: ACADEMIC YEAR 2023/24

The study of ethnicity and ethnic relations has in recent years come to play a central role in the
social sciences, to a large extent replacing class structure and class conflict as a central focus of
attention. This has occurred on an interdisciplinary basis involving social anthropology,
sociology, political theory, political philosophy and history (Erikson, 2002). In this regard, the
academic and popular use of the term ‘ethnicity’ is fairly modern. According to John Hutchinson
and Anthony Smith (1996), the term “ethnicity” is relatively a new concept, first appearing in the
Oxford English Dictionary in 1953.

The English origin of the term ‘ethnicity’ is connected to the term “ethnic”, which has been in use
since the Middle Ages. The word is derived from the Greek term ‘ethnos’ which, in turn, derived
from the Latin word ‘ethnikos’. Literally ‘etnikos’ means a group of people bound together by
the same manners, customs or other distinctive features (Vanderwerf et al., 2009). In the context
of ancient Greek, the term refers to a collectivity of humans lived and acted together -which is
typically translated today as ‘people’ or ‘nation’ (not political unit per se, but group of people
with shared communality) (Jenkins, 1997). Contrary to its literal meaning, however, ancient
Greeks were using the term ‘ethnos’ in practice to refer to non-Hellenic, people who are non-
Greek and considered as second-class . Likewise, in early England, it used to refer to someone
who was neither Christian nor Jewish.

In its modern sense, it was only after the end of World War II that the term ethnic is widely
adopted and began to use when replaced “race” within both the North American and the European
traditions. The North American tradition adopted ‘ethnic’ as a substitute for minority groups
within a larger society of the nation-state referring to the Jews, Italians, Irish and other people
considered inferior to the dominant group of largely British descent. On the other hand, the
European tradition regularly opted to use ‘ethnic group’ as a synonym for nationhood, defined
historically by descent or territory (Vanderwerf et al., 2009). At the same time, both traditions
share a joint aim to replace what had become a popular, but heavily compromised concept of
‘race’.

The fall of communism and the breakup of the Soviet-style federations along ‘ethnic’ lines and
the emergence of ‘ethnic cleansing’ policies in the Balkans and the Caucasus have further
complicated these definitional issues. With the wars on former Yugoslav soil, extensive and
influential mass media coverage of ‘ethnic conflict’ has seen the term ‘ethnic’ degenerate into a
synonym for tribal, primitive, barbaric and backward.
Anthropology (Anth1012) Lecture Note Page 5
SALALE UNIVERSITY: DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY: ACADEMIC YEAR 2023/24

Finally, the ever-increasing influx of asylum seekers, refugees and economic migrants to Western
Europe, North America and Australia, who do not necessarily express visible or significant
physical, cultural or religious differences to their hosts, together with their uncertain legal status
(i.e., waiting for a decision on asylum), has relegated the term ‘ethnicity’ again to non-citizens
who inhabit ‘our land’, just as it did in the days of ancient Greece and Judea; that is, to second-
class people.

What is obvious from this short history of the term is the fact that ‘ethnicity’ contains a
multiplicity of meanings. Such a plasticity and ambiguity of the concept allows for deep
misunderstandings as well as political misuses. As Jack David Eller (1999:8) put it, “some of the
most perplexing problems arise from the vagueness of the term and phenomenon called ethnicity
and from its indefinite and ever-expanding domain. In other words, ethnicity is “vague, elusive
and expansive”.

5.3. Theories of Ethnicity

Although there are many theories that theorize the issue of identity, these are the major
anthropological theories of ethnicity and ethnic identity.

5.3.1. Primordialism

Clifford Geertz and Anthony D. Smith are among the main proponents of this theory.
Primordialism, as used by Clifford Geertz and most of his associates, has three basic features (see
Eller and Coughlan 1996). First, primordial identities are given a priori conditions. They are not
derived from some other sources such as, for example, culture or interactions of man with ecology
or other neighboring cultures. Rather, they exist in their own right. “They are ‘natural’ even
‘spiritual’ rather than sociological”. Second, primordial identities are “ineffable”. They are gifted
with a certain coercive power of action. Third, primordial attributes are also qualitatively different
from others (e.g. class attributes) because they are loaded with emotion and affection. They bear
special quality which confers a special feeling to its bearers. Primordialism is believed to be the
oldest theory on ethnic identity in sociological and anthropological literature. It was popular
theory until the mid-1970s.

Clifford Geertz considers ethnicity as a natural phenomenon with its foundations in primordial
ties - deriving mainly from kinship, locality and culture (Geertz 1963). Geertz explicitly

Anthropology (Anth1012) Lecture Note Page 6

SALALE UNIVERSITY: DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY: ACADEMIC YEAR 2023/24

recognizes not only the role of culture in defining the primordial 'givens', but also that strength of
such primordial bonds, and the types of them that are important, differ from person to person,
from society to society, and from time to time (Geertz 1973: 259). According to Geertz, what
matters analytically is that ties of blood, language and culture that are seen by actors to be
ineffable and obligatory; that they are seen as natural. Geertz further argues that in some respects
these 'primordial attachments' are actually likely to be stimulated and quickened by the political
modernization of nation-building. In its general sense then, it can be said that ethnicity is
something given, ascribed at birth, deriving from the kin-and-clan structure of human society, and
hence something more or less fixed and permanent (Geertz, 1963; Isaacs, 1975; Stack, 1986).

Smith (1994) also suggests differentiating between two forms of primordialism. These are
“strong” and “weak” primordialisms. The strong version holds that ethnic ties are “universal,
natural, and given in all human association, as much as are speech or kinship” (p 705). The weak
version claims that ethnic ties and sentiments are deep-seated and non-rational so far as
participants are concerned, members of a community feel that their community has existed from
time-immemorial, and that its symbols and traditions possess a “deep-antiquity” which gives them
a unique power (p 707).

The weakness of primordialism has been serious, however. The following table summarizes
strengths and weaknesses.

Strengths Weaknesses
 Ability to explain the power of ethnic  Ignores individuals who attach little importance to
ties (Cornell and Hratmann 2007), group identity;
compelling nature of ethnic  Ascriptive nature of ethnic identities is a
attachments. controversial issue;
 Ignores origin and extinction of ethnic groups.

Many scholars today agree that primordialism is a bankrupt concept which of less helpful for the
analyses of ethnicity and identity (see for example Eller and Coughlan 1996:50).

Anthropology (Anth1012) Lecture Note Page 7

SALALE UNIVERSITY: DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY: ACADEMIC YEAR 2023/24

5.3.2. Instrumentalism

Instrumentalism sees ethnic groups are, primarily, interest groups. They are organized by
common identities by means of which they promote their needs. So, changing circumstances alert
the revival of ethnic groups carrying some common interests under the cover of common identity
and pursued in association with changing circumstances. This means, while certain circumstances
may refresh them to pursue some interests, others may cause them to respond by hibernation of
their identities. In the former case, ethnic identities can be used as the basis of collective political
mobilization of claims of certain resources. As a result of the central notion of circumstances in
alerting or hibernating ethnic groups, the theory is sometimes also called circumstantialism
(Cornell and Hartmann 2007).

Proponents of this perspective (e.g., Abner Cohen, Paul Brass and Ted Gurr) advocate that in the
contexts of modern states, leaders (political elites) use and manipulate perceptions of ethnic
identity to further their own ends and stay in power. In this regard, “ethnicity is created in the
dynamics of elite competition within the boundaries determined by political and economic
realities” and ethnic groups are to be seen as a product of political myths, created and manipulated
by culture elites in their pursuit of advantages and power. Abner Cohen (1974), one of the leading
advocator of this perspective, in contrast to Barth, “placed [a] greater emphasis on the ethnic
group as a collectively organized strategy for the protection of economic and political interests”
(Jones 1997:74). Ethnic groups share common interests, and in pursuit of these interests they
develop “basic organizational functions: such as distinctiveness or boundaries (ethnic identity);
communication; authority structure; decision making procedure; ideology; and socialization”
(Cohen 1974: xvi–xvii).

According to instrumentalism, the latent persistence of ethnic identities for any longer period is
not due to their immutable nature, but the absence of situational imperatives for their resurgence.
Ethnic identities may remain latent until they get circumstantial outlet which precipitates their
assertion in connection with certain practical utility. Moreover, this theory suggests that ethnic
identities can be adhered to or changed depending on certain practical functions. Depending on a
certain utility factor, ethnic group identities may respond even by switching to some other
identity, let alone refreshing existing ones (Cornell and Hartmann 2007: 59).

Anthropology (Anth1012) Lecture Note Page 8

SALALE UNIVERSITY: DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY: ACADEMIC YEAR 2023/24

Common to instrumentalism approaches, regardless of the degree to which they focus on the
interests or instrumentality, is the idea that ethnic groups are largely products of concrete social
and historical situations that for a variety of reasons heighten or reduce the salience and/or utility
of such identities in the lives of individuals and groups. Interest and utility remain in most cases
central features of this approach. But the most important point in instrumentalism is that ethnicity
is a dependent variable. They are less independent forces than products of other forces, less
independent of circumstances or situations than products of them (Nagata 1981, in Cornell and
Hartmann 2007:63).

Strengths
 Rings about non-primordial
features to explain identity
Weaknesses
 Too much focus on economic analyses.
 Does not focus on ethnicity existing independent of power and
economy.
 Focus on circumstances means that if there are no
circumstances, there is no ethnicity.
 It does not explain why the masses follow the elites.

Scholars who are dissatisfied with both of these theories have presented several weaknesses as
already presented in the preceding paragraphs. As you can see yourself, the two theories are
extremes, one considering identity as fixed and natural while another seeing identity as fluid and
is simply there as a commodity. Some scholars tried to balance the two extremes and came up
with what is called constructivism.

5.3.3. Constructivism

Scholars influenced by instrumentalism but eager to remove its limitations began to emphasize
beyond the responses that ethnic groups make to circumstances they face. The scholars focused
their attention not only on circumstances that make ethnic identities but also on ways ethnic
groups construct their own identities, shaping and reshaping them and the boundaries that enclose
them. Ethnic groups may be influenced by other circumstances including by what others make
about them, but they also use the inputs of history, cultural practices, and preexisting identities to
fashion their own distinctive notions of who they are (Cornell and Hartmann 2007:81-82).

Anthropology (Anth1012) Lecture Note Page 9

SALALE UNIVERSITY: DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY: ACADEMIC YEAR 2023/24

Fredrik Barth is the leading proponent of this approach. Barth viewed ethnic identity as an
“individualistic strategy” in which individuals move from one identity to another to “advance
their personal economic and political interests, or to minimize their losses” (Jones 1997:74).
Following Barth, ethnic identity forms through boundary maintenance and interaction between
individuals. Depending on each social interaction, a person’s ethnic identity can be perceived or
presented in various ways. For Barth, ethnic boundaries were psychological boundaries; ethnic
culture and its content were irrelevant. Overall, interaction between individuals does not lead to
an assimilation or homogenization of culture. Instead, cultural diversity and ethnic identity are
still maintained, but in a non-static form. Cultural traits and even individuals can cross over ethnic
boundaries, which in turn can transform an ethnic group over time. Ethnic group is hence a result
of group relations in which the boundaries are established through mutual perceptions and not by
means of any objectively distinct culture.

According to constructionists, it is true to primordialists that ethnic identity has a trace of

primordialism. It legitimizes the role of internal factors in the making of ethnic identity. Even
when circumstances or groups adhere to, construct or reconstruct identity, that identity is often
claimed to have some primordial attributes. Even ethnic groups with thinnest identities tend to
make ethnic allegiance to some primordial roots as expressed through reference to common origin
(Cornell and Hartmann, 2007: 93). This is a crucial source of the power of identities. As
Appadurai (1990) and Griswold (1994:108) say, this is called a “constructed primordiality”. An
essential aspect of these identities is whatever their actual origin they are experienced by many
people as touching something deeper and more profound than labels or interests or contingency.
In the eye of group members, this distinctive set of roots lifts ethnicity above other identities as a
defining feature of human communities and as a potential basis of action (Cornell and Hartmann
2007: 95).

Yet, the formation of ethnic identities is not completely instrumental either. It is not appropriate to
give complete subordination of ethnic identities to the occurrence of situations. Moreover, it is not
also helpful to attach the purpose of the existence of ethnic phenomenon to some kind of utility
alone. It has been already discussed that according to circumstantialists, ethnic identities are not
only contingent upon the occurrence of certain situations, but also upon the utility of that of
circumstance. This approach denies the existence of ethnic identities in sui generic (Cornell and
Hartmann 2007: 95).

Anthropology (Anth1012) Lecture Note Page 10

SALALE UNIVERSITY: DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY: ACADEMIC YEAR 2023/24

Therefore, constructivists have come up with a synthesis of both theories. It sees the construction
of identities as a two-way process. Identities are made by an interaction between circumstantial
factors on the one hand and assertion, interpretation, definition, and redefinition of the groups
themselves. Construction involves how identities are made by external circumstances and how the
groups make themselves. Construction also involves not a one-time occasional circumstance but a
continuous process, which continues to unfold. As a result, ethnic identities are constructed but
are never finished. Thus, it is clear that constructivism shares with circumstantialism about
fluidity and dynamism of ethnic identities and the critical role of contexts. But, it also shares with
primordialism by adding the internal aspect of identity formation, creative component of identity.
Whichever factor may be more influential at a time, it emancipates identities from being prisoners
of circumstances (Cornell and Hartmann 2007:83).

There are different contextual factors which facilitate construction of ethnic identities. It can
occur in any part of societal relations. However, identify politics, labor markets, residential
spaces, social institutions, culture and daily experience as “critical sites”. For example, politics
facilitates either construction of group identities through its systems of boundary maintenance,
through political organizations and informal practices, and government classifications systems of
ethnic groups. In short, politics governs ethnic relations in some way in its policy, and that policy
contributes to the construction of identities of ethnic groups in a given political system. Another
factor, labor market facilitates the construction of ethnic group identities through its pattern of
labor division. Every society has a form of division of labor that offers a readymade categorical
scheme contributing construction of new identities. Besides Cornell and Hartmann further go that
social institutions such as schools, churches, social service organizations, and the like contribute
to the construction of new identities (see Cornell and Hartmann 2007:170-178).

This is not the end of the debate on ethnicity and ethnic identity. There are many scholars who are
not still satisfied with constructivism. They argue that although constructivism has gone much
distance from traditional (primordialism) approach to identity, Cerulo (1997: 391) states it does
not make a complete analysis of identity. Some postmodernists find its critique to be insufficient
because it simply catalogs the process of identity construction. Many contend that the
constructionist approach implies identity categories built through interactive effort. Such a stance
underemphasizes the role of power in the classification process (Gilman 1985).

Anthropology (Anth1012) Lecture Note Page 11

SALALE UNIVERSITY: DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY: ACADEMIC YEAR 2023/24

In an effort to broaden the social constructionist agenda, postmodernists examine the "real,
present day political and other reasons why essentialist identities continue to be invoked and often
deeply felt" (Calhoun 1995:199). Further, in the study of identity, they view the variation within
identity categories-i.e., women, African Americans, working class-as important as the variation
between identity categories.

Finally, postmodernists advocate a shift in analytic focus, deemphasizing observation and

deduction and elevating concerns with public discourse. In the spirit of Jean Baudrillard, Jacques
Derrida, Michel Foucault, and Jean-Francois Lyotard, the postmodern-identity scholars
deconstruct established identity categories and their accompanying rhetoric in an effort to explore
the full range of "being." Works in this tradition called into question models that equate discourse
with truth; they expose how discourse objectified as truth both forms and sustains collective
definitions, social arrangements, and hierarchies of power (Cerulo 1997: 391).

Anthropology (Anth1012) Lecture Note Page 12