|
|
5 Propositions about Ethnicity
BR (brempel@CC.UMANITOBA.CA)
Tue, 5 Mar 1996 11:48:17 -0600
Thomas Carter's reference to John Comaroff's writing on ethnicity a couple
of weeks ago (Feb. 21 to be precise) reminded me of something I had
come across by the same author in this context. In "Of Totemism and
Ethnicity: Consciousness, Practice and the Signs of Inequality"
(in _Ethnos_, 21(3-4) pp. 301-323), Comaroff offers five propositions
about ethnicity which I have quoted below.
I have also made some notes summarizing his argument for my own research
purposes, and have included them below in case anyone is interested.
I would be interested in hearing any reactions people might have to
Comaroff's analysis.
Thanks
Ben
_5 Propositions About the Nature of Ethnicity_
1. "Contrary to the tendency, in the Weberian tradition, to view it as a
function of primordial ties, ethnicity always has its genesis in specific
historical forces, forces which are simultaneously structural and cultural."
(p.302)
2. "Ethnicity, far from being a unitary "thing", describes both a set of
relations and a mode of consciousness; moreover, the meaning and practical
salience varies for different social groupings according to their positions
in the social order. But as a form of consciousness, it is one among many -
totemism being another - each of which is produced as particular historical
structures impinge themselves on human experience and condition social
action." (p. 306)
3. "While totemism emerges with the establishment of symetrical relations
between structurally similar social groupings - groupings which may or may
not come to be integrated into one political community - ethnicity has its
origins in the asymetric incorporation of structurally dissimilar groupings
into a single political economy." (p.307)
4. "While ethnicity is the product of specific historical processes, it tends
to take on the "natural" appearance of an autonomous force, a "principle"
capable of determining the course of social life." (p. 313)
5. "Where it becomes an objectified "principle" in the collective
consciousness of a society, ethnicity may be perpetuated by factors quite
different from those that caused its emergence, and may have a direct and
independent impact on the context in which it arose." (p. 313)
________________________________________________________________________
1. "Contrary to the tendency, in the Weberian tradition, to
view it as a function of primordial ties, ethnicity always has
its genesis in specific historical forces, forces which are
simultaneously structural and cultural." (p.302)
Comaroff's concern here is to argue against what he refers to as the
"primordial thesis" which considers ethnicity as an independent explanatory
principle. However, he also finds the standard counter-thesis to be
incomplete. Citing Wallerstein, he characterizes this approach as seeing
ethnic identity as "eternally latent everywhere" but only manifesting itself
when a particular group is threatened or when it is necessary for political
leverage. While Weberians emphasize the subjective classification of
cultural differences, Marxists focus on the relegation of the social
groups so-defined to "niches within the social division of labor" (p.304).
Ethnic identification, Comaroff argues, arises out of the fusion of these
two processes.
2. "Ethnicity, far from being a unitary "thing", describes both a
set of relations and a mode of consciousness; moreover, the meaning
and practical salience varies for different social groupings
according to their positions in the social order. But as a form of
consciousness, it is one among many - totemism being another - each
of which is produced as particular historical structures impinge
themselves on human experience and condition social action."
(p. 306)
The contrast between totemism and ethnicity is important for
Comaroff's argument. But he is careful to distinguish his approach from
modernization theory which would see ethnicity as supplanting totemism as a
result of colonialism, urbanization, and capitalist development. He gives
examples of pre-capitalist ethnic consciousness in Africa as well as
examples of totemic consciousness in industrial societies.
3. "While totemism emerges with the establishment of symetrical
relations between structurally similar social groupings - groupings
which may or may not come to be integrated into one political
community - ethnicity has its origins in the asymetric incorporation
of structurally dissimilar groupings into a single political
economy." (p.307)
This asymetry produces class relations between dominant and
subordinated groups which are understood and represented in cultural
terms. The outcome is an ascription of social inequalities to the
"_intrinsic_ nature of the groups concerned" (p.308). This ascriptive
character of the group (which becomes its "ethnic" identity) usually differs
from the subjective experience of that identity. The more diverse the origins
of the people comprising the underclasses, the more likely that "the
substances of their identities, as contrived from both within and outside,
is inevitably a 'bricolage' fashioned in the very historical processes which
underwrite their subordination." (p.309)
Comaroff sites two examples of this process from pre-colonial Africa,
that of the Tutsi-Hutu relations in Rwanda and Burundi as well that of the
Betsileo of Malagasy who, according to C.P. Kotak, had no such identity
prior to their conquest by the Merina. The impact of colonial penetration
into Africa (and elsewhere) contributed to the development of "segmentary
ethnicity" which he defines as "a nesting hierarchy of ethnic relations"
(p.310). This hierarchical structure is generally portrayed as consisting
of "race' (colonial/settler identity or pan-Africanism), "nation" (a
conjunction of common political cause with a basis in cultural affinities),
and "tribe" (local, politically-bounded units). But each, according to
Comaroff, is "a particular refraction of ethnicity" (p. 311).
4. "While ethnicity is the product of specific historical processes,
it tends to take on the "natural" appearance of an autonomous force,
a "principle" capable of determining the course of social life."
(p. 313)
Comaroff argues that while "... human beings perceive and act upon
their contexts not as they are formally constituted, but as they are
construed in shared signs and symbols" (p. 311) ethnicity should not be
reduced to 'false consciousness'. Because ethnic identity is perceived from
within as an "independent variable" it is able to motivate social practice
and shape group relations and identities. This establishes a dialectic
between practice and structure "that, in time, reproduces and/or transforms
the character of the social order itself." (p. 313)
5. "Where it becomes an objectified "principle" in the collective
consciousness of a society, ethnicity may be perpetuated by factors
quite different from those that caused its emergence, and may have a
direct and independent impact on the context in which it arose."
(p. 313)
To the extent that the inequalities of ethnic relations are
perceived in terms of negotiable cultural differences, the social
"systems represent themselves as potentially navigable" (p. 314).
Ethnicity's "pervasive functionality in everyday social, economic, and
political life" (p. 313) ensures its continued practical relevance. Given
the possibility of a cohesive response on the part of a subordinate group,
Comaroff sees two possibilities for political action. They can attempt to
either remove the structures of inequality or they can attempt to negate
cultural differences through strategies aimed at upward mobility. The latter
approach tends to occur far more freqently.
To the extent that these strategies are successful, internal
stratification increases and the primacy of ethnic identification is
reinforced. As a result, "class and sociocultural differences cease to be
conterminous in any absolute or prescriptive sense" (p.316). As often
observed, leaders of ethnic movements are often comprised of its upwardly
mobile members. At this point the ethnic group has 'matured' into a
classical Weberian status group, but contrary to Weber, such status-based
affinities emerge not _before_ the appearance of class structures but _with_
them. And, contrary to Marx, ethnic identity is not epiphenomenal but
"assumes an important role in the dynamics of many historical systems -
sustaining yet masking, reinforcing yet refracting, their dominant lines
of cleavage" (p. 318).
______________________________________________________________________
I am still thinking about Comaroff's propositions and how well they
apply to the ethnic movements in the middle east I am currently
researching. I would be interested in hearing any reactions people
might have as to how this model stands up in relation to their
own experience or research involving ethnic identification. At this
point I have 3 general comments/questions:
1) I was interested in the contrast between totemism and ethnicity as I
hadn't come across it before. Given that as asymetries between certain
ethnic groups may decrease and such affiliation assumes a "situational"
character, to what extent does ethnicity become transformed into a form
of totemic consciousness? I am thinking here of immigrant ethnic
communities who, after successive generations, may have little to
distinguish themselves beyond symbolic markers.
2) Comaroff's approach describes internal stratification in a given
social group as emerging _after_ the establishment of an asymetrical
relationship with another social group. Is this historically accurate?
How are asymetries which are not related to class differences - gender
asymetries for example - accounted for in this model?
3) To the extent that Comaroff sees attempts by subordinate groups
to negate cultural differences (as opposed to attempts to remove the
structures of inequality) through strategies aimed at upward mobility
as doomed to partial success at best, is he replicating the standard
Marxist perspective of ethnicity as 'false consciousness'?
"Thus, under colonialism in Africa, ethnic struggles
certainly had an impact on the surface contours of the social
world, and they did occassionally lead to significant liberal
reforms. But, insofar as they refracted class antagonisms in
the cause of status group interests, they did not finally
remove the _structures_ of subordination. If anything, they
masked those structures in an ideology of individual achievement,
and, by leaving intact the correlation between ethnicity and
class, served ultimately to consolidate relations of collective
inequality." (p. 317)
In other words, while Comaroff allows that social practice enters into
a dialectical relationship with structure, is he underestimating the
possibility for practices associated with ethnic affiliation to transform
asymetric structural relations? Are there limitations to seeing this
relationship as dialectical?
Any comments?
Regards
Ben Rempel
Brempel@cc.umanitoba.ca
! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!
! However, there is still a great deal of satisfaction in !
! knowing that although the moon is smaller than the earth, !
! it is much further away! - Jackson Wolfe !
! !
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|