Ethnicity, the unbeloved of the social sciences

There was a time when the term ‘ethnicity’ was practically absent from francophone social science textbooks, whilst the Anglo-Saxon academic world had made it one of its privileged concepts since the 1960s. How to define this concept, which is slowly but surely coming into favour in the eyes of researchers? How to explain that its use in media discourses is always linked with racist undertones? In his latest book, Penser l’ethnicité, (Thinking Ethnicity) Marco Martiniello takes stock of this both misunderstood and tarnished term.

When did you last use the word ‘ethnicity’? A part from maybe to describe a type of cuisine or a musical style? In its generally accepted meaning this term is amongst those banished in the French language, being stuck with a hardly sparkling connotation. How much of media and political discourse refers to it to comment upon a massacre, a conflict or barbaric behaviour? Are not the groups termed ‘ethnic’ generally linked to a combat or a clash? The references to the conflicts between the Hutus and the Tutsis during the Rwandan genocide, between the Fur people and Arabs in Darfour, or between Serbs, Croats and Albanians during the war of Yugoslavia are only a few sad examples amongst others. This term is more often than not related to ‘the most despicable, degrading and retrogressive aspects of humanity,’ sums up Marco Martiniello, FNRS Research Director and the Director of CEDEM (the University of Liège’s Centre for Ethnic and Migration Studies).

In the middle of the 1990s the researcher had already drawn this conclusion: both in everyday French language usage and in the francophone academic field, this concept was used only very timidly. The book he published in 1995, L’ethnicité dans les sciences sociales contemporaines (Ethnicity in Contemporary Social Sciences), was at the time one of the few books in French dedicated to this subject. ‘The term was rarely used or even rejected because it suggested colonial history, and had racist and paternalistic undertones,’ he explains.

Eighteen years later little or nothing has changed. The word remains seldomly employed in francophone social sciences and often proves to be tarnished in its everyday use. For this reason Marco Martiniello resolved to update his initial work. The timing was perfect: the first book being out of print, the researcher regained the rights to it and could thus get down to the task of writing Penser l’ethnicité. Identité, culture et relations sociales, which has just been published by the University of Liège Press.

Turning in on oneself

This enhanced edition takes its starting point from an observation: ‘the democratic consensus which was built on the ashes of the Second World War is crumbling,’ writes the sociologist in his introduction. ‘In the four corners of Europe and elsewhere political groups are not hesitating to reintroduce racism into politics and to construct and activate more and more closed ethnic, national and religious identities from which the potential for Otherness being excluded is enormous.’

An allusion to Belgian community-based problems? Amongst others. ‘When foreign researchers raise the situation in Belgium they often talk of an ethnic conflict or clash,’ affirms Marco Martiniello, ‘even if the majority of politicians refute the use of these terms.’ The Flemish nationalist movement, like others across the world, is taking on a character that is all the more alarming because it leans on the rifts in contemporary society. Environmental crises, growing social inequalities, economic instability, exclusion, marginalisation, etc. So many factors that increase the nationalist power of seduction. ‘The citizens are frightened. They feel threatened. The temptation to turn in on oneself is a strong one.’

The emergence of controversies concerning the presence of Islam in Western society has also cast new light on debates surrounding ethnicity. Whilst this word is not a perfect synonym of ‘religion,’ the two terms have several points in common. The former could, for example, be considered as the object of faith or worship, or as a link that unites individuals. ‘In certain cases religion and ethnicity coincide almost perfectly as long as we place ourselves on a superficial level of analysis.’ And the author reminds us that the community of believers could surpass ethnic groups in terms of size whilst the latter, no matter how different they might be, can also share the same religion.

So near and yet so far…

Similarly, the nationalism referred to above cannot be considered as the perfect semantic equivalent of ethnicity. Certainly the two words have a relatively recent existence and have modern claims. ‘One might add that nations and ethnic groups are in effect “imagined communities,”’ points out the sociologist in the chapter devoted to this subject, citing within it the concept established by Benedict Anderson, a specialist on nationalism. ‘In effect, on the basis of a belief in a common history, individuals imagine a special link which they have with other individuals in the same nation or the same ethnic group, the majority of whom they will nonetheless have no direct relationship with in their lifetime. These two principles of identification manage to give a feeling of proximity, of belonging to the same group, to individuals who in reality are nonetheless very distant from each other, both socially and geographically.’ But if the objective of nationalism is to superimpose the boundaries of a State on those of a nation, ethnicity does not entertain the same political agenda, wherein lies their main difference.

Nor does this word have the same meaning as ‘race’ or ‘culture’ for Marco Martiniello, as he explains in his book’s fourth chapter. But if we now know what this term does not mean (or, in any case, not completely), how is it to be really defined?

It is first of all a question of a neologism that only appeared in an English language dictionary in 1933, and that was used in an academic and scientific manner from the end of the 1960s in the work of Anglo-Saxon researchers analysing the segregation and racism carried out against African Americans.

Amongst the multitude of existing definitions, the Liège researcher offers his own. ‘Ethnicity constitutes one of the major forms of social and political differentiation on the one hand and of structural inequality on the other in the majority of contemporary societies. It rests on the production and reproduction of social and political definitions of physical, psychological and cultural difference between groups called ethnic that between them develop relationships of different types (co-operation, conflicts, competition, domination, exploitation, recognition, etc.).’ In addition this concept is neither a natural, inexplicable reality, nor THE only important dimension in terms of social life.

In other words, it should neither be neglected nor given too much importance. ‘It is one analysis tool amongst others in the social sciences,’ he pleads, ‘which sometimes works and sometimes doesn’t. Other concepts are also important, such as gender, social class, etc.’

Micro-meso-macro

But to be used in the best possible way this concept must not abandon three levels of analysis: the micro, the meso and the macro-social. The first, also called the ‘individual level’, aims to observe how individuals identify themselves in relation to a wider group. ‘Nobody is born Walloon, Belgian or Chinese, one becomes one!’ he simplifies. Ethnic identity can be multiple (a Belgian who feels both Walloon and Chinese, if for example his or her parents had such origins), changeable, or quite simply non-existent but always constructed.

Groups, institutions and collective actions are formed on the basis of this feeling or these feelings of belonging. ‘It is there where we enter the meso-social or group-based level.’ Within which one would have to study the nature of these different relationships. Finally there is the macro-social level, where ethnicity is no longer considered from the point of view of the individual but from a social perspective. ‘How can the structure of our societies classify people in such and such categories? For instance, in the United States, people are catalogued according to if they are black or white, even if they feel American first and foremost. Or on the job market: it is considered that certain professions are reserved for certain ethnic categories. If one does not belong to them there is little chance of occupying such or such a post.’

Whether or not they integrate these three levels of analysis, in his book Marco Martiniello retraces the main currents that have fashioned the study of ethnicity: naturalist, social, primordialist, Marxist, substantialist, instrumentalist, assimilationist, constructivist, symbolic interactionist theories, etc. from the most complex to the most questionable.

Such is the sociobiological approach, put forward (amongst others) by the author of Belgian origin Belge Pierre van den Berghe. ‘I remember one day attending one of his lectures, in London. And I very quickly wondered: ‘where am I?’ This theory is dreadful.’ It has also been widely disputed since its debut because of its racist undertones, but today it nonetheless continues to attract followers…

This current of thought contends that individuals act through nepotism, in doing everything to favour humans with the same genes in order to satisfy their own reproductive interest, which in certain cases obliges them to, despite everything, enter a process of reciprocity; in other words they are constrained to work with others who are genetically different, still with the goal of privileging personal interest. To prevent these collaborations from becoming too unstable, a process of coercion should be established. According to Pierre van den Berghe everyone is thus naturally racist.

A history of boundaries

The European academic world has (fortunately) seen other less contentious authors come to the fore, such as Jocelyne Streiff-Fenart, Philippe Poutignat and Fredrik Barth. This Norwegian is often considered as having revolutionised the study of ethnicity. Breaking with the primordialists and substantialists that dominated the social sciences landscape during the 1960s and 1970s, he would establish an approach based on boundaries.

According to him, ethnic groups result less from culture than from social organisation. Culture is not the ‘ingredient’ that binds identities, but is rather a consequence of the setting up and the reproduction of (symbolic and social) boundaries between different groups. It should not moreover be forgotten that identities are not unchanging but evolve according to social context, and that they only exist if they are recognised by the wider community. Finally, Barth pays particular attention to the role of leaders, who might pursue very different objectives to those borne by the group.

Even if this theory was considered a major one, it was nonetheless criticised by some for what it was lacking, such as the analysis of the State as an actor limiting individual choices. But a good number of authors have subsequently rounded out, refined or modernised his arguments. More recent theories, for example, are tackling virtual ethnicity, in other words the ways in which the Internet allows the emergence of identification. 

For a long time pushed to the academic background, ethnicity is thus a concept that can enable the current cultural, social and political problematics to be understood from a particular perspective. ‘Benign and positive in certain cases, it can unfortunately take on a malignant and destructive aspect in others,’ writes Marco Martiniello in the conclusion to his book. ‘The issue which the social sciences find themselves faced with when they study ethnic phenomena is to highlight the conditions that favour the expression of a harmless expression of ethnicity, those which lead to an exacerbation of ethnic affiliation resulting ethnic conflicts and those which remove any social and political meaning from ethnicity. [...] The social sciences can certainly contribute [...] to preventing other Rwandas or other Bosnias, which unfortunately cannot be totally ruled out in the contemporary economic, social and political unrest.’