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…