ethnicity

wedding stuff

Japan

homogeneity

trivia

is a categorical ascription which classifies individuals in terms of their basic, most general identity.

categorical ascriptions which classify individuals in terms of their 'basic, most general identity'.

is a feature of social organization rather than a nebulous expression of culture. It is the interactive delineation of boundaries rather than 'the cultural stuff' that they enclose that defines ethnic groups.

Barth distinguished ethnicity as a feature of social organisation rather than a nebulous expression of culture (Govers and Vermeulen 1996:12). He has described his view of culture as postmodern and constructionist, challenging the notion of cultures as homogeneous, clearly bounded and separate. In fact, it is the interactive delineation of boundaries rather than 'the cultural stuff' that they enclose that defines ethnic groups (Barth 1969:15).

is, in a globalized world, faced with the paradox that primordial (or 'locality' in the form of language or skin color, etc,) have in essence become portable.

the central paradox of ethnic politics in todays world is that primordial (whether of language or skin color or neighborhood or kinship) have become globalized' (appadurai modernity 41).

is often not result from ethnic groups' own choices and preference, but rather as a response to their subordinated position in relation to the dominant.

group.Li argues that the maintenance of ethnic distinctiveness may not result from ethnic groups' own choices and preference, butrather as a response to their subordinated position in relation to the dominantgroup. Bannerji (2000) also questions 'Taylor's politics of recognition by pointingout that it treats difference among people simply as an issue of cultural diversity,and the multicultural state as a povcr-neutral entity and thus is devoid of socialrelations based on 'race... gender, class and other social indicators. As she argues:''Speaking here of culture Vithout addressing povcr relations displaces andtrivia lizes deep contradictions. It is a reduclionisn1 that hides the social relations of

is social, not cultural, meaning it is determined not by behavior but by self-acknowledgement. It makes no difference whatsoever how dissimilar members may be in their overt behaviour as long as they declare that they are 'a' or 'b'.

Since ethnic membership must be acknowledged by the agents themselves in order to be socially effective, this is the crucial criterion for Barth. As he notes, it 'makes no difference how dissimilar members may be in their overt behaviour if they say they are A, in contrast to another cognate category B. . . . they declare their allegiance to the share culture of A's' (Barthe 1969: 15). The discontinuity between ethnic groups is chiefly a social discontinuity, not a cultural one.

is the conscious and imaginative construction and mobilization of differences.

the idea of ethnicity I propose takes the conscious and imaginative construction and mobilization of differences that constitutes the diacritics of group identity' (Appadurai 1996:14).

is the expressive processes of cultural identification. To be contrasted with racial identity which is the repressive processes of social exclusion.

Sanjek defines ethnicity as 'expressive processes of cultural identification' and racial identity in terms of 'repressive processes of social exclusion.' (Roger Sanjek, 'Race,' in Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology 1996. 164)

ethnicity, n.All

ethnicity