Chapter I Ethnicity, Culture, and “the Past” understandably difficult then only briefly. ity and ethnic confi ig these momentous social forces. e from the vagueness of thee statement: “Iam a __ because I share __wi y is consciousness of difference and the subjective salience of ifference—a camaraderie one circumstance religion may be the decisive distinction between tw: nic groups (say, in Northern Iretand), while in another language or histo ‘or race or any number of other qualities may serve the same function. B: the referents or the emphasis on ref-} or preference for soci ind of relationship, wi is even regularly likened to kinship, as a kind of kinship wrt large. Horowitz writes that, based on the primacy of birth /and shared origin, “ethnicity and kinship are alike. . . . The language of y is the language of kinship” (1985, 57). He also quotes Michac! ity may be the maximal case of societally ip experience” (60). Pierre van den Berghe, at “ethnic and racial 87, 18), developing ,, which is largely responsible for its utility in the modern world. Whi is a group an ethnic group? There are no hard or fast rules or standards by which to judge. The answer, of course, as unsatisfying as collectivity, of any nature and antiquity, ean don the mantle o! ‘one of the most clastic of social concepts—and stake a successful cl ings that ethnographers of ethni ‘strength and significance of ethnicity vary between individuals and [groups as well as over time for any particular individual or group. Some ‘ostensibly ethnic groups (say, some indigenous people or urban minorities) authentic shared origins and culture have little ethnic feeling, and lother groups with much less in commion have strong feelings. Not only ‘that, but a group may have vibrant, even militant, ethnicity at one moment time and much less so at a later moment, of vice versa. And, of course, in any particular group some individuals have powerful ethnic sentiments, while others do not, and some individuals with powerful sentiments engage in ethnic-based confrontation and violence, while others do not. Ethnicity is, thus, subjective, even while it is based on, refers to, of Or shared cultural or historical markers, The first of ight raise, following DeVos's earlier definition, is which Dart of culture is used by a particular group and why. No ethnic group {teats all aspects of its culture or history as markers of its identi be awkward if not impossible to do so, and besides, for any group, some he same as those of another group, thus from the other group. Any part, lance, the process 0 je groups. DeVos defines or emblematic use of any aspect of cult ferentiate themselves from other groups “the character, quality, or condition of ethnic group membership, bas onan identity with and/or a consciousness of group belonging that perceived ethnic interests” (1978, 270). These and other defini repeatedly raise points about symbolism, meaning, and identity and about cohesion, solidarity, and belonging. In terms of the former talking about social and psychological process whereby indivi come to identify and afiiiate with a group and some aspect(s) of it ethnic marker. What is more, for any one grou chooses and uses may vary over time, from re ‘Quage in another to class of what have you