This article was downloaded by: [University of Glasgow]

On: 07 October 2013, At: 03:59

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Social Identities: Journal for the Study

of Race, Nation and Culture
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csid20

Ethnic identity and the nation state:

The political sociology of multi‐cultural
societies
a
John Rex
a
Centre for Research in Ethnic Relations , University of Warwick ,
Coventry, CV4 7AL
Published online: 23 Apr 2010.

To cite this article: John Rex (1995) Ethnic identity and the nation state: The political sociology of
multi‐cultural societies, Social Identities: Journal for the Study of Race, Nation and Culture, 1:1,
21-34, DOI: 10.1080/13504630.1995.9959424

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504630.1995.9959424

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Social Identities, Volume 1, Number 1,1995 21

Ethnic Identity and the Nation State:

the Political Sociology of Multi-Cultural Societies

JOHN REX
University of Warwick
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 03:59 07 October 2013

ABSTRACT: The question of ethnic and national identity is one which is addressed in two
separate theoretical discourses. One is that of contemporary general sociological theory
where it seems to be central to debates about Late Modernism, Post-Modernism and
Globalization. The other is in a much more empirically orientated branch of political
sociology which is concerned with forms of solidarity and division in the nation state.
This paper will be primarily located within the second type of discourse, but its aim is
to suggest that its formulation of concepts is highly relevant to the clarification of issues
in general sociological theory.

Identity, Nation, and Ethnicity in Contemporary Sociological Theory

The following propositions seem to have fairly wide acceptance amongst
contemporary sociological theorists:
1. The sociology of our contemporary world has to recognize fundamental
changes in the very nature of the individual's relationship with society. These
are indicated by the use of such terms as Pre-Modern, Modern, Late Modern
and Post-Modern, as well as by the cross-cutting notion of Globalization.
2. Parallel to these changes it has to be recognized that the notion of the
identity of the subject, which has to be central in sociology, has had to
undergo radical revision. The enlightenment assumed the existence of the
pure individual who was the principal subject of history; in the twentieth
century the concept of identity which this implied was superseded by a more
sociological conception in which the individual was assumed to be the
creation of society, and identity was assumed to be socially created; but, in
the present Late Modern or Post-Modern period, this kind of clear and
monolithically conceived identity has been replaced by the notion of multiple
identities and a de-centred subject defining his/her selfhood only through a
belief in a personal narrative (Hall, 1992).
3. Separate from this process of changing forms of identity is that in which the
bounding of social life by such political units as nation-states has been
superseded by a state of affairs, in which the social relations and networks

1350-4630/95/010021-14 © 1995 Journals Oxford Ltd

 22 J.Rex

in which individuals are involved, as well as the cultural influences to which

they are subject, tend to have a global, rather than a purely national
character. This process is, however, incomplete, and forms of identity
appropriate to an earlier stage linger on in conflict with the overall trend,
and, moreover, are sometimes reasserted as a form of resistance. The revival
of ethnicity and religious and ethnic 'fundamentalism' has to be understood
in these terms.
4. The kinds of political processes which had a master role in determining the
course of politics in the nation state and in the earlier Modern period are also
superseded. Most importantly, classes and class struggle, central to Marxist
and quasi-Marxist political sociology, have been replaced by a variety of
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 03:59 07 October 2013

social movements, including ecological movements, women's movements,

gay and lesbian movements, youth movements, the peace movement, and
ethnic movements. Unlike classes which were based on conflicts of interest
(albeit of a resolvable kind), these movements are about identity and are not
resolvable in any simple way (see Touraine 1971,1977; Melucci, 1989; Scott,
1992).
Those, like the present author, who actually do empirical research on
questions of ethnicity and nationalism find many of the concepts which are used
here very unclear, even though irritatingly close to those which they themselves
must use, and also that the highly general conclusions to which they lead are at
odds with empirical reality.
At the centre of these difficulties is the use made of the concept of identity.
This concept is a difficult one, and for many sociologists has a dual reference to
problems of social psychology as well as sociology. It is also a normative
concept, since having identity tends to be contrasted with not having succeeded
in achieving it. It is usually not clear where contemporary sociological theory
stands on the important questions involved here, because they are being
subordinated to another really quite different question in philosophy and
history, namely that of how the subjects or agents of social change are to be
conceived. While this is an important question in the formulation of concepts of
social action, interaction and social relations, it actually throws little light on
such empirical questions as those of ethnic and national identity; nor, per contra,
can research on these questions resolve the theoretical and philosophical
question as to how the agents of human action are best conceived. In what
follows, because the problems surrounding the use of the concept of ethnicity
are, in fact, complex ones, we will not make them the starting point of our
analysis, but will introduce them as part of the discussion of the nature of
ethnicity and nationalism.
A further set of questions relates to the replacement of some of the traditional
structural concepts of sociology like class and status and class and status conflict
with those which derive from the theory of social movements. Certainly it can
be conceded that the form of the social relations of production has changed, that
control of knowledge now occupies the role formerly occupied by control of the
means of production, and that the size of the employed 'working class' has now
diminished to a point at which it is no longer possible to imagine the parties
 Ethnic Identity and the Nation State 23

which represent this class taking power by themselves. But this, of itself, does
not mean that there are no longer groups in society with differing and distinct
interests. Further, while it was always the case that the mobilization of the
working class did not result purely from rational agreement about common
interests and was deeply dependent upon the cultural ties and organizational
forms to be found amongst class members, this by no means implies that
cultural bonding and perception of common interest were separable processes.
It is absurd therefore to suggest that, whereas in the past men and women
united because of their perception that they had common interests, in the
present they do so purely on the basis of culture. Yet something like this is
precisely what the theory of social movements suggests.
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 03:59 07 October 2013

There is, of course considerable disagreement amongst social movement

theorists about the relationship between social movements and social classes.
Nonetheless two points are commonly made. One is that the social classes of the
past were, in fact, social movements, important, more because of the cultural
bonding of their members, than for their pursuit of common interests. The other
is .that the new social movements are more concerned with creating space in
civil society for the expression of their members' beliefs, than with forming
parties in order to control and use state power. Another way of expressing this
is to say that they are concerned with 'identity', a term whose lack of clarity has
been indicated in the previous paragraph.
Now, of course, there is a need in political sociology to give some account
of movements like those concerned with ecological issues, the position of
women and homosexuals, and the peace movement. The British sociologist,
Parkin, for instance, dealing with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament many
years ago, recognized the existence of a middle class radicalism which cross-cut
the better understood class conflicts in British politics (Parkin, 1969), and clearly
the sociology of the contemporary world calls for an analysis of the way in
which such movements are effective or ineffective in a political system,
structured traditionally in terms of class conflict. This, however, should be a
matter of empirical study, and it is by no means to be assumed that such
movements are solely concerned with opening up an identity space for their
members. What is true of the peace movement is true also for the ecological,
women's, youth and homosexual movements. Each of these has to be
investigated empirically and cannot be adequately covered by a single
generalization. Each has its own way of influencing the political system.
Even if it is conceded, however, that the movements mentioned above are
about opening up an identity space, it can seriously be questioned whether the
same is true of ethnic mobilization and ethnic movements. One would have
thought that a global perspective, and the recognition of an international
division of labour, might have led to the posing of the question as to whether
immigrant workers and entrepreneurs did not have, in this perspective, a class-
like position, even if it were true that they relied upon the cultural resource of
their ethnicity to provide them with solidarity in their struggles. Moreover one
might also ask whether, in the knowledge-based society, there was not also a
dual labour market in which those, like immigrants, who inhabited the less
privileged positions, still faced class-like problems because of their relation to
 24 J.Rex

the means of production. In the sections which follow we will seek precisely to
consider the nature of the ethnicity of immigrant minorities from this point of
view.
Perhaps the most fundamental difficulty which one has with contemporary
sociology, however, is that of the terms in which it seeks to describe the social
world. On this, the perspective taken in this paper is essentially that of Max
Weber. It assumes that what we have to do in sociology is to describe structures
of social relations, that is to say the kinds of social relations which exist between
individuals within different groups and within different institutions, and
between groups and institutions within larger, usually politically defined
systems. Such a view, of course does not rule out an interest in the cultural
goals of groups or in the kind of cultural bonding which exists between
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 03:59 07 October 2013

individuals, but it does see this as tied into the business of creating structures
of social relations. In these terms, Weber, and others in the Weberian tradition
sought to describe social classes and status groups. The important question
which the theory of social movements has to face is that of the structures of
social relations in these movements and between them and the larger political
society. Related to this is the question of what we mean by ethnicity and ethnic
groups. The argument here is that such groups should not be thought of simply
as involving reactive responses to modernism, concerned with the preservation
of identity. Rather they should be seen as forms of mobilization in pursuit of
political and economic interests. What follows is an account of the nature of
ethnicity and the development of ethnic groups, ethnies, nations, ethnic nations,
and migrant groups in these terms. Within this context it will also be possible
to discuss the psychological question of how and why individuals come to
attach themselves to groups, that is to say, to discuss the question of identity.

The Nature of Ethnicity and Ethnies

A commonly held view in sociology, as well as in popular political discourse,
is that, apart from other types of groups, such as those of class and status, there
are some which are purely 'ethnic'. What is actually meant by ethnic in this
sense is very often not clear or is sometimes claimed to have a mysterious
quality of 'primordiality'. It is essential if we are to develop adequate concepts
in this field that we should demystify this notion.
The primordial account of ethnicity is clearly stated by the American
anthropologist Geertz in his earlier work. He contrasts social relations which
arise from kinship, neighbourhood, commonality of language, religious belief,
and customs, with others which are based upon 'personal attraction, tactical
necessity, common interest or incurred moral obligation' (Geertz, 1963).
The first of these kinds of social relation, Geertz describes as simply 'given'
as ipse facto, as 'unaccountable' and as having an overpowering force 'in and of
themselves'. If, however, we are to understand and describe such social relations
for sociological purposes, it is precisely necessary that we should demystify
them and make them accountable.
The first point to notice is that these types of social relation are 'given' in one
very special sense. They constitute the network into which human individuals
are born. Thus, apart from so-called 'feral' children brought up by animals,
 Ethnic Identity and the Nation State 25

every human infant or young child finds itself a member of a kinship group and
of a neighbourhood, as well as sharing with some others a language, religious
beliefs and customary practices. Each of these forms of membership, in fact, has
a different potential span, and of themselves they do not coincide. Particularly,
it should be noted, linguistic and religious communities, extend far beyond the
range of the groups based on kinship or common residence. Before one can
speak of a group, therefore, one has to indicate how they are made to coincide.
Three things, perhaps, are important in this business of group creation. One
is that those who are its members gain some emotional satisfaction or a feeling
of emotional warmth from belonging to the group. A second is that they share
a belief in a myth of origin or the history of the group and that this myth makes
clear the boundaries of the group. A third is that they regard the social relations,
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 03:59 07 October 2013

within which they live, as 'sacred' and as including not merely the living but the
dead. It is because of these features of the situation, not mentioned by Geertz,
that these groups have their special and overpowering quality. Moreover, while
linguistic and religious ties may extend far beyond the group and suggest much
wider memberships, speaking a common language and sharing religious beliefs,
are appropriated for its own purposes by the small group as criteria of
membership.
Such small groups into which we all enter at birth are sometimes called
'ethnic' and, in this sense, we all have 'ethnicity'. It does not matter, however,
whether we use the term 'ethnic'; we could, for example speak simply of
primordial or infantile communities. What matters is that all human beings as
infants must have had an experience of this type of satisfying and sacred group
membership.
It is, however, a further feature of the human condition that individuals do
not merely enter this infantile ethnic trap; they also grow up, and growing up
can involve two separate processes. One is that the individual who emerges
from the infantile community develops his or her individual personality and
interacts with other individuals from other groups on a different basis. The other
is that he or she might find that there are those who suggest that the satisfying
features of infantile ethnicity can be reproduced in much larger groups.
So far as the first of these processes are concerned what happens is the social
psychological process of socialization through which the significant others of the
infantile community 'enter the heads' of the individual. What happens here, to
express it in less graphic terms, is the sort of process of personality formation
described by Durkheim, Freud, Mead, and others. There thus emerges the
second social type of 'identity' referred to in the sociological theories discussed
above. It refers back to the group in which the individual is socialized, but it
also becomes the subject or agent of action in the wider world.
The social relations of this wider world may be of a different kind from that
of the infantile group. They may, indeed, be of the non-primordial kind to
which Geertz refers, being based upon 'personal attraction, tactical necessity,
common interest or incurred moral obligation'. But there will be some
individuals who take the opportunity of joining a more extended community
which has some of the qualities of the small infantile one, and, even those who
have moved into a more individualized world, may also seek the satisfaction
 26 J.Rex

some of the time of experiencing such membership. Durkheim opened up the

discussion of these problems with his concepts of mechanical and organic
solidarity (Durkheim, 1933). What we are suggesting here is that, although some
adults may move completely into a world of organic solidarity, there are others
who find more extended forms of mechanical solidarity, or who find a way of
living in terms of both organic and continuing mechanical solidarity.
A group which extends the solidarity of the infantile group to a larger
population is sometimes called an ethnie. The definition of an ethnie, therefore
is that it is a group, membership of which has some of the qualities of the
simplest type of infantile group, and which is thought of as having the same
kind of emotional warmth and sacredness. Its members share a common
language, religion and culture, but are distinguished from some others who also
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 03:59 07 October 2013

share these characteristics by the fact that they believe in a myth or history of
origin and of past collective action. Immediate kin and neighbourhood are not
essential to defining the bounds of this group but they adopt symbols which
stand for these simpler types of belonging.
A further feature of the ethnie has also to be noted. This is that membership
also implies the possibility of non-membership and the notion that non-members
are also organised in ethnies. Relations with members of these other ethnies lack
the feelings of emotional warmth and sacredness which were experienced in the
original one, and may be regarded as neutral, but commonly involve actual
enmity. We should also note here that the self-chosen ethnicity of any group is
contrasted with the ethnicity attributed to it by outsiders.
Groups of this kind belong in what Tonnies called the world of gemeinschaft
rather than gesellschaft (Tonnies, 1955). They are, that is to say, not purposive in
character, but exist for their own sake. Yet a different theory of ethnicity from
that of Geertz suggests that their actual boundaries depend upon the situation
in which they are operating. This is the approach of Barth (1959, 1969) who
suggested that whether any particular individual belonged or did not belong to
an ethnie, like the Pathans whom he studied, depended upon the purpose in
hand. According to this view, while it is still not claimed that ethnies are
purposive associations, they are shaped by projects of one kind or another. We
may call this the situationist theory of ethnic boundaries. Perhaps unconsciously,
the groups formed in this way serve particular purposes.
A rather more cynical view emphasises the role of leaders who do not simply
use symbols to evoke a feeling of ethnic belonging for its own sake, but, having
conscious purposes, deliberately draw selectively on an ethnic heritage in order
to unite the members of a collectivity in the service of some purpose. This is the
theory of ethnogenesis which suggests that ethnicity was not 'given', but was
more or less deliberately created in order to create a solidary group to pursue
a project. Such a view is taken in a recent book, called Creating Ethnicity, by
Eugene Roosens (1989).
Whether or not this rather more cynical view is correct or not, however, it
does seem to be the case that the ethnie often comes into being in connection
with some political project. Clearly this will be the case when an ethnie is at war
with its neighbouring ethnies, war serving to intensify latent forms of ethnic
bonding. But even short of this, there seem to be two ethnic projects which are
 Ethnic Identity and the Nation State 27

of great importance. One is the claim to sovereignty over a territory; the other
is migration. We shall have to return to the question of migration in due course,
but first we must consider the question of territorial claims.
Of course, as we saw, territory is an element even of infantile ethnicity and,
apart from the commonalities which we have mentioned in drawing the
boundaries of an ethnie, this process usually, though not always, involves
attachment to a territory. A further step is taken, however, when sovereignty is
claimed over that territory. At this point the 'ethnie' becomes an ethnic nation.

Nations and Nationalism

Despite what has just been said, however, what are often called nations do not
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 03:59 07 October 2013

emerge in this way. In the history of European nationalism, the nation is seen
as part of a modernizing project. It is based, not upon an appeal to ethnicity or
to emotional feelings of belonging, but, in the first place, upon rationalistic
notions like citizenship or participation in a market. Nations of this kind belong
primarily in the world of Tonnies' gesellschaft. Particularistic ethnic ties have no
place in a nation of this kind, and commonly it sets out to erode ethnicity where
it exists. The clearest case of a conception of the nation in these terms is to be
found in French Republican and Jacobin thought, but it is a notion that is
repeated in the making of other European nations.
A nation conceived in these terms, however, does still face two problems.
One is the cutting off of any trans-national or extra-national ties which members
may have through the market, through shared language or shared religion, and
ensuring that the economic activity, the language and religion which occur have
a functional relation to the purposes of the nation state. This kind of nation is
thought of ideally as a bounded functional system contained within its own
territory. The other problem is that, while it denies particularistic ethnic loyalties
or subordinates them, it has itself to create its own sense of belonging, and it
does this very often by using the same kind of symbols as ethnies do, referring
very often for instance to the mother country or the fatherland.
It may be thought that, if a nation state has to do these things in order to
create the new nation, it is not, sociologically speaking, so different from the sort
of ethnic nation which we discussed earlier. There does, however, seem to be a
crucial difference of emphasis and priorities. The ethnic nation is primarily a
community which may then develop associative features when it embarks on the
project of establishing sovereignty over a territory. The modernizing nation is
in the first place an association which then has to create a community and a new
type of belonging.
This kind of basically rational modernizing nation is in fact rare. In many
cases the state comes into being after one ethnie has conquered another. The
ruling ethnie maintains its own consciousness and structure, and may either
destroy other ethnies, making their members second class citizens, or simply
dominate and subordinate them as groups. When this occurs, one of the features
of the nation state might well be the mobilization of the subordinate ethies as
ethnic nations, seeking varying degrees of autonomy, secession or independence.
Such ethnic mobilization might also occur in the case of a new non-ethnic
modernizing state. While, in this case, the state is not simply imposing the rule
 28 J.Rex

of one ethnic group upon another, it does nonetheless offer an alternative focus
of loyalty to that to the various ethnies, and this may well lead to an
intensification of ethnicity in the subordinate groups as they struggle to survive.
On the other hand there is also another possibility. This is that the members of
the various ethnies might adjust to the situation by developing dual loyalties.
They may still have a sense of belonging to their own group, but also enter into
the new modern world of the market place and the polity. When they do this
they will become accustomed to having multiple identities. Such multiple
identities are not therefore to be thought of simply as a feature of post-modern
society. They are inevitably involved in the integration of ethnic groups in the
nation state.
We can see then that the emergence of the nation state is a complex process,
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 03:59 07 October 2013

and that whether it emerges as a result of modernizing and rational trends, or

through domination by one ethnie of others which it subordinates, there are
many different types of group membership and many different and conflicting
identities produced, which are too easily confused in discourses about
nationalism. We now have to note, however, that this situation is made even
more complex with the emergence of multi-national states and empires, and
with what happens when they break up.

Nations, Empires and Post-Imperial Nationalism

Nations conquer other nations, and, when they do, the victorious nation
establishes its rule over the defeated ones through imperial bureaucracies and
armies. It may also open up the markets of the defeated nation to its own
entrepreneurs and allow its own members to settle in the conquered territories.
The establishment of these forms of domination is then likely to be met with
resistance from the nationalisms of the subordinated nations.
When such imperial and multi-national systems break up two major
consequences occur. One is that the subordinated nations reassert their
sovereignty over their own territory and, inter alia, must establish control over
their own subordinate ethnies; the other is that the settlers from the former
dominant nation seek protection from the former imperial centre, and, in that
centre, movements may occur, seeking to protect its settler members. Thus the
history of imperialism and post-imperialism is marked by the emergence of both
secessionist movements and irredentist movements and both of these are
commonly referred to as forms of nationalism, even though they are very
different.

The Project of Ethnic Migration

Ethnicity, however, is not always related to the assertion of sovereignty over a
territory. A quite different project from that of the nationalist one is that of
migration. In this case, some members of an ethnic or national group, whether
for economic reasons or because of political persecution, leave their own
territory and seek to establish themselves in other territories over which they do
not seek to establish political control. More than this, they may migrate to a
number of territories within which they have varying economic opportunities.
 Ethnic Identity and the Nation State 29

A good example of such migration is that of migrants from the Punjab who have
settled across the world from Fiji to California.
One way of describing the total world of such migrating groups is to say that
they live in the diaspora. This, however, is a term which can be used in a
narrower or a broader sense. In the narrow sense, in which the term is used of
the Jews and Afro-Americans, it implies that the dispersal was due to some
politically traumatic event and that those involved seek to return to the
homeland. This, however, is not the case with many migrating communities, like
the Punjabis, and it is perhaps misleading to use the term to describe them.
Certainly if one speaks of the Punjabi diaspora one is using the term in a wider
and looser sense.
Migrant communities of this kind have a number of distinct points of
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 03:59 07 October 2013

reference. They are seeking to maximize their economic opportunities in a range

of territories across the world, often moving from one country of settlement to
another if better opportunities are available in the latter. (Thus Punjabi settlers
in Britain, for instance, may move on to the United States when they have
accumulated enough money). Secondly, however, they are orientated to securing
their position and winning rights in their country of present settlement. Thirdly,
they may seek to retain their own culture, if in a modified form, as a resource
in any of their struggles. Finally they may have some kind of 'myth of return'
to their homeland, may seek to acquire property there, and may retain an
interest in its politics, using their position in the country of settlement as a base
to support some political interest, which governments prevent in the homeland
itself.
The most immediate form of membership in such an internationally
dispersed community is usually the extended family and the most immediate
form of economic interest is the protection and enlargement of the family estate.
Such a family group and estate might be based right across the territories of
migration. (A Punjabi settler in Britain might have familial obligations to
relatives in the Punjab itself or to others in Canada or the United States or to
both.) Such familial connections, however, exist within a larger bounding
framework of a migrant ethnic community defined in terms of language,
religion, custom and historical myth. Such a community is today at least as
important as membership of a nation. In the sections below we shall deal with
one aspect of the total situation of international migrant communities, namely
that of their relationship to national states in which their members settle.

The Response of National Societies to Migrant Communities

What one now frequently finds in the new globalized world is a confrontation
between two types of society and community. One is the community of the
national state, the other is the migrant community. The major political problem
is then that of how the national state responds to the existence of what it sees
as ethnic minority communities and the ways in which they are integrated or
not integrated.
There are, of course, some societies which consist primarily or solely of
immigrants. When, however, a new nation is formed from such groups, one of
them provides the framework within all later arrivals have to work. Thus the
 30 J.Rex

United States includes all kinds of immigrants, but it has at least a national
language which the later arrivals have to accept as the national language.
It also has to be noted that national societies are not necessarily culturally
and economically united prior to arrival of immigrants. They are often divided
in terms of classes and status groups, and any national culture will often rest
upon some kind of compromise negotiated between these groups.
A number of responses to incoming immigrants are possible from members
of the so-called 'host society'. They may seek to keep them out, to expel them
or to attack and kill them; they may see their presence as temporary, regarding
them as Gastarbeiders and second class citizens; they may demand that the
incomers should abandon their own culture and identity and become
assimilated; or they may pursue a policy of multi-culturalism. It is this fourth
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 03:59 07 October 2013

alternative which is the primary concern of this paper, so far as migrating ethnic
groups are concerned.

The Concept of a Multi-Cultural Society

There are actually two possibilities in societies which see themselves as multi-
cultural. One is that, although the immigrant communities and their cultures are
seen as having a right to exist, they are not necessarily accorded equal rights,
and may be regarded as culturally inferior; the other, however, is that some
ideal of equal citizenship, previously negotiated between the classes and status
groups in the host society is extended to the immigrant groups, even though
their right to retain their own culture is recognized.
As a matter of empirical fact this ideal of an egalitarian multi-cultural society
has probably never been fully recognized. Nonetheless it is an important
political ideal and can provide an ideological framework within which minority
groups can operate in adjusting to settlement in another nation state.
Such an ideal was enunciated in Britain by the Home Secretary of 1968, Roy
Jenkins, when he defined 'integration', 'not as flattening process of uniformity,
but as cultural diversity, coupled with equality of opportunity, in an atmosphere
of mutual tolerance' (Rex and Tomlinson, 1979). This ideal, I have argued
elsewhere (Rex, 1986), suggests that there are two cultural domains, and two
forms of belonging, in the multi-cultural society. One is a public political culture
and a political society based upon the idea of equality of opportunity, but often
also on a conception of at least a minimum of social rights for all, i.e. equality
of outcome (Marshall, 1950). This, of course, is the ideal of the welfare state,
achieved in varying degrees by most Western European states, and surviving to
some extent even after the move towards more free market based societies in the
1980s. Such an ideal, where it is held, cannot be brought into question because
of the coming of immigrants. The indigenous community and the immigrant
ethnic minority communities are equally called upon to accept it.
Given this shared political ideal, however, the question which remains open
is that of whether the culture and social organization of diverse groups is to be
allowed to continue, or whether they should be forced to assimilate to a single
and homogeneous national culture. What the multi-cultural alternative suggests
is that it is possible, without threat to the overall political unity of the national
society, to recognize that minorities have the right to their own language in
 Ethnic Identity and the Nation State 31

family and community contexts, the right to practice their own religion, the right
to organize domestic and family relations in their own way, and the right to
maintain communal customs.
There are three basic reasons, it is argued, why such cultural diversity should
be accepted. The first is the simple one that the separate cultures may have
values which are important in their own right, and actually enrich the overall
society; the second is that the social organization and cultural forms of the
minorities provide them with the protection and emotional support of a
community standing between the individual family and the state, something
which was recognized by Durkheim in The Division of Labour in Society (1933),
where he was concerned with the ways in which a society based on 'organic
solidarity' differed from a state of anomie or anarchic individualism; the third
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 03:59 07 October 2013

is that ethnicity can provide the kind of solidarity in a group which enables it
to fight more effectively to defend the rights of its members. Taking these three
points together the suggestion is made that, far from threatening democratic
societies, the recognition of cultural diversity actually enriches and strengthens
democracy.
Of course, in an increasingly globalized world, immigrant communities also
have other points of reference. They may, as we suggested, use their location in
a country of settlement as a base to pursue political interests in their homelands
or to assisting those who have gone on to other countries of settlement. Because
of this, they may be regarded as troublesome or dangerous, and nation states in
their countries of settlement tend to be suspicious of any trans-national organ-
izations to which they affiliate. Thus, it often becomes a condition of their
acceptance that they should be loyal to the state and refrain from treasonable
acts. This was an important question during the Gulf War when Muslim
immigrants in Europe were thought likely to support Iraq as a Muslim state
against an alliance led by non-Muslims.
In this case and in others, however, minorities, when forced to choose, have
accepted their obligation of political loyalty to their country of settlement.

Multi-Culturalism and Democratic Political Theory

A recent symposium on Ethnic Mobilization in a Multi-Cultural Europe held at
the University of Warwick showed that the idea of multi-culturalism raised
important problems and anxieties amongst European social scientists (Rex and
Drury, 1994). In fact such an idea does not fit easily within the framework of the
largely shared political theory of a social-democratic welfare state. The problems
raised in the symposium were of two kinds. One suggested that the ways of
handling of the ethnic problem which were likely to emerge were at odds with
the kinds of procedure for handling conflicts of interest which social-democratic
welfare states had evolved. The other was that the actual kinds of institution
which were likely to be set up would, far from enhancing democracy, actually
provide governments with new means of manipulation and control.
In the most thoroughly argued of these criticisms, Radtke (1994) suggests
that, whereas the social democratic welfare state is based upon a pluralist society
in which different interest groups, negotiate about their interests and rights,
what is proposed in the idea of multi-culturalism is a system in which any
 32 /. Rex

member of an ethnic minority group must represent himself or herself as

culturally different, and this is likely actually to prevent the resolution of
conflicts. The kind of ethnicity which will then be defended is likely to be
reactionary and regressive and to present irresolvable problems. Wieviorka
(1994), again argues that the very concept of ethnicity is an alien concept in a
modern society, and one which is only introduced in dealing with inferior
groups. Similarly, on this point, Jan Rath, in a separate thesis, offers a critique
of multi-cultural policy in the Netherlands (Rath, 1991) arguing that what this
policy does is to 'minorize' individuals, marking them for unequal treatment. All
of these criticisms suggest that what multi-culturalism does is to place minorities
outside the normal political process in social democratic welfare states.
In Sweden, Schierup and Alund, making a rather different point (Schierup
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 03:59 07 October 2013

and Alund 1987, 1990; Schierup, 1994) have drawn attention to the diversity to
be found in the situation of different individuals, and particularly young
individuals, drawn from the same group. While national policy deals with the
traditional elders of immigrant communities and reifies immigrant culture, many
young people from these groups are forming syncretic links with members of
both other immigrant communities and the indigenous society. Like Rath,
Schierup and Alund see official multi-cultural policy as essentially manipulative
and in no way conducive to democracy which is seen as resting either on class
conflict and compromise or on new social movements.
There is undoubtedly truth in all of these criticisms so far as the actual forms
of multi-culturalism which have been developed by governments are concerned.
But against them two things may be said. The first is that most of them, in effect
argue for the maintenance of existing political forms and for the absorption of
immigrant groups into normal and established political processes (though
Schierup and Alund modify this traditional social democratic position, through
the recognition of modern social movements). The second is that they assume
that the definition of ethnicity rests simply with the state and take no account
of the actual forms of ethnic mobilization and the minorities' own goals.
Such criticism and responses are very much less valid if the nature of
ethnicity amongst migrants outlined here is fully understood. What we have
sought to show, in fact, is that this ethnicity is complex, many-sided and
changing and should not be reified. It includes, as part of ethnic self-definition,
the notion of fighting in a democratic way for equal rights, and it accepts that
there can be a diversity of response by different members of a minority
community. It also accepts that some members of minority communities will
move away from their traditional culture and that they may follow a strategy
of working with or in indigenous organizations in addition to or instead of
relying solely on ethnic organizations. We should not, however, oversimplify in
the opposite direction and imagine that ethnicity and ethnic mobilization do not
exist. The real problem of the political sociology of multi-culturalism is to do
justice both to ethnic mobilization and 'normal' political processes and to show
how these are inter-related.
Inevitably in such a situation individuals belong to different social groups
and different cultural systems simultaneously and are used to the fact of
multiple identities. This does not mean 'living between two cultures' and
 Ethnic Identity and the Nation State 33

breaking down under the strain. It is a normal part of social and political life.
Nor, we should note again is this simply a feature of the Post-Modern condition.

Conclusion: a More Empirical Approach to the Problems of Ethnicity

and Identity
Clearly, from all that has been said above, the resurgence of ethnicity which has
followed the break-up of empires, the global nature of migration processes and
the formation of world wide migrant communities, and the complexity of the
process of the political integration of minorities, all point to the need to revise
the dominant theories of political sociology which have arisen in Western
European welfare states. What this revision has to do, however, is to base itself
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 03:59 07 October 2013

on a careful analysis of the actual empirical and historical processes which have
occurred with regard to nationalism and migration. The crucial difference
between this discourse and that of recent highly sophisticated forms of
sociological theory is that it does not depend upon some notion of a new and
remarkable transformation of the nature of society, in which, what are seen as
the old problems of class and conflict, give way to a new and mysterious
situation in which ethnic politics, together with other kinds of politics, come for
the first time to be based purely and solely on 'identity'. What we really need
is a careful historical and empirical analysis of the forms of ethnicity and ethnic
belonging which occur in the course of national conflicts and the processes of
migration. It does not seem particularly useful to refer to these processes as Late
Modern or Post-Modern. They do not take an easy place in such a meta-
narrative. They are simply concerned with some of the most important political
processes of the present day and sometimes, indeed, involve very old and
recurrent types of group formation and conflict, albeit on a more global scale.
The task of sociological theory should be to systematize what is involved in
these empirically studied processes, not to mystify them through the use of a
confusingly defined concept of identity.

John Rex is at the Centre for Research in Ethnic Relations, University of Warwick,
Coventry, CV4 7AL.

References
Barth, F. (1959) Political Leadership among the Swat Pathans, London School of
Economics Monographs on Anthropology, No. 19, London: LSE.
- (1969) Ethnic Groups and Boundaries, London: Allen and Unwin.
Durkheim, E. (1933) The Division of Labour in Society, Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press.
Geertz, C. (1963) Old Societies and New States: the Quest for Modernity in Asia and
Africa, Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press.
Hall, S. (1992) 'The Question of Cultural Identity' in S. Hall, D. Held and
T.McGr ew (eds) Modernism and its Futures, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Marshall, T. (1950) Citizenship and Social Class, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Mellucci, A. (1989) Nomads of the Present, London: Hutchinson.
Parkin, F. (1969) Middle Class Radicalism, London: Heinemann.
 34 /. Rex

Radtke, F.O. (1994) 'The Formation of Ethnic Minorities and the Transformation
of Social into Ethnic Conflicts in a so-called Multi-Cultural Society: the Case
of Germany', in J. Rex and B. Drury (eds) Ethnic Mobilisation in a Multi-
Cultural Europe, Aldershot: Avebury.
Rath, J. (1991) Minorisering: De Sociale Constrcte van Ethnische Minderheden, Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Utrecht.
Rex, J. (1986) 'The Concept of a Multi-Cultural Society', Occasional Papers,
Centre for Research in Ethnic Relations, Coventry: University of Warwick.
Rex, J. and B. Drury (eds) (1994) Ethnic Mobilisation in a Multi-Cultural Europe,
Aldershot: Avebury.
Rex, J. and S. Tomlinson (1979) Colonial Immigrants in a British City: a Class
Analysis, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 03:59 07 October 2013

Roosens, E. (1989) Creating Ethnicity, London: Sage.

Schierup, C.U. (1994) '"Culture" or "Agency": Ethnic Mobilisation as a Swedish
Model' in J. Rex and B. Drury (eds) Ethnic Mobilisation in a Multi-Cultural
Europe, Aldershot: Avebury.
Schierup C.U. and A. Alund (1987) Will They Still be Dancing? Integration and
Ethnic Transformation amongst Yugoslav Immigrants in Sweden, Stockholm:
Almqvist and Wiksell.
- (1990) Paradoxes of Multi-Culturalism, Aldershot: Avebury.
Scott, A. (1992) 'Political Culture and Social Movements' in S. Allen, P. Braham
and P. Lewis (eds) Political and Economic Forms of Modernity, Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Tonnies, F. (1955) Community and Association, translated by C. Loomis, London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Touraine, A. (1971) The Post-Industrial Society: Tomorrow's Social History: Classes,
Conflict and Culture, London: Fontana.
- (1977) The Self-Production of Society, Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Wieviorka, M. (1994) 'Ethnicity as Action', in J. Rex and B. Drury (eds) Ethnic
Mobilisation in a Multi-Cultural Europe, Aldershot: Avebury.