MODULE CODE: SOC 401

FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

MODULE: RACE, CLASS AND IDENTITY

GROUP ASSIGNMENT: 1

REG No SURNAME NAME LEVEL

R1912767N SUMBURETA INNOCENT. T 4.1
R193291f MATARISE JUDITH 4.1
R1913221N MUSINDO TINASHE 4.1
R1910386P ZINYONI TONGAI. L 4.1
R199322C NYONI THUBELIHLE 4.1
R197148J MUSONZA TANYARADZWA 4.1
R1913855N KATOMA NIGEL 4.1
R1910678V CHAPETA VIMBAI 4.1
R1914204X SHUMBA TAFADZWA. N 4.1
R1915003R MATHUTHU BRIAN. N 4.1
QUESTION: Compare and Contrast the ideas of Anderson and Barth on
Race and Ethnicity.

The publication of Fredrik Barth's Ethnic Groups and Boundaries in 1969 signalled the
beginning of a new phase in ethnic studies in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Both Benedict
Anderson's Imagined Communities (1983) and Hobsbawm and Ranger's The Invention of
Tradition (1983) contributed to a paradigm shift in the early 1980s. While Barth's
methodology concentrated on "the social organization of ethnic differences," as the book's
name indicates, Hobsbawm, Ranger, and Anderson both discuss the development and
evolution of ethnic identities. The second shift's message was that the most important thing to
investigate should not be "what motivates ethnic group conduct," but rather "the existence of
the group itself" Young (1993). The ethnic group was now seen as an imagined community,
making ethnicity research more of an examination of ethnic consciousness. The goal of this
essay is to contrast and compare Barth and Anderson's writings on race and ethnicity.

Starting with the similarities while also highlighting how the two critique one another, both
approaches focus on providing explanations and on ethnicity, and any constructivist approach
has its own issues. Constructivist theories of ethnicity fall short of explaining how ethnicity
and ethnocentrism are universal. The majority of people experience and view ethnicity as
being primordial, according to Berreby (2005), Van den Berghe (1987), and kinship is the
most potent idiom in both ethnic groups and nationalism. Anderson (1996). In contrast to
actual cultural characteristics or differences, Barth and his adherents emphasize the cognitive
and symbolic boundaries between collectives in their work Barth, (1969). Therefore,
boundary-making, or the processes of categorization and border formation, is the main area
of interest for anthropologists who research ethnicity. Norms, morals, religion, or other
cultural practices that define the collective's way of life are less important than the boundary
itself. Contrary to primordialist theories, the shared way of life among a collective's members
is not considered as the cause of cultural barriers, but rather as one of their effects. This
suggests that membership may be flexible and that boundaries are dynamic. Despite the
functional significance of cultural boundaries, individuals from one collective can join
another.

Furthermore, the constructivist approach of the current research on ethnicity is also reflected
in more recent studies on modern nationalism. The concepts of nation and ethnic group have
in common the idea of a culturally homogeneous collective. If both ethnic groups and nations
can be understood as imagined communities Anderson (1988), the discourse of the nation is
generally characterized by its central reference to an existing or desired state. Since identity
politics based on ethnic arguments bind the presence of a group-specific culture to the
criterion of descent, they contribute significantly to the production and consolidation of social
and political boundaries. The reference to an ethnic or national identity can be seen as a
political strategy, or a “strategic essentialism” Spivak (1988) that social actors use in their
struggle for the recognition and enforcement of concrete political goals. Through Barth’s
work, lines of argument have been prominent in the study of ethnicity, depending on the
scholarly viewpoint. First, that ethnicity is a collective identity that is based on shared
meanings and cultural practices and that engenders a sense of belonging Geertz (1963).
Second, that ethnicity is socially constructed and may use or abused for political purposes
Cohen (1974); Brubaker (2002); and third, that ethnicity emerges from the interplay of
different groups and is most pronounced at ethnic boundaries Barth (1969). All three
approaches have their merits, and they have been complemented by a argument that ethnicity
ought to be studied in a historical perspective so as to understand its emergence and
transformation over time, as well as the factors that have contributed to it.

Following Max Weber (1976) the concept of ethnicity refers to the belief that the cultural
identity of a person or a group is based on the idea of belonging to a specific community of
descent. It should be emphasized that ethnic and other social identities are essentially based
on a combination of self-perception and external attribution. While older, essentialist
interpretations have focused mainly on the supposed objective characteristics language,
religion, and so on, of ethnic groups, more recent constructivist approaches, following
Fredrik Barth, have stressed the situational and relational design and changeability of ethnic
identities. In Anderson’s writing “‘imagined community’ while citizenship is a political
concept deriving from people’s relationship to the state. In other words, nation-ness and state-
ness need not be, and increasingly are not, aligned. However, despite the fact that one can
clearly distinguish the two concepts, there are also theoretical grounds for expecting the
obvious confusion of sense of self as a citizen and sense of national identity that is expressed
in many historical and biographical accounts. Furthermore, both concepts are, historically
speaking, closely intertwined since they not only emerged simultaneously in Enlightenment
political discourse, but were also conceived as two sides of the same coin: a socio-political
community of equal citizens unified by a shared nationhood Gellner (1995).
Moreover both Anderson and Bath in there works discussed the constructivist approach to
ethnicity as is the dominant one, and has its merits Wimmer (2010). Boundaries are accepted
as a major aspect of ethnicity Orywal (1986). A central contested point, however, is the
existence and relevance of cultural difference. A broad consensus since Fredrik Barth´s work
is the idea that boundaries are more relevant and more persistent than differences within the
‘cultural stuff’. Employing the concept of ethnicity in such a broad way deprives the
possibility of distinguishing among quite different bases for categorization and social
cohesion. It seems more fertile to differentiate ethnicity from other principles of social
organization such as cohabitation common residence, kinship, political loyalty, dynastic ties
or religious cult membership, which often go beyond or crosscut linguistic or cultural
boundaries. While kinship has a gradual and segmentary logic. That is one can have closer or
more remote kin ethnicity implies a binary logic, you are either a member of the group or you
are not. In this view, ethnicity refers to a particular form of social cohesion in groups that
cannot be integrated merely by direct social, economic, or kin relationships. They are
therefore, like nations, “imagined communities” Anderson (1991) because they are larger
than face-to-face groups and lack the latters’ particular means of enforcing compliance with
social norms among their members Elwert (1989). One divergence among scientists pertains
to the importance of these ethnic boundaries. Whereas cultural studies tend to speak of
‘cultural landscapes’, cultural anthropology, along with biological anthropology and political
science, tends to stress the existence and permanent importance of cultural boundaries

However, despite the similarities there are also ideas outlined by Anderson different from
Barth’s point of view. As per Anderson, ethnicity is often conflated with identity. However,
ethnicity is more static, in cases where biological traits are included, or more fluid, if it is
based upon an imagined community Anderson (1983). In contrast, theories of identity
acknowledge its possibility of change and adaption. The result of this conflation the notion of
an ethnic identity is therefore not going to provide substantial explanations of group relations
Chandra (2006). Regarding the linkages between ethnic identity and culture, Eriksen shows
the incongruences between the two: “Cultural differences cut across ethnic boundaries; and
ethnic identity is based on socially sanctioned notions of cultural differences, not ‘real’ ones.
While ethnic identity should be taken to refer to a notion of shared ancestry (a kind of fictive
kinship), culture refers to shared representations, norms and practices. One can have deep
ethnic differences without correspondingly important cultural differences; and one can have
cultural variation without ethnic boundaries Eriksen 2001), emphasis in original.
In addition to Anderson, the socio-cultural identities that become most prevalent in societies,
and which can be used to form national or ethnic identities, (Holst 2012) it seems that socio-
cultural identities based on language and on moral value systems such as religion can easily
become salient points of reference in a society. When we now regard ethnic group
membership rather as a socio-cultural identity that is defined, for example, by the criteria of
speaking a certain language and practicing or at least being influenced by a specific religion,
two things become evident. First, for most people in a given society, language as well as
moral value systems such as religion are among the few elements that define them from
childhood onwards. Second, these aspects constitute probably the largest reference groups
that people can somehow relate to at least on an abstract or in Anderson’s terms, “imagined”
(1983) level because the former enables people to communicate about the values derived or
seen to be derived from the latter. Thus, coming back to our multi-faceted left-leaning social
activist.

Moreso, cultural difference have changed dramatically in the course of time, varying with
social complexity and organization. As Gellner argued, for most of human history political
units were small tribal or village units; city states; feudal segments loosely associated with
each other or higher authority; dynastic empires; the loose moral communities of a shared
religion, Anderson (1991). Political and cultural units rarely coincided, and there is nothing to
indicate that men have found this divergence either inconvenient or unnatural Gellner (1964).
For a feudal system, for example, there was no need for lord and peasant to speak the same
language or to share a similar culture.

Turning to Barth’s ideas, the conceptual differences sketched above notwithstanding, most
scholars would probably agree that the term ‘ethnicity’ should be employed for a subclass of
the distinctions people make. Thus, the question arises as to what features make such
distinctions ‘ethnic. The debate about ethnicity has been considerably hindered not only by
the diversity of usages but also by a vague and imprecise utilization of the term. Max Weber
(1922; 1980) stressed that there was no one-to-one relationship between cultural differences
and ethnicity. This insight was popularized by Barth (1969), several decades later. However,
in the older as well as in some of the more recent scholars, cultural differences are equated
with ethnicity. The problem is particularly apparent in archaeological studies that have to rely
entirely on material remains to reconstruct the past. Beyond this, all kinds of social groups
and categories are referred to as ‘ethnic’ in the literature.

In addition, recent approaches build on Barth’s classic insights (1998; 1969), his earlier and
later empirical studies and refinements and critiques of these (Gronhaug et al. (1991); Pascht
et al. (1999) and Bailey (2001. Recent works are critical of the focus on boundaries and on
ethnic groups as units Banks (1996). One post Barthian shift in anthropological ethnicity
research refers to the traits used in the process of othering by the actors. The criteria for
differentiation from others often do not derive from members of these groups but are
attributed to them by other people or other collectives. These other groups for exampole
colonial powers or the national state – provide terms, criteria, and categories for and about
collective groups through censuses, Eriksen (2010). In this vein, there is a sharpened focus in
research on religion, power, and economy as factors forming ethnicities, and on systems of
ethnic stratification as well as economic segmentation and specialization according to
ethnicity.

Barth (1969) raises a fundamental critique against defining an ethnic group in this
‘traditional’ manner, especially because while purporting to give an ideal type model of a
recurring empirical form, it implies a preconceived view of what are the significant factors in
the genesis, structure, and function of such groups. The result is “a world of separate peoples,
each with their culture and each organized in a society which can legitimately be isolated for
description as an island to itself. However, not everybody seems to see themselves as part of
such an island: Hutchinson and Smith (1996), highlight that the usages of the term ethnicity
refer to other peoples who, like animals, belong to some group unlike one’s own.

In conclusion, Ethnic Groups and Boundaries by Fredrik Barth marked the transition to a new
era of ethnic studies in the late sixties and early seventies. The Invention of Tradition and
Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson played a similar role in a paradigm shift in the
early eighties. While Barth's approach focused on 'the social organization of ethnic
differences', as the subtitle of the book indicates and Anderson's book, topics like the creation
and transformation of ethnic identities are addressed.
REFERENCES

Anderson, B. (1991): Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of

Nationalism, London: Verso. Online at www.pdfdrive.com (accessed 11/11/2022).

Anderson, B. (1983): Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origins and Spread of

Nationalism, London/New York: Verso. Online at www.pdfdrive.com (accessed 11/11/2022).

Barth, F. (1959): Political Leadership Among Swat Pathans., London: Athlone Press
(London School of Economics Monographs)

Barth, F. (1969): Ethnic Groups and Boundaries, Boston: Brown and Company Online at
www.thriftbooks.com (accessed 11/11/2022).

Berreby, D. (2005): Us and Them. Understanding Your Tribal Mind, New York/Boston:
Little, Brown.

Brubaker, R. (2004): Ethnicity without Groups, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press

Chandra, K. (2012): Constructivist Theories of Ethnic Politics, Oxford: Oxford University

Press. Online at www.pdfdrive.com (accessed 11/11/2022).

Creswell, J. (2003): Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods

Approaches, London: Sage Publications.

Eriksen, T. H.(2010): Anthropology, Culture and Society. Ethnicity and Nationalism.

Anthropological Perspectives, London: Pluto Press. Online at www.thriftbooks.com
(accessed 11/11/2022).

Gellner, E. (1995): Nations and Nationalism, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Glazer, N., Daniel P. (1975): “Introduction.” In: Nathan Glazer/Daniel Moynihan (eds.),
Ethnicity – Theory and Experience, Cambridge Harvard University Press, pp.1–26. Online at
www.pdfdrive.com (accessed 11/11/2022).

Hall, S. (2000): “The Multicultural Question. In: Pavis papers in social and cultural
research, pp. 1–26. Online at www.thriftbooks.com (accessed 11/11/2022).

Wimmer, A. (2010): “Ethnische Grenzziehungen: Ein konstruktivistischer Ansatz.“ In:

Marion Müller/Darius Zifonun (eds.), Ethnowissen. Soziologische Beiträge zu ethnischer
Differenzierung und Migration, Berlin: VS (Soziologie der Politiken), pp. 99–152. Online at
www.pdfdrive.com (accessed 11/11/2022).