An Analysis of Ethnicity

‘thought can only kneel at the absolute sovereignty of the physical world’

(Sahlins, 1976 : 207)

In the United Kingdom the ethnicity of an individual has often proven to be problematic for those whose ancestral lineage is not autochthonous to these British Isles (Hall, 1997). The ethnicity of an individual can have serious consequences depending on the society in which they dwell. The ethnicity of the unarmed African American men and women who are routinely killed by police officers in the United States, for victimless crimes, are considered to be testament to this (Spencer and Perlow, 2018). In the United Kingdom, a recent survey by Opinium reported that racial abuse against ethnic minorities, rose from 64% in January 2016 to 76% in February 2019, a situation recently heightened by the decision of the British people to no longer be governed by external institutions based within the European peninsular (Booth, 2019). Globally, discussions on ethnicity amongst those classified as ethnic, have been of paramount concern in establishing indigenous rights, based on their ethnicity (Eriksen, 2010). Narratives surrounding 'ethnic' and 'ethnicity' are now commonplace within society, and so a discussion on its significance is apt (May et al, 2004; Eriksen, 2010; Eriksen and Jakoubek, 2018).

In this essay I attempt to defend the view that ethnicity can be a useful category, particularly for those classified as a minority in given societies. It will begin with a look at the renowned Nordic anthropologist Fredrik Barth’s (1959) theoretical framework on ethnic groups. His theory on this has had a strong influence on the view of ethnicity amongst many contemporary anthropologists (Eriksen and Jakoubek, 2018). An alternative perspective will be presented through an analysis of ethnicity as a form of identity amongst the descendants of Africans subjected to a chattel slave system for over three hundred years, who are reliant on an ethnic identification for a sense of identity (Franklin, 1974; Jalata, 2013; Petley, 2018).

The Etic Perspective of Ethnicity

The significance of Barth’s (1969) analysis of ethnicity and culture to the discipline of anthropology cannot be overstated. His theoretical framework on this subject is often used by contemporary anthropologists when discussing the relevance of individuals, or institutions, that use ethnicity as a form of identification. Eriksen and Jakoubek (2018) suggest the work undertaken by Barth (1969), was most likely inspired by the research conducted by Haaland (1967) in Sudan.

Haaland (1967) observed the primary vocation of the Fur (who speak their own Fur language) is to farm, whereas the Arabic speaking Baggara focus on the nomadic life associated with migratory cattle husbandry, although both seemed similar in appearance. Both the Fur and the Baggara are practitioners of Islam. What Haaland (1969) found to be of particular interest was how the Fur would choose to ‘become’ Baggara, for reasons ranging from intermarriage with Baggara women to becoming cattle herders themselves (Eriksen and Jakoubek, 2018: 2). Haaland (1967) would conclude that the decision of certain Fur individuals to ‘change’ their ethnicity to Baggara, was fundamentally taken for economic reasons as the herding of cattle proved to be far more lucrative than their traditional means of existence. In this regard, the significance of ethnicity is of great importance to both the Fur and the Baggara. However, for Haaland the notion of an individual appearing to ‘change’ their ethnicity would be of great importance to the ethnographer in the field, who must oftentimes determine which ethnic group a people belong to. Haaland presented his findings at the 1967 symposium on ethnic groups and boundaries (Jakoubek and Budilova, 2018: 188-189).

Following the 1967 symposium, Barth edited and published Ethnic groups and boundaries: the social organization of culture difference (1969), as a collection of multi-authored essays regarding ethnicity. The theoretical framework promoted by the authors of the essays, sought to explain the specific processes that were used by people to form their ethnic groups (Barth, 1998: 5). At the time this book was originally written, the accepted anthropological view was that the ethnicity of a group of people could be determined by their cultural practices, and too, that these same cultural practices could then be used to determine a discontinuous ethnicity and identity of all the individuals that comprise this group. The aim of the 1967 Symposium, and the following publication of essays in 1969, sought to correct this view within the social sciences, but particularly within anthropology (Jakoubek and Budilova, 2018: 189). Barth’s introduction is the most well-known, and often cited, section of the book. The other essays written by his anthropological compatriots, such as Haaland, are made up of essays that sought to establish the idea of the fluidity of ethnicity amongst particular ethnic groups, and therefore constructed and not primordial. For Haaland, as previously discussed, this was achieved through his research within Sudan (Barth, 1969: 59).

Barth (1969) contends that whilst the boundaries used to determine the ethnicity of a group is established by the individuals that make up the group, it is not a fixed phenomenon. Nonetheless, even though the individual can decide what ethnic group they choose to be identified with, the ethnicity of the group remains unchanged. However, the most important outcome of Barth’s 1967 symposium, was to successfully change the narrative within anthropology from the focus on cultural features as a way to determine which ethnic group people belonged, to one appreciating that the individuals within a specific group decided which cultural traits should or should not be used as a form of identification for their ethnic group (Jakoubek and Budilova, 2018: 189). As a result of the symposium and the publication of Ethnic groups and boundaries: the social organization of culture difference (1969), the general perspective of ethnicity for many anthropologists would reflect the view that ethnicity could no longer be viewed as a fixed phenomenon determined by one’s genetic ancestry, but a malleable one determined by the social distinction set by the individual (Eriksen and Jakoubek, 2018: 1).

The Emic Perspective of Ethnicity

I do find myself questioning Haaland’s conclusions, based upon the experience of my wife’s paternal grandfather. My wife is a member of the Agikuyu[1] ethnic group in Kenya. My wife and family all live in an area that is, and has always been, recognised as the land of the Agikuyu based on and around the base of what is named Mount Kere-Nyaga[2] (Mount Kenya). She was raised by a Gikuyu father and mother, although her maternal grandmother was Wakamba, her maternal grandfather was also Gikuyu. As such, my wife clearly identifies herself as a Gikuyu. Of particular interest in the context of this discussion, is how her paternal grandfather has spent the past four decades living with his Meru wife in Meru land. To grandfather he is Agikuyu. He did not forget his Gikuyu identity, although he would no doubt have spoken the Meru language. At this moment he has returned to his Gikuyu family to celebrate the new year. When I asked my wife if Grandfather changed and thought he had become a Meru, I was greeted with a smile reserved for the Muzungu (foreigner), asking silly questions. However, she stated “At no time did he think he was a Meru man … yes of course he did live with in and commune with the Meru people, but this is not anything special”. My concern with the popular anthropological view, is if Barth and Haaland had observed this Mūgīkūyū man in Meru land, would they have concluded he had ‘changed’ his ethnic identity to Meru?

This particularly anthropological perspective could prove to be problematic for the individual who is a descendant of the Africans that were enslaved within the Caribbean and the American continents, and by extension the ethnographer conducting research on such individuals (Elder, 1988). These individuals are the descendants of a people who were subjected to the most extreme methods of torture specifically designed to remove all aspects of ethnic identity (Franklin, 1974; DeGruy, 2010; Elgersman, 2013). One’s ethnicity can prove to be of great import in determining a sense of identity. The identity an individual chooses to subscribe to often determines how they will view themselves both sociologically and psychologically (Kambon and Reid, 2010). Within the theoretical framework of interpellation, Althusser (2006) suggested that an individual’s identity is, invariably, socially constructed. In essence they will determine how society should see them. Mead’s (2015) symbolizing focussed on how the individual links their sense of self to how they imagine they are perceived by members of society, which can, in many instances, be determined by their own sense of ethnicity. Discussing the significance of identity to the African’s of America from a psychological perspective, Akbar (2004) suggests the ‘view of a people's fundamental human identity carries major implications for their moral, social, intellectual and motivational life’ (ibid, p. 91), and as such contribute to some fundamental aspects of culture, as determined by their ethnic group (Barth, 1969).

For over half a century two unique issues of ethnicity and identity have plagued these African descendants; first there is the issue of those who are seemingly unwilling to acknowledge themselves as being of African descent, preferring instead to inaccurately refer to themselves by the colour black; the second issue is establishing the identity based on ethnicity and geographical location of these new world descendants (Elder, 1988: 9). After several decades of ethnographic research in the Caribbean Island of Trinidad and the West African nation of Nigeria, the noted African-Caribbean anthropologist J.D. Elder (1988) successfully identified the ethnicities of the African cultures that had survived the brutal regime of chattel slavery on that island.

Where Elder (1988) was able to identify the persistence of various African cultural traditions in Trinidad, in places such as the United States and the United Kingdom individuals have now turned to genetic ancestry tracing techniques from organisations such as African Ancestry (Johnson, 2014). This company claims to be able to provide Africans, without a knowledge of their ethnic origin, a means to begin reconstructing both collective and individual genetic histories (Shriver and Kittles, 2004). The significance this has on the identity of Africans without a knowledge of their own heritage should not be understated. Contemporary African American geneticists have led the way in seeking empirical evidence of ethnicity in the form of genetic ancestry tracing (Nelson, 2016). The past two decades has seen an exponential rise in the sale of genetic DNA testing kits among both African American and African-Caribbean people (Shriver and Kittles, 2004).

There are concerns about the use of genetic testing to determine ethnicity. Due to the deplorable historical use of scientific racism to justify prejudice and discrimination towards Africans, there are those who suggest the use of genetics to determine and classify people by ethnicity, could further sustain such scientific methods such as the infamous eugenics movements, under the guise of obtaining and furthering science (Duster, 1990). The argument is also made that there has been constant interbreeding between groups of humanity, so it is not feasible to speak of fixed ethnic boundaries between groups (Eriksen, 2010: 6). Individuals such as I who choose to take the route of determining their ethnic identity via a personal genetic history (PGH) company, such as African Ancestry, must however allow for the limitations of genetics based research. Whilst the genetic ancestral lineage can be determined, one must realise that this is limited to one ancestor per generation, with no indication about the potentially thousands of other ancestors in their lineage (Shriver and Kittle, 2004: 615). Nevertheless, an emic perspective of this issue will only serve to highlight a deep seated desire to be able to reconcile and restore knowledge of one’s past, through ethnicity and familial lineages, a knowledge that has been lost for over five hundred years. Being able to associate oneself with an ethnic identity, and more importantly it’s rich cultural and historical heritage, lost during the centuries of systemic chattel enslavement in the Caribbean islands and American continents, is and will continue to be of paramount concern to those seeking to reclaim their own long-lost heritage (Henrik-Clarke, 1996: 131; Nelson, 2016).

Conclusion

This essay set out to determine what purpose ethnicity can serve as a method of categorisation. It began with Barth’s (1969) theory on ethnicity based on his own research in Pakistan, as presented at the 1967 symposium, where it was suggested, anthropologists should no longer seek to determine the ethnicity of a particular group based on their cultural practices. It was now also clear that individuals within a group can decide which ethnic group they choose to belong to, making the concept of ethnicity fluid in nature and not fixed. This conclusion was questioned with an ethnographic example of my Kenyan wife’s Gikuyu Grandfather who had spent several decades with a Meru wife in Meru land, and yet neither he, nor anybody else, would consider him to have ‘changed’ his ethnicity to Meru. This was followed by an analysis of this popular anthropological perspective on ethnicity for individuals such as me, who are descended from a group of people forcefully stripped of all ethnic identity. I suggested that such individuals will consider the loss of such cultural heritage and the history of their own familial links to be of great personal value and significance as a contribution to their sense of identity.

The theoretical frameworks promoted by anthropologists on the substance of ethnicity, clearly highlight the ability of individuals to adopt the cultural aspects of any ethnic group. However, the anthropologist who chooses to conduct research among individuals denied knowledge of their own personal familial lineage and related ethnic grouping should acknowledge the importance of ethnicity to such as them. I chose to set the overall tone of this essay with a quote from Sahlins (1967) highlighting the significance of the physical and empirical over the theoretical. For these same individuals, the possibility to reconstruct information on their own ethnic heritage through the physical evidence of genetic ancestry tracing is clearly going to be of immense importance. The ethnographer hoping to conduct research on such individuals from the emic perspective, will need to be aware of the historical perspective for such individuals, and realise that one theoretical glove does not necessarily fit all.

[1] This document uses the correct terminologies for Gīkūyū spellings. As such, Agīkūyū refers to the people as a whole; Mūgīkūyū refers to the individual; and Gīkūyū refers to the language of the Agīkūyū.

[2] This mountain is recognised as one of the many abodes for NGAI the name given for the divine creator of all things (Kenyatta, 1965: 225).