Interrogating Indian

Society-II UNIT 12 RACE AND ETHNICITY*

Structure
12.0 Objectives
12.1 Introduction
12.2 Defining Race
12.2.1 Race as a Social Construction
12.2.2 Racism
12.3 Ethnic Group and Ethnicity
12.3.1 Ethnic Group: Definition and Characteristics
12.3.2 Ethnicity
12.4 Theories of Ethnicity
12.4.1 Primordialist School of Thought
12.4.2 Instrumentalist School of Thought
12.4.3 Situative-Primordial Approach
12.5 Difference between Race and Ethnicity
12.6 Let Us Sum Up
12.7 References
12.8 Specimen Answers to Check Your Progress

12.0 OBJECTIVES
After going through this Unit, you will be able to:
define the idea of race, racism;
provide definition and characteristics of ethnic group;
discuss the concept of ethnicity;
present the theories of ethnicity; and finally;
describe the differences between race and ethnicity.

12.1 INTRODUCTION
You learnt about the basic ideas of religion and its linkage to society. How Indian
society is a pluralistic society where differences between people are cross-cutting
on the basis of language, culture, religion etc. Here in this unit on ‘Race and
Ethnicity’ another distinction is being explained to you which reflects the diversity
of India. This Unit will discuss the idea of race and ethnicity. These concepts are
frequently used to describe some of the social phenomena of present times.
Here, we will initially try to understand the classical definitions of race and
ethnicity, ethnic group, its characteristics, etc. We will also elaborate various
theories of ethnicity to understand race and ethnicity and how it works in today’s
world. Race and ethnicity are used in sociological discourse to understand various
social structures of power, inequality, stratification, etc. Though, the concepts
like race and ethnicity are considered as biological but such concepts have deeper
meanings and social constructions. Moreover, they are not just social

170 * Contributed by Prafulla Kumar Nath, Assam University

constructions, rather they lead to creation of various identities and marginalization Race and Ethnicity
of different social groups. Let us elaborate these concepts and ideas associated
with them to understand them in a more lucid manner.

12.2 DEFINING RACE

In a common parlance race is understood as the external physical features of
various human beings whose categorization depends upon such features like the
skin colour, facial features, height, etc. Race is thus a category of human beings
due to some of the physical features including skin colour and other facial
features.If we see people from various continents and countries, we will see that
most of the people of Europe are largely having fair skin where as people of
Africa are often having black skin. Apart from the skin colour, some people
have curly hair, some have straight hair, some people are short and some are
relatively taller. Similarly, we can see differences in shape and size of nose, lips,
etc. Depending upon these differences people are clubbed in various groups
popularly known as race, such as, Caucasian, Mongoloid, Negroid, etc. These
categories are considered as biological i.e. they are inherited, hence widely race
is regarded as a biological category. Thus, a racial group is described as a group
having similar physical traits. It is a condition where a group sees similar
characteristics between themselves and sees others as different. Such kinds of
divisions were made basically by the physical anthropologists during 18th century
and considered as scientific classifications of human beings.

The idea of race emerged during 18th and 19th century when European countries
started colonising the rest of the world. Such categorization helped to establish
the whites Men supremacy over other populations, as well as, domination and
conquest. The ethnocentrism of the whites prevented them to look humans as
species rather than categorizing them in terms of physical appearances. Along
with the physical features most of the times behavioral characteristics were also
added to various races. Frederick Farrar in 1866 lectured on the “Aptitude of
Races” where he divided people into 3 groups based on civilization:
Savage: All Africans, indigenous people, people of color (with the exception of
the Chinese).
Semi savage: Chinese who were once savage type but now well civilized.
Civilized: European, Aryan and Semitic peoples.
Carolus Linnaeus, a German Taxonomist, classified human beings into four
categories depending upon the skin colour:
1) American (Red)
2) European (White)
3) Asian (Yellow)
4) African (Black)
He also said that Americans are ill-tempered, subduable, Europeans are serious
and strong, Asians are melancholy and greedy, and the African are listless and
lazy.

Though, race is considered to be biological but in sociological understanding,

race is considered as a social construction rather than biological. Many authors 171
Interrogating Indian consider race as a category of social stratification. Smedley (1998) argues that
Society-II
till 17th century there was no historical record that the idea of race existed. He
further argues that race is “premier source of human identity” (Smedley, 1998,
p. 690). He says that:

“The term race had been used to refer to humans occasionally since the sixteenth
century in the English language but was rarely used to refer to populations in
the slave trade. It was a mere classificatory term like kind, type, or even breed,
or stock, and it had no clear meaning until the eighteenth century. During this
time, the English began to have wider experiences with varied populations and
gradually developed attitudes and beliefs that had not appeared before in Western
history.This reflected a new kind of understanding and interpretation of human
difference.”

The Europeans colonized parts of Africa, Asia and other countries and justified
their claim of superiority over others. They took help of religion, beliefs and
ever science. They legitimized the slavery of the blacks, supremacy and various
other rights of the whites. Such beliefs of racial superiority of the whites they
believed gave them the rights to colonise other populations. The racial distinctions
and the physical features normalized the idea that whites are superior and others
are lesser form of human beings.

12.2.1 Race as a Social Construction

Though it is widely believed by many that race is a biological category but,
sociologists, social scientists and even biologists argue that race is not a biological
or inherited category rather it is a social construct. As we have mentioned above
initially, it was presumed that race is biological, historical and scientific but
nowadays it is considered as a myth. The biological studies over race and its
genetics indicate that within a so called given race much more variations are
found than between the races. It implies that there are no special genetic markers
to differentiate people in the name of race. Two people from the same race have
even sometime more differences in comparison to the people of different races.
The diversity of people many a times are influenced by the geographical locations.
So, there is no biological base of classifying people. There is a social basis of
their classification. It has its own history and politics of classifying people. The
creation of racial identities is a process of creation of hierarchies between people,
thereby, some groups enjoy power and privileges. The idea of race hence has no
scientific basis. The skin colour of people varies due to the presence of pigment
and melanin in the skin.

12.2.2 Racism
As historians and other scholars admit the fact that humans originated in Africa
and migrated to different geographical locations in various phases of history.
People adopted the geographical differences and adopted the favorable traits
suitable in these particular environments. Moreover, there is so much of
intermixing between people that biological category has already been lost.

During the 18th and 19th century the colonial powers in different places of the
world used racism to establish their supremacy. They even took the help of
religion and science to establish their racial supremacy and differences. Darwin’s
172
theory of “survival of the fittest” was used by the colonial powers to justify their Race and Ethnicity
genocide and racism. This theory means that the strong would survive and the
weak would die. They considered themselves stronger than others and hence,
they legitimized their supremacy of power and race. The colonized also
legitimized slavery as well as lots of other myths to create subordination of the
Blacks and other colonized people. Race is a process of creation of ‘othering’,
i.e. the process by which you separate yourself from other people in terms of
superiority and inferiority. This is also a process through which some people are
marginalized, dominated and controlled. It also creates various kinds of
stereotypes in our society. The racial categorization was made to accept the fact
that whites are superior to the others and also gave the legitimacy to it. Thus, the
idea of race was not scientific rather a process of racialization of groups. We can
sum up that race was a social construction where cultural meaning is attached or
imposed on it. Even the very idea of race has changed over time. For example,
in Brazil and other countries, the class position is more important than the colour.
Even the inter-racial marriages are taking place within the white dominated
countries. However, the point being framed is that race is a social construct.

Activity 1
From the internet, download the film by Spielberg, “Schindler’s List” or read
Anne-Franks diary written as a victim of the Holocaust during II Word War,
when Jews were killed emmass. Write an essay on ‘Racism’ in at least two
pages and discuss with other students at your Study Center.

Check Your Progress 1

1) Define and discuss the concept of race in about 10 lines.
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................

2) What do you understand by racism?

.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................

12.3 ETHNIC GROUP AND ETHNICITY

Ethnicity in simple language is the sense of belongingness of an individual or
group to an ethnic group. An individual or group, how they relate himself/herself/
themselves to a particular ethnic group due to various cultural traits is said to be
ethnicity. Hence, ethnicity is more a cultural than biological. However, there are 173
Interrogating Indian debates on the idea of ethnic group and ethnicity as some scholars believe that
Society-II
ethnicity is natural and some scholars believe that it is a social construction.
Hence let us elaborate the idea of ethnicity and ethnic group.

12.3.1 Ethnic Group: Definition and Characteristics

An ethnic group is best understood in terms of its ancestry; i.e. how the members
of the group relate themselves to a particular mythical character or a myth about
how it originated. It is thus a common belief among the members that they are
descendents of a particular mythical character or of similar origin. As such,
ethnic group is best understood in terms of a collectivity – being a member of
the group. The collectivity may be through blood relation, language, culture,
kinship ties, religion etc.

Hutchinson and Smith consider six characteristic features of an ethnic group:

i) a common proper name, to identify and express the “essence” of the
community;
ii) a myth of common ancestry that includes the idea of common origin in
time and place and that gives an ethnic a sense of fictive kinship;
iii) Shared a historical memories, or better, shared memories of a common
past or pasts, including heroes, events, and their commemoration;
iv) one or more elements of common culture, which need not be specified but
normally includes religion, customs, and language;
v) a link with a homeland, not necessarily its physical occupation and ancestral
land, as with diaspora peoples; and
vi) a sense of solidarity on the part of at least some sections of the ethnic’s
population (Hutchinson and Smith 1996, 6-7).
Box 12.0

The origin and resurgence of ethnicity lie in intergroup contact, that is, when
different groups come into contact with one another’s sphere of influence. Of
course, the shape it takes depends on the conditions in that society. The second
point is that ethnicity is used to meet the present demands of survival for the
oppressed groups. When subjugated groups find it difficult to tolerate the
dominance of others and make efforts to improve their position, ethnicity is
generated. (Ref. IGNOU, 2010, ESO-14 Block 3, pg. 9)

Schermerhorn on the other hand describes ‘ethnic community’ or ‘ethnie’ to

understand the content of an ethnic group. He holds, “An ethnic group is defined
here as a collectivity within a larger society having real or putative common
ancestry, memories of a shared historical past, and a cultural focus on one or
more symbolic elements defined as the epitome of their peoplehood. Examples
of such symbolic elements are: kinship patterns, physical contiguity(as a localism
or sectionalism), religious affiliation, language or dialect forms, tribal affiliation,
nationality, phenotypical features, or any combination of these. A necessary
accompaniment is some kind of consciousness among members of the group”
(Schermerhorn1978, 17).
Thus, Schemerhorn looks into various elements which form an ethnic group.
174 Such elements are kinship ties, language, religion, etc.
Anthony D Smith defines ethnie (ethnic communities) as “a named human Race and Ethnicity
population with shared ancestry, myths, histories and cultures, having an
association with a specific territory and a sense of solidarity” (Smith 1986: 32).
Here, Smith refers to the ethno-symbolic importance of a group, where shared
past and the history binds the members of the group.

The classical anthropologists have given some characteristics of an ethnic group;

as given below:
It is largely biologically self-perpetuating.
Shares fundamental cultural values, realized in overt unity in cultural forms.
It makes up a field of communication and interaction.
It has a membership which identifies itself, and is identified by others, as a
continuing category distinguishable from other categories of the same order.
(Narroll 1964, quoted in Barth 1969, 12-13)
Fredrik Barth however, in his analysis of ethnic group added the idea of boundary
to understand the ethnic group. He holds that it is not the cultural markers that
makes a group distinct rather the boundary makes it distinct. He holds that “the
ethnic boundary that defines the group, not the cultural stuff that it encloses”
(Barth 1969, 15). He further says that the social interactions make a group distinct.
The common belief or the subjective understanding that cultural markers make
a group distinct replaced by Barth saying that the processing of boundaries
differentiate a group from other groups. As such, ethnicity is largely based on
social interactions with other groups. Ethnic boundaries hence are the products
of social action. The social contacts create the distinction of a group in relation
to other groups. Eriksen holds that “group identities must always be defined in
relation to that which they are not. In other words, the identity is defined in
relation to non-members of the group” (Eriksen, 1993: 10). The ethnic groups
are understood with the cultural differences with other groups. The ethnic groups
are not found in isolation but found in relation to other groups only.

Box 12.1
Those aspiring for higher positions in administration equipped themselves
with Persian and its later version Urdu, nationalist in conformance with their
nationalistic and patriotic needs produced rich literature in regional dialects
and languages. Oral tradition became the most significant tool for protecting
rich cultural and linguistic heritage of each ethnic group. Orientalist admit
that the literature available in native Indian languages is far richer than the
produce of English Language, which rules the roost in the world today. English
made in roads into Indian cultural fabric as a vector for modernization and
political empowerment. In the post independence period, it came to be
projected as the language for the powerful and rich, it also acquired natural
acceptance in the early period of language riots.
(Ref: IGNOU, 2010, ESO-14, Block 3, pg. 42)

12.3.2 Ethnicity
As we have mentioned above, ethnicity is the sense of belongingness of individual
or group to a particular ethnic group. As an individual of this group you share
cultural markers which make your group distinct from others. Hence, his/her 175
Interrogating Indian sense of group identity is said to be ethnicity. Eriksen defines ethnicity as an
Society-II
aspect of “social relationship between agents who consider themselves as
culturally distinctive from members of other groups with whom they have a
minimum of regular interaction. The first fact of ethnicity is the application of
systematic distinctions between insiders and outsiders or between ‘Us’ and
‘Them’. If no such principle exists, there can be no ethnicity” (Eriksen 2002,
12-19).

12.4 THEORIES OF ETHNICITY

There are three schools of thought to analyse ethnicity in the social science
discourse. These are :
1) Primordialist school of thought
2) Instrumental school of thought, and
3) Situative primordialist school of thought.
The first two schools of thought i.e. primordialist and instrumentalist hold polar
opposite views on formation of ethnicity. The situative primordialist approach
has taken the elements from both these two thoughts. The primordialists believe
that ethnicity is a given category and one’s ethnicity cannot be changed. The
instrumentalists argue that ethnicity is a construction constructed by the elites
of a community, and it is a social, political and a cultural construction. Let us
discuss these three kinds of thoughts on ethnicity separately.

12.4.1 Primordialist School of Thought

The primordial school believes that ethnicity is innate; i.e. ethnicity is the fixed
or given characteristic of individuals and community. It believes that ethnicity
is ascriptive. It is achieved through birth. It is permanent and can not be changed.
The ethnicity or the ethnic identity goes with her primordial attachment to a
group. Shils, Glazer, Moynihan, Rex, are some of the scholars associated with
this school of thought who believe that ethnicity is a primordial phenomenon.
For them, ethnicity is “subjectively held sense of shared identity based on
objective cultural and regional criteria” (Phadnis & Ganguly 2003, 23).

American sociologist Edward Shils in 1957 in his essay on “Primordial, Personal,

Sacred and Civil Ties: Some Particular Observations on the Relationship of
Sociological Research Theory”, developed the idea of the primordial. He looked
into different kinds of social bonds between members in modern society. Shils
examined the public civil ties in modern societies as well as primordial ties
existing in family, religion and ethnic groups. In such kinds of ties the
manifestation of such ties occurs in the symbols and ceremonies or occasions.
(Shils1957, 130-145). For Shils, various primordial ties may be real or imaginary,
but what is important, is that it relates the community to its historical origin.
Similarly, the kinship ties bind the members to a common ancestor. In modern
societies also such kinds of primordial ties exist. Moreover, Shills also says that
the culture that is shared by the members can be considered as naturally given.
Thus, ethnic bonds are natural and given. They can not be acquired. As a result,
primordialism gives the scope to identify a community in terms of kinship
relations, and ancestry.
176
The idea of primordialism was further developed by the American anthropologist, Race and Ethnicity
Clifford Geertz. He holds that :

“The primordial attachment means something ‘given’ – In such attachments

culture is inevitably involved. The social existence is given with contiguity and
kin connection of the idea of ‘givenness’ stems from being born into a particular
religious community, speaking a particular language, or even a dialect of a
language, and following particular social practices. These congruities of blood,
speech, custom, and so on, are seen to be inevitable. The social existence is,
born and given with certain degree of coerciveness. The primordial attachment
shapes the identify (Geertz, 1964, 259-60)

The Primordial school of thought thus, looks ethnic bonds as primordial, ancient,
natural, emotional and given. Thus, ethnicity is considered as static and
naturalistic. But the major problem with the priomordalistsis that they have failed
to explain about different kinds of identities that emerged at different points of
time. Similarly many kinds of identities also get decayed or changed. They do
not take into account the dynamic character of identity and the foundation of
now identity.

12.4.2 Instrumentalist School of Thought

The instrumentalists look at ethnicity not in terms of the primordial qualities but
they consider ethnicity to be socially and politically constructed over time.
Ethnicity is a necessary instrument in achieving certain goals. The
instrumentalists treat ethnicity as the social, political and cultural resource for
different interest groups. Paul Brass, Ted Gurr and Abner Cohen are some scholars
who belong to this school of thought.

As mentioned, for the instrumentalists, ethnicity is a construction, constructed

by the elites of a particular group for certain interest of the group. Since, ethnicity
is a construction, the ethnic boundaries become flexible and changing over time.
Paul Brass argues that the “cultural forms, values and the practices of ethnic
groups become political resources for elites in competition for political power
and economic advantages. They become symbols and referents for the
identification of members of the group, which are called up in order to create a
political identity more easily. The symbols used to create a political identity
also can be shifted to adjust to political circumstances and the limitations imposed
by the state authorities” (Brass 1991,15).
Brass thus argues that ethnicity is constructed by the elites of a group. The
major motive behind such construction is to share or occupy the state resources
both political and economic. He explains that elites select the cultural tools and
define the ethnicity of the groups. He says, “elites and counter-elites within
ethnic groups select aspects of the group’s culture, attach new value and meaning
to them, and use them as symbols to mobilize the group, to defend its interests,
and to compete with other groups (1979: 40-41). In support of his claim that
ethnicity is a construction, Brass explains that “ it is quite obvious that there are
very few groups in the world today whose members can lay any serious claim to
a known common origin, it is not actual descent that is considered essential to
the definition of an ethnic group but a belief in a common descent” (ibid,70).

177
Interrogating Indian 12.4.3 Situative-Primordial Approach
Society-II

The situative-primordialist approach examines both the schools of thought of

ethnicity. This approach claims that primordialist and instrumentalist approaches
raise many questions but do not answer them in the present global scenario.
Carsten Wieland in his situative-primordialist approach criticizes the other two
approaches which agree that. It is to be mentioned that the above two approaches
agreeing in some points that ethnicity is a process of group formation. The
primordialists consider ethnicity as given, natural and objective and hence ethnic
group is a solid unit but Wieland in his approach takes ethnicity as an independent
variable in comparative politics. According to him, ethnic factors independently
influences the political outcomes (ibid,18).

The instrumentalist approach on the other hand considers ethnicity as

construction. It is subjective and flexible and constructed by the elites of a
community. The, ethnic group is also an interest group but Wieland holds the
view that an ethnic group and the ethnicity are the products of exterior influences,
and hence, they are dependent variables but, as soon, as they one formed, they
independently influence the decision-making processes.

Criticizing these two approaches, Wieland argues that as primordialists consider

ethnic groups as natural and ethnic identity as fixed, they do not prove their
assumptions. They are unable to explain why some ethnic groups decay, some
reappear, some merge and how now identity is formed. They are also unable to
explain why some ethnic characteristics are more important than others and
why some ethnic groups fight each other and others co-operate. Wieland has
also criticized the instrumentalists because they do not explain how the ethnicity
is socio-politically constructed and what is the force operating within ethnicity
that the people can be mobilized based on ethnic factor and they may be ready
to die for their culture ad ethnic origin (ibid, 20) Wieland has critically responded
to the primordial and instrumental approaches to ethnicity. He has developed
his own situative-primordial approach. Wieland argues that ethnicity is both a
dependent and independent variable as explained above. He argues that the
ethnicity is a modern invention. In the formation of ethnic groups selective
cultural materials are used to generate force into it. He argues that some primordial
traits are used to form the ethnicity. Thus, it becomes dependent on primordialism
but it influences the society independent of its primordial origin.

Activity 2
Discuss with your family members; neighbours or friends to which part of
India they came from; in the sense of their ancestry and how they interact as
a social group. Write a page on “Identity and Belonging” and share with
your friends your ideas on the topic.

12.5 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RACE AND

ETHNICITY
We have seen that race and ethnicity are two different concepts used in social
science discourse. Many a times both the terms are used interchangeably but
there are some clear distinctions found between them. Although, both are
178 considered as a social construction in understanding of race the biological or
the physical features are important, in understanding ethnicity the cultural markers Race and Ethnicity
are important. Race is based on physical features where as ethnicity is based on
cultural traits. Ethnicity is defined by the shared culture, history, ancestry, etc.
of the members of a group. Race on the other hand can be defined as the shared
physical traits.
Check Your Progress 2
1) What is ethnicity and what are its major characteristics?
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................

2) Discuss one of the major theories of ethnicity in your own words.

.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................

12.6 LET US SUM UP

From the above discussion we have learnt that race and ethnicity are two distinct
social constructions. The 18th and the 19th century colonial anthropology and
science created the idea of race to create physical differentiation like skin colour,
facial or physical differences amongst people different from themselves. The
racial classification was used to create hierarchies among the races because it
served the interest of the colonial powers. They legitimized their rule on the
bases of races. The idea of ethnicity is the idea of group of people who believe
to have the same cultural origin, cultural similarities, same language, and religion,
etc. Though, race and ethnicity look to be natural, but we have learnt from our
discussion that they are two different social constructs.

12.7 REFERENCES
Barth, Fredrik, ed. 1969. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries; The Social Organization
of Cultural Difference. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Brass, Paul R. 1991. Ethnicity and Nationalism: Theory and Comparison. New
Delhi: Sage Publication.
Eriksen, Thomas Hylland. 2002. Ethnicity and Nationalism: Anthropological
Perspectives. London: Pluto Press.
Geertz, Clifford. 1964. Old Societies and New States: The Quest for Modernity
in Asia and Africa. Glencoe: Free Press. 179
Interrogating Indian Hutchiman, John and Anthony Smith. 1996. Ethnicity. New York: Oxford
Society-II
University Press.

Phadnis, Urmila and Rajat Ganguly. 2001. Ethnicity and Nation Building in
South Asia. New Delhi: Sage Publishers.

Schemerhon, Richard. 1978. ‘Ethnicity’. Hutchinson, John and Anthony D Smith

Smith. Ethnicity. Newyork: Oxford university Press.

Smith, Anthony. 1986. Ethnic Origins of Nation . New York: Basil Blackwell.

Smedley, Audrey. 1998. “Race” and the Construction of Human Identity”.

American Anthropologist. Vol. 100, No. 3 Sep. 690-702.

12.8 SPECIMEN ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR

PROGRESS
Check Your Progress I
1) Race is commonly understood as the external physical features of different
people from different parts of the world; such as, the white complexioned
Europeans, Blacks of Africa, mangolords, people of Asia, and so on. It was
defined by the physical anthropologists during 18th century based on physical
features it was also to associate certain mental characteristics with them.
Thus Farrar in 1866 divided human races into three groups –Savage, Semi-
Savage and civilized races.

2) Racism is the historical process by which we find during 18th and 19th
centuries the colonial powers used it to establish their supremacy. They
also used religion and science, sometimes to legitimize their supremacy;
such as Darwin’s theory of ‘natural selection’ and ‘survival of the fittest’
were some explanations used by the colonial rulers. Thus, racism is part of
social stratification in societies.
Check Your Progress II
1) Ethnicity is simply the sense of belonging or belongingess to a certain group
on the basis of certain cultural traits. It is a cultural rather than a biological
trait. Its major characteristics are based on certain historical memory of
belonging to a place or tracing a common ancestory from a mythical ancestor.
The ethnic belongingness is how people relate to this group on the basis of
blood i.e. ancestory, shared religion, language, culture, kinship ties, etc.

2) One of the three theories of ethnicity is the primordial school of thought.

It’s proponents believe that ethnicity is innate, it is a given characteristic of
individuals and community. This school of thought believes that ethnicity
is ascriptive i.e. you are born in a social group which you can not change.
Its main proponents are Edward Shills (1957); Glazer, Moynihau, etc.

180