1. Chapter 6 Individuals and Identities: Race and Ethnicity
© David Eller 2009

2. “Races” and “ethnic groups” are important elements and actors in the modern world, but they are not groups that have existed unchanged since the origin of humanity
“black tribes” exist in northern South America, but they did not come into existence until the 1700s, after Africans arrived in the Western hemisphere
© David Eller 2009

3. Humanity is a single species, but a various diverse species
physically diverse
behaviorally and historically diverse
Humans can be and have been categorized and organized by this diversity—but in diverse ways
© David Eller 2009

4. Like gender categories and systems, race and ethnic categories and systems are part of a cultural ontology Like gender, race uses physical differences to establish “types” and to assign people to these types and then to assign qualities, tasks, and value to these people
© David Eller 2009

5. For the vast majority of anthropologists, races are not “real” or “objective” entities but rather social constructs: the “reality of race” resides in “a set of beliefs and attitudes about human differences, not the differences themselves” (Audrey Smedley) There are physical differences between human individuals, but the social meaning and use of these differences is more important than the differences themselves
© David Eller 2009

6. Five objections to the race concept:
no agreement on the number of races
race classifications select from among the many physical traits of humans
race classifications, evaluations, and applications are unstable over time
there is more diversity within race categories than between them
race categories frequently make claims beyond physical ones, including psychological and even moral claims
© David Eller 2009

7. The race concept is a relatively recent one in Western societies and has a complex and troubled history. Linnaeus ( ) was one of the first to classify humans into distinct categories or subtypes based on color—white, black, red, and yellow.
© David Eller 2009

8. Homo europaeus: “white, sanguine, muscular. Hair flowing, long
Homo europaeus: “white, sanguine, muscular. Hair flowing, long. Eyes blue. Gentle, acute, inventive. Covered with close vestments. Governed by laws”
Homo afer: “black, phlegmatic, relaxed. Hair black, frizzled. Skin silky. Nose flat. Lips tumid. Women without shame. Mammae lactate profusely. Crafty, indolent, negligent. Anoints himself with grease. Governed by caprice”
Homo americanus: “reddish, choleric, erect. Hair black, straight, thick; nostrils wide; face harsh; beard scanty. Obstinate, merry, free. Paints himself with fine red lines. Regulated by customs”
Homo asiaticus: “sallow, melancholy, stiff. Hair black. Eyes dark. Severe, haughty, avaricious. Covered with loose garments. Ruled by opinions”
© David Eller 2009

9. recognized diversity within the “five principal races”
Johann Friedrich Blumenbach ( ) introduced the term “Caucasian” among five races including African, American, Asian, and Malayan
recognized diversity within the “five principal races”
acknowledged that races overlap
still, argued that races differ in “perfection,” with Caucasians most perfect and other races the result of degeneration
© David Eller 2009

10. The questions “how many races are there
The questions “how many races are there?” and “what are the qualities of races?” are less important than “what is a race classification for?” and “what is its social origin and—still more significantly—its social function or effect?” (Washburn) In other words, the race categories are less important than the “racial thinking” that generates race categories
© David Eller 2009

11. Racial thinking = “the (erroneous) belief that humanity is divided into scientifically observable, homogeneous, and mutually distinct biological ‘types.’ Importantly, it assumes that these types exist transhistorically, that is, that these categories exist…as natural facts, and that these categories existed throughout time, whether people in a particular era realized it or not” (Eissenstat)
© David Eller 2009

12. races are “exclusive and discrete biological” entities
According to Smedley, North American racial thinking has five distinct features:
races are “exclusive and discrete biological” entities
races are fundamentally unequal, and the relations between races are necessarily hierarchical
“the outer physical characteristics” of races are “but surface manifestations of inner … behavioral, intellectual, temperamental, moral, and other qualities”
all of the qualities of a race are “natural” and genetically inherited—and inherited as a single indivisible bundle
therefore, the differences and hierarchies between races are immutable, “fixed and unalterable, [and] could never be bridged or transcended. ”
© David Eller 2009

13. measured faces, limbs, but especially skulls and brains
The late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were the age of “scientific racism” in the United States, attempting to find physical evidence for the reality—and inequality—of races
anthropometry = the measurement of human physical traits, in this case to establish the quantitative differences between races
measured faces, limbs, but especially skulls and brains
© David Eller 2009

14. psychological and cultural traits are separate from physical traits
Anthropology has been critical of the race concept from its first days.
Franz Boas:
race is a vague concept
psychological and cultural traits are separate from physical traits
races are not closed groups but have mixed and intermingled (no “pure races”)
Physical traits are not static but change in response to environment
© David Eller 2009

15. that they “are naturally of a child-like character”
Melville Herskovits The Myth of the Negro Past (1958) refuted five myths about African-Americans:
that they “are naturally of a child-like character”
that they are unintelligent since “only the poorer stock of Africa was enslaved”
that because slaves came from all parts of Africa, they had no common culture
that whatever culture they did have was “so savage and relatively so low in the scale of human civilization” that they quickly lost it
that “the Negro is thus a man without a past”—and presumably therefore only a man (and woman) with a racial body
© David Eller 2009

16. Ashley Montagu called race “man’s most dangerous myth”
all humans are of mixed ancestry
“race” is not a scientific concept
race is a way of translating cultural differences—especially economic and political differences—into physical differences
anthropologists should abandon the term “race” altogether
© David Eller 2009

17. Manning Nash focuses not on race categories but on the underlying “ideology of race”: “a system of ideas which interprets and defines the meanings of racial differences, real or imagined, in terms of some system of cultural values. The ideology of race is always normative: it ranks differences as better or worse, superior or inferior, desirable or undesirable, and as modifiable or unmodifiable. Like all ideologies, the ideology of race implies a call to action; it embodies a political and social program; it is a demand that something be done.”
© David Eller 2009

18. According to Nash, an ideology of race will emerge when:
there is a conflict between two or more groups distinguishable in physical terms
there is a division of labor based on this distinction which results in the “subordination or systematic deprivation of one group”
the subordinate group resists or refuses its subordination
the dominant group needs to justify the subordination to itself (subordinated group as naturally inferior)
© David Eller 2009

19. From the American Anthropological Association Statement on “Race” (1998) “The ‘racial’ worldview was invented to assign some groups to perpetual low status, while others were permitted access to privilege, power, and wealth … . Given what we know about the capacity of normal humans to achieve and function within any culture, we conclude that present-day inequalities between so-called ‘racial’ groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance but products of historical and contemporary social, economic, educational, and political circumstances.”
© David Eller 2009

20. The Cultural Construction of Ethnic Identity
Like races, ethnic groups are not objective or natural “things” but social concepts with social meaning and function
part of a cultural ontology
© David Eller 2009

21. Anthropological interest in ethnic groups focuses on the relations between these groups (including discrimination, oppression, and genocide) and to the processes by which the groups are formed and maintained = ethnogenesis Some ethnic groups are ancient, and some are recent cultural creations
© David Eller 2009

22. Max Weber defined an ethnic group as a human collectivity “that entertain[s] a subjective belief in their common descent because of similarities of physical type or of customs or both, or because of memories of colonization and migration; this belief must be important for the propagation of group formation; conversely, it does not matter whether or not an objective blood relationship exists.”
© David Eller 2009

23. Weber noticed that
ethnic groups need not be very culturally different from each other (that is, a small cultural difference is sufficient to construct an “ethnic” difference)
they need not be very internally culturally homogeneous (that is, there may be considerable diversity within the ethnic group)
any cultural trait—language, religion, clothing, cuisine, and so on—can suffice to distinguish one ethnic group from another
© David Eller 2009

24. Recent definitions of ethnicity include:
“subjective symbolic or emblematic use of any aspect of culture [by members of a group], in order to differentiate themselves from other groups” (DeVos 1975: 16)
the “character, quality, or condition of ethnic group membership, based on an identity with and/or consciousness of group belonging that is differentiated from others by symbolic ‘markers’ (including cultural, biological, or territorial), and is rooted in bonds to a shared past and perceived ethnic interests” (Burgess 1978: 270).
© David Eller 2009

25. According to Fredrik Barth, an ethnic group has four key qualities:
it is “largely biologically self-perpetuating” generally through endogamous marriage
it “shares fundamental cultural values”
it “makes up a field of communication and interaction”
it “has a membership which identifies itself, and is identified by others, as constituting a category distinguishable from other categories of the same order”
© David Eller 2009

26. Andrew Greeley identified six features of ethnic groups: 1
Andrew Greeley identified six features of ethnic groups: 1. a presumed consciousness of kind rooted in a sense of common origin 2. sufficient territorial concentration for members to interact with each other most of the time and to reduce interaction with members of other groups 3. a sharing of ideals and values by members of the group
© David Eller 2009

27. 4. strong moralistic fervor for their ideals and values, combined with a sense of being persecuted by those who do not share them and hence are not members of the group 5. distrust of those who are outside the group, combined with massive ignorance of them 6. a strong tendency in members of the group to view themselves and their circle as the whole of reality, or at least the whole of reality that matters
© David Eller 2009

28. marital relations and endogamy
Anthropologists are generally most interested in how ethnic groups are created, perpetuated, and related to each other—ethnic boundaries and ethnic relations
Manning Nash explains ethnic boundaries in terms of “blood, bed, and cult”
kinship relations
marital relations and endogamy
shared beliefs and practices (“rituals”)
Also, often land or territory
© David Eller 2009

29. Ethnicity is about identity, but it is identity + interest
ethnicity is a style of social action, specifically and commonly political and economic action
an ethnic group may be an identity group, but it is also, in most cases, an interest group and often a competitive group
interests of ethnic groups include money, land, power, housing, jobs, education, rights, survival, respect, and sovereignty
© David Eller 2009

30. Thomas Hylland Eriksen: category (minimal identity and mobilization)
There are various types and levels of ethnic identity and ethnic mobilization
Thomas Hylland Eriksen:
category (minimal identity and mobilization)
network
association
community (maximal identity and mobilization)
© David Eller 2009

31. Therefore, five different types of ethnic groups/relations:
urban ethnic minorities (usually as the result of migration)
indigenous peoples (usually as the result of colonialism and conquest)
proto-nations, that is, groups that “claim that they are entitled to their own nation-state”
ethnic groups in plural societies
post-slavery minorities
© David Eller 2009

32. Gurr and Harff propose a different system of ethnic groups:
ethnonationalists
indigenous peoples
communal contenders
ethnoclasses
© David Eller 2009

33. creates social boundaries that are defended
Like race categories, ethnic categories classify and explain human differences and establish (more or less) sharp and permanent separation between groups
creates social boundaries that are defended
results in “social distance” (Bogardus)
© David Eller 2009

34. Simpson and Yinger identified six types of intergroup relations:
pluralism
assimilation (cultural, structural, racial)
legal protection of minorities
population transfer
continued subjugation
extermination
© David Eller 2009

35. Examples of race/ethnic systems:
United States: traditionally, binary races (black vs. white) based on political-economic experience of slavery
South Africa: official separation of races (apartheid)
Brazil: “racial democracy” based on multiple and fluid race categories
Mexico: la raza or “cosmic race” based on race mixing
Japan: discrimination against physically-indistinguishable burakumin
© David Eller 2009