ethnic cleansing, with its emphasis on borders
and separation, becomes a means to consoli-
date a political geography of security.
They raise important questions about the leg-
acy of ethnic cleansing, and what happens
when the displaced attempt to return to the
territories from which they were removed.ajs
Suggested reading
Dahlman and O ́ Tuathail (2005a); Naimark
(2001).
ethnic democracy An ethnically differenti-
ated form ofdemocracyarticulated by soci-
ologist Sammy Smooha during the early 1990s
(see ethnicity). ‘Ethnic democracy’ (ED)
is characterized by the allocation of equal
political and civilrightson an individual level
to all citizens (seecitizenship)and the parallel
preservation of collective political rights of the
dominant majority only. Ethnic democracy
underscores the structural inequality that
characterizes some formally democratic but
ethnically dominated nation-states (seedem-
ocracy). The ED model maintains that the
allocation of equal individual rights qualifies
this regime as a democracy – even in the
absence of minority collective rights – and
claims that this explains its relative political
stability. The ED model has sparked a lively
debate both theoretically and substantively in
relation to Israel/Palestine (Ghanem, 1998;
Shafir and Peled, 1998; Smooha, 2002). oy
ethnicity Ethnicity is one of the most dif-
ficult concepts in the social sciences to define:
researchers disagree on the meaning of the
term; social groups differ in their expressions
of ethnicity; and some theorists challenge the
credibility of the concept in the first place (see
Banks, 1996). The etymology of this term
dates back to ancient Greece, where the word
ethnoswas used to refer to a distinct ‘people’.
The wordethnicoriginally entered the English
language as an adjective applied to non-Judeo-
Christian peoples. The first instance of the
word ethnicityused as a noun occurred in the
early 1940s, when researchers sought to find a
replacement for the word ‘race’ once it had
become associated with the genocidal policies
of the Nazi party (seegenocide). In contem-
porary usage, ethnicity is seen as both a way in
which individuals define their personal iden-
tity and a type of social stratification that
emerges when people form groups based on
their real or perceived origins. Members of
ethnic groupsbelieve that their specific ancestry
andculture mark them as different from
others. As such, ethnic group formation
always entails both inclusionary
and exclusionary behaviour, and ethnicity is a
classic example of the distinction people make
between ‘us’ and ‘them’ (cf. difference;
other/otherness;subject).
Whilemuchattentionwasgiventotheoriesof
ethnicity and the nature of ethnic groups in the
early twentieth century, especially in the USA
(seechicago school), interest waned in the
postwar period. Theliberalismthat came to
dominate the intellectual climate by mid-cen-
tury was predicated on a belief in the autonomy
of individuals. Within the discourse of liberal
individualism, the notion that people modify
their actions because of their ethnic loyalties is
suspect, and generally considered a fading rem-
nantofpre-moderntimes.Theversionofmarx-
ismthat challenged liberalism in the late 1960s
was equally dismissive of ethnicity, claiming
that ethnic attachments were fostered by capit-
alistsandthestateinordertodividetheworking
class(e.g.Bonacich,1972).Bythe1970s,many
leading social theorists had abandoned the
studyofethnicity,associatingitwithantiquated
views of society and conservative politics. This
dismissive attitude began to change in the
1980s, however, when it became clear that eth-
nicity was not losing its salience; on the con-
trary,identity politicswere on the rise, and
ethnicnationalismhad become a primary
force in the most violent struggles around the
world, especially in the post-cold warera – a
turn of events unanticipated by liberal and
Marxist scholars alike (Berking, 2003). The
fact that over 90 per cent of the world’s nation-
states are poly-ethnic suggests that this type of
conflict is likely to continue (see also
multiculturalism).
It is worth reflecting upon this point.
Historically, the idea of anation-statewas
founded on the principle of ethnic homogen-
eity in the form of a people ornation, which
held control over a boundedterritory,or
state. It is debatable whether this simple cor-
respondence between people and territory
ever existed, but it is certainly clear that con-
temporary nation-states are characterized by
multiplicity rather than mono-ethnic singular-
ity. This has led to much discussion of
the relationship between ethnicity, the nation
andnationalism (e.g. Banton, 2004). As
Dunn (2003b) and Amin (2004a) point out,
national cultures continue to reflect outmoded
assumptions of ethnic homogeneity, to the
detriment of minority groups (cf. Chow,
2002). This leads to one of two prominent
confusions surrounding the concept ofGregory / The Dictionary of Human Geography 9781405132879_4_E Final Proof page 214 1.4.2009 3:17pmETHNIC DEMOCRACY