ethnicity.Many use the term only to refer to
minority groups, assuming that people in the
majority are ‘normal’ while everyone else is
‘ethnic’. While this usage of the term was con-
sidered acceptable in the nineteenth century, it
is no longer correct. In fact,everyonehas an
ethnic background, whether or not it is
acknowledged. In most situations, people can
only afford to be unaware of their ethnicity
when they are in a privileged position (see
whiteness).
A second ambiguity ariseswhen the terms
ethnicity and race are used interchangeably,or
when they are seen as variants of the same
classification system. For example, it is often
thought that people can be divided into three
or four broad racial groups and that each has a
number of ethnic subdivisions (e.g. race¼
Caucasian, ethnicity¼Italian). However, it
is exceedingly difficult – many believe impos-
sible – to discern discrete ‘races’: the genetic
mixing of human populations defies such a
simplistic classification system (see race).
While there are obvious phenotypical and
genetic differences between people, there is
only one human race, a point emphatically
made by the United Nations. Throughout
history, though, people have beenracialized
by others for particular reasons. Most com-
mentators agree thatracializationis necess-
arily a negative process, where one group
chooses to define another as morally and/or
genetically inferior in order to dominate and
oppress it: racialization is always animposed
category. Phenotypical features, such as skin
colour or facial structure, are then interpreted
as evidence that the two groups are indeed
separate ‘types’ of people and are used stra-
tegically to demark the boundaries between
groups (cf.apartheid). Once defined, such
boundaries are extremely difficult to cross.
Racialized minorities become ethnic groups
when they achieve social solidarity on the basis
of their distinct culture and background.
Racialization therefore facilitates the develop-
ment of ethnic consciousness, which may be
harnessed by minorities in their struggle
against discrimination (e.g. the Black Power
movement of the 1960s in the USA or the
Palestinianintifada), but does not necessarily
lead to ethnic group formation. While external
forces are important in the generation of
ethnic consciousness, the most basic differ-
ence between race and ethnicity is that ethnic
affiliation arises from inside a group; ethnicity
is a process of self-definition.
However, ethnicity is not uniformly import-
ant to all people: the degree of ethnic identity
and attachment varies strongly between and
within societies. Many of the most cohesive
ethnic groups have emerged after the conquest
of aterritoryby an external power. In these
cases, ethnic attachment and nationalism are
powerfully fused as people affiliate to ensure
the survival of their culture, religious practices
and access to employment opportunities. The
goal in these struggles is usually political inde-
pendence. Occasionally, tensions in poly-
ethnic states become so extreme that ethnic
loyalty becomes the overriding social force
shaping the polity. The genocide of Jews in
Nazi Germany is a repugnant example of this
tendency, as are the recent attempts at ‘ethnic
cleansing’ (the forced removal of all minor-
ities from an area) in parts of the former
Yugoslavia and elsewhere. migration is
another impetus for the development of heigh-
tened ethnic consciousness. Immigrants often
face hostility within the societies they enter,
and form ethnic bonds and associations to
increase their political credibility, economic
viability and sense of social belonging.
Whereas conquered groups tend to fight for
independence,diasporicgroups fight for the
right to be included in their new societies as
equal participants.
Acknowledging the variability of ethnic
affiliation, theorists have long debated the
causes of ethnic identity and division. Two
distinct views dominate the literature: ethni-
city as primordial, or absolute, versus ethnicity
as constructed, as the outcome of other social
processes (Jenkins, 1996; Hale, 2004). Those
advocating the former see ethnicity as a basic
form of affiliation that naturally emerges as
people are socialized into cultures with long
histories; children are born into ethnic
groups and develop deep-seated attachments
to them. The most extreme primordial pos-
ition is taken by sociobiologists, who believe
that ethnicity is a legacy of the struggle for
foodand shelter (Van den Berghe, 1981). In
this controversial perspective, ethnic solidarity
is seen as an extension of the biologically
driven feelings that link individuals to their
nuclear family and kin. These researchers find
it difficult to explain why some people place
little value on their ethnic origin and culture
whileotherschooseto express their ethnicity
even when it is disadvantageous to do so.
Researchers advocating constructionist views,
conversely, assert that ethnic attachments arise
in specific contexts, for specific reasons.
Marxists, as mentioned, often minimize the
importance of ethnicity by arguing that it is a
displaced form ofclassconsciousness. In itsGregory / The Dictionary of Human Geography 9781405132879_4_E Final Proof page 215 1.4.2009 3:17pmETHNICITY