crudest form, this argument implies a rigid
instrumentalismwherein thestate, viewed
as a tool of the capitalist class, enacts colonial
and immigration policies designed to create
differences within the working class in order
to fragment its solidarity (Bonacich, 1994; cf.
colonialism). More sophisticated Marxist
treatments of ethnicity have emerged in light
of growing ethnic and nationalist movements
in the late twentieth century: even these, how-
ever, tend to portray ethnicity as a regressive
force deflecting people from their ‘real’ mater-
ial interests (Williams, R.M., 1994b).
Another variant of the constructionist view
emphasizes the relational causes of ethnic
identification – that is, ethnic groups acquire
their identity not alone, but in relation to one
another. For example, early-twentieth-century
immigrants from the southern Italian penin-
sula to North America brought the parochial
loyalties of their village origins (see chain
migration); in their new, displaced context,
however, these local affiliations were united
into a broad consciousness of being ‘Italian’.
This emergent ethnicity was the product of a
host of factors, including similar religious
expressions, common languages, geopolitical
events, occupational segmentation, residential
segregation and the way in which these
immigrants were perceived and categorized
as Italians by others around them (Yancey,
Ericksen and Juliani, 1976). The construc-
tionist view is also best suited to explain the
ways that identity shifts as circumstances
change. For example, a person can legitim-
ately identify her/himself as English in the
UK, British in other European countries,
European in Asia and ‘white’ in Africa.
However, while constructionist theories help
us understand the variability of ethnic attach-
ments and identities, their very flexibility
makes it impossible to develop a systematic
account of ethnicity. In fact, the very factors
that cause ethnic consciousness to emerge in
some contexts impede it in others, which tends
to make theorization inherently difficult and
incomplete.
Over time, ethnic solidarity may be perpetu-
ated or may dissipate. The processes govern-
ing the dynamic between cultural retention
versusassimilationare exceedingly complex,
but researchers generally agree that the nature
of the social boundaries between ethnic
groups is critical. Boundaries are maintained
when individuals maximize their interactions
with those within their ethnic group while
minimizing their interactions with others.
This occurs when separate social, political
and educational institutions are established
within different groups. According to Fredrik
Barth (1969), boundaries created between
groups can be resilient even when the cultural
practices of the groups are no longer distinct-
ive. In many cases, ethnic boundaries become
entrenched in space, such as in the formation
of ethnic neighbourhoods in cities.
Geographers have shown a long-standing
interest in documenting the causes and conse-
quences of urban ethnic segregation. Much of
this work stems from the conceptualization of
human ecology articulated by Robert Park
and other members of thechicago school
in the early twentieth century. During the
1960s, attention focused on plotting ethnic
‘ghettos’, devising ways to measure the
degree of ethnic segregation (seeindices of
segregation), and formulatingpublic policy
to integrate ethnic and racialized groups across
the city. By the end of the decade, a concern
for ethnic residential patterns entered the
mainstream of urban theory and increasingly
sophisticated models of urban land use were
devised. This type of work came under intense
criticism after the 1970s. On the one hand,
the relationship between the degree of social
tolerance and residential patterns is not
entirely clear; that is, a high level of segrega-
tion is not necessarily the result of discrimin-
ation, just as residential mixing does not
necessarily indicate the absence of discrimin-
ation (see Peach, 1996b). On the other hand,
studies of segregation have relied almost
exclusively on census data. Ethnicity is defined
in most censuses by respondents’ national or
‘racial’ origin, and is therefore a poor indicator
of ethnic affiliation (e.g. all those of Polish
descent are lumped into the same category,
whether or not they identify with that cultural
heritage; see Petersen, 1997). Furthermore,
such classification of people perpetuates
the idea that there are distinct races, and the
censusitself may be implicated in the raciali-
zation of minorities. Given these criticisms,
the number and significance of data-intensive,
quantitative studies of ethnicity declined in the
1980s. However, this type of work has been
revived subsequently as the number of immi-
grants in European and North American cities
has increased and as immigration policy has
become more intensely debated.
Geographers have also devoted considerable
energy studying the racialization process, espe-
cially as it impinges on people’s access
to housing and the labour market (e.g.
Anderson, 1991b; Jacobs, 1996). The regula-
tory practices of government are highlighted inGregory / The Dictionary of Human Geography 9781405132879_4_E Final Proof page 216 1.4.2009 3:17pmETHNICITY