International Migration and Ethnic Relations

Critical Perspectives

Magnus Dahlstedt, Anders Neergaard

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781317655893
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

Each day, in so many aspects of daily life, we are reminded of the significance of migration and ethnicity. This book is a critical contribution to the understanding of the phenomena of migration and ethnicity, from a Swedish vantage point looking outwards towards a European context. It presents current academic debates and gives a theoretical overview of nine key concepts in the field of ethnic and migrations studies, but it also exemplifies how these concepts could be used in analysing specific empirical cases. It explores the following concepts: ethnicity; migration; diaspora; citizenship; intersectionality; racism; right wing populism; social exclusion; and informalisation. The book is interdisciplinary, embracing areas such as labour studies, economic history, ethnicity, business administration, gender studies, literature studies, economics, educational science, social anthropology, social work, sociology and political science.

1 Ethnicity

The complexity of boundary creation and social differentiation

Tünde Puskás and Aleksandra Ålund

Although in our globalized world, multiethnic and multicultural societies are a reality, multiculturalism is increasingly identified as a problem related to cultural conflicts, in both public and political rhetoric. In everyday rhetoric these conflicts are often described in terms of hierarchical divisions between us – and – them, with the culture of the majority as norm setting (Ålund and Alinia 2011). The contemporary debate about the failure of multiculturalism in Sweden and in other Western European states is marked by arguments about the need to strengthen social, cultural and national cohesion within nation-states (for an overview see for example Goodhart 2004; Schierup and Ålund 2011). At the same time, debates about the limits of multiculturalism in relation to national cohesion often refer to issues of international migration and conditions of citizenship among immigrants and their children, who are termed new ethnic minorities. In Sweden, for example, national cohesion is thought to be strengthened, by among other things, a set of common values and a common cultural heritage, mediated through the educational institutions.

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the basic theoretical approaches in research on ethnicity and nationhood and to illustrate with the help of empirical examples how the two concepts intersect. Key themes and areas of concern are discussed from an integrated perspective, where ethnicity and nationhood are seen as connected. We argue that these concepts convey the idea that a community is based on cohesion, boundary maintenance and cultural differences, or a combination of these. We begin the chapter with an overview where we describe the main lines of the debates surrounding the concepts of ethnicity and nationhood in an academic context. Afterwards we illustrate the importance of different interpretations of the concepts. Our examples are drawn from the educational context because the school is a central arena for fostering and transmitting dominant perceptions of ethnicity and nationhood.

The concept of ethnicity

What is ethnicity? It is used in everyday, political and academic contexts to describe social groups, commonly referred to in terms of cultural markers such as common origin, language, norms, cultural practices and religion. Cultural markers are usually connected with concepts such as ethnic identity or ethnic identification, which in turn are used to denote individuals or groups of individuals who identify themselves or are identified by others in terms of ethnicity (Johansson 1999; Brubaker 2004). Minority groups, such as indigenous people and territorial minorities, are, as well as migrants, often described in ethnic terms, in both everyday language and social research. Ethnicity can be further understood as a form of social organization, as a social group category, marked by what is often perceived as shared culture, and it is at this point that ethnicity in the academic context becomes contentious (Ålund 2003). Is ethnicity a dynamic and changeable or a static phenomenon? How are ethnic boundaries created and maintained? How do the creation and maintenance of ethnic boundaries relate to nationhood? Are so-called hyphenated identities, created through the processes of ethnic boundary creation, connecting two or more national identities or do they connect a national identity with an ethnic one?

In this chapter, we approach ethnicity as a complex socio-cultural category that intersects with a number of others such as social class, gender and age. For migrants ‘near’ and ‘far’ are brought together, connecting memories and experiences from different worlds, as their sense of identity is affected both by global processes and local experiences. Their life stories and identity creation evolve from both their specific experiences of time and space as well as their social positions in terms of ethnicity, class, gender and age and their insider and outsider positions (see Chapter 5, Intersectionality). Therefore, ethnic identities should not be understood as fixed and unchangeable but rather be seen in terms of dynamic processes, or as narratives by which people identify themselves and are identified by others (Anthias 2002; Puskás 2009). Nor should group membership – defined in ethnic or national terms – be seen as immutable and historically inevitable.

Categorizations of complex social groups in simplified or stereotypically defined terms of, for example, culture and religion, can affect the conditions of individuals’ membership in the society and their citizenship rights (see Chapter 4, Citizenship). We wish to emphasize that when culture, ethnicity or nationhood are understood in static and reductionist terms this may negatively affect the relationship between ethnic minorities and a national majority, as well as on the right to belong and the conditions of citizenship in a given nation-state. The category of nation is of particular interest here, as it is often portrayed as being the antithesis of ethnicity: while the nation is deemed to represent the homogeneous and coherent category, ethnicity on the contrary represents deviance and heterogeneity. In other words, ethnicity often arises and derives its significance from an imagined cohesive and socio-culturally homogeneous political entity defined as a nation. Therefore it is important that the concept of ethnicity is understood and considered in relation to nationhood.

Development of ethnicity as a research concept

The concept of ethnicity was introduced as an independent analytical category in the 1960s and 1970s, but the foundations of research on ethnic groups were built on significantly earlier ethnological research in the 1800s. The concept entered the social sciences in the early 1900s with Max Weber’s sociology. According to his classic definition:

We shall call ‘ethnic groups’ those human groups that entertain a subjective belief in their common origin because of similarities of physical type or 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.

(Weber 1967/1914: 389)

This definition of what constitutes an ethnic group is still current, as it places emphasis on the subjective perception of a community based on similarities in traditions or common collective memories. In some cases it can even be traced back to similarities or differences of skin colour or other characteristics. Interestingly, Weber addresses neither common language nor religion, which today are often treated as important identifiers. At the same time, Weber’s definition signifies that the belief in ethnic solidarity can be tenacious and points to the importance of an interplay between social and cultural processes in the genesis of status groups and ethnic hierarchies. The status differences between social groups may be understood in terms of an ethnic dignity based on beliefs about differences between the customs of one’s own group and other groups. Thus, according to Weber, notions about inferiority within these groups may increase the in-group’s ethnic dignity (Weber 1967/1914). When several different status groups identified in ethnic terms meet in a particular society, ranks including hierarchies of power emerge. For example, in the 1920s in the United States the social and ethnic dignity of poor marginalized whites was dependent on the social degradation of the blacks.

Another prominent sociologist of the early 1900s, who had a strong impact on how we understand ethnicity, was Georg Simmel. His essay ‘The Stranger’ (1950/1909) is a classic contribution (see also Ålund 1995, 2012). ‘The Stranger’ – a person who is geographically close – becomes distanced from the society at large through various social and cultural processes. Simmel points out that the creation of a stranger has to do with a normality principle, which means that what are seen as norms by the majority of a society set the measure for what is to be regarded as deviant. Weber’s and Simmel’s views on how hierarchies, normality and deviance are created have been vital for the development of research on ethnicity because their theories contribute to the understanding of how social distance and social/cultural differences are created and maintained.

During the decades preceding the Second World War the theories that conceptualized ethnicity as something created in social interaction were overshadowed by research on race and theories of scientific racism (see Chapter 6, Racism). The idea that humanity could be divided into clear-cut racial groups was challenged in the aftermath of the war as race became increasingly seen as one of the many sociological categories constructed in social interactions rather than as a sociological category to be used as a basis for the explanation of social differences (Fenton 2010). Researchers interested in how differences between people are created and maintained began to put more and more focus on ethnicity, race and nationhood as socially constructed phenomena. Research in the 1950s and 1960s focused both on how the coexistence of different groups worked in traditional rural environments (Moerman 1965), and on how ethnicity was given different meanings in social relations between individuals and groups in urban ones (Mitchell 1968/1956; Cohen 1974).

Traditionally, researchers on ethnicity were considered to represent two different perspectives – primordialism and social constructionism – with a clear division between the proponents of the different interpretations of the concept. These theoretical perspectives represent two different assumptions about ethnicity, where the main issue is whether ethnicity and ethnic phenomena are natural, that is given in advance, or socially constructed. Social constructionists understand ethnicity as a changing, situation-bound phenomenon. Primordialists consider culture and identity as inseparable and as an organic base for ethnic groups and put an emphasis on cultural continuity with the past and a genuine community based on historical origins. Language, tradition, religion and territory are often thought to form the basis of ethnic identity, an understanding which equates it with nationality. This implies that ethnicity has a predetermined existence which is transmitted from one generation to another as inherited cultural baggage.

There are currently few ethnicity scholars who consider themselves primordialists. However, it happens every now and then that researchers are given this label by others. A recurring example is Clifford Geertz, who was accused of primordialism for stating that ‘for virtually every person, at almost all times, some attachments seem to flow more from a sense of natural – some would say spiritual – affinity than from social interaction’ (Geertz 1973: 259–260). In defence of Geertz, Jenkins (1997: 47) argues that it is clear from Geertz’s arguments ‘that what matters analytically is that ties of blood, language and culture are seen by actors to be ineffable and obligatory; that they are seen as natural’. Jenkins’ reading of Geertz reminds us of the fact that a particular interpretation of a text may lead to a situation in which a researcher who sees primordial bonds as constructed can be relegated to a primordialist position. Nevertheless, the primordialist position has been more or less absent from recent research.

A notable criticism of the view of ethnicity as something primordial and fundamental is formulated in an anthology published in 1969 with the title Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference (Barth 1969). According to the perspective presented there, ethnicity is an outcome of social, rather than cultural, processes. As indicated in the subtitle this implies that ethnicity is understood as a form of social organization on the basis of cultural differences. This points to culture as a human creation, anchored as much in social consensus (in terms of collective representations such as language, symbols, rituals or institutions) as in material causes. The social and the cultural are thus intertwined and therefore culture is not to be construed as a uniform and definitive product of settled symbols and meanings (Barth 1989). Thus, neither culture nor ethnicity can be defined as clearly delimited and internally uniform categories derived from an original source. Barth furthermore highlighted how ethnic groups arise in relationships to other social groups. His definition of ethnicity focuses on the boundaries that arise in social interaction and away from the cultural content that is enclosed. Ethnic boundaries and their maintenance are based on dichotomies; that is, on contrasting differences. This understanding has been crucial for current research. Thomas Hylland Eriksen, one of Barth’s followers, formulates his main idea as follows:

The ethnic group is defined through its relationship to others, highlighted through the boundary, and the boundary itself is a social product which may have variable importance and which may change through time. The group’s culture, as well as forms of social organisation, may change without removing the ethnic boundary. In some cases, groups may actually become culturally more similar at the same time that boundaries are strengthened.

(Eriksen 2002: 45)

This does not mean that ethnic groups generally arise and dissolve from one day to another. The established boundaries can be tenacious, even if individuals from different groups do cross them, for example through training, work or marriage. As an example, we may take the Jewish population in Germany that was de facto Germanized, i.e. assimilated by the beginning of the twentieth century. German Jews spoke German, many converted to Christianity and changed their surnames to more German-sounding ones. Marriages across borders became more common. A clear indication that differences in religion were not considered very significant is that in the early 1920s Germany had a foreign minister with Jewish ancestry. Everything was thrown over when Hitler came to power and the German Nazi party began to pursue anti-Semitic propaganda and policies that at first led to restrictions on Jews’ rights, then persecution and – finally – the Holocaust (Kaplan 2004). The example presents an extreme case where the distinctions between Jews and non-Jews were reinforced by rules, laws, and institutional and everyday practices.

In general, boundaries become more obvious in situations of conflicts, because some differences become focused on and interpreted in cultural, religious or linguistic terms. However, conflicts are not necessary for ethnicity to be given a prominent role in social relations. As examples we can mention multilingual countries like Canada and Finland where the conflicts over language resulted in different institutional solutions. Nevertheless, this is not to say that the distinctions in terms of language use and language background have become insignificant for social relationships in these societies.

Ethnicity as a concept in the social sciences is often connected with global economic and political processes and tensions as well as with the new social movements and forms of resistance that emerged in the context of the anti-colonial liberation struggle. International migration has contributed to the wider use of the concept; the relations between majorities and minorities in the countries of immigration have become increasingly interpreted in ethnic terms, both in Sweden and internationally. This trend has been apparent since the 1970s. As early as 1975, Nathan Glazer and Daniel P. Moynihan could declare that there was a new reality requiring new concepts which reflected the changes in the world. ‘The new word is “ethnicity” and the new usage is the steady expansion of the term “ethnic group” from minority and marginal subgroups at the edges of society… to major elements of a society’ (Glazer and Moynihan 1975: 5). Since that time, ethnicity has come to be used in studies of migration and relationships between new ethnic minorities and majorities. Key issues became more directed towards how ethnicity is made visible, how it becomes expressed, how it connects in time and space and how it becomes linked to the social, economic and cultural conditions of a specific national context.

In contemporary research the concept of ethnicity has been used in studies on migration and the processes of social inclusion and exclusion. In the meantime ethnicity has extended its embrace to research on social and cultural relations between majorities and minorities, as well as to the regulation of cultural pluralism in multicultural societies. Parallels have been drawn between ethnicity and race bringing the social construction of ethnicity (like race) into focus. Ethn...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Notes on contributors
• Introduction: critical perspectives on international migration and ethnic relations
• 1 Ethnicity: the complexity of boundary creation and social differentiation
• 2 Migration: sovereignty, borders and control
• 3 Diaspora: relations and communities across borders
• 4 Citizenship: rights, obligations and changing citizenship ideals
• 5 Intersectionality: manifold opportunities to grasp the complexities of inequality
• 6 Racism
• 7 Populism: protest, democratic challenge and right-wing extremism
• 8 Social exclusion: migration and social vulnerability
• 9 Labour migration and informalisation: East meets West
• Conclusion: Swedish exceptionalism and beyond
• Index