Definitions of Ethnicity

The meaning of ethnicity depends on the definition of several other concepts, particularly those of “ethnic group” and “ethnic identity.” Ethnic group is the most basic notion and the one from which the others are derived. It refers to ethnicity as a collective phenomenon. Ethnic identity describes ethnicity as an individually experienced phenomenon, while ethnicity itself is an abstract concept that includes an implicit reference to both the collective and the individual aspects. There are several basic dimensions to ethnicity at either the collective or the individual level. It can be said to possess both an objective and a subjective dimension. The objective aspects are those that can be observed as facts in the existence of institutions, including that of kinship and descent, and in the overt behaviour patterns of individuals and groups. The subjective aspects comprise attitudes, values, and preconceptions whose meaning must be interpreted in the context of communication.

Nevertheless, despite some contemporary approaches, the point of departure for our understanding of the nature of ethnicity has to be the idea of a distinct culture. Culture is conceived here partially in the traditional anthropological sense of distinct customs and beliefs, but it does not necessarily mean simply following in one’s life a set of specific everyday customs, although many people do so. Rather, it refers to sharing and identifying with the unique historical experience of a group. Culture is in essence a system of encoding such experience into a set of symbolic patterns, and sharing a culture means identifying with these patterns, not necessarily following all of them in one’s overt behaviour. How different the elements of one culture are from another is not significant. A distinct culture is a manifestation of a group’s historical experience, and its product is a sense of unique peoplehood. This emphasis on culture as the point of departure for our understanding of the nature of ethnicity is not intended to imply that members of an ethnic group must always share the same culture to the exclusion of any other. Instead, it suggests that individuals who include themselves in an ethnicity have some relation to a group that either now or at some point in the past has shared a unique culture.

We can now define an ethnic group as a community-type group of people who share the same culture, or as the descendants of such people who may not share this culture but who identify themselves with the ancestral group. The objective dimensions of an ethnic group include the presence of at least some community institutions or organizations, ancestors and descendants who transmit the culture and contribute to the formation of identity, and a “script” for cultural behaviour, in the form of customs, rituals, and preconceptions, which provides the content to culture and which members of the group are expected to follow in their overt behaviour.

The subjective aspect of an ethnic group refers to what, since Barth, have been known as “ethnic boundaries.” These are socio-psychological borders that determine group inclusion and exclusion. There are two types of ethnic boundaries, those formed from within the group (internal boundaries) and those established from outside (external ones). In many ways, the dynamics of interethnic relations depends on the interaction between these two kinds of boundaries. The internal ones function in the area of self-inclusion within the ethnic group; they overlap with the process of self-identity and articulate feelings of sympathy and loyalty towards other members of the group. The external boundaries determine the perimeter of exclusion, the space occupied by outsiders.

In a multi-ethnic society in which members of different groups interact and compete with one another, the existence of internal boundaries will inevitably produce external ones. Individuals will be identified by others as belonging to one or another ethnic group, even if they no longer actively share any cultural patterns with that group, as long as a link to their ancestors can be made. Identification by others in turn usually stimulates self-identification and may condition new forms of social organization. Hence ethnicity is a matter of a double boundary: one from within, maintained by the socialization process, and one from without, established through intergroup relations. If the external boundary is rigid, such as when there is much discrimination against a group in employment, housing, education, and other areas of life, this fact may lead to self-organization on the part of the group in order to fight such treatment and thus increase its self-awareness. In the United States since the 1950s, for example, opposition by black Americans to all types of discrimination has resulted in the establishment of many organizations which through their activities have helped to form a more self-conscious Afro-American community.

It is in the relationship between the two types of boundaries that comparisons between ethnicity in Canada and the United States can fruitfully be made. The principal difference lies in the external borders. It is not so much a matter of faster or slower assimilation and non-assimilation, as it is – more significantly – of how the various ethnic groups are perceived by the power-holding, policy-making, and influence-wielding bodies in the two societies. External ethnic boundaries are reflected in the rationales behind specific immigration policies, cultural programs, and the like. The state and public opinion in the United States has traditionally favoured the quick assimilation of diverse ethnicities, known as the ideology of the melting pot. In Canada governments and the public have been more tolerant of ethnic pluralism. The Quebec Act of 1774 and the British North America Act of 1867 built English-French pluralism into the Canadian constitution. This fact has led other ethnic groups to expect some kind of recognition of their own identities. Their position was acknowledged in the policy of multiculturalism adopted by the federal government in 1971 and in the addition to the Canadian constitution in 1982 of article 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which recognizes the multicultural nature of Canadian society.

Similarly, the British Royal Proclamation of 1763 gave recognition to the identities of the aboriginal peoples of Canada by accepting the principle of the aboriginal right to land as long as it was not formally ceded through treaties. The Indian Act of 1876 reinforced this principle even though it also defined a formal land-surrender process. By article 25, recognition of the aboriginal identity was also built into the Canadian Constitution of 1982.

External ethnic boundaries are also the source of racial distinctions and of race as a group phenomenon. In itself, race refers to a biological occurrence: it refers to the physical characteristics possessed by individuals and classifies them according to genetically determined characteristics, such as skin and hair colour, the shape of the head or body, and the blood type. Unlike culture, these characteristics are not possessed in common, but are held individually. As a social phenomenon, race is an external categorization and the exclusion of people with one type of biological characteristics by members of a group who possess different traits. By itself it is not an internal identity-generating force. Rather, the group’s response to racial classification by outsiders engenders internal identity. But the internal boundaries that determine ethnicity are formed only when some cultural construction takes place. As the evolution of the Afro-American movement in the past half-century has shown, even when members were activated by racial discrimination, internal ethnic boundaries were not established until the movement reached for the roots of its culture in Africa and found its own patterns and values in a new interpretation of American history.

External boundaries, however, are an important source of political mobilization and the sense of community that this process brings. This unity should not be confused with the feelings that are generated by internal boundaries. External boundaries contribute significantly to pan-ethnicity, as can be seen in the case of native peoples involved in disputes over land claims in Canada and among African Americans, Caribbeans, and Hispanics in the United States.

The scope of internal ethnic boundaries will determine the difference between ethnic and regional groups as, for example, between the Calabresi and other Italians. A regional group may have a way of life that can be seen as a culture, but to the extent that its identity is perceived as one of a number making up a larger group, it is a sub-identity and subculture of a broader ethnic identity and culture. Thus to the degree that the Calabresi see themselves as Italians alongside natives of other regions such as Friuli and Tuscany, regional identity is a sub-group of the broader Italian ethnicity. In Canada, Newfoundland, for example, has a way of life that can be seen to be distinct. Yet, to the extent that its people identify themselves with the way of life, including the language, that they share with other Canadians, they exist as a region rather than a separate ethnicity.

There are, of course, groups that may otherwise be regional ones, but which refuse to see themselves as part of larger identities, such as the Basques in Spain. Since they have a history of their own and their culture includes distinct elements, they are a different ethnic group rather than simply a regional one. Internal boundaries also include multiple ethnicities, deriving, for example, from ethnically mixed parentage. Ethnic identities are not necessarily exclusive of one another, but in this case ethnicity is an individual phenomenon.

At the individual level, ethnicity is a socio-psychological process that gives a person a feeling of belonging and identity. It is, of course, one of a number of social phenomena that produce this sense. Ethnic identity can be defined as a way in which people, on account of their ethnic origin, locate themselves psychologically in relation to one or more social systems and in which they perceive others as placing them in relation to those systems. By ethnic origin is meant either that a person’s ancestors, biological or symbolic, have been members of the group or that a person has been socialized into it by his or her biological or symbolic parents. The social systems may be the individual’s ethnic community or society at large, other ethnic communities and societies or groups, or a combination of all these.

Locating oneself in relation to a community and society is not only a psychological phenomenon, but also a social one in the sense that internal psychological states express themselves objectively in external patterns of behaviour that come to be shared by others. Thus individuals locate themselves in one or another community internally by states of mind and feelings, such as self-definitions or feelings of closeness, and externally by behaviour appropriate to these states of mind and feelings. Behaviour that is based on cultural patterns is therefore an expression of subjective identity and can be studied as an objective indicator of its character.

Thus, we can distinguish external and internal aspects of ethnic identity. The external aspects refer to, first, observable behaviour, both cultural and social, such as speaking a particular language and practising ethnic traditions; second, participation in such ethnic personal networks as those of family and friends; third, involvement in ethnic institutions, including churches, schools, enterprises, and the media; fourth, participation in voluntary associations – clubs, societies, and youth organizations; and fifth, activity in functions sponsored by ethnic organizations, such as picnics, concerts, public lectures, rallies, and dances. The internal aspects of ethnic identity refer to images, ideas, attitudes, and feelings. These, of course, are interconnected with external behaviour, but it should not be assumed that, empirically, the two types are always dependent upon each other. Indeed, they may vary independent of one another; for example, a third-generation person may retain to a higher degree the internal, rather than the external, aspects of identity.

There are at least four types of internal aspects: cognitive, moral, affective, and fiducial. The cognitive dimension of identity includes, first, self-images and images of one’s group. These may be stereotypes held by the individual or group or by others. The cognitive dimension also includes knowledge of the group’s heritage and its historical past. This knowledge may not necessarily be extensive or objective; rather, it may focus on selected aspects or events or on historical personalities that are highly symbolic of the group’s experiences and have thus become legendary. Finally, the cognitive dimension includes awareness of the group’s values, since these are part of its heritage.

Some ethnic groups perceive themselves as victims, others as having a sense of entitlement; some regard themselves as efficient and achievers, others as conflictual or slow to change; some groups believe that they are warm and expressive, others that they are cool and controlled; some consider themselves respectful of authority, others as anti-authoritarian; and so on. Usually, members of ethnic groups see themselves in terms of the history, literature, or lore of their people. Thus they may believe that they are the inheritors of the legacy of their group’s monarchy or the glory of its nobles, poets, philosophers, and musicians. Others may view themselves as part of a peasant folk, a regional or local geography, or a religious people founded and led by prophets.

Comparative studies of the values held by different ethnic groups show that they all accept the concept of achievement, but that it has a variety of meanings among different communities. Some studies have shown that for Canadians of British descent, achievement means climbing the socio-economic ladder. For Italian Canadians it involves acquiring a family and security; for the Japanese Canadians, an occupation that brings honour to the family. Among the Mennonites, the concept has a religious connotation and signifies doing work that brings one closer to God. In general, among ethnic groups one can distinguish values with an orientation towards individualistic behaviour and those with a familistic or communitarian character.

The moral dimension of identity involves a sense of obligation to the group. In general, such feelings have to do with the importance that a person attaches to his or her community and the implications that the group has for the person’s behaviour. These would include such elements as the importance of teaching the group’s ancestral language to one’s children, marrying within the group, or helping other members to find a job. The sense of obligation accounts for the commitment that an individual has to the group and the group solidarity that results. It can be said to constitute the central dimension of subjective identity.

The affective dimension of identity refers to a sense of attachment to the group. Two types of feelings can be distinguished: sympathy and associative preference for members of one’s group over those of other communities; and comfort with the cultural patterns of one’s group as against those of other groups or societies. An example of the affective aspects of identity is the tendency to form closer friendships with members of one’s ethnic group. In North America this phenomenon is quite noticeable, even in the third generation. Another example is the sympathy that members of an ethnic group often experience when good luck or misfortune befalls it. They may feel personally mortified if something embarrassing happens to the group, or they may be discouraged or even experience personal pain when a tragic event occurs. Alternatively, they may feel elated, encouraged, and more self-confident if the group is successful. The tendency to be more comfortable with the cultural patterns of one’s own group, if one has been raised within them, can be seen in a preference for ethnic food, song, dance, religious ritual, language, style of conversation and interaction, and the like.

Finally, the fiducial dimension of identity involves the trust that an individual has in his or her group and the sense of security that such trust can generate. It is a belief that “when the chips are down,” one can turn to the community for assistance or that one can rely on it for support in ventures such as fund-raising for a group cause or starting a new business. The fiducial dimension is thus the reverse side, as it were, of the moral aspect of identity. It encompasses the support that an individual can expect from the group in return for fulfilling his or her obligations to it. The fiducial aspect of ethnic identity is the basis for reliance by ethnic enterprises on a clientele made up of members of the group, especially in the early stages of the business. It also underlies the tendency of individuals to seek out health professionals, such as physicians, therapists, and counsellors, from the same ethnic background as themselves.