Module 7: What is Ethnicity? Affiliation and Attribution

Reading: McGuire, "The Study of Ethnicity in Historical Archaeology"

Last period, we dealt with the primordial/isolationist approach to ethnicity. What are the main points of this approach? The importance of isolation, a lack of contact between groups, in creating cultural differences between groups; and the conflict and/or assimilation that occurs once contact occurs between members of different ethnic groups. In the primordial/isolationist approach to ethnicity, each ethnic group could be defined in terms of its distinctive artifacts and customs, even if there were no other ethnic groups around. In the primordial/isolationist approach, the emphasis is on cultural difference.

In the instrumental/interaction approach, the emphasis is upon ethnic affiliation. Ethnic affiliation refers to the loyalties that develop among a group of people based upon the presumption of shared history and common cultural inheritance. In this approach, the factual existence of cultural differences is not important; what is important is the belief, the conviction, that you belong to a group of people who are culturally unique and therefore share some kind of common bond. This approach emphasizes individuals' assertions about their own group membership, and the character of that group as defined by its members. It focuses on how people develop their own feelings of ethnic identity.

Anthropologists frequently encounter people who, although they share the same language and basically the same lifestyle, insist that they belong to different ethnic groups (like the Hutu and the Tutsi). Such people may focus on limited and pretty superficial cultural differences to prove that differences exist between the groups. These differences serve as symbols of group membership: dress, language, house form, ritual, skin color. These all act as overt signals, or diacritica of ethnic membership, of boundaries between groups (diacritica are things that mark difference). Group members may claim that these differences are part of their cultural inheritance, but on closer examination, these customs or symbols may have been recently adopted to distinguish their own group of people from other groups (Hobsbawn and Ranger 1983). What is important is to maintain and display boundaries (Barth 1969), to create a "we" vs. "them."

Why do individuals affiliate with these groups? Not because of ethnocentrism, because they affiliate even when actual cultural differences between groups are minimal. Rather, individuals use ethnic affiliation as a tool for obtaining their desired ends. The ethnic group provides a coalition, a group of allies, that individuals use to compete more effectively against other individuals for prizes like land, jobs, educational opportunities, and political power, or to maintain systems of complementary specialization and interdependence, as in Barth's Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. Thus the term instrumental/interaction. Why instrumental? Because, according to this theory, people use ethnic identity in an instrumental way, to pursue their own ends. Why interaction? Because, according to this theory, ethnic identity arises from competitive and collaborative interactions between people.

What would ethnicity in archaeological remains look like if the instrumental/interaction approach were true? We might expect many similarities in material culture, but we should have a few artifacts in our collections that are unique to particular ethnic groups, that symbolize that group, but form part of a set of contrasting ethnic markers when compared to the artifacts of other groups. That is, there should be some element of culture that is done in different styles according to the particular group. Some examples would be different styles of dress embroidery, different hats (Wobst 1977); star-bellied sneeches v. plain-bellied sneeches (Dr. Seuss, The Sneeches); Easter should not fall on Passover; crosses, stars, and crescents in U.S. military cemeteries, etc.

This approach to ethnicity seems to explain situations similar to that encountered by Barth in Swat, Pakistan. In this region, different more or less autonomous groups, exploiting different natural resources, cultivated distinctive ethnic identities as means of individually gaining access to these resources and collectively defending their control of these resources. And you can see this happening in big cities in the United States. Different immigrant groups begin to dominate certain types of businesses because one immigrant becomes established and helps his/her relatives also become established, and once established, they deal preferentially with individuals from their own ethnic group. Currently: Indians (from India) and motels; Koreans and fruit stands; in Chicago, Nigerians and taxi-cabs; in California, Cambodians and donut shops. In the past: Chinese laundries.

So the instrumental/interaction approach seems to account for some situations, where affiliating with a particular ethnic group brings useful advantages. But what about cases where being a member of a particular ethnic group is a disadvantage, where negative stereotypes of that ethnic group makes life tougher for its members?

In fact, we often see that ethnic consciousness entails not only recognition of difference, but also a hierarchical arrangement of different groups. In the power/domination approach, ethnic self-consciousness is introduced by a dominant group. This group uses ethnic identity to legitimate its own privileges in terms of some superior cultural or biological traits said to be characteristic of the dominant group or some inferior cultural or biological traits said to be characteristic of the subordinate group (Comaroff 1987). This is ethnic attribution, the use of stereotypes to characterize oneself or others. In the power/ domination approach, the process of ethnic attribution (i.e., negative stereotyping) is of central importance.

Vicious ethnic stereotypes have a long history in the United States. Such as? Scheming Chinese, money-loving Jews, brawling Irish, etc. And these stereotypes have been used by the dominant White, Protestant majority to refuse to extend equal treatment to members of these other groups. Thus, ethnic attribution or negative stereotyping is used by dominant groups to maintain an uneven playing field. These negative stereotypes and the systems of inequality that they maintain are a source of the rage and hatred associated with ethnic conflicts.

It is easy to see why dominant groups might maintain ethnic loyalties, but why in these situations would members of disadvantaged ethnic groups, those who are the victims of negative stereotypes, also cling loyally to their ethnic identities? According to the power/domination approach, subordinate groups react to their oppression by closing ranks. They accept their "ethnicity" as an emblem of a common predicament and their shared interest in resisting oppression, and they develop a shared commitment to collective action in fighting against inequality.

What would ethnicity in archaeological remains look like if the power/domination approach were true? We might recover evidence of both ethnic affiliation and ethnic attribution. That is, ethnic affiliation would produce symbols of membership and non-membership just like in the instrumental/interaction approach: dress, jewelry, rituals, etc. But ethnic attribution would produce demeaning images of members of other ethnic groups, involving some sort of ethnic slur or insult. Examples? The Cleveland Indians? Lawn jockeys? We might also expect increased distance or segregation between dominant and subordinate groups.

Anthropologist John Comaroff (1987) has observed that once ethnic-based inequality is established, prejudice, rather than inequality, seems to cause all of the problems between groups, and it does lead to a barrage of insults and assaults on personal self-respect that is a second burden borne by members of subordinate groups. It sometimes seems that prejudice is the only problem, and that if we could just get rid of prejudice, we could get rid of ethnic conflict in our society. But what caused ethnic prejudice in the first place? Legitimating inequality. And so long as we have inequality, we can expect negative stereotypes perpetrated by the dominant group and angry reactions by members of disadvantaged groups. If we didn't have negative stereotypes of disadvantaged groups (e.g., welfare mothers), we might have to admit that the only fair thing to do in our society is to fund schools equally and to fund health care equally.

What is McGuire's approach to ethnicity in nineteenth-century Tucson: primordial/ isolationist, interaction/instrumentalist, or power/domination? What evidence argues against a primordial/isolationist approach? [p. 166]. Earlier, between 1855 and 1877, the archaeology of Rancho Punta de Agua "provides no indication of ethnic differences. As U.S. and European-manufactured goods became available, the wealthy owners of the ranch, both Anglo and Mexican American, purchased them. The poorer segments of the population, regardless of ethnicity, possessed little that they themselves did not make." Later, after 1880, the distance between Anglos and Mexican Americans increased—less intermarriage, separate social calendars, and residential segregation. According to McGuire, what changes led to increased ethnic consciousness? Arrival of the railroad, leading to (1) an influx of Anglos, so the Mexican American vote was no longer needed; (2) the pacification of the Apaches, so Mexican American fighters were no longer needed; and (3) Anglo access to loans from East and West Coast banks, so that Anglos began to dominate in mining, ranching, and mercantile activities. This created the opportunity for discrimination and exclusiveness on the part of Anglos to gain competitive edges in business and politics. It also led to a defensive withdrawing from social competition on the part of the Mexican-American elites.