Suchergebnisse

Ethnos : descent and culture communities -- Multiple discourses of ethnicity : differences by country and region -- The demise of race : the emergence of 'ethnic' -- The primordialism debate -- How real are groups? : political ethnicity, symbolic ethnicity and competition theory -- Migration and ethnicity -- Social conditions of ethnicity : global economy and precarious states -- Ethnic majorities and nationalism in Europe : globalization and right-wing movements -- Ethnicity and the modern world : general conclusions

ABSTRACT. National identity should be sharply distinguished from nationalism. People speak by reference to a general and assumed membership of a country, and routine markers of behaviour and style may exhibit this sense of membership. This matter‐of‐fact acceptance of 'national' membership does not guarantee enthusiasm for the 'nation' and it cannot be taken as a signal of nationalism, banal or otherwise. While theoretical statements and assumptions often suggest that national identity is fundamental to individuals in contemporary societies, empirical investigation of people talking about national identity uncovers some broad strands of indifference and hostility towards national identity in general, and towards British and English identities in particular. This may reflect young adults' wish not to appear 'nationalist' just as many would wish not to appear racist. But the level of apathy and antagonism towards national identity among young adults suggests that we ought to reconsider any assumption that national identity is 'normally' a powerful and important marker, embraced with enthusiasm.

Conflicts that are reported as being between ethnic groups are often described as "ethnic conflicts." The implication is that such conflicts belong to a general type of ethnic conflict with certain repeated and predictable features. This type of conflict is seen as being motivated by ethnic sentiments, as being grounded in deeply set hatreds, and as being virtually inescapable. By applying the epithet "ethnic," it is as if the conflict were already explained. However, there are many reasons to be suspicious of these implications. Ethnic groups presently embroiled in fierce conflict may have been, at a previous point in time, peacefully co-existent. Frequently, the very lines of ethnic difference become blurred through intermarriage and cultural change. Therefore, in order to understand conflict described as "ethnic" we need to uncover the reasons why (in a given conflict situation) there is heightened awareness of ethnic difference. Then we need to explain what I have termed "the conditions of ethnicity," that is, the external conditions which lead to severe conflict; and those external circumstances that make it likely that the conflict will follow lines of ethnic differentiation. Two of these conditions are the strength of the state system and the ability of the state to manage ethnic conflict.

It is argued that ethnic conflict should not be understood purely in terms of boundaries of difference leading to boundaries of hostility. Instead, it is recommended that further attention be paid to why, & under what conditions, some boundaries of difference become boundaries of conflict. The examples of ethnicity in Serbia & in Malaysia are examined in further detail in order to demonstrate the contingent nature of ethnicity. However, the prominence of ethnicity in the last century is acknowledged for two reasons: the framing of the state as the political organ of the nation opens up the possibility of minoritized ethnicities; &, modern states continue to express nationhood as an ancestral formation. In spite of this, it is argued that ethnic identities only take on prominence at moments of crisis in the nation state. 33 References. R. Prince

Reflects on the teaching of race relations since the late 1970s in the Masters of Social Science by Advanced Study in Race Relations program at the U of Bristol (England) in the context of Peter Rose's The Subject Is Race (1968), a study of the teaching of race relations in the US. Race relations teaching in the US in the 1960s is described by Rose as parochial, ethnocentric, problem-oriented, meliorist, atheoretical, & driven by civil rights concerns. Drawing on a review of 94 dissertations completed in the U of Bristol program, it is shown here that the program is less meliorist & ethnocentric, & much more theory driven. Further, with the notion of race becoming difficult to define, students have begun to stress ethnic relations, creating a kind of subdiscipline in the sociology of race relations. It is concluded, however, that the Bristol program would do well to stress the fact that ethnic relations, like race relations, are one aspect of sociological relations & should be studied from this wider perspective. 12 References. D. M. Smith