S. M. Shirokogorov believed that the basis for the classification of ethnic groups are: “firstly, anthropological or somatic signs, i.e., structural features of the body – skeleton and soft parts – and coloring, signs unconsciously recognized by the ethnic group itself; secondly, ethnographic features, i.e., complexes of customs and a general way of life and, finally, thirdly, linguistic features, i.e., the language of the ethnos” (Shirokogorov S.M. Ethnos. p. 37 ) .
A similar characterization is given by the representative of the Russian Marxist school of ethnology, Yulian Vladimirovich Bromley (1921–1990). Ethnicity is “a historically established stable group of people in a certain territory who have common relatively stable characteristics of language, culture and psyche, as well as an awareness of their unity and difference from other similar entities, fixed in their self-name” (Bromley Yu. V. Essays on the theory of ethnos . With . 12).
These definitions allow us to identify the main identifiers of ethnic groups – these are “ territory, history, language, culture, mental characteristics, as well as national identity ” ( Latyshina D.I., Khairullin R.Z. Ethnopedagogy. P. 32).
At the same time, it should be noted that “ neither somatic qualities (i.e., anthropological characteristics), nor language or religion are decisive factors in determining an ethnic group. On the basis of a single ethnogenetic, linguistic and cultural substrate – due to certain historical reasons – different ethnic groups can arise, sometimes even existing in eternal antagonism towards each other <…> And vice versa, a very variegated ethnolinguistic substrate can give rise to a completely different ethnic group, gravitating towards but to an ethnic element completely alien to the local cultural and historical landscape ” ( Asatryan G. Ethnic composition of Iran. P. 76). Consequently, ethnicity as such is a rather complex phenomenon, despite its apparent simplicity.
Yu. V. Bromley also proposed the division of ethnic groups into two categories. In the first case, this is an ethnos in the narrow sense of the word and “can be defined as a historically formed set of people in a certain territory who have common, relatively stable characteristics of culture (including language) and psyche, as well as an awareness of their unity and difference from others of the same kind.” formations, i.e. self-awareness ” ( Bromley Yu., Podolny R. Humanity is peoples. P. 32).
To distinguish this type of ethnic group from others, Bromley proposed the term “ethnicos”.
At the same time, it was emphasized that the entire complex of ethnic properties was preserved even when a group of people of a particular nation moved to a new territory. As an example, he cited Ukrainians living in Canada, who moved there at the end of the 19th century. The second category refers to individual territorial-political communities, which are independent macro-units. Such ethnosocial organisms, in addition to the cultural component, also have a territorial, economic, social and political community.
In terms of hierarchy, in the Soviet school (Yu. V. Bromley, N. N. Cheboksarov) it was customary to distinguish sub-ethnic groups (part of the ethnic groups of the community, for example, Polishchuks and Lemkos among Ukrainians) and meta-ethnic groups, which cover several ethnic groups, but have ethnic properties less intense than each of them (for example, Turks or Arabs). L.N. Gumilyov proposed calling such a state a superethnos.
The direct bearer of ethnic culture is the ethnophor. He establishes the laws of gathering and dividing people along ethnic lines, and is the heir and co-creator of national culture, although his peculiarity is that he cannot independently ensure the intergenerational reproduction of ethnic properties. In other words, an ethnophor needs to be surrounded by others like him, which makes an ethnos an ethnos. An ethnophor is an individual bearer of a certain ethnic culture and national psyche. This is a kind of atom from which ethnic groups are built.
All ethnic groups existing in the world are divided into groups. Currently, it is customary to distinguish five types of ethnic groups:
1) ethno-racial group – emphasizes general physical appearance based on genetic origin;
2) ethno-religious group – emphasizes common membership in a particular religion (or confession, or sect);
3) ethnolinguistic group – emphasizes a common language (or dialect, or use of an alphabet);
4) ethnonational group – emphasizes a common form of government (also known as national identity);
5) ethno-regional group – emphasis is placed on a local sense of belonging, originating in geographical isolation.
Ethnicity
It is extremely important to note that such a category as ethnicity comes from ethnos. Ethnicity is an imaginary collective identity that is aimed at the survival of the corresponding community in its given natural landscape. It has the following characteristics: 1) covers people of all age groups, including children, and is in no way connected with the position of its carriers in society; 2) reproduces itself through the biological survival and biological reproduction of its carriers (including the regulation of sexual relations), as well as through the socialization of children; 3) bears a name (ethnonym); 4) defines a complex of behavioral stereotypes, social taboos, codes, and communication norms; 5) has a myth of common origin; 6) has a common language.
Ethnicity is characterized by the fact that “ belonging to a group, identified both by those who are included in it and by those who are not included in it, constitutes a category distinct from other categories of the same order” ( Barthes F. Introduction. P. 11) .
This term was introduced by the famous German sociologist Max Weber, and it began to be actively used in modern sciences. If we reduce ethnicity to a specific people, we will get a single-root concept – the ethnicity of Russians will be called Russianness, the ethnicity of the French – Frenchness, etc. Although the terms “spirit of the nation” or “national mentality” are often used to convey this idea (provided that the nation understood as a collective ethnic identity rather than a political subject).
Cultural scientists, sociologists and political scientists turn to ethnicity depending on the context of the study.
Views on the origin of ethnic groups
In attempts to understand the nature of ethnicity as a factor in human life and society, sociologists have developed various approaches to the study of this problem. Examples of such approaches: primordialism, essentialism (substantialism), perennialism, constructivism, modernism and instrumentalism. Based on which approach the researcher appeals to, he will have different conclusions as a result. This formulation of the question is important for obtaining an objective picture and addressing practical issues that may arise in political decisions, from education programs to migration and conflict.
Primordialists (from the Latin primordial – “original”) believe that ethnicity has existed at all times in human history, and that modern ethnic groups have historical continuity in the distant past. For them, the idea of ethnicity is closely linked to the idea of the nation and has its roots in the pre-Weberian understanding of humanity that it is divided into primordial groups sharing a common biological kinship.
Primordialist movements, in turn, are divided into essentialism (substantialism), related primordialism and Geertzian primordialism (interpretative). Separately, we can highlight the school of Lev Gumilyov, which we will conditionally call Eurasian primordialism. Lev Nikolaevich Gumilyov (1912–1992) introduced such important provisions for ethnic studies as ethnogenesis 1 , biosphere 2 and complementarity 3 .
Substantialism asserts that ethnicity is an a priori fact of human existence, precedes all social interaction and is essentially unchangeable.
This theory considers ethnic groups, of course, not only in a historical context. This approach does not explain how and why peoples and ethnic groups appear and disappear. But he poses the problems of mixed marriages, migration and colonization in modern multi-ethnic societies ( Smith A. D. The Ethnic Origins of Nations. P. 62).
Representatives of kinship primordialism (kinship primordialism) believe that ethnic communities are extensions of kinship units, i.e., derived from ancestral ties, where the choice of cultural signs (language, religion, traditions) is made precisely in order to show this biological kinship. Thus, the myths of common ancestors that are the hallmark of ethnic communities should be understood as representing facts of biological history. The problem with this view is that the mythical origins of specific ethnic groups often contradict the known biological history of the ethnic community.
Perennialism (from the English perennial – “eternal, unceasing”) is an approach that primarily concerns statehood. As a rule, representatives of this movement see the ethnic community as the basis of such a phenomenon as a nation.
Thus, the nation as a type of social and political organization has an immemorial, or “eternal” character. British sociologist Anthony Smith (1939–2016) identifies two schools of thought: continuous perennialism, which argues that individual countries existed over very long periods of time, and situational perennialism, which focuses on the rise and fall of nations as recurring aspects of human history.
E. Smith in his work “Theories of Nationalism” proposed a classification of ethnic groups according to the criteria of intensity and success, on the one hand, and independence and originality, on the other; The first group included six types, and the second – twelve.
Continuous Perennialism theory holds that specific ethnic groups have existed continuously throughout history.
Situational perennialism insists that peoples and ethnic groups arise, change, and disappear over the course of history. This position argues that the concept of ethnicity is a tool used by political groups to manipulate resources such as wealth, power, territory or status to benefit their particular groups. Accordingly, ethnicity emerges when appropriate as a means of achieving emerging collective interests and changes in accordance with political changes in society. Examples of this approach to ethnicity are found in Norwegian anthropologist Frederik Barth (1928–2016), and Boston University professor Scott Seider sees ethnicity as the result of changing boundaries between groups of people created within the current social situation.
Interpretive primordialism, founded by the American anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1926–2006), argues that ethnicity itself is not primordial, but people perceive it because it is embedded in their perception of the world. According to Geertz, blood ties, language, territory and cultural differences are shaped by the power that suppresses the primitive man.
Instrumentalist perennialism sees ethnicity, first of all, as a universal tool that determines the time limits of various groups and ethnic groups and explains ethnicity as a mechanism of social stratification. This means that ethnicity is the basis for the hierarchical structure of personality. According to sociologist Donald Noel , who developed a theory about the origins of ethnic stratification, some of the indicators (such as race, religion or nationality) are used for membership in a fairly fixed group, and also as the main criterion for achieving social status (Noel D. A Theory of the Origin of Ethnic Stratification. R. 157).
In general, ethnic identity, according to instrumentalists, is a situational role, the conscious choice of which is made by a person or group of people to achieve political power or economic goals.
There have been precedents in history when representatives of any ethnic group or religion were forced to change their official identity in order to continue to enjoy social benefits or not be subject to repression.
Constructivism represents ethnicity as a construct created through the intellectual influence of individuals (cultural and power elites). Thus, with the help of a number of manipulations, the artificial creation and introduction of ethnic traditions is carried out. Western theorists of this movement are Benedict Anderson , Pierre Bourdieu , Ernst Gellner , Eric Hobsbawm and the American sociologist Roger Brubaker (b. 1956). In Russia, the main representative of constructivism is academician Valery Aleksandrovich Tishkov (born 1941). He once proposed constructing a Russian nation, but his idea did not find approval either among the political elite or among the scientific community.
Norwegian ethnologist and anthropologist Frederik Barth thinks within the framework of constructivism and defines ethnicity as the broadest category of social identity, a situational phenomenon created by means of symbolic distinction that emphasize the negotiated nature of boundaries between ethnic categories.
From this position, an ethnos is born after the self-determination of a certain group of people in relation to other communities. This group, on the basis of self-identification, carries out the appropriate marking of cultural boundaries, i.e., determines by what criteria to identify its own and others.
Constructivist theories of ethnicity and nation nevertheless offer weak (or soft) concepts of identity (i.e., they have an artificial, contractual nature), for example, the emphasis is not on unchanging qualities, but on more abstract phenomena – such as structure, plurality, randomness , fluidity, etc.
Thus, the sociologist of Austrian origin from the USA Peter Berger (b. 1929) proposed defining identity as “a person’s understanding of himself” ( Berger P. The Homelessness of the Mind. P. 162), and the American sociologist Craig Calhoun (b. 1952) – as “self-comprehension” ( Calhoun C. The Problem of Identity in Collective Action. P. 68 ).
Modernism is another subset of constructivism, but is more focused on the analysis of the industrial age and social mobilization. Modernists argue that nations and nationalism emerged with the development of capitalism. Since the old collective identities (religion, tribe) were either destroyed or their role was rapidly declining, a new identity associated with a unified culture and, to some extent, with a planned political economy, was chosen as their replacement.
The English philosopher and social anthropologist Ernst Gellner (1925–1996) pointed to the following imperatives that forced the formation of a modernist nationality from an ethnic one:
– industrial society is politically centralized;
– it is mobile in terms of employment on a time scale from several generations to several days;
– there is a growing need for effective means of communication to convey diverse and complex information;
– a significant proportion of professions require lengthy training;
– the basis of any learning is a certain general set of basic knowledge and skills, the acquisition of which is possible only within the cultural infrastructure of a large political unit and is impossible within the framework of an isolated family or village (E. Gellner. Nations and nationalism. P. 35).
1 The process of putting together an ethnic group on the basis of various ethnic components.
2 The shell of the Earth populated by living organisms.
3 Complementarity of two or more ethnic groups.