7

CHAPTER 1

Introduction to Ethnicity & its Features

Introduction:

Ethnicity, ethnic identity, ethnic nationalism, ethnic conflict and ethno-

consciousness are not new phenomena. A scholar has rightly suggested: “from the

dawn of history communities organized on putative common descent, culture, and

destiny have coexisted, competed, and clashed” (8). Ethnicity seems a common term

relevant in the contemporary world, and ethnicity in Afghanistan can be studied

reasonably by exploring the different elements connected with it. Since the nation is

discussed in the international politics, much remains unresolved for various political

reasons. The work is an attempt to embark on a journey of a land that still remains a

‘land of terror’. It calls for attention to address the ethnicity nuances that have been

emerging not because of civilization’s progress but because of destructive purposes

that seems alarming. The work also attempts to entail a level of sensitivity amongst

the readers, while seeking their perspectives, attitudes and rationality for guidance

and comprehension. The novels chosen give much scope to allow ample subjectivity

on the issue of ethnicity in this nation, and also refrain from being nepotistic and

have biased discussions. It brings writers and characters of different ideologies and

nations on a single platform allowing our rhetoric to soar high, while the human

tendencies of love, relationship, friendship, hatred and animosity run parallel.

8

Meaning of Ethnicity: Nathan Glazer and Daniel Moynihan point to the fact that

although the term's earliest dictionary appearance in the Oxford English Dictionary is

in 1972, its first usage is attributed to the American sociologist David Riesman in

1953. It is said that the word ‘ethnic’ is much older and is derived from the Greek

ethnos (which in turn derived from the word ethnikos), which originally meant

heathen or pagan according to R. Williams. The term ethnic and the related forms

were used in English from the 14th century through the middle of the 19th century.

Later, it emerged to express the notion of folk by a few authors and subsequently the

concept of community came to light. An important reason for the current academic

interest in ethnicity is the fact that it has become so ostensible in societies across

nations, that it becomes impossible to ignore. In the early twentieth century, it was

believed by many social theorists that ethnicity and nationalism would decrease in

importance, and eventually vanish as a result of modernization and industrialization.

On the contrary, ethnicity and nationalism have grown in political importance in

every part of the world and it became a discourse to be studied in particular. It has

emerged and is made relevant through ongoing social situations and encounters, and

through people's ways of coping with the demands and challenges of life.

Anthropological studies also give us much scope to study how ethnic relations have

been defined and perceived by people across nations. There is no acceptable single

word for the phrase ‘Ethnic Group’. French anthropologists have suggested the word

‘ethne’ for technical usage. The modern usage of ‘ethnic group’ came further to

reflect the different kinds of encounters industrialized states have had with external

groups, such as immigrants and indigenous peoples. Ethnic thus came to stand in

9

opposition to national and to refer to people with distinct cultural identities, who

through migration or conquest, have become subject to a state or nation with a

different cultural mainstream. Examples are multiple trying to get at the essence of

an ethnic group; many writers have allowed their rhetoric to soar and to evoke

response from all directions.

To study further of ethnicity and ethnic groups, it becomes mandatory to

study the societal framework and the consequences that led to such a stratification.

The cultural bases for societal stratification are varied. Some groupings are based on

lineage systems defined reciprocally and horizontally; whereas, other groupings such

as class and caste are stratified vertically. Kinship networks operate horizontally as

form of reciprocal marital exchange. Another form of separation is found in

composite societies resulting from inclusion of groups of supposed different cultural

or ethnic origin. Ethnically plural societies have emerged throughout, sometimes as a

result of ethnic conquest. Today, it has become an important issue in modern states

because of ethnic interpretation resulting from increasing social mobility due to

human achievement and from increasing geographic mobility.

There is a revolution seen in the recording of social and cultural history.

Today’s ethnic minorities feel the need to voice out against prejudices, to be heard

and with a view to write and rewrite history for constructive interpretation, and

where facts fail, to create or deepen their own sustaining mythologies. It is also seen

that social classes that relatively did not surface in earlier recorded histories are

emerging figures in a larger history of conflict as new areas to be delved into, to deal

more directly with stratification of society. Therefore, ethnic identity can be varied

10

as a continually evolving process, sometimes occurring within a single generation.

And also, ethnic minorities have been present as long as sovereign political states

have existed. Ethnic conflict has been a general tendency within the pluralistic

societies and this can be viewed from the standpoint of political, social, economic

and cultural struggles. For culture, it may occur when they are confronted with the

compulsion of allegiance to a new leadership, adopting a new religion or acquiring a

new language in order to participate in a dominant political society that is ethnically

alien. The discussion of ethnicity and societal stratification relates also to internal

conflict over the question of priority to be given to past, present or future oriented

forms of identity in self-consciousness. However, one cannot fully understand the

force of ethnicity without examining the intricate features of minority group

members.

Historical References:

It would rather be rational to study the ethnic group behavior from the

vantage point of society, its genesis, its transformation from the culture of associated

living to society as an unequal structure. Rousseau’s Discourse on the Origin of

Inequality focuses on the various stages of society. As he examines man's physical

and mental characteristics, and finds him to be an animal like any other, he is

motivated by two key principles or rather basic instincts called pity and self-

preservation. The only real attribute that separates him from the animals is his

perfectibility, a quality that is vitally important in the process. Man in the state of

nature-- has few needs, no idea of good and evil, and little contact with other

11

humans. Nevertheless, he is happy. He substantiates man’s initial behavior of

innocence and ignorance.

As ideas and feelings succeeded one another, and heart and head were

brought into play, men continued to lay aside their original wildness; their

private connections became every day more intimate as their limits extended.

They accustomed themselves to assemble before their huts round a large tree;

singing and dancing, the true offspring of love and leisure, became the

amusement, or rather the occupation, of men and women thus assembled

together with nothing else to do. Each one began to consider the rest, and to

wish to be considered in turn; and thus a value came to be attached to public

esteem. (Rousseau, 2)

However, man does not remain unchanged. The quality of perfectibility allows him

to be shaped in response to his environment. Natural forces such as earthquakes and

floods drive men to all parts of the globe, and force them to develop language and

other skills. As they come into contact more frequently, small groups or societies

start to form. The human mind begins to develop, and as man becomes more aware

of others, he develops a series of new needs.

Whoever sang or danced best, whoever was the handsomest, the strongest,

the most dexterous, or the most eloquent, came to be of most consideration;

and this was the first step towards inequality, and at the same time towards

vice. From these first distinctions arose on the one side vanity and contempt

and on the other shame and envy: and the fermentation caused by these new

12

leavens ended by producing combinations fatal to innocence and happiness.

(Rousseau, 2)

The emergence of reason and society are related, but the process by which they

evolve is a negative one. As men start to live in groups, pity and self- preservation

are replaced by competition and jealousy, and these emotions drive men to compare

themselves with others, and the need to dominate others in order to be happy. He

says that the evolving of the society into an unequal structure is natural, where the

trick played by the rich to rule everyone paves way to conflict and despotism. Man’s

subjection to natural forces allows him to deliberate a gamut of response and stimuli

metamorphosing him into a being that is more self-centered and aspires for

materialistic pleasures. Rousseau's conclusions to the Discourse say that inequality is

natural only when it relates to physical differences between men. In modern

societies, however, inequality derives from a process of human evolution that has

corrupted man's nature and subjected him to laws and property. And this kind of an

exposure supports a new unjustifiable kind of inequality, termed moral inequality.

Hence inequality is the crux based on which all operations within the society operate.

However, as long as this inequality is not perceived, harmony prevails, and it is very

glaring that with the advent of the industrial revolution, societal stratification came to

light. However, before we address the issues of ethnic features, ethnic types and

causes leading to ethnicity, let’s understand the definitions proposed by various

theorists and anthropologists to see how this term has come to become a part of

societal identification per se.

13

Theories Related to Ethnicity:

To study the emerging patterns amongst the ethnic groups from the axis

drawn along the past and the contemporary development, it is best to discuss and put

forth theories related to ethnicity by eminent authors. The theoretical rhetoric

proposed brings to light some form of conflict or social tensions as a normal or

chronic condition in a pluralistic society. Amongst the first to bring the term ethnic

group into social studies was the German sociologist Max Weber, who defined it as:

Those human groups that entertain a subjective belief in their common

descent because of similarities of physical type or of customs or both, or

because of memories of colonization and migration; this belief must be

important for group formation; furthermore it does not matter whether an

objective blood relationship exists. (Weber, 57)

According to Weber social interaction forms the basis of ethnic groups. Every

process of association attracts a spreading consciousness of community and takes the

form of personal brotherhood based on a common communal belief-system. It means

that this is applicable to any association that is not based on any set of rules; the

conspicuous beliefs whatever the members of the group choose that can be used to

distinguish them from those outside the association. However, the differences those

have importance as distinguishing markers are varied and distinct from one ethnic

group to the other. Weber also suggests monopolistic closure in certain kinds of

economic association; the group’s tendency to restrict to a limited circle of members,

the privileges and benefits that it gives rise to. The ethnic group can be comparable

to ‘status group’, that is, belonging to such a group on the basis of ascription rather

14

than achievement paves way to ‘ethnic honour’ of the group. To maintain all forms

of association, the definite and conspicuous markers that serve to differentiate

members from non-members with a view to exclude non-members from the benefits

of membership also provide a basis for economic solidarity. Here the other interests

that bring the group together become secondary. To reinforce the ethnic solidarity,

belief in shared ethnicity can come to be of primary importance for the continuity of

the group’s existence. In Economy and Society Weber suggests that shared customs

and usages give rise to an identity peculiar to the group-‘ethnic identity’ which

contributes for the creation of a community. Ethnicity therefore can come to be a

force in its own light.

To substantiate ethnicity as a natural phenomenon Van den Berghe’s The

Ethnic Phenomenon serves the theory of naturalization of ethnicity. His notion lies

on the belief that the “underlying driving force of ethnic sentiments is ultimately the

blunt, purposeless natural selection of genes that are reproductively successful” (59).

He brings forth the biological propensity of individuals to act nepotistically making

the clan of individuals with whom the genes are shared to act in the individual’s

interest, thereby enhancing the reproductive success of one’s own genes. This is

evident in the cooperation or the genetic pull that underlies within family, among

kinsmen and within ethnic groups based on common descent. The key to ethnicity is

biological and the pattern to ethnic group formation is that of genetic self-interest; an

explicit manifestation of the group’s selfish motives. Van de Berghe is precisely

basing the lessons of socio-biology to ethnicity. But before that, he is in favour of

naturalizing the social phenomenon. He attempts to reduce social situations marked

15

by inequality to natural rather than social causes. He tends to substantiate his theory

with reference to apartheid--a concept that is not explicable in terms of economic

system, but in terms of those of maximization of the reproductive success. It is the

genetic determinism that plays a key role, or the underlying force of such an

ethnicity. He makes nature the key by which all social structure can be explained.

Opposed to the understanding of ethnicity as natural and primordial,

Durkheim clearly articulates the social conditions representing the triumph of

individuals as against natural tendencies as suggested by Van de Berghe. For

example, Egalitarianism operates expressly against natural inequalities of strength as

do other forms of social tendencies and also distribution of wealth. He suggests

looking for social rather than for natural patterns of casualty. It suggests that just as

the catalogue of all the species of plants and animals of a place represents its flora

and fauna, likewise, the list of all items of general life of people which culminates

into that whole is what we call as culture. The idea is therefore to categorize all

common cultures in a probable order of evolution, establishing the idea that culture

is what a people is, and what a people is tends to hold the idea of ethnicity. His

notion is based on the idea to classify and arrange all known cultures in a probable

order. Barth, in Ethnic Groups and Boundaries refers to this approach to ethnicity as

one that treats ethnicity as an ‘island to itself.’ Durkheim’s theory proposes to blend

culture and ethnicity into each other. Abner Cohen’s approach to ethnicity begins

with the following broad definition:

An ethnic group can be operationally defined as a collectivity of people who

share some patterns of normative behavior and (b) form part of a larger

16

population, interacting with people from other collectives within the

framework of a social system. The term ethnicity refers to the degree of

conformity by members of the collectivity to the shared norms in the course

of social interaction. (Cohen, 63)

We can see that Cohen’s definition suggests associated living and the setting up of

certain norms to belong to or attain membership of a particular ethnic group. To

accentuate the same, Cohen chooses the City of London business and financial elite.

He suggests that their association and conduct of business, financial deals in the city

depends heavily on the shared system of norms that allows for mutual trust and

understanding. This provides the basis for word-of-mouth agreement on which a

large proportion of business transaction is based. Common practices such as

speaking with the same accent, going to the same schools, going to the same

concerts, buying the same newspapers form an associational network for what Cohen

describes as an ethnic group. Here, it refers to totality of a shared life-style as

constituting ethnic identity and substantiating the existence of social systems.

Therefore, being American is not considered a question of ethnicity, but that the

American society is composed of several ethnic groups and that clear and

conspicuous demarcation of each ethnic group is phenomenal. However, the societal

structure in America is differentiated by class, by community, by region-- each one

in itself being a feature of ethnic distinctiveness to justify its ethnically pluralistic

society status.

Taking a cue from the above theorists who base their definition on culture,

Fredrik Barth takes the concept of culture further and distinguishes between ethnicity

17

and culture by remarking that ethnic group can undergo cultural change over time.

Hence it is incorrect to say that it is shared culture that forms the representation of

ethnic identity; ethnicity being a feature of social process and interaction between

groups. Barth’s argument of Scottish Highland ethnicity refers to what ethnicity

cannot be restricted to. Scottish Highland ethnicity at one stage in history was

considered to be bound up with the clan system. With the demise of such a feature

and with the emergence of the Scottish Gaelic, the Highland ethnicity can be

identified. Later with language in the decline through the nineteenth century, a new

form of protected subsistence land-use (crofting) the same ethnic group came to be

identified in terms of land-use. This would suggest that ethnicity cannot be confined

to culture alone, as culture cannot relate to any physical transformations that ethnic

groups have witnessed. Ethnicity therefore can use cultural features as labels but it

can use anything else that characterizes a group.

So when we view ethnicity from the lens of the anthropologist’s view, ethnic

boundaries flow from social conditions. For anthropologists ethnicity is a theme of

great but neglected importance to social anthropology. Practically all anthropological

reasoning rests on the premise that cultural variation is discontinuous, that there are

aggregates of people who essentially share a common culture and interconnected

differences exist that distinguish each culture from all others. The differences

between cultures and their historic boundaries and connections have been given

much attention; the constitution of ethnic groups, and the nature of the boundaries

between them, has not been correspondingly investigated. Frederick Barth’s Ethnic

18

Groups and Boundaries, is a focus on the interconnectedness of ethnic identities.

Barth writes:

[...] categorical ethnic distinctions do not depend on an absence of mobility,

contact and information, but do entail social processes of exclusion and

incorporation whereby discrete categories are maintained despite changing

participation and membership in the course of individual life histories.

(Barth, 9)

Furthermore, Barth accentuates that group categories, ethnic labels will most often

endure even when individual members move across boundaries or share an identity

with people in more than one group. As interdependent, ethnic identities are the

product of continuous so-called ascriptions and self-ascriptions, Barth stresses the

interactional perspective of social anthropology on the level of the persons involved

instead of on a socio-structural level. Therefore, ethnic identity is maintained through

relational processes of inclusion and exclusion. According to George A. De Vos

subjective definitions of ethnicity vary and every group’s identity is typical and

pragmatic.

An ethnic group is a self-perceived inclusion of those who hold in common a

set of traditions not shared by others with whom they are in contact. Such

traditions typically include folk religious beliefs and practices, language, a

sense of historical continuity, and common ancestry or place of origin. The

group’s actual history often trails off into legend or mythology, which

includes some concept of an unbroken biological-genetic generational

19

continuity, sometimes regarded as giving special inherited characteristics to

the group. (De,Vos, 65)

According to him a lineage group or caste perceives itself as an

interdependent unit of a society; the members of an ethnic group cling to a sense of

being an independent people. It can be observed that caste definitions make societal

stratification very obvious and formal, whereas, ethnic definitions refer to past

cultural independence. History also witnesses some of the same elements that

characterize ethnic membership also characterize lineage group or caste membership

in some societies. Groups formed around religious or political ideologies are oriented

to a future society with more explicit or satisfactory forms of status stratification.

Members dissatisfied with their current status as belonging to the minority either

propose to leave the group or seek admission into a new group that would be based

on a future-oriented religious or political ideology. In his book Ethnic Identity:

Creation, Conflict and Accommodation, he examines how ethnicity can be used both

expressively and instrumentally within a pluralistic society and how it may or may

not contribute to societal instability. This entails the theory of ethnicity to deal with

the internal conflicts over allegiance and belonging to a particular group and also

priority to be given to past, present and future oriented forms. According to him, in a

primary sense, an individual can lean towards one of the three orientations 1. A

present-oriented form of membership as a citizen in a particular state or as a member

of a specific occupational group; 2. A future oriented membership in a transcendent,

more universal religious or political sense, or 3. A past oriented concept of the self as

defined by one’s ethnic identity that is based on ancestry and origin.

20

Thus, in today's everyday language, the words ethnic and ethnicity still have

a ring of exotic people, minority issues and race relations. Also a deluge of histories

of specific groups has emerged as though these groups were anthropological

specimens and devoid of larger societal framework. For, most of the authors so far

have discussed ethnicity in terms of culture and contact, within and between groups,

Wallman proposes the question of racial and ethnic divisions in Britain not so much

as relating to the differences in culture and practice and life-style, but as a boundary

phenomena. Ethnic boundaries exist within British society and there exists bounded

groups that consider themselves as groups and also by others living outside and

certain characteristics of these groups are chosen to mark the boundaries between

them. One can call it a social boundary and any differences brought into play

amongst the groups as boundary markers are distinct. This creates a distinction

between the insiders who live within the boundary and those outsiders who do not.

The insiders develop a sense of belongingness and group identity and thus a gradual

cohesiveness leading to ethnic identity is seen. She further ascribes yet another kind

of ethnic process i.e the phenomenon of boundary shift which arises from the

bundling together into ethnic groups; this has been evident with the Asian

immigrants who come from different parts of the Indian subcontinent and are of

different religious practices, language and cultural practices. They have been labeled

Asian by the larger society or the host and has made them live as a separate group

from the native British. The same can be seen amongst the Jewish immigrants in the

United States and those from the Eastern Europe. Despite the socio-economic gulf

that lay between the two groups, they are bundled together in the same category by

21

dominant opinion (based on religion) and there exists an ethnic solidarity that did not

exist before. This demonstrates how division between groups is not based on pre-

existing cultural or other differences which the researcher has discussed. Wallman

proposes a third kind of ethnic process called the boundary dissonance as opposite to

congruence. As the two, i.e. boundary formation and boundary shift co-exist, there is

always a minority that falls within the boundaries, for instance, rich members of the

black community in a society where ‘richness’ is associated with ‘whiteness.’ It is

evident that the boundary dissonance is resolved when ‘rich blacks’ are seen as

‘whites.’ However, a study of the internal features of these groups would make the

understanding of these groups more meaningful.

Features of Ethnicity

Communal Character: In discussing this feature, several authors have focused on

the centrality of folk to define ethnic group. The fundamental nature of these groups

lies deep rooted in common sentiments, common experience, and a common history.

Ferdinand Tonnies suggests classic concepts of gemeinschaft and gesellschaft to get

a proper understanding of what the communal character means. As per Tonnies,

gemeinschaft relations are relations based on sentiment, courage and conscience;

their virtues being sincerity, kindness, and faithfulness. Gelleschaft relations are

essentially those of the head based on man’s materialist motives; deliberation,

calculation and ambition. He proposes that the gelleschaft is governed by the law,

whereas the gemeinschaft is governed by understanding concord, custom and belief.

He distinguishes three kinds of gemeinschaft: that of blood, of mind, and of place.

This trichotomy of blood, place and mind suggests possibility of identifying the

22

sources that give rise to these ethnic groups; although their origin may be lost in the

mists of history. The gemeinschaft of blood is identified with kinship and the

biological ties that connect all human beings into a common genetic pool. The

gemeinschaft of place results from sharing of land or territory; and that of mind

results in sharing of common beliefs, values and ideals. The interplay of these three

factors, Gordon identifies, work in reinforcement to accentuate the folk society. As

per modern history, territoriality becomes translated to nationality, sacred belief

system to religion and biological characters to race. Each of these groups also

suggests ethnicity in the light of group differences within the political and territorial

framework.

Historical Past: Yet another important feature of the ethnic group is that it has a

historical past. This helps not only in just determining the past but also organizing

the present. Here the family acts as the connecting link between the past and the

present, making the membership in the group viable primarily through birth. It is

however difficult to trace the cause of the common ancestry for the contemporary

character of the ethnic group, important is the function of the presumed ancestry that

determines the features of the present ethnic groups. As per Shibutani and Kwan the

real racial composition and history of a group is less important than its assumed

common descent and beliefs about the history. These belief systems and myths

ensure continuity of the group by making the past a living and vital part of the

present. Shibutani and Kwan have rightfully said,

For a person who identifies with an ethnic category, its history provides a

backdrop. This historical past often includes fictitious accounts, but the way

23

in which the history of a group is remembered is far more important than

what it has actually been. Those who identify can conceive of themselves as

part of something larger than themselves, something of far greater

importance. (Shibutani & Kwan, 43)

However, to redefine their current status, the Blacks in the 1960s were not

content with challenging their current position in American society but were keen

on winning a new interpretation of the Blacks’ response to slavery. They were

averse of the statement that blacks were submissive and passive under slavery, they

insisted that many blacks were hostile and rebellious and only the superior force of

a white society was successful in crushing overt expressions of this antagonism.

Thus the historical past of an ethnic group is not something that is relegated to the

archives but it rather functions to organize its sentiments, needs, aspiration of the

present. Hence to fully understand the meaning of the past of an ethnic group, it

must be seen through the prism of the present as they are interwoven in their lives.

Cultural Distinctiveness: As seen from the theories put forth by most of the

authors, culture seems to be a common feature around which ethnicity and its theory

is based; other variables however exist and are subjective. The many separate

societies that emerged across the globe differed markedly from each other, and many

of these differences persist to this day. Culture acts as a marked feature to have

distinctiveness in beliefs, values, institutions, rituals and also general design for

living. These shared beliefs and values give a cluster of truths which justifies the

groups’ existence. They come to represent the very essence of the concept of folk

and have a sense of mission and togetherness. The very word ‘culture’ denotes the

24

totality of the humanly created world, from material culture and cultivated

landscapes, via social institutions (political, religious, economic etc.), to knowledge,

its meaning and interpretation. Tylor's definition is still widely cited:

Culture, or civilization, taken in its broad, ethnographic sense, is that

complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom,

and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of

society. (Tylor, 71)

Tylor discusses the levels of culture; the first referring to the shared language,

traditions, and beliefs that set each of these peoples apart from others. In most cases,

those who share a culture do so because they acquired it as they were raised by

parents and other family members who have it. The second layer of culture that may

be distinguishable part of identity is a subculture. This is discussed with reference to

complex, diverse societies in which people have come from many different parts of

the world. They often retain much of their original cultural traditions with a result of

being part of an identifiable subculture in their new society. The shared cultural

traits of subcultures set them apart from the rest of their society. Examples of easily

identifiable subcultures in the United States include ethnic groups such as

Vietnamese Americans, African Americans. Members of each of these subcultures

share a common identity, food tradition, dialect or language, and other cultural traits

that come from their common ancestral background and experience. The third layer

of culture consists of cultural universals. These are learned behavior patterns that are

shared by all of humanity collectively. No matter where people live in the world,

they share these universal traits. Examples of such human cultural traits include:

25

communicating with a verbal language that has a limited set of sounds and

grammatical rules for constructing sentences, using age and gender to classify people

(e.g., teenager, senior citizen, woman, man) classifying people based on marriage

and relationships and having kinship terms to refer to them (e.g., wife, mother, uncle,

cousin) raising children in some sort of family setting, having some sort of

leadership roles for the implementation of community decisions, having common

practices of living.

Cultural distinctiveness may also range from sacred beliefs of religion as in

the case of Judaism for Jews or Islam for Muslims. However cultural distinctiveness

varies from place to place and at times reflects secular beliefs. For example the role

of homeland for national-origin groups-Ireland for the Irish, Israel for the Jews or the

phrase ‘Black is Beautiful’ for the Blacks. From these variations come the theories of

‘cultural diversity’, ‘ethnocentricism’ and ‘multiculturalism’. Cultural Diversity is

the quality of acceptance of diverse cultures as opposed to monoculture or a

homogenization of cultures. For example, before Hawaii was conquered by the

Europeans, the culturally diverse Hawaiian culture existed in the world, and

contributed to the world's cultural diversity. Now Hawaii has been westernized; the

vast majority of its culture has been replaced with Western or American culture. The

phrase cultural diversity can also refer to having different cultures, sustaining their

interests and respecting one another’s differences. These sacred symbols and values

form the crux of these groups to exist and hence the feeling of pride, and

ethnocentricism becomes a phenomenal feature--the tendency for people to

differentiate between their own group and others.

26

It is to view things in which one's own group is the center of everything,

and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it. It is however further

characterized as often leading to pride, vanity, beliefs of one's own group's

superiority, and contempt of outsiders. The phrase ‘multiculturalism’ evolved to

mean the variety of human societies or cultures in a specific region, or in the world

as a whole. It refers to ideologies or policies that promote diverse cultures, the desire

amongst people to express their own identity in the manner they see fit.

Multiculturalism however avoids presenting any specific ethnic, religious, or cultural

community values as central. The term multiculturalism is most often used in

reference to Western nation-states which seemingly achieved a de facto single

national identity during the 18th and/or 19th centuries despite having a mosaic of

cultures. The Canadian society and the Indian society can best be considered to show

multiculturalism as Canada came to be understood as a multicultural society-- a

societal pattern that evolved from bilingualism and biculturalism, and India because

of the diverse languages and the religions that exist. In Canada, alongside the two

dominant cultures and their languages i.e. the Anglophone and the francophone

societies are a variety of languages and cultures that the various immigrants brought

with them. In Afghanistan, multiculturalism has been phenomenal with the existence

of varied ethnic groups; each group identifies itself with variations in language,

habits, religious practices and physical features.

Aesthetic Cultural Patterns: Different aesthetic cultural patterns form the basis for

ethnicity for a few groups. Dance traditions, styles of clothing, food habits and at

times physical beauty are ways in which cultures identify themselves by aesthetic

27

patterns. For example, the African American society has distinct patterns of

communication--their language, gestures, vocabulary form a basis for mutual

acceptance. Music forms a powerful tool for the African Americans to put their voice

forth and express their emotions; the ‘Blues Music’ evolved as a separate genre to

signify and substantiate their stance in the American society. In India, aesthetic

cultural patterns are umpteen and each ethnic group takes pride in nurturing them.

For instance, the Rajasthanis are fond of celebrating each moment of life singing and

dancing. Many tribal groups of southern Rajasthan have retained their legacy of folk

dance forms; the Ghoomar is a type of ceremonial dance performed only by women

on special occasions like weddings and festivals. This articulation of artistic

creativity marks ethnic persistence to maintain the art forms distinctive of a group

rather than of an individual.

Structural Components: The structural characteristic of ethnic group may be

treated as a distinctive sociological phenomenon as to avoid revealing several

structural complexities at the beginning. However, it is obvious that the structural

complexity varies with each ethnic group, vis-a-vis its location, history, size, etc. The

least complicated structure would be what approximates the folk society, usually

tribal in nature; for example the tribes in the newly independent nations of Africa

and also the various American tribes. It is seen that in most cases, the total

membership of a given ethnic group does not occupy a common territory; mostly

they are distributed either within a country or among many countries. There is a

sense of community developed when some members within these geographic areas

tend to cluster and then comprise the nuclei for the broader ethnic entity. These are

28

likely to be seen in rural settings where the qualities of distinctiveness, smallness,

homogeneity, and self-sufficiency appear very glaring. For example, the Baluschs,

the Uzbeks and Pashtun groups in Afghanistan are not confined to the nation and are

spread across other parts of Central Asia. The participants profess that religion and

custom are inseparable. The Amish community in Pennsylvania has sought to control

the external disruptive influences like the governmental regulations and dealings

with a view to sustain the internal order. They seek to take care of their own people

in times of struggle and problems and resist the standards and values of the outside

world. The Jats in India is an ethnic society living in the north-western part of the

nation and in certain regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan. They are conservative by

nature, and rarely marry people from other ethnic groups. Great pride is placed in

their ancestry, and all the Jats in a particular village consider themselves to be the

descendants of the man whom they believe founded it by the power of the sword.

Associational Character: Gordon views that within the ethnic group a network of

organizations and informal social relationships develops which permits the members

of the ethnic group to remain within the confines of the group for all their

relationships throughout their life-cycle. This is particularly seen within the nuclear

community where the scope of the degree of association and inclusiveness is of a

higher level. Religious, economic, regulatory, social and recreational activities work

in tandem to reinforce the ethnic character. The Amish community can be considered

as an example where the church district is the primary self-governing unit and all the

rules of life are determined by this local organization. The leader of the community

is the bishop holding the highest and the most responsible position, the leader is

29

followed by the minister and deacon. Decisions taken by these officials are

democratic and there is no intervention of any other formal organization. It is noted

that the family through its multiple functions plays a vital role in the control of the

individual and also in the associational life of the community. Alongside these

networks, we also find in the urban setting the mushrooming of organizations like

mutual aid societies, theatre groups, burial societies and the like, performing the

needed function for the community. Hence a duality in relationship is seen in such a

set-up; one within the ethnic group and another to reach the larger goals of the group

i.e with the church or temple that stands as the core institution in the community.

These associations comprise the major elements of what Gordon calls the ethnic sub-

society as they serve the important function of making obvious the broader unity of

the ethnic group despite its segmentation into nuclear communities. However, the

proliferation of these special purpose associations reflect growing division of labour

and function within ethnic groups as they tend to become more societal and depend

more on these associations to express their interests both inside and outside the

ethnic boundaries. The effect of this societal structure on the communal character of

the ethnic group is a challenging aspect for study, as this relationship is not void of

stresses and strains.

The We-ness and They-ness of an Ethnic group: When an ethnic group identifies

itself as a distinctive group, the larger society also perceives the distinctiveness of

the group. This distinctiveness refers to ‘we’ to the ethnic group and ‘they’ to the

larger society. The definition of the ethnic group at both levels i.e. at the level of the

group per se and that of the larger society may or may not correlate to what each one

30

considers as distinctiveness. The differences of their perception characterize the

evaluation of this distinctiveness by both. It is often seen that the ethnic group

evaluates its distinctiveness positively, while the larger society evaluates it

negatively. Therefore, the we-ness which is of a positive value to the ethnic group

transmutes to a minus by the larger society in its view of the group as a they. There is

a dynamic tension between the we-ness and they-ness character of the ethnic group.

The larger society tends to validate its own definition and seeks to impose it which

has serious consequences for the ethnic group. Its conception of the they-ness

determines the treatment of the ethnic group and results in the stature of the group

within the larger society. It is seen that historically, society’s conception of the ethnic

group as a ‘they’ is a response to an already established sense of we-ness of the

ethnic group. Such barriers can have positive consequences over the group helping

the group to reinforce the relationship within its members. But at times, and

moreover history has also shown that the barriers have fragmentized the ethnic

solidarity thereby giving them the inferior status. These uncertainties make the group

more vulnerable and often victims to continued pressure from the larger society. For

example, the Hazaras in Afghanistan are never treated on par with the Pashtuns, the

we and they distinctiveness allows the suppressed Hazaras to lead a restricted life

without demanding much from the society, while the Pashtuns continue their

dominance.

Territoriality: There are patterns very noticeable and glaring when ethnic groups

are related to the possession of territory as means of maintaining group cohesion. For

instance, the minorities such as Jews have been without a territory for centuries and

31

now based on their historical genesis claim the territory of Israel. In the broader

sense nationality is indistinguishable from ethnicity, but from a narrower

perspective, ‘nation’ and ‘nationality’ also encompasses diverse groups that have

achieved political unification but still claim for territorial base. This could either be

desired or actual. It is seen that in most cases national identity and subjective cultural

identity cannot be distinguished, especially when ethnic identity and national

territorial identity have been united historically. But some ethnic minorities, at least

for some, for the sake of political independence seek territory either by desire or to

recapture the lost national territory. Native American groups are designated as

nations, although they have lost their territorial base, the most evident case could be

that of the Jewish aspiration to re-establish Israel. However the intensity of territorial

concept to maintain ethnic identity either symbolically or actually is to be considered

apart from other distinguishing features of ethnic identity. For example, there is a

boundary between the Republic of Ireland and the North, imposed by the British in

the 1920s. This boundary defines the community as a border community and

constitutes a dividing line within the community that underlies the opposition

between the two groups: the Catholics and the Protestants. The former group is

constrained to accept the border as a political reality and the latter very keen and

determined to maintain it. McAll in his book, states the notion of identifying

ethnicity on the basis of boundaries where he presents three cases for understanding

the issue of boundary. The first case being where the boundary conceptualization is

in a sense absolute, secondly where the boundary is itself called into question and

32

third where the boundary is dispensed with as a way of displaying muti-ethnic

society.

Language: Language can be seen as an important component to maintain separate

ethnic identity. It is often related to a group having a separate language, the Scottish

use Gaelic to claim separate ethnic identity. The same can be seen with the Irish who

use Gaellic to maintain their Celtic identity. Language can be seen as an objective

marker of an ethnic group and it involves a great deal of subjective dimension. In

independent India, the partition deprived the function of an ethnicity marker of the

religion and raised language as an ethnicity marker; hence the creation of the

‘linguistic states’ to mark the case of Andhra Pradesh. However, in order to have

language as a distinctive marker of any ethnic group it should satisfy the following

conditions. 1. The language should be shared by numerous enough members of the

ethnic group and 2. the language does not apply or shared by most other members of

other ethnic groups. For a language to be considered as a boundary marker of

ethnicity, the language should be distinguished from other languages. It is however a

difficult task even for linguists to decide whether two related languages or language

varieties are the same or two different languages as Bernard Comrie argues:

It is very difficult or impossible in many cases to decide whether two

related speech varieties should be considered different languages or merely

different dialects of the same language. But these decisions have often been

made more on political and social grounds rather than strictly linguistic

grounds. (Comrie, 2)

33

The satisfaction of the conditions does not always depend upon the reality but also

upon the perception. On the one hand, languages can be identified or differentiated

rather freely, if not arbitrarily, irrespective of the difference or similarity. On the

other, the sharing of a given language by members is sometimes a matter of

perception rather than a matter of fact.

Religion: As ethnic features such as language, food, clothing, beliefs become

distinctive markers or rather emblems, there is religion that plays a vital role to make

the ethnic group distinct. A useful example for illustration is that of the modern

American Jew; a considerable body of literature has been written by Jewish

intellectuals throughout their history in Europe and the United States about what it is

to be a Jew in a prevailing Christian society. It is also feared that the contemporary

American Jews may soon lose their sense of Jewishness. It is seen that some Jewish

youth study Hebrew, attempt to visit Israel, join a synagogue and reinstitute their

rituals in order to define themselves. This illustrates dramatically the need for

psychological approach to ethnic identity where sense of belonging through religion

becomes a crucial factor. It is also said that ethnicity is determined by what one feels

about oneself and not by what one is expected to behave. It is seen that in a simple

independent culture the sense of self is relatively uncomplicated and one’s sense of

belonging is without any contradictions. However, this unified sense of belonging is

disrupted when the state emerges as an institution for governing, when several ethnic

groups are coercively unified within a single political framework. Things get

complicated when future-oriented revolutionary ideologies appear and these are

often religious movements that claim a so called transcendent form of identity more

34

encompassing than currently available definitions. Therefore religious movements

can appear as revivalist cults or as newly fabricated ethnicity to reinterpret symbols

of the past and claim a bright future for its members. Lola Romannucci Ross and

George A. De. Vos have stated that:

Ethnicity, therefore, is, in its narrowest sense, a feeling of continuity with a

real or imagined past, a feeling that is maintained as an essential part of one’s

self-definition. Ethnicity is also intimately related to the individual need for a

collective continuity as a belonging member of some group. The individual

senses some degree of threat to his or her own survival if the group or lineage

is threatened with extinction. Ethnicity, therefore, includes a sense of

personal survival through a historical continuity of belonging that extends

beyond the self. (Romannucci, De. Vos, 40)

A glance at the origins of human society includes the observation that

religion, or at least the capacity for religion has evolved from earlier propensities. It

is seen that the capacity for religion can be described as arising from a ‘loose

confederacy of separate modules in the human brain’. Most of the authors have said

that religiousness is a nearly universal phenomenon amongst humans and the degree

of this religiousness varies widely from passive acceptance of their various societal

norms to radically self-destructive behavioral patterns. This feature of making

religion adopt nuances and appreciatively deviant from pre-existing propensities

strongly suggests that this capacity has been selected for a particular population.

Wilson states, many explanations have been proposed over the years to explain the

prevalence of religions in human societies, centering over the uncertain possibility

35

that the capacity for religiosity is adaptive. Among these are the possibilities of (1)

religion is a group-level adaptation, reinforcing social cohesion; (2) religion is an

individual-level adaptation, directing human behavior; or (3) religion as a cultural

‘parasite’ that often evolves at the expense of human individuals and groups.

Before we look into how religion becomes a deciding factor for ethnicity, it

becomes essential to understand religion and its stance in the society from the lens of

a few theorists. Marx, Weber and Durkheim each have tried to address problems

associated with the advent of modernity. One issue that has developed within the

context of modernity is how religion impacts a society that increasingly is built on

the foundations of rationalism. Many intellectuals started asking questions about the

origin of religion in the context of modernity, they no longer feel the need for God

hypothesis. If society’s culture was moving to a place of mass non-belief what did it

mean for contemporary society which had many structures based around religion?

Marx, the earliest of the three thinkers, actually wrote very little about religion.

Much of Marx’s direct statements on religion come in the first several paragraphs of

his Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction. Here

we find Marx’s classic statement on religion, that ‘it is the opium of the people.’

Marx clarifies his position, stating:

Man, who has found in the fantastic reality of heaven, where he sought a

supernatural being, only his own reflection, will no longer be tempted to find

only the semblance of himself—a non-human being—where he seeks and

must seek his true reality. … Religion is indeed man’s self-consciousness and

self-awareness. (Marx, 65)

36

Here he reveals that religion is a reflection of humanity and not of a God.

Marx makes the claim that the God, we sought in our religions is actually ourselves,

as we have apparently discovered through the course of recent historical events,

presumably modernism. Not only is religion, a representation of humanity, but

further, it is a representation of our own self-consciousness. Also Durkheim attempts

to show that religion forms the epistemological basis for human experience. He is

however not content to make religion the epistemological basis for contemporary

society and seeks to radically invert this conception of the relation of religion and

society. His understanding is based on the notion that it is not religion that acts as a

defining factor for the origin of society, but in fact the society being the reason for

the origin of religion. In this way, he follows Marx in making religion a reflection of

society. Weber, like Durkheim, invested significant time in the study of religion.

Similar to Durkheim, Weber sees a great deal of contemporary society rooted in the

processes of religion. However, like Marx, Weber sees the driving force of history as

material interests and not ideas, as found in religious beliefs. So in tying religion to

the spread of capitalism, as he does in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of

Capitalism, he attempts to show that the ideas behind the religious beliefs are in the

perusal of materialistic goals. Weber lays out that people pursue their interests, and

that religious leaders and structures help them achieve those goals, thereby allowing

religion to provide the tools for both stability and social change. The connection

between religion and warfare was manifested as tribalism which served for the

individual as an ethnic identifier. Dan in his essay on Religion and Ethnocentricism:

37

Is Religion Adaptive proposes to put forth the evolution of religion from an entity to

seek heavenly abode to a medium to attain materialistic gains. Mac Neil states:

By making possible the belief that a supernatural entity knows the outcome

of all actions and can influence such outcomes, that one’s “self” (i.e. “soul”)

is not tied to one’s physical body, and that if one is killed in battle, one’s

essential self (i.e. soul) will go to a better “place” (e.g. Heaven, Valhalla,

etc.) the capacity for religious experience can tip the balance toward

participation in warfare. By doing so, the capacity for religious belief not

only makes it possible for individuals to do what they might not otherwise be

motivated to do, it also tends to tip the balance toward victory on the part of

the religiously devout participant. This is because success in battle, and

success in war, hinges on commitment: the more committed a military force

is in battle, the more likely it is to win, all other things being equal. (Neil, 45)

Religion came to emerge as a group activity with the construction of usually

elaborate community buildings and structures for places of worship. Later,

developments followed, and rather made religion adaptable, to accommodate the

ownership of land, hierarchies of authority in places of functionality, and more

formal behavioral prescriptions. It came to be one of the defining factors of

civilization and the spread of invasion; conversion and trade in the name of religion

became justifiable. Conquering of rival cities and states both reinforced and

benefited from concepts attributed to religious fervor. And civilizations rather

legitimized their actions claiming that the uncivilized are primitives, barbarians or

the like. Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs and Steel refers to describing the Sumerian

38

civilization as a kleptocracy, in which the citizenry were essentially taken advantage

of. The religious leaders have however gained in wealth and political control as a

result of institutionalizing religion. Similarly in Afghanistan, with the dominance of

Sunni Muslim culture, major political and economic concerns are managed by

people who follow the Sunni Sect..

Scott Atran elaborates the function of religion: “Emotionally-motivated self-

sacrifice to the supernatural stabilizes in-group moral order, inspiring competition

with out-groups” (268). Religious devotion can further be described as ‘expensive,

hard-to-fake commitments’ where the extent of sacrifice has no limits. In the Judeo-

Christian tradition, in the Old Testament this is most broadly exemplified by the

myth of Abraham, who was commanded by his God to sacrifice his son, Isaac.

Despite the costliness of such an act or perhaps because of it others in Abraham’s

community presumably saw that he was prepared to put the interests of his God

above that of his own prosperity. This act rationalized the act of self-sacrifice, where

other members of the community became motivated and elevate his social standing.

The holy war in most of the Muslim nations can be accounted to the justified act of

Prophet Mohammed--- an unjust means to restore peace and resistance against the

West.

Class and Ethnicity: As we look into the factors concerning societal stratification,

and how ethnic groups have emerged, class comes to the fore and as a central factor

in the consolidation of groups. The period when economic factors and relationships

were at the heart of social structures in complex societies, class was talked about in

the realm of production and all division based on economy took a rigid shape rather

39

than based on empirical one. Politics and industrial disputes paved way to ethnic

divisions and has come to replace class divisions. Theorists say that class is not as

important as it once was and the enduring significance of ethnicity as a form of

group affiliation jibed with the political arena as it becomes both expressive and

instrumental. The focus therefore shifted to ethnicity to justify the rapid changes that

have been taking place and class being replaced as the focus for group identity and

action. However, the work tends to analyze the various propositions suggested by

theorists on the notion of class and its evolution since the Pre-industrialized times.

Class in the Pre-industrial society: According to the theories related to societal

divisions, and the understanding of Marx and Weber, class existence in societies

works in the realm of a market and different categories of people who have different

capacities to command goods and services on the market according to their

possession or lack of property, or their stance on some commercial or professional

position. And we can understand that without such a market class ceases to exist.

And it wouldn’t be absurd to question the existence of class in the Pre-industrialized

societies. Sahlins proposes to talk of the non-existence of class division as the basic

organizing principle in these societies and that society being identified on the basis

of kinship. Societal stratification is barely existent and not sufficiently absent. It

means that all individuals have a place on a vast genealogical tree. As in case of a

more stratified ramage-type system (as it is called based on kinship), there is a

tendency for scattered settlement and productive specialization i.e. fishing or

agriculture based on the environment. Hence broadest possible links between groups

is maintained especially by the producers as they are obliged to the people involved

40

in the work in order to obtain what they want. Thus the pattern of kinship

organization is related to the way in which production takes place. It is observed that

greater the surplus that can be produced beyond the needs of the producer, greater

the number of individual non-producers that can be supported. He also proposes to

say that producers do not meet on the market to exchange their produce with all the

possible uses and abuses of market exchange that are central to Marxian and

Weberian notions of class. The produce is rather circulated in purely reciprocal

exchange between the direct producers and within the framework of their kinship

connection. It is therefore predominantly seen that it isn’t the class but the ‘kin’

societies that Sahlin proposes to promulgate during pre-industrial society.

In contrast to the social classes of market-dominated societies, status

differences in kinship societies do not, as a rule, depend on differences in private

wealth. Status inequalities in primitive societies are not accompanied by

entrepreneurial enterprise and the complete separation of producers from the factors

of production. Social relations of mastery and subordination are here not correlates

of economic relations of owner and labourer. Modern sociological definitions of

class which stress occupational standing, class antagonisms, differences of interest,

and the like are not applicable to societies of the primitive order. Categories of rank

in kin societies are designated ‘status levels’ and the term ‘social classes’ are

reserved for the social strata of the market-dominated societies.

From the above discussions, it is seen that the term ‘class’ should be used of

market-dominated societies and this has led Sahlins to reject the Marxian definition

of class. Marx proposes that the complete separation of producers from the factors of

41

production makes possible the development of capitalist relations of production and

the coming into existence of the opposed classes of bourgeoisie and proletariat. And

it is precisely this distinction that makes it prominent between the owners and

labourers. Sahlin’s conceptualization of the pre-industrial society and the existence

of status levels, and in claiming that the kinship system constitutes the underlying

logic of the system as a whole, make it clear that he simply reproduces the dominant

ideology promoted by the chiefly class. The stratified lineage-based societies are

functionally organized collectives composed of individual kin people with

constraints operating both at the environmental level and at the level of the social

structure, thereby giving scope to the development of the patrimonial state and of

feudalism. This patrimonial structure can serve as a vehicle for social structure and

the emergence of the pyramid-type structure is evident in which every member of the

society is by and large under the control of the chief. History or rather the pre-

industrialized societies talks of several instances where the struggle between power

blocs for the control of land threatens the security of the tenants and the tenants’

vulnerability to seek protection from the power blocs. The mass of tenants and

labour also constitute a class, giving rise to a vertical organization of society, and

also a complex and more threatening horizontal division between classes seems to

develop.

A Marxian approach suggests that there is an inevitable and universal

tendency to class formation, wherever there is productivity involved and social

organization set up. Once such an opposition comes into existence, that opposition

seems to concretize and colour all other forms of opposition and organization. E. P.

42

Thompson raises questions about what one means by class in relation to pre-

capitalist society. He refers to the French peasantry who constitute a class by virtue

of their finding themselves in serious economic conditions and in conflict with other

classes and who do not constitute a class as they have no national political

organization or rather self-awareness beyond the local level. This distinction is

evident and at the heart of Marxist approach to class where ‘manifest’ and ‘latent’

class interest appear, i.e. to say that a class can be said to exist without the members

of that class themselves being aware of it, and it tends to exist to the fullest with the

self-awareness of the class as a class. Therefore, the notion of class as a way of

characterizing society came into full existence with the Industrial Revolution and its

progeny, the industrial bourgeoisie and proletariat. What existed in the Pre-capitalist

society was groups of opposed interests or rather groups for potentiality of class. It is

evident from the discussions made above that in non-Marxists approaches to class;

class follows social organization whereas in Marxist approach social organization

follows from class.

The different kinds of appropriations built across production also allows us

not to ignore to connect with the historical context in which human society is

conceived of being egalitarian or communistic, and will eventually return to a state

of classlessness after having passed through several millennia of class struggle. The

emergence of the bourgeois is a stage in this development, manifesting the

breakdown of feudalism but the construction of a classless society by the proletariat

is still a challenge. It is not just the defining features that segregate one class from

the other but also by the embattled opposition that each side considers, a war position

43

where a loss for one side can only be a gain for the other. Therefore, class is a central

concept for Marx connecting all the themes of production and also a historical

necessity of the struggle between classes especially the glaring global conflict

between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. In Marx’s theory of society, class is

central and forms the basis for all differences that exist in the society.

For Weber, the theory of society is a theory of action, production and

relationship to production is only part of the big picture. He gives his analysis of

class from a different perspective and says that any social formation depends on the

dominant theme of a given society at a given time. For him class is neither central

nor absent. In his Economy and Society, Weber tends to explain human action and

looks at class division based on the different levels of motivation providing the

means for categorizing people. He tends to distinguish three kinds of class: ‘property

classes’, ‘commercial classes’, and ‘social classes’. The propertied class uses its

property for an income from those who are obliged to pay to use that property in the

form of rent. Hence the propertied class consolidates its privileged position as one

who can acquire the best that is available in the society-- in the form of goods and

services and to gain control of the formation of capital for the production process. At

the other end are the negatively privileged property classes, who have no property,

are bankrupt or are unfree. Between the two classes Weber distinguishes the ‘middle-

status classes’ who are propertied but not such that it can provide them with income

for rent. These include small peasants, craftsmen and small scale entrepreneurs. We

can observe that Weber’s stand on class is based on the ability to command goods

and services to achieve social standing and also an inner satisfaction which is again

44

related to property. A commercial class is one whose conditions of existence are

determined by the productive or commercial activity in which the members of the

class are involved. He distinguishes among different principal social classes-- the

working class, the petty bourgeoise, propertyless intellectuals, highly-skilled white

collar workers, and civil servants, and large-scale property owners and the

privileged. However, according to Parsons, social stratification is based on the theory

of action; he does not abandon the concept of class but considers it a subsidiary

concept within his theory of social stratification. We can also see that differential

distribution of wealth and status in the American society in the 1950s is the result of

differences in performance that give rise to differences in the reward in the light of

certain set standards. Here he speaks of high status individuals whose status per se is

evaluated based on his possessions--instrumental possessions and possessions as

rewards. Rewards are accorded differentially to individuals based on their

performance. Therefore top performers have the best rewards and have access to the

best goods and services whereas those who are least successful get no instrumental

possessions. Success or failure is what accords an individual a stance in a society in

the light of society’s values. He also concedes that the traditional dividing lines

between the middle and lower class have become blurred because of the high wages

paid to the labour elite. For him, class status refers to combination of statuses that

any individual can have in occupational terms, as a member of various associations

or a member of a group based on kinship. Class therefore is used in association with

status that any individual may have against the background of social stratification.

Contemporary Marxist theorists consider empirical study of past social conditions

45

within the framework of Marxian approach to study the contemporary capitalist

society to suffice the inadequacies of existing theories. Therefore, they try to classify

broadly the empirical and theoretical, although the classification being an acute one.

These theorists attempted the study of class formation in the late eighteenth and early

nineteenth century England, analyzed the various reform movements, protests and

associations, especially, on the part of the artisans and of the new and growing class

of skilled and unskilled factory workers. E. P. Thompson’s definition of class is

based on the empirical approach to class, class as an experience.

By class I understand a historical phenomenon, unifying a number of

disparate and seemingly unconnected events, both in the raw material of

experience and in the consciousness. I emphasize that it is a historical

phenomenon. I do not see class as a ‘structure’ nor even as a ‘category’, but

as something which in fact happens (and can be shown to have happened) in

human relationships. (Thompson, 89)

From the above we can understand that the coming into existence of the

working class is but a manifestation of changed and painful and long drawn-out

process that has its roots in the eighteenth century, but reaches fruition in the

nineteenth century i.e. in the 1830s and 1840s. History witnesses several outbreaks

of protests among workers and at particular developments i.e. labour being replaced

by machinery. For contemporary Marxist theorists, the transition to capitalist

relations of production is not of theoretical interest, but of experience because it falls

between two historical periods that are broadly classified as ‘feudal’ and ‘capitalist.’

The period justly speaks of articulation of forces and does not confine itself to

46

abstractionism of historical theories, or juggling with concepts. Therefore, if class is

one of the core concepts for Marxists in the Marxian tradition and for non-Marxists

raising much argument, ethnicity is equally more perplexing for most of the

theorists. Therefore each culture has its own class system, some very well defined,

and others being obscure. Ethnicity is sometimes viewed to be a mask behind which

relations of class-based exploitation conceal their real identity. There is a need to

distinguish between the way the social groups are interpreted and the reasons why

those groups exist in the first place. Ethnicity can therefore be understood as one

such interpretation. It is just a form labeling. Its significance flows from the kinds of

changes that are taking place in society, and as a result ethnicity has come to replace

class as the focus for identity and action.

47

Works Cited:

Barth, Fredrick. Ethnic groups and boundaries: the social organization of culture

difference. Norway: Waveland Press, 1998. Print.

Benjamin B. Ringer &Elinor R. Lawless. Race—Ethnicity and Society. London:

Rouledge, 1989. Print.

David I. Kertzer and Dominique Arel, ed. Census and Identity: The Politics of Race,

Ethnicity, and Language in National Census. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2002. Print.

Glazer, Nathan / Moynihan, Daniel P. (eds). C. S. Schelling. Ethnicity. Theory and

Experience. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, 1975. Print.

Lola Romanucci-Ross, George A. De Vos, ed. Ethnic Identity:Creation, Conflict and

Accommodation. 3rd

ed. New Delhi: Altamira Press, 1995. Print.

Marx, Karl. Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1843. Print.

Moynihan, Daniel P. “Pandemonium.” Ethnicity in International Politics. Oxford

University Press: New York, 1993. Print.

Rousseau, Jean-Jaques. Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men.

Trans. Donald. A .Holland: Hacket Pub. Co, 1992. Print.

Thompson, E. P. The Making of the English Working Class. Toronto: Penguin books.

1991. Print.

Weber, Max. The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York: Scribner.

[ 1930. Print.