jonathan okamura - situational ethnicity.pdf

This article was downloaded by: [Ohio State University Libraries]On: 27 February 2013, At: 13:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Ethnic and Racial StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rers20

Situational ethnicityJonathan Y. Okamura a ba University College, Londonb East‐West Center, HawaiiVersion of record first published: 13 Sep 2010.

To cite this article: Jonathan Y. Okamura (1981): Situational ethnicity, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 4:4, 452-465

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01419870.1981.9993351

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rers20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01419870.1981.9993351

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Situational ethnicity

Jonathan Y. OkamuraUniversity College, London, andEast-West Center, Hawaii

The significance of the concept of the social situation for analysis of thestructure and process of ethnic relations has gained credence in recent socialanthropological approaches to ethnicity. This focus on analysis at a lowerlevel of social organization than the overall society is congruent with anincreased concern with subjective and perceptual notions of ethnicity interms of the actor's understandings and explanations of social behavior. Forclearly, it is at this level of abstraction thatthe variable meanings of ethnicity,the differing criteria for ascription of ethnic identities, the fluidity of ethnicboundaries, and the varying relevance of ethnic and other social identitiesare most apparent for the actor and the researcher alike. A situationalapproach to ethnicity manifests the essential variability in its significance forsocial relations in different social contexts and at different levels of socialorganization. Accordingly, such a perspective avoids the problem of reificationof the concept of ethnic group that follows from its identification with anobjectively defined, shared, uniform cultural inventory or with commonnormative patterns of behavior that are assumed to be consistently adhered to.

This paper is a review and synthesis of the ideas of a number of socialanthropologists who have all explicitly emphasized the relevance of social situa-tions for the analysis of ethnicity and ethnic relations. The juxtaposition ofthe two concepts, social situation and ethnicity, to yield the term 'situationalethnicity' is attributable to Paden (1967) in a paper on ethnic categorizationin urban Africa. He states that 'situational ethnicity is premised on the ob-servation that particular contexts may determine which of a person's com-munal identities or loyalties are appropriate at a point in time' (Paden, 1970:268). Although minimal in content, this delineation of the term neverthelesshighlights some of the more salient features in its approach to ethnicity. Ittakes note that variability in the affirmation of ethnic identity may bedependent upon the immediate social situation, and it relates this variabilityto the actor's perception of that situation.

The sociological origins of the notion of situational ethnicity can betraced to the work of Gluckman (1940), who in turn cited Evans-Pritchard1937) as a source of his ideas. The latter, in Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic

Ethnic and Racial Studies Volume 4 Number 4 October 1981© R.K.P. 1981 0141-9870/81/0404-0452 $1.50/1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

13:

07 2

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

Situational ethnicity 453

among the Azande, was of course not concerned in any way with ethnicity,but he did comment on the 'plasticity of [Zande witchcraft] beliefs as func-tions of situations' (ibid., 54). He observed that 'A man in one situation util-izes what in the beliefs are convenient to him and pays no attention to otherelements which he might use in different situations' (ibid.). On the otherhand, Gluckman was specifically concerned with ethnicity or 'culture contact'in his analysis of the various roles and relationships of Europeans and Zulusin the celebration of the opening of a bridge in South Africa. He expandedon the seminal ideas of Evans-Pritchard and introduced the notion of 'situa-tional selection'. He contended that an individual's membership in a particulargroup in a particular situation is 'determined' by the values, interests, andmotives that influence his behavior in that situation (Gluckman, 1958: 26).'Individuals can thus live coherent lives by situational selection from a medleyof contradictory values, ill-assorted beliefs, and varied interests and tech-niques' (ibid.). The significance of these ideas in the eventual development ofthe concept of situational ethnicity will become apparent later.

It would be appropriate at the outset to denote the meaning which isattributed to the concept of social situation in this paper. Although the socialanthropologists included in this discussion used the term somewhat differently,in some cases with reference to dyadic, face-to-face relationships and inothers to a more general level of social relations, it is clear from their termin-ology that they understand social situations to refer to a level of social organi-zation lower than that of the overall society. As such, Mitchell's (1978: 24)conception of social situation, which he distinguishes from social setting, canbe adopted as a general exposition of the term. In a paper on labor migrationin southern Africa, he states that the setting of social action refers to themacroscopic political, administrative, and economic structures in whichmigration takes place, while the situation has reference to the more micro-scopic particular set of circumstances in which a migrant finds himself.Accordingly, in an analysis which places primary emphasis on the situation ofsocial action, sociological interest is focused on the way in which individualsappraise the behavioral choices open to themselves given the constraintsimposed upon them by the wider setting. Thus it might be said that the struc-tural features of the setting provide the overall framework of social relations,while at the level of the situation concern is on the different courses of actionactors may then pursue according to their understanding of their personalcircumstances within this framework. Note that besides being one of differentlevels of sociological analysis, the distinction between the setting and thesituation of social action is also one of perspective. That is, the former per-tains to the analyst's or the 'objective' point of view, while the latter refersto the actor's or the 'subjective' viewpoint.

If the above notion of the social situation is used to elucidate the conceptof situational ethnicity, one can see how the latter term incorporates bothstructural and cognitive aspects of ethnicity. The structural dimension ofsituational ethnicity would refer to the restraints enjoined upon parties withinsocial situations as a consequence of the setting of social action, which in this

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

13:

07 2

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

013

454 Jonathan Y. Okamura

case is provided by the overall structure of ethnic group relations in a givensociety. The setting also includes the relative political and socio-economicstatuses of these groups, the distribution of occupation, education, income,wealth, and other social and material resources amongst them, their com-parative numerical proportions, and the immediate prospects for change inany of these areas. In the extreme case, as a result of the nature of ethnicgroup relations at the overall level of the setting, the constraints which impingeupon actors may entail the consistent and ubiquitous ethnic ascription oftheir respective roles and statuses in diverse social situations. That is, insocieties of this type, such as South Africa, social relations at all levels andin all spheres of the society are primarily structured according to the ethnicidentities of the parties. Furthermore, the rights and obligations of interactingparties derive from and correspond to the positions that their respectiveethnic groups hold in the overall status order of the society. In consequence,the actor's decision as to which course of action he chooses to follow may beseverely restricted should he belong to a group which holds a subordinatestatus in the society.

However, ethnicity is not always of such decisive significance for socialrelations in all societies nor in all social situations within the same society. Inthese cases, the role constraints which derive from ethnicity are not as per-vasive nor as limiting, and accordingly actors are less restricted in their be-havioral options, at least as far as ethnicity is concerned. It may be that insome situations ethnicity is a relevant factor which influences the interactionof parties, while in other situations the relationship proceeds according toother attributes of the parties such as class, religion, occupation, sex, per-sonality, etc. The structural dimension of situational ethnicity thus points tothe essentially variable significance of ethnicity as an organizing principle ofsocial relations. Furthermore, the degree of its significance in a given socialsituation in terms of the limitations that it imposes on the behavioral choicesof individuals is dependent upon its salience at the overall level of ethnicgroup relations.

The other dimension of situational ethnicity, the cognitive, pertains tothe actor's subjective perception of the situation in which he finds himselfand to the salience he attributes to ethnicity as a relevant factor in that situa-tion. This sphere is thus concerned with the actor's understandings of culturalsymbols or signs and the meanings which are imputed to these elements as isevident from categorical ascriptions of ethnic identity to self and to othersfor purposes of interaction. With regard to self-ascription of ethnic identity,interest is focused on the actor's option of affirming various ethnic and othersocial identities which he holds according to his understanding of his personalcircumstances and the importance which he accords to ethnicity in that set ofcircumstances. In the ideal model, individuals may advance their claims tomembership in any one of a generally limited number of ethnic categoriesthat they belong to, or perhaps do not belong to, in accordance with theirbelief that such a selection of ethnic identity will be to their advantage. Onthe other hand, rather than place a dominant emphasis on ethnicity in his

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

13:

07 2

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

013


behavior, the actor may consider it in his interests to obscure rather than toassert his ethnic identity in a given situation so that the relationship proceedsin terms of other social statuses he holds. However, it will be recalled thatthese behavioral choices of the actor are circumscribed to varying degrees bythe role constraints which derive from the wider structure of ethnic grouprelations, that is, the setting of the social situation. In some situations (or inall situations in some societies), actors do not have the option of advancingwhatever ethnic identities and claims they may hold and which they believeto be in their best interests. This state of affairs follows because the oppositeparty or group to the relation may be in a position of relative power so thatit need not accord the first party or group the particular ethnic identity orclaim it has advanced and can thus 'define the situation' (Thomas, 1928: 42)as it pleases. This differential distribution of power, which corresponds tothe differential rights and obligations of parties in social situations, is deriva-tive of the overall statuses of ethnic groups in the wider setting.

The other aspect of the cognitive dimension of situational ethnicity hasto do with ascription of ethnic identity to others. In this case, concern ison the actor's perception of and attribution of meaning to various culturalphenomena or phenotypic traits to categorize others in order to interact withthem. Categorization of others with an appropriate ethnic label providesactors with a set of expectations and an explanation of the opposite party'sbehavior. Consistent with a situational approach to ethnicity, it should beadded that the ethnic meaning which is attributed to denotative symbols orsigns is not always present in all social situations in which they may appear(Mitchell, 1974: 23).

Although it is sometimes more common in sociological discussions ofethnicity to focus on ethnic ascription by others rather than to others, itmight be recalled that the cognitive dimension of situational ethnicity isprimarily concerned with the actor's perception of ethnic diacrítica. Tosome extent, ethnic ascription by others is more properly encompassedwithin the structural dimension of situational ethnicity since assignment ofa particular ethnic identity to a person may invoke constraints on his or herbehavior. Actually, from a cognitive perspective, both ethnic ascription byand to others refer back to the same original process, the actor's perceptionof cultural features and attribution of meaning to them.

It should be made clear at the outset that the notion of the social situationreferred to in this paper is not necessarily of the same order as that utilizedby Van Velsen (1967) in his 'situational analysis' approach. Although thetheoretical premises of this mode of analysis are highly relevant to the con-structs of situational ethnicity, its methodology emphasizes the detailedrecording of the interactions of individuals as individuals, that is, as specifiedactors, in a sequence of social encounters. Data gathering and analysis at thisspecific level of abstraction are not essential requirements of a situationalapproach to ethnicity.

Nevertheless, some of the theoretical assumptions behind Van Velsen'sconcept of situational analysis are especially applicable to the notion of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

13:

07 2

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

013


situational ethnicity. It is his fundamental contention that the norms of asociety do not constitute a consistent and coherent unity, rather they maybe ambiguous or even contradictory (Van Velsen, 1967: 146). Clearly, sucha state of affairs essentially characterizes culturally diverse societies withtheir disparate systems of social relations, activities, and norms and values.Van Velsen continues that it is this fact of .norms in conflict which allowsfor their manipulation by individuals through their exercise of choice be-tween alternative norms relevant to a given situation. It is noteworthy thatVan Velsen (ibid:) states that this manipulation proceeds "without neces-sarily impairing [the] apparently enduring structure of social relationships',or in the terminology used here, the setting of social action.

It should also be made explicit that although the terminology used in thispaper makes reference to 'individuals' and to 'actors', the concept of situa-tional ethnicity is not intended to have explanatory validity for behavior of aparticularistic nature. That is, it is not being claimed that a situational approachto ethnicity can account for every specific exercise of choice at the individuallevel. Behavior of this nature may be more adequately treated by individualdecision-making models such as that suggested by Garbett (1975) for circu-latory migration. The underlying assumption in situational ethnicity is thatthe determinants of the courses of action actors may pursue tend to lead tovarying degrees of regularity in social behavior, and it is for these generalizedpatterns of social relations that situational ethnicity has explanatory value.Accordingly, regularities in similarly defined social situations facilitate asystematic analysis of the scope and nature of ethnic relations. As Mitchellhas remarked, 'The analyst . . . is able to appreciate the instrumental advantageto the actors of alternative justifications of action and he is able to explainlogically why the actors chose one frame rather than another in terms ofwhich to construe their social actions' (Mitchell, 1974: 31).

The format of the discussion will be to review first the social anthropolo-gists whose approaches to ethnicity pertain to the structural dimension ofsituational ethnicity and then those whose perspectives relate more to thecognitive dimension.

The structural dimension of situational ethnicity pertains to the constraintsimposed upon actors within social situations as a consequence of the overallstructure of ethnic group relations in a society. This position is succinctlystated by Epstein (1978: xiv): 'For the individual, therefore, whether, and towhat extent, he acquires a sense of ethnic identity always involves some ele-ment of choice. But such choice is subject to a number of constraints. Someof these are clearly social, and relate to certain features of the social system.'It can be said, then, that the relevance of ethnicity as a contingent factor is'situationally determined' (Mitchell, 1974: 23; Vincent, 1974: 377). BothVincent and Despres (1975b) have expressed concern for ascertainmentof the social situations which tend to lead to the affirmation of ethnicidentity. Vincent states that the relevance of ethnicity as a status comparedto other statuses that a person holds may be related to 'situations of con-frontation, crisis, and ritual' (1974: 377). This position is similar to that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

13:

07 2

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

013


assumed by Despres (1975b) in a paper on ethnicity and ethnic relationsin Guyana. He contends that to assert ethnic identities in interpersonalencounters advances a status claim that establishes a relationship of com-petitive opposition between ethnic groups, and this relationship takes intoconsideration the status inequalities of the groups. He then concludes thatsituations which bring into question the differential rights and privileges asso-ciated with these status disparities between groups, or situations which resultin the 'resource' distributions from which these inequalities originate, lead tothe assertion of ethnic identities and their related claims {ibid., 109). Thisargument would seem to imply that individual encounters which do notdirectly involve the status inequalities between the ethnic groups of the partiesto the interaction do not result in the affirmation of ethnic identities. That is,these relationships may proceed according to other social identities which theactors possess, and thus it can be seen that ethnicity need not be a relevantfactor in all social situations in multi-ethnic societies.

Despres further states that the variety of interethnic encounters manifestsa pattern of segmentary opposition. That is, in certain situations the nationalstatus claims of Guyanese are united in opposition to those of non-citizens inthat society, in some situations Africans and East Indians confront oneanother, and in yet other contexts Africans are divided amongst themselves.Despres concludes that 'this pattern of segmentary opposition corresponds toand reflects both the continuities and discontinuities which the differentialincorporation of ethnic populations enjoins in the overall structure of Guyanesesociety' (1975b: 109). Mitchell (1960) had previously noted a similar seg-mentary structure of interaction among African migrants in the Copperbelttowns (see also Banton, 1965: 145; Keyes, 1976:206-7; and Smith, 1955:3).Cohen also relates situational ethnicity to this structure of segmentary opposi-tion as he notes that 'It [situational ethnicity] results from multiple member-ships in differently scaled sociocultural groupings, one of which is used tosignify the differences between actors in the situation' (Cohen, 1978: 389).

To turn now to the cognitive dimension of situational ethnicity, Barth iswithout doubt the foremost social anthropologist associated with a cognitiveapproach to ethnicity and ethnic group relations. In his view the sharing of acommon culture should not be construed as the essential definitional criterionof ethnic groups. On the contrary, it is his contention that this focus on theculture-bearing aspect of ethnic groups results in an analysis in which 'Differ-ences between groups become differences in trait inventories; the attentionis drawn to the analysis of cultures, not of ethnic organization' (Barth, 1969a:12). He continues in implicit criticism of pluralism theory (Smith, 1965,1969a, b) that it is thus invalid to conceive of 'overt institutional forms' ascomprising the cultural elements which differentiate an ethnic group (Barth,1969a: 13).

As the alternative approach, Barth advocates an emphasis on 'what issocially effective' such that ethnic groups may be regarded as a mode ofsocial organization in the sense that they 'organize' interaction betweenparties 'Qbid., original italics). The decisive feature of ethnic groups then

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

13:

07 2

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

013


becomes self-ascription and ascription by others to an ethnic category which'classifies a person in terms of his basic, most general identity, presumptivelydetermined by his origin and background' (ibid.). Actors, therefore, 'formethnic groups in this organizational sense' insofar as they employ ethnicidentities to classify themselves and others in their relationships (ibid., 13,14). Barth continues that in these interactions the cultural features whichare taken into consideration do not represent the totality of 'objective'differences between groups, but only those elements which the actors them-selves regard as salient. Analytically, it is argued that these cultural 'contents'of ethnic differences are of two kinds: '(i) overt signals or signs — the dia-critical features that people look for and exhibit to show identity, often suchfeatures as dress, language, house-form, or general style of life, and (ii) basicvalue orientations: the standards of morality and excellence by which per-formance is judged' (ibid.). He adds that neither of these kinds of culturalcriteria is derivative from a descriptive inventory of cultural traits, since itcannot be assumed which elements will be construed as 'organizationallyrelevant' by the actors.

It is clear, then, that Barth is cognizant of the variable significance ofethnicity in the structuring of social relations. As he states, 'ethnic categoriesprovide an organizational vessel that may be given varying amounts and formsof content in different socio-cultural systems. They may be of great relevanceto behaviour, but they need not be, they may pervade all social life, or theymay be relevant only in limited sectors of activity' (ibid.). However, whereasthe relevance of ethnicity has been deemed to be 'situationally determined'(Despres, 1975b: Mitchell, 1974: 23; and Vincent, 1974: 377), Barth wouldappear to view its significance as essentially dependent on the actors' percep-tions and understandings of ethnic diacrítica. Indeed, his decided emphasis onthe cognitive aspects of ethnicity has been criticized as a tendency to reduceethnicity to subjective factors of identity (van den Berghe, 1975: 75; 1976:254). Despite Barth's expressed focus on the 'ethnicboundary [that] canalizessocial life', his seeming lack of concern for the structural aspects of ethnicityis evident in statements such as the following: 'It makes no difference howdissimilar members may be in their overt behaviour — if they say they are A,in contrast to another cognate category B, they are willing to be treated andlet their own behaviour be interpreted and judged as A's and not as BY(Barth, 1969a. 15). The difficulty with this reasoning is obvious: it wouldappear to accord individuals the option to pursue whatever course of actionthey desire without consideration of the role constraints that may well pro-scribe such behavior. Furthermore, it does not even consider the nature of therelations between the groups. As Despres has remarked, it is a 'moot methodo-logical point' whether or not individuals assert or accede to the ethnic iden-tities ascribed to them if these identities engage imperative statuses whichdeny these individuals rights and privileges that are generally enjoyed byothers in the wider society (Despres, 1975c: 193).

In all fairness to Barth, however, it should be noted that in his discussionof 'complex poly-ethnic societies', which he would appear to equate with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

13:

07 2

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

013


'plural societies' as described by Furnivall (1948) and Smith (1965,1969a, b),he comments on the 'imperative' and 'comprehensive' nature of ethnicity insocial systems of this type (Barth, 1969a: 17). He states that in these societies'ethnic identity implies a series of constraints on the kinds of roles an indiv-idual is allowed to play', and that 'it constrains the incumbent in all hisactivities, not only in some defined social situations' (ibid.). Interestinglyenough, Barth makes a similar distinction between the setting and the situationof social action as proposed in this paper in his statement that in these poly-ethnic societies *What can be referred to as articulation and separation on themacro-level corresponds to systematic sets of role constraints on the micro-level' (ibid.).

To return to Barth's cognitive perspective on ethnicity, it is noteworthythat in his own contribution to Ethnic Groups and Boundaries, he would seemto ignore his avowed concern with 'the fact that ethnic groups are categoriesof ascription and identification by the actors themselves' (ibid., 10). Inthis paper on the maintenance of Pathan identity, he first notes that Pathansregard the following cultural traits as necessary criteria for membership inthe group: patrilineal descent, Islam, and Pathan custom (Barth, 1969b: 119).However, he then goes on to state that 'this "native model" need not be atruly adequate representation of empirical facts, and for our analytic purposes'he proposes that Pathan custom can be more usefully represented in three'central institutions': melmastia or hospitality, jirga or councils, and purdahor seclusion (ibid., 120). So much for what 'the actors themselves regard assignificant'.

Nagata (1974) has also been concerned with variability in the affirmationof ethnic identity according to the actor's perception of the social situation.However, like Barth, she would seem to overstate the options of the individualactor. She proposes that the most significant factors in 'situational selectionof ethnic identity' for the actor are: the desire to affirm either social distanceor social solidarity; expediency or consideration of the immediate advantagesto be gained by a particular ethnic identity selection; and, in her estimation,most important, concern for social status and social mobility (ibid., 340).Clearly, actors may evaluate and act upon these various factors only if theoverall structural setting allows for such variance in assertions of ethnicity.

Mayer also accords the individual the 'power of choice' either to remainwithin his original social category or to adopt an alternative one within certainlimits. He further remarks that a 'simple two-valued model of situationalselection' (between urban and 'tribal' behavior) was inappropriate for hisstudy of African migrants in East London because of the more numerousbehavioral options available (i.e. Red, School, and townsman) in non-workingsituations (Mayer, 1962: 589). He also maintains that situational selectiontends toward a 'static and schizoid picture of the migrant's social personality',and therefore cannot fully account for processes of change, particularlyurbanization (ibid., 580).

In comment, Mayer's 'two-valued model of situational selection' is anoversimplification of the work of Epstein (1958) and Mitchell (1956) as it

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

13:

07 2

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

013


implies that different situations refer to completely autonomous sets of socialrelations. However, Epstein takes note of the interdependence of these varioussets of relations in his observation that The principle of situational selectionwould provide a barrier to understanding if it simply meant, for example, that"tribalism" operates in the domestic set of relations but ceases to operate assoon as we move into the political set of relations' (Epstein, 1958: 235).

Also, a truly 'static' model of ethnic identity or ethnic relations wouldposit the universal and invariant salience of ethnicity as an organizing principlein all sectors and at all levels of the social order. For this reason such a modelcannot accommodate change, since change would seem to be precluded. Incontrast, the fundamental tenet of a situational approach to ethnicity is thevariable significance of ethnicity in structuring social relations. Ethnicity maybe of critical relevance in some situations, while in others it may be totallyirrelevant. Accordingly, individuals need not be viewed as being in assumptionof ethnic roles in all their social relations. Thus, in terms of the cognitivedimension of situational ethnicity, the individual actor has the option, on theone hand, of emphasizing or obfuscating his ethnic identity, or on the other,of assuming other social identities that he holds. Changes in the ultimate sig-nificance of ethnicity at the overall societal level are reflected in these be-havioral choices of actors at the situational level. Situational ethnicity thusallows for processes of change in so far as ethnicity as a regulating principle ofsocial relations is not viewed as being of unvarying significance.

Mayer also contends that situational selection renders a 'schizoid' char-acterization of a migrant's personality. This comment would seem to refer tothe potential that an individual has to affirm various social identities in dif-ferent situations according to a situational approach to ethnicity. Yet, itshould be made clear that it is not being argued that a person can regularlyalternate at his whim between diverse ethnic identities that he may (or maynot) possess, particularly in the case where these identities pertain to ethnicgroups that constitute the principal structural units of the society. The posi-tion advanced here is that individuals have the option of asserting either theirprimary ethnic identity or other social identities, such as those derivative ofclass or occupation, that they legitimately hold. Therefore, they are notnecessarily engaged in contradictory, inconsistent, or 'schizoid' patterns ofbehavior. In his reply to Mayer, Epstein (1978: 26) remarks that .situationalselection is 'the social expression of a familiar psychological mechanism bywhich discrepant ideas are segregated in different compartments of the mind;far from engendering schizoid tendencies, it is a device which operates toavoid conflict and without which few of us would be able to get along'.

While Nagata focused on the actor's selection of various ethnic identitiesavailable to himself, Vincent points out that the actor has the option (ideally)'to articulate, underplay, or stress his ethnic status as he will' in lieu of othersocial statuses which he holds (Vincent, 1974: 377). This proposition is veryclosely related to the distinction proposed by Handelman between 'lateraland hierarchical arrangement of category membership sets' (Handelman,1977: 192). A lateral arrangement refers to 'relative ease in performing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

13:

07 2

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

013


situational selection' of various categorical identities, i.e. ethnic, class, occu-pational, religious, etc., considered relevant to a giverr situation. In contrast,a r£te»rchical arrangement would refer to 'relative difficulty in resisting theall-inclusiveness of a membership category like "ethnicity" ' (ibid., 193).

Despres also addressed this question of the relation between categoricalidentities as expressed in social situations and the overall level of ethnicrelations. In another paper based on his Guyanese research, Despres (1975a)makes the observation that in Guyana ethnic identities enlist imperativestatuses with reference to groups that differ in their access to socio-economicresources, and that within these groups there also obtains an unequal distri-bution of resources. He then notes that the criteria by which Guyanese ascribecategorical identities are not so rigid as to be invariable in their significanceas circumstances may demand. Despres then concludes that "These discon-tinuities are part of the system and because of them situationally definedsocial identities need not always correspond in one-dimensional fashion tothe order of inequality that, in general, obtains among categorically definedethnic populations' (ibid., 143). These 'situationally defined social identities'would seem to refer to subjective ascriptions of ethnicity. Despres thus takesnote of the possible non-congruence between cognitive ethnic identities asascribed in social situations and the overall status order of ethnic grouprelations. However, it should be pointed out that he states that it is becausethe 'system' or, in the terminology used in this paper, the setting allows for'discontinuities' that the discrepancy between the situational and the overalllevels occurs. It is clear that Despres accords primary salience to the structuraldimension since he argues that it is with respect to their structural significancethat ethnic identities are seen as primarily informed by 'material' conditionsand not by their subjective components (ibid., 142).

While his interest is not ethnicity per se, Kuper's (1976) analysis of Jamaicansocial structure also utilizes the notion of situational variability of socialascriptions. He maintains that Jamaicans use a number of status criteria,primarily occupation but also color, style of life, and modes of consumption,to rank themselves and others in a complex and fluid series of social classifica-tions (ibid., 60). He notes that these criteria are variable in significance,ambiguously defined, and not always coincident with each other so that theydo not demarcate rigid and distinct social categories. Rather, they yield anumber of folk models that differ according to the factors which they eachemphasize and that are thus 'situationally relevant' while none is paramountin all contexts (ibid., 61).

Mitchell's position on ethnicity would seem to represent more of anintegration of both cognitive and structural approaches than those advancedby the other social anthropologists previously discussed. This conceptualsynthesis is evident in his reference to situational ethnicity: 'the perceptionof ethnic identity becomes an understanding which has meaning for the socialaction of the people concerned but this meaning clearly is contained in thesocial situation in which the interaction is taking place' (Mitchell, 1974: 21).This approach guided Mitchell's work (1956, 1970) on African migrants

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

13:

07 2

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

013


in towns, in which he contended that their behavior could be properly under-stood by relating it to the situational contexts in which it occurred. Thus,the behavior of migrants who adhered to apparently 'tribal' norms andcustoms in a particular situation, such as the domestic sphere, could behandled within the same framework of analysis as applied to them in thesituations in which they interacted as townsmen. He further showed that'tribal' identities referred essentially to norms of behavior relevant to urbanpublic places rather than to customary practices and beliefs prevalent in therural areas of origin of migrants. These ethnic identities emerged from acategorization process in which migrants who were either culturally similaror from geographically proximate regions were subsumed together under awider inclusive identity to which behavioral expectations were attached.

It is clear that Mitchell, like Barth, conceives of ethnicity in terms of themeaning actors accord it. However, unlike Barth, Mitchell does not limitthe analysis of ethnicity to this primary level of the actors' perceptions andexplanations of ethnic behavior. His extension of the analysis to a moreabstract level is apparent in his distinction between commonsense and analy-tical notions of ethnicity. As a commonsense construct, ethnicity first con-sists of the actor's perceptions of various customs, beliefs, practices, and othercultural elements by means of which he is able to identify another person asa member of a certain ethnic group, and is thus availed of a set of expectationsof that person's behavior towards him (Mitchell, 1974: 22—3). This notion ofethnicity is essentially identical to Barth's 'overt signals or signs' (see above).The second type of ethnic phenomena at the commonsense level is the set offolk interpretations of behavior in terms of perceived ethnicity. In this highlystereotyped view, the ethnic identity of a person prevails over his other socialidentities so that it is accepted by others as sufficient explanation of hisbehavior (ibid., 25).

Analytical notions of ethnicity, on the other hand, consist first of theanalyst's model of the ethnic group and, second, of his explanation of ethnicbehavior in terms of general principles. With regard to the former, the analy-tical construct of the ethnic group is based on the ethnographer's observationsand understanding of the customs, practices, and beliefs of the people con-cerned. On the other hand, as an analytical explanation of social behavior,ethnicity is an abstract attribute of actors by means of which the analyst isable to achieve some understanding of their behavior (ibid., 15)'. It should bementioned that the analytical explanation is still valid irrespective of thecommonsense interpretation which the actors place on their actions, andeven when they are not fully aware of the significance of ethnicity in theirbehavior. From the perspective of the analyst, the relation between common-sense and analytical notions of ethnicity is that the former constitutes partof the data by means of which he is able to abstract his ethnographic modelof the ethnic group and to formulate his general principles of ethnic behavior.

Commonsense understandings of ethnicity are virtually identical to whathas been delineated as the cognitive dimension of situational ethnicity,although analytical constructs of ethnicity have a different meaning from that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

13:

07 2

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

013


which has been given to the structural dimension of situational ethnicity.This similarity between commonsense and cognitive aspects of ethnicityindicates to some extent the deficiencies of approaches that place primaryweight on the latter dimension. Their main shortcoming is that they fail tomaintain a clear distinction between commonsense and analytical notions ofethnicity. As Mitchell has remarked of the perspective advocated by Moerman(1965: 1221), they often attempt to elevate the actors' categories to anabstract level for analytic purposes (Mitchell, 1974: 25). However, this pro-cedure is clearly invalid, since commonsense and analytical constructs ofethnicity are derived from different logical processes of explanation. Theyalso differ fundamentally as regards the ends toward which they are directed,so that however real and consciously held the perceptions and interpretationsof actors may be, they cannot fully account for the range of behavior insocialsituations. It is not that cognitive aspects of ethnicity are irrelevant to anunderstanding of ethnic behavior; indeed, the whole point of the above dis-cussion was to indicate their necessity for analysis along with structuralaspects. Ultimately, however, cognitive notions of ethnicity must have, asecondary role in relation to analytical constructs for sociological analysis ofethnicity and ethnic relations.

In summary, this review has included various social anthropologists whohave placed an explicit emphasis on the relevance of social situations for theanalysis of ethnicity and ethnic relations. This approach, which has beentermed situational ethnicity, merges both cognitive and structural aspects ofethnicity as its principal focus is on the actor's ascriptions of ethnic identityto organize the meaning of his social relationships within given social situa-tions. The cognitive dimension of situational ethnicity refers to the actor'sperceptions and understandings of cultural symbols and signs and the relevancehe attributes to these elements as a factor on his behavioral options in thesituation he finds himself. On the other hand, the structural dimension hasreference to the role constraints enjoined upon actors within social situationsas a consequence of the overall structure of ethnic group relations. Thus, asituational approach to ethnicity illuminates the fact that variability is theessence of ethnicity in its significance for the structuring of social relationsin diverse situational contexts.

References

BANTON, MICHAEL (1965) 'Social Alignment and Identity in a West African City', inHilda Kupei (ed.), Urbanization and Migration in West Africa. Berkeley and Los Angeles:University of California Press.BARTH, FREDRIK (1969a) Introduction, in Fredrik Barth (ed.), Ethnic Croups andBoundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference. Bergen-Oslo: Universitetsfor-laget.BARTH, FREDRIK (1969b) 'Pathan Identity and its Maintenance', in Fredrik Barth(ed.), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference.Bergen-Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.COHEN, RONALD (1978) 'Ethnicity: Problem and Focus in Anthropology'. AnnualReview of Anthropology 7: 379-403.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

13:

07 2

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

013


DESPRES, LEO A. (1975a) 'Ethnicity and Ethnic Group Relations in Guyana', in JohnW. Bennett (ed.), The New Ethnicity: Perspectives from Ethnology. St Paul, Minn.:West Publishing Company.DESPRES, LEO A. (1975b) 'Ethnicity and Resource Competition in Guyanese Society',in Leo A. Despies (ed.), Ethnicity and Resource Competition in Plural Societies. TheHague: Mouton Publishers.DESPRES, LEO A. (1975c) Toward a Theory of Ethnic Phenomena', in Leo A. Despres(ed.), Ethnicity and Resource Competition in Plural Societies. The Hague: MoutonPublishers.EPSTEIN, ARNOLD L. (1958) Politics in an Urban African Community. ManchesterUniversity Press.EPSTEIN, ARNOLD L. (1978) Ethos and Identity: Three Studies in Ethnicity. London:Tavistock Publications.EVANS-PRITCHARD, E. E. (1937) Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande.Oxford: Clarendon Press.FURNIVALL, J. S. (1948) Colonial Policy and Practice: A Comparative Study of Burmaand Netherlands India. London: Cambridge University Press.GARBETT, G. KINGSLEY (1975) 'Circulatory Migrancy in Rhodesia: Towards aDecision Model', in David Parkin (ed.), Town and Country in Central and East Africa.London: Oxford University Press for International African Institute.GLUCKMAN, MAX (1958) The Analysis of a Social Situation in Modern Zululand'.African Studies 14 (1940): 1-30; 147-74. Reprinted as Rhodes-Livingston PaperNo. 28. Manchester University Press, 1958.HANDELMAN, DON (1977) The Organization of Ethnicity'. Ethnic Groups 1: 187-200.KEYES, CHARLES F. (1976) Towards a New Formulation of the Concept of EthnicGroup'. Ethnicity 3 (3) : 202-13.KUPER, ADAM (1976) Changing Jamaica. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.MAYER, PHILIP (1962) 'Migrancy and the Study of Africans in Towns'. AmericanAnthropologist 64: 576-92.MITCHELL, J. C. (1956) The Kalela Dance, Aspects of Social Relationships AmongUrban Africans in Northern Rhodesia. Rhodes-Livingston Paper No. 27. ManchesterUniversity Press.MITCHELL, J. C. (1960) Tribalism and the Plural Society. An inaugural lecture given inthe University College of Rhodesia and Nyasaland on 2 October 1959. London: OxfordUniversity Press.MITCHELL, J. C. (1970) Tribe and Social Change in South Central Africa: A SituationalApproach*. Journal of Asian and African Studies 5 : 83-101.MITCHELL, J. C. (1974) 'Perceptions of Ethnicity and Ethnic Behaviour: An EmpiricalExploration', in Abner Cohen (ed.), Urban Ethnicity. London: Tavistock Publications.MITCHELL, J. C. (1978) 'Wage-Labor Mobility as Circulation: A Sociological Perspective'(abstract), in Summary Report of International Seminar on the Cross-Cultural Study ofCirculation. East-West Population Institute, East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii,November.MOERMAN, M. (1965) 'Ethnic Identification in a Complex Civilization: Who are theLue?' American Anthropologist 67: 1215-30.NAGATA, JUDITH A. (1974) 'What is a Malay? Situational Selection of Ethnic Identityin a Plural Society'. American Ethnologist 1 (2) : 331-50.PADEN, JOHN N. (1967) 'Situational Ethnicity in Urban Africa with Special Referenceto the Hausa'. Paper presented at African Studies Association meeting in New York,November.PADEN, JOHN N. (1970) 'Urban Pluralism, Integration and Adaptation of CommunalIdentity in Kano, Nigeria', in R. Cohen and J. Middleton (eds), Front Tribe to Nation inAfrica: Studies in Incorporation Processes. Scranton, NJ: Chandler Publishing.SMITH, M. G. (1955) The Economy of Hausa Communities of Zaria Province. ColonialResearch Publications No. 16, London.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

13:

07 2

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

013


SMITH, M. G. (1965) 'Social and Cultural Pluralism', in M. G. Smith (ed.), The PluralSociety in the British West Indies. Berkeley and Los Angeles': University of CaliforniaPress.SMITH, M. G. (1969a) 'Institutional and Political Conditions of Pluralism', in LeoKuper and M. G. Smith (eds), Pluralism in Africa. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Universityof California Press.SMITH, M. G. (1969b) 'Some Developments in the Analytic Framework of Pluralism',in Leo Kuper and M. G. Smith (eds), Pluralism in Africa. Berkeley and Los Angeles:University of California Press.THOMAS, WILLIAM I. (1928) The Unadjusted Girl. Boston: Little, Brown.VAN DEN BERGHE, PIERRE L. (1975) 'Ethnicity and Class in Highland Peru', inLeo A. Despres (ed.), Ethnicity and Resource Competition in Plural Societies. TheHague: Mouton Publishers.VAN DEN BERGHE, PIERRE L. (1976) 'Ethnic Pluralism in Industrial Societies:A Special Case?' Ethnicity 3 (3): 242-55.VAN VELSEN, J. (1967) The Extended-Case Method and Situational Analysis', inA. L. Epstein (ed.), The Craft of Social Anthropology. London: Tavistock Publications.VINCENT, J. (1974) The Structuring of Ethnicity*. Human Organization 33 (4):375-9.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ohi

o St

ate

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

13:

07 2

7 Fe

brua

ry 2

013