Editing Ethnicity (section)

==Definitions and conceptual history==
[[File:Watching you (Bangladesh).JPG|thumb|250px|A group of ethnic [[Bengalis]] in [[Dhaka]], Bangladesh. The Bengalis form the third-largest ethnic group in the world after the [[Han Chinese]] and [[Arabs]].<ref>roughly 300 million worldwide ([[CIA Factbook]] 2014 estimates, numbers subject to rapid population growth).</ref>]]
[[File:Kirab budaya.jpg|thumb|250px|The [[Javanese people]] of [[Indonesia]] are the largest [[Austronesia]]n ethnic group.]]

[[Ethnography]] begins in [[classical antiquity]]; after early authors like [[Anaximander]] and [[Hecataeus of Miletus]], [[Herodotus]] laid the foundation of both [[historiography]] and ethnography of the ancient world {{circa|480 BC}}. The Greeks had developed a concept of their own ethnicity, which they grouped under the name of [[Hellenes]]. Although there were exceptions, such as Macedonia, which was ruled by nobility in a way that was not typically Greek, and Sparta, which had an unusual ruling class, the ancient Greeks generally enslaved only non-Greeks due to their strong belief in ethnonationalism.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Rosivach |first=Vincent J. |date=1999 |title=Enslaving "Barbaroi" and the Athenian Ideology of Slavery |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/4436537 |journal=Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte |volume=48 |issue=2 |pages=129–157 |jstor=4436537 |issn=0018-2311}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last1=Demosthenes |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZWTTh_h-DC8C |title=The Orations of Demosthenes: Translated with Notes |last2=Kennedy |first2=Charles Rann |date=1878 |publisher=G. Bell and sons |language=en}}</ref> The Greeks sometimes believed that even their lowest citizens were superior to any barbarian. In his ''[[Politics (Aristotle)|Politics]]'' 1.2–7; 3.14, Aristotle even described barbarians as natural slaves in contrast to the Greeks. Herodotus (8.144.2) gave a famous account of what defined Greek (Hellenic) ethnic identity in his day, enumerating
# shared [[kinship and descent|descent]] ({{langx|el|ὅμαιμον}}{{snd}}{{lang|el-latn|homaimon}}, "of the same blood"),<ref>[https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Do%28%2Fmaimos ὅμαιμος] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210225070512/http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Do(%2Fmaimos |date=25 February 2021 }}, Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, ''A Greek-English Lexicon'', on Perseus</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last=Papillon |first=Terry L |date=31 December 2004 |title=Isocrates II |url=https://utpress.utexas.edu/9780292702462/ |access-date=12 October 2024 |website=University of Texas Press |page=40 |language=en-US}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last1=Herodotus |date=1920 |translator-first1=A. D. |translator-last1=Godley |title= The Histories, Book 8, chapter 144, section 2 |url=https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0126:book=8:chapter=144:section=2 |access-date=12 October 2024 |website=Perseus Digital Library}}</ref>
# shared [[language]] ({{langx|el|ὁμόγλωσσον}}{{snd}}{{lang|el-latn|homoglōsson}}, "speaking the same language"),<ref>"[https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Do%28mo%2Fglwssos ὁμόγλωσσος]", Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, ''A Greek-English Lexicon'', on Perseus {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210225073414/http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Do(mo%2Fglwssos |date=25 February 2021 }}.</ref>
# shared [[sanctuaries]] and [[sacrifices]] ({{langx|el|θεῶν ἱδρύματά τε κοινὰ καὶ θυσίαι}}{{snd}}{{lang|el-latn|theōn hidrumata te koina kai thusiai}}),<ref>{{cite book |first=I. |last=Polinskaya |chapter=Shared sanctuaries and the gods of others: On the meaning Of 'common' in Herodotus 8.144 |editor1-first=R. |editor1-last=Rosen |editor2-first=I. |editor2-last=Sluiter |title=Valuing others in Classical Antiquity |location=Leiden |publisher=[[Brill Publishers|Brill]] |date=2010 |pages=43–70}}</ref>
# shared [[Mores|customs]] ({{langx|el|ἤθεα ὁμότροπα}}{{snd}}{{lang|el-latn|ēthea homotropa}}, "customs of like fashion").<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" /><ref>[https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Do%28mo%2Ftropos ὁμότροπος] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210225222702/http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Do(mo%2Ftropos |date=25 February 2021 }}, Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, ''A Greek-English Lexicon'', on Perseus)</ref><ref>Herodotus, 8.144.2: ''"The kinship of all Greeks in blood and speech, and the shrines of gods and the sacrifices that we have in common, and the likeness of our way of life."''</ref><ref>{{cite book |first1=Athena S. |last1=Leoussi |first2=Steven |last2=Grosby |title=Nationalism and Ethnosymbolism: History, Culture, and Ethnicity in the Formation of Nations |publisher=[[Edinburgh University Press]] |date=2006 |page=115}}</ref>

Whether ethnicity qualifies as a [[cultural universal]] is to some extent dependent on the exact definition used. Many social scientists,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/81217/publication.html|title=Challenges of measuring an ethnic world |date=1 April 1992 |website=Publications.gc.ca |publisher=The Government of Canada |quote=Ethnicity is a fundamental factor in human life: it is a phenomenon inherent in human experience. |access-date=28 August 2016 |archive-date=20 September 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160920133111/http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/81217/publication.html|url-status=live}}</ref> such as [[Anthropology|anthropologists]] [[Fredrik Barth]] and [[Eric Wolf]], do not consider ethnic identity to be universal. They regard ethnicity as a product of specific kinds of inter-group interactions, rather than an essential quality inherent to human groups.<ref name="FredrikBarth" />{{irrelevant citation|date=July 2017|reason=this book has only 153 pages ... and the topic is quite different.}}

According to [[Thomas Hylland Eriksen]], the study of ethnicity was dominated by two distinct debates until recently.
* One is between "[[primordialism]]" and "[[instrumentalism]]". In the [[primordialism|primordialist]] view, the participant perceives ethnic ties collectively, as an externally given, even coercive, social bond.<ref>{{cite book |editor-last=Geertz |editor-first=Clifford |date=1967 |title=Old Societies and New States: The Quest for Modernity in Africa and Asia |location=New York |publisher=The Free Press}}</ref> Ethnicities are also perceived as being organically formed over time through long-term endogamy or attachment to cultural objects, or a combination of both.<ref name=":3" />The [[instrumentalism|instrumentalist]] approach, on the other hand, treats ethnicity primarily as an ad hoc element of a political strategy, used as a resource for interest groups for achieving secondary goals such as, for instance, an increase in wealth, power, or status.<ref>{{cite book |last=Cohen |first=Abner |date=1969 |title=Custom and Politics in Urban Africa: A Study of Hausa Migrants in a Yoruba Town |location=London |publisher=[[Routledge]] & Kegan Paul}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |first=Abner |last=Cohen |date=1974 |title=Two-Dimensional Man: An essay on power and symbolism in complex society |location=London |publisher=[[Routledge]] & Kegan Paul}}</ref> This debate is still an important point of reference in [[Political science]], although most scholars' approaches fall between the two poles.<ref>J. Hutchinson & A.D. Smith (eds.), ''Oxford readers: Ethnicity'' (Oxford 1996), "Introduction", 8–9</ref>
* The second debate is between "[[constructivism (international relations)|constructivism]]" and "[[essentialism]]". Constructivists view national and ethnic identities as the product of historical forces, often recent, even when the identities are presented as old.<ref>Gellner, Ernest (1983) ''Nations and Nationalism''. Oxford: Blackwell.</ref><ref>Ernest Gellner (1997) Nationalism. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.</ref> Essentialists view such identities as [[ontological]] categories defining social actors.<ref>Smith, Anthony D. (1986) ''The Ethnic Origins of Nations''. Oxford: Blackwell.</ref><ref>Anthony Smith (1991) ''[[National Identity]]''. Harmondsworth: Penguin.</ref>

According to [[Thomas Hylland Eriksen|Eriksen]], these debates have been superseded, especially in [[anthropology]], by scholars' attempts to respond to increasingly politicized forms of self-representation by members of different ethnic groups and nations. This is in the context of debates over [[multiculturalism]] in countries, such as the United States and Canada, which have large immigrant populations from many different cultures, and post-colonialism in the [[Caribbean]] and [[South Asia]].<ref>{{cite book |first=T. H. |last=Eriksen |chapter=Ethnic identity, national identity and intergroup conflict: The significance of personal experiences |editor1-last=Ashmore |editor2-last=Jussim |editor3-last=Wilder |title=Social identity, intergroup conflict, and conflict reduction |pages=42–70 |location=Oxford |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |date=2001}}</ref>

[[Max Weber]] maintained that ethnic groups were {{lang|de|künstlich}} (artificial, i.e. a [[Social constructionism|social construct]]) because they were based on a subjective belief in shared {{lang|de|[[Gemeinschaft]]}} (community). Secondly, this belief in shared Gemeinschaft did not create the group; the group created the belief. Third, group formation resulted from the drive to monopolize power and status. This was contrary to the prevailing naturalist belief of the time, which held that socio-cultural and behavioral differences between peoples stemmed from inherited traits and tendencies derived from common descent, then called "race".<ref name=mb>{{cite journal |last=Banton |first=Michael |date=2007 |title=Weber on Ethnic Communities: A critique |journal=[[Nations and Nationalism (journal)|Nations and Nationalism]] |volume=13 |number=1 |pages=19–35}}</ref>

Another influential theoretician of ethnicity was [[Fredrik Barth]], whose "Ethnic Groups and Boundaries" from 1969 has been described as instrumental in spreading the usage of the term in social studies in the 1980s and 1990s.<ref name="cohen"/> Barth went further than Weber in stressing the constructed nature of ethnicity. To Barth, ethnicity was perpetually negotiated and renegotiated by both external ascription and internal self-identification. Barth's view is that ethnic groups are not discontinuous cultural isolates or logical ''a priori'' to which people naturally belong. He wanted to part with anthropological notions of cultures as bounded entities, and ethnicity as primordialist bonds, replacing it with a focus on the interface between groups. "Ethnic Groups and Boundaries", therefore, is a focus on the interconnectedness of ethnic identities. Barth writes: "...{{spaces}}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."<ref>{{Cite book |last=Barth |first=Fredrik |url= |title=Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference |date=1969 |publisher=Little, Brown |isbn=978-0-316-08246-4 |pages=9-10 |language=en}}</ref>

In 1978, anthropologist Ronald Cohen claimed that the identification of "ethnic groups" in the usage of social scientists often reflected inaccurate [[Label (sociology)|labels]] more than indigenous realities:
{{blockquote|... the named ethnic identities we accept, often unthinkingly, as basic givens in the literature are often arbitrarily, or even worse inaccurately, imposed.<ref name="cohen"/>}}

In this way, he pointed to the fact that identification of an ethnic group by outsiders, e.g. anthropologists, may not coincide with the self-identification of the members of that group. He also described that in the first decades of usage, the term ethnicity had often been used in lieu of older terms such as "cultural" or "tribal" when referring to smaller groups with shared cultural systems and shared heritage, but that "ethnicity" had the added value of being able to describe the commonalities between systems of group identity in both tribal and modern societies. Cohen also suggested that claims concerning "ethnic" identity (like earlier claims concerning "tribal" identity) are often colonialist practices and effects of the relations between colonized peoples and nation-states.<ref name="cohen">{{cite journal |first=Ronald |last=Cohen |date=1978 |title=Ethnicity: Problem and Focus in Anthropology |journal=[[Annual Review of Anthropology]] |volume=7 |pages=383–384 |location=Palo Alto |publisher=[[Stanford University Press]]}}</ref>

According to [[Paul James (academic)|Paul James]], formations of identity were often changed and distorted by colonization, but identities are not made out of nothing:
{{blockquote|Categorizations about identity, even when codified and hardened into clear typologies by processes of colonization, state formation or general modernizing processes, are always full of tensions and contradictions. Sometimes these contradictions are destructive, but they can also be creative and positive.<ref>{{Cite journal |year=2015 |last1=James |first1=Paul |author1-link=Paul James (academic) |title=Despite the Terrors of Typologies: The Importance of Understanding Categories of Difference and Identity |url=https://www.academia.edu/11768378 |journal=Interventions: International Journal of Postcolonial Studies |volume=17 |issue=2 |pages=174–195 |doi=10.1080/1369801X.2014.993332 |s2cid=142378403 |access-date= 2016-03-12 | archive-date=2021-08-17 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210817215458/https://www.academia.edu/11768378 |url-status=live}}</ref>}}

Social scientists have thus focused on how, when, and why different markers of ethnic identity become salient. Thus, anthropologist Joan Vincent observed that ethnic boundaries often have a mercurial character.<ref>Vincent, Joan (1974), "The Structure of Ethnicity" in ''Human Organization'' 33(4): 375–379</ref> Ronald Cohen concluded that ethnicity is "a series of nesting dichotomizations of inclusiveness and exclusiveness".<ref name="cohen"/> He agrees with Joan Vincent's observation that (in Cohen's paraphrase) "Ethnicity{{spaces}}... can be narrowed or broadened in boundary terms in relation to the specific needs of political mobilization."<ref name="cohen"/> This may be why descent is sometimes a marker of ethnicity, and sometimes not: which diacritic of ethnicity is salient depends on whether people are scaling ethnic boundaries up or down, and whether they are scaling them up or down depends generally on the political situation.

[[Kanchan Chandra]] rejects the expansive definitions of ethnic identity (such as those that include common culture, common language, common history and common territory), choosing instead to define ethnic identity narrowly as a subset of identity categories determined by the belief of common descent.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Chandra |first=Kanchan |date=2006 |title=What is Ethnic Identity and Does it Matter?|journal=Annual Review of Political Science |volume=9 |issue=1 |pages=397–424 |doi=10.1146/annurev.polisci.9.062404.170715 |issn=1094-2939 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Jóhanna Birnir similarly defines ethnicity as "group self-identification around a characteristic that is very difficult or even impossible to change, such as language, race, or location."<ref>{{Cite book |last=Birnir |first=Jóhanna Kristín |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JtxHWKJOBN4C |title=Ethnicity and Electoral Politics |date=2006 |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |isbn=978-1139462600 |pages=66 |language=en |access-date=21 March 2022 |archive-date=22 April 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220422004640/https://books.google.com/books?id=JtxHWKJOBN4C |url-status=live}}</ref>

===Approaches to understanding ethnicity===
Different approaches to understanding ethnicity have been used by different social scientists when trying to understand the nature of ethnicity as a factor in human life and society. As [[Jonathan M. Hall]] observes, World War II was a turning point in ethnic studies. The consequences of Nazi racism discouraged essentialist interpretations of ethnic groups and race. Ethnic groups came to be defined as social rather than biological entities. Their coherence was attributed to shared myths, descent, [[kinship]], a common place of origin, language, religion, customs, and national character. So, ethnic groups are conceived as mutable rather than stable, constructed in discursive practices rather than written in the genes.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://commonweb.unifr.ch/artsdean/pub/gestens/f/as/files/3610/33969_110704.pdf |title=David Konstan, "Defining Ancient Greek Ethnicity", Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies, vol. 6, 1 (1997), pp. 97–98. Overview of J.M. Hall's book "Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity", Cambridge University Press, 1997 |access-date=2 June 2018 |archive-date=17 April 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180417063958/http://commonweb.unifr.ch/artsdean/pub/gestens/f/as/files/3610/33969_110704.pdf |url-status=live}}</ref>

Examples of various approaches are primordialism, essentialism, perennialism, constructivism, modernism, and instrumentalism.
* "''Primordialism''", holds that ethnicity has existed at all times of human history and that modern ethnic groups have historical continuity into the far past. For them, the idea of ethnicity is closely linked to the idea of nations and is rooted in the pre-Weber understanding of humanity as being divided into primordially existing groups rooted by kinship and biological heritage.
** "''Essentialist primordialism''" further holds that ethnicity is an ''a priori'' fact of human existence, that ethnicity precedes any human social interaction and that it is unchanged by it. This theory sees ethnic groups as natural, not just as historical. It also has problems dealing with the consequences of intermarriage, migration and colonization for the composition of [[modern-day]] multi-ethnic [[Society|societies]].<ref name="smith13">{{Harv|Smith|1999|loc=p. 13}}</ref>
** "''Kinship primordialism''" holds that ethnic communities are extensions of kinship units, basically being derived by kinship or [[clan]] ties where the choices of cultural signs (language, religion, traditions) are made exactly to show this biological affinity. In this way, the myths of common biological ancestry that are a defining feature of ethnic communities are to be understood as representing actual biological history. A problem with this view on ethnicity is that it is more often than not the case that mythic origins of specific ethnic groups directly contradict the known biological history of an ethnic community.<ref name="smith13" />
** "''Geertz's primordialism''", notably espoused by anthropologist [[Clifford Geertz]], argues that humans in general attribute an overwhelming power to primordial human "givens" such as blood ties, language, territory, and cultural differences. In Geertz' opinion, ethnicity is not in itself primordial but humans perceive it as such because it is embedded in their experience of the world.<ref name="smith13" />
* "''Perennialism''" is an approach that is primarily concerned with nationhood but tends to see nations and ethnic communities as basically the same phenomenon. It holds that the nation, as a type of social and political organization, is of an immemorial or "perennial" character.<ref>Smith (1998), 159.</ref> Smith (1999) distinguishes two variants: "continuous perennialism", which claims that particular nations have existed for very long periods, and "recurrent perennialism", which focuses on the emergence, dissolution and reappearance of nations as a recurring aspect of human history.<ref>Smith (1999), 5.</ref>
** "''Perpetual perennialism''" holds that specific ethnic groups have existed continuously throughout history.
** "''Situational perennialism''" holds that nations and ethnic groups emerge, change and vanish through the course of history. This view holds that the concept of ethnicity is a tool used by political groups to manipulate resources such as wealth, power, territory or status in their particular groups' interests. Accordingly, ethnicity emerges when it is relevant as a means of furthering emergent collective interests and changes according to political changes in society. Examples of a perennialist interpretation of ethnicity are also found in Barth and Seidner who see ethnicity as ever-changing boundaries between groups of people established through ongoing social negotiation and interaction.
** "''Instrumentalist perennialism''", while seeing ethnicity primarily as a versatile tool that identified different ethnics groups and limits through time, explains ethnicity as a mechanism of [[social stratification]], meaning that ethnicity is the basis for a hierarchical arrangement of individuals. According to Donald Noel, a sociologist who developed a theory on the origin of ethnic stratification, ethnic stratification is a "system of stratification wherein some relatively fixed group membership (e.g., race, religion, or nationality) is used as a major criterion for assigning social positions".<ref name=Noel1968>{{Cite journal |last=Noel |first=Donald L. |year=1968 |title=A Theory of the Origin of Ethnic Stratification |journal=Social Problems |volume=16 |issue=2 |pages=157–172 |doi=10.2307/800001 |jstor=800001}}</ref> Ethnic stratification is one of many different types of social stratification, including stratification based on [[socio-economic status]], race, or [[gender]]. According to Donald Noel, ethnic stratification will emerge only when specific ethnic groups are brought into contact with one another, and only when those groups are characterized by a high degree of [[ethnocentrism]], competition, and differential power. Ethnocentrism is the tendency to look at the world primarily from the perspective of one's own culture, and to downgrade all other groups outside one's own culture. Some sociologists, such as Lawrence Bobo and Vincent Hutchings, say the origin of ethnic stratification lies in individual dispositions of ethnic prejudice, which relates to the theory of ethnocentrism.<ref name=Bobo1996>{{Cite journal |last1=Bobo |first1=Lawrence |last2=Hutchings |first2=Vincent L. |year=1996 |title=Perceptions of Racial Group Competition: Extending Blumer's Theory of Group Position to a Multiracial Social Context |journal=[[American Sociological Review]] |volume=61 |issue=6 |pages=951–972 |doi=10.2307/2096302 |publisher=[[American Sociological Association]] |jstor=2096302}}</ref> Continuing with Noel's theory, some degree of differential power must be present for the emergence of ethnic stratification. In other words, an inequality of power among ethnic groups means "they are of such unequal power that one is able to impose its will upon another".<ref name=Noel1968/> In addition to differential power, a degree of competition structured along ethnic lines is a prerequisite to ethnic stratification as well. The different ethnic groups must be competing for some common goal, such as power or influence, or a material interest, such as wealth or territory. Lawrence Bobo and Vincent Hutchings propose that competition is driven by self-interest and hostility, and results in inevitable stratification and [[Group conflict|conflict]].<ref name=Bobo1996/>
* "''Constructivism''" sees both [[Primordialism|primordialist]] and [[perennialist]] views as basically flawed,<ref name=Bobo1996/> and rejects the notion of ethnicity as a basic human condition. It holds that ethnic groups are only products of human social interaction, maintained only in so far as they are maintained as valid social constructs in societies.
** "''Modernist constructivism''" correlates the emergence of ethnicity with the movement towards [[nation state]]s beginning in the early modern period.<ref>{{Harv|Smith|1999|loc=pp. 4–7}}</ref> Proponents of this theory, such as [[Eric Hobsbawm]], argue that ethnicity and notions of ethnic pride, such as nationalism, are purely modern inventions, appearing only in the modern period of world history. They hold that prior to this ethnic homogeneity was not considered an ideal or necessary factor in the forging of large-scale societies.

Ethnicity is an important means by which people may identify with a larger group. Many social scientists, such as [[Anthropology|anthropologists]] [[Fredrik Barth]] and [[Eric Wolf]], do not consider ethnic identity to be universal. They regard ethnicity as a product of specific kinds of inter-group interactions, rather than an essential quality inherent to human groups.<ref name="FredrikBarth">Fredrik Barth, ed. 1969 ''Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Cultural Difference''; Eric Wolf 1982 ''Europe and the People Without History'' p. 381</ref> The process that results in emergence of such identification is called ethnogenesis. Members of an ethnic group, on the whole, claim cultural continuities over time, although [[historian]]s and [[Cultural anthropology|cultural anthropologists]] have documented that many of the values, practices, and norms that imply continuity with the past are of relatively recent invention.<ref>Hobsbawm and Ranger (1983), ''The Invention of Tradition''</ref><ref>Sider 1993 ''Lumbee Indian Histories''.</ref>

Ethnic groups can form a [[cultural mosaic]] in a society. That could be in a city like [[New York City]] or [[Trieste]], but also the fallen monarchy of the [[Austria-Hungary|Austro-Hungarian Empire]] or the [[United States]]. Current topics are in particular social and cultural differentiation, multilingualism, competing identity offers, multiple cultural identities and the formation of [[salad bowl (cultural idea)|Salad bowl]] and [[melting pot]].<ref>{{cite book |last=Kolb |first=Eva |title=The Evolution of New York City's Multiculturalism: Melting Pot or Salad Bowl |date=2009 |publisher=BoD – Books on Demand |isbn=978-3837093032}}</ref><ref>{{cite periodical |last1=Levine|first1=Randy |first2=Gifty |last2=Serbeh-Dunn |date=Spring 1999 |title=Mosaic vs. Melting Pot |magazine=Voices |volume=1 |number=4 |url=http://www.darrenduncan.net/archived_web_work/voices/voices_v1_n4/mosaic.html |access-date=1 October 2021 |archive-date=12 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201112024849/http://www.darrenduncan.net/archived_web_work/voices/voices_v1_n4/mosaic.html |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>Pieter M. Judson ''The Habsburg Empire. A New History'' (Harvard 2016)</ref><ref>Patricia Engelhorn "Wie Wien mit Meersicht: Ein Tag in der Hafenstadt Triest" In: NZZ 15 February 2020; Roberto Scarciglia Trieste multiculturale: comunità e linguaggi di integrazione (2011); Ibanez B. Penas, Ma. Carmen López Sáenz. "Interculturalism: Between Identity and Diversity". (Bern) 2006. p 15.</ref> Ethnic groups differ from other social groups, such as [[subculture]]s, [[interest group]]s or [[social class]]es, because they emerge and change over historical periods (centuries) in a process known as ethnogenesis, a period of several generations of [[endogamy]] resulting in common ancestry (which is then sometimes cast in terms of a [[national myth|mythological]] narrative of a [[Eponymous ancestor|founding figure]]); ethnic identity is reinforced by reference to "boundary markers"{{snd}}characteristics said to be unique to the group which set it apart from other groups.<ref>Camoroff, John L. and Jean Camoroff 2009: Ethnicity Inc. Chicago: Chicago Press.</ref><ref name=Anderson,>''The Invention of Tradition''</ref><ref>Sider 1993 ''Lumbee Indian Histories''</ref><ref name=ethnic2>{{cite web |last=O'Neil |first=Dennis |title=Nature of Ethnicity |url=http://anthro.palomar.edu/ethnicity/ethnic_2.htm |publisher=Palomar College |access-date=7 January 2013 |archive-date=5 December 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121205080549/http://anthro.palomar.edu/ethnicity/ethnic_2.htm |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>Seidner, (1982), ''Ethnicity, Language, and Power from a Psycholinguistic Perspective'', pp. 2–3</ref><ref name=Smith>Smith 1987 pp. 21–22</ref>

===Ethnicity theory in the United States===
''Ethnicity theory'' argues that race is a social category and is only one of several factors in determining ethnicity. Other criteria include "religion, language, 'customs', nationality, and political identification".{{sfn|Omi|Winant|1986|p=15}} This theory was put forward by sociologist [[Robert E. Park]] in the 1920s. It is based on the notion of "culture".

This theory was preceded by more than 100 years during which biological [[essentialism]] was the dominant paradigm on race. Biological essentialism is the belief that some races, specifically White Europeans in western versions of the paradigm, are biologically superior and other races, specifically non-White races in western debates, are inherently inferior. This view arose as a way to justify enslavement of African Americans and genocide of Native Americans in a society that was officially founded on freedom for all. This was a notion that developed slowly and came to be a preoccupation with scientists, theologians, and the public. Religious institutions asked questions about whether there had been multiple creations of races (polygenesis) and whether God had created lesser races. Many of the foremost scientists of the time took up the idea of racial difference and found that White Europeans were superior.{{sfn|Omi|Winant|1986|p=58}}

The ethnicity theory was based on the assimilation model. Park outlined four steps to assimilation: contact, conflict, accommodation, and assimilation. Instead of attributing the marginalized status of people of color in the United States to their inherent biological inferiority, he attributed it to their failure to assimilate into American culture. They could become equal if they abandoned their inferior cultures.

[[Michael Omi]] and [[Howard Winant]]'s theory of racial formation directly confronts both the premises and the practices of ethnicity theory. They argue in ''Racial Formation in the United States'' that the ethnicity theory was exclusively based on the immigration patterns of the White population and did take into account the unique experiences of non-Whites in the United States.<ref name="Omi-Winant-p17">{{harvnb|Omi|Winant|1986|p=17}}</ref> While Park's theory identified different stages in the immigration process{{snd}}contact, conflict, struggle, and as the last and best response, assimilation{{snd}}it did so only for White communities.<ref name="Omi-Winant-p17"/> The ethnicity paradigm neglected the ways in which race can complicate a community's interactions with social and political structures, especially upon contact.

Assimilation{{snd}}shedding the particular qualities of a native culture for the purpose of blending in with a host culture{{snd}}did not work for some groups as a response to racism and discrimination, though it did for others.<ref name="Omi-Winant-p17"/> Once the legal barriers to achieving equality had been dismantled, the problem of racism became the sole responsibility of already disadvantaged communities.{{sfn|Omi|Winant|1986|p=19}} It was assumed that if a Black or Latino community was not "making it" by the standards that had been set by Whites, it was because that community did not hold the right values or beliefs, or were stubbornly resisting dominant norms because they did not want to fit in. Omi and Winant's critique of ethnicity theory explains how looking to cultural defect as the source of inequality ignores the "concrete sociopolitical dynamics within which racial phenomena operate in the U.S."<ref name="Omi-Winant-p21">{{harvnb|Omi|Winant|1986|p=21}}</ref> It prevents critical examination of the structural components of racism and encourages a "benign neglect" of social inequality.<ref name="Omi-Winant-p21"/>