tokenpocket苹果官网下载|ethnic origins

作者: tokenpocket苹果官网下载
2024-03-14 21:17:25

民族和国籍在英语中如何区分？外国人是没有「民族」的概念吗？ - 知乎

民族和国籍在英语中如何区分？外国人是没有「民族」的概念吗？ - 知乎首页知乎知学堂发现等你来答切换模式登录/注册民族国家种族民族和国籍在英语中如何区分？外国人是没有「民族」的概念吗？那天带外国人吃云南菜，想说这是个少数民族菜，突然想到一个问题，minority 在老外理解看来是少数人群吧，并不是特指民族概念吧？民族在英文中也是 n…显示全部关注者91被浏览102,267关注问题写回答邀请回答2 条评论分享14 个回答默认排序王赟 Maigo2022 年度新知答主关注「民族」有对应的英语词。若是指某一个人的民族属性，可以说 ethnicity；若是指某一个民族群体，可以说 ethnic group。minority 指「少数群体」，不一定按民族划分。但在讨论民族的语境中，就是指「少数民族」了。在没有语境的情况下，可以说 minority ethnic groups 明确指代「少数民族」。发布于 2017-12-13 02:44赞同 295 条评论分享收藏喜欢收起匿名用户将“民族”译为 nationality 是中国的官方译法，有历史惯性。现代英文中，除了少数例外，nationality 实际已经被“国籍”独占。表示“民族”时，为避免误会，一般使用 ethnic group。People 也可表示民族（表示民族时，复数为peoples），但似乎现在使用较少，而且几乎见不到单数使用，只用复数 peoples 表示笼统的“多个民族”。另，美国也常用 ethnic origin，强调“来自”哪里。编辑于 2017-12-13 09:48赞同 5014 条评论分享收藏喜欢

race 和 ethnicity该怎么区别？ - 知乎

race 和 ethnicity该怎么区别？ - 知乎首页知乎知学堂发现等你来答切换模式登录/注册英语race 和 ethnicity该怎么区别？经常看到如果一段话里提到race，后面通常都会跟一个and ethnicity，它们的区别在哪儿？民族、种族？自我认知和外界标签？关注者36被浏览159,201关注问题写回答邀请回答好问题 2添加评论分享5 个回答默认排序May Wang若要了时当下了，若觅了时无了时。关注这学期正好修了一门社会学课程，讲述美国移民历史下的种族理解，首先看牛津字典和社会学字典上的两个单词的定义EthnicityIndividuals who consider themselves, or are considered by others, to share common characteristics that differentiate them from the other collectivities in a society, and from which they develop their distinctive cultural behaviour, form an ethnic group. Race:each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics 简言之，Race应该翻译成种族，它是以“外表”来区别，正如我们常说的黄种人，白种人，黑种人。种族歧视主义的英文就为Racist 而Ethnicity应该定义成族群，它是以后天的”文化认同“来区别，由于共同的信仰，语言，文化习俗和历史背景而产生的归属感，是一种主观的自我认定而形成的。这两个词还会经常同Nation（民族）相联系。对于社会学了解还是比较浅显，如果有错误还希望有所指正。发布于 2013-11-14 10:19赞同 955 条评论分享收藏喜欢收起吴蜀春菩萨畏因，众生畏果。关注工作的时候想到这个问题，给你看一个调查表里的划分吧。ethnicity下的选项分为：Hispanic or LatinoCentral AmericanCubanLatin AmericanDominicanMexicanPuerto RicanSouth AmericanSpaniardNot Hispanic or LatinoNot Applicablerace选项的划分为：American Indian or Alaska NativeAsianBlack or African AmericanNative Hawaiian or Other Pacific IslanderWhite发布于 2018-07-09 14:32赞同 142 条评论分享收藏喜欢

族群 - 维基百科，自由的百科全书

跳转到内容

主菜单

移至侧栏

隐藏

导航

首页分类索引特色内容新闻动态最近更改随机条目资助维基百科

帮助

帮助维基社群方针与指引互助客栈知识问答字词转换IRC即时聊天联络我们关于维基百科

搜索

创建账号

个人工具

创建账号登录

未登录编辑者的页面了解详情

贡献讨论

移至侧栏

隐藏

序言

1字源

2涵義

3形成

4类型

5参见

6參考文獻

开关目录

族群

17种语言

العربيةBikol CentralБеларуская (тарашкевіца)کوردیČeštinaDeutschEnglishفارسی日本語TyapनेपालीPolskiPortuguêsРусскийSlovenčinaСрпски / srpskiУкраїнська

编辑链接

条目讨论

不转换

不转换简体繁體大陆简体香港繁體澳門繁體大马简体新加坡简体臺灣正體

阅读编辑查看历史

工具

移至侧栏

隐藏

操作

阅读编辑查看历史

常规

链入页面相关更改上传文件特殊页面固定链接页面信息引用本页获取短URL下载二维码维基数据项目

打印/导出

下载为PDF打印页面

在其他项目中

维基共享资源

维基百科，自由的百科全书

此條目介紹的是汉语翻译中关于民族一词的其中一种翻译更为准确的义项。关于民族的其他含义，请见「民族 (消歧義)」。关于族的其他意思，请见「族」。

关于生物學上的族群，请见「種群」。

人类学

人類學大綱（英语：Outline of anthropology）人類學史

分支領域

考古学

体质人类学

文化人类学

語言人類學

社會人類學

考古学

空中考古学（英语：Aerial archaeology）

航空考古学（英语：Aviation archaeology）

战场考古学（英语：Battlefield archaeology）

聖經考古學

生物考古学

环境考古学

民族考古學

实验考古学（英语：Experimental archaeology）

女性主义考古学（英语：Feminist archaeology）

法医人类学

海洋考古学（英语：Maritime archaeology）

古民族植物学（英语：Paleoethnobotany）

动物考古学

体质人类学

人與動物關係學

生物文化人类学（英语：Biocultural anthropology）

演化人類學

法医人类学

分子人类学

神经人类学（英语：Neuroanthropology）

营养人类学（英语：Nutritional anthropology）

古人类学

灵长类学

社會人類學文化人类学

應用人類學

藝術人類學

認知人類學

電子人類學（英语：Cyborg anthropology）

發展人類學

数码人類學

生態人類學

环境人类学（英语：Environmental anthropology）

經濟人類學

人类学中的政治经济学（英语：Political economy in anthropology）

女性主義人類學

饮食人类学

人种历史学（英语：Ethnohistory）

制度人类学（英语：Anthropology of institutions）

親屬

法律人类学（英语：Legal anthropology）

媒體人類學

醫療人類學

民族博物馆学（英语：Ethnomuseology）

民族音乐学

政治人类学

心理人类学（英语：Psychological anthropology）

公共人类学（英语：Public anthropology）

宗教人类学

象徵人類學

超个人人类学（英语：Transpersonal anthropology）

城市人類學

視覺人類學

語言人類學

人类语言学

描写语言学派

民族語言學

民族志诗学（英语：Ethnopoetics）

歷史語言學

符号人类学（英语：Semiotic anthropology）

社会语言学

文化人类学

人体测量学

民族誌

網絡誌

民族学

跨文化比较（英语：Standard cross-cultural sample）

參與觀察

科学整体论（英语：Holism in science）

反身性

深描（英语：Thick description）

文化相對論

民族中心主义

主位与客位（英语：Emic and etic）

基本概念

文化

發展人類學

族群

演化

社會文化進化論

社會性別

親屬

迷因

史前時代

人種

社会

价值（英语：Anthropological theories of value）

殖民主义 / 后殖民主义

重要理论

行动者网络理论

联姻理论（英语：Alliance theory）

跨文化研究

文化唯物主义（英语：Cultural materialism (anthropology)）

文化理论（英语：Culture theory）

傳播論

女性主義人類學

歷史特殊論

博厄斯人类学（英语：Boasian anthropology）

结构功能主义

象徵人類學

人类表演学（英语：Performance studies）

政治经济学（英语：Political economy in anthropology）

实践理论（英语：Practice theory）

結構人類學

後結構主義

系统论（英语：Systems theory in anthropology）

列表

人類學家列表

查论编

族裔（英語：Ethnicity），指彼此共享了相同的祖先、血缘、外貌、歷史、文化、习俗、语言、地域、宗教、生活习惯与国家体验等，因而形成的一个共同群体。为区分我族及他者的分类方式之一。这些区別我者和他者的族群性被称为种族划分，其特质可能包括「客观」及「主观」（如认知和感情的成分）。[1][2]

字源[编辑]

族裔，這個名詞譯自英语Ethnic，源自於古希腊语ἔθνος（ethnos）的形容詞形態ἐθνικός（ethnikos），字面意思為家庭的，或人群的，指具有共同起源祖先、文化和風俗習慣的人群。這個單字成為拉丁语ethnicus，在中世紀時成為中古英文的單字。在中世紀時，它對應到英语folk，在中世紀晚期，它對應到英语people。族裔（ethnos）在19世紀的含义是欧洲人用來指代国內的少數族群乃至非歐洲的移民、種族，1900年后的含义轉變到以文化特徵区分，而最新的看法则认为族裔是社会过程后的產生的结果。因此，族群可能因歷史及时空环境，基于歷史、文化、语言、地域、宗教、血缘祖先认同、行为、生物/外貌特征而形成「一群」与其它有所区别的群体。[3][4]

據中國民族學與人類學學者郝時遠考據，族裔的古漢語“民族”有可能在近代傳入日本，然而現代意義的賦予主要是在日譯西書（主要是德人著作）中對應了「Ethnic group（族裔）」和「Nation（国族）」等名詞。

涵義[编辑]

族裔可以指民族或種族，也可以指具有相同語言、行为取向、地缘、祖籍、文化背景或宗教信仰的群体，[5]属于文化人类学或社会学概念。

形成[编辑]

群族並不是客觀事物，而是由人界定和劃分的，有很大的伸縮性。族群身份有時是自我界定的，為了謀求群體團結、抵抗歧視、爭取政治經濟權益、自我標榜炫耀等等；族群身份有時則是外在決定或「被劃分」的。[6]

类型[编辑]

国籍层面

中国人、印度人、日本人、德國人、英國人、美国人、韓國人、泰國人、俄羅斯人

国族层面

中华民族、朝鮮民族、大和民族、馬來西亞民族、蘇聯民族、俄羅斯民族

族群层面

中国朝鲜族、中國俄羅斯族、琉球族、苗族、爪哇族、蒙古族、漢族、德意志族、猶太族、

次民族层面

亞族群、部族、氏族、宗族、烏珠穆沁人、嘉絨人

宗教层面

信仰伊斯兰教的群体穆斯林、信仰德鲁兹派的群体

参见[编辑]

族群列表

國民、國族（Nation）

人種、種族（Race）

原住民、土著

參考文獻[编辑]

^ 绫部恒雄洪时荣《民族译丛》 1988年05期 Ethnicity的主观和客观要素（页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）

^ 熊子维,台湾族群別社会地位之变迁-主客观指標的分析（页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）

^ p.456 "The ideas of ethnicity and ethnic group have a long history, often related to "otherness". In the 20th century and beyond, the idea of what constitutes an ethnic group has changed, once associated with minority status and later with cultural characteristics, ethnicity is most recently viewed as the outcome of a social process" Richard T. Schaefer. Encyclopedia of race, ethnicity, and society. SAGE Publications. 2008 [11 December 2012]. ISBN 978-1-4129-2694-2. （原始内容存档于2014-09-22）.

^ 叶江《古希腊语词汇“εθνοζ”(ethnos)在古希腊文献中之内涵考辨》

^ Emily Honig著，盧明華譯：《蘇北人在上海，1850-1980》（上海：上海古籍出版社，2004），頁7。

^ Emily Honig：《蘇北人在上海》，頁7-8。

查论编族群相關概念

氏族

族群

族誌群體

族语群体（英语：Ethnolinguistic group）

族教群體

现实主义民族学（英语：Ethnographic realism）

连字符族群（英语：Hyphenated ethnicity）

原住民

內團體與外團體

元族群（英语：Meta-ethnicity）

都市族群性（英语：Metroethnicity）

少数群体

單一族群國家

國族

國籍

泛族群性（英语：Panethnicity）

多元族群（英语：Polyethnicity）

多元族群國家

種群

人種

族群象徵（英语：Symbolic ethnicity）

部族

民族学

人类学

民族學研究（英语：Ethnic studies）

民族考古學

民族生物学（英语：Ethnobiology）

民族植物學

民族真菌学（英语：Ethnomycology）

民族动物学（英语：Ethnozoology）

民族生态学（英语：Ethnoecology）

民族电影（英语：Ethnocinema）

族群地質學

民族誌

民族自传学（英语：Autoethnography）

临床民族学（英语：Clinical ethnography）

批判民族学（英语：Critical ethnography）

制度民族学（英语：Institutional ethnography）

网络民族学（英语：Netnography）

網絡誌

以人为本的民族学（英语：Person-centered ethnography）

搶救民族誌

跨族群民族学（英语：Transidio Ethnography）

影音民族学（英语：Video ethnography）

族群史（英语：Ethnohistory）

民族語言學

民族学

民族数学（英语：Ethnomathematics）

民族统计学（英语：Ethnostatistics）

民族醫學

民族学方法论

民族博物学（英语：Ethnomuseology）

民族音乐学

民族哲学（英语：Ethnophilosophy）

民族精神医药学（英语：Ethnopsychopharmacology）

民族诗（英语：Ethnopoetics）

民族科学（英语：Ethnoscience）

民族符号学（英语：Ethnosemiotics）

民族分类学（英语：Ethnotaxonomy）

族群列表

非洲族群（英语：List of ethnic groups of Africa）

美洲

美洲原住民

加拿大族群（英语：Ethnic origins of people in Canada）

墨西哥族群

美国族群

中美洲族群（英语：Ethnic groups in Central America）

南美洲族群（英语：Ethnic groups in South America）

亚洲族群（英语：Ethnic groups in Asia）

中亚族群（英语：Ethnic groups of Central Asia）

东亚族群（英语：Ethnic groups of East Asia）

西伯利亚族群

南亚族群

东南亚族群（英语：Ethnic groups of Southeast Asia）

西亚族群（英语：Ethnic groups in the Middle East）

澳大利亚族群

澳大利亚原住民

欧洲族群

大洋洲

大洋洲原住民族群（英语：Indigenous peoples of Oceania）

大洋洲欧裔族群（英语：Europeans in Oceania）

身份认同和民族产生（英语：ethnogenesis）

跨种族效应

同化

文化認同

区域居民称谓词

发展（英语：Ethnic identity development）

內名與外名

族群旗帜（英语：Ethnic flag）

族群选项（英语：Ethnic option）

族群起源（英语：Ethnic origin）

民族宗教

民间宗教

族群普查（英语：Race and ethnicity in censuses）

族群科幻（英语：Ethnofiction）

民族称呼

历史种族概念（英语：Historical race concepts）

想像的共同體

親屬

传奇先祖（英语：Legendary progenitor）

宗法社會（英语：Lineage-bonded society）

Mythomoteur（英语：Mythomoteur）

Mores（英语：Mores）

國家建立

民族國家

民族語言

民族神話（英语：National myth）

起源傳說（英语：Origin myth）

Pantribal sodality（英语：Pantribal sodality）

部落名稱（英语：Tribal name）

部落主義（英语：Tribalism）

Urheimat（英语：Urheimat）

多國族國家（英语：Multinational state）

协商民主

離散政治

主導少數（英语：Dominant minority）

族群民主（英语：Ethnic democracy）

族群飛地（英语：Ethnic enclave）

族群利益集團（英语：Ethnic interest group）

族群多數（英语：Ethnic majority）

族群媒體（英语：Ethnic media）

族群色情作品（英语：Ethnic pornography）

族群主題樂園（英语：Ethnic theme park）

Ethnoburb（英语：Ethnoburb）

族群政治（英语：Ethnocracy）

族群電影（英语：Ethnographic film）

族群村落（英语：Ethnographic village）

土著權利（英语：Indigenous rights）

中阶少数民族（英语：Middleman minority）

少数人权利

模范少数族裔

多元族群國家（英语：Multinational state）

意識形態和種族衝突

遺傳工程武器

种族清洗

种族仇恨

族群笑話

族群民族主义

族群裙帶（英语：Ethnic nepotism）

族群懲罰（英语：Ethnic penalty）

族群诋毁语列表（英语：List of ethnic slurs）

族群刻板印象

民族恐怖主義

民族優越感

种族文化灭绝

族群象徵主義（英语：Ethnosymbolism）

土著主義（英语：Indigenism）

活跃的分离主义运动列表

仇外

规范控制

AAT: 300250435

GND: 4220764-2

J9U: 987007555583605171

LCCN: sh85045187

LNB: 000060934

NDL: 00567705

NKC: ph120007

取自“https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=族群&oldid=81828366”

分类：族群民族学人类学隐藏分类：含有英語的條目含有古希臘語的條目含有拉丁語的條目包含AAT标识符的维基百科条目包含GND标识符的维基百科条目包含J9U标识符的维基百科条目包含LCCN标识符的维基百科条目包含LNB标识符的维基百科条目包含NDL标识符的维基百科条目包含NKC标识符的维基百科条目

本页面最后修订于2024年3月9日 (星期六) 06:13。

本站的全部文字在知识共享署名-相同方式共享 4.0协议之条款下提供，附加条款亦可能应用。（请参阅使用条款）

Wikipedia®和维基百科标志是维基媒体基金会的注册商标；维基™是维基媒体基金会的商标。

维基媒体基金会是按美国国內稅收法501(c)(3)登记的非营利慈善机构。

隐私政策

关于维基百科

免责声明

行为准则

开发者

统计

Cookie声明

手机版视图

开关有限宽度模式

Ethnicity - Wikipedia

Jump to content

Main menu

move to sidebar

hide

Navigation

Main pageContentsCurrent eventsRandom articleAbout WikipediaContact usDonate

Contribute

HelpLearn to editCommunity portalRecent changesUpload file

Create account

Personal tools

Create account Log in

Pages for logged out editors learn more

ContributionsTalk

Contents

move to sidebar

hide

(Top)

1Terminology

2Definitions and conceptual history

Toggle Definitions and conceptual history subsection

2.1Approaches to understanding ethnicity

2.2Ethnicity theory in the United States

3Ethnicity and nationality

4Ethnicity and race

5Ethno-national conflict

6Ethnic groups by continent

Toggle Ethnic groups by continent subsection

6.1Africa

6.2Asia

6.3Europe

6.4North America

6.5South America

6.6Oceania

6.6.1Australia

7See also

8References

9Further reading

10External links

Toggle the table of contents

Ethnicity

17 languages

العربيةБеларуская (тарашкевіца)Bikol CentralČeštinaDeutschفارسیनेपाली日本語PolskiPortuguêsРусскийSlovenčinaکوردیСрпски / srpskiTyapУкраїнська中文

Edit links

ArticleTalk

English

ReadEditView history

Tools

move to sidebar

hide

Actions

ReadEditView history

General

What links hereRelated changesUpload fileSpecial pagesPermanent linkPage informationCite this pageGet shortened URLDownload QR codeWikidata item

Print/export

Download as PDFPrintable version

In other projects

Wikimedia CommonsWikiquote

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socially defined category of people who identify with each other

For other uses, see Ethnicity (disambiguation).

"Ethnicities" redirects here. For the academic journal, see Ethnicities (journal).

Part of a series onAnthropology

OutlineHistory

Types

Archaeological

Biological

Cultural

Linguistic

Social

Archaeological

Aerial

Aviation

Battlefield

Biblical

Bioarchaeological

Environmental

Ethnoarchaeological

Experiential

Feminist

Forensic

Maritime

Paleoethnobotanical

Zooarchaeological

Biological

Anthrozoological

Biocultural

Evolutionary

Forensic

Molecular

Neurological

Nutritional

Paleoanthropological

Primatological

SocialCultural

Applied

Art

Cognitive

Cyborg

Development

Digital

Ecological

Environmental

Economic

Political economy

Feminist

Food

Historical

Institutional

Kinship

Legal

Media

Medical

Museums

Musical

Political

Psychological

Public

Religion

Symbolic

Transpersonal

Urban

Visual

Linguistic

Anthropological

Descriptive

Ethnological

Ethnopoetical

Historical

Semiotic

Sociological

Research framework

Anthropometry

Ethnography

cyber

Ethnology

Cross-cultural comparison

Participant observation

Holism

Reflexivity

Thick description

Cultural relativism

Ethnocentrism

Emic and etic

Key concepts

Culture

Development

Ethnicity

Evolution

sociocultural

Gender

Kinship and descent

Meme

Prehistory

Race

Society

Value

Colonialism / Postcolonialism

Key theories

Actor–network theory

Alliance theory

Cross-cultural studies

Cultural materialism

Culture theory

Diffusionism

Feminism

Historical particularism

Boasian anthropology

Functionalism

Interpretive

Performance studies

Political economy

Practice theory

Structuralism

Post-structuralism

Systems theory

Lists

Anthropologists by nationality

Anthropology by year

Bibliography

Journals

List of indigenous peoples

Organizations

vte

An ethnicity or ethnic group is a grouping of people who identify with each other on the basis of perceived shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Those attributes can include a common nation of origin, or common sets of ancestry, traditions, language, history, society, religion, or social treatment.[1][2] The term ethnicity is often used interchangeably with the term nation, particularly in cases of ethnic nationalism.

Ethnicity may be construed as an inherited or societally imposed construct. Ethnic membership tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin myth, history, homeland, language, dialect, religion, mythology, folklore, ritual, cuisine, dressing style, art, or physical appearance. Ethnic groups may share a narrow or broad spectrum of genetic ancestry, depending on group identification, with many groups having mixed genetic ancestry.[3][4][5]

By way of language shift, acculturation, adoption, and religious conversion, individuals or groups may over time shift from one ethnic group to another. Ethnic groups may be divided into subgroups or tribes, which over time may become separate ethnic groups themselves due to endogamy or physical isolation from the parent group. Conversely, formerly separate ethnicities can merge to form a pan-ethnicity and may eventually merge into one single ethnicity. Whether through division or amalgamation, the formation of a separate ethnic identity is referred to as ethnogenesis.

Although both organic and performative criteria characterise ethnic groups, debate in the past has dichotomised between primordialism and constructivism. Earlier 20th-century "Primordialists" viewed ethnic groups as real phenomena whose distinct characteristics have endured since the distant past.[6] Perspectives that developed after the 1960s increasingly viewed ethnic groups as social constructs, with identity assigned by societal rules.[7]

Terminology[edit]

The term ethnic is derived from the Greek word ἔθνος ethnos (more precisely, from the adjective ἐθνικός ethnikos,[8] which was loaned into Latin as ethnicus). The inherited English language term for this concept is folk, used alongside the latinate people since the late Middle English period.

In Early Modern English and until the mid-19th century, ethnic was used to mean heathen or pagan (in the sense of disparate "nations" which did not yet participate in the Christian oikumene), as the Septuagint used ta ethne ("the nations") to translate the Hebrew goyim "the foreign nations, non-Hebrews, non-Jews".[9] The Greek term in early antiquity (Homeric Greek) could refer to any large group, a host of men, a band of comrades as well as a swarm or flock of animals. In Classical Greek, the term took on a meaning comparable to the concept now expressed by "ethnic group", mostly translated as "nation, tribe, a unique people group"; only in Hellenistic Greek did the term tend to become further narrowed to refer to "foreign" or "barbarous" nations in particular (whence the later meaning "heathen, pagan").[10]

In the 19th century, the term came to be used in the sense of "peculiar to a tribe, race, people or nation", in a return to the original Greek meaning. The sense of "different cultural groups", and in American English "tribal, racial, cultural or national minority group" arises in the 1930s to 1940s,[11] serving as a replacement of the term race which had earlier taken this sense but was now becoming deprecated due to its association with ideological racism.

The abstract ethnicity had been used as a stand-in for "paganism" in the 18th century, but now came to express the meaning of an "ethnic character" (first recorded 1953).

The term ethnic group was first recorded in 1935 and entered the Oxford English Dictionary in 1972.[12] Depending on context, the term nationality may be used either synonymously with ethnicity or synonymously with citizenship (in a sovereign state). The process that results in emergence of an ethnicity is called ethnogenesis, a term in use in ethnological literature since about 1950. The term may also be used with the connotation of something unique and unusually exotic (cf. "an ethnic restaurant", etc.), generally related to cultures of more recent immigrants, who arrived after the dominant population of an area was established.

Depending on which source of group identity is emphasized to define membership, the following types of (often mutually overlapping) groups can be identified:

Ethno-linguistic, emphasizing shared language, dialect (and possibly script) – example: French Canadians

Ethno-national, emphasizing a shared polity or sense of national identity – example: Austrians

Ethno-racial, emphasizing shared physical appearance based on phenotype – example: African Americans

Ethno-regional, emphasizing a distinct local sense of belonging stemming from relative geographic isolation – example: South Islanders of New Zealand

Ethno-religious, emphasizing shared affiliation with a particular religion, denomination or sect – example: Sikhs

Ethno-cultural, emphasizing shared culture or tradition, often overlapping with other forms of ethnicity – example: Travellers

In many cases, more than one aspect determines membership: for instance, Armenian ethnicity can be defined by Armenian citizenship, having Armenian heritage, native use of the Armenian language, or membership of the Armenian Apostolic Church.

Definitions and conceptual history[edit]

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.[13]

The Javanese people of Indonesia are the largest Austronesian 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 c. 480 BC. The Greeks had developed a concept of their own ethnicity, which they grouped under the name of Hellenes. Herodotus (8.144.2) gave a famous account of what defined Greek (Hellenic) ethnic identity in his day, enumerating

shared descent (ὅμαιμον – homaimon, "of the same blood"),[14]

shared language (ὁμόγλωσσον – homoglōsson, "speaking the same language"),[15]

shared sanctuaries and sacrifices (Greek: θεῶν ἱδρύματά τε κοινὰ καὶ θυσίαι – theōn hidrumata te koina kai thusiai),[16]

shared customs (Greek: ἤθεα ὁμότροπα – ēthea homotropa, "customs of like fashion").[17][18][19]

Whether ethnicity qualifies as a cultural universal is to some extent dependent on the exact definition used. Many social scientists,[20] such as 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.[21][irrelevant citation]

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 primordialist view, the participant perceives ethnic ties collectively, as an externally given, even coercive, social bond.[22] The 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.[23][24] This debate is still an important point of reference in Political science, although most scholars' approaches fall between the two poles.[25]

The second debate is between "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.[26][27] Essentialists view such identities as ontological categories defining social actors.[28][29]

According to 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.[30]

Max Weber maintained that ethnic groups were künstlich (artificial, i.e. a social construct) because they were based on a subjective belief in shared 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".[31]

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.[32] 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: "... 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."[citation needed]

In 1978, anthropologist Ronald Cohen claimed that the identification of "ethnic groups" in the usage of social scientists often reflected inaccurate labels more than indigenous realities:

... the named ethnic identities we accept, often unthinkingly, as basic givens in the literature are often arbitrarily, or even worse inaccurately, imposed.[32]

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.[32]

According to Paul James, formations of identity were often changed and distorted by colonization, but identities are not made out of nothing:

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.[33]

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.[34] Ronald Cohen concluded that ethnicity is "a series of nesting dichotomizations of inclusiveness and exclusiveness".[32] He agrees with Joan Vincent's observation that (in Cohen's paraphrase) "Ethnicity ... can be narrowed or broadened in boundary terms in relation to the specific needs of political mobilization.[32] 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.[35] 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."[36]

Approaches to understanding ethnicity[edit]

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 commonplace 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.[37]

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 societies.[38]

"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.[38]

"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.[38]

"Perennialism", an approach that is primarily concerned with nationhood but tends to see nations and ethnic communities as basically the same phenomenon holds that the nation, as a type of social and political organization, is of an immemorial or "perennial" character.[39] 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.[40]

"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".[41] 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.[42] 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".[41] 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 conflict.[42]

"Constructivism" sees both primordialist and perennialist views as basically flawed,[42] 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 states beginning in the early modern period.[43] 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 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.[21] 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 historians and cultural anthropologists have documented that many of the values, practices, and norms that imply continuity with the past are of relatively recent invention.[44][45]

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 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 and melting pot.[46][47][48][49] Ethnic groups differ from other social groups, such as subcultures, interest groups or social classes, 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 mythological narrative of a founding figure); ethnic identity is reinforced by reference to "boundary markers" – characteristics said to be unique to the group which set it apart from other groups.[50][51][52][53][54][55]

Ethnicity theory in the United States[edit]

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".[56] 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.[57]

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.[58] While Park's theory identified different stages in the immigration process – contact, conflict, struggle, and as the last and best response, assimilation – it did so only for white communities.[58] The ethnicity paradigm neglected the ways in which race can complicate a community's interactions with social and political structures, especially upon contact.

Assimilation – shedding the particular qualities of a native culture for the purpose of blending in with a host culture – did not work for some groups as a response to racism and discrimination, though it did for others.[58] Once the legal barriers to achieving equality had been dismantled, the problem of racism became the sole responsibility of already disadvantaged communities.[59] 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."[60] It prevents critical examination of the structural components of racism and encourages a "benign neglect" of social inequality.[60]

Ethnicity and nationality[edit]

Further information: Nation state and minority group

Part of a series onPolitical andlegal anthropology

Basic concepts

Status and rank

Ascribed status

Achieved status

Social status

Caste

Age grade/Age set

Leveling mechanism

Leadership

Big man

Patriarchy

Matriarchy

Elder

Pantribal sodalities

Chief

Paramount chief

Polities

Band society

Segmentary lineage

Tribe

Chiefdom

Petty kingdom

House society

Ethnic group

Theatre state

Law and custom

Customary law

Legal culture

Case studies

Acephelous

Societies without hierarchical leaders

African Political Systems

Papuan Big man system

The Art of Not Being Governed

State

Non-western state systems

Negara

Mandala

Technology, Tradition, and the State in Africa

Legal systems

Kapu

Colonialism and resistance

Europe and the People Without History

Cargo cult

Major theorists

E. Adamson Hoebel

Georges Balandier

F. G. Bailey

Fredrik Barth

Jeremy Boissevain

Robert L. Carneiro

Henri J. M. Claessen

Jean Comaroff

John Comaroff

Pierre Clastres

E. E. Evans-Pritchard

Wolfgang Fikentscher

Meyer Fortes

Morton Fried

Ernest Gellner

Lesley Gill

Ulf Hannerz

Thomas Blom Hansen

Ted C. Lewellen

Edmund Leach

Ralph Linton

Elizabeth Mertz

Sidney Mintz

Sally Falk Moore

Rodney Needham

Marshall Sahlins

James C. Scott

Elman Service

Aidan Southall

Jonathan Spencer

Bjorn Thomassen

Douglas R. White

Eric Wolf

Circumscription theory

Legal anthropology

Left–right paradigm

State formation

Political economy in anthropology

Network Analysis and Ethnographic Problems

Journals

Political and Legal Anthropology Review

Journal of Legal Anthropology

Journal of Law and Society

Social and cultural anthropologyvte

In some cases, especially involving transnational migration or colonial expansion, ethnicity is linked to nationality. Anthropologists and historians, following the modernist understanding of ethnicity as proposed by Ernest Gellner[61] and Benedict Anderson[62] see nations and nationalism as developing with the rise of the modern state system in the 17th century. They culminated in the rise of "nation-states" in which the presumptive boundaries of the nation coincided (or ideally coincided) with state boundaries.

Thus, in the West, the notion of ethnicity, like race and nation, developed in the context of European colonial expansion, when mercantilism and capitalism were promoting global movements of populations at the same time state boundaries were being more clearly and rigidly defined.

In the 19th century, modern states generally sought legitimacy through their claim to represent "nations". Nation-states, however, invariably include populations who have been excluded from national life for one reason or another. Members of excluded groups, consequently, will either demand inclusion based on equality or seek autonomy, sometimes even to the extent of complete political separation in their nation-state.[63] Under these conditions when people moved from one state to another,[64] or one state conquered or colonized peoples beyond its national boundaries – ethnic groups were formed by people who identified with one nation, but lived in another state.

Multi-ethnic states can be the result of two opposite events, either the recent creation of state borders at variance with traditional tribal territories, or the recent immigration of ethnic minorities into a former nation-state.

Examples for the first case are found throughout Africa, where countries created during decolonization inherited arbitrary colonial borders, but also in European countries such as Belgium or United Kingdom. Examples for the second case are countries such as Netherlands, which were relatively ethnically homogeneous when they attained statehood but have received significant immigration in the 17th century and even more so in the second half of the 20th century. States such as the United Kingdom, France and Switzerland comprised distinct ethnic groups from their formation and have likewise experienced substantial immigration, resulting in what has been termed "multicultural" societies, especially in large cities.

The states of the New World were multi-ethnic from the onset, as they were formed as colonies imposed on existing indigenous populations.

In recent decades, feminist scholars (most notably Nira Yuval-Davis)[65] have drawn attention to the fundamental ways in which women participate in the creation and reproduction of ethnic and national categories. Though these categories are usually discussed as belonging to the public, political sphere, they are upheld within the private, family sphere to a great extent.[66] It is here that women act not just as biological reproducers but also as "cultural carriers", transmitting knowledge and enforcing behaviors that belong to a specific collectivity.[67] Women also often play a significant symbolic role in conceptions of nation or ethnicity, for example in the notion that "women and children" constitute the kernel of a nation which must be defended in times of conflict, or in iconic figures such as Britannia or Marianne.

Ethnicity and race[edit]

The racial diversity of Asia's ethnic groups (original caption: Asiatiska folk), Nordisk familjebok (1904)

Ethnicity is used as a matter of cultural identity of a group, often based on shared ancestry, language, and cultural traditions, while race is applied as a taxonomic grouping, based on physical similarities among groups. Race is a more controversial subject than ethnicity, due to common political use of the term.[citation needed] Ramón Grosfoguel (University of California, Berkeley) argues that "racial/ethnic identity" is one concept and concepts of race and ethnicity cannot be used as separate and autonomous categories.[68]

Before Weber (1864–1920), race and ethnicity were primarily seen as two aspects of the same thing. Around 1900 and before, the primordialist understanding of ethnicity predominated: cultural differences between peoples were seen as being the result of inherited traits and tendencies.[69] With Weber's introduction of the idea of ethnicity as a social construct, race and ethnicity became more divided from each other.

In 1950, the UNESCO statement "The Race Question", signed by some of the internationally renowned scholars of the time (including Ashley Montagu, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Gunnar Myrdal, Julian Huxley, etc.), said:

National, religious, geographic, linguistic and cultural groups do not necessarily coincide with racial groups: and the cultural traits of such groups have no demonstrated genetic connection with racial traits. Because serious errors of this kind are habitually committed when the term "race" is used in popular parlance, it would be better when speaking of human races to drop the term "race" altogether and speak of "ethnic groups".[70]

In 1982, anthropologist David Craig Griffith summed up forty years of ethnographic research, arguing that racial and ethnic categories are symbolic markers for different ways people from different parts of the world have been incorporated into a global economy:

The opposing interests that divide the working classes are further reinforced through appeals to "racial" and "ethnic" distinctions. Such appeals serve to allocate different categories of workers to rungs on the scale of labor markets, relegating stigmatized populations to the lower levels and insulating the higher echelons from competition from below. Capitalism did not create all the distinctions of ethnicity and race that function to set off categories of workers from one another. It is, nevertheless, the process of labor mobilization under capitalism that imparts to these distinctions their effective values.[71]

According to Wolf, racial categories were constructed and incorporated during the period of European mercantile expansion, and ethnic groupings during the period of capitalist expansion.[72]

Writing in 1977 about the usage of the term "ethnic" in the ordinary language of Great Britain and the United States, Wallman noted

The term "ethnic" popularly connotes "[race]" in Britain, only less precisely, and with a lighter value load. In North America, by contrast, "[race]" most commonly means color, and "ethnics" are the descendants of relatively recent immigrants from non-English-speaking countries. "[Ethnic]" is not a noun in Britain. In effect there are no "ethnics"; there are only "ethnic relations".[73]

In the U.S., the OMB says the definition of race as used for the purposes of the US Census is not "scientific or anthropological" and takes into account "social and cultural characteristics as well as ancestry", using "appropriate scientific methodologies" that are not "primarily biological or genetic in reference".[74]

Ethno-national conflict[edit]

Further information: Ethnic conflict

Sometimes ethnic groups are subject to prejudicial attitudes and actions by the state or its constituents. In the 20th century, people began to argue that conflicts among ethnic groups or between members of an ethnic group and the state can and should be resolved in one of two ways. Some, like Jürgen Habermas and Bruce Barry, have argued that the legitimacy of modern states must be based on a notion of political rights of autonomous individual subjects. According to this view, the state should not acknowledge ethnic, national or racial identity but rather instead enforce political and legal equality of all individuals. Others, like Charles Taylor and Will Kymlicka, argue that the notion of the autonomous individual is itself a cultural construct. According to this view, states must recognize ethnic identity and develop processes through which the particular needs of ethnic groups can be accommodated within the boundaries of the nation-state.

The 19th century saw the development of the political ideology of ethnic nationalism, when the concept of race was tied to nationalism, first by German theorists including Johann Gottfried von Herder. Instances of societies focusing on ethnic ties, arguably to the exclusion of history or historical context, have resulted in the justification of nationalist goals. Two periods frequently cited as examples of this are the 19th-century consolidation and expansion of the German Empire and the 20th century Nazi Germany. Each promoted the pan-ethnic idea that these governments were acquiring only lands that had always been inhabited by ethnic Germans. The history of late-comers to the nation-state model, such as those arising in the Near East and south-eastern Europe out of the dissolution of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires, as well as those arising out of the USSR, is marked by inter-ethnic conflicts. Such conflicts usually occur within multi-ethnic states, as opposed to between them, as in other regions of the world. Thus, the conflicts are often misleadingly labeled and characterized as civil wars when they are inter-ethnic conflicts in a multi-ethnic state.

Ethnic groups by continent[edit]

Africa[edit]

Main article: List of ethnic groups of Africa

This section may contain information not important or relevant to the article's subject. Please help improve this section. (June 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Ethnic groups in Africa number in the hundreds, each generally having its own language (or dialect of a language) and culture.

Asia[edit]

Main articles: Ethnic groups in Asia, East Asian people, South Asian ethnic groups, Ethnic groups of Southeast Asia, and Ethnic groups in the Middle East

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Assyrians are one of the indigenous peoples of Northern Iraq.

Ethnic groups are abundant throughout Asia, with adaptations to the climate zones of Asia, which can be the Arctic, subarctic, temperate, subtropical or tropical. The ethnic groups have adapted to mountains, deserts, grasslands, and forests.

On the coasts of Asia, the ethnic groups have adopted various methods of harvest and transport. Some groups are primarily hunter-gatherers, some practice transhumance (nomadic lifestyle), others have been agrarian/rural for millennia and others becoming industrial/urban. Some groups/countries of Asia are completely urban, such as those in Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Singapore. The colonization of Asia was largely ended in the 20th century, with national drives for independence and self-determination across the continent.

In Indonesia alone, there are more than 1,300 ethnic groups recognized by the government, which are located on 17,000 islands in the Indonesian archipelago

Russia has more than 185 recognized ethnic groups besides the eighty percent ethnic Russian majority. The largest group is the Tatars, 3.8 percent. Many of the smaller groups are found in the Asian part of Russia (see Indigenous peoples of Siberia).

Europe[edit]

Main article: Ethnic groups in Europe

The Basques constitute an indigenous ethnic minority in both France and Spain.

Sámi family in Lapland of Finland, 1936

The Irish are an ethnic group from Ireland of which 70–80 million people worldwide claim ancestry.[75]

Europe has a large number of ethnic groups; Pan and Pfeil (2004) count 87 distinct "peoples of Europe", of which 33 form the majority population in at least one sovereign state, while the remaining 54 constitute ethnic minorities within every state they inhabit (although they may form local regional majorities within a sub-national entity). The total number of national minority populations in Europe is estimated at 105 million people or 14% of 770 million Europeans.[76]

A number of European countries, including France[77] and Switzerland, do not collect information on the ethnicity of their resident population.

An example of a largely nomadic ethnic group in Europe is the Roma, pejoratively known as Gypsies. They originated from India and speak the Romani language.

The Serbian province of Vojvodina is recognizable for its multi-ethnic and multi-cultural identity.[78][79] There are some 26 ethnic groups in the province,[80] and six languages are in official use by the provincial administration.[81]

North America[edit]

Main articles: Ethnic origins of people in Canada, Ethnic groups in Central America, Demographics of Greenland, Demographics of Mexico, Ethnic groups in the United States, Indigenous peoples of the Americas § North America, Native Americans in the United States, Indigenous peoples in Canada, Indigenous peoples of Mexico, and Caribbean people

The indigenous people in North America are Native Americans. During European colonization, Europeans arrived in North America. Most Native Americans died due to Spanish diseases and other European diseases such as smallpox during the European colonization of the Americas. The largest pan-ethnic group in the United States is White Americans. Hispanic and Latino Americans (Mexican Americans in particular) and Asian Americans have immigrated to the United States recently. In Mexico, most Mexicans are mestizo, a mixture of Spanish and Native American ancestry. Some Hispanic and Latino Americans living in the United States are not mestizos.[citation needed]

African slaves were brought to North America from the 16th to 19th centuries during the Atlantic slave trade. Many of them were sent to the Caribbean. Ethnic groups that live in the Caribbean are: indigenous peoples, Africans, Indians, white Europeans, Chinese and Portuguese. The first white Europeans to arrive in the Dominican Republic were the Spanish in 1492. The Caribbean was also colonized and discovered by the Portuguese, English, Dutch and French.[82]

A sizeable number of people in the United States have mixed-race identities. In 2021, the number of Americans who identified as non-Hispanic and more than one race was 13.5 million. The number of Hispanic Americans who identified as multiracial was 20.3 million.[83] Over the course of the 2010s decade, there was a 127% increase in non-Hispanic Americans who identified as multiracial.[83]

The largest ethnic groups in the United States are Germans, African Americans, Mexicans, Irish, English,

Americans, Italians, Poles, French, Scottish, Native Americans, Puerto Ricans, Norwegians, Dutch people, Swedish people, Chinese people, West Indians, Russians and Filipinos.[84]

In Canada, European Canadians are the largest ethnic group. In Canada, the indigenous population is growing faster than the non-indigenous population. Most immigrants in Canada come from Asia.[85]

South America[edit]

Main article: Ethnic groups in South America

The Founding of the Brazilian Fatherland, an 1899 allegorical painting depicting Brazilian statesman José Bonifácio de Andrada e Silva, one of the founding fathers of the country, with the flag of the Empire of Brazil and the three major ethnic groups in Brazil

In South America, although highly varying between regions, people are commonly mixed-race, indigenous, European, black African, and to a lesser extent also Asian.

Oceania[edit]

Main articles: Indigenous peoples of Oceania and Europeans in Oceania

Nearly all states in Oceania have majority indigenous populations, with notable exceptions being Australia, New Zealand and Norfolk Island, who have majority European populations.[86] States with smaller European populations include Guam, Hawaii and New Caledonia (whose Europeans are known as Caldoche).[87][88] Indigenous peoples of Oceania are Australian Aboriginals, Austronesians and Papuans, and they originated from Asia.[89] The Austronesians of Oceania are further broken up into three distinct groups; Melanesians, Micronesians and Polynesians.

Oceanic South Pacific islands nearing Latin America were uninhabited when discovered by Europeans in the 16th century, with nothing to indicate prehistoric human activity by Indigenous peoples of the Americas or Oceania.[90][91][92] Contemporary residents are mainly mestizos and Europeans from the Latin American countries whom administer them,[93] although none of these islands have extensive populations.[94] Easter Island are the only oceanic island politically associated with Latin America to have an indigenous population, the Polynesian Rapa Nui people.[95] Their current inhabitants include indigenous Polynesians and mestizo settlers from political administrators Chile, in addition to mixed-race individuals with Polynesian and mestizo/European ancestry.[95] The British overseas territory of Pitcairn Islands, to the west of Easter Island, have a population of approximately 50 people. They are mixed-race Euronesians who descended from an initial group of British and Tahitian settlers in the 18th century. The islands were previously inhabited by Polynesians; they had long abandoned Pitcairn by the time the settlers had arrived.[96] Norfolk Island, now an external territory of Australia, is also believed to have been inhabited by Polynesians prior to its initial European discovery in the 18th century. Some of their residents are descended from mixed-race Pitcairn Islanders that were relocated onto Norfolk due to overpopulation in 1856.[97]

The once uninhabited Bonin Islands, later politically integrated into Japan, have a small population consisting of Japanese mainlanders and descendants of early European settlers.[95] Archeological findings from the 1990s suggested there was possible prehistoric human activity by Micronesians prior to European discovery in the 16th century.[98]

Several political entities associated with Oceania are still uninhabited, including Baker Island, Clipperton Island, Howland Island and Jarvis Island.[99] There were brief attempts to settle Clipperton with Mexicans and Jarvis with Native Hawaiians in the early 20th century. The Jarvis settlers were relocated from the island due to Japanese advancements during World War II, while most of the settlers on Clipperton ended up dying from starvation and murdering one and other.[100]

Australia[edit]

Main articles: Indigenous Australians and Native white Australians

The first evident ethnic group to live in Australia were the Australian Aboriginals, a group considered related to the Melanesian Torres Strait Islander people. Europeans, primarily from England arrived first in 1770.

The 2016 Census shows England and New Zealand are the next most common countries of birth after Australia, the proportion of people born in China and India has increased since 2011 (from 6.0 per cent to 8.3 per cent, and 5.6 per cent to 7.4 per cent, respectively).

The proportion of people identifying as being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin increased from 2.5 per cent of the Australian population in 2011 to 2.8 per cent in 2016.

民族，种族、族群怎么区别？ - 知乎

民族，种族、族群怎么区别？ - 知乎首页知乎知学堂发现等你来答切换模式登录/注册历史发明民族社会学种族民族，种族、族群怎么区别？关注者20被浏览30,141关注问题写回答邀请回答好问题添加评论分享3 个回答默认排序你的就是我的关注种族一人种race，偏向体貌外观特征种族族裔ethnic ，血统，文化，语言族群一ethnic group 族裔群体，侧重文化语言，也做我者与他者之分类民族一nation国族，国民在我国民族一词通常包含nation和ethnic group中华民族一chinese nation 中国民族，国族，中国国民，侧重国家56个民族一56 ethnic groups 五十六个族群，侧重文化群体民系一Sub ethnic group 亚族群，亚民族在西方国家这些名词用法比较复杂，侧重点也不一样，在不同的语境下又有不同的用法发布于 2017-05-02 22:39赞同 396 条评论分享收藏喜欢收起知乎知乎中学教师，会说，会写侗语，英语，华语，印尼语。关注1 种族Race，例如高加索人种(白人); 蒙古人种(黄皮肤的); 尼格罗人种(黑人); 印度人种等。2 民族Nation，偏向政治民族，例如: 中华民族，美利坚民族，大和民族等。3 族群Ethnic，一群有着共同生活地域，共同的历史演化过程，共同语言文化等等由自然发展成的一群人。发布于 2021-11-03 07:28赞同 4添加评论分享收藏喜欢收起

Race and ethnicity, explained | National Geographic

and ethnicity, explained | National GeographicMagazinesTV ScheduleDisney+National GeographicNational GeographicNational GeographicScienceTravelAnimalsCulture & HistoryEnvironmentScienceTravelAnimalsCulture & HistoryEnvironmentHistoryRace and ethnicity, explainedRace and ethnicity don't show up at the genetic level, but the concept of race still forms the human experience.By Erin BlakemorePublished 23 Feb 2019, 09:08 GMTRace and ethnicity are two concepts related to human ancestry. Race is defined as “a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits.” The term ethnicities is more broadly defined as “large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background.”

“Race” is usually associated with biology and linked with physical characteristics such as skin colour or hair texture. “Ethnicity” is linked with cultural expression and identification. However, both are social constructs used to categorize and characterize seemingly distinct populations.

Ethnicities share a cultural background. Mea Shearim neighborhood, just outside of Damascus Gate in Jerusalem, is populated mainly by Haredi Jews.

Photograph by John StanmeyerGenetics and race

Neither race nor ethnicity is detectable in the human genome. Humans do have genetic variations, some of which were once associated with ancestry from different parts of the world. But those variations cannot be tracked to distinct biological categories. Genetic tests cannot be used to verify or determine race or ethnicity, though the tests themselves are associated with an increased belief in racial differences.

Though race has no genetic basis, the social concept of race still shapes human experiences. Racial bias fuels social exclusion, discrimination and violence against people from certain social groups. In turn, racial prejudice confers social privilege to some and social and physical disparities to others, and is widely expressed in hierarchies that privilege people with white skin over people with darker skin colours.

Categorizing race

Race and ethnicity are often regarded as the same, but the social and biological sciences consider the concepts distinct. In general, people can adopt or deny ethnic affiliations more readily than racial ones, though different ethnicities have been folded into racial categories during different periods of history.

Religious customs also play a part in ethnicity. Here, worshipers celebrate the blessing of the water and washing of the Ethiopian Patriarchs' feet on Holy Thursday in the Old City in Jerusalem.

Photograph by John StanmeyerAs legal scholar Tanya K. Hernandez writes, “The social experience of being consistently viewed as distinct is what informs a racial identity, not a shared culture.” People who share an ethnicity may speak the same language, come from the same country, or share a religion or other cultural belief or expression.

The politics of race

The United States government recognizes distinctions between the concept of race and ethnicity, and sorts individuals as White, Black or African American, Asian, American Indian and Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, or “other.” It also recognizes two ethnicities: Hispanic or Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino. This demographic data in turn affects public policy and civil rights law.

Humans share over 99 percent of their genetic material with one another, and variation occurs more between individuals than ethnic groups. Nevertheless, the legacies of racial and ethnic constructs can be spotted in everything from housing to health. Racial and ethnic prejudices affect the distribution of wealth, power, and opportunity, and create enduring social stratifications.

Racial pride can foment racial prejudice, as in the case of white supremacists. But for members of groups marginalized because of race or ethnicity, involvement in activities that promote group pride can help lessen or offset the effects of racial discrimination and social prejudice. Though race and ethnicity are among the most divisive concepts in history, both irrevocably shape our social, personal, and cultural experiences.

EthnicityGeneticsHistoryRaceBiologyPeople and CultureScienceRead MoreExplore Nat GeoAnimalsEnvironmentHistory & CultureScienceTravelPhotographySpaceAdventureVideoAbout usTopics, authors and photographersNational Geographic PartnersNational Geographic SocietyNational Geographic ExpeditionsTV scheduleSubscribeMagazinesDisney+Follow usfacebooktwitterinstagramyoutuberssPrivacy PolicyTerms of UseUK & EU Privacy RightsInterest-Based AdsCookie PolicyCookie SettingsConsent ManagementCopyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society. Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reser

群体遗传学中种族使用上的区分 Race/Ethnicity/Ancestry - 知乎

群体遗传学中种族使用上的区分 Race/Ethnicity/Ancestry - 知乎首发于GWASLab切换模式写文章登录/注册群体遗传学中种族使用上的区分 Race/Ethnicity/AncestryGWASLabgwaslab.com 分享生物信息，统计遗传学学习心得。英文中的常用的表示种族的词语包括Race，Ethnicity以及Ancestry。但在中文中通常都翻译成种族。本文就这些词的使用区分做简单介绍与讨论。种族概念的区分首先介绍Population，这是一个最为广义的词语，可以用于表示任何一群体，可大可小。通常含义基于上下文，没有明确区分。例如，在中国人群中的全基因组关联分析就可以说成 GWAS in a Chinese population.Race, 种族(人种)，是一个由社会构建的区分系统，但该系统基于对内在的生物学特征或差异错误的认知，典型的例子便是物理特征（诸如肤色）以及社会文化的特征。举例，种族歧视应当被消除。Ethnicity, 种族 (民族)，是一个表示某一群体的社会政治概念，通常有相连的地理位置，基于共同的遗产或相似文化，例如语言，宗教信仰等。举例，中国有五十六个民族，这个民族就是Ethnic group，汉族Han Chinese 就是一个Ethnic group。Ethnicity与Ancestry容易混淆的点在于，多数情况下Ethnicity所表示的群体通常情况下也会有共同的家系或是遗传继承，但有一些地区Ethnicity表示的仅为社会文化实体而没有遗传学基础。Ancestry, 种族 (族裔/祖先)，是一个更为复杂的概念，包括了生物学以及社会学的成分。在西方，这个词通常反应群体的社会文化以及所来自大陆的起源，而在东方，以及南半球，这个词通常反映家系或是遗传继承。多数情况下，ancestry是群体遗传学文章中更应当使用的词语。举例，使用频率较高的有 European ancestry， East Asian ancestry， South Asian ancestry等等。举一个例子来综合上述概念，某研究组收集了中国人群的基因数据用于GWAS研究，那这个群体泛称就可以是一个中国人群体 a Chinese population，其中有汉族和傣族，这里的族就是ethinc group（Han Chinese 和 Chinese Dai），而整个群体在群体遗传学上则都属于East Asian Ancestry。群体遗传学领域使用上的区分一个核心上的区别点就在于是否主观与客观， race以及ethinitity存在主观成分，而ancestry则为客观描述性的词语，反映基因组中的某些固定特征。在生物学或遗传学文章中，单纯描述遗传学意义的种族时应使用客观性的词语，即ancestry。群体遗传学中跨种族跨群体的英文使用简单来说应当使用 cross-population, cross-ancestry, multi-population 或 multi-ancestry 而不是 trans-ethnic原因trans有多种含义，应当使用更准确且而不引起歧义的cross或者multiethnic包含社会学成分，存在易变的主观成分，应当使用ancestry，或更广义的population基于一些历史原因，早期的文章常常混用，早期的文章中例如Brown, B. C., Ye, C. J., Price, A. L., & Zaitlen, N. (2016). Transethnic genetic-correlation estimates from summary statistics. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 99(1), 76-88.中使用了，Transethnic，但其含义应为cross-ancestry，比较合适的用例如Momin, M. M., Shin, J., Lee, S., Truong, B., Benyamin, B., & Lee, S. H. (2023). A method for an unbiased estimate of cross-ancestry genetic correlation using individual-level data. Nature Communications, 14(1), 722.参考群体遗传学中种族使用上的区分 Race/Ethnicity/AncestryKachuri, L., Chatterjee, N., Hirbo, J. et al. Principles and methods for transferring polygenic risk scores across global populations. Nat Rev Genet (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-023-00637-2Kamariza, M., Crawford, L., Jones, D., & Finucane, H. (2021). Misuse of the term ‘trans-ethnic’in genomics research. Nature Genetics, 53(11), 1520-1521.发布于 2023-08-26 13:40・IP 属地日本生物学生物信息学医学赞同 121 条评论分享喜欢收藏申请转载文章被以下专栏收录GWASLab群体遗传学，遗传统计学，全基因组关

族群 - 维基百科，自由的百科全书

跳转到内容

主菜单

移至侧栏

隐藏

导航

首页分类索引特色内容新闻动态最近更改随机条目资助维基百科

帮助

帮助维基社群方针与指引互助客栈知识问答字词转换IRC即时聊天联络我们关于维基百科

搜索

创建账号

个人工具

创建账号登录

未登录编辑者的页面了解详情

贡献讨论

移至侧栏

隐藏

序言

1字源

2涵义

3形成

4类型

5参见

6参考文献

开关目录

族群

17种语言

编辑链接

条目讨论

大陆简体

不转换简体繁體大陆简体香港繁體澳門繁體大马简体新加坡简体臺灣正體

阅读编辑查看历史

工具

移至侧栏

隐藏

操作

阅读编辑查看历史

常规

链入页面相关更改上传文件特殊页面固定链接页面信息引用本页获取短URL下载二维码维基数据项目

打印/导出

下载为PDF可打印版

在其他项目中

维基共享资源

维基百科，自由的百科全书

此条目介绍的是汉语翻译中关于民族一词的其中一种翻译更为准确的义项。关于民族的其他含义，请见“民族 (消歧义)”。关于族的其他意思，请见“族”。

关于生物学上的族群，请见“种群”。

人类学

人类学大纲（英语：Outline of anthropology）人类学史

分支领域

考古学

体质人类学

文化人类学

语言人类学

社会人类学

考古学

空中考古学（英语：Aerial archaeology）

航空考古学（英语：Aviation archaeology）

战场考古学（英语：Battlefield archaeology）

圣经考古学

生物考古学

环境考古学

民族考古学

实验考古学（英语：Experimental archaeology）

女性主义考古学（英语：Feminist archaeology）

法医人类学

海洋考古学（英语：Maritime archaeology）

古民族植物学（英语：Paleoethnobotany）

动物考古学

体质人类学

人与动物关系学

生物文化人类学（英语：Biocultural anthropology）

演化人类学

法医人类学

分子人类学

神经人类学（英语：Neuroanthropology）

营养人类学（英语：Nutritional anthropology）

古人类学

灵长类学

社会人类学文化人类学

应用人类学

艺术人类学

认知人类学

电子人类学（英语：Cyborg anthropology）

发展人类学

数码人类学

生态人类学

环境人类学（英语：Environmental anthropology）

经济人类学

人类学中的政治经济学（英语：Political economy in anthropology）

女性主义人类学

饮食人类学

人种历史学（英语：Ethnohistory）

制度人类学（英语：Anthropology of institutions）

亲属

法律人类学（英语：Legal anthropology）

媒体人类学

医疗人类学

民族博物馆学（英语：Ethnomuseology）

民族音乐学

政治人类学

心理人类学（英语：Psychological anthropology）

公共人类学（英语：Public anthropology）

宗教人类学

象征人类学

超个人人类学（英语：Transpersonal anthropology）

城市人类学

视觉人类学

语言人类学

人类语言学

描写语言学派

民族语言学

民族志诗学（英语：Ethnopoetics）

历史语言学

符号人类学（英语：Semiotic anthropology）

社会语言学

文化人类学

人体测量学

民族志

网络志

民族学

跨文化比较（英语：Standard cross-cultural sample）

参与观察

科学整体论（英语：Holism in science）

反身性

深描（英语：Thick description）

文化相对论

民族中心主义

主位与客位（英语：Emic and etic）

基本概念

文化

发展人类学

族群

演化

社会文化进化论

社会性别

亲属

迷因

史前时代

人种

社会

价值（英语：Anthropological theories of value）

殖民主义 / 后殖民主义

重要理论

行动者网络理论

联姻理论（英语：Alliance theory）

跨文化研究

文化唯物主义（英语：Cultural materialism (anthropology)）

文化理论（英语：Culture theory）

传播论

女性主义人类学

历史特殊论

博厄斯人类学（英语：Boasian anthropology）

结构功能主义

象征人类学

人类表演学（英语：Performance studies）

政治经济学（英语：Political economy in anthropology）

实践理论（英语：Practice theory）

结构人类学

后结构主义

系统论（英语：Systems theory in anthropology）

列表

人类学家列表

查论编

族裔（英语：Ethnicity），指彼此共享了相同的祖先、血缘、外貌、历史、文化、习俗、语言、地域、宗教、生活习惯与国家体验等，因而形成的一个共同群体。为区分我族及他者的分类方式之一。这些区别我者和他者的族群性被称为种族划分，其特质可能包括“客观”及“主观”（如认知和感情的成分）。[1][2]

字源[编辑]

族裔，这个名词译自英语Ethnic，源自于古希腊语ἔθνος（ethnos）的形容词形态ἐθνικός（ethnikos），字面意思为家庭的，或人群的，指具有共同起源祖先、文化和风俗习惯的人群。这个单字成为拉丁语ethnicus，在中世纪时成为中古英文的单字。在中世纪时，它对应到英语folk，在中世纪晚期，它对应到英语people。族裔（ethnos）在19世纪的含义是欧洲人用来指代国内的少数族群乃至非欧洲的移民、种族，1900年后的含义转变到以文化特征区分，而最新的看法则认为族裔是社会过程后的产生的结果。因此，族群可能因历史及时空环境，基于历史、文化、语言、地域、宗教、血缘祖先认同、行为、生物/外貌特征而形成“一群”与其它有所区别的群体。[3][4]

据中国民族学与人类学学者郝时远考据，族裔的古汉语“民族”有可能在近代传入日本，然而现代意义的赋予主要是在日译西书（主要是德人著作）中对应了“Ethnic group（族裔）”和“Nation（国族）”等名词。

涵义[编辑]

族裔可以指民族或种族，也可以指具有相同语言、行为取向、地缘、祖籍、文化背景或宗教信仰的群体，[5]属于文化人类学或社会学概念。

形成[编辑]

群族并不是客观事物，而是由人界定和划分的，有很大的伸缩性。族群身份有时是自我界定的，为了谋求群体团结、抵抗歧视、争取政治经济权益、自我标榜炫耀等等；族群身份有时则是外在决定或“被划分”的。[6]

类型[编辑]

国籍层面

中国人、印度人、日本人、德国人、英国人、美国人、韩国人、泰国人、俄罗斯人

国族层面

中华民族、朝鲜民族、大和民族、马来西亚民族、苏联民族、俄罗斯民族

族群层面

中国朝鲜族、中国俄罗斯族、琉球族、苗族、爪哇族、蒙古族、汉族、德意志族、犹太族、

次民族层面

亚族群、部族、氏族、宗族、乌珠穆沁人、嘉绒人

宗教层面

信仰伊斯兰教的群体穆斯林、信仰德鲁兹派的群体

参见[编辑]

族群列表

国民、国族（Nation）

人种、种族（Race）

原住民、土著

参考文献[编辑]

^ 绫部恒雄洪时荣《民族译丛》 1988年05期 Ethnicity的主观和客观要素（页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）

^ 熊子维,台湾族群别社会地位之变迁-主客观指标的分析（页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）

^ 叶江《古希腊语词汇“εθνοζ”(ethnos)在古希腊文献中之内涵考辨》

^ Emily Honig著，卢明华译：《苏北人在上海，1850-1980》（上海：上海古籍出版社，2004），页7。

^ Emily Honig：《苏北人在上海》，页7-8。

查论编族群相关概念

氏族

族群

族志群体

族语群体（英语：Ethnolinguistic group）

族教群体

现实主义民族学（英语：Ethnographic realism）

连字符族群（英语：Hyphenated ethnicity）

原住民

内团体与外团体

元族群（英语：Meta-ethnicity）

都市族群性（英语：Metroethnicity）

少数群体

单一族群国家

国族

国籍

泛族群性（英语：Panethnicity）

多元族群（英语：Polyethnicity）

多元族群国家

种群

人种

族群象征（英语：Symbolic ethnicity）

部族

民族学

人类学

民族学研究（英语：Ethnic studies）

民族考古学

民族生物学（英语：Ethnobiology）

民族植物学

民族真菌学（英语：Ethnomycology）

民族动物学（英语：Ethnozoology）

民族生态学（英语：Ethnoecology）

民族电影（英语：Ethnocinema）

族群地质学

民族志

民族自传学（英语：Autoethnography）

临床民族学（英语：Clinical ethnography）

批判民族学（英语：Critical ethnography）

制度民族学（英语：Institutional ethnography）

网络民族学（英语：Netnography）

网络志

以人为本的民族学（英语：Person-centered ethnography）

抢救民族志

跨族群民族学（英语：Transidio Ethnography）

影音民族学（英语：Video ethnography）

族群史（英语：Ethnohistory）

民族语言学

民族学

民族数学（英语：Ethnomathematics）

民族统计学（英语：Ethnostatistics）

民族医学

民族学方法论

民族博物学（英语：Ethnomuseology）

民族音乐学

民族哲学（英语：Ethnophilosophy）

民族精神医药学（英语：Ethnopsychopharmacology）

民族诗（英语：Ethnopoetics）

民族科学（英语：Ethnoscience）

民族符号学（英语：Ethnosemiotics）

民族分类学（英语：Ethnotaxonomy）

族群列表

非洲族群（英语：List of ethnic groups of Africa）

美洲

美洲原住民

加拿大族群（英语：Ethnic origins of people in Canada）

墨西哥族群

美国族群

中美洲族群（英语：Ethnic groups in Central America）

南美洲族群（英语：Ethnic groups in South America）

亚洲族群（英语：Ethnic groups in Asia）

中亚族群（英语：Ethnic groups of Central Asia）

东亚族群（英语：Ethnic groups of East Asia）

西伯利亚族群

南亚族群

东南亚族群（英语：Ethnic groups of Southeast Asia）

西亚族群（英语：Ethnic groups in the Middle East）

澳大利亚族群

澳大利亚原住民

欧洲族群

大洋洲

大洋洲原住民族群（英语：Indigenous peoples of Oceania）

大洋洲欧裔族群（英语：Europeans in Oceania）

身份认同和民族产生（英语：ethnogenesis）

跨种族效应

同化

文化认同

区域居民称谓词

发展（英语：Ethnic identity development）

内名与外名

族群旗帜（英语：Ethnic flag）

族群选项（英语：Ethnic option）

族群起源（英语：Ethnic origin）

民族宗教

民间宗教

族群普查（英语：Race and ethnicity in censuses）

族群科幻（英语：Ethnofiction）

民族称呼

历史种族概念（英语：Historical race concepts）

想像的共同体

亲属

传奇先祖（英语：Legendary progenitor）

宗法社会（英语：Lineage-bonded society）

Mythomoteur（英语：Mythomoteur）

Mores（英语：Mores）

国家建立

民族国家

民族语言

民族神话（英语：National myth）

起源传说（英语：Origin myth）

Pantribal sodality（英语：Pantribal sodality）

部落名称（英语：Tribal name）

部落主义（英语：Tribalism）

Urheimat（英语：Urheimat）

多国族国家（英语：Multinational state）

协商民主

离散政治

主导少数（英语：Dominant minority）

族群民主（英语：Ethnic democracy）

族群飞地（英语：Ethnic enclave）

族群利益集团（英语：Ethnic interest group）

族群多数（英语：Ethnic majority）

族群媒体（英语：Ethnic media）

族群色情作品（英语：Ethnic pornography）

族群主题乐园（英语：Ethnic theme park）

Ethnoburb（英语：Ethnoburb）

族群政治（英语：Ethnocracy）

族群电影（英语：Ethnographic film）

族群村落（英语：Ethnographic village）

土著权利（英语：Indigenous rights）

中阶少数民族（英语：Middleman minority）

少数人权利

模范少数族裔

多元族群国家（英语：Multinational state）

意识形态和种族冲突

遗传工程武器

种族清洗

种族仇恨

族群笑话

族群民族主义

族群裙带（英语：Ethnic nepotism）

族群惩罚（英语：Ethnic penalty）

族群诋毁语列表（英语：List of ethnic slurs）

族群刻板印象

民族恐怖主义

民族优越感

种族文化灭绝

族群象征主义（英语：Ethnosymbolism）

土著主义（英语：Indigenism）

活跃的分离主义运动列表

仇外

规范控制

AAT: 300250435

GND: 4220764-2

J9U: 987007555583605171

LCCN: sh85045187

LNB: 000060934

NDL: 00567705

NKC: ph120007

取自“https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=族群&oldid=81828366”

分类：族群民族学人类学隐藏分类：含有英语的条目含有古希腊语的条目含有拉丁语的条目包含AAT标识符的维基百科条目包含GND标识符的维基百科条目包含J9U标识符的维基百科条目包含LCCN标识符的维基百科条目包含LNB标识符的维基百科条目包含NDL标识符的维基百科条目包含NKC标识符的维基百科条目

本页面最后修订于2024年3月9日 (星期六) 06:13。

本站的全部文字在知识共享署名-相同方式共享 4.0协议之条款下提供，附加条款亦可能应用。（请参阅使用条款）

Wikipedia®和维基百科标志是维基媒体基金会的注册商标；维基™是维基媒体基金会的商标。

维基媒体基金会是按美国国内税收法501(c)(3)登记的非营利慈善机构。

隐私政策

关于维基百科

免责声明

行为准则

开发者

统计

Cookie声明

手机版视图

开关有限宽度模式

民族志 - 维基百科，自由的百科全书

跳转到内容

主菜单

移至侧栏

隐藏

导航

首页分类索引特色内容新闻动态最近更改随机条目资助维基百科

帮助

帮助维基社群方针与指引互助客栈知识问答字词转换IRC即时聊天联络我们关于维基百科

搜索

创建账号

个人工具

创建账号登录

未登录编辑者的页面了解详情

贡献讨论

移至侧栏

隐藏

序言

1社会文化人类学

2书写方式

3特色

4偏见的避免

5后殖民时期的民族志研究重点

6民族志研究方法

7参考文献

8外部链接

开关目录

民族志

85种语言

العربيةAsturianuAzərbaycancaБашҡортсаŽemaitėškaБеларускаяБеларуская (тарашкевіца)БългарскиবাংলাCatalàکوردیČeštinaЧӑвашлаCymraegDanskDeutschΕλληνικάEnglishEsperantoEspañolEestiEuskaraفارسیSuomiVõroFrançaisFryskGalegoעבריתहिन्दीHrvatskiMagyarՀայերենԱրեւմտահայերէնBahasa IndonesiaIdoItaliano日本語JawaქართულიҚазақша한국어КыргызчаLatinaЛезгиLadinLombardLietuviųLatviešuОлык марийМакедонскиമലയാളംBahasa MelayuनेपालीNederlandsNorsk nynorskNorsk bokmålИронPolskiپښتوPortuguêsRomânăРусскийРусиньскыйSrpskohrvatski / српскохрватскиSimple EnglishSlovenščinaShqipСрпски / srpskiSundaSvenskaதமிழ்ТоҷикӣไทยTagalogTürkçeТатарча / tatarçaУкраїнськаOʻzbekcha / ўзбекчаTiếng ViệtWinaray吴语მარგალურიBân-lâm-gú粵語

编辑链接

条目讨论

大陆简体

不转换简体繁體大陆简体香港繁體澳門繁體大马简体新加坡简体臺灣正體

阅读编辑查看历史

工具

移至侧栏

隐藏

操作

阅读编辑查看历史

常规

链入页面相关更改上传文件特殊页面固定链接页面信息引用本页获取短URL下载二维码维基数据项目

打印/导出

下载为PDF可打印版

在其他项目中

维基共享资源

维基百科，自由的百科全书

人类学

人类学大纲（英语：Outline of anthropology）人类学史

分支领域

考古学

体质人类学

文化人类学

语言人类学

社会人类学

考古学

空中考古学（英语：Aerial archaeology）

航空考古学（英语：Aviation archaeology）

战场考古学（英语：Battlefield archaeology）

圣经考古学

生物考古学

环境考古学

民族考古学

实验考古学（英语：Experimental archaeology）

女性主义考古学（英语：Feminist archaeology）

法医人类学

海洋考古学（英语：Maritime archaeology）

古民族植物学（英语：Paleoethnobotany）

动物考古学

体质人类学

人与动物关系学

生物文化人类学（英语：Biocultural anthropology）

演化人类学

法医人类学

分子人类学

神经人类学（英语：Neuroanthropology）

营养人类学（英语：Nutritional anthropology）

古人类学

灵长类学

社会人类学文化人类学

应用人类学

艺术人类学

认知人类学

电子人类学（英语：Cyborg anthropology）

发展人类学

数码人类学

生态人类学

环境人类学（英语：Environmental anthropology）

经济人类学

人类学中的政治经济学（英语：Political economy in anthropology）

女性主义人类学

饮食人类学

人种历史学（英语：Ethnohistory）

制度人类学（英语：Anthropology of institutions）

亲属

法律人类学（英语：Legal anthropology）

媒体人类学

医疗人类学

民族博物馆学（英语：Ethnomuseology）

民族音乐学

政治人类学

心理人类学（英语：Psychological anthropology）

公共人类学（英语：Public anthropology）

宗教人类学

象征人类学

超个人人类学（英语：Transpersonal anthropology）

城市人类学

视觉人类学

语言人类学

人类语言学

描写语言学派

民族语言学

民族志诗学（英语：Ethnopoetics）

历史语言学

符号人类学（英语：Semiotic anthropology）

社会语言学

文化人类学

人体测量学

民族志

网络志

民族学

跨文化比较（英语：Standard cross-cultural sample）

参与观察

科学整体论（英语：Holism in science）

反身性

深描（英语：Thick description）

文化相对论

民族中心主义

主位与客位（英语：Emic and etic）

基本概念

文化

发展人类学

族群

演化

社会文化进化论

社会性别

亲属

迷因

史前时代

人种

社会

价值（英语：Anthropological theories of value）

殖民主义 / 后殖民主义

重要理论

行动者网络理论

联姻理论（英语：Alliance theory）

跨文化研究

文化唯物主义（英语：Cultural materialism (anthropology)）

文化理论（英语：Culture theory）

传播论

女性主义人类学

历史特殊论

博厄斯人类学（英语：Boasian anthropology）

结构功能主义

象征人类学

人类表演学（英语：Performance studies）

政治经济学（英语：Political economy in anthropology）

实践理论（英语：Practice theory）

结构人类学

后结构主义

系统论（英语：Systems theory in anthropology）

列表

人类学家列表

查论编

系列条目社会学社会网络模型

社会学史

社会学概述（英语：Outline of sociology）

Portal:社会

主要的社会学理论

冲突理论

结构功能主义

符号互动论

批判理论

实证主义

反实证主义（英语：Antipositivism）

社会变迁

中层理论

社会建构主义

研究方法

定量研究

定性研究

比较研究（英语：Comparative historical research）

计算社会学

民族志

语用学（英语：Conversation analysis）

历史社会学

采访（英语：Interview (research)）

数理社会学

社会网络分析

主要分支学科（英语：Subfields of sociology）

犯罪学

文化社会学

人口学

发展理论

越轨社会学

经济社会学

教育社会学

环境社会学

家庭社会学（英语：Sociology of the family）

女权社会学（英语：Feminist sociology）

性别社会学

工业社会学

社会不平等

知识社会学

法律社会学

文学社会学（英语：Sociology of literature）

医学社会学

军事社会学（英语：Military sociology）

政治社会学

种族与民族关系社会学（英语：Sociology of race and ethnic relations）

宗教社会学

乡村社会学

科学知识社会学

社会运动

社会心理学

社会阶层

技术的社会建构

恐怖主义社会学（英语：Sociology of terrorism）

城市社会学

其他相关信息

社会学家列表

社会学时间轴（英语：Timeline of sociology）

查论编

提示：此条目页的主题不是民族学。

民族志（英语：Ethnography；希腊语：ἔθνος [ethnos，民族、人群] 加上 γράφειν [graphein，书写]）是一种写作文本，它运用田野调查来提供对人类社会的描述研究。民族志呈现一个整体论研究方法的成果，这套方法建立在一个概念上：一套体系的各种特质未必能被彼此个别地准确理解。这种写作风格在形式上与历史上，均与旅行家书写与殖民地官员报告有所关联。某些学术传统，特别是建构论与相对论的理论典范，运用民族志研究作为一个重要的研究方法。许多文化人类学家认为，民族志是文化人类学的本质。

民族志往往指称描述社群文化的文字或影像。其作为人类学家或社会学家的记录资料，可区分为“钜观民族志”：研究复杂社会、多样社区、多样社会机构或含有多样生活型态“单一社区”；“微观民族志”：单单描绘某个异国小部落、中产阶级社区中一小群人的单一社会情境，或单一社会制度却含有多样社会情境者[1]。

社会文化人类学[编辑]

文化人类学与社会人类学是围绕着民族志研究而发展的，而且它们的经典文本大多是民族志：例如，布朗尼斯劳·马凌诺斯基的《西太平洋的航海者》（Argonauts of the Western Pacific，1922）；玛格丽特·米德的《萨摩亚人的成年》（Coming of Age in Samoa，1928）；E·E·伊凡-普理查（E. E. Evans-Pritchard）的《努尔人》（The Nuer，1940）；或是贝特森（Gregory Bateson）的《纳文》（Naven，1958）。今日的社会文化人类学家对于实际进行民族志研究赋予极高的价值，这是相对于民族学----对于民族志资讯的综合比较研究。

书写方式[编辑]

民族志内容主要为相关人的访问内容、档案记录的检视、与衡量与访问内容的可信度，从此内容，可找出特定团体与组织之间的关联，并为关心大众以及专业的同行撰写整个故事的来龙去脉。而民族志学家则记录人们的日常生活。研究的焦点放在人类思想和行为中较可预测的型态上。为了真实纪录，1930年代后，民族志的产生通常需要相当冗长时间的实际体验。

特色[编辑]

民族志特色在于研究的族群或文化内容的开放心灵（open mind）。然而，这种特色并不代表其内容不严谨。而这些开放的特色散见于被访问族群或团体的理论形式、范例研究设计、资料搜集技巧、分析工具及一个特定撰写的形式。

偏见的避免[编辑]

20世纪之前的“前殖民时期”，以西方世界（含日本）为主的民族志研究活动及内容多少都有先入为主的观念或偏见。事实上，研究的问题、地区或人群的选择本身就是含有偏见的。后殖民世界中的民族志工作除了控制偏见，将偏见集中焦点外，也经由多方检证（triangulation），脉络化（contextualization）及非主观的方向（nonjudgemental orientation）降低该学问偏见所带来的负面影响。

后殖民时期的民族志研究重点[编辑]

后殖民时期的民族志其重点于

民族志为实际的体认与实行，花费时间可能长达一年半载，甚至数年，数十年。

民族志不是他者生活方式文献化而是具有主观起源的一种呈述。

民族志化的研究方式或对待主体的方式起源必须为深入的“被注视性”。

民族志虽为人类学一旁支，但并非光只是人类学的附庸。

民族志研究方法[编辑]

据柯塔克（Kottak 2008）的归纳，民族志研究方法有下列几类[2]：

观察与参与观察

对于日常行为的直接、第一手的观察，包括参与观察。民族志研究者在各种场合观察个人行为与集体行为。他们往往在田野地点停留超过一年，可因此观察一整年的循环。

相处共话、访谈

研究者运用许多正式程度不同的访问方式进行访谈。包括有助于维持互信关系的闲话家常、提供当下活动的知识、长时间访谈。访谈可能是有结构或无结构的。

系谱法

早期研究者发展出系谱记号与象征，来研究亲属、继嗣与婚姻。系谱是非工业化社会的组织基础，当地人每天都与近亲共同生活及工作。人类学家需要搜集系谱资料，以了解社会关系并重建历史。

重要文化报导人

每一个社群都有某些人，由于他们的机运、经验、天分或训练，而能提供某些生活面向的全部讯息或有用讯息。也因此成为重要文化报导人。

生命史

某些村民比起其他人，对研究者更感兴趣，而且更有助益、风趣与愉快。当某个人特别引起人类学家的兴趣，他们可能会搜集他（她）的生命史。

主位观点与客位观点

主条目：主位与客位

民族志研究者往往结合两种研究策略：主位观点（emic，当地人取向的观点）、客位观点（etic，科学家取向的观点）。这些语汇源自于语言学，主位观点探究当地人如何思考感知与分类这个世界。客位观点则是观察者所注意到的且重要的事情。

问题取向的民族志研究

民族志的趋势，已从全貌观的叙述转向更具问题取向与实验性质。想要研究全部事情是不可能的。大多数的人类学家在进入田野前，往往带着一个准备处理的问题，搜集关于这个问题的资料。

长期研究

长期研究是针对某个社区、区域、社会、文化或其他单位的长时间研究，这往往建立在多次重访的基础上。现在的民族志多半包括二次以上田野研究的资料。

团队研究

新进的研究者以先前学者的接触与发现为基础，以增进关于当地人如何因应与经营新环境的知识。学术应是一项集体事业，先行者将过去的资料放在这整个事业中，让新世代学者继续运用。

调查研究

越来越多人类学家在大规模社会中从事研究，他们发展了结合民族志研究与调查研究的创新方式。由于调查研究处理大型复杂群体，其研究结果必须运用统计分析。民族志研究可补充并微调调查研究。

参考文献[编辑]

^ Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation (p. 29). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

^ 科塔克著，《文化人类学：文化多样性的探索》（第三章、文化人类学的伦理与研究方法），徐雨村译。巨流出版公司，2008年ISBN 978-986-157-177-5

外部链接[编辑]

王铭铭：〈民族志：一种广义人文关系学的界定（页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）〉。

Genzuk, Michael (2003)〈民族志研究方法综述〉（英文）

Groh, Arnold (2018)〈原住民背景下的研究方法〉（英文）

美国自然历史博物馆人类学门（页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆） - 超过160,000项来自太平洋、北美、非洲、亚洲等地的民族学搜藏，具有影像与详细描述，可在线上连结到原始的登录页、田野记录与照片。

Ethnography.com （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）一个社群建立了这个〈民族志〉（Ethnography）网站，供学术与专业民族志研究者以及有兴趣的人们参考。

数位民族志（页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）在芝加哥的报纸刊登的一篇文章，讨论美国堪萨斯州立大学(KSU)威斯区教授（Michael Wesch）所创的术语“数位民族志”(Digital Ethnography)。也可直接连结威斯区教授研究团队的网页数位民族志（页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）。

美国民族志 -- 定义: 什么是民族志? （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）引述许多人类学家关于民族志的说法 (马凌诺斯基, 李维史陀, 纪尔兹, ...)

查论编族群相关概念

氏族

族群

族志群体

族语群体（英语：Ethnolinguistic group）

族教群体

现实主义民族学（英语：Ethnographic realism）

连字符族群（英语：Hyphenated ethnicity）

原住民

内团体与外团体

元族群（英语：Meta-ethnicity）

都市族群性（英语：Metroethnicity）

少数群体

单一族群国家

国族

国籍

泛族群性（英语：Panethnicity）

多元族群（英语：Polyethnicity）

多元族群国家

种群

人种

族群象征（英语：Symbolic ethnicity）

部族

民族学

人类学

民族学研究（英语：Ethnic studies）

民族考古学

民族生物学（英语：Ethnobiology）

民族植物学

民族真菌学（英语：Ethnomycology）

民族动物学（英语：Ethnozoology）

民族生态学（英语：Ethnoecology）

民族电影（英语：Ethnocinema）

族群地质学

民族志

民族自传学（英语：Autoethnography）

临床民族学（英语：Clinical ethnography）

批判民族学（英语：Critical ethnography）

制度民族学（英语：Institutional ethnography）

网络民族学（英语：Netnography）

网络志

以人为本的民族学（英语：Person-centered ethnography）

抢救民族志

跨族群民族学（英语：Transidio Ethnography）

影音民族学（英语：Video ethnography）

族群史（英语：Ethnohistory）

民族语言学

民族学

民族数学（英语：Ethnomathematics）

民族统计学（英语：Ethnostatistics）

民族医学

民族学方法论

民族博物学（英语：Ethnomuseology）

民族音乐学

民族哲学（英语：Ethnophilosophy）

民族精神医药学（英语：Ethnopsychopharmacology）

民族诗（英语：Ethnopoetics）

民族科学（英语：Ethnoscience）

民族符号学（英语：Ethnosemiotics）

民族分类学（英语：Ethnotaxonomy）

族群列表

非洲族群（英语：List of ethnic groups of Africa）

美洲

美洲原住民

加拿大族群（英语：Ethnic origins of people in Canada）

墨西哥族群

美国族群

中美洲族群（英语：Ethnic groups in Central America）

南美洲族群（英语：Ethnic groups in South America）

亚洲族群（英语：Ethnic groups in Asia）

中亚族群（英语：Ethnic groups of Central Asia）

东亚族群（英语：Ethnic groups of East Asia）

西伯利亚族群

南亚族群

东南亚族群（英语：Ethnic groups of Southeast Asia）

西亚族群（英语：Ethnic groups in the Middle East）

澳大利亚族群

澳大利亚原住民

欧洲族群

大洋洲

大洋洲原住民族群（英语：Indigenous peoples of Oceania）

大洋洲欧裔族群（英语：Europeans in Oceania）

身份认同和民族产生（英语：ethnogenesis）

跨种族效应

同化

文化认同

区域居民称谓词

发展（英语：Ethnic identity development）

内名与外名

族群旗帜（英语：Ethnic flag）

族群选项（英语：Ethnic option）

族群起源（英语：Ethnic origin）

民族宗教

民间宗教

族群普查（英语：Race and ethnicity in censuses）

族群科幻（英语：Ethnofiction）

民族称呼

历史种族概念（英语：Historical race concepts）

想像的共同体

亲属

传奇先祖（英语：Legendary progenitor）

宗法社会（英语：Lineage-bonded society）

Mythomoteur（英语：Mythomoteur）

Mores（英语：Mores）

国家建立

民族国家

民族语言

民族神话（英语：National myth）

起源传说（英语：Origin myth）

Pantribal sodality（英语：Pantribal sodality）

部落名称（英语：Tribal name）

部落主义（英语：Tribalism）

Urheimat（英语：Urheimat）

多国族国家（英语：Multinational state）

协商民主

离散政治

主导少数（英语：Dominant minority）

族群民主（英语：Ethnic democracy）

族群飞地（英语：Ethnic enclave）

族群利益集团（英语：Ethnic interest group）

族群多数（英语：Ethnic majority）

族群媒体（英语：Ethnic media）

族群色情作品（英语：Ethnic pornography）

族群主题乐园（英语：Ethnic theme park）

Ethnoburb（英语：Ethnoburb）

族群政治（英语：Ethnocracy）

族群电影（英语：Ethnographic film）

族群村落（英语：Ethnographic village）

土著权利（英语：Indigenous rights）

中阶少数民族（英语：Middleman minority）

少数人权利

模范少数族裔

多元族群国家（英语：Multinational state）

意识形态和种族冲突

遗传工程武器

种族清洗

种族仇恨

族群笑话

族群民族主义

族群裙带（英语：Ethnic nepotism）

族群惩罚（英语：Ethnic penalty）

族群诋毁语列表（英语：List of ethnic slurs）

族群刻板印象

民族恐怖主义

民族优越感

种族文化灭绝

族群象征主义（英语：Ethnosymbolism）

土著主义（英语：Indigenism）

活跃的分离主义运动列表

仇外

查论编文化概况（英语：Outline of culture）学科

人类学

文化生态学（英语：Cultural ecology）

文化神经科学（英语：Cultural neuroscience）

文化研究

文化学（英语：Culturology）

文化理论（英语：Culture theory）

分支学科

文化人类学

文化经济学

文化地理学

文化史

文化心理学

文化间关系（英语：Intercultural relations）

文化哲学

文化符号学（英语：Semiotics of culture）

文化社会学

文化神学（英语：Theology of culture）

声音文化（英语：Sound culture）

视觉文化（英语：Visual culture）

类型

霸凌文化

主流文化（英语：Dominant culture）

民俗

高雅文化

底层文化（英语：Low culture）

官方文化（英语：Official culture）

政治文化

流行文化

原始文化

次文化

列表

超文化（英语：Super-culture）

各地文化

方面

涵化

文化挪用

文化产品（英语：Cultural artifact）

文化包袱（英语：Cultural baggage）

文化行为（英语：Cultural behavior）

文化资本

文化交流（英语：Cultural communication）

文化冲突

文化自卑

文化剥夺

文化不和谐（英语：Cultural dissonance）

文化框架（英语：Cultural framework）

文化遗产

文化偶像（英语：Cultural icon）

文化认同

文化发明（英语：Cultural invention）

文化景观（英语：Cultural landscape）

文化记忆（英语：Cultural memory）

文化多元（英语：Cultural pluralism）

文化实践（英语：Cultural practice）

文化财产（英语：Cultural property）

文化区

文化再生产（英语：Cultural reproduction）

文化体系（英语：Cultural system）

普世文化通则

濡化（英语：Enculturation）

高情境文化与低情境文化

跨文化主义

物质文化

非物质文化（英语：Non-material culture）

文化例外

文化嫁接（英语：Transculturation）

政治

殖民心态

消费者资本主义（英语：Consumer capitalism）

同化

文化专员（英语：Cultural attaché）

文化落后（英语：Cultural backwardness）

文化布尔什维克主义

文化保守主义

文化外交（英语：Cultural diplomacy）

文化例外

文化女性主义

文化灭绝

文化霸权

文化帝国主义

文化智能（英语：Cultural intelligence）

文化学习（英语：Cultural learning）

文化自由主义（英语：Cultural liberalism）

文化民族主义

文化悲观主义（英语：Cultural pessimism）

文化政策（英语：Cultural policy）

文化权力（英语：Cultural rights）

文化锡安主义（英语：Cultural Zionism）

文化变迁（英语：Culture change）

文化部长（英语：Culture minister）

文化战争

跨文化主义

单一文化主义（英语：Monoculturalism）

多元文化主义

Ethnic group | Definition, Characteristics & Examples | Britannica

Search Britannica

Click here to search

Search Britannica

Click here to search

Home

Games & Quizzes

History & Society

Science & Tech

Biographies

Animals & Nature

Geography & Travel

Arts & Culture

Money

Videos

On This Day

One Good Fact

Dictionary

New Articles

History & Society

Lifestyles & Social Issues

Philosophy & Religion

Politics, Law & Government

World History

Science & Tech

Health & Medicine

Science

Technology

Biographies

Browse Biographies

Animals & Nature

Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates

Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates

Environment

Fossils & Geologic Time

Mammals

Plants

Geography & Travel

Arts & Culture

Entertainment & Pop Culture

Literature

Sports & Recreation

Visual Arts

Companions

Demystified

Image Galleries

Infographics

Lists

Podcasts

Spotlights

Summaries

The Forum

Race, Ethnicity, and Nation | Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies

We use cookies to enhance your experience on our website. By continuing to use our website, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.Find out more

Jump to

Content

User Account

Personal Profile

About

Tools and Resources

Customer Services

News

Oxford Research Encyclopedias

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies

Oxford Research Encyclopedias

International Studies

Advanced search

Browse

Browse by Subject

Conflict Studies

Development

Diplomacy

Environment

Ethics

Foreign Policy

Human Rights

Identity

International Law

Organization

International Relations Theory

Pedagogy

Political Communication

Political Economy

Political Geography

Political Sociology

Politics and Sexuality and Gender

Qualitative Political Methodology

Quantitative Political Methodology

Security Studies

Browse All

View PDF

Highlight search term

Save

Cite

Email this content

Share Link

Copy this link, or click below to email it to a friend

Email this content

or copy the link directly:

https://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-470?p=emailAoPqWLOMp0sAk&d=/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-470

The link was not copied. Your current browser may not support copying via this button.

Link copied successfullyCopy link

Share This

Facebook

Twitter

Article Navigation

You could not be signed in, please check and try again.

Username

Please enter your Username

Password

Please enter your Password

Forgot password?

Don't have an account?

You could not be signed in, please check and try again.

Please enter your library card number

Search within...

Article contents

Introduction: Three Variations on a ThemeRace: Biology as DestinyEthnicity: Group Divisions Rooted in CultureThe Continuing Significance of the NationGlobalization and Populist NationalismFurther ReadingReferencesRelated Articles

Show Summary Details

Page of

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, International Studies. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 14 March 2024Race, Ethnicity, and NationRace, Ethnicity, and NationPolly RizovaPolly RizovaCenter for Governance and Public Policy Research, Willamette University and John StoneJohn StoneDepartment of Sociology, Boston Universityhttps://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.470Published in print: 01 March 2010Published online: 11 January 2018This version: 26 April 2021Previous versionSummaryThe term “race” refers to groups of people who have differences and similarities in biological traits deemed by society to be socially significant, meaning that people treat other people differently because of them. Meanwhile, ethnicity refers to shared cultural practices, perspectives, and distinctions that set apart one group of people from another. Ethnic differences are not inherited; they are learned. When racial or ethnic groups merge in a political movement as a form of establishing a distinct political unit, then such groups can be termed nations that may be seen as representing beliefs in nationalism. Race and ethnicity are linked with nationality particularly in cases involving transnational migration or colonial expansion. Anthropologists and historians, following the modernist understanding of ethnicity, see nations and nationalism as developing with the rise of the modern state system. This culminated in the rise of “nation-states,” in which the presumptive boundaries of the nation coincided with state borders. Thus, the notion of ethnicity, like race and nation, developed in the context of European colonial expansion, when mercantilism and capitalism were promoting global movements of populations at the same time that state boundaries were being more clearly and rigidly defined. Theories about the relation between race, ethnicity, and nationality are also linked to more general ideas concerning globalization and populist nationalism.Keywordsraceethnicitynationnationalismtransnational migrationcolonial expansionglobalizationpopulist nationalismSubjectsIdentityUpdated in this version

Updated references, enhanced discussions of globalization and populist nationalism.

Introduction: Three Variations on a ThemeThe three terms—race, ethnicity, and nation—represent forms of group identification that may be the result of internal choice, external categorization, or some combination of the two perspectives. “Race” is the most controversial term since it is based on a false biological premise that there are distinct groups of genetically similar human populations and that these “races” share unique social and cultural characteristics. This assumption was common among many thinkers during the 19th and much of the 20th centuries and still has a considerable following in folk theories and everyday discourse, but it has been completely discredited by scientific knowledge in biology and genetics. The popularity of such racist thinking is linked to its utility in justifying all types of group oppression and exploitation, exemplified by slavery, imperialism, genocide, apartheid, and other systems of stratification and segregation. Ethnicity, or the sense of belonging to a community based on a common history, language, religion, and other cultural characteristics, is a central concept that has been used to understand an important basis of identity in most societies around the world and throughout human history. When ethnic or “racial” groups combine in a political movement in order to create or maintain a distinct political unit, or state, then such groups can be termed nations and such movements may be seen as embodying ideologies or beliefs in nationalism.In reality, there is a considerable overlap between racism, ethnicity, and nationalism. Extreme forms of nationalism often have a racial ideology associated with them, as was the case with German nationalism during the Nazi period (1933–1945) or Afrikaner nationalism in the era of apartheid (1948–1990). While some scholars use the term “ethnonationalism” (Connor, 1993) to merge the forces of ethnicity and nationalism, others draw a distinction between ethnic and civic forms of nationalism. The former comprises a sense of belonging based on common ancestry, while the latter focuses on membership in a shared political unit that can include citizens from diverse ethnic origins. However, the types of identity associated with these two variants of nationalism are rarely clear-cut and empirical cases usually consist of a mixture of features drawn from both phenomena (Brubaker, 2004, pp. 132–146). Academic studies of racism, ethnicity, and nationalism reveal the same imprecise boundaries between them, which suggests they should be treated as variations on similar social and political themes.Historians have argued at length concerning the legitimate application of the terms to different forms of social relationships and intergroup attitudes. While slavery has existed in many societies throughout human history, a question remains as to whether it is reasonable to regard the position of Greek slaves in the Roman Empire as on a par with that of African slaves in North America, the Caribbean, or Latin America. If the specific form of “racism” in the United States was a product of a particularly vicious system of chattel slavery, to what extent then can we make generalizations about this term m to cover other historical cases of group domination? Many of the same problems arise in the case of nationalism, but here the arguments have centered on the issue of the origins of the phenomenon. When can we say that a sense of national identity first arose: in the Ancient World, during the 16th century in England (Greenfeld, 1992), or as an outcome of the American and French revolutions? Was nationalism a deeply rooted and continuous force in human history, or a relatively recent “invention” that acts as a convenient cover for other, more fundamental changes (Gellner, 1983; Hobsbawm & Ranger, 1983; Smith, 1986, 2008)? Volumes have been written attempting to date the origins of nationalism and the types of forces that can be seen as central to its emergence as a major factor in the modern world. Like so many academic debates, much depends on one’s definition of nationalism—whether, for example, it is viewed as a mass or an elite phenomenon—and what combination of causal variables one chooses to include in its formation.It is partly the association with difficult-to-change biological properties that has made racism so controversial and yet so attractive for dominant groups. In the middle of the 19th century, Gobineau’s (1853–1855) Essay on the Inequality of Human Races set out an analysis of human society and history using a racist model, and its popularity and widespread adoption by other thinkers served to reinforce the political realities of group domination for almost a century. It was cited approvingly by several influential American sociologists and historians in order to justify Southern slavery in the United States and acted as a precursor to the influential theory of an “Aryan” master race destined to rule or exterminate “inferior” racial groups, which underpinned the cultural and political thinking of such figures as Richard Wagner, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and Adolf Hitler. Similar conclusions developed along parallel tracks in Anglo-American intellectual circles that employed a distortion of Darwin’s ideas of natural selection introduced by an influential group of thinkers, the Social Darwinists. Perhaps the best refutation of Gobineau’s assumptions was found in the critique by his friend and colleague Alexis de Tocqueville, the author of Democracy in America (1835–1840) and The Ancien Regime and the Revolution (1856). Tocqueville pointed to the historical tendency of all-powerful groups to assume the permanent nature of their superiority over those whom they had conquered and continued to dominate. A simple understanding of the rise and fall of empires and nations showed how improbable the assumption was that any particular system of group domination would last indefinitely. This implicit power model of race relations, while by no means the only system of thought designed to account for racial hierarchies in nonracial terms found among scholars, nevertheless recurred in the writings of social scientists and historians during the latter half of the 19th and the first decades of the 20th centuries. Despite their often less than progressive ideas on many issues affecting the society of their day, prominent thinkers such as Herbert Spencer and Vilfredo Pareto understood the political basis of imperialism and colonialism and were very much opposed to both of them. Thus, the former referred to European imperialist policies as “social cannibalism,” and the latter attacked the hypocrisy of the so-called civilizing mission of the colonial powers as nothing more than an excuse for exploiting their superior force (Stone & Rizova, 2014).One of the clearest developments of this type of explanation of race, ethnicity, and nation can be seen in the writings of the influential German sociologist Max Weber (see Stone & Dennis, 2003). In keeping with his general framework that stressed the analogies between economic and social life, Weber conceived of these three types of group formation as another manifestation of the general tendency toward monopolization frequently found in economic life as well as in society as a whole. Such a formulation helped to explain the variety and often quite arbitrary nature of group boundaries—in one situation it would be religion, in another it would be language, or in a third it could be “race”—which happened to be used as the markers defining membership or exclusion from the group. Sometimes all three factors might be superimposed on each other to create the boundaries separating the dominant from the subordinate groups; on other occasions these characteristics appeared to cut across group membership in one or another combination. Nevertheless, the defining feature of this historical process was to establish increasingly strict criteria for membership and exclusion that, once set in motion, became a self-reinforcing process. Just as economic competition in the long run often results in monopolies under market capitalism, so too do groups seek to monopolize the life chances and other benefits of social hierarchy within multiethnic and multiracial states, or between states in the international arena.In the middle of the 20th century, the defeat of the Axis powers of Germany and Japan, and the unraveling of colonialism, combined with powerful protest movements such as the civil rights struggle in the United States and the antiapartheid campaign in South Africa, were some of the forces diminishing the crude divisions between racially defined groups on a global scale. That said, the importance of ethnicity and the persistence of nationalism have proved to be surprisingly resilient. Premature declarations that modernity and globalization would inevitably undermine peoples’ allegiance to ethnic attachments, or spell the end of national sentiment, have turned out to be unfounded. This is not to claim that in certain spheres the influence of ethnicity and nationalism has become relatively less powerful, or indeed that racism has been abolished, but rather to point to the protean character of these basic types of identity and their ability to adapt, mutate, and reemerge as historical conditions unfold. Thus, the end of the Cold War reduced the ability of ideological rivalries to mask and submerge all manner of ethnic and national divisions in a wider global struggle. As a result, toward the final decades of the 20th century, a Pandora’s box of previously muted national sentiments burst open in the Balkans (Rizova, 2007) to provide a counterexample to the surprisingly peaceful transition from apartheid to nonracial democracy in South Africa.Race: Biology as DestinyIn spite of the intellectual demolition of the genetic basis of racial theorizing since the second half of the 20th century, the legacy of racism lives on. This is hardly surprising given the coalescence of European colonialism, the slave trade, and the imbalances of global power over the past 500 years. All of this began to unravel during the 20th century in a way that first questioned and then started to undermine the customary hierarchies of half a millennium. The intellectual evolution of human biology initially provided what appeared to be a simple explanation for the apparent correlation between power and race. In the 19th century, biology rivaled theology as the perfect way to legitimize group domination. Subordinate groups no longer had to be damned by the Almighty to perpetual inferiority when they could be damned by their genes. In some ways the utility of biological excommunication was rather less than that justified by faith since the former was always subject to empirical refutation. As knowledge in the biological sciences progressed, greater evidence supported the view that all human population groups shared an overwhelmingly common genetic heritage and what was even more compelling was the fact that variations within so-called races were far more significant than any variations between these categories. As biological explanations seemed harder to sustain, a new consensus started to emerge in academic circles that races were social constructions and therefore that differences were the product of cultural traditions and historical circumstance that could, and no doubt would, change with time. The biological explanations of racial differences were thus false and so other factors needed to be used to explain the social reality behind group differences.What Alexis de Tocqueville understood as a result of his historical perspective, and Max Weber appreciated by his comparative research, was increasingly supported by the scientific advances in the field of human biology. Not that this was a smooth transition from a paradigm of racial theorizing to an understanding of human difference in terms of resources and power. The elegance of justifying inequality as a consequence of scientific inevitability continually reoccurred in one form after another. Often the proponents were not “racist” in a direct sense of the term, and some had strongly antiracist credentials, but the result of this form of theorizing was almost indistinguishable from earlier biological arguments. Thus sociobiology, based on the twin concepts of kin selection and inclusive fitness, might be seen as entirely divorced from vulgar racial thinking. However, by elevating the “selfish gene” to the master explanation of all human activity and creation, this argument had the potential to offer an approach uncomfortably close in its implications to the theory that Gobineau had proposed a hundred years earlier. It is no surprise that the experience of biological theorizing and its consequences throughout the 20th century have subjected such ideas to a far more skeptical appraisal and caused their proponents to be rather more cautious in linking genetic characteristics to cultural and social outcomes.Nevertheless, racism has been a persistent and powerful influence on social life for much of the 20th century. The frequently quoted prediction of W. E. B. Du Bois (1903) in The Souls of Black Folk, that the color line would be a defining division in human society for the following hundred years and that it would be not merely an American conflict but global in its reach, has been more than fulfilled by the passage of time. Against the backdrop of the history of the 20th century, which witnessed the decline of European domination over much of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, the struggle for civil rights in the United States and South Africa, and a succession of genocidal massacres that stretched from the gas chambers of Auschwitz to the killing fields of Rwanda and Darfur, it is often hard to imagine why racist ideas have not been totally discredited. Although some people, perhaps those coming from societies less conscious of the civil rights and liberation struggles of the 20th century, may still believe in the fallacy of racial difference, among the educated populations of the world these beliefs appear to be of diminishing significance. That said, it would be completely wrong to regard racism, and antagonism based on racial divisions, to be no longer a significant element in the conflicts that continue to tear apart much of the fabric of contemporary global society. This paradox, of greater understanding of the nature of “racial” conflict on the one hand, and yet the continuing persistence of race on the other hand, requires a careful dissection of the meaning of “race” in contemporary society. The complexity of the topic and the manner in which such thinking has subtly shifted has led some social scientists to write about “racism without racists” (Bonilla-Silva, 2006) and still others to devote much scrutiny to a related, counterintuitive phenomenon, “ethnicity without groups” (Brubaker, 2004) and the “slippery nature” of contemporary racisms (Solomos, 2020).It is already generally accepted that race is a social construct, an idea—in this case a scientifically erroneous one—that is in the minds of people. The enormous variability of racial systems from one society to another, and in different historical periods, demonstrates that racial background has little intrinsic importance, and that racial identity is rather a powerful legacy of cultural tradition and social inertia. Nevertheless, the changes that still need to take place in order for all white Americans to accept their black fellow citizens not only as governors, leading officials, and even as their President, but also as residential neighbors, remain to be realized. Despite the two-term Obama presidency (2008–2016) and the premature use of the term “post-racialism” to describe it, such unexpected progress has been quickly put to rest by the arrival of the explicitly racist language and actions of the Trump administration (Stone & Rizova, 2020). The Black Lives Matter movement (Dennis & Dennis, 2020), along with the rise of white nationalism, part of a global trend toward populist nationalism, provide widespread evidence of the continuing significance of race throughout the world.The long-term difficulty in overcoming this legacy can be explained in part by what Charles Tilly and Thomas Shapiro have termed “opportunity hoarding,” the passing on of assets between generations that favors whites over blacks at a ratio of 10 to one (Shapiro, 2004; Tilly, 1998). Another historical perspective that helps to explain the entrenchment of racial privilege is the manner in which the discussion about “affirmative action” has been framed. Increasingly, scholars are linking dominant “affirmative action” to the New Deal and to those policies designed to assist white veterans, notably the GI Bill, after World War II (Katznelson, 2006). A parallel discussion is to view the implementation of apartheid in South Africa, between 1948 and 1990, as another type of affirmative action for the benefit of the dominant (white) political group. Its demonstrated effectiveness in raising the lower class of Afrikaners—the bywoners—out of poverty helps to explain some of the subsequent levels of racial inequality in postapartheid South Africa.Returning to the American case, one only needs to drive through the heart of major, or for that matter minor, American cities, examine the student populations of so many of the worst American public schools, or simply consider the statistics describing the inmates of the American penal system (Alexander, 2010), and the reality of the continuing significance of race is hard to deny. Furthermore, the health disparities exposed by the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 revealed the heavily disproportionate numbers of black and brown casualties among the infection and death rates in America. These figures, together with the often lethal police violence exposed, yet again, by the George Floyd killing in Minneapolis, show how black and white lives are by no means subject to the same opportunities and risks in contemporary America.To focus on the American case is to survey only part of the problem. However, because of its high ideals—crafted by the slave-owning proponents of democracy for a “civilized” elite that did not include either women or minorities—the United States has been at the center of a storm of ethical debates about who should be granted full membership of, and who should be excluded from, the rights and privileges of freedom. The problematic nature of this debate can be seen in the preference of so many black slaves to join and fight with the British colonial forces in the 1770s against the advocates of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Given the bias toward white property-owning males, this decision was based on a rational calculation that London was more likely to end the “peculiar institution” than the slave-owning “democrats” meeting in Philadelphia (Schama, 2006). This is not to glamorize the motives of the British who, no sooner had they lost the fight in North America, went on to pillage Africa, Asia, and other exploitable parts of the globe as they scrambled to “civilize” the rest of humanity.But racism is certainly not confined to the Anglo-American world. The evolution of rather different patterns of racial hierarchy and group conflicts can be seen in Latin America, Africa, and Europe. As Edward Telles (2004) has argued in Race in Another America, Brazil has been plagued by powerful traditions of racial distinction, but the dynamics of race relations follow a different logic from that underlying the pattern found in the United States. Despite the ideology of “racial democracy,” formulated in its classical manner by Gilberto Freyre’s (1933) The Masters and the Slaves, few social scientists or historians would seriously deny that Brazilian society is permeated by considerations of color (Bailey, 2020; Fritz, 2011). The fundamental difference is, in some cruel paradox, that individuals, under the rules of the Brazilian system, can, so to speak, “change their race,” while blacks in America, conforming to the pressures of the one drop rule, cannot.Individualism in the United States may be characterized the philosophy of social mobility, but it does not breach the color line. The very fluidity of the Brazilian system has made it in the past a more subtle and complex problem to solve, although the election of President Jair Bolsonaro in 2018—the “Trump of the Tropics”—revealed a new, and hardly nuanced, slant on racial democracy. The Brazilian case can be seen as a cautionary tale concerning the strengths and weaknesses of a comparative perspective. On the one hand, viewing the patterns in one society in isolation from a wider lens invites a form of myopia that greatly diminishes the value of the exercise; on the other hand, embarking on elaborate comparative analyses without a close understanding of the complexities of each situation invites another type of bias. Nevertheless, trying to place rather different systems within a wider framework has become increasingly necessary as the forces of globalization continue to foster closer links between virtually all societies as they are bound together by the ties of an interlinked global system. The exercise becomes even more challenging when one recognizes that there are “many globalizations” (Berger & Huntington, 2003) and that no society is ever static as far as its intergroup relationships, or indeed most other aspects of its structure and culture, are concerned. In many of the classic attempts to formulate such broadly comparative models of racial conflict—Pierre van den Berghe (1967) and Anthony Marx (1998), for example—the United States, Brazil, and South Africa are often the key reference points. But the shifting nature of race relations in all three of these societies reveals how difficult it is to predict the future direction of multiracial societies.From being the bastion of racial oppression under the apartheid regime, South Africa has been regenerated as a society where nonracial democracy is the dominant political consensus.The full implications of this profound and, in many respects, surprising transformation of a rigid racial hierarchy raised enormous hopes for the future direction of the country. However, understanding the nature of social change and how far it has affected the lives of most citizens of the new South Africa is an important illustration of the dynamic nature of most racial systems over time. It is also an excellent way to develop insights into the generation of racial conflict by analyzing those situations where, despite the presence of so many of the characteristics that are often associated with violence, it simply did not take place on anything like the scale that most experts, politicians, and ordinary people predicted. Nevertheless, a quarter of a century later, we have a more realistic assessment of the degree to which “Mandela’s miracle” has transformed South African society or rather has replaced one elite, which was racially defined, with another system of privilege, but one less loosely linked to racial divisions. A succession of disastrous political leaders following Mandela, from Thabo Mbeki, with his tragic refusal to address the AIDS crisis, to the rampant corruption of Jacob Zuma, has squandered much of the promise of a democratic South Africa (Moodley & Adam, 2020).Ethnicity: Group Divisions Rooted in CultureThe power of race as a boundary marker has been continuously demonstrated for the past two centuries in many societies throughout the globe. Its persistence, despite the intellectual bankruptcy of its genetic rationalization, cannot be attributed solely to ignorance, and this explains why education alone is often an insufficient antidote to racial thinking and hierarchies built on racial divisions. Economic, social, and political changes are all part of the process by which racial stratification is challenged, modified, and in some cases overturned. Claims about the relative significance of race or class, and whether strategies emphasizing political mobilization or economic self-sufficiency and advancement hold the key to transforming racial disadvantage and oppression, have been at the core of racial debates throughout the 20th century. Another complication is the overlap between racial markers and ethnic boundaries that often exacerbates such conflicts. Ethnic divisions can be just as deep-seated and ethnic conflicts just as violent as those linked to a racial divide. Language, religion, history, and culture merge and intersect in varying degrees in many of these conflicts. Which factors prove to be salient in any one situation largely depends on the particular historical circumstances that frame the subsequent patterns of ethnic relations.Among the critical events that influence ethnogenesis and ethnic conflict are patterns of global migration and the related forces of conquest, genocide, settlement, and types of assimilation, integration, and pluralism. Migration has been an endemic force in most societies and in recent centuries has even been incorporated into the founding myths of states that view themselves as based on migration, rather than being derived from some claim of indigenous ownership of a specific land. Such migrant societies include not simply the United States—a self-proclaimed “Society of Immigrants”—but also Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, and Canada. In reality, most societies over time have experienced considerable influxes of new peoples and large outflows of population groups motivated by a variety of factors including the search for economic opportunities, flight from political persecution or military destruction, and the quest for freedom of religious practice and expression, to mention just a few. Some societies encounter inflows and outflows simultaneously, while others include migrants and settlers of varying lengths of time—seasonal migrants, “guest workers” (gastarbeiter), transnational communities, nomadic peoples, diasporas, “global cosmopolitans,” undocumented workers, and refugees—and most change the composition and scale of migrant flows and influence over time. Thus, Italy and Ireland were major sources of global migration, particularly the transatlantic movements to North and South America, for much of the 19th and most of the 20th centuries. However, by the turn of the 21st century, it was the impact of migrants trying to enter these two parts of the prosperous European Union (EU), as opposed to the previous tradition of sympathizing with poor migrants escaping famine and rural poverty, that became the salient issue in both societies (O’Dowd, 2005). A similar dramatic reversal in perception could be seen in the opposition and violence directed at refugees and economic migrants from Zimbabwe, Mozambique, and other sub-Saharan African states living in urban townships around Johannesburg in 2008.Different societies have different mechanisms for accommodating ethnic diversity. Some seek to assimilate newcomers as rapidly as possible, while others have more fluid systems of differential incorporation—segmented assimilation, to use one of the common terms employed in the North American literature—with a variety of possible forms. Not all migrant groups wish to become completely integrated into the mainstream of the dominant society; many do but are not accepted without a long period of acculturation and a fierce struggle for structural inclusion. The constant interaction between racism and ethnicity can also be seen in the manner in which some ethnic groups are more readily accepted than others and, in certain cases, migrant groups of one ethnic background may receive advantages denied to oppressed indigenous minorities. In the United States, many of the white ethnic groups, in order to achieve greater acceptance by the core society, quite specifically distanced themselves from blacks and Native Americans, who had been living as stigmatized sectors in the society for centuries prior to their arrival. How the Irish “became white” (Ignatiev, 1995; Roediger, 2007) was a pattern repeated by many other immigrants, such as the Italians, Poles, and Eastern European Jews, who arrived toward the end of the 19th and in the first two decades of the 20th centuries. Other ethnic groups were also assimilated in patterns that reflected the particular set of characteristics that they possessed, in terms of human and social capital, as well as the economic, social, and political conditions prevailing during the period of their arrival. Thus, Cubans fleeing the Castro revolution in 1959, and for the duration of the Cold War, benefited greatly from the ideological struggles of the period. Haitians, arriving in Florida at much the same time and escaping the murderous regimes of the Duvaliers, received far less support. Although color may have been part of the equation, the political advantage of being fervent anticommunists was probably an even more important factor.While North America and Western Europe shared many similar patterns of migration and assimilation during the first two decades of the 21st century—unlikely parallels between Mexican and Muslims having been raised by social scientists on both continents (Huntington, 2004; Zolberg & Woon, 1999)—even societies with a strong ideology of ethnic homogeneity were forced to confront their actual diversity. Germany’s powerful ethnic nationalist tradition (Alba & Foner, 2015; Alba et al., 2003) has had to be modified by the increasing integration of the European Union, so that second- and third-generation Germans of Turkish ethnic background could no longer be regarded as permanent aliens. Much the same is true of Japan, and not only Ainu and Burakumin, but also Koreans, Chinese, and Okinawans are increasingly self-conscious minorities that have started to challenge the monoethnic ideology of post-World War II Japan (Lie & Weng, 2020; Tarumoto, 2020). In China, with its enormous population of 1.3 billion, relatively small numbers of ethnic and religious minorities nevertheless constitute a group of approximately 100 million people, and the situation of the Uighurs, Tibetans, and Hui have started to receive greater scholarly and political attention (Hou & Stone, 2008). This is hardly surprising given the monumental transformation of Chinese society as the workshop of the modern world, and the types of pressures that such an economic transition creates for all peoples involved in this historic process. Not only are there massive internal migratory movements linked to rapid industrialization and urbanization (Luo, 2020), but the adaptation of minorities to these forces almost inevitably results in language change and perceived threats to traditional ways of life. As for the Tibetan case, China’s vast population has allowed a pattern of outside migration of Han Chinese that for the nationalist critics is seen as tantamount to “ethnic swamping,” a variant on ethnic cleansing with a veneer of democratic legitimacy. Contemporary China is facing yet another policy dilemma between playing an increasing global role on the one hand, and using the forces of rising nationalism on the other hand (Hou, 2020).In Africa, ethnic divisions have been a continuing legacy of imperialism that has followed on into the postcolonial era and resulted in much conflict and bloodshed. Even decades after independence, many African states are still permeated by political systems closely linked to ethnic (tribal) loyalties, making a winner-takes-all electoral system unsuited to resolving the problems of state-building and economic development. Nigeria’s war to prevent the Biafran secession (1967–1970), the genocidal massacres in Rwanda (1994), and the killings in the Darfur region of Sudan (2003–) are some prominent examples of independent Africa’s struggles with the impact of ethnic conflict. The South African situation was another case where a society that was deeply divided by racial and ethnic boundaries managed to resolve these conflicts in a remarkably peaceful form of negotiation. The society simply redefined the racial and ethnic boundaries to include all groups on the basis of full citizenship for everyone. Whether the South African model, with its distinctive use of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission and many other unique features, can be a successful long-term experiment in nonracialism remains to be seen. However, some of the lessons learned from the South African case have been applied to other conflict-torn areas of the world, such as Northern Ireland and the Basque region of Spain.The last two cases illustrate the diverse boundary markers that can be found in regions plagued by ethnic conflicts. In Northern Ireland, “religion” was the ostensible ground for group solidarity and division, the centuries-old difference between the Protestant ruling group and the Catholic minority being the manner in which the conflict was framed. However, the underlying struggle appeared to most analysts to have little or nothing to do with doctrinal matters and much more to be based on those who regarded themselves as part of Britain (the “Protestants”) and those who identified with Ireland and being Irish (the “Catholics”). In the Basque case, language and cultural divisions, closely tied in with feelings of historical separation, represented the ethnic glue behind a strong sense of Basque identity and the movement for separation from Spain (Conversi, 1997). For both situations, however, many social scientists interpret the struggle as one between groups divided on the basis of nationalism. Once an ethnic group moves toward mobilization with the goal of creating a separate state, or joining a different state from the one that it is currently a part, then ethnicity is transformed into nationalism.The nature of these movements has been explored by scholars who emphasize a variety of different factors to account for the changing salience of ethnic and national struggles over time (Fearson & Laitin, 2003, 2005). Most of these factors are related to the relative power of ethnonationalist movements compared with the state structures they are fighting against. The components of the power equation can include many influences, including the legitimacy of the groups’ claims for national independence; whether such movements are united or consist of a coalition of conflicting parties; the extent to which ethnic groups and nationalist movements are spread across multiple state boundaries and are geographically concentrated or dispersed; the strength and resilience of the states that oppose them; and the geopolitical context in which the conflict is taking place. The situation of the Kurds illustrates several of these elements, such as the opposition to statehood from Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey, and the opportunities for greater autonomy presented by the collapse of centralized political control that emerged as a consequence of the 2003 Iraq war (O’Leary et al., 2005). While the Kurds played a significant military role in the defeat of ISIS during the Syrian civil war (2011–) after the Russian support for President Bashar al-Assad proved decisive, the Kurdish forces were rapidly abandoned by their former allies, reflecting the number of states opposed to any idea of an independent Kurdish state.The Continuing Significance of the NationThus, ethnicity and nationalism form different stages along a continuum. Some ethnic groups, particularly those living in explicitly multinational states, are content to remain as part of a wider political unit. In certain cases, such as Switzerland, the state is fundamentally based on these separate group components, coexisting in various types of federal structures. The Swiss canton system is a long-established version of federalism that has been able to contain at least three major linguistic groups—German, French, and Italian speakers—in a united state structure.However, the Swiss example is in many respects exceptional. The clear recognition that these types of arrangements may combine a high degree of autonomy for each national group while retaining the cohesiveness of the overarching political unit is but one way to manage ethnic diversity. Much depends on the perceptions of equal treatment and a just division of power and resources, which explains why these federal solutions are often difficult to maintain. Conflicts between Canada and Quebec, between Flemings and Walloons in Belgium, between Muslims and Christians in Lebanon, and between Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds in post-Saddam Iraq all point to the complexities of trying to contain the aspirations of diverse ethnonational groups within a single political structure. Lebanon was once regarded as the “Switzerland of the Middle East” before it descended into religious divisions amid corruption and outside interference.Europe in the postcommunist period provides some interesting examples of failed federalism and federalist expansion taking place simultaneously. The collapse of Yugoslavia, which under Josip Broz Tito had been one of the most genuinely devolved, ethnically diverse states in Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe, demonstrates how rapidly such arrangements can disintegrate in the aftermath of political change (Sekulic, 2020). With the initial breakaway of Slovenia, followed by the wars between Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina, what had once been a unified power-sharing arrangement rapidly degenerated into a power struggle articulated in nationalist terms. The split with Montenegro, and the declaration of independence by Kosovo in 2008, finally left Serbia on its own, thus completing the total disintegration of what had been a unified state since 1918. While Yugoslavia was falling apart, much of the rest of Eastern Europe, having emerged from the political control of the Soviet system, was involved in a scramble to join the European Union. Just as one part of the continent was fragmenting into an increasing number of units defined by their dominant ethnic population, other parts, comprising firmly established states, were voluntarily surrendering some of their sovereignty in order to enjoy the benefits of an enlarged economic and political community. Thus, a continuing dialectic of national fission and fusion demonstrates that there is nothing inevitable about the strength and direction of nationalist sentiment, which can wax and wane depending on a range of economic, social, and political factors. The component parts of the former Yugoslavia would also join the scramble for EU membership in the early decades of the 21st century.While European consolidation during and after the 1990s was a remarkable transition from centuries of rivalry and warfare, even this has to be seen as an ever-changing development. After having narrowly defeated the Scottish independence referendum in September 2014, the United Kingdom was locked in a struggle to leave the EU in June 2016, after almost half a century of membership. While this was in part a political miscalculation by Prime Minister David Cameron designed to silence critics within his party, the surprising outcome and the protracted negotiations to work out an exit from the EU—Brexit—came to a head with the electoral victory of Boris Johnson in 2019. This outcome resonated with other global trends, including the unexpected electoral victory of Donald Trump in the 2016 American presidential election together with a string of parallel political movements from Turkey to Brazil, from India to Indonesia, and including Russia and China. This revival of populist nationalism can be seen in part as a massive reaction to the uneven outcome of accelerated globalization (Brubaker, 2017; Stone & Rizova, 2020).Furthermore, the expansion and internal dynamics of Europe were also influencing the types of internal “national” conflicts taking place between member states. Thus, the gradual solution of the centuries-old Northern Ireland struggle can in part be attributed to the lower salience of national boundaries resulting from the increasing influence of Brussels and Strasbourg. While many Unionists (Protestants) and Nationalists (Catholics) had a visceral dislike of dealing with Dublin and London respectively, the prospect of a fundamental shift in the European political center of gravity meant that both groups could increasingly bargain with a third party. This was the politically neutral European Parliament and Commission (bureaucracy), which rendered their traditional foes much less important and prevented compromise from looking like capitulation. No one would suggest that this was the only factor involved in the lessening of tensions and facilitating the historic power-sharing arrangement. The phenomenal growth of the Irish economy—the emergence of the Celtic Tiger—and the changed attitude of the American public toward “terrorism” (and hence financial support for the Irish Republican Army) in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon were also critical developments pushing the parties in Northern Ireland toward completing the negotiations. However, given the earlier emphasis on the ever-changing nature of these group relationships, the arrival of Brexit raised a totally new obstacle to sustained peace in Northern Ireland. Whether peaceful cooperation can withstand the complex border issues resulting from the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU remains to be seen.The academic scholarship on nationalism has involved a series of debates about the fundamental nature of the phenomenon that is being analyzed. Proponents of primordialism, ethnosymbolism, and modernism, the three most influential perspectives in the literature, have argued extensively about the content and origin of nationalism. Some maintain that this form of identity is rooted in a long and continuous association of specific peoples, whether it is tied to a perceived cultural history often stretching back over centuries, if not millennia, or whether it is, in fact, a relatively recent form of identity. Others date nationalism to the Industrial Revolution and/or the political revolutions in America and France in the late 18th century and claim it was largely “invented” by modernizing elites in an attempt to unify political structures. There are a large number of permutations and combinations of these basic perspectives. Most primordialists avoid the genetic mechanisms associated with sociobiological arguments—Pierre van den Berghe being a notable exception—for the same reason that the overwhelming majority of scholars analyzing “race” are careful to emphasize that they are describing a fictitious construction based on a poor understanding of biological processes. Thus, sociologists such as Edward Shils and Steven Grosby stress cultural and social mechanisms that bond human groups together on the basis of family, culture, and territory. While not biologically programmed, these cultural affiliations are deeply felt and are often experienced with great intensity, which helps to explain the power and resilience of nationalist sentiments. A related emphasis on the strong psychological basis of much nationalism can be found in Walker Connor’s analysis of what he calls ethnonationalism (Connor, 1993). Connor draws a firm distinction between two closely related, but he would insist distinct, sources of identification: nationalism, which refers to loyalty to an ethnic group or nation; and patriotism, which is defined as political identification with the state.The fact that the nation-state, a perfect overlap between one specific ethnic group and a given political unit, only exists in a few cases, and even then is only an approximation to reality, explains the nature of so many types of nationalist conflict. States often seek to incorporate minority ethnic groups into the structures and culture of the dominant group, and this can often result in reactive resistance by the minority group(s): subordinate nationalism to counter dominant nationalism. A related distinction that is frequently made is between ethnic and civic nationalism, a difference between those states that explicitly attempt to fuse the nation and the state and those that try to maintain an ethnically neutral political organization. In practice, this too is an analytical dichotomy that was initially developed to contrast the types of nationalism found in Eastern Europe and those typically prevailing in the Western states of the continent. Once again, no matter how much the civic ideal-type is professed, it is rarely pure in form, and many of the cultural characteristics of the dominant group are subtly, or often less than subtly, incorporated into the basic assumptions of the state.Other theorists of nationalism tend to emphasize the modern nature of the phenomenon, insisting that none of the forms of identity that characterized society for long periods of human history share the vital ingredients of the modern understanding of the term. There are several variations on this perspective, some coming out of the Marxist tradition that dismisses nationalism, like religion, as yet another form of false consciousness, and others that view the emergence of nationalism as an integral element of modernity. The former perspective regards nationalism as an ideological smokescreen hiding the “true” interests of the working classes so that the owners of the means of capitalist production can better exploit them. It is a variant on the divide and rule strategy that promotes ideological confusion and pits worker against worker on the basis of a totally irrelevant set of distinctions. Modernity theorists, meanwhile, do not link the rise of nationalism with the growth of capitalism alone but see it as stemming from a combination of political, social, and economic forces generated by the Enlightenment. One result of the economic and political revolutions of the 18th and early 19th centuries, and the scientific and technological advances associated with these historical transformations, is the need for mass education to build a culturally homogeneous platform to sustain these developments (Gellner, 1983). Central to these changes, and resulting as an unintended consequence of the functional requirements of a modern lifestyle, are conditions that encourage and sustain nationalism.The ethnosymbolists, exemplified by the writings of Anthony Smith (1986, 2008) and John Hutchinson (2005, 2017), take a middle position between modernist social construction and the sense of historical continuity. While Smith and his colleagues are fully aware of the cultural foundations of nations, they are also equally cognizant of the role of myths, symbols, and the frequently distorted collective memory that underpins all the major forms of nationalist movements. This middle path between the extremes of construction and continuity provides a valuable balance that helps us to understand a wider range of nationalist movements, from those with a pedigree stretching back millennia to the nationalisms of the postimperial era during the 19th and 20th centuries. With the emergence of a variety of interpretations of how and when nationalism developed in modern society, much of the current debate concerns an assessment of the impact of such forces as globalization, religious fundamentalism, and international nonstate terrorism as factors that may shape the continuing importance, growing salience, or declining significance of nationalism in the future.Globalization and Populist NationalismIs it possible that racism, ethnicity, and nationalism will become much less salient in the coming decades? If so, what would be the explanation for such trends? Social scientists do not have a particularly good record in predicting far into the future. While W. E. B. DuBois was remarkably prescient in seeing the power of the color line throughout the 20th century, other predictions have proved to be far less accurate. For example, a claim that the advance of science and technology, as a crucial component of the “rationality” of modernization, would make religion obsolete in the latter half of the 20th century has not turned out to be correct. The particular forms of identity that are likely to be salient or, in contradistinction, may quite probably diminish in significance in the decades to come remains an enduring question.Of the three elements, racism seemed, until the arrival of Trump, to be the least likely candidate for a rapid revival as a basis of group categorization. There are several forces that could strengthen a general antiracist trend in modern global society. Olzak (2006) has stressed the need to integrate the changing nature of international organizations and processes into the analysis, particularly the complex ramifications of globalization with its impact on migration, transnational communities, suprastate institutions, and transnational corporations. Increased diversity in all the major societies as a result of the global transformation of the world economy, and the interconnections of capital and labor, can be expected to increase during the successive decades of the century. This will apply not only to the postindustrial societies of the First World, but also to the intermediate developing economies and to the Third World. The sheer diversity of migration patterns, internal flows within regional free trade areas, transnational communities whose dynamics will be enhanced by accelerated innovations in communication technologies and transportation, growing groups of highly skilled global migrants, and the unpredictable flows of refugees from political persecution, famines, and genocidal massacres, will all combine to increase the multiracial complexion of states and federations throughout the world. No one would expect these trends to be entirely in one direction, or to be without the potential for strong backlashes or reactive political movements against the type of social changes that such developments represent.Ethnicity and nationalism, meanwhile, will probably be rather more persistent markers of group boundaries. There are several reasons for this conclusion. While the United Nations, as a global organization for political governance, has a role to play in trying to respond to crises and catastrophes that cut across state boundaries or involve multiple state conflicts, its structure is fundamentally state-bound. The Security Council’s veto power means that a coordinated response is extremely difficult when a particular state, or power bloc, deems such action to be a threat to their “national interests” or to set a precedent that can be viewed as “interference in the internal affairs of a member state.” Thus, on issues such as genocide, torture, brutal ethnic repression, and the blatant disregard for human rights, UN conventions are invariably ignored when geopolitical interests are involved.If one overarching political structure is unlikely to reduce ethnic and nationalist sentiments, what about the impact of intermediate-scale organizations that bunch together clusters of states in regional groupings? What will be the net effect of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the African Union, the EU, NAFTA, and related supranational, but not global, institutions and treaties? Will they, on balance, help to diminish the types of ethnic and national mobilization as increased cooperation and mutual dependency in economic, social, and political ties start to extend the traditional boundaries of group interaction? Or will they lead to strong opposition, with political parties appealing to xenophobic solidarity, to setting up “Fortress Europe,” or building fences to try to curtail the increasing flows of illegal economic migrants that are a direct outcome of the trade and economic policies forcing capital and labor to seek out a new equilibrium? If we add the factors of international terrorism, environmental pressure resulting from global climate change, the worldwide implications of drug policies, and the competitive rivalries of major religious faiths, a volatile mix of influences will undoubtedly be unleashed.Some sociologists such as Richard Alba (2008) point to demographic factors that could exert pressure on societies such as the United States to move toward greater economic and social justice for ethnic minorities. Given the differential fertility rates of dominant whites and those of minorities, particularly minorities of color, Alba suggests these trends will have a tendency toward minority inclusion in the upper levels of the U.S. stratification system. While in the past immigration from Europe was one mechanism that provided an alternative reservoir of talent to fill a range of positions in the economic hierarchy, since the 1960s the shortfall in the supply of scientific, technical, and managerial talent has often been filled by foreigners, either those directly recruited by U.S. corporations or American-trained aliens who choose to remain in the country and work after completing their higher education. Alba argues that this pool of talented individuals will be subject to increasing competition from many other growing economies and that, combined with the domestic demographic shortfall, the result will be the incorporation of more American minorities into professional, managerial, and technical positions. What is true of the United States is likely to be repeated in Europe with its even lower demographic rates of reproduction and similar patterns of migration both within the enlarged economic community and from the peripheral regions surrounding it.None of these macro sociopolitical trends necessarily diminish the tensions that arise from increasing globalization that can be channeled along ethnic and nationalist grooves. In fact, the very success of the integrative economic forces may exacerbate ethnonational mobilization as a way to maintain meaningful identity in a world subject to mounting anomic strains associated with rapid and discontinuous social change. What Mann (2005) has characterized as “the dark side of democracy” is simply a further elaboration of the argument about the dual-edged sword of modernity, which has its intellectual roots in Weber’s pessimistic analysis of “rationality.” From the “banality of evil,” to cite Hannah Arendt’s classic formulation, genocide and ethnic cleansing are not so much a reversion to primitive violence as a logical outcome of many of the forces inherent in modern society. While it is true that there may also be a “banality of good” that can, on occasions, help to counter such threats (Casiro, 2006), it is unlikely that this will be the dominant outcome. “Rational” bureaucratic techniques tend to be harnessed to the goals of modern states, multistate alliances, and nonstate global actors such as multinational corporations. These modern methods can combine the destructiveness of scientific means with the tenacity of group identity to attain highly particularistic ends. Regrettably, there is nothing intrinsically benign in the forces underpinning the societal changes that have taken place during the first two decades of the 21st century. The precise balance between racism, ethnicity, and nationalism remains unclear but their possible eradication from future social, economic, and political conflicts seems highly unlikely.Further ReadingAcosta, D. (2018). The national versus the foreigner in South America: Two hundred years of migration and citizenship law. Cambridge University Press.Boucher, A., & Gest, J. (2018). Crossroads: Comparative immigration regimes in a world of demographic change. Cambridge University Press.Cramer, K. (2016). The politics of resentment. University of Chicago Press.Elias, S., & Feagin, J. (2016). Racial theories in social science: A systemic racism critique. Routledge.Esch, El. (2018). The color line and the assembly line: Managing race in the Ford empire. University of California Press.Favell, A. (2015). Immigration, integration and mobility: New agendas in migration. ECPR Press.Hanchard, M. (2018). The spectre of race: How discrimination haunts Western democracy. Princeton University Press.Noble, S. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce RACISM. New York University Press.Stone, J., Rutledge, D., Rizova, P., & Hou, X. (Eds.). (2020). The Wiley-Blackwell companion to race, ethnicity and nationalism. Wiley-Blackwell.Suarez-Orozco, M. (2019). Humanitarianism and mass migration: Confronting the world crisis. University of California Press.Tesler, M. (2016). Post-racial or most racial? Race and politics in the Obama era. University of Chicago Press.ReferencesAlba, R. (2008). Blurring the color line: Possibilities for ethno-racial change in early 21st century America. Harvard: The Nathan I. Huggins Lectures.Alba, R., et al. (Eds.). (2003). Germans or foreigners? Attitudes toward ethnic minorities in post-reunification Germany. Palgrave Macmillan.Alba, R., & Foner, N. (2015). Strangers No More: Immigration and the Challenges of Integration in North America and Western Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. The New Press.Bailey, S. (2020). Latin America. In J. Stone, D. Rutledge, P. Rizova, & X. Hou (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell companion to race, ethnicity and nationalism (pp. 183–201). Wiley-Blackwell.Berger, P., & Huntington, S. (Eds.). (2003). Many globalizations: Cultural diversity in the contemporary world. Oxford University Press.Bonilla-Silva, E. (2006). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in the United States. Rowman & Littlefield.Brubaker, R. (2004). Ethnicity without groups. Harvard University Press.Brubaker, R. (2017). Why populism? Theory and Society, 46, 357–385.Casiro, J. (2006). Argentine rescuers: A study in the “banality of good.” Journal of Genocide Research, 8(4), 437–454.Connor, W. (1993). Ethnonationalism: The quest for understanding. Princeton University Press.Conversi, D. (1997). The Basques, the Catalans, and Spain: Alternative routes to nationalist mobilization. University of Nevada Press.Dennis, R., & Dennis, K. (2020). Confrontational politics: The Black Lives Matter movement. In J. Stone, D. Rutledge, P. Rizova, & X. Hou (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell companion to race, ethnicity and nationalism (pp. 11–27). Wiley-Blackwell.Du Bois, William E. B. (1903) The Souls of Black Folk. A.C. McClurg & Co.Fearson, J., & Laitin, D. (2003). Ethnicity, insurgency and war. American Political Science Review, 97, 75–90.Fearson, J., & Laitin, D. (2005). Primary commodity exports and civil war. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49, 483–507.Fritz, C. (2011). Brazilian immigration and the quest for identity. LFB Scholarly Publishing.Freyre, G. [1933] (1986). The Masters and the Slaves: A Study in the Development of the Brazilian Civilization. University of California Press.Gellner, E. (1983). Nations and nationalism. Cornell University Press.Gobineau, Arthur de [1853–1855] (1915). [An Essay on] The Inequality of Human Races. G.P. Putnam’s Sons.Gordon, M. (1964). Assimilation in American life. Oxford University Press.Greenfeld, L. (1992). Nationalism: Five roads to modernity. Harvard University Press.Hobsbawm, E., & Ranger, T. (Eds.). (1983). The invention of tradition. Cambridge University Press.Hou, X. (2020). The paradox of nationalism and globalism: China’s participation in global capitalism. In J. Stone, D. Rutledge, P. Rizova, & X. Hou (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell companion to race, ethnicity and nationalism (pp. 119–128). Wiley-Blackwell.Hou, X., & Stone, J. (2008). The ethnic dilemma in China’s industrial revolution. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 31(4), 812–817.Huntington, S. (2004). Who are we? The challenges to America’s national identity. Simon & Schuster.Hutchinson, J. (2005). Nations as zones of conflict. SAGE.Hutchinson, J. (2017). War and nationalism. Oxford University Press.Ignatiev, N. (1995). How the Irish became white. Routledge.Katznelson, I. (2006). When affirmative action was white: An untold history of racial inequality in the twentieth century. Norton.Lie, J., & Weng, J. (2020). East Asia. In J. Stone, D. Rutledge, P. Rizova, & X. Hou (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell companion to race, ethnicity and nationalism (pp. 129–146). Wiley-Blackwell.Luo, X. (2020). New patterns of internal migration: Movement with Chinese characteristics. In J. Stone, D. Rutledge, P. Rizova, & X. Hou (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell companion to race, ethnicity and nationalism (pp. 307–320). Wiley-Blackwell.Mann, M. (2005). The dark side of democracy: Explaining ethnic cleansing. Cambridge University Press.Marx, A. (1998). Making race and nation: A comparison of the United States, South Africa, and Brazil. Cambridge University Press.Moodley, K., & Adam, H. (2020). Transforming settler colonialism in South Africa. In J. Stone, D. Rutledge, P. Rizova, & X. Hou (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell companion to race, ethnicity and nationalism (pp. 211–226). Wiley-Blackwell.O’Dowd, A. (2005). Establishing boundaries: A comparative analysis of immigrants as outsiders in Ireland and Italy. [Ph. D. Dissertation, University College, Dublin.]O’Leary, B., McGarry, J., & Salih, J. (Eds.). (2005) The Future of Kurdistan in Iraq. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Olzak, S. (2006). The global dynamics of race and ethnic mobilization. Stanford University Press.Rizova, P. (2007). Balkanization. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology (Vol. 1) (pp. 239–240). Blackwell.Roediger, D. (2007). The wages of whiteness: Race and the making of the American working class. Verso.Schama, S. (2006). Rough crossings: Britain, the slaves and the American Revolution. HarperCollins.Sekulic, D. (2020). The creation and dissolution of multi-national states. In J. Stone, D. Rutledge, P. Rizova, & X. Hou (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell companion to race, ethnicity and nationalism (pp. 457–468). Wiley-Blackwell.Shapiro, T. (2004). The hidden cost of being African American. Oxford University Press.Smith, A. (1986). The ethnic origins of nations. Blackwell.Smith, A. (2008). The cultural foundations of nations: Hierarchy, covenant, and republic. Blackwell.Solomos, J. (2020). The changing nature of global racial and ethnic relations. In J. Stone, D. Rutledge, P. Rizova, & X. Hou (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell companion to race, ethnicity and nationalism (pp. 61–76). Wiley-Blackwell.Dennis, R. (Eds.). (2003). Race and ethnicity: Comparative and theoretical approaches. Blackwell.Stone, J., & Rizova, P. (2020). From Obama to Trump: The dialectics of race and nationalism in contemporary America. In J. Stone, D. Rutledge, P. Rizova, & X. Hou (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell companion to race, ethnicity and nationalism (pp. 29–42). Wiley-Blackwell.Stone, J., … Rizova, P. (2014). Racial Conflict in Global Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Tarumoto, H. (2020). Immigrant acceptance in an ethnic country. In J. Stone, D. Rutledge, P. Rizova, & X. Hou (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell companion to race, ethnicity and nationalism (pp. 379–401). Wiley-Blackwell.Telles, E. (2004). Race in another America: The significance of skin color in Brazil. Princeton University Press.Tilly, C. (1998). Durable inequality. University of California Press.Tocqueville, Alexis de [1835–1840] (1956) Democracy in America (ed. Richard Heffner) New York, NY: Mentor Booksn & Co.Tocqueville, Alexis de [1856] (1966) The Ancien Regime and the Revolution. Fontanavan den Berghe, P. (1965). South Africa: A study in conflict. Wesleyan University Press.van den Berghe, P. (1967). Race and racism: A comparative perspective. John Wiley.Zolberg, A., & Woon, L. (1999). Why Islam is like Spanish: Cultural incorporation in Europe and the United States. Politics and Society, 27(1), 5–38.Related ArticlesEthnic Identities and Boundaries: Anthropological, Psychological, and Sociological ApproachesEthnicity and Nationalism in Wars of SecessionWars for Ethnic or Nationalist Supremacy

Oxford University Press

2024.

date: 14 March 2024

Cookie Policy

Legal Notice

Credits

Accessibility

[49.157.13.121]

49.157.13.121

Edit Annotation

Character limit 500/500

Delete

Cancel

Save

Character limit 500/500

Save