Home > Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity > Ethnicity

The term ethnicity was coined by American sociologists in the 1920s to describe the phenomena and the politicization of the basic concept of an ethnic group. It derives from the Greek word ethnos, meaning "peoples." The problem is that ethnic groups are almost always seen as minorities, not as peoples.

Ethnicity has been the dominant motif in most modern genocides and acts of mass violence in the twentieth century, particularly in the deadliest "genocides-in-whole" (according to the UN Convention of 1948), which were all committed by perpetrators from ruling national majorities against members of ethnic and religious minority groups. Examples are the large-scale genocides committed by the regime of the Young Turks against the Armenians (AGHET), Pontian Greeks, and Assyrians in the 1920s; the Holocaust committed by the German Nazis and their allies and vassal regimes between 1939 and 1945 throughout most of Europe against the Jews (SHOA), Roma (PORRAJMOS), Soviet POWs, Slavic peoples, and twenty other groups; and the widespread slaughter committed in 1994 between April 6 and mid-July by the Hutu power regime in Rwanda against the Tutsi. Colonial genocides begun in the fifteenth century but in some cases continued into the twentieth century. One of the most devastating was committed by the Belgian colonizers in the Congo Free State, the later Belgian Congo, from the 1870s to the 1920s against the indigenous African peoples of the Great Congo Basin (taking 12 to 18 million victims), as well as the smaller but almost total genocide by the German colonialists against the Herero and Nama in Namibia (that time German Southwest Africa) from 1904 to 1907.

Ethnic category killing was predominant in genocide as well as in violent conflict. In the 20th century, genocide directed against ethnic and religious groups has been the dominant form of both extermination-in-whole and in-part. Additionally, the ethnic factor has been predominant in two thirds of some 300 intra-state violent conflicts since World War II—more precisely, since the period of decolonization that started in 1948—as well as in a number of inter-state conflicts.

The ethnic factor also plays a leading role in what has been termed ethnic cleansing, which is more accurately termed expulsions or deportations. Another euphemistic expression for ethnic cleansing is "population transfer," although atrocities may be included as a part of such activities. Contrary to genocide and violent ethnic conflict, the aim of ethnic cleansing is not to kill all the members of an ethnic group in a territory, but to drive that ethnic group from their ancestral lands and settlement area. Ethnocide or cultural genocide, on the other hand, is an attempt to wipe out the culture of a particular group and replace it with the majority "national" culture by means of repression and assimilation, not by killing the members of a distinct ethnic or cultural group.

The ethnic factor is delimited, but contentiously, within certain boundaries, in the older social science disciplines of ethnology and social/cultural anthropology. There are quite a variety and number of categorizations offered by the different ethnological and anthropological schools, but any combination of the more accessible definitions is not really possible, given the differing approaches and standards used by various scholars. The most frequently mentioned elements of ethnicity are shared origin and similar culture, religion, class, and language. However, two of these (class and religion) are not apposite. Language is seen as the most objective attribute for an ethnically distinct group and, thus, questions have been raised about whether Hutus and Tutsis can be referred to as different ethnic groups, since both groups share the same language and cultural practices as well as religious affiliations.

The ethnic form of socialization must be distinguished from socialization into social classes. The extent and boundaries of the two are often congruent, but they can also merely overlap, as can be seen in more complex societies, or exclude one another entirely, as occurs in egalitarian societies. Religion must be rejected as a criterion for ethnicity, since it is an ideological domain that within the framework of colonialism, was mostly externally imposed and fortuitously selected. Imported, colonially induced religions and syncretistic variants are more common and dominant than indigenous religions.

Whereas there are less than 200 formally constituted states in the world, there are between 2,500 to 6,500 ethnic groups as defined according to linguistic criteria. Lately the figure of 10,000 or more ethnic groups has been mentioned. The variation in figures is due to the differences in the criteria or attributes used to define an ethnos. One of several possible approaches to identifying distinct ethnicities focuses on attributes other than language, for instance on clusters of "special features" or social specializations, which are both seen as contributing to the defining characteristics of a particular ethnos. Such clusters are called "ethnic markers," and are only relevant within the framework of inter-ethnic relations. Often they only become a major focus of perception when situations of conflict arise.

Understanding ethnicity and the ethnic factor can best be done by considering key attributes of an ethnic community:

1. a historically generated or (in some cases) rediscovered community of people that largely reproduces itself;
2. a distinct name, which often simply signifies 'person' or 'people' in the ethnic community's language;
3. a specific, heterogeneous culture, including, particularly, a distinct language;
4. a collective memory or historical remembrance, including community myths (myths of foundation or emergence relating to shared ancestry); and
5. solidarity between members of the community, generating a feeling of belonging.

Attributes of ethnic community by no means constitute a definitive checklist. They are, rather, an attempt to get closer to an appropriate understanding of ethnicity, the individual elements of which can be examined more closely for each concrete instance. Maintaining ethnic borders—and thus also being able to delimit different ethnic groups—has its problems. Most peoples live closely and intermingled with other groups. (There is no such thing as ethnically homogeneous or pure "areas," if not as a result of violence and ethnic cleansing.) Over-emphasizing certain elements, such as participation in a shared culture or the social dimension (which sees ethnic groups as a particular form of social organization), would also appear to be problematic. Ethnic communities may be imagined, but as imagined entities they are significantly more concrete and more tangible than that of the nation.

Perspective—that is, whether or not one views ethnicity from inside or outside the group in question—seems crucial to understanding ethnicity. The point of view of group insiders is called an emic perspective, as opposed to the etic view of the outsiders. Emically speaking, most ethnic group members see themselves as a people or as a nation, and the idea of shared origin is crucial. This shared origin does not have to be based on historical fact, and is usually putative, mythical, or fictitious in nature. Emically speaking, however, ethnic affinity is generally not perceived in any way as ideologically generated or as primordial.

In the anthropological literature, theories of ethnicity vary widely depending on the scholarly framework employed, be it primordialism, constructivism, situationism or other orientation. Vastly different statements about group affinity and personal identity can be generated depending on the terms of reference used in the underlying context. In modern societies, for instance, very different conditions of group affinity obtain than in traditional societies. The ethnic and sociocultural identity of an individual also varies according to the location or standpoint of the observer; and the terms by which the Other and the Self (i.e., outgroup and ingroup characteristics) can also vary.

Conflict brings about fundamental changes in frames of reference. In a situation of threat, individual elements of personal and collective identity become enhanced. Alternatively, the political instrumentalization of mechanisms of demarcation is often done for the purposes of exclusion of certain groups. Exclusion marks the crucial step which leads from simple discrimination to more profound instances of ethnic conflict and genocide. Ethnic identity constitutes itself via processes of demarcation that do not occur within a nonauthoritarian space and whose modalities cannot be determined freely and independently. The abstract difference of others poses no problem, but the experience of real threat from others, or a construed feeling of superiority vis-à-vis others, are, in contrast, results of processes of exclusion and polarization. Constant injury to central elements of the shared ethnic identity, either from within or from without the group, elicits specific forms of resistance in each particular case, ranging from withdrawal to armed rebellion.

Since World War II, more than 300 wars and instances of mass murder have taken place worldwide—most of them, until the end of the 1980s, in the less-developed nations. Among the possible conflict types, the most deadly are genocides and certain forms of nonwar mass violence. (Genocide is often committed behind a smoke-screen of war and crisis.) Claims by the governments (usually despotic governments) of a number of nation-states in regard to the national groups, which happen to live on the territory of the respective state (often unwanted) and in regard to ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples, seem to become increasingly aggressive in times of change. In empirical and historical terms, this state of affairs has the most dangerous potential, and has been the source of real conflicts and wars both in the underdeveloped world and, since 1989–90, in Eastern Europe, within the former socialist multinational states.

Almost two-thirds of current violent conflicts are susceptible to ethnic interpretation. It was only when the Janus-like countenance of nationalism reappeared in Europe (after the dissolution of the Soviet Socialist Republics) that the media and broad sections of the public in the West became aware of this global trend towards ethnic nationalism, of which there had been evidence since the period of decolonization. It was a long-established fact that this belated nationalism represented a renegotiation of the situation left behind by the colonial world-order. It involved a fundamental struggle between liberation and oppression, between emancipation and barbarity.

The global trend toward an increase of intra-state conflicts and a decrease—if not near disappearance—of the classic Clausewitzean "war between states" has grown steadily greater over the second half of the twentieth century. The trend reflects the increasing importance of intra-state conditions in the generation of conflict, but the violence that ultimately erupts often spills over borders. There is a multiplication of actors in some complex new conflicts, with the Congo and Sudan being the best examples.

In empirical research, different types of contemporary conflicts can be observed. Their dominant character is either anti-regime or ethno-nationalistic, followed by interethnic wars, often without state actors being involved, and gang wars and warlordism, which have been named "post-modern wars" despite the fact that this type of conflict has a long history. There are some decolonization conflicts, as well. A recent example of this type of conflict occurred in East Timor, which was brought under Indonesian occupation by a genocide that reduced the Timorese population by one-third from 1975 to the 1980s. Terrorist conflicts, which in the form of international gang wars gained much attention since September 11, 2001, are neither a new phenomenon nor a particular deadly form of mass violence. Their death toll is relatively low—in 2001 such conflicts may have caused 0.2 percent of all conflictrelated fatalities worldwide.

Conflict types suited to ethnic interpretation—with ethnicity as the mobilizing force—seem to be rapidly increasing in incidence and ferocity, although they have been prominent for quite some time. Increases in violent ethno-nationalist conflicts have been observed in the wake of a number of phases of decolonization. Ethnic conflicts of a violent kind are both products and causes of colonial creation and of the inherent instability of newly formed states. Thus, ethno-nationalism appears to be a response to serious ongoing crises. Its primary cause, the struggle against the neo-colonial state, has strong structural aspects and, therefore, a truly global spread. However, the level of conflict varies considerably in the different regions of the world. As the example of the Community of Independent States (CIS) shows, the structure and dynamics of the process of fragmentation in the recently emerged states of Eastern Europe followed its own rules and differed significantly from the situation in the nations of Africa and other less developed, formerly colonized regions of the world.

Attempts to clarify or resolve sub-national conflicts must be preceded by the realization that existential questions relating to the survival of an ethnic group are not factors that are open to negotiation but essential prerequisites to dialogue. There are a number of highly destructive forms of interaction between states, nations, and nationalities that have resulted in the exclusion and persecution of national groups but that have not yet been subject to systematic investigation and for which the international community has not yet developed any consistent policy. This was demonstrated with devastating clarity in the case of the genocide in Rwanda in 1994.

The crime of genocide not only calls for prevention but for its elimination. Genocide prevention requires different means than the prevention of ethnic violence in general and ethno-nationalism in particular. The political and humanitarian concern to find ways of avoiding violent forms of ethno-nationalism from below and ethnicization from above leads to the questions of (1) how ethnic and cultural difference can be understood and acknowledged; (2) how destructive forms of interaction between states and nations or nationalities can be prevented; and (3) which institutions, legal measures, and policies are most appropriate for that purpose.

Procedures aimed at the "structural prevention" of violence are required. Structural prevention seeks to end repression and injustice, which is ingrained in state policies and underdevelopment, and which is also inherent in the cultural attitudes held by many dominant groups. "Structural" means that new political frameworks and institutions are created to avert the possibility of direct and indirect violence such as discrimination against non-dominant groups. Johan Galtung developed the concept of structural violence in the 1970s, based on his path-breaking distinction between direct personal violence (massacres or war) and structural violence (e.g., impoverishment of a group to the point of lethality). Galtung also reflected on cultural violence, noting, for example, the values that promote and/or justify violence and superiority complexes that result into aggressive attitudes. Here the contribution of systemic peace research can be crucial.

Preventive activities range from initiatives by popular local and regional movements to the elaboration of norms and legal instruments for the protection of minorities and vulnerable groups within the framework of international and universal organizations. Efforts to change violence-promoting conditions through disarmament, controls and bans on arms production and trade, demobilization, and the strengthening of civil society are often neglected in the debate about how to deal with or prevent violent conflicts. Political and institutional consultancy in peaceful dispute-settlement is often carried out by third party go-betweens in the case of protracted ethnic conflicts. Mediation and facilitation in such conflicts can undoubtedly be successful as an instrument of international politics and should not be left solely to state and interstate actors. Efforts at go-between mediation by civil actors and initiatives for preventing and transforming violent ethnic conflicts are arduous, however, and generally hold little attraction for the media.

SEE ALSO Ethnic Cleansing; Ethnic Groups; Ethnocide; Nationalism

Christian P. Sherrer