During the formative period of sociology, many of the most influential social thinkers of their era thought that divisions based on ethnic attachments—which, as we have stressed throughout this book includes racialized ethnicity, ethnonationalism, and religio-ethnicity—would progressively erode and disappear. One version of this sort of thinking shaped Marxist thought, which was predicated on the assumption that the most fundamental divisions in society were class based. Ethnicity was sometimes a complicating factor that needed to be considered, but in the end one of the remarkable things about capitalism was that it would act like a solvent to dissolve ethnic divisions, thereby exposing in the starkest of ways the fact that class divisions in capitalism were the root cause of inequality. Class divisions were the source of the exploitation and alienation inevitably produced by capitalism. As workers gained consciousness of this reality, as they became class conscious, ethnic and other forms of solidarity and division would fade in significance.
From another perspective, that of what became known broadly as modernization theory, there was an underlying assumption that ethnicity would progressively erode and become an inconsequential feature of social life. Rather than a society based on deep emotional attachments to those who were presumed to have ties of blood, history, and tradition—or in other words, a society based on a shared commitment to remaining connected to the past—modernization theorists predicted a future in which individuals would free themselves from old, ascriptive bonds and would orient their worldviews to the future. In the modern world based on individual achievement and rationality, ethnicity would come to be viewed as an artifact of a world rooted in tradition, its salience eroding with the passage of time.
As sociology came into its own after this formative period, those scholars who devoted their energies to studying ethnicity in its many guises came to realize that the ethnic factor in social life was not going to disappear anytime soon. In fact, many concluded that ethnic affiliations and ethnic relations would remain obdurate features of the modern world long into the foreseeable future. Some went so far as to reconsider a position that the mainstream of the discipline had earlier rejected, namely that ethnicity was somehow a primordial characteristic of human beings. In other words, so it was claimed, ethnicity was in effect hardwired into the psyches of all humans. As such, ethnic groups have in the past and would continue in the future to seek to advance their own collective self interests and when those interests got in the way of other groups doing likewise, conflict would inevitably occur. Such, in effect, is the way of the world. In other words, whereas both Marxist and modernization theorists predicted the gradual fading away of the ethnic factor in contemporary social life, the primordialists contended that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Ethnicity was in the past, is at present, and can be expected to be in the future both a powerful source of identity and collective solidarity and the underlying source of ethnic conflict.
The purpose of this book is to equip students with a sociological perspective on ethnicity that we believe steers a course between these two positions—a course that we think has been laid out by a substantial body of sociological research and theorizing over the course of more than a century. The scholars who have contributed to staking out that course have offered a rather wide range of perspectives on the topic, which is evident in our summary overview of that work. Nevertheless, we think that some basic lessons can be distilled from this work that few among the ranks of race and ethnic relations scholars would disagree with.
First, ethnicity and ethnic relations are social constructions. This means that they are the product of collectivities acting in concert and interacting with other collectivities in the context of existing social, cultural, and political settings. As such, they are subject to change when social actors act in ways that promote change, while they remain fixed and permanent-looking when social actors act in ways that promote the status quo. By stressing the constructed character of ethnicity, we seek to avoid the problems associated with viewing ethnic groups as givens rather than as ongoing achievements, the result of interactions that are sustained over time.
Second, ethnicity is often a source of community, creating solidarity among group members. When an ethnic culture exists that provides its members with a sense of meaning and purpose, offering a compelling way of life, it can have a profound impact on members’ sense of self. It connects people to their pasts while providing the basis for maintaining present-day social relationships. When this occurs, not only is the culture in question seen to be worth preserving and embracing, but an institutional presence arises to help ensure that this happens. We don't want to romanticize ethnicity, however, for while some might see it as a source of solidarity and meaning, others view it as unduly restricting, with a culture they cannot or will not embrace. Some ethnic cultures work against the interests of women. Some promote values that are undemocratic and illiberal. Not surprisingly, in such instances, many people either want to see the ethnic culture change or they want to leave the group. What this means, quite simply, is that just as ethnicity can promote intra-group solidarity, so it can also be a source of intra-group tension. Whereas some people will remain loyal members of an ethnic group, others will seek to exit.
Third, much of the focus of this book has been on interethnic, rather than intra-ethnic relations. The chapters of this book reflect those topics that have received the most sustained attention by the sociological community. Much of that attention focuses on the dark side of ethnic relations, including studies devoted to analyzing the causes and consequences of prejudice, discrimination, inequality, and conflict. As is evident in the respective chapters that address these topics, all exist in highly variable and complex ways, predicated on the interplay between larger, structured patterns of interaction and the particularities of specific places at specific historical moments.
The variability and complexity of these phenomena make the sorts of broader conceptual generalizations sociologists aim for especially challenging. This is evident throughout the preceding chapters, but perhaps nowhere so clearly than in the survey of competing models for accounting for prejudice. That there is no general consensus about how best to study any of these topics, with various theoretical perspectives competing with other perspectives, is a reflection of the difficulties associated with understanding “ties of blood” that bind people to collectivities and often pit them against other collectivities defined by different blood ties. Ethnicity in all its guises needs to be analyzed both in terms of the rational features of ethnic affiliations and interethnic relations, but also in terms of the emotions that often play a powerful role in shaping those affiliations and relations. In trying to make sense of it all, sociologists have their work cut out for them. But we think that contemporary sociologists benefit by being able to build on a long tradition of research and theorizing, and that they have an important role to play in the future as they use their tools of analysis to make sense of the ethnic factor in contemporary social life.
Finally, the sociology of ethnicity has a role to play in informing public discourse on ethnic relations. The societies most readers of this book live in are more, not less, diverse than they were in the past. Moreover, as globalization links people from different nations, learning to live with those who are different—be it physically, culturally, linguistically, religiously, or some combination thereof—or, in other words, learning to live with diversity takes on an added dimension, and an added urgency. The challenges ahead revolve around learning to live together in relative harmony, respecting people and cultures different from one's own, while at the same time promoting social justice by seeking to overcome inequality and marginalization based on ethnic origin. Or to put it slightly differently, the challenge for people of good will is to find positive ways to recognize the other, while insuring that valued resources are distributed equitably to all people regardless of ethnic background. The starting point for addressing this challenge is recognition of the fact that in spite of diversity, we share a common humanity.