George Bernstein

Ethnicity: The Search forCharacteristics and Context

People have often been fascinated and puzzled bywhat are or seem to be differences among others.At various times in history, the differences havebeen attributed to the will of mysterious gods, togeographical or cultural isolation, to the law'sstrength, to the power of tradition, to a people'sdedication to their soil, to an economic relationshipto their environment, and to assorted other reasons.Often the explanations have been permeated witha sense that one group or another was markedlysuperior or inferior. In the ancient world, for ex-ample, the Greeks were convinced of their supe-riority, and it is no accident that the English wordbarbarians is an offspring of the ancient Greek wordbarbaroi, meaning "foreigners." In much of the 19thand early 20th centuries the English were contentto suggest that many peoples were "lesser breeds."Americans have not always been free of a certaindisdain for those not blessed with birth in America,and the Chinese were adept at dismissing peoplewho were not of their culture. In the relationshipbetween cultures, ignorance, insecurity, and thedesire for political and economic power have hadimportant effects on concepts of ethnicity.

In the past two centuries, observers of thecustoms and character of human groups have notalways been tourists in exotic places, soldiers ofempire, or persons of commerce. With the refine-ment of social, historical, and biological studies,scholars have more seriously asked about the waysin which human groups are similar and different. It

George Bernstein is professor of education at MontclairState College, Upper Montclair, New Jersey.

is partly out of such a more disciplined interest thatinterpretations of ethnicity were born. In the lastgeneration scholars seeking to define ethnic groupshave found themselves on difficult terrain and haveoften been the first to admit it. They have claimedthe territory was insufficiently explored and thelandmarks provided by earlier intellectual explorersdid not seem as reliable as might have been thought.The recent resurgence of interest in ethnic groupshas produced work reflecting both the appeal ofmore traditional approaches and the attempt to findadequate new definitions and contexts.

One of the most voluminous compendia onethnicity is the Harvard Encyclopedia of AmericanEthnic Groups (Thernstrom, 1980). Thernstrom sug-gests 14 features which, in varying arrangements,typify ethnic groups: (a) common geographical or-igin; (b) migratory status; (c) race; (d) language ordialect; (e) religious faith or faiths; (f) ties that tran-scend kinship, neighborhood, and communityboundaries; (g) shared traditions, values, and sym-bols; (h) literature, folklore, and music; (i) food pref-erences; (j) settlement and employment patterns;(k) special interests in regard to politics in thehomeland and the United States; (I) institutions thatspecifically secure and maintain the group; (m) aninternal sense of distinctiveness, and (n) an externalperception of distinctiveness (p. vi).

Primary Characteristics

Although some writers concerned with the na-ture of ethnicity have offered minimal explanations,none have been satisfied to limit the scope to either

one or just a few of the 14 features contributed byThernstrom. Some have also given a good deal ofattention to what might be considered secondarycharacteristics—those aspects of the group lifewhich are studied to gain additional insight, butwhich are not necessarily part of the life of theethnic group per se. For example, an ethnic groupmight, at a particular time, turn to municipal politicsas the channel for progress while another mightseek entry into prestigious professions. Throughthese efforts, the ethnic group makes adjustmentsand accommodations in the perpetual, complexsearch to relate itself to the society at large.

Ethnicity as Conscious Group Membership

Patterson (1977) maintains an ethnic group ex-ists "only where members consider themselves tobelong to it" (p. 104). Even though they are in asociety with a specific and larger social context,they consciously choose to emphasize certain as-sumed or real cultural or economic traits as theirmost important source of identity outside the family.The conscious sense of belonging is the criticalmatter. There can be culture groups which are notethnic groups, but other types of culture groupsare, according to Patterson, "simply any group ofpeople, who share an identifiable complex of mean-ings, symbols, values, and norms" (pp. 104-105).Patterson writes that ethnicity is the condition wheresome members of a society consciously "chooseto emphasize as their most meaningful basis ofprimary, extrafamilial identity certain assumed orreal cultural or somatic traits" (p. 104). Ross (1980)distinguishes between "subjectivist" and "objectiv-ist" schools of ethnicity, with the former having ashared "we-feeling" (p. 5). Parsons (1975) puts itsomewhat differently when he contends that eth-nicity is a primary focus of group identity (p. 53).

A movement often called the "new ethnicity"emerged with some vigor in the '70s. Bennett (1973),one of its observers, suggests that people seizedon traditional cultural symbols to define their iden-tity, among other reasons, to "assert the Self,"above and beyond "the impersonal State" (p. 3).DeVos (1975) says the ethnic identity of a groupof people consists of a "subjective symbolic" or"emblematic" use of any aspect of culture to dif-ferentiate themselves from other groups.

Elaborating on the concept of the "new eth-nicity" is Novak (1977), who states that the newethnicity does not have to do with speaking aforeign language, living in a subculture or a "tight-knit neighborhood," belonging to fraternal organi-

zations, responding to "ethnic appeals," or exaltingone's own nationality or culture. It becomes some-thing more existential or phenomenological. It en-tails "a growing sense of discomfort with the senseof identity one is supposed to have—universalist,'melted'. . .a growing appreciation for the potentialwisdom of one's own gut reactions. . .a growingself-confidence. . .a sense of being discriminatedagainst, condescended to. . .a growing disaffectiontoward those to whom one has always been taughtto defer," and "a sense of injustice regarding theresponse of liberal spokesmen to conflicts betweenvarious ethnic groups. . ." (p. 8). Novak providesa clear example of what is labeled by Ross (1980)as the "subjectivist" school of ethnicity (p. 5).

Biological Relatedness

"Biological relatedness" has received renewedattention as one presumed characteristic of theethnic group. Van den Berghe (1981) has givenperhaps the most attention to this concept. He isone of the most recent advocates of using race asan important element of ethnicity, although he clearlystates on more than one occasion that his positionis not a return to the dangerous Social Darwinismof earlier generations. He suggests a paradigmamalgamating genes, environment, and culture (p.6). One of his arguments is that "organisms aregenetically selected to be nepotistic, in the senseof favoring kin over non-kin. . . .The geneticallyselected propensity for nepotism—kin selection,"he argues, "seems to underlie a good deal of animalsociality, including that of human beings" (p. 8).Parsons (1975) observes that generally ethnicity hasbeen interpreted as having a "biological base some-times explicity stated in terms of 'racial distinctive-ness' " (p. 53). Barth (1969) sees ethnic groups as"biologically self-perpetuating" (p. 10).

The scholars who work on biological related-ness may or may not use the term race seriously.They are sometimes but not always aware of howany racial categories can serve to exacerbate in-justices in society. One complicated question in thisarea is that of the relationship between race andethnicity. Van den Berghe believes it legitimate toconsider race as a feature of ethnicity, but Smith(1982) warns of the dangers of equating race andethnicity, partly because there has always been thepossibility of the biological and social definitionsbecoming confused.

The return of interest in relating race and eth-nicity is due in part to the increased interest inseeing how biological and societal features inter-

Volume XXIII, Number 2 99

mesh. The attention given to sociobiology mustprove both philosophically and practically fruitfulbecause it helps place human beings within a plan-etary ecosystem. Such an approach must give hu-manity important tools to keep it from destroyingitself. On the other hand, there remains the tre-mendous danger that ammunition be given againto various types of racists who wish to use raceas a fundamental category for making moral, cul-tural, social, intellectual, and educational judgmentsabout human groups. Such an approach has beenpernicious in the past and is no less so now. Racistthought must be an enemy of viable multiculturaleducation.

Common Descent

According to Francis (1976), ethnicity ex-presses the fact that certain people are sociallydefined as belonging together by virtue of commondescent. It is the ethnic unit in any major collectivitythat is socially defined in terms of common descent.Shared ethnicity is an aggregate of people consid-ered belonging together because of the belief thatthey are descended from one, however distant,ancestor, ancestral pair, or ancestral group (p. 7).Interestingly, Thernstrom (1980) does not use com-mon descent or a similar term as one of the 14possible features of ethnicity in his introduction tothe Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups(p. vi).

Secondary Characteristics

The term secondary characteristics is not em-ployed here in any strict scientific sense, but torefer to features of ethnic groups which some writ-ers believe important for understanding the life ofthe ethnic group but which do not depend on thecore definitions. The ethnic group may behave ina certain way because of the stage of developmentin which it finds itself or in its relationship to thelarger society. These points of view suggest thatthe term ethnic group do'es not refer to an un-changing entity but rather to one which has a dy-namic relationship with the rest of society.

According to Glazer and Moynihan (1975), theethnic group today can be interpreted as an interestgroup. It is partly because of such a nature, theyargue, that it is able to manage itself without muchdifficulty in democratic societies. They consider thewelfare state and the socialist state as particularlyresponsive to ethnic arguments and demands, andnote that such responsiveness can be seen all over

the world. Some ethnic groups, they state, beganto press their claims when they started to under-stand "the strategic efficacy of ethnicity in makinglegitimate claims on the resources of the modernstate" (p. 11).

Bell (1975) also gives attention to ethnic groupsas interest groups, but instead of stressing whatthe groups are able to "get out of" the modernstate, he points to their ability to identify with andmaintain their tangible characteristics—the food,music, names, and language—while other socialroles become more abstract and impersonal. Eth-nicity becomes more "salient" because it has pro-vided a tangible set of affective ties with interests(p. 169). The sense of belonging becomes a toolto facilitate progress in an occupation.

Larger Contexts for Understanding Ethnicity

Nationality and Ethnicity

The United States has always been a multi-cultural society in which the Protestant, Anglo-Saxonelement has played the dominant role. Because ofour cultural diversity—languages, religions, cus-toms—we developed a core of common identityaround the political nation and its fundamental laws.Hans Kohn (1961), an eminent historian of nation-alism, observed that when the English colonistsbroke with the mother country, the great majorityof Americans shared the language, literature, reli-gion, and other cultural traditions with the nationagainst which they rebelled. The United States de-fined itself, according to Gleason, by a commitmentto the "principles of liberty, equality, and govern-ment on the basis of consent, and the nationalityof its people derived from their identification withthose principles" (1980, p. 31). Perhaps throughthe 1880s it was assumed that Anglo-Saxon Amer-ica was blessed with a remarkable capacity forabsorbing immigrants from many societies, but therewas also concern about whether or not effectiveassimilation could occur. They feared that thosearriving were unassimilable and that the situationcreated would cause a degeneration of the nationalsociety. American nationalism has always existedin a dynamic relationship with many ethnic groups,with the real life of the nationalism and the ethnicgroups changing to some extent over the courseof time. We can expect that nationalism will con-tinue to play an important role in our society in theforeseeable future.

100 Theory Into Practice

Assimilationism and Cultural Pluralism

According to Hraba (1979) there are two basicassumptions to assimilationist thought. The first isthat ethnic evolution in America results in the as-similation of its ethnic groups and the second isthat assimilation results from a natural develop-mental history or is a product of societal modern-ization. Assimilation is, in this view, an outcome ofindustrialization, occupational diversification, urban-ization, and the spread of mass education andliteracy (p. 29).

Robert E. Park (1916), the Chicago sociologistof an earlier generation, was an outstanding ex-ponent of the assimilationist position. Focusing onthe city, he thought that initially the social andphysical distance between "folk groups" would bestrengthened by initial competition, and that at firstthe city would be an interdependent collection of"natural areas," each with its distinct ethnic pop-ulation (p. 579). What Park considered a "naturaltendency" toward strife and struggle would thenbe supplanted by a trend toward communicationand intimacy, resulting in accommodation and as-similation. "Successful individuals" would move outof the ethnic ghettos, and "find places in businessand the professions among other groups" (quotedin Hraba, 1979, p. 35). Groups might then be com-peting for status and prestige, but there would nolonger be a struggle for survival.

W. Lloyd Warner, the mastermind overseeingthe production of Yankee CityS also took it forgranted that assimilation of ethnic groups wa"s de-sirable and that it was occurring. However, the ratesof assimilation might depend on what Warner anda later associate, Leo Srole, perceived as conditionswithin the ethnic group such as its size, its proximityto the homeland, its reasons for coming to theUnited States, and its power to control its members'lives through a network of ethnic institutions (War-ner & Srole, 1945, pp. 47-48, 253-256 ff).

Gordon (1964) constructed a complex pictureof ethnic societies in which it appeared that assim-ilation was desirable and could begin to occur al-though hindered by a complex set of difficulties.The ethnic group itself ("ethnic subsociety") pro-vided its members with all its "primary relations"and some "secondary relationships" at all stagesof the life cycle. For Gordon, however, none of thesubsocieties is really a homogeneous unit. Eachone is stratified by region, rural or urban residence,by social class, and by its relationship to otherethnic groups. There are intersections between dif-ferent ethnic groups and social classes which Gor-

don calls the development of "ethclasses" (pp. 51-54).

The assimilationists might approach assimila-tion from different vantage points. One could studythe patterns of development in ethnic ghettoes andthe stages in which many move out into other"larger" mainstream communities. One can look atthe shifts in culture patterns in which more Englishand less of the original family tongue is used. Onecan consider how the lives of members of ethnicgroups intersect at various cultural, social, eco-nomic, and political points. The foci may vary, butthe main concern is still with the question of howmembers of the ethnic group become members ofthe larger society.

Horace M. Kallen (cited in Gleason, 1980), oneof the early protagonists of cultural pluralism, ar-gued in his 1915 article, "Democracy Versus theMelting Pot," that there is a great deal of good incultural diversity. He wrote:

Its form would be that of a federal republic; itssubstance a democracy of nationalities coop-erating voluntarily and autonomously throughcommon institutions in the enterprise of self-realization. . . .The common language of thecommonwealth would be English, but each na-tionality would have for its emotional and in-voluntary life its own peculiar dialect orspeech. . . .The political and economic life ofthe commonwealth is a single unit and servesas the foundation and background for the re-alization of the distinctive individuality of eachnation that comprises it and of the pooling ofthese in a harmony above them all. (Gleason,1980, p. 43)

There are several basic assumptions to ethnicpluralism. One is that an evolution among ethnicand racial groups in America does not necessarilylead to their assimilation into a single, monolithicsociety. The second is that expressions of ethnicitymay change while relations among ethnic groupsevolve. The third, according to Hraba (1979), is thatthere are three main reasons for the persistenceof ethnicity in modern America: There is a generaltolerance for ethnic pluralism; the ethnic groupsplay particular social and political roles; and eth-nicity serves useful psychological functions (p. 64).Cultural pluralism, in contrast to assimilationism,stresses the continuing viability of the life of ethnicgroups and also assumes that this viability doesnot threaten the fabric of society. In fact, it argues

Volume XXIII, Number 2 101

that our society is given greater strength and vitalitythrough the persistence of variety.

Stages of Ethnicity

No modern student of ethnicity believes thatthe ethnic group is a cultural monolith incapable ofchange. Many of those who have given more thanpassing attention to ethnicity assume that condi-tions within the larger society affect the life of theethnic group. Writers as diverse as the culturalpluralist, Kallen, the assimilationist, Park, the in-terest-oriented scholar, Beli, and the "new ethnic-ity" advocate, Novak, are aware that to deal withethnicity, at least in much of the 20th century,means to deal with dynamic entities andrelationships.

One can see ethnicity in its stages of devel-opment, at least in relationship to the rest of so-ciety. The stages do not necessarily revealthemselves in neat "cultural packages." The ethniccultural patterns might change in some ways tothose of the host society. This can be reflected ina stage of assimilation that Gordon (1964) calls"behavioral." It is "acculturation." There may bea condition in which there is large-scale entranceinto cliques, clubs, and institutions of the host so-ciety on the primary group level and this couldconstitute "structural assimilation." There might belarge-scale intermarriage, the development of a"sense of peoplehood" based exclusively on thevalues of the host society, the absence of prejudiceand discrimination, or the absence of conflict overpower and values. Each of these conditions has,according to Gordon, a corresponding stage of as-similation. The notion of stages of ethnicity is closelyallied to the view of types of ethnicity.

Types of Ethnicity

Patterson (1977) identifies several different typesof ethnicity. The first is tribal. He says that "exceptin a bizarre and incorporeal way, other people sim-ply do not enter into the social and moral world ofthe tribesman." The tribesman never finds it nec-essary to define himself as a distinct group vis-a-vis other groups. There is no real ethnic conscious-ness because the need for it does not arise. Ac-cording to Patterson, the tribal group is a protoethnicgroup with part of the historical nucleus of ethnicity.It has what he calls a positive nuclear social charge,an "us" but there is not yet a "them." With thekin-hegemonic state, "them" comes into being, andin the fusion of us and them the beginnings of

ethnicity are present. During later times, ethnicitywas to emerge in quite the opposite way: philo-sophically speaking, consciousness preceded being,a consciousness of "them" and others preceding"us," our group (p. 45).

Adaptive ethnicity is the product of migrationand alienation. The ethnic group becomes stronglyconscious of itself as a distinct ethnic entity onlyin an alien setting and it now actively pursues whatwas formerly taken for granted. The ethnic expe-rience here is temporary and prepares for entryinto the larger society and in the long run it inte-grates. The group in this stage buffers and mutesthe shock of displacement for its members (Pat-terson, 1977, p. 45).

Revivalist ethnic groups bear a special rela-tionship to adaptive ethnic groups. The latter usu-ally appear during the last stages of completeabsorption by the dominant society. This is when,argues Patterson, all that remains are largely sen-timental cultural patterns with little vitality or rel-evance to the life of the absorbed group. Revivalistgroups use cultural symbols to express grievances,reinvesting cultural potency to empty symbols, orrestoring social status to a displaced native culture.Such restoration becomes a way of expressingdiscontent, although the true sources may be eco-nomic, political, or psychological insecurity (p. 54).Often such groups find charismatic leaders whostimulate group anger and solidarity by lamentingthe loss of cultural strength or the social status ofthe native culture. Revivalist ethnicity is typicallyfound in the early stages of anti-colonialist move-ment and, according to Patterson, one version ofit exists in the emerging ethnicity of the Americanwhite ethnics (p. 57).

Implications of Ethnicity for MulticulturalEducation

Whether one treats ethnicity from the point ofview of the assimilationist, the cultural pluralist, thesociobiologist, or from some other perspective, eth-nicity is both a dynamic concept and a dynamicreality. We can see and explain change in ethnicgroups and we can assume that change will con-tinue to take place. At the same time, there maybe certain characteristics of ethnic groups whichremain fairly constant over long periods of time andit is essential to understand why they are presentand why it is imperative to respect their presence.Perhaps a long-range allegiance to a religion is oneof the most striking examples of such a durablepresence.

102 Theory Into Practice

Teachers should understand that American so-ciety always has been multicultural, so the varietyof cultures and subcultures present today is not anovelty. We should, whenever possible, make clearthat we have lived in a multicultural society, andthat its reality is much different from being in asociety such as Denmark which has had a morehomogeneous culture for a long time. Teachersshould work on the need for groups to share lifein American society even though there are culturaldifferences that in some ways will persist over longperiods of time. They should make clear that, byand large, the ethnic group does not live in isolationand what happens to it depends on a lively interplaywith the larger society.

We must struggle against the notion that thereis a common code of cultural behavior which in allcircumstances must be followed. There is an Amer-ican culture which can be distinguished from others,but there are also ethnic cultures which have theirown characteristics. Both realities exist concur-rently—the "national" culture and the "ethnic" cul-ture. Students in many classrooms around thecountry will reflect and "act out" both realities. Itis of the greatest importance for the student, theclass, the teacher, the school, and the communitythat no ethnic or racial group be denigrated. Themodern currents in ethnicity point to the need forfinding some revision of traditional identities andfor the need to experience the recognition of es-sential human dignity. Cultural identities begin atan early age and if those of the young child arewounded through ignorance and resentment, thescars remain, often for a lifetime.

The ideas of ethnicity, particularly those of thelast generation, can be used by teachers to helpthem understand not only varying perspectives onits nature, but also to expand their views on howsuch research can affect their own classroomteaching.

Although this article focuses on American so-ciety, the ethnic reality exists in many societies.Multicultural education must become the ally ofinternational education. Some of the characteristicsof ethnic groups and their relationship to the societyat large may be similar to those in other nationsand it is worthwhile seeking common elements tobetter understand the life of humanity. It is equallyour obligation to study differences in ethnic life inother societies to see why they exist as they do.The commonalities and the differences togetherconstitute the life of humanity in our society and

in others. To work toward that understanding is atask of inherent dignity.

Note1. Yankee City is a series of five volumes of which Warner& Srole (1945) is Volume 4.

ReferencesBarth, F. (Ed.). (1969). Ethnic groups and boundaries.

Boston: Little, Brown.Bell, D. (1975). Ethnicity and social change. In N. Glazer

& D.P. Moynihan (Eds.), Ethnicity: Theory and ex-perience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bennett, J.W. (Ed.). (1973). The new ethnicity: Perspec-tives from ethnology. St. Paul, MN: West PublishingCompany.

DeVos, G. (1975). Ethnic pluralism: Conflict and accom-modation. In G. DeVos & L. Romanucci-Ross (Eds.),Ethnic identity: Cultural continuities and change (pp.5-41). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.

Francis, E. (1976). Interethnic relations. New York: Elsevier.Glazer, N., & Moynihan, D.P. (1975). Introduction. In N.

Glazer & D.P. Moynihan (Eds.), Ethnicity: Theory andexperience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gleason, P. (1980). American identity and Americanization.In S. Thernstrom (Ed.), Harvard encyclopedia ofAmerican ethnic groups. Cambridge, MA: The Belk-nap Press at Harvard University Press.

Gordon, M. (1964). Assimilation in American life: The roleof race, religion and national origins. New York: Ox-ford University Press.

Hraba, J. (1979). American ethnicity. Itasca, IL: F.E. Pea-cock Publishers.

Kohn, H. (1961). The idea of nationalism: A study in itsorigins and background. New York: Macmillan.

Novak, M. (1977). Further reflections on ethnicity. Mid-dletown, PA: Jednota Press.

Park, R.E. (1916, March). The city: Suggestions for theinvestigation of human behavior in the city environ-ment. Social Problems, 16.

Parsons, T. (1975). Some theoretical considerations onthe nature and trends of change of ethnicity. In N.Glazer & D.P. Moynihan (Eds.), Ethnicity: Theory andexperience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Patterson, 0. (1977). Ethnic chauvinism: The reactionaryimpulse. New York: Stein and Day.

Ross, J.A. (1980). The mobilization of collective identity:An analytical overview. In J.A. Ross, A.B. Cottrellwith R. St. Cyr & P. Rawkins (Eds.), The mobilizationof collective identity: Comparative perspectives. Lan-ham, MD: University Press of America.

Smith, M.G. (1982, January). Ethnicity and ethnic groupsin America: The view from Harvard. Ethnic and RacialStudies, 5, 1-22.

Thernstrom, S. (1980). Introduction. In S. Thernstrom(Ed.), Harvard encyclopedia of American ethnic groups.Cambridge: The Belknap Press at Harvard UniversityPress.

van den Berghe, P. (1981). The ethnic phenomenon. NewYork: Elsevier.

Warner, W.L., & Srole, L. (1945). The status systems ofAmerican ethnic groups. New Haven, CT: Yale Uni-versity Press.

Volume XXIII, Number 2 103