The Dictionary of Human Geography (59 page)

Read The Dictionary of Human Geography Online

Authors: Michael Watts

BOOK: The Dictionary of Human Geography
12.54Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
ethnic cleansing
The forced removal of an ethnic group from a particular territory or pol itical space by deportation, forced emigratioN or geNocide. Examples of ethnic cleansing include the holocaust (in which six million Jews and millions more Roma and other groups were killed), the German resettlement of western Poland during the Second World War and the attempts of the South African state to relocate blacks during apartHEid. While the practice is anything but new, the term itself gained widespread use in the 1990s, when it was used to refer to Serbian attacks on Muslims in Bosnia and Albanians in Kosovo. Political geographers have shown how the idea of ethnic cleansing is an out growth of the ideology of NatioNaLism, which promotes a unity between the bouNdaries of the state and the ideNtity of the population (Flint and Taylor, 2007 [1985]). Ethnic cleansing thus attempts to create a territorial order based on ?an idealized convergence of identity and space? (Dahlman and O Tuathail, 2005a, p. 273). Kevin Cox (2002, p. 188) writes that ethnic cleansing ?is a solution that arises in particular geographic situations?, such as when a minority population is dispersed within the dominant national population of the state and so cannot easily secede from the larger political unit. (NEW PARAGRAPH) Ethnic cleansing involves not only the removal of populations, but also the destruc tion of pLace and commuNity through ?the erasure of ??other?? cultural LANdscapes, the renaming of locales and the repopulation of the land by a new group? (Dahlman and O Tuathail, 2005a, p. 273). Marcus Doel and David Clarke (1998, p. 57), in their discussion of the Holocaust, show how ethnic cleansing seeks to configure ?social, physical, moral, and aesthetic space? through desires for ?purity?. Ethnic cleansing can thus be seen as a violent policing of the boundaries between the Self and the Other (see otHer/otHerNess). In their work on Bosnia Herzegovina, Carl Dahlman and Gearoid O Tuathail (2005a) show how ethnic cleansing, with its emphasis on borders and separation, becomes a means to consoli date a political geography of security. They raise important questions about the leg acy of ethnic cleansing, and what happens when the displaced attempt to return to the territories from which they were removed. ajs (NEW PARAGRAPH) Suggested reading (NEW PARAGRAPH) Dahlman and O Tuathail (2005a); Naimark (2001). (NEW PARAGRAPH)
ethnic democracy
An ethnically differenti ated form of democracy articulated by soci ologist Sammy Smooha during the early 1990s (see ethnicity). ?Ethnic democracy? (ED) is characterized by the allocation of equal political and civil rights on an individual level to all citizens (see citizenship) and the parallel preservation of collective political rights of the dominant majority only. Ethnic democracy underscores the structural inequality that characterizes some formally democratic but ethnically dominated nation states (see dem ocracy). The ED model maintains that the allocation of equal individual rights qualifies this regime as a democracy even in the absence of minority collective rights and claims that this explains its relative political stability. The ED model has sparked a lively debate both theoretically and substantively in relation to Israel/Palestine (Ghanem, 1998; Shafir and Peled, 1998; Smooha, 2002). oy (NEW PARAGRAPH)
ethnicity
Ethnicity is one of the most dif ficult concepts in the social sciences to define: researchers disagree on the meaning of the term; social groups differ in their expressions of ethnicity; and some theorists challenge the credibility of the concept in the first place (see Banks, 1996). The etymology of this term dates back to ancient Greece, where the word ethnos was used to refer to a distinct ?people?. The word ethnic originally entered the English language as an adjective applied to non Judeo Christian peoples. The first instance of the word ethnicity used as a noun occurred in the early 1940s, when researchers sought to find a replacement for the word ?race? once it had become associated with the genocidal policies of the Nazi party (see genocide). In contem porary usage, ethnicity is seen as both a way in which individuals define their personal iden tity and a type of social stratification that emerges when people form groups based on their real or perceived origins. Members of ethnic groups believe that their specific ancestry and culture mark them as different from others. As such, ethnic group formation always entails both inclusionary and exclusionary behaviour, and ethnicity is a classic example of the distinction people make between ?us? and ?them? (cf. difference; other/otherness; subject). (NEW PARAGRAPH) While much attention was given to theories of ethnicity and the nature of ethnic groups in the early twentieth century, especially in the USA (see chicago school), interest waned in the postwar period. The liberalism that came to dominate the intellectual climate by mid cen tury was predicated on a belief in the autonomy of individuals. Within the discourse of liberal individualism, the notion that people modify their actions because of their ethnic loyalties is suspect, and generally considered a fading rem nant of pre modern times. The version of marx ism that challenged liberalism in the late 1960s was equally dismissive of ethnicity, claiming that ethnic attachments were fostered by capit alists and the state in order to divide the working class (e.g. Bonacich, 1972). By the 1970s, many leading social theorists had abandoned the study of ethnicity, associating it with antiquated views of society and conservative politics. This dismissive attitude began to change in the 1980s, however, when it became clear that eth nicity was not losing its salience; on the con trary, identity politics were on the rise, and ethnic nationalism had become a primary force in the most violent struggles around the world, especially in the post cold war era a turn of events unanticipated by liberal and Marxist scholars alike (Berking, 2003). The fact that over 90 per cent of the world?s nation states are poly ethnic suggests that this type of conflict is likely to continue (see also multiculturalism). (NEW PARAGRAPH) It is worth reflecting upon this point. Historically, the idea of a nation state was founded on the principle of ethnic homogen eity in the form of a people or nation, which held control over a bounded territory, or state. It is debatable whether this simple cor respondence between people and territory ever existed, but it is certainly clear that con temporary nation states are characterized by multiplicity rather than mono ethnic singular ity. This has led to much discussion of the relationship between ethnicity, the nation and nationalism (e.g. Banton, 2004). As Dunn (2003b) and Amin (2004a) point out, national cultures continue to reflect outmoded assumptions of ethnic homogeneity, to the detriment of minority groups (cf. Chow, (NEW PARAGRAPH) . This leads to one of two prominent confusions surrounding the concept of ethnicity. Many use the term only to refer to minority groups, assuming that people in the majority are ?normal? while everyone else is ?ethnic?. While this usage of the term was con sidered acceptable in the nineteenth century, it is no longer correct. In fact, everyone has an ethnic background, whether or not it is acknowledged. In most situations, people can only afford to be unaware of their ethnicity when they are in a privileged position (see whiteness). (NEW PARAGRAPH) A second ambiguity arises when the terms ethnicity and race are used interchangeably, or when they are seen as variants of the same classification system. For example, it is often thought that people can be divided into three or four broad racial groups and that each has a number of ethnic subdivisions (e.g. race = Caucasian, ethnicity = Italian). However, it is exceedingly difficult many believe impos sible to discern discrete ?races?: the genetic mixing of human populations defies such a simplistic classification system (see race). While there are obvious phenotypical and genetic differences between people, there is only one human race, a point emphatically made by the United Nations. Throughout history, though, people have been racialized by others for particular reasons. Most com mentators agree that racialization is necess arily a negative process, where one group chooses to define another as morally and/or genetically inferior in order to dominate and oppress it: racialization is always an imposed category. Phenotypical features, such as skin colour or facial structure, are then interpreted as evidence that the two groups are indeed separate ?types? of people and are used stra tegically to demark the boundaries between groups (cf. apartheid). Once defined, such boundaries are extremely difficult to cross. Racialized minorities become ethnic groups when they achieve social solidarity on the basis of their distinct culture and background. Racialization therefore facilitates the develop ment of ethnic consciousness, which may be harnessed by minorities in their struggle against discrimination (e.g. the Black Power movement of the 1960s in the USA or the Palestinian intifada), but does not necessarily lead to ethnic group formation. While external forces are important in the generation of ethnic consciousness, the most basic differ ence between race and ethnicity is that ethnic affiliation arises from inside a group; ethnicity is a process of self definition. (NEW PARAGRAPH) However, ethnicity is not uniformly import ant to all people: the degree of ethnic identity and attachment varies strongly between and within societies. Many of the most cohesive ethnic groups have emerged after the conquest of a territory by an external power. In these cases, ethnic attachment and nationalism are powerfully fused as people affiliate to ensure the survival of their culture, religious practices and access to employment opportunities. The goal in these struggles is usually political inde pendence. Occasionally, tensions in poly ethnic states become so extreme that ethnic loyalty becomes the overriding social force shaping the polity. The genocide of Jews in Nazi Germany is a repugnant example of this tendency, as are the recent attempts at ?ethnic cLeansing? (the forced removal of all minor ities from an area) in parts of the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere. migration is another impetus for the development of heigh tened ethnic consciousness. Immigrants often face hostility within the societies they enter, and form ethnic bonds and associations to increase their political credibility, economic viability and sense of social belonging. Whereas conquered groups tend to fight for independence, diasporic groups fight for the right to be included in their new societies as equal participants. (NEW PARAGRAPH) Acknowledging the variability of ethnic affiliation, theorists have long debated the causes of ethnic identity and division. Two distinct views dominate the literature: ethni city as primordial, or absolute, versus ethnicity as constructed, as the outcome of other social processes (Jenkins, 1996; Hale, 2004). Those advocating the former see ethnicity as a basic form of affiliation that naturally emerges as people are socialized into cultures with long histories; chiLdren are born into ethnic groups and develop deep seated attachments to them. The most extreme primordial pos ition is taken by sociobiologists, who believe that ethnicity is a legacy of the struggle for food and shelter (Van den Berghe, 1981). In this controversial perspective, ethnic solidarity is seen as an extension of the biologically driven feelings that link individuals to their nuclear family and kin. These researchers find it difficult to explain why some people place little value on their ethnic origin and culture while others choose to express their ethnicity even when it is disadvantageous to do so. (NEW PARAGRAPH) Researchers advocating constructionist views, conversely, assert that ethnic attachments arise in specific contexts, for specific reasons. Marxists, as mentioned, often minimize the importance of ethnicity by arguing that it is a displaced form of cLass consciousness. In its crudest form, this argument implies a rigid iNstrumeNtaLism wherein the state, viewed as a tool of the capitalist class, enacts colonial and immigration policies designed to create differences within the working class in order to fragment its solidarity (Bonacich, 1994; cf. coLoNiaLism). More sophisticated Marxist treatments of ethnicity have emerged in light of growing ethnic and nationalist movements in the late twentieth century: even these, how ever, tend to portray ethnicity as a regressive force deflecting people from their ?real? mater ial interests (Williams, R.M., 1994b). (NEW PARAGRAPH) Another variant of the constructionist view emphasizes the relational causes of ethnic identification that is, ethnic groups acquire their identity not alone, but in relation to one another. For example, early twentieth century immigrants from the southern Italian penin sula to North America brought the parochial loyalties of their village origins (see chain migratioN); in their new, displaced context, however, these local affiliations were united into a broad consciousness of being ?Italian?. This emergent ethnicity was the product of a host of factors, including similar religious expressions, common languages, geopolitical events, occupational segmentation, residential segregatioN and the way in which these immigrants were perceived and categorized as Italians by others around them (Yancey, Ericksen and Juliani, 1976). The construc tionist view is also best suited to explain the ways that identity shifts as circumstances change. For example, a person can legitim ately identify her/himself as English in the UK, British in other European countries, European in Asia and ?white? in Africa. However, while constructionist theories help us understand the variability of ethnic attach ments and identities, their very flexibility makes it impossible to develop a systematic account of ethnicity. In fact, the very factors that cause ethnic consciousness to emerge in some contexts impede it in others, which tends to make theorization inherently difficult and incomplete. (NEW PARAGRAPH) Over time, ethnic solidarity may be perpetu ated or may dissipate. The processes govern ing the dynamic between cultural retention versus assimiLatioN are exceedingly complex, but researchers generally agree that the nature of the social boundaries between ethnic groups is critical. Boundaries are maintained when individuals maximize their interactions with those within their ethnic group while minimizing their interactions with others. This occurs when separate social, political and educational institutions are established within different groups. According to Fredrik Barth (1969), boundaries created between groups can be resilient even when the cultural practices of the groups are no longer distinct ive. In many cases, ethnic boundaries become entrenched in space, such as in the formation of ethnic neighbourhoods in cities. (NEW PARAGRAPH) Geographers have shown a long standing interest in documenting the causes and conse quences of urban ethnic segregation. Much of this work stems from the conceptualization of human ecology articulated by Robert Park and other members of the cHicago school in the early twentieth century. During the 1960s, attention focused on plotting ethnic ?gHEttos?, devising ways to measure the degree of ethnic segregation (see iNdices oF segregatioN), and formulating pubLic poLicy to integrate ethnic and racialized groups across the city. By the end of the decade, a concern for ethnic residential patterns entered the mainstream of urban theory and increasingly sophisticated models of urban land use were devised. This type of work came under intense criticism after the 1970s. On the one hand, the relationship between the degree of social tolerance and residential patterns is not entirely clear; that is, a high level of segrega tion is not necessarily the result of discrimin ation, just as residential mixing does not necessarily indicate the absence of discrimin ation (see Peach, 1996b). On the other hand, studies of segregation have relied almost exclusively on census data. Ethnicity is defined in most censuses by respondents? national or ?racial? origin, and is therefore a poor indicator of ethnic affiliation (e.g. all those of Polish descent are lumped into the same category, whether or not they identify with that cultural heritage; see Petersen, 1997). Furthermore, such classification of people perpetuates the idea that there are distinct races, and the ceNsus itself may be implicated in the raciali zation of minorities. Given these criticisms, the number and significance of data intensive, quantitative studies of ethnicity declined in the 1980s. However, this type of work has been revived subsequently as the number of immi grants in European and North American cities has increased and as immigration policy has become more intensely debated. (NEW PARAGRAPH) Geographers have also devoted considerable energy studying the racialization process, espe cially as it impinges on people?s access to housing and the labour market (e.g. Anderson, 1991b; Jacobs, 1996). The regula tory practices of government are highlighted in this work because immigration, housing, employment equity and other policies directly affect the way in which individuals experience discrimination and ethnic or racial difference. While this research has led to important insights, it has tended to ignore social processes operating within groups; that is, discrimination and racialization are emphasized without a cor responding interest in the agency of individuals to create ethnic consciousness and use this to struggle against domination (Leitner, 1992 for examples of geographical work that explores the relationship between racialization and agency, see Ley, 1995; Mitchell, 1998; Gibson, Law and McKay, 2001; Kelly, 2002; also see (NEW PARAGRAPH) IDENTITY POLITICS). (NEW PARAGRAPH) Geographers and other social scientists have also begun to examine the intersections between ethnicity and other forms of personal identity and

Other books

VC04 - Jury Double by Edward Stewart
Dream of Ding Village by Yan Lianke
Frangipani by Célestine Vaite
Let's All Kill Constance by Ray Bradbury
The Reader by Bernhard Schlink
A Saint on Death Row by Thomas Cahill
The Team That Couldn't Lose by Matt Christopher
The Dead Men Stood Together by Chris Priestley