Political Sociology Week 3: Ethnicity Michaelmas 2019 Dr Anna Krausova
Definitions ▪ Race: physical (phenotypical) differences considered socially significant (ASA) ▪ Ethnicity: shared culture such as language, ancestry, practices and beliefs (ASA) ▪ Ethnic group, nation, etc. (collective groups) ▪ Not primordial, nor static, but dynamic ➔ Product of social interaction (intentional and unintentional) ▪ Socially constructed : We shall call ethnic groups those human groups that entertain a subjective belief in their common descent because of similarities of physical type or of customs or both, or because of memories colonization and migration; this belief must be important for the propagation of group formation; conversely, it does not matter whether or not an objective blood relationship exists” (Weber, 1922: 389)
Collective identity construction ▪ Collective identity construction ▪ Analytical sociology and structural individualism: “Instead of assuming social norms or pre - existing identities as given… this approach regards dynamics of identity construction and group identification as part of the process that leads to the definition of both the individual and group interest.” (Baldassarri, 2011: 402) ▪ Explanations, and mechanisms; not purely descriptive/interpretive ▪ Importance of individual agency, but within wider social structures ▪ How can we use individual decisions and interactions to explain the various political effects of ethnicity (as well as emergence/persistence of ethnic groups)? ➔ Micro-macro linkages
Politicisation of ethnicity ▪ Democratisation in Latin America – ( unexpected ) emergence of ethnic cleavages ▪ Changing citizenship regimes (threats to autonomy) + international indigenous rights => indigenous movements (Yashar, 2005) ▪ Decentralisation + reserved seats => indigenous political parties (Van Cott, 2003) ▪ Example: Bolivia ▪ Evo Morales - first indigenous President ▪ Core supporters, Aymara- and Quechua-speaking rural labourers- previously in peasant unions; yet, since 1970s qua indigeneity (e.g. Evo Morales inauguration ceremony: Tiwanaku, 2006
Collective (ethnic) groups ➔ Collective identity, such as ethnicity ▪ Both ascribed and self-defined ▪ Both inwardly experienced and outwardly signalled ▪ Also, relational ➔ Obverse question (Hechter, 1976): ethnic boundary as focus of investigation, not the cultural ‘stuff’ inside ➔ "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.” (Barth, 1969: 9) ▪ social boundaries (although may map spatially)
Measurement ▪ Consultation for 2021 Census: ▪ Another example from Bolivia ▪ 2001 Census: 62% indigenous “Specific requests for additional options within the ethnicity question ▪ 2011 Census: 41.7% indigenous ?! included; Anglo-Irish, Cornish, Cypriot, Eastern European, English, ▪ 1991 UK Census measure: Gypsy, Irish Traveller, Jewish, ▪ White Kashmiri, Latin American, Orthodox ▪ Black Jewish, Roma, Sikh, Somali, Turkish, Caribbean Western European, White Cornish, ▪ 2011 Census ➔ African White European and Yemeni. Some ▪ Other respondents also advocated allowing ▪ ▪ Indian respondents to tick multiple categories ▪ Pakistani and removal of the use of colour terminology.“ ▪ Bangladeshi ▪ Chinese https://www.ons.gov.uk/census/censustransformati ▪ Other Asian onprogramme/consultations/the2021censusinitialvi ▪ Other-Other ewoncontentforenglandandwales
Ethnicity & Inequality ▪ Need for some (comparable) measures of ethnicity ▪ US: in 1993, black men earned on average ~$10,000 p.a. more than white men (diff. for women “only” $2,000) (Bennet, 1995) ▪ UK ‘ethnic penalty’ (Heath et al, 2019; Li & Heath, 2018) ➔ ▪ cumulative discrimination? (e.g. job search CVs (Wood et al. 2009; Heath 2018) ▪ additional ‘Muslim penalty’? (Heath, Li, and Woerner-Powell 2018)
Ethnicity & Inequality ▪ OECD: Unemployment typically higher among migrants overall ➔
Ethnicity & Inequality ▪ OECD: Unemployment Economic typically higher among Non-UK: Total UK Non-UK Non-UK: EU Activity/Country of Non-EU Birth migrants overall Total (16-64) 45,496,780 38,586,185 6,910,595 2,210,202 4,700,393 Economically active 28,818,355 24,296,379 4,521,976 1,543,684 2,978,292 ▪ Recent migrants more % of total likely to be economically 63.3 63.0 65.4 69.8 63.4 active overall – still, Unemployed (excl. FT 1,802,620 1,480,455 322,165 77,114 245,051 unemployment rates students) % of total 4.0 3.8 4.7 3.5 5.2 higher % of all economically 6.3 6.1 7.1 5.0 8.2 ▪ EU v. non-EU active Source: England & Wales 2011 Census, ONS. https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011 ▪ Again, likely explanation: opportunities
Ethnic agendas in Britain (Heath, Fisher, et al, 2013) ▪ Ethnic minorities share views on economy with majority population ▪ Despite differential experiences ▪ Distinct agenda on civil liberties / asylum / anti- discrimination ▪ Also distinct ethnic agenda on foreign policy, anti-terror, and ethno-religious cultural protection ▪ Discrimination as basis for politicisation of ethnicity ➔ ▪ But, discrimination/racism also as a result of politicisation of ethnicity ➔
Dancygier (2010): ▪ Immigrant-Native Conflict in Two London Boroughs: ▪ Tower Hamlets v. Ealing ▪ Similar history of immigration and conflict over local resources ▪ “Immigrant - native confrontation ”escalated in Tower Hamlets 1980s - died down in Ealing Local politicians competed for minority votes, but in different ways ▪ TH: allocation of housing v. E: housing largely private Economic differences
Coexistence of Ethnic Groups ▪ Segregation Groups live apart, either by minority choice or majority imposition ▪ ▪ Assimilation Disappearance of cultural and other distinctions ▪ Segregated assimilation: minorities may be assimilated, but not equally into all sections of society (Portes, 1995) ▪ ▪ Integration All barriers to full participation dismantled (Kymlicka 1995) - “parity of participation” (Fraser, 2003) ▪ Integration may be faster in certain spheres (public/private) ▪ ▪ Multiculturalism: diversity of groups which are expected to remain culturally distinct and differences may even be supported by the ▪ state (Multicultural Policies = MCPs) ➔ Political consequences?
Multiculturalism & Welfare State ▪ Recognition – redistribution trade-off? ▪ Crowding-out hypothesis (e.g. Gitlin 1995) ▪ Corroding effect hypothesis (e.g. Wolf & Klausen 2000; Barry 2001) ▪ Misdiagnosis effect (Barry, 2001) ▪ But, globally, little evidence (Kymlicka & Banting, 2006)
(Kymlicka & Banting, 2006)
Multiculturalism & Welfare State ▪ Recognition – redistribution trade-off? ▪ Crowding-out hypothesis (e.g. Gitlin 1995) ▪ Corroding effect hypothesis (e.g. Wolf & Klausen 2000; Barry 2001) ▪ Misdiagnosis effect (Barry, 2001) ▪ But, globally, little evidence (Kymlicka & Banting, 2006) ▪ Latin America: indigenous movements sometimes only able to gain recognition, not redistribution, but usually not for the lack of trying (Van Cott in Kymlicka & Banting, 2006)
Multiculturalism & Welfare State ▪ Recognition – redistribution trade-off? ▪ Crowding-out hypothesis (e.g. Gitlin 1995) ▪ Corroding effect hypothesis (e.g. Wolf & Klausen 2000; Barry 2001) ▪ Misdiagnosis effect (Barry, 2001) ▪ But, globally, little evidence (Kymlicka & Banting, 2006) ▪ Latin America: indigenous movements sometimes only able to gain recognition, not redistribution, but usually not for the lack of trying (Van Cott in Kymlicka & Banting, 2006) • UK: immigration levels & support for welfare state negatively correlated, but economic performance better explains the latter (Evans in Kymlicka & Banting, 2006)
(Evans in Kymlicka & Banting, 2006)
(Evans in Kymlicka & Banting, 2006)
A methodological detour ▪ Still, trying to test hypotheses incl. micro-level processes (opinion formation, social interaction, etc.) by only evaluating macro-level data ▪ Micro-macro linkages Game theoretical aggregation models ▪ Shelling (1978): ▪ ‘system of interaction’ between individual and environment ▪ 1 st assumption: behaviour is purposive ▪ 2 nd assumption: behaviour is contingent
Multiculturalism & Welfare State ▪ Negative correlation between ethnic heterogeneity & public goods provision (Habyarimana, Humphreys et al., 2007) ▪ But, mechanism? ▪ Preferences? ▪ Strategies? ▪ No evidence for preferences, but strategies/technologies ▪ In-group reciprocity norms + ‘Findability’ = Easier to punish co- ethnics for non- cooperation
Integration ▪ Ethnic Minority Political integration in UK (Heath, Fisher, et al 2013) ▪ Democratic norms stronger among 1st generation ▪ Knowledge stronger among 2+ generation ▪ Electoral turnout?
Recommend
More recommend
