Barth theory of ethnicity

What is ethnicity? According to Fredrik Barth, it is a set of delineated boundaries between neighboring groups, and individuals are primarily concerned with maintaining these boundaries in order to explain ones identity, often in a relative, comparative manner (Barth 1969: 15). This formula for identity on Madagascar has elements of Barth and of Cohen. With regards to Barth, there are clear boundaries between the two groups. Although they may not be necessarily defined as ethnicities, they are distinct and separate, and they are kept that way through a series of identifying traits, such as the ability to swim and build canoes, and scars from the fishing line that is tied around the hands and torso. Barths theory of ethnicity easily explains the two groups coexistence. There are very clear symbolic boundaries between them, and to claim oneself as a member, one must meet all terms of qualification for that particular group.

ocial scientists broadly agree that ethnicity is among the most important phenomena in politics. They also tend

to agree that we are only at the beginning stages of understanding it. Nothing close to a consensus has emerged about not only what ethnicitys effects are but also what it is in the first place. F or some, it is an emotion-laden sense of belonging or attachment to a particular kind of group (Connor, 1993; Horowitz, 1985; Shils, 1957). For others, it is embeddedness in a web of significant symbols (Geertz, 1967, 1973; Smith, 2000). Still others see ethnicity as a social construct or a choice to be made (Anderson, 1991; Barth, 1969; Royce, 1982).

Pg 9 "[...] 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."
For constructivists, the stone wall is but a facade masking a much less well defined structure. In his landmark work, Barth (1969) argues that the defining feature of an ethnic group is not the particular elements of culture or kinship that differentiate it from other groups but the mere fact that boundaries are perceived and persist. Group membership criteria and group membership itself tend to change over time as people come and go and develop new traditions and ways of life, but a group itself nevertheless endures as a way of structuring social life. Although Barth (1969) does not theorize on group origins, many other constructivists focus on precisely this, arguing that modernization or even concrete state policies play large roles in forming groups where no group consciousness existed before. Ethnic groups, they argue, are thus not holdovers from ancient times but very recent phenomena.

He emphasizes the use by groups of categories - i.e. ethnic labels - that usually endure even when individual members move across boundaries or share an identity with people in more than one group. As interdependent, ethnic identities are the product of continuous so-called ascriptions and selfascriptions, whereby Barth stresses the interactional perspective of social anthropology on the level of the persons involved instead of on a socio-structural level. Ethnic identity becomes and is maintained through relational processes of inclusion and exclusion. The interdependency of ethnic groups is a pivotal argument throughout both the introduction and the following chapters. As interdependent, ethnic identities are the product of continuous so-called ascriptions (Cf. Ascriptive inequality) and self-ascriptions, Barth stresses the interactional perspective of social anthropology on the level of the persons involved instead of on a socio-structural level. Ethnic identity becomes and is maintained through relational processes of inclusion and exclusion. Ethnicity or ethnic group is a socially defined category of people who identify with each other based on a shared social experience or ancestry.Membership of an ethnic group tends to be associated with

shared cultural heritage, ancestry, history, homeland, language (dialect) or ideology, and with symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, physical appearance, etc. Ethnicity is an important means by which people may identify with a larger group. Many social scientists, such as anthropologists Fredrik Barth and Eric Wolf, do not consider ethnic identity to be universal. They regard ethnicity as a product of specific kinds of inter-group interactions, rather than an essential quality inherent to human groups. Processes that result in the emergence of such identification are called ethnogenesis. Members of an ethnic group, on the whole, claim cultural continuities over time, although historians and cultural anthropologists have documented that many of the values, practices, and norms that imply continuity with the past are of relatively recent invention. From the lectures: Ethnicity is an EMIC category, determined by the people; it is what people say about themselves that matters and creates ethnic identity; it is socially ascribed other have to agree with that as well, the group has to accept one as part of theirs. http://www.bylany.com/kvetina/kvetina_etnoarcheologie/literatura_eseje/2_literatura.pdf Ethnicity is not something one has but something one does even though culture sometimes differs, their everyday life can be identical People have a tendency to construct and create symbolic boundaries and systems to make sense of their world and others While race is determined by genetics and is biologically inherited, ethnicity is determined by socialization and is culturally inherited and constructed people are who they say they are and this is self-imagined in relation with others ( they call themselves Gypsies have certain rights as an ethnicity) ; What they are not Not Gorgios, for e.g. the closer you get to the boundaries, the clearer the distinction will be Manifested through symbolic boundaries; Central role of self-ascription. Awareness of oneself and others. Interpretively available

Marx and class theory In Marxism, Marxian class theory asserts that an individuals position within a class hierarchy is determined by his or her role in the production process, and argues that political and ideological consciousness is determined by class position. Marx distinguishes one class from another on the basis of two criteria: ownership of the means of production and control of the labor power of others Your class is determined by your place in the social context of the means of production: Force of production Social relations of production ownership; workers Historically, there are 5 modes of production:

Primitive Communism no classes; no tools; basic hunter and gatherer society there was nothing to be owned!

Slavery after the tools appear; some had them, some didnt; the owners decided who gets to eat and who doesnt ownership of other peoples labour (Ill let you eat if you do that for me....) The force of production is physical labour Social relation slave and slave owners TWO classes in slave mode of production (slaves and owners) Feudalism based on the notion of agriculture, land ownership and ret Force of production is agriculture and animal husbandry this creates a new relationship: you need to own the land! Social relation land owners and land workers A more complicated system: FOUR classes - Aristocracy = own the land but do not work it; do not own the tenants who pay rent! - Dependant peasants (serfs) = work the land but do not own it - Independent peasants = own the land AND work it and have no interest in revolution - Landless serfs = musicians, butchers, blacksmiths, etc Capitalism - modern society Force of production is mechanization and digitalization ( lately) Social relation capital ownership and wage labour More mobility between classes Bourgeoisie own capital (factories, etc) but do not work it; own the means of production and purchase the labor power of others Petit Bourgeoisie own and work (shop keepers, etc); own sufficient means of production but do not purchase labor power. Proletariat work but do not own (employees); part of trade-unions; do not own any means of production or the ability to purchase the labor power of others. Rather, they sell their own labor power. Lumpenproletariat do not own, do not work minor labour, unemployed

Class is thus determined by property relations not by income or status. These factors are determined by distribution and consumption, which mirror the production and power relations of classes. ~~should I try to fit see Gypsies and fit them into a class in the Capitalist Mode of Production? Because that would make them a combination between the Petit Bourgeoisie and lumpenproletariat with their refusal to conform to the proletariat rules; however, are they a class in themselves? Even though depending on the capitalist mode of production, they have their own method of creating classes in their own groupthey do not bend to the rules of the capitalist society but have their own

~~~See if it changes overtime for the Traveller Gypsies

Race Descent from 'Little Egypt', hence name Gypsy Linguist descent of 'secret language' from India Notion of 'noble gypsy' descent corrupted by in-marriage