• Recap
• Ethnic boundaries
• An example

Structural approach to ethnicity solves problem \((1)\): helps to understand where these come from…

• repertoire of descent attributes
• nominal ethnic identities
• operative ethnic identities

Structural approach to ethnicity solves problem \((2)\): how can ethnicity be “socially constructed”, yet hard to change?

ethnic boundaries (Wimmer) are social structures

1. ethnic categories for people and category rules

• “labels” and “definitions” (schemas)

2. real-world practices that use those categories

• what we “do” with those labels
  • in thought and speech (schemas)
  • in action/in shaping our material world (resources)

Wimmer (2008) identifies several dimensions of ethnic boundaries

institutional use: the use of ethnic/racial categories by formal institutions to label people (not necessarily in a discriminatory manner)

• examples: census forms, school forms, voting rules, government social service records

institutional separation: the presence of distinct formal institutions for people labelled as members of different ethnic/racial categories (not necessarily unequal)

• examples: churches/houses of worship, stores, schools, private associations, voting constituencies, governments, political parties, newspapers

power disparity: the use of ethnic/racial categories to discriminate in access to goods, services, rights, recognition (e.g. in institutional use, institutional separation, social closure) that enhances/restricts the life choices

• ‘legal’ examples: property rights, marriage/inheritance, education, government jobs, government services, elected representation, criminal law, affirmative action

• market: housing discrimination, job discrimination, restricting spaces (e.g. private clubs, gated communities)

• interpersonal: employer/employee relations; customer/client relations; formal/informal modes of address; non-reciprocity in forms of interaction; status hierarchy

social closure: the use of ethnic/racial categories to separate or organize personal/informal interactions between people (not necessarily unequal)

• examples of separation: neighborhoods, use of space (e.g. pools), marriage, reproduction (endogamy), friendship, the types of interaction (e.g. equal/unequal status)

cultural differentiation: the use of ethnic/racial categories to differentiate cultural practices (food, clothing, traditions), language, and religious belief.

Note: Sometimes cultural difference is used to define category membership. Sometimes cultural difference is a way to use categories:

examples: choice of alphabet/orthography; changing vocabulary (Hindustani vs Urdu vs Hindi)

marking: using category labels for some groups as distinct from a “reference” or “unmarked” category that is the unspoken default (e.g. in Canada, “white” is often an unspoken default)

groupness: using category labels to proclaim or invoke the existence and unity of a group (parades, mass performances, history, education, assigning blame)

explain behavior: using ethnic/racial category labels to explain behavior or outcomes (basically, stereotyping)

• you are group X, you must believe/do Y
• you did Y BECAUSE you are group X
• you are in status Y because you are in group X

exemption: use of ethnic/racial categories to claim or identify exemption (stereotypes by “exception proves the rule”):

• you are group X, but you are “all right” (implicitly group X is not “all right”)
• I am an X, so I can criticize other people within X (implicitly outsiders cannot legitimately criticize)

behavioral scripts: use of racial/ethnic categories to differentiate the “proper” or “default” way of interacting with a person

• e.g., policing, code switching, academic research (race vs racial practices)

Wimmer argues that altering ethnic boundary practices (structures) depends on:

• power of individuals/groups/organizations
• ability to create/shape institutions (rules/laws)
• existence of political/social networks

Ancestral City Identity

Pre-Colonial Origins:

• Oyo Empire (15th-19th Cent.): coalition of cities, each with an identity
• alaafin (king) in Oyo-Ile (dominant city)
• tribute from lesser “kings” in other “ancestral cities”, protecting trade
• basorun (army leaders) acquired wealth through conquest
• shared religious practice legitimized Oyo leadership

Ancestral City Identity

• 19th century: internal war between alaafin and basorun
• alliance between basorun and Islamic armies, challenged traditional Oyo authority
• war \(\to\) new city Ibadan, populated by Yoruba from many ancestral cities

Competing identities

at end of 19th century…

• increasing awareness of unified Yoruba identity
• rise of identities tied to military factions
• rapid spread of Christianity and Islam

At turn of the 20th century…

• Oyo political power had disappeared

• War refugees settled outside ancestral cities

• Political mobilization of Yoruba as a group

• Most Yoruba are Christian (40%) or Muslim (40%)

  • divided by religious practice, limited intermarriage
  • Christians more educated, wealthier, politically influential

By late 20th century…

• ancestral cities primary political form of identification
• ancestral city competition informed political parties in Nigeria
• city-specific rituals/festivals, pilgrimages to visit ancestral city
• competition for civil service jobs/university spots by ancestral city
• outright denial/refusal of possibility of politics around religion, despite strategic reasons to do so

What might explain the persistence of ancestral cities as both a operative ethnic category and as the activated ethnic identity?

British Colonial State intervened, using a system of indirect rule:

• delegated powers to “traditional” political institutions

Power of British Colonial State/ Existing political networks in Nigeria

“available” schema of ancestral cities \(\to\) institutional use

“available” schema of ancestral cities \(\to\) institutional use

Institutional role of Oyo \(\to\) Power

institutional use and power disparity \(\to\) strategic activation of ancestral identity

institutional use and power disparity \(\to\) psychological salience of identity

The colonial state changes not just resources, but schemas: cognitive boundary practices (groupness, stereotypes, practices to sustain them)

Local institutions \(\to\) colonial thought \(\to\) power/institutions \(\to\) local thought

• Structures: both material resources, but also thoughts/ideas

Transformations in ethnic structures can shape the operative and activated ethnic categories.

• How are ethnic structures produced/transformed?
• States play an important role