2.5. Ethnicity
In order to set the
tone in speaking of ethnic religion and Minahasa, we need to
understand some terminologies used in this thesis in relation to
ethnicity. The word “ethnicity,” according to Philip F. Esler,
“appeared for the first time in English in 1941, refer[ring] to the
condition of belonging to an ethnic group.”1
In this thesis, it is understood as a conceptual framework which
involves such concepts as ethnic group, ethnic identity, and ethnic
identification, as well as ethnocentrism.
The term
“ethnicity” in English comes from the Greek ethnos, a
nation or people associated with a common ancestry or descent.2
Several publications3
have associated the word ethnos with the Greek ethō,
“custom,”4
referring to ethnos as “people of the same customs or common
culture.”5
While Thayer's lexicon is silent on the possible connection between
these two terms, Steve Fenton in his book Ethnicity suggests
that ethnicity “is about 'descent and culture' and that ethnic
groups can be thought of as 'descent and culture communities.'” He
asserts, however, that this is “a starting point and not a
definition.”6
Ethnic group
An “ethnic group”
is often perceived as a group of people characteristically defined by
descent, homeland, story/history, culture and all the physical
attributions therein that provide the frame to project the sense of a
distinct in- and out-group (“we” and “them”).7
Religion often plays a prominent role in making ethnic distinctions,
especially in Indonesia.8
The view that takes these characteristics as the basics of an ethnic
group has been labeled as the “essential” (also called
“primordial”) view.9
According to Fenton, with this essential approach, “people are seen
to be responding to 'blind' group loyalties.”10
On the other hand, some scholars have pointed out that an ethnic
group is not an entity defined mechanically by these features of
ethnicity; rather it is a manifestation of economic or political
interests, in which people “are seen to be calculating their
individual or collective interests” and therefore is called
“instrumental.”11
Attempts to combine
these two theories have been made. For example, as Siân
Jones demonstrates, J. McKay proposes a “matrix model” where
instead one talks about “varying degrees” of essential and
instrumental factors that influence one's sense of ethnicity.12
McKay makes a good point: “It seems pointless to bifurcate
'theories' into primordial [essential] or mobilization
[instrumental] camps, when it is obvious that both dimensions
are involved.”13
In this regard, Minahasa is not an exception.14
Paraphrasing
Fredrik Barth, Esler writes, “Ethnic groups were categories of
ascription and identification wielded by the actors themselves with a
view to organizing interaction between themselves and others.”15
This means that it is in the
perception of the members of the group to determine, although this
cannot be within a day, whether they in fact should be
considered as one group or separated. “Cultural features,” as
Esler expounds from Barth’s position, “did not constitute but did
signal ethnic identity and boundaries, although always subject
to the qualification that the features taken into account were those
that the actors themselves regarded as significant.”16
Esler
underlines several categories that are prominent for ethnic
categorization. First is “the myth of common ancestry”
(preferably a narrative of common ancestry). Referring to Max Weber
and Barth, he points out that belief in common ancestry or origin,
whether real or fictitious (or better symbolic), is important in
characterizing an ethnic group.17
Esler puts in the same line Talcott Parson's “cultural history,”
which is “a series of events and symbolic outputs of the past which
have contemporary significance because those who experienced them
were 'our' forebears” regardless of biological lineage.18
Second is connection to a homeland. Subsequently
religion is mentioned, although not something to be exaggerated. Yet
at the end, as Esler concurs, “no one feature can be determinative,
or a sine qua non, for ethnicity.”19
Overall, there are important factors involved in the categorization
of a group as ethnic in definition, and this is where the essential
aspects play a significant role; although they cannot be absolute.
What defines the group and its significance depends on the actors,
their perceptions and therefore the worldviews in operation within
the group itself.
Ethnic identity and
ethnic identification
Since not just any
group can be categorized as ethnic in definition, ethnic identity is
defined by the possession of identitas, or “idiosyncratic
characteristics” that represent one's belonging to a categorical
ethnic group, such as a personal name unique to the group signifying
descent, link to a homeland, certain cultural practices, or anything
acceptable to the group as symbols of one's membership into “one of
us.” However, possessing
identitas
as symbols to ethnic identity does not necessarily prescribe ethnic
identification. For example, those who were born from both
Minahasan parents in Minahasa are by themselves Minahasans by
identitas, but this does not mean that they assign their rise
and fall with Minahasa as an ethnic entity.
Based on social
identity theory (SIT), Blake E. Ashforth and Fred Mael discuss the
antecedents and consequences of social identification in
organizations.20
Social identification based on SIT is “the perception of oneness
with or belongingness to some human aggregate.”21
Taking Ashforth and Mael's insight into the context of ethnicity,
ethnic identification is when a person perceives oneself as a member
of (an) ethnic group(s), whether by virtue of his or her blood ties
to the group(s) or other means, and identifies the loss and gain of
the group(s) as his or her own loss and gain.
Ethnocentrism
As SIT suggests,
“[p]eople tend to classify themselves and others into various
social categories.”22
Hence, the ethnic group category is only one of the available
possibilities; for there are religious, professional, nation-state
based groups, and so on, including soccer (football) fans as in Egypt
who recently clashed and left more than 70 causalities (BBC News,
February 1, 2012). Another merit of SIT is its recognition that all
types of human groups are subject to “group-centrism” that may
lead to conflict. In the context of ethnicity, this phenomenon is
called ethnocentrism, a compound noun of the Greek ethnos, as
explained above, and kentron, meaning the “pivoting point of
drawing a circle.”23
William Graham Sumner writes
The sentiment of cohesion, internal comradeship, and devotion to the in-group, which carries with it a sense of superiority to any out-group and readiness to defend the interest of the in-group against the out-group, is technically known as ethnocentrism. It is really the sentiment of patriotism in all its philosophic fullness; that is, both in its rationality and in its extravagant exaggeration.24
While any group,
including an ethnic group, is subject to such inward-focus and
superiority complex-attitude, it does not mean that they all by
default function in a group-centric attitude. In the case of
ethnicity, ethnocentrism is best defined as “negative ethnicity”
and may then also be subverted into “positive ethnicity”25
SIT has suggested
“intergroup conflict resolution strategies” to anticipate or at
least minimize “the potentially dangerous trajectory created by
intergroup evaluation, the creation of in-group bias (and out-group
derogation) and potentially confrontational identity-maintenance
strategies.”26
Aaron Kuecker is at the core of a very important matter as he
discusses the role of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts from the
background of social identity, ethnicity and intergroup
reconciliation. “One of the major functions of the Spirit in
Luke-Acts” writes Kuecker, “is the formation of an identity
capable simultaneously of in-group love and out-group love.”27
This understanding is arguably also offered by the apostle Paul in
his depiction of the new identity in Christ, demonstrated in his
epistle to the Romans.28
-------
1 Philip
F. Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of
Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 40.
2 Thayer's
Greek Lexicon defines ethnos as (1) “a multitude
(whether of men or of beasts) associated or living together; a
company, troop, swarm; (2) a multitude of individuals of the same
nature or genus; the human family; (3) a race, nation; (4) in the
OT, foreign nations not worshiping the true God, pagan, [g]entiles;
(5) Paul uses ta ethne for Gentile Christians (Thayer's Greek
Lexicon, Electronic Database, 2011, under entry “ethnos,”
http://concordances.org/greek/1484.htm [accessed September 11,
2012]); Steve Fenton, Ethnicity (Cambridge, UK: Polity,
2003), 13-15.
3 See
the online publication of Strong’s number 1484 under entry
“ethnos,” http://concordances.org/greek/1484.htm. At the
same webpage HELPS Word-Studies under entry “ethnos”
http://concordances.org/greek/1486.htm (accessed September 11,
2012).
4 “éthō,”
Thayer's Greek Lexicon,
http://concordances.org/greek/1486.htm (accessed September 11,
2012).
5 “ethnos,”
HELPS Word-Studies.
6 Fenton,
Ethnicity, 3.
7 There
are some characteristics that make an ethnic group distinct from
other kinds of human grouping. James C. Miller, quoting John
Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith, provides six common features of an
ethnic group (1) a common proper name to identify and
express the “essence” of its community; (2) myth of common
ancestry [preferably, a narrative of common ancestry]; (3) a
shared history or shared memories of a common past or pasts,
including heroes, events, and their commemoration; (4) a common
culture, including religion, customs, or language; (5) a link
with a homeland, not necessarily its physical occupation by
the ethnie, only its symbolic attachment to the ancestral
land, as with diaspora peoples; (6) a sense of solidarity on
the part of at least some sections of the ethnie’s
population (“Paul and His Ethnicity: Reframing the Categories”
in Paul As Missionary, 39; Esler, Conflict and Identity in
Romans, 43-44).
8 Suryadinata,
Arifin, and Ananta, Indonesia's Population, 6; Cf. Esler,
Conflict and Identity in Romans, 44.
9 Siân
Jones, The Archeology of Ethnicity: Constructing
Identities in the Past and Present (London:
Routledge, 2005), 68.
10 Fenton,
Ethnicity, 76 (emphasis mine). Here
Fenton uses
the term
“primordial;” For a more comprehensive
discussion on essential and instrumental ethnicities, see Jones, The
Archeology of Ethnicity, 56-79.
11 Fenton,
Ethnicity, 76.
12See
Jones, The Archeology of Ethnicity, 80ff.
13 J.
McKay, “An exploratory
synthesis of primordial and mobilizationist approaches to ethnic
phenomena,” Ethnic
and Racial Studies 5(4),
(1982):401-402 as quoted in Jones, The Archeology of
Ethnicity, 80 (italic McKay's).
14 For
Minahasan ethnicity see Chapter Four.
15 Esler,
Conflict and Identity in Romans, 42 referring to F. Barth's
essay, “Introduction” in Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The
Social Organization of Culture Difference, ed. F. Barth
(London: George Allen and Unwin, 1969).
16 Esler,
Conflict and Identity in Romans, 42.
17 Esler,
Conflict and Identity in Romans, 44.
18 “Some
Theoretical Considerations on the Nature and Trends of Change of
Ethnicity” in Ethnicity: Theory and Experience, ed. Nathan
Glazer, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Corinne Saposs Schelling
(Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1975), 60 as quoted in
Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, 44.
19 Esler,
Conflict and Identity in Romans, 44.
20 SIT
was developed by Henri Tajfel, and later his student John Turner.
Jack Barentsen captures the gist of SIT in his book Emerging
Leadership in the Pauline Mission:
A
Social Identity Perspective on Local Leadership Development in
Corinth and Ephesus
(Or: Pickwick pub, 2011), 34: “[Tajfel] discovered that when
people categorized themselves as group members, their behavior
changed to favor individuals they now considered as fellow group
members and to discriminate against others who were considered to be
members of other groups.” Barentsen, quoting S. Alexander Haslam
and Naomi Ellemers, points out that based on SIT “[g]roups are not
only external features of the world, [but] they are also
internalized
so that they contribute to a person’s sense
of self”
(“Social Identity in Industrial and Organizational Psychology:
Concepts, Controversies and Contributions,” International
Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Vol 20, eds G. P. Hodgkinson and J. K. Ford, John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd, Chichester, UK, [2005]:39-118
[italics
authors] as quoted in Emerging
Leadership in the Pauline Mission,
34); Esler's work, Conflict
and Identity in Romans,
especially sheds important insights on the social settings of Romans
through identity theory.
21 Blake
E. Ashforth and Fred Mael apply SIT into organizational theory
(Barentsen, Emerging
Leadership in the Pauline Mission,
34); In their summary on social identification they point out: (a)
social identification is a perception of oneness with a group of
persons; (b) social identification stems from the categorization of
individuals, the distinctiveness and prestige of the group, the
salience of the outgroups, and the factors that traditionally are
associated with group formation; and (c) social identification leads
to activities that are congruent with the identity, support for
institutions that embody the identity, stereotypical perceptions of
self and others, and outcomes that traditionally are associated with
group formation, and it reinforces the antecedents of identification
(“Social Identity Theory and the Organization,” The
Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 14, No. 1 [Jan. 1989]:20-21, http://www.jstor.org/stable/258189
[accessed
September 11,
2012]).
22 H.
Tajfel and J. C. Turner, “The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup
Behavior” in Psychology of Intergroup Behavior 2nd
edition, ed., S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Chicago: Nelson Hall,
1985), 7-24 as quoted in Ashforth and Mael, “Social Identity
Theory and the Organization,” 20.
23 “Center,”
Dictionary.com, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/center
(accessed August 21, 2012).
24 War
and Other Essays (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911),
12-13. In this essay Sumner demonstrates
the phenomenon of ethnocentrism in different
ethnic/tribal groups, and also his own. This is in
a way making his point that “ethnocentrism
has nothing to do with the relative grade of civilization of any
people;” For more discussion on the topic of ethnocentrism see
Boris Bizumic, “Theories of Ethnocentrism and Their Implication
for Peace Building” in Peace Psychology in the Balkans: Dealing
with a Violent Past While Building Peace ed. Olivera Simić,
Zala Volčič, and Catherine R. Philpot (New York: Springer,
2012), 35-56.
25 Eunice
Kamaara, “Towards Christian National Identity in Africa: A
Historical Perspective to the Challenge of Ethnicity to the Church
in Kenya” in Studies in World Christianity 16.2 (2010):
128, http://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/swc.2010.0002
(accessed 7 February 2012).
26 Aaron
Kuecker, The Spirit and the 'other': Social Identity, Ethnicity
and Intergroup Reconciliation in Luke-Acts (London: T & T
Clark International, 2011), 30.
27 Kuecker,
The Spirit and the 'Other', 30.
28 See
Chapters 2 and 6.
No comments:
Post a Comment