Orianne Sagrada
IS 680
Prof. Woldemikael
14 October 2014
Midterm 1
1. Compare and contrast the primordialist with the instrumentalist/circumstantialist approaches that provide an understanding of the concept of Ethnicity? What is the constructionist perspective? According to constructionism, how do the elites view ethnicity? (Use Introduction from Hutchinson and Smith book Ethnicity and the excerpt of chapters from Cornell and Hartmann that will be posted on blackboard. NB: I used Cornell and Hartmann’s book Ethnicity and Race for my class lecture on approaches to ethnicity.)
In Ethnicity by John Hutchinson and Anthony Smith identify two existing camps of ethnicity: primordialist and instrumentalist/circumstantialist. The term ‘priomordialist’ in terms of ethnicity was fathered by Edward Shils, a notable sociologist. Shils sought to differentiate various social bonds-personal, primordial, sacred and civil ties and to demonstrate how even in contemporary, civic societies other types of social bonding existed (Hutchinson and Smith ). After Shils coined the concept of primordialist, late anthropologist, Clifford Greetz advanced the subject and spoke of the ‘overpowering’ and ineffable quality attaching to certain kinds of tie, which the participants tended to see as exterior, coercive, and given. Greetz further emphasized that the catalyst to an effective and successful modern state is the drive for personal identity-a fundamental basis of primordial ties. By definition,
There are two different dimensions of our identities: ethnicity and race. Ethnicity refers to one’s belonging to a specific cultural, or racial group that makes up culture, race language, and/or place of origin. For example, one can be African-American but have different ethnicities, one African-American and the other African-Caribbean decent. Race is a social construct that can be changed over time. Historically, referring to its specific characteristics one possesses based on: ethnicity, religion, or language; today's its classified solely based upon the color of one’s skin. Nevertheless, ethnic and racial identities are important and instill a sense of belonging and identifying with that specific group through attitude, behaviors. Moreover,
A majority of people here in the United States have felt a touch of the issues, that come with classification of race. Due to this, many men and women of the minority racial groups are put in to sub-groups as a way to “help” give them an identity that can relate to. This idea to separate people by giving them identities is called the Racial Formation Theory. First introduced by Michael Omi and Howard Winant, the theory is a tool that helps build the idea that race is a social contracted tool where your racial status is weighed upon by many factors such as by those social, economic and political origin. By using race a way to build lines and boundaries, this has resulted in causing a rift to grow between the majority and minority
Upon entering the class I was anxious, curious, and also oblivious to the ideas I would be encountering. Like other students who had not previously spent time discussing topics of race and ethnicity, I myself had nervous tendencies in assuming that such a class may not strengthen my understanding of ethnic and race relations. I realized I knew little about race or ethnicity, and even the possible similarities or differences. However, I welcomed the opportunity to further discover the possibilities of the class. My understanding of race was concentrated in a definition that could be understood as different skin colors. My limited conception of ethnicity applied to people’s origin or where they lived. It seemed as though my lack of
Midterm Question #1 part 1: Race and ethnicity have played major roles in American social history. How do these constructs relate to an explanation of what it means to be an American?
Race and ethnicity cannot always be defined. As children, we grow up and we learn to associate different contexts with different meanings and even different cultures. My paper is based on the origin of race and how ultimately it can be used
The study of race and ethnicity is not a cut and dry conversation that always has the same result. The definition of race and ethnicity has changed over time as we have put social weight on what we have put into each definition. In this paper, I will be looking at how two authors, Vilna Bashi Treitler and Stephen Steinberg, discuss the questions and definitions of ethnicity, race, and mobility in American society. For instance, one author tends to combine race and ethnicity into one definition and use them interchangeably while the other author does the exact opposite. The Ethnic Myth by Steinberg is cultural groups trying to get ahead, all about class, getting to the middle class, money, economic mobility (Lecture 12; 5-16-18). While the Ethnic Project by Trielter is getting ahead without being racialized while trying to climb the ladder and having to make subdivisions. It is all about status order and social mobility for Treitler (Lecture 12; 5-16-18).
When reading "The Difference of Race" I found it particularly interesting that the South would go as far as to consider themselves a different race from the North. The article specifies why they most likely decided to do this, “As Jared Gardner has accurately observed, “growing regional divisions between North and South prompted metaphors of race to describe distinctions that were regional, political, economic—anything but racial” (Watson, 11). I find it interesting that this group of people based such importance on race that they felt they needed to be made into their own singular race to look better than not only the negro but also the North. It seems that this indicates that they not only wanted the importance and authority they had over colored people but they needed to also expand that control over the Northern people by trying to create their own race and then assert that it was already better than the other existing races. It was insightful to see that the South was this concerned about the way they were viewed and that they were in a position of power and prestige.
Loss of Identity and Culture One of the biggest issues anyone can face is to maintain a strong identity within the temptations and traditions from others. The famous novelist Frank Delaney’s image search for ‘ancestors’ is one of the preeminent; quoting that one must “understand and reconnect with our stories, the stories of the ancestors… to build our identities” (Frank Delaney). For one, to maintain a firm identity, you should not follow the path and traditions of one else because it can end up making a change to your own tradition and culture.
I went back to reading more of Sarris’ essay. This definition helped me see the question Sarris was unearthing within me; what determines our ethnicity? After all, by implementing this definition, we know there is no constant, ‘regular’/normal life or person, and none of us are 100% ‘rightly’ deduced. Does that make us all illegitimate? Or simply do we over-estimate knowledge about our self and part of those around us, while taking the liberty to apply this mysterious label to whom WE deem should wear
1. Discuss two aspects of the racial formation theory (Omi and Winant). Use examples to illustrate your answer. What role does the racial state play in racial formations?
This paper will identify the ethnic identifications within individuals. Ethnicity is part of everyone’s identity development. Individuals may have one ethnicity or multiple, depending on their current location, homelands, generations, religion, environment, language/dialect, physical appearance, and more. A cultural individual is considered ethnic either by being first, second, or third generation. According to Phinney (1989), there are four stages of ethnic identity development: diffuse, foreclosed, moratorium, and achieved. They describe when an individual explores or does not explore their own ethnicity, and accepting clarification and understanding of ethnicity. An individual can be placed within these stages throughout their developing lives. It is important to recognize these stages within an individual to better apprehend their identity and where they perceive their own identity in their position.
In contrast to the idea of race, Ethnicity refers to ethnic affiliation, or the “cultural practices and outlooks of a given community of people that set them apart from others” (Giddens, 1997:210). Members of a particular ethnic group see themselves as culturally distinct from other groups of people in a society or culture. There are different characteristics which serve as a way of
Race and ethnicity are commonly used as synonyms for each other as we encounter many diverse individuals throughout the world. Sociologist on the other hand, find very distinct understandings to how these terms, while different, hold correlation to one another. Max Weber, a founding figure of sociology, was one of the first to define race and ethnicity. He stood with the idea of essentialism which presumes "that and individual 's identity depends on fundamental and innate characteristics that are deep-seated, inherited, and unchangeable." (Pearson, pg 241) As for ethnicity, Weber described it as subjective belief in relations to a groups common descent. While sociologist today may disagree with Weber 's theory, they do apply this idea of subjectivity and have correlated it to that of not only group definitions but of our own perceptions of biological similarity.
Similar to my family’s critical role in my personal and social identity’s development, my ethnicity also contributes some of the most noticeable modifications of a social agents affect on an individual’s personal and social identity. Ethnicity provides a sense of belonging to a group and or a place in a globalised society. As for myself, ethnicity on a micro, meso and macro scale has become a major element in my personal and social identity’s
Castells (2011) give a overview of this inherent motivation in his The power of identity: The information age: Economy, society, and culture. A series of social movement, such as Sexual liberation, LGBT social movements, African-American Civil Rights Movement etc, deconstructed the social system of the industrial society. A patriarchalism world was destroyed, while the cathedrals cannot provide spiritual comfort and emotional place for hope. People lost their identity to survive under the pressures from employment, globalisation and the deconstruction of the nation-state. (Giddens 1992) In the information age, the social network becomes the source of identity, because Giddens’s theoretical characterisation of identity-building in the period of “late modernity” pointed out the self-identity becomes a reflexive project in the context of post-traditional order. (Giddens 1991, p. 53, p. 35, p. 32) It relies the building of intimacy on a basis of trust. Castells (2011, p. 175, p. 31) thinks this kind of intimacy is built on a redefinition of identity fully autonomous without any dominant institutions and