Defining Our Terms: Bringing Rigour to Ethnic Studies
| Author | Craig Douglas Albert |
| Date | 01 June 2012 |
| Published date | 01 June 2012 |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9256.2012.01428.x |
| Subject Matter | Research and Analysis |
Research and Analysis
Defining our Terms: Bringing Rigour to
Ethnic Studiesponl_142870..76
Craig Douglas Albert
Augusta State University
For decades, political scientists have grappled with the role identity has played in ethnic conflict.
Surprisingly, these scholars have been unsuccessful in rigorously conceptualising some key terms
in the field of ethnic studies. How can the causal forces of ethnic strife be unravelled if scholars
cannot even agree on the meanings of essential concepts? This article carefully delineates the
differences between ethnicity, ethnic groups and ethnic group identity, while showing the concep-
tual mistakes of some of the field’s leading scholars. Often treated synonymously, these concepts
are quite distinct: ignoring this not only makes for sloppy scholarship, but has grave policy
consequences.
Ethnic studies have been an increasingly ‘sexy’ topic for political scientists over the
past few decades. Among the best scholars analysing ethnic conflict are Stefan
Wolff, Donald Horowitz, Richard Jenkins and Stuart Kaufman. Although each of
these provides useful insights into ethnic conflict, none has succeeded in rigorously
defining and distinguishing between the key concepts of ethnicity, the ethnic group
and ethnic group identity. In fact, many scholars carelessly conflate these terms or
use them interchangeably. Some argue that they are impossible to define truly
because they are constructed and thus do not support rigorous conceptualisations.
This article offers some terminology that will help make future analysis more
effective. First, I argue that ethnicity is an ordering principle, but nothing more.
Second, I address the characteristics that comprise an ethnic group and distinguish
it from a mere category such as ethnicity. Third, I examine why ethnic group
identity should be taken more seriously. I conclude by offering some reasons why
these distinctions matter in both theory and practice, and proffer clearer definitions
for each concept. I suggest that the political scientist should journey into other
fields, especially sociology and anthropology, and incorporate some of their discus-
sions on these conceptualisations.
Ethnicity is only an ordering principle and nothing more
One example of muddled thinking comes from a prominent political scientist
investigating ethnic conflict: Stefan Wolff. Wolff (2006, p. 31) argues that ethnicity
‘above all, means identity with one’s own ethnic group ... everyone has an ethnic
identity’. This statement makes it appear as though ethnicity is the same as ethnic
group identity. This is not necessarily so. While most people have some type of
bs_bs_banner
POLITICS: 2012 VOL 32(2), 70–76
© 2012 The Author.Politics © 2012 Political Studies Association
To continue reading
Request your trial