Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Situational ethnicity
a b
Jonathan Y. Okamura
a
University College, London
b
East‐West Center, Hawaii
Version of record first published: 13 Sep 2010.
To cite this article: Jonathan Y. Okamura (1981): Situational ethnicity, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 4:4, 452-465
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01419870.1981.9993351
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Situational ethnicity
Jonathan Y. Okamura
University College, London, and
East-West Center, Hawaii
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 13:07 27 February 2013
The significance of the concept of the social situation for analysis of the
structure and process of ethnic relations has gained credence in recent social
anthropological approaches to ethnicity. This focus on analysis at a lower
level of social organization than the overall society is congruent with an
increased concern with subjective and perceptual notions of ethnicity in
terms of the actor's understandings and explanations of social behavior. For
clearly, it is at this level of abstraction thatthe variable meanings of ethnicity,
the differing criteria for ascription of ethnic identities, the fluidity of ethnic
boundaries, and the varying relevance of ethnic and other social identities
are most apparent for the actor and the researcher alike. A situational
approach to ethnicity manifests the essential variability in its significance for
social relations in different social contexts and at different levels of social
organization. Accordingly, such a perspective avoids the problem of reification
of the concept of ethnic group that follows from its identification with an
objectively defined, shared, uniform cultural inventory or with common
normative patterns of behavior that are assumed to be consistently adhered to.
This paper is a review and synthesis of the ideas of a number of social
anthropologists who have all explicitly emphasized the relevance of social situa-
tions for the analysis of ethnicity and ethnic relations. The juxtaposition of
the two concepts, social situation and ethnicity, to yield the term 'situational
ethnicity' is attributable to Paden (1967) in a paper on ethnic categorization
in urban Africa. He states that 'situational ethnicity is premised on the ob-
servation that particular contexts may determine which of a person's com-
munal identities or loyalties are appropriate at a point in time' (Paden, 1970:
268). Although minimal in content, this delineation of the term nevertheless
highlights some of the more salient features in its approach to ethnicity. It
takes note that variability in the affirmation of ethnic identity may be
dependent upon the immediate social situation, and it relates this variability
to the actor's perception of that situation.
The sociological origins of the notion of situational ethnicity can be
traced to the work of Gluckman (1940), who in turn cited Evans-Pritchard
1937) as a source of his ideas. The latter, in Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic
motives that influence his behavior in that situation (Gluckman, 1958: 26).
'Individuals can thus live coherent lives by situational selection from a medley
of contradictory values, ill-assorted beliefs, and varied interests and tech-
niques' (ibid.). The significance of these ideas in the eventual development of
the concept of situational ethnicity will become apparent later.
It would be appropriate at the outset to denote the meaning which is
attributed to the concept of social situation in this paper. Although the social
anthropologists included in this discussion used the term somewhat differently,
in some cases with reference to dyadic, face-to-face relationships and in
others to a more general level of social relations, it is clear from their termin-
ology that they understand social situations to refer to a level of social organi-
zation lower than that of the overall society. As such, Mitchell's (1978: 24)
conception of social situation, which he distinguishes from social setting, can
be adopted as a general exposition of the term. In a paper on labor migration
in southern Africa, he states that the setting of social action refers to the
macroscopic political, administrative, and economic structures in which
migration takes place, while the situation has reference to the more micro-
scopic particular set of circumstances in which a migrant finds himself.
Accordingly, in an analysis which places primary emphasis on the situation of
social action, sociological interest is focused on the way in which individuals
appraise the behavioral choices open to themselves given the constraints
imposed upon them by the wider setting. Thus it might be said that the struc-
tural features of the setting provide the overall framework of social relations,
while at the level of the situation concern is on the different courses of action
actors may then pursue according to their understanding of their personal
circumstances within this framework. Note that besides being one of different
levels of sociological analysis, the distinction between the setting and the
situation of social action is also one of perspective. That is, the former per-
tains to the analyst's or the 'objective' point of view, while the latter refers
to the actor's or the 'subjective' viewpoint.
If the above notion of the social situation is used to elucidate the concept
of situational ethnicity, one can see how the latter term incorporates both
structural and cognitive aspects of ethnicity. The structural dimension of
situational ethnicity would refer to the restraints enjoined upon parties within
social situations as a consequence of the setting of social action, which in this
454 Jonathan Y. Okamura
case is provided by the overall structure of ethnic group relations in a given
society. The setting also includes the relative political and socio-economic
statuses of these groups, the distribution of occupation, education, income,
wealth, and other social and material resources amongst them, their com-
parative numerical proportions, and the immediate prospects for change in
any of these areas. In the extreme case, as a result of the nature of ethnic
group relations at the overall level of the setting, the constraints which impinge
upon actors may entail the consistent and ubiquitous ethnic ascription of
their respective roles and statuses in diverse social situations. That is, in
societies of this type, such as South Africa, social relations at all levels and
in all spheres of the society are primarily structured according to the ethnic
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 13:07 27 February 2013
claim it has advanced and can thus 'define the situation' (Thomas, 1928: 42)
as it pleases. This differential distribution of power, which corresponds to
the differential rights and obligations of parties in social situations, is deriva-
tive of the overall statuses of ethnic groups in the wider setting.
The other aspect of the cognitive dimension of situational ethnicity has
to do with ascription of ethnic identity to others. In this case, concern is
on the actor's perception of and attribution of meaning to various cultural
phenomena or phenotypic traits to categorize others in order to interact with
them. Categorization of others with an appropriate ethnic label provides
actors with a set of expectations and an explanation of the opposite party's
behavior. Consistent with a situational approach to ethnicity, it should be
added that the ethnic meaning which is attributed to denotative symbols or
signs is not always present in all social situations in which they may appear
(Mitchell, 1974: 23).
Although it is sometimes more common in sociological discussions of
ethnicity to focus on ethnic ascription by others rather than to others, it
might be recalled that the cognitive dimension of situational ethnicity is
primarily concerned with the actor's perception of ethnic diacrítica. To
some extent, ethnic ascription by others is more properly encompassed
within the structural dimension of situational ethnicity since assignment of
a particular ethnic identity to a person may invoke constraints on his or her
behavior. Actually, from a cognitive perspective, both ethnic ascription by
and to others refer back to the same original process, the actor's perception
of cultural features and attribution of meaning to them.
It should be made clear at the outset that the notion of the social situation
referred to in this paper is not necessarily of the same order as that utilized
by Van Velsen (1967) in his 'situational analysis' approach. Although the
theoretical premises of this mode of analysis are highly relevant to the con-
structs of situational ethnicity, its methodology emphasizes the detailed
recording of the interactions of individuals as individuals, that is, as specified
actors, in a sequence of social encounters. Data gathering and analysis at this
specific level of abstraction are not essential requirements of a situational
approach to ethnicity.
Nevertheless, some of the theoretical assumptions behind Van Velsen's
concept of situational analysis are especially applicable to the notion of
456 Jonathan Y. Okamura
situational ethnicity. It is his fundamental contention that the norms of a
society do not constitute a consistent and coherent unity, rather they may
be ambiguous or even contradictory (Van Velsen, 1967: 146). Clearly, such
a state of affairs essentially characterizes culturally diverse societies with
their disparate systems of social relations, activities, and norms and values.
Van Velsen continues that it is this fact of .norms in conflict which allows
for their manipulation by individuals through their exercise of choice be-
tween alternative norms relevant to a given situation. It is noteworthy that
Van Velsen (ibid:) states that this manipulation proceeds "without neces-
sarily impairing [the] apparently enduring structure of social relationships',
or in the terminology used here, the setting of social action.
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 13:07 27 February 2013
It should also be made explicit that although the terminology used in this
paper makes reference to 'individuals' and to 'actors', the concept of situa-
tional ethnicity is not intended to have explanatory validity for behavior of a
particularistic nature. That is, it is not being claimed that a situational approach
to ethnicity can account for every specific exercise of choice at the individual
level. Behavior of this nature may be more adequately treated by individual
decision-making models such as that suggested by Garbett (1975) for circu-
latory migration. The underlying assumption in situational ethnicity is that
the determinants of the courses of action actors may pursue tend to lead to
varying degrees of regularity in social behavior, and it is for these generalized
patterns of social relations that situational ethnicity has explanatory value.
Accordingly, regularities in similarly defined social situations facilitate a
systematic analysis of the scope and nature of ethnic relations. As Mitchell
has remarked, 'The analyst... is able to appreciate the instrumental advantage
to the actors of alternative justifications of action and he is able to explain
logically why the actors chose one frame rather than another in terms of
which to construe their social actions' (Mitchell, 1974: 31).
The format of the discussion will be to review first the social anthropolo-
gists whose approaches to ethnicity pertain to the structural dimension of
situational ethnicity and then those whose perspectives relate more to the
cognitive dimension.
The structural dimension of situational ethnicity pertains to the constraints
imposed upon actors within social situations as a consequence of the overall
structure of ethnic group relations in a society. This position is succinctly
stated by Epstein (1978: xiv): 'For the individual, therefore, whether, and to
what extent, he acquires a sense of ethnic identity always involves some ele-
ment of choice. But such choice is subject to a number of constraints. Some
of these are clearly social, and relate to certain features of the social system.'
It can be said, then, that the relevance of ethnicity as a contingent factor is
'situationally determined' (Mitchell, 1974: 23; Vincent, 1974: 377). Both
Vincent and Despres (1975b) have expressed concern for ascertainment
of the social situations which tend to lead to the affirmation of ethnic
identity. Vincent states that the relevance of ethnicity as a status compared
to other statuses that a person holds may be related to 'situations of con-
frontation, crisis, and ritual' (1974: 377). This position is similar to that
Situational ethnicity 457
assumed by Despres (1975b) in a paper on ethnicity and ethnic relations
in Guyana. He contends that to assert ethnic identities in interpersonal
encounters advances a status claim that establishes a relationship of com-
petitive opposition between ethnic groups, and this relationship takes into
consideration the status inequalities of the groups. He then concludes that
situations which bring into question the differential rights and privileges asso-
ciated with these status disparities between groups, or situations which result
in the 'resource' distributions from which these inequalities originate, lead to
the assertion of ethnic identities and their related claims {ibid., 109). This
argument would seem to imply that individual encounters which do not
directly involve the status inequalities between the ethnic groups of the parties
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 13:07 27 February 2013
to the interaction do not result in the affirmation of ethnic identities. That is,
these relationships may proceed according to other social identities which the
actors possess, and thus it can be seen that ethnicity need not be a relevant
factor in all social situations in multi-ethnic societies.
Despres further states that the variety of interethnic encounters manifests
a pattern of segmentary opposition. That is, in certain situations the national
status claims of Guyanese are united in opposition to those of non-citizens in
that society, in some situations Africans and East Indians confront one
another, and in yet other contexts Africans are divided amongst themselves.
Despres concludes that 'this pattern of segmentary opposition corresponds to
and reflects both the continuities and discontinuities which the differential
incorporation of ethnic populations enjoins in the overall structure of Guyanese
society' (1975b: 109). Mitchell (1960) had previously noted a similar seg-
mentary structure of interaction among African migrants in the Copperbelt
towns (see also Banton, 1965: 145; Keyes, 1976:206-7; and Smith, 1955:3).
Cohen also relates situational ethnicity to this structure of segmentary opposi-
tion as he notes that 'It [situational ethnicity] results from multiple member-
ships in differently scaled sociocultural groupings, one of which is used to
signify the differences between actors in the situation' (Cohen, 1978: 389).
To turn now to the cognitive dimension of situational ethnicity, Barth is
without doubt the foremost social anthropologist associated with a cognitive
approach to ethnicity and ethnic group relations. In his view the sharing of a
common culture should not be construed as the essential definitional criterion
of ethnic groups. On the contrary, it is his contention that this focus on the
culture-bearing aspect of ethnic groups results in an analysis in which 'Differ-
ences between groups become differences in trait inventories; the attention
is drawn to the analysis of cultures, not of ethnic organization' (Barth, 1969a:
12). He continues in implicit criticism of pluralism theory (Smith, 1965,
1969a, b) that it is thus invalid to conceive of 'overt institutional forms' as
comprising the cultural elements which differentiate an ethnic group (Barth,
1969a: 13).
As the alternative approach, Barth advocates an emphasis on 'what is
socially effective' such that ethnic groups may be regarded as a mode of
social organization in the sense that they 'organize' interaction between
parties 'Qbid., original italics). The decisive feature of ethnic groups then
458 Jonathan Y. Okamura
becomes self-ascription and ascription by others to an ethnic category which
'classifies a person in terms of his basic, most general identity, presumptively
determined by his origin and background' (ibid.). Actors, therefore, 'form
ethnic groups in this organizational sense' insofar as they employ ethnic
identities to classify themselves and others in their relationships (ibid., 13,
14). Barth continues that in these interactions the cultural features which
are taken into consideration do not represent the totality of 'objective'
differences between groups, but only those elements which the actors them-
selves regard as salient. Analytically, it is argued that these cultural 'contents'
of ethnic differences are of two kinds: '(i) overt signals or signs — the dia-
critical features that people look for and exhibit to show identity, often such
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 13:07 27 February 2013
features as dress, language, house-form, or general style of life, and (ii) basic
value orientations: the standards of morality and excellence by which per-
formance is judged' (ibid.). He adds that neither of these kinds of cultural
criteria is derivative from a descriptive inventory of cultural traits, since it
cannot be assumed which elements will be construed as 'organizationally
relevant' by the actors.
It is clear, then, that Barth is cognizant of the variable significance of
ethnicity in the structuring of social relations. As he states, 'ethnic categories
provide an organizational vessel that may be given varying amounts and forms
of content in different socio-cultural systems. They may be of great relevance
to behaviour, but they need not be, they may pervade all social life, or they
may be relevant only in limited sectors of activity' (ibid.). However, whereas
the relevance of ethnicity has been deemed to be 'situationally determined'
(Despres, 1975b: Mitchell, 1974: 23; and Vincent, 1974: 377), Barth would
appear to view its significance as essentially dependent on the actors' percep-
tions and understandings of ethnic diacrítica. Indeed, his decided emphasis on
the cognitive aspects of ethnicity has been criticized as a tendency to reduce
ethnicity to subjective factors of identity (van den Berghe, 1975: 75; 1976:
254). Despite Barth's expressed focus on the 'ethnicboundary [that] canalizes
social life', his seeming lack of concern for the structural aspects of ethnicity
is evident in statements such as the following: 'It makes no difference how
dissimilar members may be in their overt behaviour — if they say they are A,
in contrast to another cognate category B, they are willing to be treated and
let their own behaviour be interpreted and judged as A's and not as BY
(Barth, 1969a. 15). The difficulty with this reasoning is obvious: it would
appear to accord individuals the option to pursue whatever course of action
they desire without consideration of the role constraints that may well pro-
scribe such behavior. Furthermore, it does not even consider the nature of the
relations between the groups. As Despres has remarked, it is a 'moot methodo-
logical point' whether or not individuals assert or accede to the ethnic iden-
tities ascribed to them if these identities engage imperative statuses which
deny these individuals rights and privileges that are generally enjoyed by
others in the wider society (Despres, 1975c: 193).
In all fairness to Barth, however, it should be noted that in his discussion
of 'complex poly-ethnic societies', which he would appear to equate with
Situational ethnicity 459
'plural societies' as described by Furnivall (1948) and Smith (1965,1969a, b),
he comments on the 'imperative' and 'comprehensive' nature of ethnicity in
social systems of this type (Barth, 1969a: 17). He states that in these societies
'ethnic identity implies a series of constraints on the kinds of roles an indiv-
idual is allowed to play', and that 'it constrains the incumbent in all his
activities, not only in some defined social situations' (ibid.). Interestingly
enough, Barth makes a similar distinction between the setting and the situation
of social action as proposed in this paper in his statement that in these poly-
ethnic societies *What can be referred to as articulation and separation on the
macro-level corresponds to systematic sets of role constraints on the micro-
level' (ibid.).
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 13:07 27 February 2013
so that however real and consciously held the perceptions and interpretations
of actors may be, they cannot fully account for the range of behavior insocial
situations. It is not that cognitive aspects of ethnicity are irrelevant to an
understanding of ethnic behavior; indeed, the whole point of the above dis-
cussion was to indicate their necessity for analysis along with structural
aspects. Ultimately, however, cognitive notions of ethnicity must have, a
secondary role in relation to analytical constructs for sociological analysis of
ethnicity and ethnic relations.
In summary, this review has included various social anthropologists who
have placed an explicit emphasis on the relevance of social situations for the
analysis of ethnicity and ethnic relations. This approach, which has been
termed situational ethnicity, merges both cognitive and structural aspects of
ethnicity as its principal focus is on the actor's ascriptions of ethnic identity
to organize the meaning of his social relationships within given social situa-
tions. The cognitive dimension of situational ethnicity refers to the actor's
perceptions and understandings of cultural symbols and signs and the relevance
he attributes to these elements as a factor on his behavioral options in the
situation he finds himself. On the other hand, the structural dimension has
reference to the role constraints enjoined upon actors within social situations
as a consequence of the overall structure of ethnic group relations. Thus, a
situational approach to ethnicity illuminates the fact that variability is the
essence of ethnicity in its significance for the structuring of social relations
in diverse situational contexts.
References
BANTON, MICHAEL (1965) 'Social Alignment and Identity in a West African City', in
Hilda Kupei (ed.), Urbanization and Migration in West Africa. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
BARTH, FREDRIK (1969a) Introduction, in Fredrik Barth (ed.), Ethnic Croups and
Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference. Bergen-Oslo: Universitetsfor-
laget.
BARTH, FREDRIK (1969b) 'Pathan Identity and its Maintenance', in Fredrik Barth
(ed.), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference.
Bergen-Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
COHEN, RONALD (1978) 'Ethnicity: Problem and Focus in Anthropology'. Annual
Review of Anthropology 7: 379-403.
464 Jonathan Y. Okamura
DESPRES, LEO A. (1975a) 'Ethnicity and Ethnic Group Relations in Guyana', in John
W. Bennett (ed.), The New Ethnicity: Perspectives from Ethnology. St Paul, Minn.:
West Publishing Company.
DESPRES, LEO A. (1975b) 'Ethnicity and Resource Competition in Guyanese Society',
in Leo A. Despies (ed.), Ethnicity and Resource Competition in Plural Societies. The
Hague: Mouton Publishers.
DESPRES, LEO A. (1975c) Toward a Theory of Ethnic Phenomena', in Leo A. Despres
(ed.), Ethnicity and Resource Competition in Plural Societies. The Hague: Mouton
Publishers.
EPSTEIN, ARNOLD L. (1958) Politics in an Urban African Community. Manchester
University Press.
EPSTEIN, ARNOLD L. (1978) Ethos and Identity: Three Studies in Ethnicity. London:
Tavistock Publications.
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 13:07 27 February 2013