cultural contexts of ethnic differences
Man, vol. 26, no. 1 (1991)
[The endnotes are missing in this version.]
The objective of this article is to contribute to the development
of analytical devices for dealing comparatively with cultural differences
made relevant in systems of interaction. First, the strengths and
limitations of a leading social anthropological perspective on ethnicity
are considered. Thereafter, certain aspects of ethnicity in two so-called
multi-ethnic societies, Trinidad and Mauritius, are described and
contextualized analytically. Finally, a general classification of
inter-ethnic contexts is suggested. The criterion suggested to distinguish
contexts in this respect is the varying cultural significance of ethnicity.
The proposed classification is not necessarily incompatible with certain
other attempts to compare ethnic phenomena.
Although my point of departure is a concept of ethnicity which is
relational and processual, that is what I call a formalist view, I
nevertheless insist that an understanding of the scope of cultural
differences must supplement an appreciation of the formal features
of ethnicity - whether they are to be localized to the level of the
social formation or to the level of interaction. In order to achieve
this, I shall draw on Wittgenstein's (1983 ) concept of language-games.
An implication of the analysis of ethnicity, briefly discussed at
the end of the article, is that a sensible concept of culture must
depict culture both as an aspect of concrete, ongoing interaction
and as the meaning-context for the very same interaction.
Conceptualizing ethnicity: A critical review
One of our most widespread errors as social theorists, and a difficult
one to eradicate, is the reification of concepts. As regards concepts
relating to ethnicity, the temptation to do so is highly understandable.
Notably, any conceptual reification of "ethnic groups" as
social (and sociological) entities possessing certain fixed cultural
and organizational characteristics is positively encouraged by folk
taxonomies and popular assumptions almost anywhere in the world. Academic
reactions against such reifications began, with respect to research
on ethnicity, in Leach's study of Kachin politics (1954), and in the
studies of urbanization in the Copperbelt in the 1950s (among others,
Mitchell 1956; Epstein 1958; Mayer 1971 ). An explicit and very
influential statement was Barth's (1969:10-11) criticism of earlier
writers' identification of ethnicity as a property of "cultural
groups", their axiomatic view of culture as a fixed, monolithic
entity, and their subsequent cultural determinism. Implicitly, Barth
also rejected the concern of some cultural anthropologists with "national
character" as simplistic, tautological and misleading. Focusing
on types of social relations and processes between and within ethnic
groups, Barth (1969), Eidheim (1971) and others developed a set of
formal concepts for dealing with interpersonal ethnicity without initially
reifying either a concept of ethnic group or a concept of culture.
Their approach, although sometimes poorly understood, has greatly
influenced contemporary studies of ethnicity. Through the work of
Barth, Eidheim and others, the focus of ethnic studies shifted from
group characteristics to properties of social process. From then on,
formal concepts were available enabling students of ethnicity to discard
unsatisfactory strategies of empiricist "butterfly collecting",
to replace substance with form, statics with dynamics, property with
relationship and structure with process.
The formalist approach, conceptualizing ethnicity as a type of social
process in which notions of cultural difference are communicated,
enables us to view ethnicity comparatively, and to account for ethnic
phenomena without recourse to crude conceptions of "cultures"
and "peoples". It has moreover proven more flexible, and
capable of higher theoretical sophistication when dealing with complex
contexts, than a related approach in which ethnicity is reduced to
a kind of stratification system, or in which ethnic process is virtually
by definition reduced to group competition over scarce resources (Despres
1975; Cohen 1974b). Such reduction prevents full understanding of
the discriminating characteristics of social systems where the communication
of cultural differences is essential to the reproduction of the system.
For all its merits, the formalist approach associated with Barth (1969)
has two important limitations preventing a satisfactory comparative
understanding of ethnicity.
First - and this is nowadays a common criticism (O'Brien 1986; Wolf
1982; Worsley 1984; Fardon 1987) - it is in principle ahistorical.
Its very useful, highly abstract comparative concepts such as ethnic
boundary (Barth 1969), dichotomization/complementarization (Eidheim
1971), symbolic form and function (Cohen 1974a), and so on, indispensable
in accounting for ethnicity on the interpersonal level, divert analytic
attention from the wider social and historical context and thus implicitly
disregard processes taking place beyond the grasp of the individual
agent. For one should never neglect, or even "bracket",
the fact that ethnicity is always a property of a particular social
formation in addition to being an aspect of interaction. Variations
on this level of social reality, moreover, cannot be accounted for
comprehensively through studies of interaction, no matter how detailed
they may be. For instance, ethnicity involving a modern national state
is qualitatively different from ethnicity activated in a neighbourhood
because a state and an individual are different kinds of agents. In
addition, the context of interaction is constituted prior to the interaction
itself and must therefore form part of the explanation of interpersonal
processes. This implies that we ought to investigate the historical
and social circumstances in which a particular ethnic configuration
has developed, and a subsequent localization in time, place and social
scale of the ethnic phenomenon in question must follow. A concept
of power distinguishing between individual and structural power is
essential here. Moreover, these findings are bound to influence our
analysis, and should not be bracketed, even - or perhaps particularly
- if the ultimate goal is a reduction of social process to a formal
comparative model of ethnicity. On the other hand, historically bounded
studies of ethnicity and related phenomena (e.g. Anderson 1983; Smith
1986) usually fail to account for the reproduction of identity on
the level of interaction, and have limited comparative scope.
Secondly, and partly by implication, it can be misleading to consider
ethnicity simply as an "empty vessel" or a system of arbitrary
signs, or a form of deep grammar. Certainly, the "critical focus
of investigation" ought to be "the ethnic boundary that
defines the group, not the cultural stuff it encloses" (Barth
1969:15, italics in the original) - that is, ethnicity is a property
of relationship, not "the sound of one hand clapping", to
paraphrase Bateson. It is further doubtless correct that ethnic distinctions
can persist despite insignificant differential "distribution
of objective [cultural] traits" (Eidheim 1969:39), and that the
symbolic articulation of cultural difference can frequently be seen
to change in form and content, historically and situationally. Nevertheless,
the cultural specificities or differences invoked in every justification
of ethnic differentiation or dichotomization may (or may not) have
a profound bearing on the experiential nature of ethnic relations
themselves. This implies that the medium is not necessarily the message,
and that the differences themselves, which represent a level of signification
conventionally glossed over by the formalists, should be investigated,
and not only the form of their articulation. In other words, if there
are contextual imperatives for the production of ethnic signs - and
it would be foolish to suggest otherwise, then the contexts in question
must be understood along with the acts of inter-ethnic communication.
The cultural differences referred to in ethnic interaction, then,
cannot always be reduced to its form without a loss of analytic comprehension.
Since culture is such a difficult term to handle analytically, and
since one of the main insights from formalist studies of ethnicity
is that culture cannot be treated as a fixed and bounded system of
signs, it is tempting to reduce or disregard this level of social
reality in description and analysis. The most common (tacit) reduction
of culture has consisted in showing how ethnic signifiers may change
due to changes in context, thereby indicating that the signifiers
themselves are really arbitrary, and that the fundamental aspect of
ethnicity is the very act of communicating and maintaining cultural
difference. This is the position advocated by Leach (1954), who emphatically
"Culture provides the form, the 'dress' of the social situation.
As far as I am concerned, the cultural situation is a given factor,
it is a product and an accident of history. I do not know why Kachin
women go hatless with bobbed hair before they are married, but assume
a turban afterwards, any more than I know why English women put on
a ring on a particular finger to denote the same change in social
status; all I am interested in is that in this Kachin context the
assumption of a turban by a woman does have this symbolic significance.
It is a statement about the status of the woman." (Leach 1954:16)
This type of argument has been very illuminating, but it is unsatisfactory
in the end because the cultural context of an act of communicating
distinctiveness may, as correctly assumed (and experienced) by non-anthropologists,
make a systematic difference in inter-ethnic encounters. At a certain
point in the analysis of ethnicity, where recognized cultural differences
shape or prevent meaningful interaction, or where power asymmetry
distorts discourse, it becomes impossible to neglect substantial features
of social, cultural, historical contexts. Although the formal relationship
between say, the Canadian state and Mohawk Amerindians may be similar
to that between say, the Botswana state and Basarwa (San) people,
the social and cultural significance of the respective relationships
differ because of important differences in the cultural contexts referred
to in the ongoing invocation of differences. This implies that formal
modelling of ethnicity may miss the point not only because it leaves
out aspects of ethnicity which are important to the agents, but also
because it disregards the potentially varying importance of cultural
differences in the articulation of ethnicity.
Handelman's (1977) typology of ethnic incorporation, ranking ethnic
groups or categories from the socially very loose to the socially
very strongly incorporated, has similarly limited explanatory power.
It is misleading insofar as it treats ethnic categories or groups
as analytical entities. This will not do: it is necessary to account
for the production and reproduction of ethnicity in a less abstract,
less static way in order to understand its concrete manifestations.
Any detailed analysis of ethnicity must therefore take into account
the varying cultural significance of ethnicity, not only cross-culturally,
but also intra-culturally and perhaps most importantly, intra-personally.
Different inter-ethnic contexts within a society, which may or may
not involve the same sets of persons, have variable significance in
relevant ways. Ethnicity, as a source of cultural meaning and as a
principle for social differentiation, is highly distributive within
any society or set of social contexts involving the same personnel.
Its varying importance, or varying semantic density, can only be appreciated
through a comparison of contexts, which takes account of differences
in the meaning which are implied by the acts of communicating cultural
distinctiveness which we call ethnicity.
It is my contention, therefore, that the cultural contexts of ethnic
differences should not be ignored in description and analysis. This
perspective carries a further, and obvious, ethical implication: it
entails taking the representations of ordinary "lay" agents
seriously. For the people whom we designate as members of ethnic groups
tend to disagree with anthropological accounts dealing with themselves.
An example of such disagreement is the ongoing conflict between Saami
(Lappish) students and non-Saami staff at the anthropology department
of the university of Tromsø, Northern Norway. Many of the students
would prefer that their struggle for cultural identity and social
autonomy were not dubbed by anthropologists as manipulation with symbols,
"mechanisms of boundary-maintenance" or "processes
of metaphorization and metonymization" which can ultimately be
reduced to political strategy (cf. Grønhaug 1975; Thuen 1982).
Native views cannot replace analysis, but they should not be reduced
to universal form either. In sum, if ethnic signs are seen as metonymic-metaphoric
signifiers for ethnic difference, then we should pay some attention
to the signified - which can be studied on two levels. On the one
hand, ethnic signs signify the communication of cultural difference,
which has been studied thoroughly by social anthropologists - either
as competitive strategies, or as a technique for the maintenance of
a cultural identity or a way of life, or both. On the other hand,
ethnic signs refer to systematic distinctiveness which is in part
being reproduced outside of the acts of communicating distinctiveness.
This level of signification has normally been bracketed by formalists,
with whose general approach I agree. Their comparative analytical
models are clearly superior to earlier theorizing about ethnicity;
they are simple and comparative, they account for empirical processes,
and they have great explanatory power regarding the reproduction of
social and cultural discreteness. I shall merely propose to supplement
this set of concepts with concepts enabling us to compare the forms
of distinctions reproduced, and to distinguish between contexts where
the kind of cultural difference at work varies qualitatively. This
can be done without reifying a concept of "culture", provided
that the units for analysis are not groups or individuals but contexts
The discussion concerns fundamental issues in social anthropology,
and I am not able to pursue them much further here. Nevertheless,
let me summarize the discussion so far: Modern social anthropological
studies of ethnicity have tended to overstate their case in contrasting
the virtues of their formal, processual model for analysis with the
vagueness and reifying tendencies of substantivist approaches. Their
sometimes unacknowledged semiotic bias (notably, the view of ethnic
symbols as arbitrary signs) prevents them from elucidating the varying
impact of significant cultural difference and the content of meaning
in interaction (cf. Wilden 1980:352n). For the sake of comparative
models of interaction, they have largely disregarded the study of
ethnicity (or ethnicities) as specific sets of features in the contemporary
world (cf. Giddens 1987:165 for a similar point with regard to the
study of organizations).The formalist direction in ethnic studies
therefore needs to be supplemented by a consideration of two theoretical
points: First, ethnicity is a property of a social formation and an
aspect of interaction; both systemic levels must be understood simultaneously.
Secondly, ethnic differences entail cultural differences which have
variable impact cross-culturally, intra-culturally and intra-personally,
on the nature of social relations.
A treatment of the relationship between the systemic level of interaction
and the systemic level of social formation, necessary in the final
analysis when the validity of ethnicity as a comparative concept is
to be assessed (cf. Fardon 1987), falls outside of the scope of this
article. The ethnographic examples and contexts to be discussed below
illustrate the second theoretical point; namely, that the cultural
differences which are confirmed in the communication of ethnic differences,
vary between contexts which may otherwise be comparable, and that
this variation should be understood in accounts of ethnic processes.
Ethnic differences and language-games
The problem of accounting for "actual" cultural differences
in ethnicity is a subtle and difficult one. The communication of cultural
difference can be observed and described, but the cultural differences
referred to in these acts are themselves elusive. They cannot be measured.
Since culture is not a fixed property of persons or groups, the differences
cannot be identified as "cultural traits" of the agents
either. I have nevertheless argued the need to distinguish between
kinds of cultural difference invoked in ethnic contexts, where the
distinctions are confirmed and reproduced. Such differences, I suggest,
can be identified through a careful interpretation of these contexts.
I propose to use the Wittgensteinian concept of language-games to
distinguish, in a formal way, between inter-ethnic contexts where
the degree of shared meaning is variable. In his initial discussions
of language-games in the Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein
defines a simple language-game as "a primitive language"
(Wittgenstein 1983 , I: §7, cf. §2). With this he
refers to an intersubjective field delineated to a particular context,
which is reproduced by the individuals interacting. To engage in social
interaction thus amounts to playing a language-game, that is the conventional
application of certain concepts or the enaction of certain rules which
define a particular version of the world as relevant. The rules of
a language-game, when they are eventually internalized, thereby constitute
a cognitive matrix of varying complexity, through which one perceives
and interprets events taking place in the world. If the agents interact
according to different such sets of concepts or rules in a given situation,
this means that they propose to play different language-games; in
other words, their respective delineations of the relevant meaning-structures
of the world differ in this regard. They have acquired different knowledge
about the world, and they reject each others' proposed rules (cf.
Wittgenstein 1983, I: §47).
Some inter-ethnic encounters can be interpreted as contexts where
such differences are expressed, and they can therefore not be reduced
to competition over scarce values, since a competitive relationship
necessarily entails prior agreement over what is to count as a value.
The concept of language-games, as it will be used here, indicates
the local, contextual character of culture seen as the production
and reproduction of shared meaning. As I shall show, such a concept
also makes it possible to distinguish between forms of cultural differences
as expressed in ethnicity, without lapsing into essentialism or statements
about the ontological properties of "cultures". This I will
now demonstrate through an examination of different contexts in two
societies where ethnicity is important and of varying significance
as regards degrees of shared meaning in interaction.
Trinidad and Mauritius
The area of Trinidad is about twice that of Mauritius, but they sustain
populations of comparable size (slightly over 1 million). Both are
tropical islands and former British colonies where the French influence
has been (and in the case of Mauritius, still is) substantial. Both
experienced plantation slavery on a large scale until the 1830s, and
subsequently received substantial numbers of Indian immigrants under
the colonial indentureship scheme. The demographic compositions of
the islands have important similarities: the main ethnic categories,
as depicted in national statistics and in folk taxonomies, are blacks,
Indians, Chinese, Europeans and culturally ambiguous categories of
phenotypically "mixed" people. Indians, most of them Hindus
and Muslims, are the most numerous in Mauritius; whereas blacks, who
are as a rule Christian, are about as numerous as Indians in Trinidad.
There are several ethnic subdivisions which may be relevant; for example,
the distinction between Hindus and Muslims can in both societies be
important, and there are ethnic categories which may be relevant in
Mauritius but not in Trinidad (for instance, the category of Tamils)
and vice versa. In popular representations and in public discourse,
the most important distinction is nevertheless that between Indians
and blacks. There are, of course, also non-ethnic social classifications
which can be relevant; two such distinctions, important in both societies,
are those obtaining between "the middle class" and "the
working class" (local terms), and between rural and urban people.
Trinidad, an oil-rich island, is wealthier than Mauritius, and is
to a greater extent than the latter integrated into wider systems
of exchange. Both societies are parliamentary democracies, and both
are changing rapidly, economically and institutionally. Ethnicity
plays an important part in daily interaction in both societies.
Ethnicity in institutional politics
In both the island-states, most political parties from the post-war
period have been organized along ethnic lines, and have derived their
support from an ethnic base. However, ethnicity is rarely made an
explicit issue in public, political contexts. Unlike class and gender,
for example, ethnic distinctions are not officially acknowledged as
fundamental in the organization of the societies, where prevailing
ideologies and official discourse are, for all their mutual differences,
vaguely nationalist. Whenever arguments based on ethnicity are invoked
by a politician, other politicians publicly react in a hostile way.
Likewise, it is normally considered rude to accuse politicians of
following ethnic strategies; there are subtle and cunning techniques
available to this end, not least because of the indexical character
of ethnicity. Ethnicity is nevertheless frequently a master variable
in Trinidadian and Mauritian non-politicians' accounts of politics.
Two remarkably parallel examples will serve to illustrate this.
In Mauritius, a development scheme for sugarcane smallplanters was
launched in the mid-eighties, cutting taxes and providing loans for
smallplanters. In Trinidad, a similar scheme for would-be small businessmen
began in 1989. Both of these governmental programmes were criticized
along similar lines by members of politically nondominant ethnic categories.
In Mauritius, non-Indians noted that most of the smallplanters were
Indian, and that there were indeed many poor blacks for whom nothing
was done. In Trinidad, non-blacks claimed that only blacks would benefit
from the incentive programme, both because it was believed that most
small entrepreneurs were black, and - more importantly - because blacks
were thought to enjoy better connections with the authorities. Although
such arguments never appeared unmasked in the media (except in letters
to the editors), they enjoyed wide support.
In both cases, ethnicity created a division in public opinion; the
ethnic boundaries, dormant in many social contexts, were activated.
The wealthy, the poor and the destitute would rally together under
one set of arguments or the other. The common view was that Mauritian
Indians would, almost by definition, support the smallplanter incentive
while blacks would oppose it; similarly, it was widely held that Trinidadian
blacks would either be indifferent to or support the small business
scheme whereas Indians would either be indifferent to or oppose it
on the grounds that it would strengthen the presumed dominant position
of blacks in Trinidadian society. The point here is not whether "all"
or "most" blacks or Indians really acted in a certain way
or held certain views; there is certainly variation in these regards,
but we should note the fact that ethnic distinctions in this way became
relevant in public discourse on a political matter. And the language
of public discourse does not always take account of the empirical
variations behind the stereotypes.
Moving to a higher systemic level, it has been documented extensively
that institutional politics is largely organized along ethnic lines
in both Trinidad and Mauritius (cf. Ryan 1972 for Trinidad; Simmons
1983 for Mauritius); this pertains both to voting and to the internal
organization of parties and political organizations. As I have argued
elsewhere (Eriksen 1988), it is impossible for a politically oriented
individual to disregard the ethnic dimension in politics in Mauritius
(this holds true for Trinidad also, although in a slightly different
way), even if one might prefer to do so. In both societies, moreover,
a standard reply to questions about ethnicity is that ethnic conflicts
are "created by the politicians". This is wrong. Ethnicity
not only plays an important part in non-political social fields in
both societies, it is more fundamental outside the realm of institutional
politics. This will be demonstrated below.
Several important contexts of political ethnicity in contemporary
Trinidad and Mauritius, regarded as the ethnically based attempt to
win political power, can profitably be interpreted as an integral
part of the political systems. The same sets of rules are subscribed
to by all involved in routine politics, and there is a wide consensus
over values and modes of discourse. In other words, cultural differences
are in themselves unimportant in these contexts; their importance
lies in the creation of options for politicians and parties to draw
upon such differences in their quest for popularity and power. The
formal congruence of ethnicity among politicians of different ethnic
membership is complete: the political culture, or language-game, is
homogeneous as it is being confirmed in ongoing, institutionalized
political life; there is no relevant cultural difference informing
the pattern and meaning-content of institutionalized interaction between
politicians. The rules which guide this form of interaction are under
normal circumstances cross-ethnically uniform both among politicians
and among voters, and the cultural differences influencing ethnic
relations must therefore lie outside the realm of institutional politics.
In these multi-ethnic political contexts, then, ethnicity is constituted
by a system of arbitrary signs in the sense that political process
might have had identical formal properties in the absence of ethnic
classification; substantive issues might have been different, parties
and voting patterns would have been different and so on, but the set
of rules constituting the political system would have been the same,
all other things being equal. In other words, agents taking part in
institutional politics in Trinidad and Mauritius are obliged to follow
the rules of a shared language-game, and insofar as ethnicity is relevant
in these contexts of politics, cultural difference is communicated
through a shared cultural idiom; a shared language-game.
This should not be taken to imply that politics as such presupposes
a shared language-game, neither in the societies in question nor elsewhere.
The examples merely illustrate a type of contexts. Indeed, a hundred
years ago, the incommensurability in political culture between Indo-Trinidadians
and the colonial government was evident. Weller (1968) thus writes
about the wave of wife-murders in the Indo-Trinidadian community during
the late nineteenth century. In a court case cited by Weller (p. 65
ff.) the defendant says, "I have killed my wife. What is that
of your business? I didn't kill anybody else's wife." Clearly,
the defendant represents juridical principles incommensurable with
those of the polity. There is here disagreement over the rules which
constitute the judicial system as a field of interaction. The respective
language-games are incommensurable; they refer to different versions
of relevant social reality.
Language-games in the labour market
On the societal level, both Trinidad and Mauritius have traditionally
sustained ethnically correlated divisions of labour. In both societies,
agricultural labour has for over a century been culturally and statistically
associated with Indians, the civil service and industrial labour with
blacks, management with whites and coloureds, and commerce with whites
and Chinese (in Trinidad: Chinese, Syrians and Portuguese). With a
few exceptions, the correspondences between folk assumptions and the
actual division of labour have been fairly close; the labour markets
of both Trinidad and Mauritius have, nevertheless, changed radically
in this respect since World War II. In both societies, the blacks
were in colonial days perceived as being culturally closer to the
European rulers than the Indians, and were therefore preferred in
the colonial civil service.
In accounting for the presumed cultural proximity between blacks and
Europeans in colonial times, one can point to shared language (French
or English, as the case may be) and religion (varieties of Christianity),
family organization (the nuclear family as ideal) and by extension,
an assumed shared, modern perspective on the individual (encompassing,
among other things, an assumed sympathy for the virtues of bureaucratic
organization). Indians were in both societies depicted, by the colonial
elites and others dominating public discourse, as illiterate pagans
and particularistic, "clannish" (Trinidadian expression)
schemers whose first priority was always the extended family. They
were also treated for generations with indifference; they have not
traditionally been part of the "Hegelian" system of opposites
constituting the Black-Brown-White socio-cultural system in these
colonies (cf. Fanon 1952), which created a mutual feeling of familiarity
among those included. Although the division of labour has changed,
the stereotypes remain strong.
The point to be made here is that the stereotypes referred to normative
aspects of perceptions of cultural differences and can therefore not
be reduced to arbitrary signs subjected to free manipulation. It is
doubtless true that the perceived cultural closeness of blacks and
Europeans provided for easier cooperation in the workplace, and that
most blacks in both societies were in colonial times more "modern"
than most Indians: they were better educated, and they spoke English
and/or French. In other words, from the perspective of an employer,
there might conceivably have been sound reasons for recruiting blacks
rather than Indians for a variety of jobs. One might of course criticize
the employers in question for not wishing to shed their stereotypes
and consider aspects of individuals instead of stereotypic ethnic
categories; however, there were perceived cultural discontinuities
between the categories "blacks" and "Indians"
which were relevant in the labour market. Language-games routinely
reproduced by Bhojpuri-speaking Indian immigrants, and attributed
to them as ethnically distinguishing "cultural features",
were seen as being incompatible with the demands of the labour market.
Skills relevant in one language-game, for instance in a rural village,
were dismissed as irrelevant in another, dominant language-game. The
cultural differences referred to are, incidentally, comparable to
cultural differences currently being reproduced as ethnic (and class)
boundaries in European cities, where immigrants and their children
are regarded, by prospective employers and by public servants, as
culturally inept or handicapped because some of their language-games
are defined as incompatible with certain requirements of national
The informal policy, in certain state agencies, of debarring Indians
from high public positions, practised in Mauritius until the late
1960s and still practised in Trinidad, might typically be interpreted
and explained by social anthropologists as a way of retaining political
power and control in society; it might be spoken of as a set of policies
destined to retain ethnic hegemony. Such an account, tautologically
true, is inadequate for two reasons. First, had the quest for power
and control been the only reason for not hiring Indians, the latter
would also have been discouraged from business ventures and other
independent economic activity. This has certainly not happened in
any of the societies; it was possible for Indians to purchase land
freely and to set up shops already in the final decades of the nineteenth
century. An examination of colonial records from the period (cf. Brereton
1979 for Trinidad; Allen 1983 for Mauritius) indicates that the economic
ascendancy of Indians was not regarded as a threat by the elites -
on the contrary, their presumed frugality and ethos of hard work were
The second reason why an economistic analysis of the labour market
is invalid, as already suggested, is that perceptions of cultural
differences play a part in the organization of the labour market,
so that their articulation cannot be reduced to political strategy.
A few examples from the contemporary situation further illustrate
the differences between kinds of cultural differences invoked in ethnicity.
A well educated and culturally self-conscious Indo-Trinidadian of
my acquaintance resigned his job as a TV journalist. His reason for
doing so was "that one was not allowed to be an Indian on TV".
When asked why, then, there were after all quite a few Indians regularly
on the screen, he replied that they were not "real Indians".
He added, "For them [the broadcasting corporation] it's fine
that you're Indian as long as it doesn't show." What did this
mean? "For instance, you should never wear Indian clothes - you
should always appear in shirt and tie, never in shirtjac. And if you
make programmes, you should always remember that Trinidad is a black
country. If you want to make a programme about something Indian, it's
fine as long as you present it as something remote and exotic. To
be an Indian in the media, you have to be a hundred per cent creolized."
We might at this point arrive at the premature conclusion that my
friend left his job because of disagreement over programming policy,
and that his discontent was rooted in cultural difference - that he
represented a language-game incompatible with that of the board. However,
we need to go one step further. First, the cultural differences invoked
are of a "weak" type: they do not include disagreement over
the organization of media - the Indian might, in principle, just as
well have been a black marxist (i.e., the distinguishing signs are
arbitrary). Secondly, the Indians who remain TV journalists have not
necessarily relinquished their ethnic identity; they have only suspended
it in the job context. There is no incommensurability between my friend's
stance, the stance of other Indian journalists, and that of the board
of the broadcasting corporation; all they disagree about is the proper
place for the communication of Indian-ness in Trinidadian society.
They have a common language-game for communicating cultural difference,
although their respective cultural contexts may constitute incommensurable
language-games in other respects.
An expression of a stronger kind of cultural difference, also from
the context of wagework, is evident in the attitudes of some black
urban Mauritian women towards domestic work. One young woman explained
the differences thus: "If you work for white people, they treat
you reasonably. If you work for Indians, they might not pay you, they
might make passes at you, they shout at you and treat you like a dog.
Me, I'd never work for an Indian." This statement contains a
great deal of negative stereotyping. It is supported by other women
in her situation, and indirectly by wealthy Indians, who may make
statements to the effect that "those black women are lazy, they
never do their job properly and they always try to sneak out of the
house before they're through." The disagreement can be traced
to differences in perceptions of domestic organization. A housemaid
in a Hindu family is in a position structurally similar to that of
a doolahin, a daughter-in-law. The doolahin and the black maid are
not family members, and it is therefore permissible to treat them
as outsiders. Black women, on the contrary, are taught to expect that
their mothers-in-law (and by extension, other outsiders) will treat
them with respect, like adopted daughters. The lack of intimacy and
the condescending treatment encountered in the Hindu family is therefore
interpreted as a violation of their rights. The Hindu employer, on
the other hand, regards the informality of his black maid as impertinent
and as a sign of sloppiness. What he wants is a maid, not an adopted
daughter. To the extent that there is disagreement over the rules
constituting the relationship, the respective language-games are incommensurable.
Language-games, ethnicity and class
A yet different kind of conflict was related to me by a coloured middle-class
Trinidadian who had been working in a development agency lending capital
to cooperatives. His background, and the language-game of his organization,
were "middle-class" and bureaucratic, emphasizing the virtues
of investment and planning. The relevant language-game of his borrowers
was that of black urban working-class Trinidad. His conclusion: "Most
of the loans were never paid back. I was so shocked at the irresponsibility
of those people! They would stake everything they owned, plus a considerable
loan from us, and then they just didn't care if they went bust! After
a few weeks, they might get fed up, they might not bother to work
a lot, and would be unable to pay their loan. This happened all the
time. I'm not saying that they're dishonest, I'm just saying that
they're very, very irresponsible." My friend's experiences, while
apparently lending some credibility to his stereotypic views of working-class
blacks, may be interpreted as expressing a conflict between language-games.
The agents involved in interaction had different expectations and
disagreed concerning which values were to be defined as relevant.
Their respective codifications of the cultural context which can be
called the labour market, differed relevantly.
The example raises a problem with which I have not yet dealt properly,
namely the relationship between different sets of criteria for social
differentiation. The "ethnic" aspect of this situation is
obvious; my informant calls attention to presumed aspects of black
working-class culture. The situation also has a "class"
aspect of which the participants are conscious. There are, of course,
further contexts where incommensurable language-games are confronted
and where the ethnic dimension does not provide a convenient label
for its description. In the particular example referred to, the relationship
between the ethnic dimension and the class dimension in the production
of relevant differences is important. In the present discussion, this
is nevertheless a minor point since the concept of ethnicity is not
regarded as universally or ontologically significant, nor necessarily
prior to other principles of social classification. It is easy to
think of contexts in many societies, including the Trinidadian and
the Mauritian ones, where the social classifications made relevant
in the production of distinctions between individuals are not defined
as ethnic by the agents. It is because ethnicity is empirically pervasive
in these societies that it demands our attention. The presence of
non-ethnic principles for social classification nevertheless indicates
that the concept of language-games could profitably be used in analyses
of cultural differences which are not codified as ethnic by the agents.
Why is ethnicity so important?
Like activities in politics and in the productive sector, family life
and certain leisure activities in the two societies are routinely
understood and codified in an ethnic idiom. However, the contexts
of ethnicity encountered here may differ markedly from those reproduced
in fields which are to a greater degree regulated by sets of formal
rules. In routine politics, a shared language-game contains rules
for competition over shared, scarce values; in the context of wagework,
a similar competition is important although, as I have shown, not
always sufficiently important to prevent the articulation of incommensurable
language-games. It is nevertheless usually in informal contexts of
interaction that ethnic differences can be regarded as expressions
of incommensurable language-games.
Cultural differences between blacks and Indians are in both societies
strongly articulated in matters relating to sexuality. The sexual
ideologies of black men in Trinidad and Mauritius encourage promiscuity;
to brag publicly of one's numerous achievements in this regard is
an affirmation of black identity. In the ideology of Indian-ness,
on the contrary, great value is placed on sexual purity in women,
and the sacred character of matrimony is emphasized. In an Indian
language-game, the supposed sexual prowess of black men is coupled
with the widespread notion that women are unable to resist sexual
advances. In this way, black men seem to represent a threat against
the domestic supremacy of Indian men - and stories about faithless
Indian women eloping with black men are so widespread in both societies
as to be proverbial. When, in Mauritius, I asked black men about their
views on extramarital sex, they might reply, giggling, that "it's
not like in Europe" - meaning that it was a daily occurence.
Indo-Mauritians, on the other hand, would usually be reluctant to
talk about sex at all. Aids figures from Trinidad, incidentally, tend
to confirm the folk assumption that blacks there on an average have
a larger number of sexual partners than Indians: there is a striking
overrepresentation of blacks in the official figures.
This kind of cultural difference is very important, even if practices
do not necessarily conform with folk representations. The distinction
suggests that varying representations of self and relevant others
indicate, and reproduce, a relevant cultural difference as regards
the most intimate of human relationships. Variations in the conceptualization
of sexuality are in both societies indexically linked with ethnic
labels. It is therefore widely assumed that inter-ethnic interaction
in this area can lead to conflicts in the most personal of social
fields. Despite generally cordial relations between people of different
ethnic identity, intermarriage is rare in both societies.
The important point here is that what anthropologists regard as political
ethnicity ("competition over scarce resources") cannot be
fully understood unless an understanding of private ethnicity (immediate
struggles) is first established. It is in the intimate contexts of
family, close friendship and the like that the basic cultural contexts
making up individual identity are reproduced. Only if one fully understands
the reproduction of discrete, socially discriminating language-games
at this level can one hope to understand why ethnicity can be fashioned
into such a powerful political force within the unitary language-game
of institutional politics. It is in such contexts that the language-games
on which all communication of cultural difference feeds, are reproduced.
Such contexts are also crucial in the transcendence of ethnic disctinctions;
it is significant, thus, that popular national sentiment transcending
ethnic boundaries in either society is perhaps never stronger than
in contexts of international sports.
The formal systemic frameworks, in this case those of politics and
labour, are thus fed with cultural distinctions on which they have
a mitigating effect insofar as they represent shared desirable values,
but which they neither autonomously create nor reproduce. Both Trinidad
and Mauritius have recently (in 1986-7 and 1982-3 respectively) experienced
concerted attempts to transcend the ethnic dimension in politics through
the formation of broad nationalist coalitions. Following their rapid
breakup (in Mauritius, the government lasted nine months, in Trinidad
seven), the politicians and the electorate immediately fell back on
an ethnic perception of politics, and its subsequent organization
was related to such a perception - although not all the new alignments
followed strictly ethnic lines. For instance, in Trinidad, the foreign
minister Basdeo Panday was removed by the black-dominated government
and replaced by another Hindu, Sahadeo Basdeo, who was nevertheless
considered a less "rootsy" Hindu than the former. Ethnicity
in this case proved empirically more fundamental than other principles
of classification (in this case, nationalism). Ethnicity is in many
contexts the single most important criterion for collective social
distinctions in daily life; ethnic distinctions are rooted in perceptions
of differences between lifestyles, and the others are held to represent
lifestyles and values which are regarded as undesirable. As mentioned,
cultural differences are sometimes activated in non-ethnic situations,
such as rural/urban, middle-class/ working-class and male/female contexts.
However, in these societies, one is never simply "male"
or "middle-class": one is Indian male or Coloured middle-class.
The ethnic dimension nearly always enters into the definition of a
situation; it is an underlying premiss for all social classification.
To the extent that agents routinely ascribe their own experiences
of cultural incompatibility to ethnic differences, ethnicity also
remains dominant as a principle for cultural differentiation. This,
among other things, entails the maintenance of incommensurable language-games
conceptually identified with ethnic differences.
Models of ethnicity and culture
What is it that we compare or ought to compare when we deal with different
contexts of ethnicity? We should first bear in mind that discrete
social phenomena are in themselves not comparable in any interesting
respect. They may, however, seem to possess a family resemblance encouraging
abstract conceptualization for the sake of comparison or generalization.
Sceptical of some such conceptualizations, Fardon (1987) advocates
severe constraints on the scope for comparison of ethnic phenomena.
Less cautious or more ambitious theorists might claim that we compare,
for example, mechanisms for boundary maintenance (and transcendence),
structural properties of processes of incorporation, processes of
symbolization in political competition, or minority strategies - all
of which are considered phenomena with uniform and identifiable, formal
properties. Major concerns have been problems of social and systemic
integration in so-called plural societies, and to a lesser extent
problems relating to the distribution of power in national states
containing minorities. These concerns have dictated the development
of concepts; granted that social reality itself is multi-faceted,
our concepts about it depend on the questions asked.
A different approach borders on psychology in that it focuses on postulated
"individual needs" for an ordered social world and the prevention
of cultural entropy; in other words, the "mechanisms of boundary
maintenance" are moved from the collective to the individual
level, and the main dimension for comparison would be the manifest
techniques for solving "perennial problems" (see e.g. Cohen
1974a; Nash 1989). Both types of approach, which are not mutually
exclusive, take the cultural differences on which ethnicity is based
for granted, and study them only as signifiers in inter-ethnic interaction.
Since the relevance of cultural differences communicated through ethnicity
varies systematically in important ways, I have suggested that we
distinguish inter-ethnic contexts on such a basis, without committing
the error of identifying cultural differences with properties of individuals
or groups. In its simplest form, such a model might distinguish between
contexts characterized by (i) one language-game, (ii) overlapping
language-games, and (iii) incommensurable language-games.
The notion of a shared language-game implies agreement over constituting
and strategic rules of interaction, and of course it goes beyond mere
verbal language (Wittgenstein 1983 , I: §7; cf. Bloor 1983:
137-159). The agents understand each other when they are playing the
same language-game. My examples of ethnicity as activated in routine
institutional politics is an example of this. When language-games
are partly overlapping, there is agreement as to the form and content
of only some relevant aspects of the interaction. The example of the
Mauritian housekeeper in an Indian home illustrates this: the terms
of employment were agreed upon, but not the rank of a black woman
in an Indian home. When, finally, language-games are incommensurable,
interaction is difficult and its regulating rules will normally be
defined by the most powerful agent. Misunderstandings and highly different
definitions of the situation will be common. A territorial dispute
involving a national state and an aboriginal population would be a
typical example of this. In the material presented in this paper,
the example about the moneylending agency and the "irresponsible
borrowers" illustrates the same point on a more local scale -
while also reminding us that there are relevant cultural differences
in any society which do not necessarily have to be described as ethnic.
The classification is intended for the comparison of specific contexts,
not complete systems. Agents who misunderstand each other when they
discuss religion may well get along well when they talk about football;
whatever certain linguistic philosophers might claim to the contrary,
language-games are rarely (never?) entirely discrete, and they are
not static. Language-games expand and contract through interaction,
but certain perceptions of differences beyond the "difference
of being different" can remain despite intense interaction. Ethnic
categories can therefore sometimes constitute what Gellner (1983:64)
has called entropy-resistant classifications. Empirically, they have
hitherto been entropy-resistant in important respects in both Trinidad
and Mauritius, since intermarriage is exceptional. This may of course
Important dimensions of ethnicity which have been left out of my crude
typology are formal properties of process as well as structural and
individual power, aspects of social integration and historical specificities.
Fardon's important criticism of ambitious comparisons of ethnic phenomena
(Fardon 1987), has thus not been dealt with fully. The typology proposed
(which can be elaborated in several ways) is an attempt to operationalize
the cultural contexts of ethnicity which, I have argued, have varying
and sometimes crucial importance in the social organization of ethnicity.
Ethnicity and the concept of culture
The aim of this article has been to explore some new possibilities
for research on ethnicity - and, by extension, research on culture.
I have argued that ethnicity, as correctly suggested by the formalists,
can be reasonably regarded as the collective enaction of socially
differentiating signs. These signs, however, are not arbitrary because,
unlike linguistic signs, they are intrinsically linked with experienced,
practical worlds containing specific, relevant meanings which on the
one hand contribute to shaping interaction, and which on the other
hand limit the number of options in the production of ethnic signs.
I have argued that variation on this level of signification, where
incentives and constraints on action are reproduced, should be investigated
in comparative analyses of ethnicity. For only when all participants
are involved in the same language-game, are the ethnic signs truly
Only formal models of ethnicity are capable of producing comparative
analyses. These very models are constructed from social facts which
are themselves incomparable, and which differ in important ways. For
instance, processes of dichotomization can be identified both in interpersonal
Saami-Norwegian relationships and in Zulu-Afrikaner relationships,
but there are important differences between the contexts of the encounters,
shaping the interaction and the content and form of articulation of
stereotypes. Clearly, we cannot neglect these substantial differences.
I have suggested, therefore, a form of theoretical triangulation whereby
we apply different sets of formal abstractions to the same material;
one might label it, slightly pretentiously, a multidimensional model
of ethnicity. Models for the comparative study of boundary-maintenance
and ethnic incorporation should definitely be retained as analytical
devices. I have argued that we also need a set of abstractions for
dealing with variations in the degree of shared meaning in a given
context. For it is impossible to understand say, different problems
of different Fourth World populations, and conflicts between European
host populations and Third World labour migrants, without taking seriously
the differing cultural contexts (and semantic density) of manifestly
communicated ethnic differences. To conceptualize shared meaning as
shared language-games, I have argued, can turn such cultural differences
into a matter of analysis, not just one of description or policymaking.
I believe this kind of argument, for which I claim little originality,
to have profound significance for anthropological research and theorizing
about culture. Let me, therefore, outline a few implications by way
of conclusion. First, textual models of culture have limited value
insofar as culture is an aspect of diverse social practices lacking
the unity of a text as well as its structure and its form of internal
logic. However, to deconstruct culture into the varying meaning-aspects
of concrete social relationships apparently deprives us of the possibility
of grasping culture as an interrelated system of signifiers - and
this presents us with a problem. On the one hand, culture is neither
a property of a person nor an integrated symbolic system; this is
never more evident than in multi-ethnic societies where several competing,
although overlapping language-games may present themselves as potentially
relevant. But on the other hand, culture is a thing, une chose sociale,
insofar as it provides necessary cues for all meaningful action. The
predicament entailed by our deconstruction of a much misused term
can only be resolved if social relationships are understood contextually
yet not reduced to their contexts. We must, in other words, arrive
at an understanding of culture which makes it impossible to talk of,
for example, Norwegian culture, or Mauritian culture, or for that
matter of Indo-Trinidadian culture, while at the same time not reducing
culture to idiosyncratic individual actions. I have suggested that
culture be conceptualized as a language-game; a learnt and internalized
context of shared meaning bounded spatially, temporally and situationally,
yet related to other such games through rules of translation and conversion,
or through shared or continuous practices, personnel or other carriers
of information. Within such a framework, it is possible to account
for the communication of cultural difference on every level right
down to the dyadic encounter without either reifying "cultural
groups" as analytical entities or reducing the relevant differences
to arbitrary signs; that is, without reducing agency to structure,
meaning to politics, and creativity to normative behaviour. This use
of the language-game concept thus makes it possible to delineate the
extent of shared meaning in relevant contexts in a society, without
presupposing either the existence of "an integrated culture"
or that of independent individuals developing their mutual understanding
from scratch. For the rules of language-games are learnt, although
they are frequently modified by the agents.
Culture is, like social structure, dual: it provides a necessary frame
within which action can be meaningful, and it depends entirely on
intentional action for its reproduction. Conversely, culture is activated
in all human relationships, while simultaneously a condition for the
very same relationships to be meaningful. Intentional agency is therefore
a necessary component in cultural change. It remains only to add that
ethnicity is similarly constituted - and that its significance in
any situation cannot be taken for granted.
Acknowledgements. Several people have read earlier versions of this
article and commented usefully. Harald Eidheim and Kim Johnson helped
clarify the analytical perspective; Man's two anonymous referees commented
extensively and critically on a number of relevant issues, and finally,
Tim Ingold helped improve both the argument and my English. Fieldwork
in Mauritius (1986) and Trinidad (1989) was funded by the Norwegian
Council for Science and the Humanities (NAVF).
Allen, Richard (1983)Creoles, Indian Immigrants and the Restructuring
of Society and Economy in Mauritius, 1767-1885. Unpublished Ph.D.
thesis, University of Illinois
Anderson, Benedict (1983) Imagined Communities. London: Verso
Barth, Fredrik (1969) Introduction, in F. Barth (ed.), Ethnic Groups
and Boundaries. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget
Bloor, David (1983) Wittgenstein: A Social Theory of Knowledge. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Brereton, Bridget (1979) Race Relations in Colonial Trinidad 1870-1900.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Cohen, Abner (1974a) Two-Dimensional Man. London: Tavistock
Cohen, Abner (1974b) The Lesson of Ethnicity. In Abner Cohen (ed.
),Urban Ethnicity. London: Tavistock
Despres, Leo ,ed. (1975) Ethnicity and Resource Competition in Plural
Societies. The Hague: Mouton
Eidheim, Harald (1969) When Ethnic Identity Becomes a Social Stigma.
In Fredrik Barth (ed.),Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget
Eidheim, Harald (1971) Aspects of the Lappish Minority Situation.
Epstein, A.L. (1958) Politics in an Urban African Community. Manchester:
Manchester University Press
Epstein, A.L. (1978) Ethos and Identity. London: Tavistock
Eriksen, Thomas H. (1988) Communicating Cultural Difference and Identity.
Ethnicity and Nationalism in Mauritius. Oslo: Occasional Papers in
Fanon, Franz (1952) Peaux Noirs; Masques Blancs. Paris: Seuil
Fardon, Richard (1987) 'African Ethnogenesis'. Limits to the Comparability
of Ethnic Phenomena. In Ladislav Holy (ed.), Comparative Anthropology.
Gellner, Ernest (1983) Nations and Nationalism. Oxford: Blackwell
Giddens, Anthony (1983) The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity
Giddens, Anthony (1987) Social Theory and Modern Sociology. Cambridge:
Grønhaug, Reidar (1975) Transaction and Signification. Typescript,
University of Bergen
Handelman, Don (1977) The organization of ethnicity. Ethnic Groups,
vol.1, pp. 187-200
Leach, Edmund R. (1954) Political Systems of Highland Burma. London:
Leach, Edmund R. (1961) Rethinking Anthropology. London: Athlone
Mayer, Philip (1971 ) Townsmen or Tribesmen. Cape Town: Oxford
Mitchell, J. Clyde (1956) The Kalela Dance. Manchester: Manchester
Mitchell, J. Clyde (1974) Perceptions of Ethnicity and Ethnic Behaviour:
An Empirical Exploration. In Abner Cohen (ed.), Urban Ethnicity. London:
Nash, Manning (1989) The Cauldron of Ethnicity in the Modern World.
London: The University of Chicago Press
O'Brien, Jay (1986) Toward a Reconstitution of Ethnicity: Capitalist
Expansion and Cultural Dynamics in Sudan. American Anthropologist,
vol. 88, pp. 898-906
Okamura, Jonathan (1981) Situational Ethnicity. Ethnic and Racial
Studies, vol. 4, pp. 452-463
Ryan, Selwyn (1972) Race and Nationalism in Trinidad and Tobago. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press
Simmons, Adele S. (1983) Modern Mauritius: The Politics of Decolonization.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press
Smith, Anthony D. (1986) The Ethnic Origin of Nations. Oxford: Blackwell
Thuen, Trond (1982) Meaning and Transaction in Sami Ethnopolitics.
Mimeo, University of Tromsø
Van den Berghe, Philip (1975) Ethnicity and Class in Highland Peru.
In Leo Despres (ed.), Ethnicity and Resource Competition in Plural
Societies. The Hague: Mouton
Weller, Judith A. (1968) The East Indian Indenture in Trinidad. Rio
Pedras: Institute of Caribbean Studies
Wilden, Anthony (1980) System and Structure, 2nd. ed. London: Tavistock
Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1983 ) Philosophical Investigations, tr.
G.E.M. Anscombe. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
Wolf, Eric (1982) Europe and The People Without History. Berkeley:
University of California Press
Worsley, Peter (1984) The Three Worlds. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson
©Thomas Hylland Eriksen 1991