How Are Beliefs and Ideas of Ethnicity Maintained?

HOW ARE BELIEFS AND IDEAS OF ETHNICITY ESTABLISHED AND MAINTAINED?

Conceptions of ethnicity (from both within and outside the cultural community itself) are established and sustained through two integral means; the structure of the political, social, religious and educational systems, and the constant re-evaluation and interpretation of these spheres and how relevant they are to the ethnicity. Through the course of this essay, I will break down and examine how the aforementioned structures assist in the shaping of different understandings regarding 'ethnicity' and 'nationalism', namely how they were initially established, and how they are perpetuated, despite changing social and political conditions throughout the ages. This contention will be further substantiated through close analysis of various scholarly conclusions, and historical examples demonstrate various anthropological theories regarding the subject.

The origins of 'nationalism' and 'ethnicity' not only indicate how an ethnicity is formed, but provide an insight enabling us to better understand who the ethnicities today are and why they exist. The establishment of an ethnic core is argued to be self conscious and intentional, and these qualities facilitate the shaping of an individual nation as well as the particular cultural boundaries it defers to. Larger nations are often moulded around dominant ethnicity/s , for example, the Ancient Roman nation was originally of Trojan and Latin descent, and later grew to incorporate and dominate numerous ethnic sub-factions. Central to the development of nations is the paradox of ethnicity which requires the coexistence of flux and durability- reconciling the ever changing individual and cultural expressions within distinct social and cultural parameters. Further academic discrepancies regarding the nature of 'ethnicity' includes the debate over whether ethnicity must be viewed as 'primordial', and regarded as an extension of processes of genetic selection, or as 'situational'- where belonging to group is a matter of mutable attitudes, perceptions and sentiments varying with the particular situation of the subject.

An additional discrepancy to be cleared up is the relationship (that is, the similarities and differences) between 'ethnicity' and 'nationalism'. Whilst there is a conceptual and historical overlap between the two terms, they must not be confused- ethnic communities do not have several attributes of nation; for instance, they do not need to be resident in 'their' territorial homeland. Culture, within ethnicities, may not be common to all members, the members do not need to be part of same economic community, and they do not need common legal code, rights, and duties for all. A similarity shared between 'ethnicities' and 'nations', however, is the need for cultural flexibility to surrounding social systems and conditions to ensure the continued existence of the community.

As Hugh Seton- Watson (author of world renowned text on nationalism) purports, '[although] no "scientific definition of the nation can be devised, the phenomenon has existed and exists.' It is, however, through the close examination of a nation's origins and evolution that one can approximate a clear idea of 'ethnicity' and 'nationalism'.

The political sphere plays a fundamental role in establishing and maintaining cultural ideas of 'ethnicity' and 'nationalism'. A vital feature to be highlighted regarding the relationship between ethnicity and political life is that these two components are both (generally) inextricably intertwined and mutually dependent on each other- together ensuring structure and order within cultural and political life. This need for mutual dependency is manifested through two unvarying realities: that a) political action has proven to serve as integral for ethnic formation, and b) the structure of political communities and laws are often based on a particular ethnic 'core', around which judicial, fiscal, administrative, and military configurations are established. Within anthropological debate, political communities and their actions are not only seen as an important catalysts for the formation of ethnic groups, been seen as the source for ideological unity within ethnic formations- "it is primarily the political community, no matter how artificially organised that inspires the belief in common ethnicity". As structurally, political institutions are founded on specific ethnic behaviours, forms of communication, ideals and qualities, these concepts of ethnicity are consequently engrained within the political structure of the nation.

Political and ethnic influences are, similarly, equally important and inseparable with regard to how a nation is maintained over an extended period of time as they are to how they contribute to a nation's establishment. The co-operation and co-dependence between state and culture is essential to the maintenance of an organised and controlled society; whilst the culture (an informal and disorganised entity within itself) needs the state to organise the society, Ernest Gellner, author of several books discussing theories of 'nationalism', asserts that the state, likewise, is dependent on culture to provide a sense of cultural identity and loyalty, using 'cultural branding' as a means to influence and police it's citizens, reminding them of need for 'moral zeal' and 'social identification'.

Furthermore, Gellner argues that it is through the establishment of centrally sustained high cultures that political structure and the power it holds over nations is legitimised. Consequently, because each individual culture and it's predisposed social conditions (and hence political configurations, which Gellner asserts are formulated in response to social conditions) are unique, Gellner subsequently purports that polities' powers (both protecting and imposing their cultures) extend only to the limits of their cultures. Similarly, the notion of a specific homeland associated with a particular culture is a common characteristic found within various ethnic groupings. Cultural ownership over a specific land is often directly associated with cultural and political structure, and therefore power. More specifically, ethnic entitlement (and not necessarily personal presence) over particular plots of land potentially enables large amounts of independent statehood. Thus, one may argue that from this perspective, the importance of land as a symbol of ownership and power is both literal and spiritual.

Warfare, as an extension of political control and influence, also plays a significant