User:JennyRosen/Reflections on Peterson, Ebby & Ålund, Alexandra (2007) Etniciteter: Ras, kön, klass, identitet och kultur

Etniciteter: Ras, kön, klass, identitet och kultur by Ebby Peterson & Alexandra Ålund

In their introductory chapter, Peterson and Ålund give the reader a glimpse into various different understandings of ethnicity. Many of them refer to the idea of belonging in terms of cultural practice(s), tradition, religion and identity (2007:21). Even though many people seem to believe they understand what ethnicity is, the authors emphasize the fact that the term “ethnicity” is far more complex, multi-dimensional and ideological and political than it may seems initially (2007:22). The term ethnicity has a long history: it was used already during Ancient Greece to define people from outside regions or cultural strangers. Still today the term is used for the same purpose of defining cultural strangers, minority groups, lower classes or migrants (2007:15). In sociology, ethnicity was described by Weber both on biological ground (similarities of physical type) but also as a group with shared experience of colonialization or migration. Moreover, Weber stresses the importance of ethnicity in regard to different status groups. In the same spirit, Georg Simmel writes about the stranger, who is created in social and cultural practices by not fitting into the norm of the majority community (2007:15).What is regarded as ethnic is, therefore, contextual dependent. Peterson and Ålund write that similarities can be drawn to the contemporary construction of the “immigrant”, as they are perceived as of lower status and formed as a socially and culturally degraded collective (2007:16). Ålund has identified two criteria for constituting ethnicity: a shared cultural belonging and the structural conditions, which changes in place and time and creates different forms of social organization and formations of communities (2007:16).

Two understandings of ethnicity have been dominating the field: the primordialist and the constructivist. According to primordalist, ethnicity is to be seen as something existing in reality as a cultural baggage that is passed between generations. The ethnic identity is funded on language, tradition, religion and territory and, therefore, can be understood in terms of nationality (2007:17). A primordial understanding of ethnicity emphasizes the fact that individuals are locked inside categorizations and the characteristics defining them (2007:18). Constructivist on the other hand understand ethnicity to be a process and, hence, dynamic in nature. Ethnicity is constructed and negotiated socially (2007:16). An important step away from the primordial understanding of ethnicity was taken by Fredrik Barth (1969), who claimed that ethnicity was created in the meeting between social collectives, which through interaction defined the self in relation to the other (We and Them). Moreover, Barth believed that the cultural and social were integrated and dynamic. Through cultural performative actions, experiences of different social positions in terms of gender, class, age etc were expressed. Therefore, ethnicity has to be seen in relation to other power hierarchies and categories of marginalization (2007:17). Such an understanding can be defined as intersectionality, a term which according to Peterson and Ålund is used in order to “beskriva de sociala identiteternas maktrelationer till belägenhetskategorier som samhällsklass, gens, “ras”, etnicitet, och för att synliggöra hur olika sociala uppdelningar förenas of producerar underordningspraktiker” (2007:18-19). Moreover, an intersectional perspective aknowledges the resistance of marginalized groups, as well as their attempts to create their own narratives. Multiculturalism is not a question of differences between equals (2007:19). One example of this can be found in the ethnic division of labor and in the form of segregation and discrimination of certain groups. However, these structural differences have been explained in terms of cultural or ethnical, which make the social conditions invisible (2007:19). In terms of the Swedish education system, Peterson and Ålund write that “Det svenska utbildningssystemets olika institutioner tenderar att i sina dagliga praktiker upprätthålla en inriktning mot kulturell konformitet, och därmed riskerar man att medverka till en fortsatt utsortering i termer av etnicitet (Bunar 2001). Skolans inre arbete präglas fortfarande av etnisk diskriminering, diskursiv ”rasifiering” av invandrarungdomar och förekomsten av rasistiska attityder bland skolan personal” (2007:20). They state the importance of making visible how process of social differentiation (utsorteringsprocesser) and social exclusion are explained in terms of “kulturkrockar” in a form of cultural reductionism (2007:20).

According to Robert Miles, the symbolic marks of difference between “Us and Them” become a fact making it impossible for “Them” to become like “Us”. What is defined as the differences, biological or cultural signs or markers, construct the boundaries of what the Other can become, as argued by Miles (2007:21). Racism is expressed when these constructed differences are seen as natural and an explanation of inequalities in society is needed (2007:21).