Editorial to the Special Issue "Thinking Beyond Boundaries: Researching Ethnoheterogenesis in Contexts of Diversities and Social Change"
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Editorial to the Special Issue “Thinking Beyond Boundaries: Researching
Ethnoheterogenesis in Contexts of Diversities and Social Change”
by Nina Clara Tiesler, Mathias Bös and Deborah Sielert
(Leibniz University of Hannover)
1. Introduction landmark volume Ethnic Groups and Boundar
The study of societal change and ethnic relations ies: The Social Organization of Cultural Differ
has been a core pursuit in Sociology and Social ence, edited by Frederic Barth in 1969. In con-
Anthropology and often occurs in historical con- trast to constructivist perspectives, essentialist,
texts marked by heightened migration (Haas substantialist, and most groupism approaches
et al. 2020, Massey 2008). This special issue aims to ethnicity cannot specify the genesis of eth-
to refine the theoretical understanding of social nic framings employing necessary analytical
and cultural processes regarding the formation criteria, for example the emergence of ethnic-
of ethnicities and ethnic diversity (Yancey et al ity through institutional frameworks, meaning
1976, Bös 2010). The collection explores the making, social classifications, power relations,
context of migrants and migrant descendants, etc. As a normative political category, during the
wherein conceptual debates on self-perceptions, US social movements in the 1960s, “ethnicity”
modes of belonging, group formation, and col- also became the most prominent form of iden-
lective subjectivities continue to be at the core of tity politics (Hobsbawm 1996). The challenge of
theoretical considerations (Cohen 1974, Glazer distinguishing between political and analytical
and Moynihan 1975, Banton 2008). In so doing, discourse is certainly one of the reasons why
the special issue also goes beyond this context: “ethnicity” has remained a quite unsettled and
it analyses the genesis and continuously shifting often ill-defined field of inquiry up to the pres-
social forms of ethnicities, which is heuristically ent day among scholars concerned with catego-
important in that it can help us clarify processes ries of collective subjectivities. Namely, it is held
of social, cultural, and political change in soci- that neither “ethnicity” nor “collective identities”
ety at large (Bell 1975, Bös 2011, Banton 2011). are analytical categories, but are the results of a
By conceptualising ethnoheterogeneous affilia- sociogenesis; they are therefore objects of ana-
tion as one of many membership roles, this spe- lytical inquiry (Brubaker and Cooper 2000).
cial issue contributes to the development of a Social realities, such as the options and con-
Sociology of Membership. straints of concerned individuals and groupings
Social sciences and the humanities have a who are subject to ethnic framings, are utterly
long tradition of researching the emergence complex. Generally speaking, ethnicity is suit-
of ethnicities, respectively ethnization and de- able for re-defining rational processes of soci-
ethnization processes. Tackling the question of etisation (Vergesellschaftung) into processes of
why ethnicity matters to different degrees, in communitisation (Vergemeinschaftung, Weber
different ways, and in differing social and histori- 1968). Societisation refers to patterns of social
cal contexts became a mission for constructivist relationships that are based primarily on ratio-
perspectives, at least since the publication of the nal motivations for action (e.g., an organization),
NEW DIVERSITIES Vol. 23, No. 1, 2021
ISSN-Print 2199-8108 ▪ ISSN-Internet 2199-8116NEW DIVERSITIES 23 (1), 2021 Nina Clara Tiesler, Mathias Bös and Deborah Sielert
while communitisation refers more strongly to 1974), such as describing socio-cultural change
emotions and traditions as the basis for social among both minority and majority groupings
relationships (e.g., a family). Ethnization often and in society at large. Therefore, the concept
takes place when administrative divisions and of EHG is proposed as a starting point to discuss
structural classifications (clearly, processes of multidimensional models of specific forms of
societisation) are interpreted (or re-defined) as societisation, which involve ethnic framing and
processes of communitisation. As a result, when affiliations of individuals, groupings, and macro
individuals and groupings engage in emancipa- groups (Tiesler 2017a). Rather than reducing
tory struggles to escape structural constraints, such formative processes to linear models, EHG
more often than not, they also counter feelings explicitly addresses the dialectic of homogeniza-
of reification and alienation. These feelings occur tion and heterogenization in the genesis of eth-
when ethnization as an externally ascribed clas- nicities, as well as the normality of de-ethniza-
sification to a community or group of some kind tion and multiple options (Waters 1990) regard-
does not match their self-perception. In relation ing ethnic affiliation (Tiesler 2018).
to these highly dynamic social situations, many In this approach, ethnoheterogenesis (EHG)
concepts and frameworks in this broad field aligns with many theories of ethnic boundar-
still appear too limited to grasp the complex ies (Barth 1969) and ethnic boundary making
and multi-dimensional formative processes that (Wimmer 2008), especially regarding the
produce ethnicities (or rather: the swing of the dynamic nature and situativity. However, it goes
pendulum between ethnization, de-ethnization, beyond these theories by employing a trans-
re-ethnization) and societal change through eth- national perspective and by highlighting two
nic diversification. The ways in which concepts simultaneously existing processes of diversifica-
such as assimilation, identity, integration, diver- tion. Firstly, the diversity of such boundaries, and
sity, inclusion, multi-ethnic societies, etc. have secondly, the heterogenizing power impacting
historically developed and are employed often inter- and intra- group dynamics within forma-
represent highly political and normative self- tive processes that are often solely interpreted
descriptions by civil society, which puts them as homogeneous (Tiesler 2017a).
into danger to become useless as analytical cat- The aim of the special issue is to further
egories of heuristic value (e.g., Schinkel 2018). develop EHG as an analytical category for exam-
This is why this special issue suggests develop- ining processes of socio-cultural change in
ing a new process category, ethnoheterogenesis complex settings of transnationally constituted
(EHG), coined by Tiesler (2017, 2018). It builds societies that can be considered “super-diverse”
on theoretical achievements, such as ethnic (Vertovec 2007) and/or “ethnoheterogeneous”
boundaries (Barth 1969) and boundary making (Claussen 2013). In this sense, the concept can
(Wimmer 2004, Alba 2005), multiethnicity be considered part of the analytical toolbox of
(Pieterse 2007), superdiversity (Vertovec 2007), a broader Sociology of Membership. This spe-
inter alia, as well as its most direct ancestor – cial issue tackles the question of how ethnicities
ethnogenesis. emerge and analyses what processes are at work.
Ethnogenesis originally described constitutive In so doing, the authors relate their observa-
processes of ethnic groups, their possible fissions, tions, empirical data and analyses, in one way or
de-ethnization, expansion, or new formations another, to the concept of EHG.
over time and space (Singer 1962, Voss 2008). The empirical material presented by the
From the mid-1970s onward, in American Sociol- authors who address EHG in this volume is
ogy, the term ethnogenesis was also employed diverse in terms of both geographical scope
to convey societal assimilation, integration, and and groups of actors. It includes postcolonial
change caused by ethnic diversification (Greeley immigrant communities in France, both Franco-
2Editorial NEW DIVERSITIES 23 (1), 2021
Maghrebi youth (native born minorities) and ment of EHG as an analytical category, however
recent immigrants from North Africa (new arriv- some questions still remain open. In what follows,
als) (Schiff 2021); Russian speakers in Estonia in we will briefly introduce these important aspects.
the borderland city of Narva (Schäfer 2021); the
sanctuary city politics of San Francisco in regard 2. The Dialectics of Hetero- and
to undocumented migrants (Peeck-Ho 2021), Homogenization
and individuals in Germany who are classified as It is generally acknowledged that homogenizing
having a “migration background”* (Canan and forces shape the formative processes of ethno-
Hänig 2021). genesis and ethnic change, as former socially
The empirical findings of these contributions and/or culturally diverse entities are becom-
are in line with manifold studies of migrants ing framed or start perceiving themselves as an
and migrant descendants, highlighting that con- allegedly homogeneous collective (Brass 1991).
ceptual debates on self-perceptions, modes The essence and exploratory analysis of the
of belonging, group formations and collective sum of papers of this special issue suggest that
subjectivities continue to be at the core of theo- this view is one-dimensional and too linear. The
retical considerations aiming to reveal complex strength of the ethnogenesis concept, as devel-
settings. While engaging EHG as a new or addi- oped to date (see Tiesler 2021, in this volume, for
tional lens, the authors in this volume refer to a an overview of the conceptual history), is its con-
number of theoretical works, among them the structivist (and partly instrumentalist) approach,
established-outsider configuration, symbolic which highlights the fact that ethnicities are
boundary making by Lamont and by Wimmer socially constructed and historically contingent.
(Schiff 2021), the (politics of) belonging by Yuval The weakness of the ethnogenesis concept lies
Davis (Peeck-Ho 2021, Schäfer 2021), a space- in the fact that it cannot grasp the entanglement,
sensitive theorisation of belonging (inter alia) by the interdependency and simultaneousness, of
Youkhana (Schäfer 2021), and hybridity by Bhaba hetero- and homogenizing forces. At the national
(Canan and Hänig 2021). level, the logic of the latter becomes particularly
These articles underline that, more often than visible when cross-border migration is involved.
not, ethnic self-perceptions and membership Observed by Max Weber amongst “German-
roles among people who have migrated and Americans” as early as in the beginning of the
those who are labelled as minorities are chang- 20th century at the occasion of his visit to the
ing over time in a kaleidoscopic manner. These USA, it requires the act of emigration to develop
changes are seen across generations and in a notion of belonging and self-perception in
diverse migration trajectories . The authors’ the- national categories: before migrating to the
oretical analysis of complex settings enrich our USA, these Germans understood themselves in
own work on the above cited theoretical goals: regional bonds, rather than as “German nation-
EHG emphasizes the genesis and changes of eth- als”. Only through migration, with the experi-
nic framing and multiplicity of ethnic member- ence of arrival in the USA in the midst of other
ships by focusing on the dialectic of hetero- and European immigrants, they were categorized
homogenization processes. The papers gathered and started perceiving themselves as Germans
in this special issue speak to the further develop- (Banton 2011).
Now, this homogenizing force of “nationaliza-
* The term „migration background“ is a neologism in tion” holds true for other cross-border migrants
German discourses and describes a statistical catego-
as well. At being perceived as a national minority
ry invented around twenty years ago. While it tries to
include a bigger group of people than the otherwise and trying to develop a common voice in politi-
measured „Ausländer/foreigners“, it is still criticized cal action or common cultural traditions, internal
for referring to inherited citizenship and ancestry, divisions and diversity need to fade. At the very
rather than migration experience.
3NEW DIVERSITIES 23 (1), 2021 Nina Clara Tiesler, Mathias Bös and Deborah Sielert
same time, heterogenization takes place. Firstly, neous premises for the homogenizing genesis
because the act of migration from one country of ethnicities nor its heterogeneous outcomes.
to another usually brings together co-nationals In so doing, it enhances the structuring of alleg-
from different regions of the country of depar- edly homogenous macro groups along ethnic
ture. The experience of arrival most often is an boundaries – in terms of “cultural”, “national”,
experience of internal cultural, social, even eth- “hybrid”, “multiple”, “pan-”, “hyphenated” and
nic diversity amongst a group of nationals, e.g. so forth “identities”. Instead, and as with a grow-
when people from the South of Germany or Tur- ing number of recent theoretical works (Banton
key or Portugal etc. meet co-nationals from the 2011) in the “post-identity era” (Hank, Enrique
North of the same country. In the homogenizing and Laraña 1994), the literature on identities
process of “becoming” German, Turkish or Por- refers back to sociological and anthropological
tuguese in the new environment, the concrete craft and concepts that were in use before the
societal experience of the new surrounding sets 1960s, a time when the words “identity” and
a frame. This is to say, secondly, the specific “ethnicity” took off together for a vast career of
diasporic context (structural conditions, other semantic broadening in academic discourse. An
minorities and majorities, common and distinct analytical framework suggests rediscovering and
cultural elements, etc.) leads to a heterogeniza- recuperating self-perception, membership, affili-
tion process at another level that one can observe ations, ascriptions, ethnic framing, representa-
when considering a transnational perspective: tions, mobilisation, social entities, reflexive eth-
as soon as cross-border migrants communicate nization and de-ethnization, collective subjectiv-
with, connect to, or visit the people and places ity, collective identification, identity-thinking and
that they had left behind, the country of arrival politics, from the unrecognisable condition into
sets a new category of belonging. While becom- which they melt within the “verbal container”
ing Germans, these migrants in the USA became (Claussen 2013) of “identities”. Here, they melt
German-Americans; while becoming Portuguese from subjective belief and needs for collective
by migrating to Germany, these became “Luso- action, with the objective consequence of struc-
Germans” (Portuguese-Germans). When Luso- turing macro groups in society and re-enforc-
Germans arrive back in Portugal for holidays, the ing social inequalities along ethnically defined
local population welcome them saying, “here boundaries.
come the Germans” as those who had emigrated As an alternative to the reifying identity-jargon,
e.g. to France are greeted as “the French are the EHG concept suggests perceiving individuals
coming” (Tiesler 2018). The dialectic of homo- and their subjective experiences, preferences
and heterogenization is an ongoing process in and unique webs of group affiliations (Simmel
the “genesis of ethnicities” that always includes 1992 [1908]) as non-identical with others despite
ethnization, de-ethnization, re-ethnization. possible common ethnic affiliation and ascrip-
tions to macro groups. Above all, as an analytical
3. Multiple Memberships framework, EHG considers ethnic membership
The articles in this special issue take actors’ as one among many membership roles. Who
perspectives and employ anthropological as belongs here, and who does not? A Sociology of
well as sociological methods in the field. While Membership observes and analyses the devel-
acknowledging the importance of the emanci- opmental contexts, impact and consequences of
patory struggle of ethnically defined minorities, this question. The answer to the question targets
EHG, however, does not perpetuate the politi- different aspects, frames, modes and conditions
cal language of identity politics. The problem of membership and is constantly negotiated by
of the commonly loose talk of identities is that diverse social formations, such as national states,
it neither explains the socio-cultural heteroge- political parties, firms, sport clubs, families, or
4Editorial NEW DIVERSITIES 23 (1), 2021
ethnic groupings. Such negotiations are defined units of social analysis”. Banton concludes:
by – and are shaping – power relations. While The conceptual problem is even greater when
ethnic claims and identity politics are found the recognition of ethnic origin is generalized
among both societal majorities and minorities, by reference to ethnicity as if this were an inde-
the term ethnic group (as well as national group) pendent factor that influences the behaviour of
is commonly used to describe a societal minor- humans in many regions of the world. Some of
ity. It is not exclusive but indeed essential that these difficulties may be eased if the focus is
a Sociology of Membership acknowledges that moved from the concept of a group to that of a
minorities in any society, however defined, are category (Banton 2011, 194).
not homogenous units. Individuals and group(- This confirms what we have already learnt
ing)s within a minority may differ in their reac- from Singer’s work, the first sociological paper
tion to subordination, type of leadership, ideol- on ethnogenesis, namely to speak of ethnically
ogy, degree of allegiance to their group, to other defined groupings as social entities instead of
members or to the larger society, the ultimate social categories. The latter does not imply that
goals of the group, etc. Consequently, a minority people are involved in a relationship among
(and by inference the contextual majority/ies as themselves, while this is the case for ethnicities
well) will generally not be a wholly united group – understood as social entities, wherein people
groups and individuals will favour various modes share i.e. values or a sense of self-recognition
of action in response to majority constraints. (Singer 1962, 420). In other words, “there is only
an ethnic group for itself and nothing like an eth-
4. The Shifting Salience of Ethnicity nic group in itself” (Bös 2015, 138).
In his Theory of Social Categories, Michael Ban- Additional to these insights, there is a differ-
ton (2011) is on a par with Steve Fenton (2003) ent line of sociological inquiry regarding ethno-
and Rogers Brubaker (2006) in his critique of genesis which can add to the development of our
“groupism”. As a starting point, Banton confirms framework. Andrew Greeley (1974), an Ameri-
that it has been conventional to conceive of eth- can sociologist and Roman Catholic priest devel-
nogenesis as a process by which a set of individu- oped a model that grasps the simultaneousness
als come to think of themselves as a people. For and interdependency of ethnocultural changes
the development of EHG as an analytical frame- among both migrant populations and the society
work his following point is of major importance: they are part. His US-based empirical study can
instead of understanding ethnogenesis as a be said to develop a two-dimensional model of
formative process of “a people […] it would be ethnogenesis. By conceptualising socio-cultural
more accurate to speak of ethnoacclivity and change in society at large as ethnogenesis, Gree-
ethnodeclivity as processes by which the signifi- ley’s model went beyond the analysis of group
cance attributed to ethnic identification rises and affiliations but remained under-theorised despite
declines. From a sociological standpoint it is as its heuristic potential. As with other models of
important to account for the absence of ethnic socio-cultural change, and concepts regarding
identification as for its presence” (Banton 2011, ethnicities, Greeley’s model does not explicitly
193). Every person can acknowledge one or more address the dialectic of homogenization and
ethnic or national origins. As Steve Fenton (2003, heterogenization in the process of ethnogenesis.
68) has observed, “the problem … is not the word It is for future research to verify if Ethnohetero-
‘ethnic’ but the word ‘group’ ”. Brubaker (2006, 8) genesis can also be employed as a framework to
has similarly criticised “groupism”, by which he analyse socio-cultural change in society at large.
means “the tendency to take discrete, bounded The notion of “ethnoheterogeneous societies” as
groups as basic constituents of social life, chief coined by Detlev Claussen (2013) points to this
protagonists of social conflicts and fundamental potential.
5NEW DIVERSITIES 23 (1), 2021 Nina Clara Tiesler, Mathias Bös and Deborah Sielert
5. The Dynamics of Ethnic Group selected relevant sociological works introduced
Configurations here underline, again, that in order to eluci-
Although the term genesis carries the connota- date the formative process of ethnically defined
tion of “birth” or “creation”, ethnogenesis tended social entities we need to consider the interplay
to be used to describe what was later called “eth- between sociocultural characteristics and social
nic change” or “ethnic osmosis” (Barth 1969). In structure, as well as intergroup relations in spe-
introducing the ethnogenesis of African-Ameri- cific settings of power. Especially, in regards to
cans as starting ab initio (unlike all other inqui- questions of power and domination the papers
ries up until that date in which ethnogenesis was gathered in this issue add important empirical
used to conceptualize the transformation of some insights for an analysis under the category of
ethnic groups into other ethnic groups), Singer’s EHG.
contribution added decisively to the works of Furthermore, there are a few relevant alterna-
his time because traditional perspectives had tive concepts applicable to or enhancing ethno-
nearly exclusively focused on the survival and genesis and ethnic change, namely ethnic osmo-
transformation of European-derived “ethnic cul- sis (Barth 1969), ethno(re)genesis, ethnocultural
tures” in the USA. It was later argued – e.g. by drift and ethnic strategizing (Thomson 2011).
Fredrik Barth (1969) and Anthony Greeley (1974) The question is whether or not EHG might serve
– that the process whereby ethnic groups come as an umbrella category for these concepts. This
into being had been largely ignored. Similarly, as question remains open and should be on the
criticized by Pierre van den Berge (1967) as well agenda of future work in developing EHG as an
as William Yancey et al. (1976), the emphasis on analytical category.
culture as an explanatory variable had tended
to obscure the contribution of structural condi- 6. The Futile Search for Stability
tions to the emergence and persistence of eth- The conceptual history of the term ethnogene-
nicity. During the same period, several scholars sis provides an essential part of the theoretical
(e.g., Cohen 1969, Doornbos 1972, Hechter 1974, framework for the endeavour to further develop
and slightly later Taylor 1979) suggested that EHG as an analytical category. As mentioned
while ethnicity may involve cultural referents, its above, it is no coincidence that our conceptual
development and persistence would depend on considerations and theorizing is oriented by
certain structural conditions. This is to say, the “traditional”, critical, sociological and anthropo-
expectation that class or functional cleavages logical craft. “Traditional” in this context means
should become predominant over ascriptive soli- before the identity-jargon became established.
darities in modern society seemed to be unjusti- There is indeed a complement to the instru-
fied in view of the persistence of these structural mentalist, constructivist and other perspectives
factors (Mayhew 1968, Bell 1975). on ethnicity. Matching our purpose, a significant
Here, the awareness and need to differenti- parallel line of argument addresses the nature of
ate between social category and social entity, as ethnic situations rather than the nature of “eth-
stressed by Singer, is at the core. Still, Singer’s nic identity”. Essential to all of these perspectives
expanded sequence appears too linear to grasp is the insight that ethnicity, as a phenomenon, is
the formative process of either hyphenated fundamentally an attribute of pluralistic situa-
or pan-ethnic conceptions of ethnic member- tions, especially “the asymmetric incorporation
ship. This supports the argument that differing of structurally dissimilar groupings into a single
processes described as ethnogenesis can be political economy” (Comaroff 1987:307, cp. also
conceptualized as Ethnoheterogenesis (EHG) Thomson 2011). As the subtitle of Barth’s 1969
as our concept highlights the dialectic of het- landmark volume states, we are considering “the
ero- and homogenization at work. However, the social organization of cultural differences.”
6Editorial NEW DIVERSITIES 23 (1), 2021
While the linear and one-dimensional nature and excludes them (Schäfer 2021: 10). But, as
of most models of ethnogenesis is one source of the author demonstrates, “with each separation”
motivation to conceptualise EHG as an alterna- (homogenizing force), “comes also a new connec-
tive, another source is the analytical shortcom- tion, leading to heterogeneous ways…” (Schäfer
ings and reification of subjective experience 2021:11). “Being Russian” becomes highly eth-
when group formations and affiliations are tau- noheterogeneous: attached and detached from
tologically explained by the use of the cover-all Russia, attached and detached from memories of
and obliterating “identity”-category. It is essen- the Soviet past, etc. By moving between multi-
tial that the preparatory work toward a new ana- ple ethnoheterogeneous memberships, Russian
lytical framework in this special issue, and that speakers expose the limits of the homogenizing
EHG should open up ways to resist what Eric national state politics that feeds their otherness.
Hobsbawm (1996) and others have called “iden- Moving across multiple and ethnoheterogen-
tity-jargon”. The insights of the papers presented erous memberships is also the (subversive) strat-
in this special issue underline the hypothesis that egy of resistance against ethnic or racialized cate-
ethnicity can neither be seen as a form of collec- gorizations in combination with homogenization
tive subjectivity nor as an unchangeable part of amongst those Germans “with a migration back-
one’s self but rather as one of many membership ground” studied by Coskun Canan and Albrecht
roles that individuals take up and are ascribed Hänig (2021, in this volume). Exemplified by the
within specific situations and broader member- analysis of a rap song (in which the lyrics incor-
ship constellations. porate German, English, French, Italien, Turkish,
As we have argued so far, the main potential Kurdish, Zaza, and Arab language), Canan and
of the concept of EHG for the study of ethnic and Hänig develop the concept of “hybrid-ethnic-cul-
social change is that it takes into account the dia- tural-stylizations”. It stands for the act of switch-
lectical dynamics of diversification from a trans- ing between different social-cultural contexts, in
national perspective; there is no homogenization which individuals with a migration background
without heterogenization and vice versa, as they deal with attributed and socially constructed
entail each other. This also holds true for inter- ethnic membership roles. The example of the
and intra-group settings where no one necessar- rapper shows how self-heterogenization and
ily crossed borders, but where borders wandered the use of multiple ethnically labelled member-
across populations, as Jašina Schäfer showcases ships serve as a subversion against homogenizing
in her study on Russian speakers in Estonia: —a ascriptions. Collectivization and individualization
former majority, and still majority in numbers in take place in the processes of both homo- and
the town, but now a national minority in Estonia heterogenization.
(in the borderland city of Narva). Schäfer’s space- The paper by Catharina Peeck-Ho presents an
sensitive approach (Youkhana 2015) allows for analysis of a poster series that reflects on the sta-
overcoming many difficulties associated with tus of San Francisco as a sanctuary city for undoc-
groupism or static attitudes towards people’s self- umented migrants, campaigned by the Arts Com-
perception, in her case Russian-minority, Russian, mission. These posters show a common fate of
Estonian, Post-Soviet, European. It allows her to the diverse migrants portrayed in the current
describe a highly dynamic and complex setting of political and social situation, namely the nego-
numerous interconnections. The homogenizing tiation of Americanness as a manifestation of
force in the ethnoheterogeneous city of Narva political projects of belonging, a form of belong-
are the politics of the Estonian nation state and ing that navigates the “ideal of homogenization”
its de-Sovietization campaign, but also the Esto- is hard to overlook. Still, in the construction of
nian majority society, that constructs the Russian otherness, internal differentiation is visible as
speakers as seemingly homogeneous „freaks“ well. On the one side, the posters are tending to
7NEW DIVERSITIES 23 (1), 2021 Nina Clara Tiesler, Mathias Bös and Deborah Sielert
homogenize the portrayed people (as subjects of of the concept of Ethnoheterogenesis and we
a politics of the sanctuary city). On the other, the trust that reading these papers will be as enlight-
individual narratives bring heterogeneity to the ening for the reader as it was for us.
forefront (Peeck-Ho 2021, in this volume).
Claire Schiff sheds light on the relevance of
the simultaneousness and interplay between
hetero- and homogenization. She employs a References
transnational perspective in her study on post- BANTON, M. 2008. “The sociology of ethnic rela-
colonial immigrant communities in France. In her tions”. Ethnic and Racial Studies 31(7): 1267-
analysis of debates between Franco-Maghrebi 1285.
–––. 2011. “A theory of social categories”. Sociology
youth (who were born in France) and recent
45(2): 187-201.
immigrants from North Africa in online discus-
BARTH, F. 1969. “Introduction”. In: F. Barth, ed.,
sion forums, the established-outsider-configu- Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organ
ration by Elias and Scotson (alongside symbolic ization of Cultural Difference, 9-38. Bergen-Oslo:
boundary making) provides theoretical orienta- Universitets Forlage.
tion. Schiff underlines the internal heterogeneity BELL, D. 1975. “Ethnicity and Social Change”. In:
of both groupings and thus the limitation of the N. Glazer & D. P. Moynihan, eds., Ethnicity. The
established-outsider-configuration that consid- ory and Experience, 141-174. Cambridge, Mass.:
ers each grouping as rather homogenous, as an Harvard University Press.
BÖS, M. 2010. “Race and ethnicity: the history of
analytical tool.
two concepts in American Sociology”. Paper pre-
sented at “Sociology of Citizenship: 105th Amer-
7. Conclusion ican Sociological Association Annual Meeting”,
The established concepts with regard to the for- Section on History of Sociology, Atlanta, August
mative processes of ethnicities do not explicitly 2010.
address the dialectic of homogenization and –––. 2015. “Ethnicity and ethnic groups: historical
heterogenization inherent in ethnogenesis and aspects”. International Encyclopedia of the So
ethnic change. We have proposed the concept cial & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, vol. 8, ed.
of Ethnoheterogenesis (EHG) as an alternative James D. Wright. Oxford: Elsevier, 136-141.
model with which to analyse ethnic framing and BRASS, P. 1991. Ethnicity and nationalism: theory
and comparison. New Dehli: Sage.
affiliations of individuals, groupings and macro
BRUBAKER, R., COOPER, F. 2000. “Beyond `Iden-
groups, and the authors of this special issue
tity´”. Theory and Society 29: 1-47.
have taken up the challenge to relate their own BRUBAKER, R. 2006. Ethnicity without Groups.
research to this model. The conceptual history Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
of ethnogenesis, identity- and groupism-critique CLAUSSEN, D. 2000. “Das Verschwinden des Sozi-
and Sociology of Membership define the theo- alismus. Zur ethnonationalistischen Auflösung
retical basis of our work, which suggests that des Sowjetsystems”. Hannoversche Schriften 2:
EHG has the potential to become a useful frame- 16-41.
work for future investigations. Potentially, EHG –––. 2013. “Im Zeitalter Globaler Gleichzeitigkeit.
Kritische Theorie der Gegenwart.“ Paper pre-
can further develop a) as an umbrella category
sented at Kritische Theorie. Eine Erinnerung an
for ongoing formative processes of ethnogenesis
die Zukunft, Humboldt University of Berlin, No-
and ethnic change, including ethnocultural drifts vember 23 2013.
and ethnic strategizing, and b) to grasp the pro- COHEN, A. 1969. Custom and Politics in Urban Af
cess of socio-cultural change in societies marked rica. Berkeley: University of California Press.
by migration which we describe as ethnohetero- –––. 1974. “Introduction: The Lesson of Ethnicity”.
geneous. This special issue assembles an intrigu- In: A. Cohen, ed., Urban Ethnicity, ix-xxiv. Lon-
ing range of papers that show the heuristic value don: Tavistock Publications.
8Editorial NEW DIVERSITIES 23 (1), 2021
COMAROFF, J. 1987. “Of totemism and ethnicity: –––. 2017a. “Ethnoheterogenesis. The Dialectics
consciousness, practice and the signs of inequal- of Hetero – and Homogenization in Processes
ity”. Ethnos 52(3-4): 301-323. of Ethnic Framing and Membership”, Institute of
DOORNBOS, M. 1972. “Some conceptual prob- Sociology at Leibniz University Hanover Working
lems concerning ethnicity in integration analy- Paper Series, February 2017.
sis”. Civilization 22: 263-283. https://www.ish.uni-hannover.de/fileadmin/ish/
ELIAS, N., and J. SCOTSON. 1994. The established arbeitsbereiche_forschung/working_papers/
and the outsiders. Sociological enquiry into com ISH-WP-2017-02.pdf.
munity problems. London: Sage. –––. 2018. Mirroring the dialectic of inclusion and
FENTON, S. 2003. Ethnicity. Cambridge: Polity exclusion in ethnoheterogenesis processes. In:
GLAZER, N., D. P. MOYNIHAN, eds. 1975. Ethnic S. Aboim, P. Granjo, A. Ramos, eds., Changing So
ity: Theory and Experience. Cambridge: Harvard cieties: Legacies and Challenges. Vol.I: Ambigu
University Press. ous Inclusions: Inside Out, Outside In, Lisbon:
GREELEY, A. M. 1974. Ethnicity in the United States: Imprensa de Ciências Sociais.
E Preliminary Reconnaissance. New York: Wiley. THOMSON, S. 2011. “Revisiting ‘Mandingization’
HANK, J. R., G. Enrique and J. LARAÑA, eds. 1994. in coastal Gambia and Casamance (Senegal):
New Social Movements: From Ideology to Iden Four Approaches to Ethnic Change”. African
tity. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Studies Review, 54(2): 95-121.
HAAS, H., S. CASTELS, and M. MILLER. 2020. SCHINKEL, W. 2018. “Against ‘immigrant integra-
The age of migration. International population tion’: for an end to neocolonial knowledge pro-
movements in the modern world. London: Red duction”. Comparative Migration Studies 6(1):
Globe Press. 1- 31.
HECHTER, M. 1974. “The Political Economy of Eth- VAN DEN BERGHE, P. 1967. Race and Racism: A
nic Change”. American Journal of Sociology 79: Comparative Perspective. New York: Wiley.
1151-78. VERTOVEC, S. 2007. “Super-diversity and its impli-
HOBSBAWM, E. 1996. “Identity Politics and the cation”. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6): 1024-
Left”. New Left Review 217(1): 38-47. 1054.
MASSEY, D. S. 2008. Worlds in motion. Understand VOSS, B. 2008. The Archaeology of Ethnogenesis:
ing international migration at the end of the mil Race and Sexuality in Colonial San Francisco.
lennium. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Oakland: University of California Press.
MAYHEW, L. 1968. “Ascription in Modern Societ- WATERS, M. C. 1990. Ethnic Options: Choosing
ies”. Sociological Inquiry 38: 105-20. Identities in America. Berkeley: University of
PIETERSE, J.N. 2007. Ethnicities and Global Multi California Press.
culture: Pants for an Octopus. New York: Row- WEBER, M. 1968. Economy and Society. An Outline
man & Littlefield Publishers of Interpretive Sociology. Roth, G. and C. Wittich,
SIMMEL, G. 1992. “Die Kreuzung sozialer Kreise”, eds. New York: Bedminst.
in: ders., Soziologie. Untersuchungen über die –––. 2007 [1920]. “The origin of common ethnic
Formen der Vergesellschaftung (gs Bd. 11), 456- beliefs: the language and cult community”. In:
511. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. KALBERG, S., ed., Max Weber: Readings and
SINGER, L. 1962. “Ethnogenesis and Negro-Ameri- Commentary on Modernity, 299-304. Maden:
cans Today”. Social Research 29(4): 419-432. Blackwell Publishing.
TAYLOR, R. L. 1979. “Black Ethnicity and the Per- WIMMER, A. 2004. Ethnic Boundary Making: Insti
sistence of Ethnogenesis”. American Journal of tutions, Power, Networks. Oxford Studies in Cul-
Sociology 84(6): 1401-1423. ture And Politics.
TIESLER, N.C. 2017. “Ethnoheterogenese: (De-) YANCEY, W., E. ERICKSEN, and R. JULIANI. 1976.
Ethnisierung, Diversifizierung und multiple Mit- “Emergent Ethnicity: A Review and Reformula-
gliedschaftsrollen in modernen Migrationsgesell tion”. American Sociological Review 41: 391-403.
schaften“, Berliner Debatte Initial 28(4): 108-121. YOUKHANA, E. 2015. “A Conceptual Shift in Stud-
ies of Belonging and the Politics of Belonging”.
Social Inclusion 3(4): 10-24.
9NEW DIVERSITIES 23 (1), 2021 Nina Clara Tiesler, Mathias Bös and Deborah Sielert
Note on the Authors
Mathias Bös is Professor for Sociological Theory at the Institute of Sociology, Leibniz
University Hanover. His field of research is social and cultural change in in Europe and North
America, especially citizenship, migration, race and ethnic relations as well as the history of
ideas.
Nina Clara Tiesler holds a PhD in Comparative Study of Religion and a venia legendi in
Sociology and Cultural Anthropology. She is Senior Lecturer at the Institute of Sociology,
Leibniz University of Hanover, and Affiliated Researcher at the Institute of Social Sciences,
University of Lisbon. Her main fields of research are migration, ethnicity, socio-cultural
change and social theory.
Deborah Sielert is a PhD-student and junior researcher based at the Institute of Sociology,
Leibniz University Hanover. Her PhD is a comparative study of symbolic boundary-making
and ethnically marked processes of heritagization in three small cities in Northern Germany.
Her research interests include: social theories, cultural sociology and critical heritage studies,
as well as feminist theories and gender studies, especially in the discursive field around the
notion of “care”.
10You can also read
