MIT21A_226F09_lec03

MIT21A_226F09_lec03 - Sept. 16, 2009 3 ETHNIC IDENTITY II...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Sept. 16, 2009 3 ETHNIC IDENTITY II Read: Gladney 25-54 Nagel: 19-33 Difficult words encountered in reading: Cadre: authorized organizers in a political party or state agency Madrassah: Islamic school Ethnonym: name of an ethnos/ethnic group Sufism: an Islamic movement, adherents located in numerous countries Acculturation: movement toward the dominant culture Pogrom: campaign of extermination of local members of an ethnic group, usually referring to European Jews Hegemonic: will be discussed in the course—pertains to power I. Ethnicity: what is it and how do we analyze it? A. Review: We’ve established that: 1. Ethnicity is best seen in terms of relationship 2. Ethnicity has to do with classification of groups of humans B. Today we’ll consider ethnicity seen as a process 1. Nagel introduces lots of terms related to seeing ethnicity in this way C. The benefits of this approach: 1. History is brought back in 2. Change is allowed in the analysis 3. People aren’t seen as objects—as “Xs” throughout time a. Ethnicity is about classifications of humans, but there’s a lot more to it than that b. The classifications are dynamic—their meaning changes 1) The populations that the terms refer to change 3 Ethnic Identity II 2009 1/19/10
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
2 2) As does the authoritative individual or institution that determines which classifications are the correct, authoritative ones II. Two perspectives can be taken: A. First perspective: analyze the position of an individual 1. Nagel’s point that ethnic identity lies at the intersection of individual ethnic self-definition (who I am) and collective ethnic attribution (who they say I am) a. A dialectic between internal identification and external ascription B. Second perspective involves analyzing the group as a whole—from its point of view and from an external point of view 1. Ethnic identity in this perspective lies at the intersection of ethnic group self-definition (who we say we are) and non-group ethnic attribution (who they say we are) C. Notice the different thrusts of the 2 authors we read for today with respect to this point 1. Nagel’s perspective is more individualistic than Gladney’s D. Hui case suggests we need a third perspective 1. One that analyzes the state itself 2. And investigates its formulations of ethnic policies, its rationales for them, the history, etc. a. And then analyzes why in many cases the state doesn’t subscribe to its own policies/formulations b. Bureaucracies are never completely rational, coherent, internally logical 1) They have histories, cultures, power dynamics 3. The state was not using its own criteria when it classified the Hui into a single ethnic group—and this is not a small matter a. The Hui were included in the group of nationalities (minorities) initially recognized by the state
Background image of page 2
3 b . REVIEW: ways the Hui do not fit into the 4 Stalinist criteria for a minority 4. Gladney shows the ways that state policies lie behind why the Hui are so
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 11/08/2011 for the course ANTHRO 2.158 taught by Professor Ericajames during the Spring '03 term at MIT.

Page1 / 10

MIT21A_226F09_lec03 - Sept. 16, 2009 3 ETHNIC IDENTITY II...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online