This article was downloaded by: [Ohio State University Libraries]

On: 27 February 2013, At: 13:07

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Ethnic and Racial Studies

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rers20

Situational ethnicity
Jonathan Y. Okamura
a

a b

University College, London

EastWest Center, Hawaii

Version of record first published: 13 Sep 2010.

To cite this article: Jonathan Y. Okamura (1981): Situational ethnicity, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 4:4, 452-465
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01419870.1981.9993351

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Situational ethnicity

Jonathan Y. Okamura

Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 13:07 27 February 2013

University College, London, and

East-West Center, Hawaii

The significance of the concept of the social situation for analysis of the
structure and process of ethnic relations has gained credence in recent social
anthropological approaches to ethnicity. This focus on analysis at a lower
level of social organization than the overall society is congruent with an
increased concern with subjective and perceptual notions of ethnicity in
terms of the actor's understandings and explanations of social behavior. For
clearly, it is at this level of abstraction thatthe variable meanings of ethnicity,
the differing criteria for ascription of ethnic identities, the fluidity of ethnic
boundaries, and the varying relevance of ethnic and other social identities
are most apparent for the actor and the researcher alike. A situational
approach to ethnicity manifests the essential variability in its significance for
social relations in different social contexts and at different levels of social
organization. Accordingly, such a perspective avoids the problem of reification
of the concept of ethnic group that follows from its identification with an
objectively defined, shared, uniform cultural inventory or with common
normative patterns of behavior that are assumed to be consistently adhered to.
This paper is a review and synthesis of the ideas of a number of social
anthropologists who have all explicitly emphasized the relevance of social situations for the analysis of ethnicity and ethnic relations. The juxtaposition of
the two concepts, social situation and ethnicity, to yield the term 'situational
ethnicity' is attributable to Paden (1967) in a paper on ethnic categorization
in urban Africa. He states that 'situational ethnicity is premised on the observation that particular contexts may determine which of a person's communal identities or loyalties are appropriate at a point in time' (Paden, 1970:
268). Although minimal in content, this delineation of the term nevertheless
highlights some of the more salient features in its approach to ethnicity. It
takes note that variability in the affirmation of ethnic identity may be
dependent upon the immediate social situation, and it relates this variability
to the actor's perception of that situation.
The sociological origins of the notion of situational ethnicity can be
traced to the work of Gluckman (1940), who in turn cited Evans-Pritchard
1937) as a source of his ideas. The latter, in Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic
Ethnic and Racial Studies Volume 4 Number 4 October 1981
R.K.P. 1981 0141-9870/81/0404-0452 $1.50/1

Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 13:07 27 February 2013

Situational ethnicity

453

among the Azande, was of course not concerned in any way with ethnicity,
but he did comment on the 'plasticity of [Zande witchcraft] beliefs as functions of situations' (ibid., 54). He observed that 'A man in one situation utilizes what in the beliefs are convenient to him and pays no attention to other
elements which he might use in different situations' (ibid.). On the other
hand, Gluckman was specifically concerned with ethnicity or 'culture contact'
in his analysis of the various roles and relationships of Europeans and Zulus
in the celebration of the opening of a bridge in South Africa. He expanded
on the seminal ideas of Evans-Pritchard and introduced the notion of 'situational selection'. He contended that an individual's membership in a particular
group in a particular situation is 'determined' by the values, interests, and
motives that influence his behavior in that situation (Gluckman, 1958: 26).
'Individuals can thus live coherent lives by situational selection from a medley
of contradictory values, ill-assorted beliefs, and varied interests and techniques' (ibid.). The significance of these ideas in the eventual development of
the concept of situational ethnicity will become apparent later.
It would be appropriate at the outset to denote the meaning which is
attributed to the concept of social situation in this paper. Although the social
anthropologists included in this discussion used the term somewhat differently,
in some cases with reference to dyadic, face-to-face relationships and in
others to a more general level of social relations, it is clear from their terminology that they understand social situations to refer to a level of social organization lower than that of the overall society. As such, Mitchell's (1978: 24)
conception of social situation, which he distinguishes from social setting, can
be adopted as a general exposition of the term. In a paper on labor migration
in southern Africa, he states that the setting of social action refers to the
macroscopic political, administrative, and economic structures in which
migration takes place, while the situation has reference to the more microscopic particular set of circumstances in which a migrant finds himself.
Accordingly, in an analysis which places primary emphasis on the situation of
social action, sociological interest is focused on the way in which individuals
appraise the behavioral choices open to themselves given the constraints
imposed upon them by the wider setting. Thus it might be said that the structural features of the setting provide the overall framework of social relations,
while at the level of the situation concern is on the different courses of action
actors may then pursue according to their understanding of their personal
circumstances within this framework. Note that besides being one of different
levels of sociological analysis, the distinction between the setting and the
situation of social action is also one of perspective. That is, the former pertains to the analyst's or the 'objective' point of view, while the latter refers
to the actor's or the 'subjective' viewpoint.
If the above notion of the social situation is used to elucidate the concept
of situational ethnicity, one can see how the latter term incorporates both
structural and cognitive aspects of ethnicity. The structural dimension of
situational ethnicity would refer to the restraints enjoined upon parties within
social situations as a consequence of the setting of social action, which in this

Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 13:07 27 February 2013

454

Jonathan Y. Okamura

case is provided by the overall structure of ethnic group relations in a given

society. The setting also includes the relative political and socio-economic
statuses of these groups, the distribution of occupation, education, income,
wealth, and other social and material resources amongst them, their comparative numerical proportions, and the immediate prospects for change in
any of these areas. In the extreme case, as a result of the nature of ethnic
group relations at the overall level of the setting, the constraints which impinge
upon actors may entail the consistent and ubiquitous ethnic ascription of
their respective roles and statuses in diverse social situations. That is, in
societies of this type, such as South Africa, social relations at all levels and
in all spheres of the society are primarily structured according to the ethnic
identities of the parties. Furthermore, the rights and obligations of interacting
parties derive from and correspond to the positions that their respective
ethnic groups hold in the overall status order of the society. In consequence,
the actor's decision as to which course of action he chooses to follow may be
severely restricted should he belong to a group which holds a subordinate
status in the society.
However, ethnicity is not always of such decisive significance for social
relations in all societies nor in all social situations within the same society. In
these cases, the role constraints which derive from ethnicity are not as pervasive nor as limiting, and accordingly actors are less restricted in their behavioral options, at least as far as ethnicity is concerned. It may be that in
some situations ethnicity is a relevant factor which influences the interaction
of parties, while in other situations the relationship proceeds according to
other attributes of the parties such as class, religion, occupation, sex, personality, etc. The structural dimension of situational ethnicity thus points to
the essentially variable significance of ethnicity as an organizing principle of
social relations. Furthermore, the degree of its significance in a given social
situation in terms of the limitations that it imposes on the behavioral choices
of individuals is dependent upon its salience at the overall level of ethnic
group relations.
The other dimension of situational ethnicity, the cognitive, pertains to
the actor's subjective perception of the situation in which he finds himself
and to the salience he attributes to ethnicity as a relevant factor in that situation. This sphere is thus concerned with the actor's understandings of cultural
symbols or signs and the meanings which are imputed to these elements as is
evident from categorical ascriptions of ethnic identity to self and to others
for purposes of interaction. With regard to self-ascription of ethnic identity,
interest is focused on the actor's option of affirming various ethnic and other
social identities which he holds according to his understanding of his personal
circumstances and the importance which he accords to ethnicity in that set of
circumstances. In the ideal model, individuals may advance their claims to
membership in any one of a generally limited number of ethnic categories
that they belong to, or perhaps do not belong to, in accordance with their
belief that such a selection of ethnic identity will be to their advantage. On
the other hand, rather than place a dominant emphasis on ethnicity in his

Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 13:07 27 February 2013

Situational ethnicity

455

behavior, the actor may consider it in his interests to obscure rather than to
assert his ethnic identity in a given situation so that the relationship proceeds
in terms of other social statuses he holds. However, it will be recalled that
these behavioral choices of the actor are circumscribed to varying degrees by
the role constraints which derive from the wider structure of ethnic group
relations, that is, the setting of the social situation. In some situations (or in
all situations in some societies), actors do not have the option of advancing
whatever ethnic identities and claims they may hold and which they believe
to be in their best interests. This state of affairs follows because the opposite
party or group to the relation may be in a position of relative power so that
it need not accord the first party or group the particular ethnic identity or
claim it has advanced and can thus 'define the situation' (Thomas, 1928: 42)
as it pleases. This differential distribution of power, which corresponds to
the differential rights and obligations of parties in social situations, is derivative of the overall statuses of ethnic groups in the wider setting.
The other aspect of the cognitive dimension of situational ethnicity has
to do with ascription of ethnic identity to others. In this case, concern is
on the actor's perception of and attribution of meaning to various cultural
phenomena or phenotypic traits to categorize others in order to interact with
them. Categorization of others with an appropriate ethnic label provides
actors with a set of expectations and an explanation of the opposite party's
behavior. Consistent with a situational approach to ethnicity, it should be
added that the ethnic meaning which is attributed to denotative symbols or
signs is not always present in all social situations in which they may appear
(Mitchell, 1974: 23).
Although it is sometimes more common in sociological discussions of
ethnicity to focus on ethnic ascription by others rather than to others, it
might be recalled that the cognitive dimension of situational ethnicity is
primarily concerned with the actor's perception of ethnic diacrtica. To
some extent, ethnic ascription by others is more properly encompassed
within the structural dimension of situational ethnicity since assignment of
a particular ethnic identity to a person may invoke constraints on his or her
behavior. Actually, from a cognitive perspective, both ethnic ascription by
and to others refer back to the same original process, the actor's perception
of cultural features and attribution of meaning to them.
It should be made clear at the outset that the notion of the social situation
referred to in this paper is not necessarily of the same order as that utilized
by Van Velsen (1967) in his 'situational analysis' approach. Although the
theoretical premises of this mode of analysis are highly relevant to the constructs of situational ethnicity, its methodology emphasizes the detailed
recording of the interactions of individuals as individuals, that is, as specified
actors, in a sequence of social encounters. Data gathering and analysis at this
specific level of abstraction are not essential requirements of a situational
approach to ethnicity.
Nevertheless, some of the theoretical assumptions behind Van Velsen's
concept of situational analysis are especially applicable to the notion of

Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 13:07 27 February 2013

456

Jonathan Y. Okamura

situational ethnicity. It is his fundamental contention that the norms of a

society do not constitute a consistent and coherent unity, rather they may
be ambiguous or even contradictory (Van Velsen, 1967: 146). Clearly, such
a state of affairs essentially characterizes culturally diverse societies with
their disparate systems of social relations, activities, and norms and values.
Van Velsen continues that it is this fact of .norms in conflict which allows
for their manipulation by individuals through their exercise of choice between alternative norms relevant to a given situation. It is noteworthy that
Van Velsen (ibid:) states that this manipulation proceeds "without necessarily impairing [the] apparently enduring structure of social relationships',
or in the terminology used here, the setting of social action.
It should also be made explicit that although the terminology used in this
paper makes reference to 'individuals' and to 'actors', the concept of situational ethnicity is not intended to have explanatory validity for behavior of a
particularistic nature. That is, it is not being claimed that a situational approach
to ethnicity can account for every specific exercise of choice at the individual
level. Behavior of this nature may be more adequately treated by individual
decision-making models such as that suggested by Garbett (1975) for circulatory migration. The underlying assumption in situational ethnicity is that
the determinants of the courses of action actors may pursue tend to lead to
varying degrees of regularity in social behavior, and it is for these generalized
patterns of social relations that situational ethnicity has explanatory value.
Accordingly, regularities in similarly defined social situations facilitate a
systematic analysis of the scope and nature of ethnic relations. As Mitchell
has remarked, 'The analyst... is able to appreciate the instrumental advantage
to the actors of alternative justifications of action and he is able to explain
logically why the actors chose one frame rather than another in terms of
which to construe their social actions' (Mitchell, 1974: 31).
The format of the discussion will be to review first the social anthropologists whose approaches to ethnicity pertain to the structural dimension of
situational ethnicity and then those whose perspectives relate more to the
cognitive dimension.
The structural dimension of situational ethnicity pertains to the constraints
imposed upon actors within social situations as a consequence of the overall
structure of ethnic group relations in a society. This position is succinctly
stated by Epstein (1978: xiv): 'For the individual, therefore, whether, and to
what extent, he acquires a sense of ethnic identity always involves some element of choice. But such choice is subject to a number of constraints. Some
of these are clearly social, and relate to certain features of the social system.'
It can be said, then, that the relevance of ethnicity as a contingent factor is
'situationally determined' (Mitchell, 1974: 23; Vincent, 1974: 377). Both
Vincent and Despres (1975b) have expressed concern for ascertainment
of the social situations which tend to lead to the affirmation of ethnic
identity. Vincent states that the relevance of ethnicity as a status compared
to other statuses that a person holds may be related to 'situations of confrontation, crisis, and ritual' (1974: 377). This position is similar to that

Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 13:07 27 February 2013

Situational ethnicity

457

assumed by Despres (1975b) in a paper on ethnicity and ethnic relations

in Guyana. He contends that to assert ethnic identities in interpersonal
encounters advances a status claim that establishes a relationship of competitive opposition between ethnic groups, and this relationship takes into
consideration the status inequalities of the groups. He then concludes that
situations which bring into question the differential rights and privileges associated with these status disparities between groups, or situations which result
in the 'resource' distributions from which these inequalities originate, lead to
the assertion of ethnic identities and their related claims {ibid., 109). This
argument would seem to imply that individual encounters which do not
directly involve the status inequalities between the ethnic groups of the parties
to the interaction do not result in the affirmation of ethnic identities. That is,
these relationships may proceed according to other social identities which the
actors possess, and thus it can be seen that ethnicity need not be a relevant
factor in all social situations in multi-ethnic societies.
Despres further states that the variety of interethnic encounters manifests
a pattern of segmentary opposition. That is, in certain situations the national
status claims of Guyanese are united in opposition to those of non-citizens in
that society, in some situations Africans and East Indians confront one
another, and in yet other contexts Africans are divided amongst themselves.
Despres concludes that 'this pattern of segmentary opposition corresponds to
and reflects both the continuities and discontinuities which the differential
incorporation of ethnic populations enjoins in the overall structure of Guyanese
society' (1975b: 109). Mitchell (1960) had previously noted a similar segmentary structure of interaction among African migrants in the Copperbelt
towns (see also Banton, 1965: 145; Keyes, 1976:206-7; and Smith, 1955:3).
Cohen also relates situational ethnicity to this structure of segmentary opposition as he notes that 'It [situational ethnicity] results from multiple memberships in differently scaled sociocultural groupings, one of which is used to
signify the differences between actors in the situation' (Cohen, 1978: 389).
To turn now to the cognitive dimension of situational ethnicity, Barth is
without doubt the foremost social anthropologist associated with a cognitive
approach to ethnicity and ethnic group relations. In his view the sharing of a
common culture should not be construed as the essential definitional criterion
of ethnic groups. On the contrary, it is his contention that this focus on the
culture-bearing aspect of ethnic groups results in an analysis in which 'Differences between groups become differences in trait inventories; the attention
is drawn to the analysis of cultures, not of ethnic organization' (Barth, 1969a:
12). He continues in implicit criticism of pluralism theory (Smith, 1965,
1969a, b) that it is thus invalid to conceive of 'overt institutional forms' as
comprising the cultural elements which differentiate an ethnic group (Barth,
1969a: 13).
As the alternative approach, Barth advocates an emphasis on 'what is
socially effective' such that ethnic groups may be regarded as a mode of
social organization in the sense that they 'organize' interaction between
parties 'Qbid., original italics). The decisive feature of ethnic groups then

Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 13:07 27 February 2013

458

Jonathan Y. Okamura

becomes self-ascription and ascription by others to an ethnic category which

'classifies a person in terms of his basic, most general identity, presumptively
determined by his origin and background' (ibid.). Actors, therefore, 'form
ethnic groups in this organizational sense' insofar as they employ ethnic
identities to classify themselves and others in their relationships (ibid., 13,
14). Barth continues that in these interactions the cultural features which
are taken into consideration do not represent the totality of 'objective'
differences between groups, but only those elements which the actors themselves regard as salient. Analytically, it is argued that these cultural 'contents'
of ethnic differences are of two kinds: '(i) overt signals or signs the diacritical features that people look for and exhibit to show identity, often such
features as dress, language, house-form, or general style of life, and (ii) basic
value orientations: the standards of morality and excellence by which performance is judged' (ibid.). He adds that neither of these kinds of cultural
criteria is derivative from a descriptive inventory of cultural traits, since it
cannot be assumed which elements will be construed as 'organizationally
relevant' by the actors.
It is clear, then, that Barth is cognizant of the variable significance of
ethnicity in the structuring of social relations. As he states, 'ethnic categories
provide an organizational vessel that may be given varying amounts and forms
of content in different socio-cultural systems. They may be of great relevance
to behaviour, but they need not be, they may pervade all social life, or they
may be relevant only in limited sectors of activity' (ibid.). However, whereas
the relevance of ethnicity has been deemed to be 'situationally determined'
(Despres, 1975b: Mitchell, 1974: 23; and Vincent, 1974: 377), Barth would
appear to view its significance as essentially dependent on the actors' perceptions and understandings of ethnic diacrtica. Indeed, his decided emphasis on
the cognitive aspects of ethnicity has been criticized as a tendency to reduce
ethnicity to subjective factors of identity (van den Berghe, 1975: 75; 1976:
254). Despite Barth's expressed focus on the 'ethnicboundary [that] canalizes
social life', his seeming lack of concern for the structural aspects of ethnicity
is evident in statements such as the following: 'It makes no difference how
dissimilar members may be in their overt behaviour if they say they are A,
in contrast to another cognate category B, they are willing to be treated and
let their own behaviour be interpreted and judged as A's and not as BY
(Barth, 1969a. 15). The difficulty with this reasoning is obvious: it would
appear to accord individuals the option to pursue whatever course of action
they desire without consideration of the role constraints that may well proscribe such behavior. Furthermore, it does not even consider the nature of the
relations between the groups. As Despres has remarked, it is a 'moot methodological point' whether or not individuals assert or accede to the ethnic identities ascribed to them if these identities engage imperative statuses which
deny these individuals rights and privileges that are generally enjoyed by
others in the wider society (Despres, 1975c: 193).
In all fairness to Barth, however, it should be noted that in his discussion
of 'complex poly-ethnic societies', which he would appear to equate with

Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 13:07 27 February 2013

Situational ethnicity

459

'plural societies' as described by Furnivall (1948) and Smith (1965,1969a, b),

he comments on the 'imperative' and 'comprehensive' nature of ethnicity in
social systems of this type (Barth, 1969a: 17). He states that in these societies
'ethnic identity implies a series of constraints on the kinds of roles an individual is allowed to play', and that 'it constrains the incumbent in all his
activities, not only in some defined social situations' (ibid.). Interestingly
enough, Barth makes a similar distinction between the setting and the situation
of social action as proposed in this paper in his statement that in these polyethnic societies *What can be referred to as articulation and separation on the
macro-level corresponds to systematic sets of role constraints on the microlevel' (ibid.).
To return to Barth's cognitive perspective on ethnicity, it is noteworthy
that in his own contribution to Ethnic Groups and Boundaries, he would seem
to ignore his avowed concern with 'the fact that ethnic groups are categories
of ascription and identification by the actors themselves' (ibid., 10). In
this paper on the maintenance of Pathan identity, he first notes that Pathans
regard the following cultural traits as necessary criteria for membership in
the group: patrilineal descent, Islam, and Pathan custom (Barth, 1969b: 119).
However, he then goes on to state that 'this "native model" need not be a
truly adequate representation of empirical facts, and for our analytic purposes'
he proposes that Pathan custom can be more usefully represented in three
'central institutions': melmastia or hospitality, jirga or councils, and purdah
or seclusion (ibid., 120). So much for what 'the actors themselves regard as
significant'.
Nagata (1974) has also been concerned with variability in the affirmation
of ethnic identity according to the actor's perception of the social situation.
However, like Barth, she would seem to overstate the options of the individual
actor. She proposes that the most significant factors in 'situational selection
of ethnic identity' for the actor are: the desire to affirm either social distance
or social solidarity; expediency or consideration of the immediate advantages
to be gained by a particular ethnic identity selection; and, in her estimation,
most important, concern for social status and social mobility (ibid., 340).
Clearly, actors may evaluate and act upon these various factors only if the
overall structural setting allows for such variance in assertions of ethnicity.
Mayer also accords the individual the 'power of choice' either to remain
within his original social category or to adopt an alternative one within certain
limits. He further remarks that a 'simple two-valued model of situational
selection' (between urban and 'tribal' behavior) was inappropriate for his
study of African migrants in East London because of the more numerous
behavioral options available (i.e. Red, School, and townsman) in non-working
situations (Mayer, 1962: 589). He also maintains that situational selection
tends toward a 'static and schizoid picture of the migrant's social personality',
and therefore cannot fully account for processes of change, particularly
urbanization (ibid., 580).
In comment, Mayer's 'two-valued model of situational selection' is an
oversimplification of the work of Epstein (1958) and Mitchell (1956) as it

Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 13:07 27 February 2013

460

Jonathan Y. Okamura

implies that different situations refer to completely autonomous sets of social

relations. However, Epstein takes note of the interdependence of these various
sets of relations in his observation that The principle of situational selection
would provide a barrier to understanding if it simply meant, for example, that
"tribalism" operates in the domestic set of relations but ceases to operate as
soon as we move into the political set of relations' (Epstein, 1958: 235).
Also, a truly 'static' model of ethnic identity or ethnic relations would
posit the universal and invariant salience of ethnicity as an organizing principle
in all sectors and at all levels of the social order. For this reason such a model
cannot accommodate change, since change would seem to be precluded. In
contrast, the fundamental tenet of a situational approach to ethnicity is the
variable significance of ethnicity in structuring social relations. Ethnicity may
be of critical relevance in some situations, while in others it may be totally
irrelevant. Accordingly, individuals need not be viewed as being in assumption
of ethnic roles in all their social relations. Thus, in terms of the cognitive
dimension of situational ethnicity, the individual actor has the option, on the
one hand, of emphasizing or obfuscating his ethnic identity, or on the other,
of assuming other social identities that he holds. Changes in the ultimate significance of ethnicity at the overall societal level are reflected in these behavioral choices of actors at the situational level. Situational ethnicity thus
allows for processes of change in so far as ethnicity as a regulating principle of
social relations is not viewed as being of unvarying significance.
Mayer also contends that situational selection renders a 'schizoid' characterization of a migrant's personality. This comment would seem to refer to
the potential that an individual has to affirm various social identities in different situations according to a situational approach to ethnicity. Yet, it
should be made clear that it is not being argued that a person can regularly
alternate at his whim between diverse ethnic identities that he may (or may
not) possess, particularly in the case where these identities pertain to ethnic
groups that constitute the principal structural units of the society. The position advanced here is that individuals have the option of asserting either their
primary ethnic identity or other social identities, such as those derivative of
class or occupation, that they legitimately hold. Therefore, they are not
necessarily engaged in contradictory, inconsistent, or 'schizoid' patterns of
behavior. In his reply to Mayer, Epstein (1978: 26) remarks that .situational
selection is 'the social expression of a familiar psychological mechanism by
which discrepant ideas are segregated in different compartments of the mind;
far from engendering schizoid tendencies, it is a device which operates to
avoid conflict and without which few of us would be able to get along'.
While Nagata focused on the actor's selection of various ethnic identities
available to himself, Vincent points out that the actor has the option (ideally)
'to articulate, underplay, or stress his ethnic status as he will' in lieu of other
social statuses which he holds (Vincent, 1974: 377). This proposition is very
closely related to the distinction proposed by Handelman between 'lateral
and hierarchical arrangement of category membership sets' (Handelman,
1977: 192). A lateral arrangement refers to 'relative ease in performing

Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 13:07 27 February 2013

Situational ethnicity

461

situational selection' of various categorical identities, i.e. ethnic, class, occupational, religious, etc., considered relevant to a giverr situation. In contrast,
a rterchical arrangement would refer to 'relative difficulty in resisting the
all-inclusiveness of a membership category like "ethnicity" ' (ibid., 193).
Despres also addressed this question of the relation between categorical
identities as expressed in social situations and the overall level of ethnic
relations. In another paper based on his Guyanese research, Despres (1975a)
makes the observation that in Guyana ethnic identities enlist imperative
statuses with reference to groups that differ in their access to socio-economic
resources, and that within these groups there also obtains an unequal distribution of resources. He then notes that the criteria by which Guyanese ascribe
categorical identities are not so rigid as to be invariable in their significance
as circumstances may demand. Despres then concludes that "These discontinuities are part of the system and because of them situationally defined
social identities need not always correspond in one-dimensional fashion to
the order of inequality that, in general, obtains among categorically defined
ethnic populations' (ibid., 143). These 'situationally defined social identities'
would seem to refer to subjective ascriptions of ethnicity. Despres thus takes
note of the possible non-congruence between cognitive ethnic identities as
ascribed in social situations and the overall status order of ethnic group
relations. However, it should be pointed out that he states that it is because
the 'system' or, in the terminology used in this paper, the setting allows for
'discontinuities' that the discrepancy between the situational and the overall
levels occurs. It is clear that Despres accords primary salience to the structural
dimension since he argues that it is with respect to their structural significance
that ethnic identities are seen as primarily informed by 'material' conditions
and not by their subjective components (ibid., 142).
While his interest is not ethnicity per se, Kuper's (1976) analysis of Jamaican
social structure also utilizes the notion of situational variability of social
ascriptions. He maintains that Jamaicans use a number of status criteria,
primarily occupation but also color, style of life, and modes of consumption,
to rank themselves and others in a complex and fluid series of social classifications (ibid., 60). He notes that these criteria are variable in significance,
ambiguously defined, and not always coincident with each other so that they
do not demarcate rigid and distinct social categories. Rather, they yield a
number of folk models that differ according to the factors which they each
emphasize and that are thus 'situationally relevant' while none is paramount
in all contexts (ibid., 61).
Mitchell's position on ethnicity would seem to represent more of an
integration of both cognitive and structural approaches than those advanced
by the other social anthropologists previously discussed. This conceptual
synthesis is evident in his reference to situational ethnicity: 'the perception
of ethnic identity becomes an understanding which has meaning for the social
action of the people concerned but this meaning clearly is contained in the
social situation in which the interaction is taking place' (Mitchell, 1974: 21).
This approach guided Mitchell's work (1956, 1970) on African migrants

Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 13:07 27 February 2013

462

Jonathan Y. Okamura

in towns, in which he contended that their behavior could be properly understood by relating it to the situational contexts in which it occurred. Thus,
the behavior of migrants who adhered to apparently 'tribal' norms and
customs in a particular situation, such as the domestic sphere, could be
handled within the same framework of analysis as applied to them in the
situations in which they interacted as townsmen. He further showed that
'tribal' identities referred essentially to norms of behavior relevant to urban
public places rather than to customary practices and beliefs prevalent in the
rural areas of origin of migrants. These ethnic identities emerged from a
categorization process in which migrants who were either culturally similar
or from geographically proximate regions were subsumed together under a
wider inclusive identity to which behavioral expectations were attached.
It is clear that Mitchell, like Barth, conceives of ethnicity in terms of the
meaning actors accord it. However, unlike Barth, Mitchell does not limit
the analysis of ethnicity to this primary level of the actors' perceptions and
explanations of ethnic behavior. His extension of the analysis to a more
abstract level is apparent in his distinction between commonsense and analytical notions of ethnicity. As a commonsense construct, ethnicity first consists of the actor's perceptions of various customs, beliefs, practices, and other
cultural elements by means of which he is able to identify another person as
a member of a certain ethnic group, and is thus availed of a set of expectations
of that person's behavior towards him (Mitchell, 1974: 223). This notion of
ethnicity is essentially identical to Barth's 'overt signals or signs' (see above).
The second type of ethnic phenomena at the commonsense level is the set of
folk interpretations of behavior in terms of perceived ethnicity. In this highly
stereotyped view, the ethnic identity of a person prevails over his other social
identities so that it is accepted by others as sufficient explanation of his
behavior (ibid., 25).
Analytical notions of ethnicity, on the other hand, consist first of the
analyst's model of the ethnic group and, second, of his explanation of ethnic
behavior in terms of general principles. With regard to the former, the analytical construct of the ethnic group is based on the ethnographer's observations
and understanding of the customs, practices, and beliefs of the people concerned. On the other hand, as an analytical explanation of social behavior,
ethnicity is an abstract attribute of actors by means of which the analyst is
able to achieve some understanding of their behavior (ibid., 15)'. It should be
mentioned that the analytical explanation is still valid irrespective of the
commonsense interpretation which the actors place on their actions, and
even when they are not fully aware of the significance of ethnicity in their
behavior. From the perspective of the analyst, the relation between commonsense and analytical notions of ethnicity is that the former constitutes part
of the data by means of which he is able to abstract his ethnographic model
of the ethnic group and to formulate his general principles of ethnic behavior.
Commonsense understandings of ethnicity are virtually identical to what
has been delineated as the cognitive dimension of situational ethnicity,
although analytical constructs of ethnicity have a different meaning from that

Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 13:07 27 February 2013

Situational ethnicity

463

which has been given to the structural dimension of situational ethnicity.

This similarity between commonsense and cognitive aspects of ethnicity
indicates to some extent the deficiencies of approaches that place primary
weight on the latter dimension. Their main shortcoming is that they fail to
maintain a clear distinction between commonsense and analytical notions of
ethnicity. As Mitchell has remarked of the perspective advocated by Moerman
(1965: 1221), they often attempt to elevate the actors' categories to an
abstract level for analytic purposes (Mitchell, 1974: 25). However, this procedure is clearly invalid, since commonsense and analytical constructs of
ethnicity are derived from different logical processes of explanation. They
also differ fundamentally as regards the ends toward which they are directed,
so that however real and consciously held the perceptions and interpretations
of actors may be, they cannot fully account for the range of behavior insocial
situations. It is not that cognitive aspects of ethnicity are irrelevant to an
understanding of ethnic behavior; indeed, the whole point of the above discussion was to indicate their necessity for analysis along with structural
aspects. Ultimately, however, cognitive notions of ethnicity must have, a
secondary role in relation to analytical constructs for sociological analysis of
ethnicity and ethnic relations.
In summary, this review has included various social anthropologists who
have placed an explicit emphasis on the relevance of social situations for the
analysis of ethnicity and ethnic relations. This approach, which has been
termed situational ethnicity, merges both cognitive and structural aspects of
ethnicity as its principal focus is on the actor's ascriptions of ethnic identity
to organize the meaning of his social relationships within given social situations. The cognitive dimension of situational ethnicity refers to the actor's
perceptions and understandings of cultural symbols and signs and the relevance
he attributes to these elements as a factor on his behavioral options in the
situation he finds himself. On the other hand, the structural dimension has
reference to the role constraints enjoined upon actors within social situations
as a consequence of the overall structure of ethnic group relations. Thus, a
situational approach to ethnicity illuminates the fact that variability is the
essence of ethnicity in its significance for the structuring of social relations
in diverse situational contexts.
References
BANTON, MICHAEL (1965) 'Social Alignment and Identity in a West African City', in
Hilda Kupei (ed.), Urbanization and Migration in West Africa. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
BARTH, FREDRIK (1969a) Introduction, in Fredrik Barth (ed.), Ethnic Croups and
Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference. Bergen-Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
BARTH, FREDRIK (1969b) 'Pathan Identity and its Maintenance', in Fredrik Barth
(ed.), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference.
Bergen-Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
COHEN, RONALD (1978) 'Ethnicity: Problem and Focus in Anthropology'. Annual
Review of Anthropology 7: 379-403.

Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 13:07 27 February 2013

464

Jonathan Y. Okamura

DESPRES, LEO A. (1975a) 'Ethnicity and Ethnic Group Relations in Guyana', in John
W. Bennett (ed.), The New Ethnicity: Perspectives from Ethnology. St Paul, Minn.:
West Publishing Company.
DESPRES, LEO A. (1975b) 'Ethnicity and Resource Competition in Guyanese Society',
in Leo A. Despies (ed.), Ethnicity and Resource Competition in Plural Societies. The
Hague: Mouton Publishers.
DESPRES, LEO A. (1975c) Toward a Theory of Ethnic Phenomena', in Leo A. Despres
(ed.), Ethnicity and Resource Competition in Plural Societies. The Hague: Mouton
Publishers.
EPSTEIN, ARNOLD L. (1958) Politics in an Urban African Community. Manchester
University Press.
EPSTEIN, ARNOLD L. (1978) Ethos and Identity: Three Studies in Ethnicity. London:
Tavistock Publications.
EVANS-PRITCHARD, E. E. (1937) Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
FURNIVALL, J. S. (1948) Colonial Policy and Practice: A Comparative Study ofBurma
and Netherlands India. London: Cambridge University Press.
GARBETT, G. KINGSLEY (1975) 'Circulatory Migrancy in Rhodesia: Towards a
Decision Model', in David Parkin (ed.), Town and Country in Central and East Africa.
London: Oxford University Press for International African Institute.
GLUCKMAN, MAX (1958) The Analysis of a Social Situation in Modern Zululand'.
African Studies 14 (1940): 1-30; 147-74. Reprinted as Rhodes-Livingston Paper
No. 28. Manchester University Press, 1958.
HANDELMAN, DON (1977) The Organization of Ethnicity'. Ethnic Groups 1: 187-200.
KEYES, CHARLES F. (1976) Towards a New Formulation of the Concept of Ethnic
Group'. Ethnicity 3 (3) : 202-13.
KUPER, ADAM (1976) Changing Jamaica. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
MAYER, PHILIP (1962) 'Migrancy and the Study of Africans in Towns'. American
Anthropologist 64: 576-92.
MITCHELL, J. C. (1956) The Kalela Dance, Aspects of Social Relationships Among
Urban Africans in Northern Rhodesia. Rhodes-Livingston Paper No. 27. Manchester
University Press.
MITCHELL, J. C. (1960) Tribalism and the Plural Society. An inaugural lecture given in
the University College of Rhodesia and Nyasaland on 2 October 1959. London: Oxford
University Press.
MITCHELL, J. C. (1970) Tribe and Social Change in South Central Africa: A Situational
Approach*. Journal of Asian and African Studies 5 : 83-101.
MITCHELL, J. C. (1974) 'Perceptions of Ethnicity and Ethnic Behaviour: An Empirical
Exploration', in Abner Cohen (ed.), Urban Ethnicity. London: Tavistock Publications.
MITCHELL, J. C. (1978) 'Wage-Labor Mobility as Circulation: A Sociological Perspective'
(abstract), in Summary Report of International Seminar on the Cross-Cultural Study of
Circulation. East-West Population Institute, East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii,
November.
MOERMAN, M. (1965) 'Ethnic Identification in a Complex Civilization: Who are the
Lue?' American Anthropologist 67: 1215-30.
NAGATA, JUDITH A. (1974) 'What is a Malay? Situational Selection of Ethnic Identity
in a Plural Society'. American Ethnologist 1 (2) : 331-50.
PADEN, JOHN N. (1967) 'Situational Ethnicity in Urban Africa with Special Reference
to the Hausa'. Paper presented at African Studies Association meeting in New York,
November.
PADEN, JOHN N. (1970) 'Urban Pluralism, Integration and Adaptation of Communal
Identity in Kano, Nigeria', in R. Cohen and J. Middleton (eds), Front Tribe to Nation in
Africa: Studies in Incorporation Processes. Scranton, NJ: Chandler Publishing.
SMITH, M. G. (1955) The Economy of Hausa Communities of Zaria Province. Colonial
Research Publications No. 16, London.

Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 13:07 27 February 2013

Situational ethnicity

465

SMITH, M. G. (1965) 'Social and Cultural Pluralism', in M. G. Smith (ed.), The Plural
Society in the British West Indies. Berkeley and Los Angeles': University of California
Press.
SMITH, M. G. (1969a) 'Institutional and Political Conditions of Pluralism', in Leo
Kuper and M. G. Smith (eds), Pluralism in Africa. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University
of California Press.
SMITH, M. G. (1969b) 'Some Developments in the Analytic Framework of Pluralism',
in Leo Kuper and M. G. Smith (eds), Pluralism in Africa. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
THOMAS, WILLIAM I. (1928) The Unadjusted Girl. Boston: Little, Brown.
VAN DEN BERGHE, PIERRE L. (1975) 'Ethnicity and Class in Highland Peru', in
Leo A. Despres (ed.), Ethnicity and Resource Competition in Plural Societies. The
Hague: Mouton Publishers.
VAN DEN BERGHE, PIERRE L. (1976) 'Ethnic Pluralism in Industrial Societies:
A Special Case?' Ethnicity 3 (3): 242-55.
VAN VELSEN, J. (1967) The Extended-Case Method and Situational Analysis', in
A. L. Epstein (ed.), The Craft of Social Anthropology. London: Tavistock Publications.
VINCENT, J. (1974) The Structuring of Ethnicity*. Human Organization 33 (4):
375-9.