The terms ethnic group and tribe are still used by anthropologists; many authors however showed their limits and the fact that these terms are inappropriate, or at least that their definitions are.
Let us start with the definition of G. Frege in 1894 about identity, because after all when one speaks about ethnic group, tribe or nation it is related to the concept of identity. According to Mr. Frege, “since any definition is an identity, the idea itself of identity could not be defined”. Thus an identity is between unit and a number, in other words between me and the others, but also between innate identity or by accident and acquired identity or oneself. However, human classify any thing and the ethnologist needs to know what he studies, to give limits to his study.
Until the 18th century, one speaks only about nations and people, the ethnic group term is used for the first time by V. Lapouge in 1896. According to Luc de Heusch, he invented it in order to distinguish races. The term is quickly use by colonial administrators and thus replaces the words ‘people’ and ‘nations’, adding a biological insinuation. Guy de Boeck says that this name is used to organise men and territories to control them through the treaties in particular. A whole vocabulary is used to be distinguished the colonised people: these people are said to have habits, beliefs and chiefs and not laws, religions and presidents.
Mr. Godelier defines a tribe as a concrete society, with a territory and being ready to defend it. It controls the resources of work, is created from economics and politics. Today, this word is used almost only for the groups isolated living in a rudimentary way, as if this word could speak only about isolated and little economically developed companies.
The word ethnic group has many definitions. Many authors agree to say that an ethnic group is based on a belief in a common origin, real or not (Shirokogoroff, Tylor, Weber.). Thus the ethnic group would be based at least with the eyes of its members on a family or blood bond, in the majority of the cases. Apart from the fact of knowing if this idea is real, it shows all at least that even for anthropologist the limit with races is small. Many sociologists think that the language, the conscience to belong to a group, endogamy and cultural identity make it possible to show that one belong to an ethnic group. (Shirokogoroff, Tylor, Roosen, Godelier. ). Boeck and Barth affirm what is important is what people say that is the ethnic group is, what defines it according to them.
Then, each sociologist brought his own definition:
For Tylor, it is a total phenomenon where certain cultural features are at the base of the creation of a social system.
For Roosen, the ethnic group was created or at least modified by colonisation and it is linked to a larger cultural unit.
Barth says that colonisation cemented the ethnic groups in time, insisting on the importance of the bonds and exchanges with the borders and said that culture is different from the ethnic group.
According to G. of Boeck, exchanges are fundamental. Trade becomes cultural and linguistic exchanges, and the trade involves a division of the labour.
Amselle speaks rather about identity with a multitude of identities for each person which adapt according to situations.
Since some years, anthropologists have agreed to say that the ethnic group is changing.
Ethnic group term change according to modifications of the groups. Thus it appeared during colonisation, its definition changed during independence of the colonised country, then adding the idea of choice of the members of the ethnic group. Today it persists, in spite of the strong migration of the populations towards the cities, globalisation of the media and international migrations. That deeply modified social groups and ways of life of people studied by the anthropologists.
Of which ethnic group are we when our parents are from various horizons, and we grow in a distant city, then migrate to a new country? In other words are we from the ethnic group of birth, of the education one receives or that that one chooses? The term really does seem to be mainly used to create a division between occident and people in the past colonised countries or developing countries. Would one dare to call the Corsicans or the Breton ethnic group or tribe? However they correspond to the majority of the definitions given by the anthropologists.
Thus the ethnic group term, on top of being dangerously linked to a racist vision, seems difficult to define, as if its definition depended on the studied group and at which time one refers. I do not deny the existence of groups related to the origins cultural or biological, I think simply that the term of ethnic group is too close to an idea of underdevelopment and that it is not suitable. However, the ethnologist have to define their subject of study, that it is in term of population, territory and habits for example, and to find what they have in common. In my opinion, it will thus be necessary to concentrate to the word of group and to define the group studied precisely before starting the investigation itself in order to avoid any amalgam, particularly when one studies groups who were colonised or who are victims of prejudices.
Tags: ethnic group, identity, nigeria
