The concept of "ethnos": the definition

Among the concepts that define and classify the human community, the most important is ethnic differentiation. About what is the definition of the concept of ethnos and how it should be understood in the context of various branches and theories of ethnology, we will talk in this article.

Definition

First of all, we will deal with the formal definition. So, more often than not with respect to the concept of "ethnos", the definition sounds like "a stable human community that has developed in the course of history". It is understood that this society should be united by certain common features, such as culture, way of life, language, religion, identity, habitat and the like. Thus, it is obvious that "people", "nation" and similar concepts and "ethnos" - are similar. Therefore, their definitions correlate with each other, and the terms themselves are often used as synonyms. In the scientific revolution, the word "ethnos" was introduced in 1923 by SM Shirokogorov, a Russian emigre.

Concepts and theories of ethnos

The scientific discipline that studies the phenomenon we are considering is called ethnology, and among its representatives there are different approaches and points of view on the concept of "ethnos". The definition of the Soviet school, for example, was built from the standpoint of so-called primordialism. But in today's Russian science constructivism prevails.

Primordialism

The theory of primordialism suggests approaching the concept of "ethnos" as an objective given that is external to the person and conditioned by a number of features independent of the individual. Thus, ethnicity can not be changed or artificially generated. It is given from birth and is determined on the basis of objective features and characteristics.

The dualistic theory of ethnos

In the context of this theory, the concept of "ethnos" has its own definition in two forms - narrow and lengthy, which determines the duality of the concept. In the narrow sense, this term refers to groups of people who have a stable connection of generations, limited to a certain space and have a number of stable identifying attributes - cultural codes, language, religion, psyche, the consciousness of their community, and so on.

In a broad sense, it is proposed to understand the whole complex of social entities united by common state borders and the economic and political system. Thus, we see that in the first case "people", "nationality" and similar concepts and "ethnos" are similar, therefore their definitions are similar. And in the second case, all national correlates are erased, and civil identity comes to the fore.

Sociobiological theory

Another theory called sociobiological, the main emphasis in the definition of the concept of "ethnos" makes for biological signs that unite groups of people. Thus, the person's belonging to one or another ethnos is given to him, as sex and other biological signs.

Passionary theory of ethnos

This theory is otherwise called the theory of Gumilev, on the surname of its author. It presupposes that the ethnos is a structural union of people, formed on the basis of certain behavioral stereotypes. Ethnic consciousness, according to this hypothesis, is formed on the principle of complementarity, which serves as the basis for building an ethnic tradition.

Constructivism

The concept of "ethnos", the definition of which is among ethnologists the subject of disputes and disagreements, is viewed from the point of view of constructivism as artificial formation and is seen as the result of purposeful human activity. In other words, this theory asserts that ethnicity is a variable and is not included in the circle of objectivity given, like gender and nationality. One ethnos differs from the other by signs, which in the framework of this theory are called ethnic markers. They are created on different bases, for example, religion, language, appearance (in that part of it that can be changed).

Instrumentalism

This radical theory asserts that ethnicity is formed by stakeholders, called the ethnic elite, as a tool for achieving certain goals. But in itself ethnicity, as an identity system, it does not pay attention. Ethnicity, according to this hypothesis, is only a tool, and in everyday life is in a state of latency. Inside the theory, there are two directions that differentiate the ethnos by the nature of the application - elitist and economic instrumentalism. The first of them draws attention to the role of ethnic elites in the awakening and maintenance of a sense of ethnic identity and self-awareness within the society. Economic instrumentalism is emphasized by the economic state of various groups. Among other things, he postulates economic inequality as the cause of conflicts between members of different ethnic groups.