Affect, Identity, and Ethnicity: Towards a Social-Psychological Mode of Ethnic Attainment

Since the days of Sh ils and Geertz it has been common to refer to ethn icity as a bond , a t ie , or an attachment. Shi ls used the term "t ie" in the title of h is seminal 1 957 article to refer to a set of social relationsh ips , includ ing what he called "civil , " "k insh ip , " "sacred , " and "primord ial. " The pr imord ial t ie was notable for the " i neffable s ign ificance" which social actors attribute to it and to the relat ionship which it engenders : "the attachment [ is] not merely to the other . . . as a person , but as a possessor of certain especially 's ign ificant relat ional' qual it ies, wh ich could only be described as p rimord ial. The attachment . . . is not just a funct ion of i nteract ion . "1 Subsequently Geertz developed the notion of ethn ic "attachment" as an affect and identity, or better yet , an affect-centered identity. The i ntent ion , often qu ite explicit , of these th inkers and the many who followed them was to emphasize the emotional quality of eth n icity as an explanation of its persistence and power. At the same t ime , as an emotional and not rat ional phenomenon , ethn icity was expected to decli ne and d isappear under the onslaught of modern rat ionaliz ing social forces. Th is essay retu rns to the issue of ethn ic ity as an affective relat ionsh ip . It will argue that affect is indeed a critical element i n ethn icity but that the theoretical t reatment of eth n ic affect has tended to be counterproductive . S imply put , the appeal to ethn ic "bonds , " "t ies , " or "attachments" has i nh ibited the analys is of ethn ic attachment because