Tribalism And Ethnicity

The column ‘Political Perspective’ in The Namibian (November 2 2007) quite rightly came out strongly against tribalism in the country.

However, the author seems to contradict herself when she writes: “Yet there is nothing wrong with being proud of one’s ethnic identity and choosing to be with the same kind of people, as long as we have tolerance for others.” What, we may ask, makes tribalism so different from ethnocentrism? How come ethnicity is acceptable and a tribal identity is not? In our view, both tribalism and ethnocentrism are offspring of racism.The English dictionary, for example, simply equates ‘ethnicity’ with ‘race.’ Well-known intellectual Immanuel Wallerstein, however, refers to ‘peoplehood’ when he writes about ethnicity.In ‘Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities’, Wallerstein (1991) was of the view that: “Racism operationally has taken the form of what might be called the ‘ethnicization’ of the work force, by which I mean that at all times there has existed an occupational-reward hierarchy that has tended to be correlated with some so – called social criteria..The ethnicization of the work force exists in order to permit very low wages for whole segments of the labour force”.And might we add on, ethnicisation also justifies the unemployment of large sections in a society.From a Gramscian conceptualisation, it could be argued that hegemonic forces tend to define the meaning of culture, race and ethnicity in their self – interest and to negatively label subaltern groups in the process.The dehumanisation of any social group is a step towards justifying the hegemony (and higher-paying work) of others.The apartheid regime, for example compelled social groups into certain type of work, because it was cognisant of the nexus between ‘peoplehood’ and work.This legacy still haunts contemporary Namibia.Wallerstein maintained that ethnicisation is a non-merit basis to legitimate real – existing inequality.Although ethnicity is promoted as voluntary behaviour to defend a social identity, he stated that it is actually, a complex, clay – like historical product of the capitalist world – economy through which antagonistic forces struggle with each other.”In the aftermath of the ethnic cleansing of ex-Yugoslavia, Wallerstein seemed to have been on target with his analysis of the social function of ethnicity in the contemporary world.In the 21st century, therefore, the struggle against ethnicisation and other forms of real – existing inequality needs to intensify.There is much wrong with promoting pride in ethnic identity.Indeed, it is highly irresponsible to do this in a fragmented society like ours.Such a Cartesian perspective on reality contains the seeds of division.Z. Shilunga WindhoekWhat, we may ask, makes tribalism so different from ethnocentrism? How come ethnicity is acceptable and a tribal identity is not? In our view, both tribalism and ethnocentrism are offspring of racism.The English dictionary, for example, simply equates ‘ethnicity’ with ‘race.’ Well-known intellectual Immanuel Wallerstein, however, refers to ‘peoplehood’ when he writes about ethnicity.In ‘Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities’, Wallerstein (1991) was of the view that: “Racism operationally has taken the form of what might be called the ‘ethnicization’ of the work force, by which I mean that at all times there has existed an occupational-reward hierarchy that has tended to be correlated with some so – called social criteria..The ethnicization of the work force exists in order to permit very low wages for whole segments of the labour force”.And might we add on, ethnicisation also justifies the unemployment of large sections in a society.From a Gramscian conceptualisation, it could be argued that hegemonic forces tend to define the meaning of culture, race and ethnicity in their self – interest and to negatively label subaltern groups in the process.The dehumanisation of any social group is a step towards justifying the hegemony (and higher-paying work) of others.The apartheid regime, for example compelled social groups into certain type of work, because it was cognisant of the nexus between ‘peoplehood’ and work.This legacy still haunts contemporary Namibia.Wallerstein maintained that ethnicisation is a non-merit basis to legitimate real – existing inequality.Although ethnicity is promoted as voluntary behaviour to defend a social identity, he stated that it is actually, a complex, clay – like historical product of the capitalist world – economy through which antagonistic forces struggle with each other.”In the aftermath of the ethnic cleansing of ex-Yugoslavia, Wallerstein seemed to have been on target with his analysis of the social function of ethnicity in the contemporary world.In the 21st century, therefore, the struggle against ethnicisation and other forms of real – existing inequality needs to intensify.There is much wrong with promoting pride in ethnic identity.Indeed, it is highly irresponsible to do this in a fragmented society like ours.Such a Cartesian perspective on reality contains the seeds of division.Z. Shilunga Windhoek