Prompted by a question from Tamasha on the other thread, about how I choose from among a range of possible ethnic and cultural identifiers, I wanted to write a post about the anthropological theory of situational ethnicity, and more generally about identity being the product not only of ascribed traits but also, and at the same time, of a strategic response to opportunities and constraints. Unfortunately I will have to save this for later, as all my relevant books are in a box in a storage space somewhere, and the good stuff online is all restricted to academic subscribers. I’ll get to it at some point, I promise. Every time we go down this path of endless disputes over how we do/can/should identify ourselves, I realize that this concept of situational identities is one of the most important and useful things that I learned in college and grad school.
However, in the course of ferreting about on Wikipedia and other places, I found another approach to ethnicity that is quite the opposite. It is the effort to code ethnicity by ancestry with maximum precision and detail, as evinced in the census and other official exercises in the United Kingdom. The 2001 UK census lists a variety of possible ethnic identifications that goes well beyond the selection offered in the United States. And the UK police forces are using a similar classification in their efforts to monitor crime and police response according to the ethnic background of the people they encounter.
Thus I learned that in the UK, I would be considered an M3, whereas most of you macacas are A1, A2 or A3. Here is the full range (from the PDF document linked here, page 76):
Asian or Asian British (A)
A1 Indian
A2 Pakistani
A3 Bangladeshi
A9 Any other Asian background
Black or Black British (B)
B1 Caribbean
B2 African
B9 Any other Black background
Chinese or Other Ethnic Group (O)
O1 Chinese
O9 Any other ethnic group
Mixed (M)
M1 White and Black Caribbean
M2 White and Black African
M3 White and Asian
M9 Any other mixed background
White (W)
W1 British
W2 Irish
W9 Any other White Background
This system is known as 16 + 1, for the 16 self-identified categories above plus an additional one, NS or “Not Stated,”
when an “individual chooses not to acknowledge their ethnic background. If this is the case the officer will assume their ethnicity and record this instead.”[Link]
The United States has its own tangled way of classifying, as anyone who’s had to fill a US census form knows. What is interesting is that the US still uses the term “race” where the UK uses the term “ethnicity.” This results in the perpetuation, here in the US, of a conflation between race and ethnicity that in turn fosters some of the confusion and misunderstandings that we encounter so much in our own conversations on this site. For all its bureaucratic stiltedness, I find the UK approach to be more helpful in actually capturing the diversity of a population, even if my personal instinct would be in most cases to avoid placing myself in any category… except when it is strategic to do so.
I find it interesting that a government officer can impose an ethnicity on an individual who does not want to identify with one in particular (I am guessing that is what “assume” means). I am not very comfortable with that. If the UK government is going to go that far, why have the NS option at all?
On another note, I don’t know anything about formal theories behind situational ethnicity, but for your description, I employ it quite a bit in my day-to-day life. I rarely feel the need to label myself for others, though I identify strongly with both the American culture in which I was raised as well as my Indian heritage. When someone does ask me to label myself, I use the label that will be most advantagous to me. This is especially useful in arguments and debates where I can switch between my Indian and American “hats” at a whim.
whereas most of you macacas are A1, A2 or A3.
hello, where is รลbermensch? can’t a true monster of god get some respect….
For all its bureaucratic stiltedness, I find the UK approach to be more helpful in actually capturing the diversity of a population
the US system is bureaucratically stilted too. and yes, far less helpful in actually capturing diversity. i was a clerk at the CENSUS in 2000. there are lots of ‘native americans’ who spell their tribal names as if they are 6 or never saw it written down before.
I think this is key. It makes sense to categorize if the objective is to create an ethnographic map but for the individual, idenities are fluid.
I’m Ameican when abroad, an immigrant when i don’t know which fork to use, Bangaldeshi when conversing with the average NYC cabbi, desi when partying with subcontinentals, harami when debating issues of faith with the likeminded, muslim when defending against attack, bengali when explaining the bangladesh/bengal divide (i side with language and culture over nationalism/religion, esp as these things play out in bangladesh today), South Asian when discussing the artificial yet significant results of partition, “other” when filling out most race surveys.
Interesting method of classification that the UK employs. Certainly less vague than the US options for check-boxes.
Personally I equate it to layers of an onion, or the Linnaeus biological classifications (Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species)… There are so many ways to label, ranging from general to specific. Keep peeling back layers and the labelling or identification becomes more exact.
Or just say Macaci ๐
What about half-breeds like myself? I am half Punjabi and half Canadian…Where’s the 1/2M check box?
And then the census is left in an odd conundrum when you have an Indian-Pakistani mix: A9?, M9? A9? M9? AHHH!
i like your response espressa – but i prefer to let the other see want (s)he wants to see. life’s too short to quibble about all this – i prefer ibsen’s perspective on the individual and groups matter not.
postit identities have their favorite moments as well as the pungent kind. Let me share some of the good ones.
“so the airport gave you an suv because they were out of cars and you came here to get a smaller car?”. I say yes. He looks down. Taps for a while and looks up. “are you indian?”
I was wowing the crowds on the skating rink in minneapolis. A guy calls out. “hey… are you canadian?”.
we are what we do and what we believe in, espressa – so i concur with you.
A guy calls out. “hey… are you canadian?”.
wow. did you flip them off?
razib – now dont make me come over and spank your tight chocolate brown cupacakes.
I dare you to …… Frostneck
razib – now dont make me come over and spank your tight chocolate brown cupacakes.
that is impermissible. haram even. i’m cinnamon brown btw. thaz y they call me cinnamon love….
I am bit surprised there isn’t a specific Asian-Asian mixed category. Are there more White-Asian marriages than Asian-Asian marriages?
So many categories? Divide et impera? The Brits? I am shocked, shocked to see them engaging in categorization.
espressa @#3: Well put.
About the post, its hardly a surprise, there really are ‘enthnicities’ or ‘races’ of people. As long one is not given a raw deal over the other, there’s no harm is calling each by its name.
Be a macaca, be a proud macaca. I am AmsterdamGuy and I approve this message. ๐
Are there more White-Asian marriages than Asian-Asian marriages?
interethnic marriage.
i like being agreed with ๐
and so, hairy_d, i’ll agree back that they way we are precieved is at least as important — its a feedback loop, no?
so while i may start with a projection of how i want to be seen, i will definitely adjust, at least temporarily to accommodate the person i’m interacting with… lull them with a sense of familiarity before brainwashing them into revering me as empress… but thatรโs the long-term plan. In the interim, I’m happy with presenting multiple sides to slowly break the oh-so-comfortable us/them categorization we all have a tendency to fall into.
i wonder why the white category isn’t further divided into welsh, scots, english? aren’t they also ethnicities with their own languages?
welsh, scots, english? aren’t they also ethnicities with their own languages?
1) only 25% of welsh speak welsh fluently from what i recall (welsh = residents of wales)
2) scotland is ‘5 nations.’ only a subset are traditionally gaelic speakers (mostly western scotland). the lowlanders’ brand of english, broad scots, has affinities to northern english (angles settled southern scotland). there are norse in the north, and the picts had their own language. and there were the britons of strathclyde.
3) the english don’t even have their own legislature. they suck ๐
but if the idea is to “code ethnicity by ancestry with maximum precision and detail” then “white” doesn’t seem to cut it. and we all know that the scots, welsh and english etc. are not above taking ethnic digs at one another (witness english reaction to scots put down of england football team, cricket team etc.) scottish nationalist sean connery is a huge andy murray fan precisely because he’s from scotland, not so much because he’s british. why lump all whites into one category when they clearly aren’t?
why lump all whites into one category when they clearly aren’t?
the master race is the master race. end of story. the privileged accrued to a McDavid is no different than one to a Smith.
So, how are Hindu immigrants who moved to England from Pakistan during the partition classified? A2?
Hmm.. two of my aunts and one of my uncles moved to England from Karachi right after the partition. So, I guess that makes them A2. My grandparents moved to India with my parents. So, my parents are A1. So, my father is A1, but his sister is A2. Funny!!
razib,
Thanks for the link.
I am still a little confused. The report seems to indicate that only 2% of all marriages in the UK are interethnic, and of those 90% are white-other marriages.
I am not sure if they are categorizing an Asian-Asian marriage as interethnic.
My reading of the above paragraph is that the report does notconsider Asian-Asian marriage as interethnic.
Amen sister, I myself am waiting for boxes that say things like “ethnically swirled,” “mixie-matchie” and “one foot on the subcontitent, one foot in Mickey Dees.” Being a mixie like yourself, I have in the past checked different boxes depending on avialability and where I was in my life “identity-wise.” I kind of feel left out because there is no mixed box and according to the us census link in the post, it looks like if you check “white” and anything else, they will count you as “white.”
By the way, though I’ve never been, I have a deep and unfufilled affection for Canada. I hear its purty. ๐
I kind of feel left out because there is no mixed box and according to the us census link in the post, it looks like if you check “white” and anything else, they will count you as “white.”
no. well, it depends. for gov. purposes the more “disadvantaged” ancestry is usually taken and used for proportional analysis. e.g., people who are black & white are counted as black for figuring out how many gov. set asides should be set aside for blacks. this was a concession by those who wanted to add multiracial to the 2000 census since minority activists believed it would decrease their numbers via defection. gets confusing when someone is mixed asian or native american and black or latino. we know white is right and the best, but the rank order of other groups is confused though i think the general consensus is the group in the suckiest situation is lower rank for a given social metric analysis (e.g., half-black and half-korean is counted as black for university admission, but not necessarily for gov. contracts where asians get a lot of favoritism).
Ok it’s Friday and my brain is addled. I think I figured out the answer to my initial question; an Asian-Asian marriage is not considered interethnic, and therefore their children, do not merit a separate mixed category.
In South Africa we do not have SSN instead we are all give ID numbers, the first four is usually the day/month/year of your birth, the next four a series of unexplained numbers and the last three your race. Indians, sorry South Asians, are usually 082, whites 081, blacks 083 and ‘coloreds’ (mixed between blacks/malays/whites) are 084. Even though my mum is mixed she still has 081, my brother and I on the other hand have 087, better know as I dont know the f%$k. I wonder if they still employ this post apartheid? Got to make a phone call and check.
5 & #22: in the last US census, for the first time, people were permitted to check as many boxes as applied, as opposed to picking one box. Finally. Mixies pehchaano!
Lets face it, ghettoization (or even deportation) rather than assimilation appears to be the most likely future for desis abroad. The pakistani ghetto in Bradford, U.K. and the indian ghetto in Edison, New Jersey are prototypes of the ethnic enclaves where the majority of desis might end up living in an ever less welcoming west. If, or rather when, there is an economic downturn, desis will probabaly be the most vulnerable minority.
OK but what about latinos? I had to go there, didn’t I…
Latinos are probably more mixed than anyone…
When the Spanish came in they mixed with many of the indigenous/native/indians but also with the slaves taken from Africa. My husbands grandmother was black, for instance. Also, lest we not forget, the Spanish, even pre-Colombian days, were mixing with North Africans/Arabs and Persians even before they got to the Americas. What is latino, really? M1, M2, M9, B9 or W9?
BTW Razib, I worked that Census too! About every block or so, instead of answering the questions, at least one person would squint their eyes and ask me ‘What are you?’
They would get so pleased when I would say ‘This is all about you, not me.’;)
I think part of the reason this is a topic we can’t get enough of is that it’s forever changing, depending on who we are. What makes us who we are, aside from a whole bunch of other things, is where we are, where we’re from, and to be a little cheesy, where we’re going. That can be broken down on so many levels: hemisphere, continent, country, region, city, borough, neighborhood, micro-neighborhood, block, etc. We’re constantly evolving based on the context. To add parents who are different from one another, and living in parts of the world that are not necessarily associated with these parents, only adds more (confusing?) variables to the list (I would assume).
The UK’s breakdown is relevant to the UK. There was almost a total lack of inclusion of Latinos on the list, and I was surprised about the “Chinese or Other” category. Does that mean all East Asians? Where does one draw that line? What if you’re from Bhutan? Tibet? In the UK Asian means people like me, whereas in the States it means “Chinese or Other.”
In the US we are lucky to have South Asian, forget about a breakdown by country. I am uncomfortable checking off Asian/Asian Pacific Islander on forms because while I know I’m Asian, others don’t see me as Asian. When there’s an other box I check it and write in South Asian because I want whomever is looking at whatever study to recognize that we exist (I know, my own personal existential crisis), and that there are a lot of us, damn it.