‘Ethnic Group’, the State and the Politics of Representation

Abstract

This paper explores the notion of ‘ethnic group’ focussing, in particular, on attempts to transform the concept into an empirical indicator in population censuses. The latter is seen to be riven with difficulties, not least the fact that such measures tend to be attempting to address two conflicting agendas – one requiring an ascriptive, the other a subjective, measure. Illustrating the core arguments with the decennial census in Britain, the paper explores the contested political terrain underpinning the introduction of such a question, and then demonstrates that the construction of an ‘ethnic group’ indicator takes the form of a complex dialectical process involving negotiation and re-negotiation on the part of a myriad of social actors and structural forces at macro-, meso- and micro-levels. Finally, it reflects on broader concerns arising from the reification of the measure, not least its material effects in the context of debates and policies on ‘multiculturalism’.

Keywords:

• Ethnic Group
• Ethnicity
• Census
• Population Census Britain
• Multiculturalism
• Social Diversity
• Social Statistics
• Social Categories

Notes

1. To use country of birth as a measure of ‘ethnicity’ or ‘ethnic group’ was always highly questionable, of course. The ethnicity of Indian-born Europeans would clearly be misrepresented under this schema.

2. An additional problem is that it is the Household Representative Person who actually completes the Census form, meaning that the supposed ‘self-identification’ of household members may not be what it appears.

3. It is nevertheless appropriate to point out here that this reflects the (universal) position taken by government statisticians that the largest category numerically should be placed first.

4. The current author was an invited member of this Committee, having previously been one of a small group of academic sociologists and geographers tasked to produce a four-volume series of analyses based on ‘ethnic group’ data from the 1991 Census (cf. Ratcliffe 1996).

5. A comparison with the US is instructive here, for two reasons. First, the 2000 and 2010 US Censuses both include an open-ended question on the topic (despite the coding implications) and, secondly, the wording of the question elides ‘ethnic origin’ and ‘ancestry’. This sits alongside a specific question that reifies the concept ‘race’.

6. This does, of course, embrace the assumption that most of those self-identifying as Irish would define themselves as ‘white’.

7. See http://www.communities.gov.uk/communities/research/racecohesionfaith/understandingmuslimcommunities/ (accessed 7 July 2012).

8. Speech at the Munich Security Conference, Saturday 5 February 2011. This was particularly interesting in that key sections of the text were simply recycled from a speech he made, in opposition, on 26 February 2008.

9. The downside of this formulation, of course, is that it is not possible to disaggregate the constituent groups for analytical purposes. It simply accords recognition by way of nomenclature.

10. Practical considerations, in particular the imperative to ensure questionnaire brevity, dictate that the measurement of ‘ethnic group’ is confined to a single question.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Peter Ratcliffe

Peter Ratcliffe is a professor of Sociology and Director of the Centre for Rights, Equality and Diversity at the University of Warwick. He served as President of the International Sociological Association's Research Committee on Racism, Nationalism and Ethnic Relations (2006–2010). His research focuses on ‘race’, ethnicity and urban inequality, and he is currently working closely with the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). His publications include ‘Race’, Ethnicity and Difference: Imagining the Inclusive Society, Open University Press/McGraw Hill, 2004; (ed. with Ines Newman) Promoting Social Cohesion: Implications for Policy and Evaluation, Policy Press, 2011; ‘Re-evaluating the Links between “Race” and Residence’, Housing Studies, 24(4): 2009; and ‘“Community Cohesion”: reflections on a flawed paradigm’, Critical Social Policy, 32 (2): 2012