78 THEORIES OF ETHNICITY FREDRIK BARTH 79
cultural tradition,. but which makes it possible to separate these factors and
investigate the non-ecologicalcultural and social components creating diver-
.sity.
The cultural features that signal the ~oundary may change~ and th~ cultural
characreristics of the members may likewise be transformed, indeed, even the
organízational form of the group may change-vyet the fact of continuing
dichotomization between members and outsiders allows us to specify the
nature of continuity, and investigate the changing cultural form and content.
2. Sodally relevant factors alone become diagnostic for membership, not
the overt, 'objective' differences which are generated by other facrors. It
makes no difference how dissimilar members may be in their overt behaviour-if
they say they are A, in contrast to another cognate category B, they
are willing to be treated and let their own behaviour be interpreted and
judged as Ks and not as B's; in other words, they declare their allegiance to
the shared culture of A's. The effects of this, as compared to other factors
influendng actual behaviour, can then be made the object of investigation.
Ethnic groups as an organizational type
Byconcentrating on what is socially effective, ethnic groups are seen as a form
of social organization. The critical feature then becomes item (4) in the list
above, the characteristic of self-ascription and ascription by others, A categorical
ascription is an ethnic ascription when it classifies a person in terms of
his basic, most general identity, presumptively determined by his origin and
background. To the extent that actors use ethnic identities to categorize
themselves and others for purposes of interaction, they form erhnic groups
in this organizational sense.
It is important to recognize that although ethnic categories take cultural
differences into account, we can assume no simple one-to-one relationship
between ethnic units and cultural similarities and differences. The fearures
that are taken into account are not the sum ofobjective' differences, but only
those which the actors themselves regard as significant. Not only do ecologic
variations mark and exaggerate differences; some cultural features are used
by the actors as signals and emblems of differences, others are ignored, and in
some relationships radical differences are played down and denied. The
cultural contents of ethnic dichotomies would seem analytical1y to be of two
orders: (i) overr signals or signs-the diacritical fearures that people look for
and exhibit to show identity, often such features as dress, language, houseform,
or general style oflife, and (ii) basic value orientations: the standards of
morality and excellence by which performance is judged. Since belonging to
an ethnic category implies being a certain kind of person, having that basic
identity, it also implies a claim to be judged, and to judge oneself, by those
standards that are relevant to that identity. Neither of these kinds of cultural
'contents' follows from a descriptive list of cultural fearures or cultural
differences; one cannot predict from first principles which features will be
emphasized and made organizationally relevant by the actors. In other words,
ethnic categories provide an organizational vessel that may be given varying
arnounts and forms of content in different socio-culrural systems. They may
be of great relevance to behaviour, but they need not be; they may pervade all
sociallife, or they may be relevant only in límited sectors of activity. There is
thus an obvious scope for ethnographic and comparative descriptions of
different forms of ethnic organization.
The emphasis on ascription as the critical feature of ethnic groups also
solves the two conceptual difficulties that were discussed above.
I. When defined as an ascriptive and exclusive group, the nature of centinuity
of ethnic units is clear: it depends on the maintenance of a boundary.
The boundaries oj ethnic groups
The critical focus of investigation from this point of view becomes the ethnic
boundary that defines the gr~up, not the cultural stuff that it encloses. The
boundaries to which we rnust give our attention are of course soda I boundarie,
though they may have territorial counterparts. If a group maintains its
identity when members interact with others, this entails criteria for dererrnining
membership and ways of signalling membership and exclusion. Ethnic
groups are merely or necessarily based on the occupation of exclusive
territories; and the different ways in which they are maintained, not only by
a once-and-for-all recruitment but by continual expression and validation,
need to be analysed.
What is more, the ethnic boundary canalizes social \ife-it entails a frequently
quite complex organization of behaviour and social relations. The
identification of another person as a fellow member of an ethnic group
imp\ies a sharing of criteria for evaluation and judgement. It thus entails the
assumption that the twť are fundamentally 'playing the same garne', and this
means that there is berween them a potential for diversification and expansion
of their socíal relationship to cover eventually all different sectors and
domains of activity. On the other hand, a dichotomization of others as
strangers, as members of another ethnic group, implies a recognition of
limitations on shared understandings, differences in criteria for judgement
of value and performance, and a restriction of interaction to sectors of
assumed common understanding and mutual interest.
This makes it possible to understand one final form of boundary maintenahce
whereby cultural units and boundaries persist. Entailed in ethnic
boundary maintenance are also siruarions of soda 1contact between persons
of dífferenr cultures: ethnic groups only persist as significant units if they
imply marked difference in behaviour, i.e. persisting cultural differences. Yet