82 THEORIES OF ETHNICITY
existence of basic ethnie categories would seem to be a facror encouraging
the proliferation of culrural differentiae.
ln such systerns, the sanctions producing adherence to group-specific
values are not only exercised by those who share .the identity. Again, other
imperative statuses afford a parallel: just as both sexes ridicule the male who is
feminine, and a\l classes punish the proletarian who puts on airs, so also can
members of aUethnic groups in a poly-ethnie society act to maintain diehotomies
and differences. Where social identities are organized and allocated by
such principles, there wiJ\ thus be a tendency towards canalization and
standardization of interaction and the ernergence ofboundaries which maintain
and generate ethnic diversity within larger, encompassing social systerns,
IEthnlclty and Polltlcs
ABNER COHEN
lnterdependence oj ethnic groups
The positive bond that connects sev.eral ethnic groups in an encompassing
social system depends on the complementariry of the groups with respect to
some of their characteristie culrural features. Such complementarity can give
rise to interdependence or symbiosis, and constitutes the areas of articulation
referred to above; while in the fields where there is no complementarity there
can be no basís for organization on ethnic lines-there wil\ either be no
interaction, or interaction without reference to ethnic identity.
Social systems differ greatly in the extenr to which ethnic identity, as an
imperative status, constrains the person in the variety of staruses and roles he
. may assume. Where the dístinguishing values connected with ethnic identity
are relevant only to a few kinds of activities, the social organization based on
it will be-similar1y limited. Cornplex polyethnic systems, on the other hand,
clear1yentail the existence of extensively relevant value differences and multiple
constraints on status combinations and social participation. In such
sysrerns, the boundary maintaining mechanisms must be highly effective, for
the following reasons: (i) the complexity is based on the existence of important,
complementary cultural differences; (ii) these differences must be
genera\ly standardized within the ethnie group--i.e. the status cluster, or
social person, of every member of a group must be highly stereotyped-so
that inter-ethnic interaction can be based on ethnie identities; and (iii) the
cultural characteristics of each ethnie group must be stable, so that the
complementary differences on whieh the systems rest can persist in the face
of close inter-ethnie contact, Where these conditions obtain, ethnic groups
can make stable and symbiotie adaptations to each other: other ethnic groups
in the region become a part of the natural environment;" the sectors of
artieulation provide areas that can be exploited, while the other sectors
of activity of other groups are largely irrelevant frorn the point of view of
members of any one group.
[Elhnic Groups and Boundari<s (Boston: linie. Brown and Co.. (969). 10-19.1
The InJormal Nature oj Political Ethnicity
ln the light of the foregoing discussion, a number of points can be made
whieh can help in isolating the phenomena and processes of ethniciry.
Firstly, contemporary ethnicity is the result of intensive interaction
between ethnie groupings and not the result of cornplere separatism. This is
contrary to what one may call 'the glue theory of rribalisrn' which has been
suggested by some writers. This theory states that during the colonial period,
the colonial powers had acted as 'glue' in stieking together within the framework
of new, artificially established, centralized stares, some diverse 'tribal'
groups, and that once the glue was removed when the colonial powers
withdrew, each package stare began to disintegrate and to fall into its ariginal
parts. It is of course true that many of the new states of Africa were originally
created by the colonial powers. But during the colonial period a great deal of
integration berween rhe consriruent tribal groups had taken place and this
had given rise to increasing interaction berween these groups. In British West
Africa, this interaction was limited because of the poliey of Indirect Rule and
also because the strategie positions of centralized power were held by the
foreign rulers. But the protective umbrella of Indirect Rule made it possible
for some tribal groups to develop vital interests of their own while other tribal .
groups became relatively underprivileged. When the British withdrew an
intense struggle for power ensued. The privileged became exposed to the
danger of losing power and had to mobilize their forces in defence while the
underprivileged aligned themselves to gain power.
Further and more bitter struggles broke out over new strategie positions of
power: places of employment, raxarion, funds for development, education,
polítical positions, and so on. In many places the possibilities of capturing
these new sources of power were different for different tribal groups, so that
very often the resulting cleavages were on tribal lines. As a result of this
intensified struggle, many tribal groups mobilized their forces and searched
for ways in which they could organize themselves politically so as to conduct
their struggle more effectively. In the process of this mobilization a new
emphasis was placed on parts of their traditional culture, and rhís gave the
impression that here there was a return to tribal tradition and to tribal
separatism when in fact tribalism in the contemporary situation was one
type of politieal grouping within the frarnework of the new state.
Secondly, tribalism involves a dynamie rearrangement of relations and of
customs, and is not the outcorne of cultural conservatism or continuiry. The
continuities of customs and of social formations are certainly there, but their