Mi o ing
he dialec ic
o inclusion
and exclusion in
e hnohe e ogenesis
p ocesses
Nina Cla a Tiesle
9.
196 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
in oduc ion
Rega ding inclusion and exclusion p ocesses, he s udy o e hnic ela ions has
been a common pu sui in Sociology and An h opology, bo h in he pas and in
he p esen , especially – hough no exclusi ely – in his o ical con ex s ma ked
by heigh ened mig a ion. While he wo k o many sociologis s and social-
cul u al an h opologis s can be applied di ec ly o social policy and wel a e,
his con ibu ion is an a emp a e ining he heo e ical unde s anding
o social and cul u al p ocesses h ough me ging pe spec i es om bo h
disciplines. I does so by choosing a subjec ma e which anges om he
mic o le el o indi idual agency and in e ac ion o he mac o le el o sys ems
and he social s uc u e: he coming-in o-being o e hnici ies in he ligh o
socie al and cul u al change, and as a social o m o symbolic collec i i y ha
may enhance as much as es ic indi iduali y.
S udying he genesis and con inuously shi ing social o ms o e hnici ies
is heu is ically impo an in ha i can help cla i y p ocesses o socio,
cul u al and poli ical change in socie y a la ge. The speci ic con ibu ion o
his pape is o he esea ch con ex o mig an s and mig an descendan s;
whe ein concep ual deba es on sel -pe cep ion, modes o belonging, g oup
o ma ion and collec i e subjec i i ies con inue o be a he co e o heo e ical
conside a ions. In conduc ing esea ch among Po uguese emig an s in
di e se diaspo ic se ings on he one hand, and Po uguese Muslims o Indo-
Mozambican o igin on he o he , we ha e ollowed di e en gene a ions o
people wi h mig a ion expe ience in hei amily his o ies who sha e “memo ies
o coloniza ion and mig a ion” (Webe ). The wo g oupings we e selec ed in
o de o be able o compa e di e ing his o ies and expe iences o mig a ion
and se lemen , ela ions wi h o he socie al mino i ies and majo i ies,
e e ences o he Po uguese na ion, socie al posi ioning, and “li ed” e e yday
cul u es. O e ime, di e en gene a ions and mig a ion ajec o ies, e hnic
sel -pe cep ions and membe ship oles ha e changed among bo h g oupings.
This pape akes he essence o he esea ch ou pu o explo a o y analysis.1
1 While i was possible o mee pe iodically wi h he same Muslim amilies om win e 1991/92,
wi h a espec i e i s case s udy ca ied ou in 1998 (Tiesle 2000, 2005), he esea ch collec ed and
chosen o his wo k ook place be ween 2004 and 2014 as pa o di e se esea ch p ojec s. I included a
numbe o case s udies d awing upon a a ie y o quali a i e and quan i a i e (Tiesle and La ado 2018;
Tiesle and Be gano 2012; Tiesle and Cai ns 2010, 2007) and exclusi ely quali a i e echniques (Tiesle
2008, 2009, 2012). We ha e conduc ed esea ch on s a is ics and seconda y da a analysis, o iginal
mi o ing he dialec ic o inclusion and exclusion 197
The main a gumen is ha cu en analy ical concep s and amewo ks a e
oo limi ed o g asp he complex and mul i-dimensional o ma i e p ocesses
p oducing e hnici ies.
The complex se ings illus a ed in he o m o ield no es mo e
his p epa a o y wo k owa ds a new analy ical concep , which I call
E hnohe e ogenesis (ehg). Emphasis lies on he genesis and changes o e hnic
aming and mul iplici y o e hnic membe ships. A common concep o
desc ibe and analyse he coming-in o-being o e hnici ies and e hnic change
is e hnogenesis. The concep ual his o y o he e m e hnogenesis om he
la e 19 h cen u y up o he p esen day shows mani old pe spec i es on – and
de ini ions o – e hnici y and leads o insigh s in o di e se schola ly adi ions
and ways o employing he concep – he la e always depending on he e y
speci ic his o ic (and poli ical) esea ch con ex (Tiesle 2017a, 18-31). While
he linea and one-dimensional na u e o mos models o e hnogenesis is one
sou ce o mo i a ion o concep ualise ehg as an al e na i e, ano he sou ce
is he analy ical sho comings and ei ica ion o subjec i e expe ience when
g oup o ma ions and a ilia ions a e au ologically explained by he use o he
co e -all and obli e a ing “iden i y”-ca ego y. I is essen ial ha his p epa a o y
wo k owa ds a new analy ical amewo k and ha ehg should open up ways
o esis wha E ic Hobsbawm (1996) and o he s ha e called “iden i y-ja gon”.
In close ha mony wi h he na a i es o he inqui ed amilies, analysis poin s
ou ha e hnici y can nei he be seen as a o m o collec i e subjec i i y no
as an unchangeable pa o one’s Sel – bu a he as one o many membe ship
oles ha indi iduals ake on and a e asc ibed wi hin speci ic cons ella ions.
By concep ualising e hnic a ilia ion as one o many membe ship oles, ehg
aims o add o he de elopmen o a Sociology o Membe ship.
Abo e all, he es ablished concep s wi h ega d o he o ma i e p ocesses
o e hnici ies do no explici ly add ess he dialec ic o homogenisa ion and
he e ogenisa ion inhe en in e hnogenesis and e hnic change. The e o e, I
p opose he concep o E hnohe e ogenesis (ehg) as an al e na i e model wi h
which o analyse e hnic aming and a ilia ions o indi iduals, g oupings and
mac o g oups. The concep ual his o y o e hnogenesis, iden i y and g oupism-
c i ique and Sociology o Membe ship de ine he heo e ical basis o ou wo k,
quan i a i e su eys and ques ionnai es, e hnog aphies, pa icipan obse a ion, biog aphical
na a i es and semi-s uc u ed one-on-one in e iews. Abo e all, p io i y was gi en o quali a i e
me hods, as I belie e socie al and mig a ion expe ience canno be cap u ed by using only quan i a i e
me hods.
198 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
which sugges s ha ehg has he po en ial o become a use ul amewo k o
u u e in es iga ions.
concep s and me hodological conce ns
A sho sociological in oduc ion o he e m “e hnici y”, which can connec
wi h cu en an h opological pe spec i es, eads: “To alk abou human
g oups who de ine membe ship based on hei belie in common ances y, one
can use he e m e hnici y” (Bös 2010, 2). E ic R. Wol unde lines ha “ideas
abou ace, cul u e and peoplehood o e hnici y ha e long se ed o o ien
an h opology’s inqui ies” (Wol 1994, 1). As o an ea ly concep ualisa ion
o he e m “e hnic g oup”, i is no only sociologis s who can e e o Max
Webe ’s Economy and Socie y [1920]. As Webe uses ca ego ies and concep s
undamen al o an h opological esea ch, such as kinship, his de ini ion can
se e as a s a ing poin o his con ibu ion, which aims o me ge sociological
and socio-cul u al an h opological pe spec i es:
We shall call “e hnic g oups” hose human g oups ha en e ain a subjec i e belie in
hei common descen because o simila i ies o ex e nal habi us o o cus oms o bo h, o
because o memo ies o coloniza ion and mig a ion; his belie mus be impo an o he
p opaga ion o g oup o ma ion; con e sely, i does no ma e whe he o no an objec i e
blood ela ion exis s. E hnic membe ship (Gemeinsamkei ) di e s om he kinship g oup
p ecisely by being a (belie ed-in) membe ship, no a g oup de ined by ac ual social ac ion.
In ou sense, e hnic membe ship does no cons i u e a g oup; i only acili a es g oup
o ma ion o any kind, pa icula ly in he poli ical sphe e. (Webe 2007 [1920], 301)
Webe also e e s o “cus oms” and “ex e nal habi us” as poin ing o wha can
be unde s ood as cul u al habi s and daily li e cul u e. Some an h opologis s
indeed emphasise he cul u al na u e o e hnici y.2 As a commi men
common in bo h Sociology and Socio-Cul u al An h opology, one can name
he s udy o cul u al p ocesses and p ac ices h ough which human ac ion
is indi idually and collec i ely media ed. In o he wo ds, a commi men o
2 Following Cohen (1974), one o he ea lies and mos in luen ial schools o hough in his espec has
been ha o he o me Rhodes Li ings one Ins i u e an h opologis s, no ably Mi chell (1956), Eps ein
(1958), and Gluckman (1961), whose iews we e g ea ly a ec ed by he special condi ions exis ing in he
indus ial owns o No he n Rhodesia, now Zambia, du ing he 1950s.
mi o ing he dialec ic o inclusion and exclusion 199
he s udy o people doing hings, o ac ion and p ac ices in speci ic se ings
o powe ela ions, a he han he s udy o cul u e as an objec . In he i s
edi ed olume on “u ban e hnici y”, Cohen (1974, ix) no es ha e hnici y
is a ubiqui ous phenomenon. This is deba able as “e hnic communi ies do
no ep esen a ubiqui ous o m o social o ganisa ion bu a he he esul
o a his o ical p ocess ela ed o a speci ic echnique o social dis inc ion”,
Gabbe a gues, wi h e e ence o shi ing bounda ies and eme ging e hnic
communi ies on Nica agua’s A lan ic Coas (Gabbe 2011, 77). They a e no
a “na u al” o m o o ganisa ion.
Connec ing wi h Glaze and Moynihan3, in e alia, and concep ualising
e hnici y as a mode n ideology based on enewed ca ego ies o he F ank u
Ins i u e o Social Resea ch, We z highligh s ha e hnici y is an enigma ic
no ion ha can be conduci e o illus a ing a ans o ma ion ha , du ing
he 20 h cen u y, a ec ed he s a es o consciousness o a ious people.
E hnic ideology o “iden i y- hinking” (Ho kheime ’s and Ado no’s c i ique
on “ icke -men ali y”, 1969) a e p oduc s o a dialec ic o enligh enmen
and secula isa ion; mi o ing a his o ical p ocess once desc ibed by Max
Ho kheime as he onwa d comp ehension o a li e wo ld ha is iden ical
in i s disenchan men (We z 2002, 13). Indeed, e hnic ideologies (jus as
na ional ones, cp. Ande son 1991; Gellne 1993) c ea e his o y. Following
Gabbe , who bases his heo ising on he Miski u in Eas e n Nica agua, e hnic
ideologies “ ake agmen s om he pas , s ing hem oge he , cons ue hem,
and change hei meaning o , i necessa y, ein en hem” (Gabbe 2014,
197). In acco dance wi h Bös, and wha Cohen unde s ands as “ubiqui ous”,
p obably in he sense o being pe asi e o omnip esen , and due o he
ac ha e hnici y akes a “ a ie y o o m, scope, and in ensi y, and o i s
in ol emen in psychic, social, and his o ical a iables”, one can conclude ha
e hnici y has been de ined in a a ie y o ways, “depending on he discipline,
ield expe ience, and in e es s o he in es iga o s” (Cohen 1974, ix).
As a s a ing poin owa ds a consensus, one can ake he en y on “e hnici y”
in he ecen ly published second edi ion o he In e na ional Encyclopaedia o
he Social & Beha io al Sciences. The au ho d aws upon his o ical aspec s
3 “We a e sugges ing ha a new wo d eflec s a new eali y and a new usage eflec s a change in
ha eali y. The new wo d is ‘e hnici y’, and he new usage is he s eady expansion o he e m ‘e hnic
g oup’ om mino i y and ma ginal subg oups a he edges o socie y – g oups expec ed o assimila e,
o disappea , o con inue as su i als, exo ic o oublesome – o majo elemen s o a socie y… [T]he e
is some hing new a oo in he wo ld, and we may label i ‘e hnici y’” (Glaze and Moynihan 1975, 5).

200 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
ega ding e hnici y and e hnic g oups, and a gues ha he concep s ha e been
applied o a b oad spec um o g oups in his o y. While e hnic communi y
building is used o os e solida i y in mac o-g oup s uc u es, e hnici y also
legi imises social inequali ies by descen . Fu he mo e, e hnic membe ship
se es o ulfil indi iduals’ need o collec i e belonging:
In he social sciences he e is a g owing consensus ha e hnici y is socially cons uc ed and
his o ically con ingen , bu ha many people pe cei e i as an impo an , unchangeable
pa o hei iden i y. (Bös 2015, 136)
Ye , he analysis o eme ging and shi ing e hnic mobilisa ions, asc ip ions
and iden i ica ions unco e s socie al ans o ma ions. Reflec ing on he
his o ical aspec s o e hnic hinking, Randall Collins a gues ha :
E hnici y is an in insically messy opic because he his o ical p ocesses ha p oduce i a e
in insically messy. Ou analy ical p oblems s em om he ac ha e hnici y is always a
dis o ed concep , an a emp o impose a pu e ca ego y on a social eali y ha is no a all
pu e. (Collins 1999, 78; ci ed by Bös)
As said, he speci ic con ibu ion o his pape ela es o he esea ch
con ex o mig an s and mig an descendan s. Mig a o y con ex s cons i u e
a s a egic lens o unde s anding “unde wha ci cums ances, among
whom and in o de o sa is y which needs o in e es s, do mig an selec i e
iden ifica ions and dis-iden ifica ions occu ” (Ban on 2008, 1276). Now,
as e hnici ies a e p oduced by his o ical p ocesses, how can one s udy he
eme gence o e hnici ies when hese p ocesses a e so “messy”? One possible
way is aking a his o ical pe spec i e du ing analysis, while using abs ac ion
om he e y speci ic his o ical con ex in ollow-up heo isa ion. This can be
done by cons an compa ison – in his case, be ween he wo g oupings unde
analysis bu also be ween each o hem and compa able social en i ies o
di e ing e hnic o non-e hnic e e ence and iden i ica ion. Secondly, e hnici y
appea s as a dis o ed concep , as an a emp o impose a pu e ca ego y on a
social eali y which is no a all pu e. As a me hodological manoeu e o a oid
his, we sugges acknowledging ha he coming-in o-being o e hnici ies
is an ongoing p ocess ha ypically in ol es de-e hnisa ion as much as
e hnisa ion, o ces o bo h he e o- and homogenisa ion as well as a di e si y
o e hnic membe ship oles and mul iple “e hnic op ions” (Wa e s 1990).
mi o ing he dialec ic o inclusion and exclusion 201
The hi d me hodological challenge is due o he ci cums ances ha sugges
e hnici ies a e socially cons uc ed and his o ical con ingen , bu con e sely,
ha mos people belie e e hnic asc ip ions and membe ship is unchangeable.
The expe iences o he wo g oupings unde analysis unde line he his o ical
con ingency in he genesis o e hnici ies. Mo e p ecisely, in aking bo h he
diaspo ic con ex and ha o o igin in o accoun , i highligh s he ac ha
e hnic aming and sel -a icula ion de elop as “ ela ional” o o he mino i y
and majo i y g oups, as well as “si ua i e” in speci ic powe ela ions. In hese
p ocesses, bo h socie al con ex s shape and unde go social and cul u al change
and can be desc ibed as e hnohe e ogeneous (Claussen 2013). Abo e all, in
close ha mony wi h he na a i es o he inqui ed amilies, analysis poin s ou
ha e hnici y can nei he be seen as a o m o collec i e subjec i i y, no as an
unchangeable pa o one’s Sel – bu a he as one o many membe ship oles
ha indi iduals ake up and a e asc ibed wi hin speci ic cons ella ions.
shi ing e hnic bounda ies – no es om he biog aphical
na a i es o mig a ion-expe ienced amilies
Né ia g ew up in Ge many, bo n o Po uguese emig an pa en s.4 He pa en s
le Po ugal in he e a o dic a o ship (1926-1974). He a he had been among
he i s wo ke s om Po ugal egis e ed in S u ga in he 1950s. Du ing
he i s yea s ab oad, Né ia’s amily li ed in economic ha dship in a wo king
class neighbou hood, in a he ad hoc housing condi ions. Po uguese had
been he lingua anca a home, he meals we e Po uguese, and du ing he
childhood, Né ia and he siblings clea ly pe cei ed hemsel es as Po uguese.
In hei social su oundings, hey we e seen as o eigne s, gues -wo ke s’
child en, om Po ugal – as a as “ hei coun y” was known by name.
O iginally hailing om he Alen ejo, a u al sou he n egion in Po ugal, li ing
in Ge many had changed he pa en s’ sel -pe cep ion om p edominan ly
“alen ejano” o “Po uguese”. This was di e en whene e he amily had he
oppo uni y o a el o Po ugal o holidays and amily isi s. While emaining
Po uguese na ionals up o he p esen day, as well as being connec ed o
hei o me neighbou hood in he Alen ejo, he e he local popula ion
na u ally conside ed hem as emig an s, mo e pa icula ly, as Luso-Ge mans
4 In e iewees’ names ha e been changed.
202 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
(“luso-alemães”).5 This concep quickly s a ed co esponding o he amily’s
sel -pe cep ion, a leas when posi ioning hemsel es as being Po uguese.
Né ia concluded he educa ion a a echnical college in Essen ( Ge many)
and gained p o essional expe ience in he impo -expo business, using he
language skills in Ge man, English and Po uguese. Independen ly o he
amily, she mo ed o Po ugal in he ea ly 1990s, whe e she li es nea Lisbon and
con inues o be success ul in he p o essional ealm. Whe he in eal li e o on
social media pla o ms, being in con ac wi h people wi h simila socialisa ion
expe iences makes he eel mos com o able: “Communica ion is much easie ,
we always know wha he o he pe son is alking abou , i doesn’ need much
explana ion”. This includes Po uguese emig an s and Luso-descendan s in
Ge many in gene al, and Po uguese and Luso-descendan e u n mig an s,
in pa icula – especially hose who g ew up in Ge many, bu also e u nees
om o he coun ies. She conside s he sel “Luso-Ge man”, acco ding o he
concep ion o belongingness, he daily li e cul u al p e e ences, and he ideas
o he “o igins”. On Facebook, she pa icipa es in “Po uguese in Ge many” and
“Ge mans in Po ugal” ne wo ks. Fu he mo e, she o ms pa o a ne wo k o
Luso-descendan s in Po ugal and once pa icipa ed in an in e na ional mee ing
o Luso-descendan s om all o e he wo ld. In he mids o Luso-F ench,
Luso-Canadians, Luso-Swiss, Luso-Ame icans, and so o h, i had been he
“Ge man-ness” in he i s place, alongside a kind o “b oken, kaleidoscopic
Po uguese-ness”, o which she became mo e conscious a his e en .
Aadil holds a bachelo deg ee in Economics om a Lisbon uni e si y, and
ano he in Economic His o y om Uni e si y College in London. Toge he
wi h his wi e and child en, he mo ed om Lisbon o London a ew yea s ago,
whe e he wo ks as a eelance jou nalis and ac i is o dep i ed B i ish-
Asian child en and you hs. He con inues w i ing his Po uguese Blog, which
is ollowed by Po uguese Muslim and non-Muslim isi o s who a e in e es ed
in le is poli ics, emancipa o y s uggles o e hnic and eligious mino i ies
in Po ugal and social/humani a ian aid p ojec s, many o he la e being
o ganised by he Islamic Communi y o Lisbon. Aadil and his wi e Sami a a e
Sunni Muslims and bo h hei amilies ha e Indian oo s. His g andmo he
g ew up in B i ish India; la e on, she li ed in Daman unde Po uguese ule,
whe e Sami a’s a he and his siblings we e bo n be o e he amily le Wes India
o se le in Lou enço Ma ques ( oday Mapu o), he capi al o Mozambique,
5 “Luso” means Po uguese.
mi o ing he dialec ic o inclusion and exclusion 203
a Po uguese colony un il 1974. He e, he a he wo ked in adminis a ion and
la e se ed he Po uguese a my du ing he colonial wa , as was he case wi h
o he Muslims o Indian o igin.6 Bo h Aadil and Sami a, hei siblings and
mos o hei cousins we e bo n in Mozambique, li ing in ela i ely p i ileged
condi ions, compa able o weal hy and educa ed Po uguese non-Muslims in
highe posi ions. Bo h hei pa en s we e ac i e in Islamic communi y ma e s
and held Po uguese ci izenship, as did o he communi y membe s.
Du ing a con e sa ion wi h Sami a’s amily, he g andmo he once
explained he de ini i e socie al expe ience and espec i e sel -pe cep ion
wi h he wo ds “I am B i ish Indian”, while he a he p io i ised “being a
Po uguese Muslim”. In ac , while li ing in India (Daman) unde Po uguese
ule, being a (Sunni) Muslim had been mo e impo an . Bu Sami a’s a he
also highligh ed ha his Indian o igin had been a majo e e ence, bo h in
Mozambique and, up o he p esen day, in Po ugal – wi h he excep ion o
he ea ly yea s in Lisbon du ing and sho ly a e decolonisa ion, when se e al
hund ed housand people ( e o nados) e u ned om he colonies, in hei
mids , Hindus, Ismailis and Sunni Muslims o Indian o igin. “Ou solida i y
g oup had been he e o nados”, he explains. “We a e o en called immig an s
oday, his despi e he ac ha we had been Po uguese na ionals al eady
in Mozambique. F om ou pe spec i e, in ac , we we e e o nados”. Sami a
con i ms he exis ence o his “solida i y g oup”, emembe ing he ea ly
Lisbon expe iences as a child in he schoolya d. “The o he Po uguese kids
we e picking on us. The e I ound mysel in a co ne , oge he wi h he whi e,
Ca holic e o nado kids”. Sami a also conside s “being a Po uguese Muslim”
he s onges e e ence, and ha his ma ches he sel -pe cep ion o he
cousins, some o whom li e in Mozambique, o he s in Leices e (uk). Aadil
explains ha o hose in Mozambique i also se es o se hem apa om
Mozambican Muslims and om non-Muslim Po uguese and Mozambicans.
Those in Leices e ac ually mee wi h o he Daman Sunni Muslim amilies
who li ed in Kenya unde B i ish colonial ule be o e se ling in Leices e .
Fo Aadil’s Leices e cousins, who “became qui e B i ish”, he adds chuckling
o himsel , he sel -asc ip ion as Po uguese Muslims was impo an no
6 As o he posi ion o Sunni Muslims o mainly A ican o igin in Mozambique unde Po uguese
colonial ule, see Bona e (2007). Rega ding Ismaeli Muslim o Indian o igin in he same con ex , see
Khou i and Pe ei a Lei e (2012). As o he a emp s o he Po uguese colonise s o moni o and
ac i a e Mozambique’s Muslim mino i y popula ion sho ly be o e and du ing he colonial wa , see
Vakil Mon ei o and Machaquei o (2011).
210 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
socie y seemed o be unjus i ied in iew o he pe sis ence o hese s uc u al
ac o s ( Mayhew 1968; Bell 1975).
This is a e y impo an poin and ma ches wi h he explo a o y analysis
o he concep o Po uguese Muslims which dissol es class and cul u al
di e ences. Fu he mo e, he awa eness and need o di e en ia e be ween
social ca ego y and social en i y, as s essed by Singe . In con as , ou
ideal- ypical ield no es made clea ha Singe ’s expanded sequence is oo
linea o g asp he o ma i e p ocess o ei he hyphena ed o pan-e hnic
concep ions o e hnic membe ship. This suppo s he a gumen ha di e ing
p ocesses desc ibed as e hnogenesis can mo e ellingly be concep ualised as
E hnohe e ogenesis (ehg) as his concep highligh s he dialec ic o he e o and
homogenisa ion a wo k. Howe e , he selec ed ele an sociological wo ks
in oduced he e unde line, again, ha in o de o elucida e he o ma i e
p ocess o e hnically de ined social en i ies one needs o conside he in e play
be ween sociocul u al cha ac e is ics and social s uc u e, as well as in e g oup
ela ions in speci ic se ings o powe .
Fu he mo e, he e a e a ew ele an al e na i e concep s applicable o o
enhancing e hnogenesis and e hnic change, namely e hnic osmosis (Ba h
1969), e hno ( e)genesis, e hnocul u al d i and e hnic s a egising ( Thomson
2011). The ques ion is whe he o no ehg migh se e as an umb ella ca ego y
o hese concep s.
e hnohe e ogenesis: app oaching he dialec ics
o inclusion and exclusion wi hin a sociology
o membe ship
The concep ual his o y o he e m e hnogenesis p o ides an essen ial pa o
he heo e ical amewo k o his endea ou . The second impo an aspec
o such a amewo k de i es om a key p oblem deal wi h in esea ching
mig an s and sociocul u al change in socie y a la ge – his less so in he
ield and mo e in ela ion o academic discou se: he (ab-)use o he iden i y
ca ego y, and loose alk o “iden i ies” and consequen lack o analy ical insigh .
As men ioned abo e, i is no coincidence ha ou concep ual conside a ions
and heo ising a e o ien ed by “ adi ional”, c i ical, sociological and
an h opological c a . “T adi ional” in his con ex means be o e he iden i y-
ja gon became es ablished.

mi o ing he dialec ic o inclusion and exclusion 211
The e is indeed a complemen o he ins umen alis , cons uc i is and
o he pe spec i es on e hnici y. Ma ching ou pu pose, a signi ican pa allel
line o a gumen add esses he na u e o e hnic si ua ions a he han he
na u e o “e hnic iden i y”. Essen ial o all o hese pe spec i es is he insigh
ha e hnici y, as a phenomenon, is undamen ally an a ibu e o plu alis ic
si ua ions, especially “ he asymme ic inco po a ion o s uc u ally dissimila
g oupings in o a single poli ical economy” (Coma o 1987, 307; cp. also
Thomson 2011). As he sub i le o Ba h’s 1969 landma k olume s a es, we
a e conside ing “ he social o ganiza ion o cul u al di e ences.” The esea ch
a he basis o his heo e ical endea ou ook an ac o s’ pe spec i e and
employed an h opological as well as sociological me hods in he ield. While
acknowledging he impo ance o he emancipa o y s uggle o e hnically
de ined mino i ies, he analysis, howe e , does no pe pe ua e he poli ical
language o iden i y poli ics.
The p oblem o he commonly loose alk o iden i ies is ha i nei he
explains he socio-cul u al he e ogeneous p emises o he homogenising
genesis o e hnici ies no i s he e ogeneous ou comes. In doing so i enhances
he s uc u ing o allegedly homogenous mac o g oups along e hnic
bounda ies9 – in e ms o “cul u al”, “na ional”, “hyb id”, “ mul iple”, “pan-”,
“hyphena ed” and so o h “iden i ies”. Ins ead, and as wi h a g owing numbe
o ecen heo e ical wo ks (Ban on 2011) in he “pos -iden i y e a” (Hank,
En ique and La aña 1994), i e e s back o sociological and an h opological
c a and concep s ha we e in use be o e he 1960s; a ime when he wo ds
“iden i y” and “e hnici y” ook o oge he o a as ca ee o seman ic
b oadening in academic discou se.
An analy ical amewo k called E hnohe e ogenesis esis s au ological
explana ions such as “e hnic iden i ies eme ge om cul u al iden i ies and
challenge o a e being p essu ed by na ional iden i ies as such causing collec i e
mino i y iden i ies and hyb id and mul iple pe sonal iden i ies”. I sugges s
edisco e ing and ecupe a ing sel -pe cep ion, membe ship, a ilia ions,
asc ip ions, e hnic aming, ep esen a ions, mobilisa ion, social en i ies,
9 E hnohe e ogenesis, as p oposed he e, sha es many g ounds wi h he heo ies o e hnic bounda ies
(Ba h 1969) and e hnic bounda y making (Wimme 2008), especially ega ding he dynamic na u e and
si ua i i y. I goes beyond hese heo ies by employing a ansna ional pe spec i e and in highligh ing
no only he di e si y inside such bounda ies, bu also he he e ogenising powe impac ing in in e and
in ag oup dynamics du ing o ma i e p ocesses ha a e o en in e p e ed as homogeneous in hei
esul s (Tiesle 2017a).
212 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
e lexi e e hnisa ion and de-e hnisa ion, collec i e subjec i i y, collec i e
iden i ica ion, iden i y- hinking and poli ics, om he un ecognisable
condi ion in o which hey mel wi hin he “ e bal con aine ” (Claussen) o
“iden i ies”. He e, hey mel om subjec i e belie and needs o collec i e
ac ion, wi h he objec i e consequence o s uc u ing mac o g oups in socie y
and e-en o cing social inequali ies along e hnically de ined bounda ies.
By concep ualising e hnic a ilia ion as one o many membe ship oles, his
con ibu ion adds o he de elopmen o a Sociology o Membe ship.
The al e na i e concep I am p oposing is called E hnohe e ogenesis (ehg)
in o de o highligh he he e o and homogenising o ces and hei inhe en
en anglemen in hese o ma i e social en i y p ocesses. This insigh is based
on se e al case s udies among wo g oupings: Po uguese emig an s and hei
o sp ing in di e se diaspo ic se ings and Po uguese Muslim amilies wi h
iple mig a ion ajec o ies. Bu he dialec ic o he e o and homogenisa ion
in o e hnic aming and membe ship p ocesses does no seem o be speci ic o
hese wo pa icula cases. Nume ous examples o empi ical ma e ial de i ed
om esea ch on ace and e hnic ela ions, on hyphena ed and pan-e hnic sel -
pe cep ions, poin o his logic. This is why I belie e ha ehg has he po en ial
o become an analy ical amewo k o heu is ic alue o u u e in es iga ions
in his ield. As an al e na i e o he ei ying iden i y-ja gon, he ehg concep
sugges s pe cei ing indi iduals and hei subjec i e expe iences, p e e ences
and unique webs o g oup a ilia ions (Simmel 1992 [1908]) as non-iden ical
wi h o he s despi e possible common e hnic a ilia ion and asc ip ions o
mac o g oups. Abo e all, as an analy ical amewo k, ehg conside s e hnic
membe ship as one among many membe ship oles.
Who belongs he e, and who does no ? A Sociology o Membe ship
obse es and analyses he de elopmen al con ex s, impac and consequences
o his ques ion. The answe o he ques ion a ge s di e en aspec s, ames,
modes and condi ions o membe ship and is cons an ly nego ia ed by di e se
social o ma ions, such as na ional s a es, poli ical pa ies, i ms, spo clubs,
amilies, o e hnic g oupings. Such nego ia ions a e de ined by – and a e
shaping – powe ela ions. While e hnic claims and iden i y poli ics a e ound
among bo h socie al majo i ies and mino i ies, he e m e hnic g oup (as well
as na ional g oup) is commonly used o desc ibe a socie al mino i y. I is no
exclusi e bu indeed essen ial ha a Sociology o Membe ship acknowledges
ha mino i ies in any socie y, howe e de ined, a e no homogenous uni s.
Indi iduals and g oup(-ings) wi hin a mino i y may di e in hei eac ion o
mi o ing he dialec ic o inclusion and exclusion 213
subo dina ion, ype o leade ship, ideology, deg ee o allegiance o hei g oup,
o o he membe s o o he la ge socie y, he ul ima e goals o he g oup,
e c. Consequen ly a mino i y (and by in e ence he con ex ual majo i y/ies as
well) will gene ally no be a wholly uni ed g oup – g oups and indi iduals will
a ou a ious modes o ac ion in esponse o majo i y cons ain s.
In his Theo y o Social Ca ego ies, Michael Ban on (2011) is on a pa
wi h S e e Fen on (2003) and Roge s B ubake (2006) in his c i ique o
“g oupism”. As a s a ing poin , Ban on con i ms ha i has been con en ional
o concei e o e hnogenesis as a p ocess by which a se o indi iduals come
o concei e o hemsel es as a people. Fo he de elopmen o ehg as an
analy ical amewo k his ollowing poin is o majo impo ance: ins ead o
unde s anding e hnogenesis as a o ma i e p ocess o “a people […] i would
be mo e accu a e o speak o e hnoaccli i y and e hnodecli i y as p ocesses
by which he signi icance a ibu ed o e hnic iden i ica ion ises and declines.
F om a sociological s andpoin i is as impo an o accoun o he absence o
e hnic iden i ica ion as o i s p esence” (Ban on 2011, 193).
E e y pe son can acknowledge one o mo e e hnic o na ional o igins. As
S e e Fen on (2003, 68) has obse ed, “ he p oblem … is no he wo d ‘e hnic’
bu he wo d ‘g oup’ ”. B ubake (2006, 8) has simila ly c i icised “g oupism”,
by which he means “ he endency o ake disc e e, bounded g oups as basic
cons i uen s o social li e, chie p o agonis s o social con lic s and undamen al
uni s o social analysis”. Ban on concludes:
The concep ual p oblem is e en g ea e when he ecogni ion o e hnic o igin is gene alized
by e e ence o e hnici y as i his we e an independen ac o ha in luences he beha iou
o humans in many egions o he wo ld. Some o hese di icul ies may be eased i he
ocus is mo ed om he concep o a g oup o ha o a ca ego y (Ban on 2011, 194).
This con i ms wha we ha e al eady lea n om Singe ’s wo k, he i s
sociological pape on e hnogenesis (Singe 1962), namely o speak o e hnically
de ined g oupings as social en i ies. Addi ional o hese insigh s, he e is a
di e en line o sociological inqui y ega ding e hnogenesis which can add o
he de elopmen o ou amewo k.
A model ha g asps he simul aneousness and in e dependency o e hno-
cul u al changes among bo h mig an popula ions and he socie y hey a e pa o
was p esen ed by And ew G eeley (1974), an Ame ican sociologis and Roman
Ca holic p ies , wi h empi ical e e ence o he usa con ex : a wo-dimensional
214 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
model o e hnogenesis. By concep ualising socio-cul u al change in socie y
a la ge as e hnogenesis, G eeley’s model wen beyond he analysis o g oup
a ilia ions bu emained unde - heo ised despi e i s heu is ic po en ial. As
wi h o he models o socio-cul u al change, and concep s ega ding e hnici ies,
G eeley’s model does no explici ly add ess he dialec ic o homogenisa ion
and he e ogenisa ion in he p ocess o e hnogenesis. I is o u u e esea ch o
e i y i E hnohe e ogenesis can also be employed as a amewo k o analyse
socio-cul u al change in socie y a la ge. The no ion o “e hnohe e ogeneous
socie ies” as coined by De le Claussen (2013) poin s o his po en ial.
In his pape , I ha e p oposed he concep o E hnohe e ogenesis (ehg) as an
al e na i e model o analyse he e hnic aming and a ilia ions o indi iduals,
g oupings and mac o g oups. Po en ially, ehg can u he de elop a) as an
umb ella ca ego y o ongoing o ma i e p ocesses o e hnogenesis and e hnic
change, including e hnocul u al d i s and e hnic s a egising, and b) o g asp
he p ocess o socio-cul u al change in socie ies ma ked by mig a ion which
we desc ibe as e hnohe e ogeneous.
____________________________________
nina cla a iesle
Ins i u o de Ciências Sociais, Uni e sidade de Lisboa
and Ins i u e o Sociology, Leibniz Uni e si y o Hanno e , Ge many
A . P o . Aníbal Be encou 9 — 1600-036 Lisboa, Po ugal
[email p o ec ed]
o cid.o g/0000-0002-3712-5929
____________________________________
e e ences
almeida, O. T. 2010. O Peso do Hí en. Ensaios sob e a Expe iência Luso-ame icana. Lisbon:
Imp ensa de Ciências Sociais.
ande son, B. 1991. Imagined Communi ies. Re lec ions on he O igin and Sp ead o
Na ionalism. London: Ve so.
ban on, M. 2008. “The sociology o e hnic ela ions”. E hnic and Racial S udies, 31 (7): 1267-
-1285. doi: 10.1080/01419870701710922.
ban on, M. 2011. “A heo y o social ca ego ies”. Sociology, 45 (2): 187-201.
ba h, F. 1969. “In oduc ion”. In E hnic G oups and Bounda ies: The Social O ganiza ion o
Cul u al Di e ence, ed. F. Ba h. Be gen-Oslo: Uni e si e s Fo lage, 9-38.
bell, D. 1975. “E hnici y and social change”. In E hnici y. Theo y and Expe ience, eds. N.
Glaze and D. P. Moynihan. Camb idge, Mass.: Ha a d Uni e si y P ess, 141-174.
mi o ing he dialec ic o inclusion and exclusion 215
bös, M. 2010. “Race and e hnici y: he his o y o wo concep s in Ame ican Sociology”. Pape
p esen ed a “Sociology o Ci izenship: 105 h Ame ican Sociological Associa ion Annual
Mee ing”, Sec ion on His o y o Sociology, A lan a (Augus 2010).
bös, M. 2015. “E hnici y and e hnic g oups: his o ical aspec s”. In In e na ional Encyclopedia
o he Social & Beha io al Sciences, 2nd edi ion, ol. 8, ed. James D. W igh . Ox o d:
Else ie , 136-141.
bona e, L. 2007. “Roo s o di e si y in Mozambican Islam”. Luso opie, 14 (1): 129-149.
b ubake , R. 2006. E hnici y wi hou G oups. Camb idge, ma: Ha a d Uni e si y P ess.
claussen, D. 2013. “Im Zei al e Globale Gleichzei igkei . K i ische Theo ie de Gegenwa ,
Vo ag zu E ö nung de Kon e enz, K i ische Theo ie. Eine E inne ung an die Zukun “,
Humbold Uni e si ä , Be lin am 29. No embe 2013.
cohen, A. 1969. Cus om and Poli ics in U ban A ica. Be keley: Uni e si y o Cali o nia P ess.
cohen, A. 1974. “In oduc ion: he lesson o e hnici y”. In U ban E hnici y, ed. A. Cohen.
London: Ta is ock Publica ions, ix-xxi .
collins, R. 1999. “Balkaniza ion o Ame icaniza ion: a geopoli ical heo y o e hnic change”.
In Mac ohis o y: Essays in he Sociology o he Long Run, ed. R. Collins. S an o d, ca:
S an o d Uni e si y P ess, 70-109.
coma o , J. 1987. “O o emism and e hnici y: consciousness, p ac ice and he signs o
inequali y”. E hnos 52 (3-4): 301-323. doi: 10.1080/00141844.1987.9981348.
doo nbos, M. 1972. “Some concep ual p oblems conce ning e hnici y in in eg a ion
analysis”. Ci iliza ion, 22: 263-283.
eps ein, A. L. 1958. Poli ics in an U ban A ican Communi y. Manches e : Manches e
Uni e si y P ess.
en on, S. 2003. E hnici y. Camb idge: Poli y.
ancis. E. K. 1947. “The na u e o an e hnic g oup”. Ame ican Jou nal o Sociology, 52: 393-
400.
gabbe , W. 2011. “Shi ing bounda ies, eme ging communi ies – E hnici y and e hnogenesis
on Nica agua’s A lan ic coas ”. In E hnici y, Ci izenship and Belonging: P ac ices, Theo y
and Spa ial Dimensions, eds. S. Albiez e al., Mad id/F ank u : Ibe oame icana/Ve ue ,
65-91.
gabbe , W. 2014. “E hnici y and social change – Miski u e hno-genesis in Eas e n Nica agua”.
In New Wo ld Colo s: E hnici y, Belonging and Di e ence in he Ame icas, ed. J. Raab. T ie :
Wissenscha liche Ve lag, 193-208.
gellne , E. 1993. Na ions and Na ionalism. Ox o d: Blackwell.
glaze , N., D. P. Moynihan, eds. 1975. E hnici y: Theo y and Expe ience. Camb idge, ma:
Ha a d Uni e si y P ess.
gluckman, M. 1961. “An h opological p oblems a ising om he A ican Indus ial
Re olu ion”. In Social Change in Mode n A ica, ed. A. Sou hal. London: Ox o d Uni e si y
P ess.
g eeeley, A. 1974. E hnici y in he Uni ed S a es: A P elimina y Reconnaissance. New Yo k:
Wiley.
hank, J. R., G. En ique and J. La aña, eds. 1994. New Social Mo emen s: F om Ideology o
Iden i y. Philadelphia: Temple Uni e si y P ess.
hech e , M. 1974. “The poli ical economy o e hnic change”. Ame ican Jou nal o Sociology,
79: 1151-78.
hobsbawm, E. 1996. “Iden i y poli ics and he le ”. New Le Re iew, i (217): 38-47.

216 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
ho kheime , M., T. W. Ado no. 1969 [1944]. Dialek ik de Au klä ung. Philosophische
F agmen e. F ank u am Main: Fische Ve lag.
khou i, N., J. Pe ei a Lei e. 2012. Os Ismailis de Moçambique: Vida Económica no Tempo
Colonial. Pa is: Ed. Colib i.
lubkemann, S. C. 2002. “The mo al economy o Po uguese pos colonial e u n”. Diaspo a
11 (2): 189-213.
map il, J. 2014. “A en’ you looking o ci izenship in he w ong place? Islamic educa ion,
secula subjec i i ies and he Po uguese Muslim”. Religion and Socie y: Ad ances in
Resea ch, 5: 65-82.
mayhew, L. 1968. “Asc ip ion in mode n socie ies”. Sociological Inqui y, 38: 105-20.
mi chel, J. C. 1956. The Kalela Dance. Manches e : Manches e Uni e si y P ess.
pe ei a, V. 2012. “Os u ebolis as in isí eis: os po ugueses em F ança e o u ebol”. E nog á ica
16 (1): 97-115.
simmel, G. 1992[1908]. Die K euzung soziale K eise, in: de s., Soziologie. Un e suchungen
übe die Fo men de Ve gesellscha ung (gs Bd. 11), F ank u a.M.: Suh kamp, S. 456-
-511.
singe , L. 1962. “E hnogenesis and Neg o-Ame icans oday”. Social Resea ch, 29 (4): 419-432.
aylo , R. L. 1979. “Black e hnici y and he pe sis ence o e hnogenesis”. Ame ican Jou nal o
Sociology, 84 (6): 1401-1423.
homson, S. 2011. “Re isi ing ‘Mandingiza ion’ in coas al Gambia and Casamance (Senegal):
Fou App oaches o E hnic Change”. A ican S udies Re iew, 54 (2): 95-121.
iesle , N. C. 2000. “Muçulmanos na ma gem: a no a p esença Islâmica em Po ugal”.
Sociologia, P oblemas e P á icas, 34: 117-144.
iesle , N. C. 2005. “No idades do e eno. Muçulmanos na Eu opa e o caso Po uguês”.
Análise Social, 173, xxxix (3.º): 827-849.
iesle , N. C. 2008. “No bad news om he Eu opean ma gin: he new Islamic p esence in
Po ugal”. Rep in in A. Rippin, ed., Wo ld Islam: C i ical Concep s in Islamic S udies. New
Yo k, London: Rou ledge, 189-216.
iesle , N. C. 2009. “Muslim ansna ionalism and diaspo a in Eu ope: mig an expe ience
and heo e ical e lec ion”. In T ansna ionalism. Diaspo as and he Ad en o a New (dis)
o de , eds. E. Ben-Ra ael and Y. S e nbe g. Leiden: B ill, 417-440.
iesle , N. C. 2012. “Diasbola: u ebol e emig ação Po uguesa”. E nog á ica, x i (1): 77-96.
iesle , N. C. 2017a. E hnohe e ogenesis. The Dialec ics o He e o – and Homogeniza ion
in P ocesses o E hnic F aming and Membe ship, ish – A bei spapie des Ins i u s ü
Soziologie de Leibniz Uni e si ä Hanno e 02-2017.
iesle , N. C. 2017b. “E hnohe e ogenese: (De-)E hnisie ung, Di e si izie ung und mul iple
Mi gliedscha s ollen in mode nen Mig a ionsgesellscha en”. Be line Deba e Ini ial 28
(4): 108-121.
iesle , N. C., N. Al es Be gano. 2012. “Ligações cul u ais en e po ugueses na Alemanha: o
u ebol e a gas onomia como espaços sociais pa a con í ios in e nacionais”. E nog á ica,
x i (1): 117-142.
iesle , N. C., D. Cai ns. 2007. “Rep esen ing Islam and Lisbon you h: Po uguese Muslims
o Indian-Mozambican o igin”. Luso opie, xi (1): 223-238.
iesle , N. C., D. Cai ns. 2010. “Ac oss di e ence? Po uguese Muslim you h as Po uguese
you h”. In You h on he Mo e? Eu opean You h and Geog aphical Mobili y, ed. D. Cai ns.
Be lin: s-Ve lag, 134-145.
mi o ing he dialec ic o inclusion and exclusion 217
iesle , N. C., S. La ado. 2018. “Muslim mig a ion in elligence and indi idual a i udes
owa ds Muslims in Po ugal”. In Muslims a he Ma gins o Eu ope, eds. T. Ma ikainnan,
J. Map il, and A. Khan. Leiden: B ill.
akil, A., F. A. Mon ei o and M. A. Machaquei o. 2011. Moçambique: Memó ia Falada do
Islão e da Gue a. Lisbon: Almedina Coleção.
an den be ghe, P. 1967. Race and Racism: A Compa a i e Pe spec i e. New Yo k: Wiley.
wa e s, M. C. 1990. E hnic Op ions: Choosing Iden i ies in Ame ica. Be keley: Uni e si y o
Cali o nia P ess.
webe , M. 1968 [1920]. Economy and Socie y. An Ou line o In e p e i e Sociology, eds. G.
Ro h and C. Wi ich. New Yo k: Bedmins .
webe , M. 2007 [1920]. “The o igin o common e hnic belie s: he language and cul
communi y”. In Max Webe : Readings and Commen a y on Mode ni y, ed. S. Kalbe g.
Maden: Blackwell Publishing, 299-304.
we z, M. 2002. “E hnizi ä als mode ne Ideologie. Ein gesellscha liche Beg i in
geog aphischem Kon ex ”. Tel A i e Jah buch ü Deu sche Geschich e, 30: 13-22.
wimme , A. 2008. “E hnische G enzziehungen in de Immig a ionsgesellscha . Jensei s des
He de ’schen Commonsense”. Kölne Zei sch i ü Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, He
48: 57-80.
wol , E. 1994. “Pe ilous ideas: ace, cul u e, people”. Cu en An h opology, 35 (1). doi:
10.1086/204231.
yancey, W., E. E icksen and R. Juliani. 1976. “Eme gen e hnici y: a e iew and e o mula ion”.
Ame ican Sociological Re iew, 41: 391-403.
ci e his chap e as:
iesle , N. C. 2018. “Mi o ing he dialec ic o inclusion and exclusion in e hnohe e ogenesis p ocesses”.
In Changing Socie ies: Legacies and Challenges. Vol. i. Ambiguous Inclusions: Inside Ou , Inside In,
eds. S. Aboim, P. G anjo, A. Ramos. Lisbon: Imp ensa de Ciências Sociais, 195-217.
h ps://doi.o g/10.31447/ics9789726715030.09