Ethnicities and Global Multiculture: Pants for an octopus
Jan Nederveen Pieterse
Rowman and Littlefield Publshers, Inc. 2007
£16.10
Pieterse’s work is academic, challenging and perplexing, but also very rewarding in terms of embracing ambiguity and complexity. “Putting pants on an octopus remains a difficult undertaking, but it helps when the pants are large.” This task is comparable to Pieterse’s use of the terms “ethnicities and global multiculture” rather than merely multiculturalism. Pieterse’s study can be seen as part of an upsurge in interdisciplinary approaches to understanding the social, which, in a world of multilayered and interrelated issues, seems to be the way forward.
Central to Pieterse’s approach is his ability to deconstruct the issues at hand as a means of addressing them analytically. Following this methodology he comes to the conclusion that identity in itself is too easily viewed as fixed. Rather, it should be thought of as “identification,” which brings out the agency in identity formation and gives it an ongoing and relational character. Saying that ethnicity is constructed thus implies that it is contingent and open-ended. Since ethnicity is relational it necessitates the scrutiny of relationships, and since social relations change over time, different types of ethnicity emerge.
In this context, Pieterse challenges the conventional understanding of nationhood, arguing that national identity is a historical, ongoing process shaped by phases of ethnicity, identity politics, and multiculturalism. The establishment of boundaries and borders thus happens as an expression of state power and in relation to external threats. Hence, “nationhood” may be treated as another ethnicity, which happens to be dominant during a particular period.
Accordingly, ethnic identity may derive not from “roots” but from subordination imposed through social labeling, policies or legislation. Considering that mobility is a function of power, dominant groups and individuals are by definition more mobile.
In this framework of ethnicity as patterns of domination, Pieterse readdresses a wide range of issues. Particularly interesting is his discussion of Islam where he contents that we must de-center Eurocentric social theory and instead develop a “historicist theory of modernities.” He argues that Islam has been central to the development of European modernity and capitalism with its trade playing a key role for the development of the world economy 500-1000 CE. Pieterse crucially argues that those who see Islamism as a backlash against modernity generally see the supposed “clash of civilizations” as divorced from the role of external forces (oil companies, western powers, arms exporters, etc.). Western modernity is viewed in its “postcard image,” not taking into consideration its dark sides such as colonialism and racism.
As Pieterse asserts, this is “not another story of Progress,” and there is no straightforward path to a global culture. The overall trend of globalization widely comes with intensified nationalism, nativism, and ethnic and religious conflicts. Yet, neither is this merely about the loss of stable meanings and foundations. It is also about opening up different levels of understandings of deep culture (human sameness beneath difference), as “[inconvenient] truths may yet become convenient,” Hence, a very hopeful and enabling message is to be extracted from Pieterse’s work. Appreciation of human sameness as well as diversity can be identified and built upon with a broader understanding of increasing complexity.
