17
Barth finds such definitions incomplete and indeed preventing
the understanding of the way ethnic groups are maintained.
He believes (1969:11) that the sharing of a common culture
can be regarded
...as an implication or result, rather than a primary
and definitional characteristic of ethnic group
organization.
Barth (1969:14) discusses the problem of classifying groups
by their participation in ’cultural features’ of a group and
points out that
the features that are taken into account are not
the sum of ’objective' differences but only those
which the actors themselves regard as significant.
' Not only do ecological variations mark and exaggerate
differences: some cultural features are used by the
actors as symbols and emblems of differences, others
are ignored and in some relationships, radical
differences are played down and denied.
■Ф
Barth proposes item 4 (above) as providing a more useful
definition to study ethnicity. The emphasis is then on ethnic
groups as a form of social organization, and the membership of
the group is seen more clearly.
To the extent that actors use ethnic identities
to categorize themselves and others for purposes
of interaction, they form ethnic groups in this
organizational sense (Barth, 1969:13).
By defining an ethnic group as an ascriptive and exclusive
group, the nature of the group is seen to depend on the maintenance
of boundaries.
The cultural features that signal the boundary may
change and the cultural characteristics of the
members may likewise be transformed, indeed even the
organizational form of the group may change. Yet
the continuing dichotomization between members and
outsiders allows us to specify the nature of
continuity and investigate the changing cultural form
and context (Barth, 1969:14).