The construction of ethnic categories: Discourses of ethnicity in The Netherlands

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
This article is concerned with the way ethnic and racial categories are achieved and sustained in daily talk. We argue against the notion of social categories as immanent cognitive structures whose existence and significance can be taken for granted. It is emphasized that categories are constructed in discourse. The construction and representation of ethnic categories are studied by analysing discussions held by some ethnically Dutch inhabitants of an inner‐city quarter in Rotterdam. There were two discussion groups (six and five participants respectively) and each group met one evening a week in a row in the local community centre for four weeks. All eight sessions were taped and transcribed and each session lasted approximately two and a half hours. Our goal is to describe in detail some of the discourses that are being used to achieve and sustain specific categorical representations. First, the nature of the different categorical constructs used is analysed. It is shown that people use different criteria for constructing ‘us‐them’ distinctions and that this multiplicity is rhetorically useful. Second, the ways in which categorical constructions are represented and vary in discourse are identified and outlined. Subsequently, the means by which these representations are achieved and sustained is examined. Attention is focued on comparisons that are being made, on the use of metaphors, and on the process of concretiz‐ation. Third, some of the cultural values drawn upon in legitimizing the representations are explored. It is shown how the taken‐for‐granted notions of freedom, merit, equality and tolerance are used to construct and legitimize ethnic representations. Finally, it is argued that a discourse approach can provide important additional insights into issues concerning ethnic relations and racism. For one thing it can help to develop strategies for reconstructing the predominant distinction between ‘us’ and ‘them’.

This publication has 12 references indexed in Scilit: