3- On ethnicity

What does the idea of ethnicity applied to Ancient Greek tell us about us? Well, a lot, ethnicity is a concept that was first used in Ancient Greece!! How did I forget? I am so used to think about ethnicity in a modern way that I completely forgot that it was first named in Ancient Greece.

Ancient concept of ethnicity can be built out of written evidence starting with Homer approximately in the VI century BC. Since Greeks first name the word "ethne" the idea of ethnicity took many meanings and it is constatly being redefined. I think that ethnicity is linked to the idea of "identity". 

I think "identity" is a primarial psychological need.  Collective identity instead is the result of the combination of our gregarian instict (which we share with many animals) and the specific ability of our brain to immagine (to think what is not directly inteligibile). In other words, humans need to live in faimlies and families create communities (gregarian instinct). 

Our first collective identtity is in fact linked to blood and love througth marriges. This is so not only in historical perspective but these links are renewed every time a child is born and is welcomed into the community. We don't need to be part of an ancient tribe (whatever it means) to think that blood/marrige relations are at the heart of our colective identity. The proof is the fact that every time we discuss about citizenship we talk about blood lineages. In Italy, immigration started in the late 1980s has created a so perceived multicultural society so that the "ius sanguinis" foundation of the citizenship doesn't seem to be suitable anymore. Changes on citizenship laws have been part of pubblic debate before COVID and will be a central part of the political debate once COVID pandemic will leave space to other problems. 

As we know family is not enough. Humans have the psicological ability to think of this communities behond the evident close blood or social links. Our brain gives us the possibility to imagen a broader community and identify ourselves with it. Anderson (1996) writes that "... it is immagined every community bigger than a primordial tribe where everybody knows each other (and may be that is immagined too)". Inside this new broader community we may include those people that share our life: people we exchange goods with and/or people we meet for worthship and/or people we share the same problems in the same area and/or speak our same language/dialect. So it is natural that the collectuve identity is filled with the idea of a common language, culture and/or religion. 

Collective identity can be filled with the idea that a community had a common past, real or invented, or that it will have a common future possible or improbable. Immgination is the limit. Anderson (2005) continues "Communities must diferenciate between each other not tor the falsity or genuinity, but for the way they are immaginated." Therefore, it is not surprising that ancient greeks see ethnic relations or lineages as being formed by familiar links and blood bounds real or immagined.

The main characteristic of the collective identity is that it creates a distinction between people form inside of the community and people from outside of it. In some cases the limit is easy to cross as in the case of Argentina where you became argentinean by living inside the territory and other time it is more difficult to cross (either enter or exit). For example, in Italy until few years ago the only way to become an italian was being the wife or the child of an italian man.

Ancient greeks for example had many flexible identities: city identity, ethnic identity, helenic identity, lineage identity and the identity given by the cult of a certain deidity. There might have been more: identity linked to the social position, to the profession/economic activity, etc. Not all of these identities are clear to us, may be they were not explicity defined by them either. But the point is that ethnic identity for Ancient Greeks was not necesarily THE identity, was just one of many.

There are also moments in which this identities are tested; may be reinforced, may be weakened, may be broadened, may be reduced. For example, at the age of the foundation of Argentinian constitution where indigenous people considered Argentinians? No, even if they were very much born and grew in Argentinian territory which is the foundation of citizenship?. Is the child of an italian woman still italian? For many years the answer was: only if she gives bith in Italian territory. Are Machedonians part of the Hellenes in the IV Century BC?, and in the II Century BC? Are Spartiats also archeaians at some point?

The answer to these questions has an impact on the characteristics and content of the ethnic/national identity and it is not a natural one. The decision that argentinian indigenous people were not part of Argentina in 1878 was meditated, discused and taken by a governing elite that excluded them and planned a military campain to kill and exile them. 

Prof. Franchi said citing Jonathhan Hall that "Relevant experience, often traumatic ones, push the people that shared them to develop a strong sense of cohesion [...] A group of people tend to convince themselves that they belong to a group different from other choosing the distinctive features. [...] The choice is ad conscious one, but then, at a certain point they loose this awareness." 

Communities negociate and decide consciously the content and extent of its identity. They do it when they issue (citizenship) laws in modern states or throught mithology and poems in Ancient Greek . The Cathalog of the Ships at the Illiad is to Arcaic Period as the list of the member of the EU containing number of habitant, GDP, and other relevant information is to the European Comunity. Genealogies of gods were the cultural expresion of the identity formation. It is well medidated and change together with societies. 

Identities change, and change a lot. Sometime they change because circunstances change but they always change in a manner that all or some of the members make them change.

Identities can be an important source for power and legitimacy. Not all identities became politically relevant only some do. If we take Ancient Greek we notice that poleis was the main political actor linked to a strong political identity. However other identities had political relevance from time to time. During the Persian war (499-478 BC) the Hellenistic identity acquired an unexpected political relevance. May be in the dark ages lineage identity had that function and it was surely important for the foundations of the Delian League in 477 BC. In Hellenistc period Koinon developed around the ethnical identity that in turn accompanied its development and doing so became politically relevant. But ethnicity was not politically determinant because many Koinon contained poleis of different ethne (Achaia included Kalydonians into the Leage, Rizakis 2015) and not every ethne became a Koinon (Arkadians political unity only lasted 7 years, 370-363 BC even if they were perceived as an ethne at least from the V Century BC, Heine Nielsen 2015).

In modern times we have the same phenomenon. In the post Federations WITH Nation-States I stated that Spainiards changed political identity many times in the last 40 years. But I don't really think they changed identity, I believe that they have more than one identity and at some times one of them becames politically relevant and other times the other prevails. And this is not a consequence of natural events of physics, it is the action of the political performance of some groups and the well-conscious choice of most people.

Ethnicity has not always been a politically relevant identity. Empires usually contained many ethnical identities and religion was politically central in most political institutions the Middle Ages. However with the arrival of Nation-State, nation became a central part of state legitimation. For Andersen (2005) there is not such a diference between the concept of Nation and the concept of Nation-state because he defines a Nation as every a political relevant identity no matter what is its content (racial, cultural, linguistical, etc.). In fact in my posts I use the ideas of nation and ethnicity as exchangeble because even if we can find many differences, when we talk about "Federalism as a tool for ethnic conflict resolution" ethnic or nation mention exactly the same: the politically most relevant identity for power legitimacy.

Bigliography

Benedict Anderson (2005) "Communità Immaginate" Roma: Manifestolibri. (my translation)

Franchi (2021) Course of Greek History, University of Trento. Febbruary- May.

Hall, J. (2015) "Federalism and ethnicity". Chapter 2- Hans Beck and Peter Funke (2015) “Federalism in Greek Antiquity” Edited by Cambridge University Press

Heine Nielsen, Thomas (2015) "The Arkadian Confederacy". Chapter 13- Hans Beck and Peter Funke (2015) “Federalism in Greek Antiquity” Edited by Cambridge University Press

Mitchell, Lynette (2015) "The community of the Hellenes". Chapter 3- Hans Beck and Peter Funke (2015) “Federalism in Greek Antiquity” Edited by Cambridge University Press

Rizakis, Athanasios (2015) "The Achaian League". Chapter 6- Hans Beck and Peter Funke (2015) “Federalism in Greek Antiquity” Edited by Cambridge University Press