On that transient nature of ethnic identity

By Susantha Hewa

We have a natural empathy with fellow human beings. However, in reality at the individual level, we may be attracted to some and repelled by others. Surely, you may come up with a good number of factors that trigger these two opposite feelings. Among the factors that cause attraction are speaking the same mother tongue, following the same faith, belonging to the same social class, level of education, similar interests, views and beliefs, social status (or, level of recognition), job relatedness, income level, physical proximity, political party affiliations, etc. Each of these factors may urge people to get together.

Of all the foregoing factors, the first (sharing the same mother tongue) is clearly different from the rest––same social class, income level, job relatedness, etc.,––in terms of the nature of relationships they form. The connection formed on the basis of the mother tongue is considered as a stronger, permanent and, most importantly, a biological relationship while the other relationships, for example, the ones based on social status, sharing similar interests, party affiliations, etc., are considered relatively short-term or impermanent links without a biological connection. Let’s consider the two types.

Such relationships like the ones based on social and economic factors are temporary. For example, one who leaves a political party no longer bears that label. A teacher who becomes a lawyer will have nothing to do with teaching thereafter. A poor person who lives among the poor may sever his links with them when he comes in to an unexpected fortune and will not carry the label ‘poor’. In all these cases, the label is transient. You can shift from one group to another and acquire a new identity and shed the previous one almost immediately.

Now, consider the first one – those who share the same mother tongue. They acquire a permanent label called ‘ethnicity’. This is a label you have to carry throughout your life. It is a permanent mark that will not be erased whatever you do. Say for example, if you consider yourself a Tamil, you will always be considered as a Tamil whether you become richer or poorer than you are, enter a higher income group, earn high recognition or change your religion. You will not be able to erase your Tamil identity. The reason is simple. Society considers all those who have spoken Tamil as their mother tongue as Tamil, those who have spoken Sinhala as Sinhalese, etc. The mother tongue, by convention or collective consensus, has become the marker of a biological relationship, which has no basis as such.

As we know, biologically, no one can be identified as belonging to Sinhala, Tamil, African, Russian, etc. No Sinhalese has anything Sinhalese about his constitution.

Dr. E.W. Adikaram, in his short essay, “Isn’t the nationalist a mental patient?”, says something revealing in this regard: “Please think over the fact that you become a Sinhalese not because you had something naturally Sinhalese, but because of the belief created and imposed on you by the environment and society, including your parents”. He used to maintain that no empirical test could determine a child’s so-called ‘ethnicity’. A baby born to Sinhala speaking parents, but adopted by Tamil speaking parents will be regarded as Tamil, and vice versa. Will he be biologically Sinhalese and, if so, what test will trace his ‘ethnicity’?

Dr. Paul’s comment given at the beginning is quite sobering, in a world where ethnicity passes as something real, biological and permanent. A little thought will make it clear to anybody that ethnicity is an acquired sense of identity.

According to Dr. Paul, this identity marker is a myth, a very deep-rooted one at that. Why his statement is so refreshing is that it adds a very constructive dimension to the efforts of thousands of well-meaning people who work towards ethnic harmony, which, surely, all sensitive and progressive minded people yearn for. The implication of his statement is that all the effort made by well-meaning people to promote ethnic harmony can be significantly upgraded by earnestly discussing whether the very notion of one’s ethnicity is groundless. It will save a tremendous amount of funds allocated to such programme, unfortunately, to prove that most of such efforts have little to gain.

We often talk about multicultural, multiethnic and multireligious societies and the urgent need for making such societies tolerant. This is really magnanimous. However, it also underlines the fact that generally people are intolerant of differences. The ugly truth is that for time immemorial, people have been vainly discussed reconciliation while sowing the seeds of bigotry in clinging to the notion of ethnicity. What if ethnicity is just a myth? Has this feeling of belonging to some ethnicity or race ever worked for the betterment of humans? Or, has it ever been useful to anybody or society, at the very least.

For a moment, let’s look at this sense of belonging––the sense of this undefinable but supposedly intrinsic ethnic connection. Say, you are Sinhalese. How about your sense of belonging with those Sinhalese ancestors who had lived several centuries ago? As a so-called Sinhalese living today, what would you share with them? Let alone other things such as customs, values, beliefs, foods, clothes, work, etc., you will not be able to even understand the very language they would have spoken. Suppose, you were in some way transplanted in such a community. What would be the extent of your sense of belonging? Wouldn’t they – those who you would have called your ancestors and blood relations – be the ‘other’? Now, come back to the present. Wouldn’t you feel more affinity with your neighbours or co-workers, who are supposed to belong to other ethnic groups – Tamils, Muslims? Wouldn’t it be the same if you happened to be Tamil, Muslim, etc.?

There’s no need for imaginary journeys to the past to check your sense of belonging with your ancestors. Just think of those who are living in urban areas and in remote villages. Wouldn’t many of those living in the same area, having built connections with one another in multiple ways, feel a greater sense of belonging with them across the spectrum of different ethnicities, than with those who are said to be of the same ethnic group but living in faraway places? Can this supposed sense of ethnic affiliation outdo the pulls of other bonds based on class, education, job, income, interests, hobbies, etc.? Surely, while entertaining a vague sense of an ‘ethnic relationship’, people always feel a greater sense of belonging with those who share the same interests, level of education, social status, etc. than with those who are supposed to be of the same stock, so to speak. In addition to the above social and economic factors, those of the same faith may feel more empathy with each other than those who share the same language but of different faiths.

Some of the above observations prompt us to be more sensible about this divisive and often destructive sense of ethnicity, which proves to be insubstantial under scrutiny. Perhaps it may be its nebulous nature which persistently evades its erasure from our cultural consciousness. Unfortunately, such myths are the easiest of all notions to be used for political manipulation. And, those who stand to benefit from such divisive and fake identities are none other than the wily politicians.