Abstract
This paper examines the assumptions that have been made by South African anthropologists about the nature of ethnicity and its significance for demarcating the boundaries of groups they have chosen to study. It is argued that the assumptions made in this connection, within functionalist social anthropology and, particularly, within primordialist volkekunde, are illegitimate and, moreover, inimical to the future of anthropology in a changing South Africa. Various alternatives to this primordialist approach are examined. The work of Barth and his followers is questioned on the grounds that it provides no more than a half‐hearted challenge to primordialism. And it is argued, finally, using field data from the north‐west Cape, that an acceptable study of the significance of ethnicity must start from the premises of political economy, and must view ethnicity as one possible form of group mobilisation amongst several alternatives.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
