Common use of Fictive ethnicity Clause in Contracts

Fictive ethnicity. Xxxxxxx’s (1996) notion of fictive ethnicity would seem to be applicable to the notion of uni-raciality. Xxxxxxx believes that ethnicity is not a natural phenomenon as nation states are purposively ethnicised by governments. This means that they are merely represented as if they have been formed naturally and they possess an identity of origins, culture and interests which are historically rooted. The notion of ‘race’ is also compounded in this theory which Xxxxxxx refers to as ‘second-degree fiction’ (1996, p. 167). He believes the notion of ‘race’ derives its effectiveness from everyday practices and relations. In order to introduce a sentiment of ‘us’ and ‘them’ Xxxxxxx also believes that the symbolic kernel of the idea that ‘race’ equates with ethnicity is that individuals belonging to the same people are interrelated and that they form one big family. Xxxxxxx’s notion of ‘race’ can be applied to the ideology of Nihonjinron because, as previously stated, there is an implication that ‘pure’ Japanese nationals are from the same genetic pool, they are members of an extended family and belong to the Japanese ‘race’ (Kowner, 2002). Xxxxxxx (1996, p. 165) also brings language into the equation as he believes that the school is the site of the inculcation of a nationalist ideology and that ‘schooling is the principal institution which produces ethnicity as linguistic community' (ibid, p. 166). In Japan nationalism can be linked to education, especially in terms of a national language (kokugo) (see chapters 5). All the above suggests that Japan has been racialised by the thinking elites. To sum up, it would seem that the Nihonjinron theorisation of Japaneseness is exclusionary to outsiders such as the Anglo-Japanese, as it is based on the premise that only those with ‘pure’ Japanese blood can be considered Japanese, and only they can master the Japanese language and culture due to its uniqueness. The notion of uni-raciality can be located within European theorisations, and whichever theory is applied to the Japanese case, the outcome would seem to remain the same, the sentiment of ‘race’ is always lurking somewhere in the background. Even though some may argue that Japan’s ethnicity is socially constructed, Xxxxxxx (2005, p. 70) emphasises that it ‘is still experienced by most of those at whom it is directed as primordial’. In order to escape the racialising nature of Nihonjinron Schermerhorn’s more pluralistic definition of an ethnic group could be elaborated upon to apply to the Anglo-Japanese.

Fictive ethnicity. Xxxxxxx’s (1996) notion of fictive ethnicity would seem to be applicable to the notion of uni-raciality. Xxxxxxx believes that ethnicity is not a natural phenomenon as nation states are purposively ethnicised by governments. This means that they are merely represented as if they have been formed naturally and they possess an identity of origins, culture and interests which are historically rooted. The notion of ‘race’ is also compounded in this theory which Xxxxxxx refers to as ‘second-degree fiction’ (1996, p. 167). He believes the notion of ‘race’ derives its effectiveness from everyday practices and relations. In order to introduce a sentiment of ‘us’ and ‘them’ Xxxxxxx also believes that the symbolic kernel of the idea that ‘race’ equates with ethnicity is that individuals belonging to the same people are interrelated and that they form one big family. Xxxxxxx’s notion of ‘race’ can be applied to the ideology of Nihonjinron because, as previously stated, there is an implication that ‘pure’ Japanese nationals are from the same genetic pool, they are members of an extended family and belong to the Japanese ‘race’ (Kowner, 2002). Xxxxxxx Balibar (1996, p. 165) also brings language into the equation as he believes that the school is the site of the inculcation of a nationalist ideology and that ‘schooling is the principal institution which produces ethnicity as linguistic community' (ibid, p. 166). In Japan nationalism can be linked to education, especially in terms of a national language (kokugo) (see chapters 5). All the above suggests that Japan has been racialised by the thinking elites. To sum up, it would seem that the Nihonjinron theorisation of Japaneseness is exclusionary to outsiders such as the Anglo-Japanese, as it is based on the premise that only those with ‘pure’ Japanese blood can be considered Japanese, and only they can master the Japanese language and culture due to its uniqueness. The notion of uni-raciality can be located within European theorisations, and whichever theory is applied to the Japanese case, the outcome would seem to remain the same, the sentiment of ‘race’ is always lurking somewhere in the background. Even though some may argue that Japan’s ethnicity is socially constructed, Xxxxxxx (2005, p. 70) emphasises that it ‘is still experienced by most of those at whom it is directed as primordial’. In order to escape the racialising nature of Nihonjinron Schermerhorn’s more pluralistic definition of an ethnic group could be elaborated upon to apply to the Anglo-Japanese.

Fictive ethnicity. XxxxxxxBalibar’s (1996) notion of fictive ethnicity would seem to be applicable to the notion of uni-raciality. Xxxxxxx Balibar believes that ethnicity is not a natural phenomenon as nation states are purposively ethnicised by governments. This means that they are merely represented as if they have been formed naturally and they possess an identity of origins, culture and interests which are historically rooted. The notion of ‘race’ is also compounded in this theory which Xxxxxxx Balibar refers to as ‘second-degree fiction’ (1996, p. 167). He believes the notion of ‘race’ derives its effectiveness from everyday practices and relations. In order to introduce a sentiment of ‘us’ and ‘them’ Xxxxxxx Balibar also believes that the symbolic kernel of the idea that ‘race’ equates with ethnicity is that individuals belonging to the same people are interrelated and that they form one big family. XxxxxxxBalibar’s notion of ‘race’ can be applied to the ideology of Nihonjinron because, as previously stated, there is an implication that ‘pure’ Japanese nationals are from the same genetic pool, they are members of an extended family and belong to the Japanese ‘race’ (Kowner, 2002). Xxxxxxx Balibar (1996, p. 165) also brings language into the equation as he believes that the school is the site of the inculcation of a nationalist ideology and that ‘schooling is the principal institution which produces ethnicity as linguistic community' (ibid, p. 166). In Japan nationalism can be linked to education, especially in terms of a national language (kokugo) (see chapters 5). All the above suggests that Japan has been racialised by the thinking elites. To sum up, it would seem that the Nihonjinron theorisation of Japaneseness is exclusionary to outsiders such as the Anglo-Japanese, as it is based on the premise that only those with ‘pure’ Japanese blood can be considered Japanese, and only they can master the Japanese language and culture due to its uniqueness. The notion of uni-raciality can be located within European theorisations, and whichever theory is applied to the Japanese case, the outcome would seem to remain the same, the sentiment of ‘race’ is always lurking somewhere in the background. Even though some may argue that Japan’s ethnicity is socially constructed, Xxxxxxx (2005, p. 70) emphasises that it ‘is still experienced by most of those at whom it is directed as primordial’. In order to escape the racialising nature of Nihonjinron Schermerhorn’s more pluralistic definition of an ethnic group could be elaborated upon to apply to the Anglo-Japanese.