Primordialism and the boundary approach. Although primordialism and the boundary approach are usually set in opposition, according to Xxxxxxx (1992) they can both be linked to the notion of uni-raciality. He believes that primordialism is useful to understand the Nihonjinron of the 1960s, which is when this notion became established (Oguma, 2002). This view would seem to be upheld by Xxxxxxx (2005, p. 60) who argues that the Nihonjinron literature was “primordialist” in its explanation of the culture and ethnicity of the Japanese. Primordialism is thought to be a natural phenomenon that is spiritual rather than sociological and as such it has a long history (Xxxxx and Xxxxxxxx, 1996). Primordialists, as exemplified by Xxxxxx (1996) believe that ethnicity is a question of emotion or affect creating primordial attachments and sentiments (Xxxxx and Xxxxxxxx, 1996). Xxxxxx (1996) states that primordial attachments stem from the ‘xxxxxx’ of social existence, including culture, language and social practices. Xxxxx and Xxxxxxxx (1996) criticise primordialists for offering a fixed view of ethnicity with no explanatory force. Primordialist views would seem to have racial underpinnings because ethnicity is believed to be a natural, innate (biological) and a non-sociological phenomenon (Xxxxx and Xxxxxxxx, 1996). Primordialists would seem to believe that ‘race’, language and culture are interrelated and they 19 For an in-depth discussion of this see Xxxxxxx (1992). are innate attributes. Such a view would seem to be similar to the Nihonjinron notion of uni- raciality in that that only the racially ‘pure’ Japanese can acquire Japanese culture and language by virtue of their Japaneseness, a theory which would still seem to be relevant in the 2000s as I will demonstrate in my thesis. Xxxxxxx (1992) believes that the primordialist perspective was given less weight in the Nihonjinron ideology of the 1970s and 1980s than it had been given in the past. He believes that more weight was given to Xxxxx’x (1969) symbolic boundary approach even though this approach is considered to be in opposition to the views of primordialists. The boundary approach was brought to the foreground by Xxxxx’x (1969) transactionalist approach to ethnicity (Xxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxx, 1996) and it moves beyond ethnicity as biologically innate and non-researchable to something that focuses on the interaction between ethnic groups, which is researchable. Xxxxx (1996) offers a definition of an ethnic group which has been used by anthropologists. H...
Primordialism and the boundary approach. Although primordialism and the boundary approach are usually set in opposition, according to Yoshino (1992) they can both be linked to the notion of uni-raciality. He believes that primordialism is useful to understand the Nihonjinron of the 1960s, which is when this notion became established (Oguma, 2002). This view would seem to be upheld by Xxxxxxx (2005, p.
