Max Weber described ethnic groups as “those human groups that entertain a subjective belief in their common descent. race- identity": common inherited and inheritable traits that actually derive from common descent. Races stemmed from “common inherited and inheritable traits that actually derive from common descent.”

1. MAX WEBER

2. Introduction
• Max Weber (1864–1920), one of sociology’s founding
figures, was also one of the first sociologists to
define ethnicity and race.
• Weber described ethnic groups as “those human
groups that entertain a subjective belief in their
common descent,” spelling out that “it does not
matter whether or not an objective blood relationship
exists”

3. • The most striking aspect of Weber’s definition is that
the key ingredient for ethnic membership is belief in
shared descent.
• The subjective dimension of ethnicity would go on to
become a central fixture of later sociologists’
thinking.

4. Definition
• race- identity": common inherited and inheritable
traits that actually derive from common descent.
• race creates a "group" only when it is subjectively
perceived as a common trait
• Similarly, the "caste" is actually the normal "societal"
form in which ethnic communities which believe in
blood relationship and forbid intermarriage and
social intercourse with outsiders live alongside one
another

5. • Races stemmed from “common inherited and
inheritable traits that actually derive from common
descent.”
• This view of race is called essentialism that is, it
presumes an individual’s identity depends on
fundamental and innate characteristics that are deep-
seated, inherited, and unchangeable. These traits are
thought to be part of people’s “essence,” their very
being.

6. • Weber observed that many different characteristics
or experiences could serve to indicate who belonged
to which ethnic group—including physical
resemblance, historical memories, and common
cultural practices—he believed that physical makeup
alone determines an individual’s race.

7. GROUP CLOSURE AND BOUNDARY MAINTENANC
• Weber’s discussion of "social closure ,another
particularly understanding of the origin and dynamics of
ethnic and racial groups
• He adds, general tendency of social groups to attempt to
form monopolies or, at least, to try to restrict the full
force of open competition in a manner that was
analogous to the behavior found in economic markets,
purpose of this monopolization . . . is always the closure
of social and economic opportunities to outsiders

8. • According to weber factors such as conquest or
migration putting visibly or culturally identifiable
groups together and unleashing the tendencies for the
more powerful to entrench their privileges by
monopolizing economic, social, and political
advantages.
• This became particularly acute when competition for
scarce resources increased so that one group of
competitors takes some externally identifiable
characteristic of another group of (actual or potential)
competitors - race, language, religion, local or social
origins, descent, residence, etc. - as a pretext for
attempting their exclusion

9. • In a nutshell, for Weber, ethnicity is based on people’s
cultural practices, and race is based on their biological
traits.
• we define ethnicity as a system for classifying people
who are believed to share common descent based on
perceived cultural similarities.

10. • We define race as a system for classifying
people who are believed to share common
descent based on perceived innate physical
similarities. Framing the two concepts in this
way makes clear how much they have in
common, but it also highlights the
fundamental difference between them.

11. • Domination in the most general sense is one of the
most important elements of social action. Of course,
not every form of social action reveals a structure of
dominance.
• But in most of the varieties of social action
domination plays a considerable role, even where it
is not obvious at first sight. . . . Without exception
every sphere of social action is profoundly
influenced by structures of dominance"

12. • As Parkin (1982) comments, "inside the velvet glove
is always an iron fist . . . .
• . All three approaches, however, share the core
Weberian premise that power must remain at the
center of any serious attempt to understand the
nature and dynamics of ethnic and race relations

13. • While contemporary sociologists share Weber’s view
of ethnicity, most reject his definition of race in favor
of the position Du Bois advocated. Sociologists
today believe racial identification is as subjective a
process as ethnic classification.
• The major difference between race and ethnicity lies
in the basis on which group boundaries are drawn. In
other words, we look for different clues or signs
when we think about people’s ethnicity as compared
to their race.

14. • Why exactly do contemporary sociologists reject Weber’s
description of race as based solely on inherited physical
traits? The difference in viewpoints is subtle but meaningful.
• In a sense, today’s sociologists have taken to heart
Weber’s message about the subjectivity of group definitions
and have come to believe that even our perceptions of
biological similarity are subjective.
• So our racial classifications are based not on some
objective measure of physical resemblances (as Weber
claimed) but rather on our beliefs and socially influenced
perceptions of which kinds of people are biologically similar
and which are different. A useful illustration comes from the
United States‘

15. • The whole conception of ethnic groups is so complex
and so vague that it might be good to abandon it
altogether