Rogers Brubaker Ethnicity, Race, and Nationalism
The literature on ethnicity, race, and nations and nationalism was long fragmented and compartmentalized. Ethnicity and ethnopolitics; race, racism, and racial politics; and nationhood and nationalism were largely separate fields of study. The literature was fragmented along disciplinary lines as well: There was relatively little cross-fertilization between work in sociology, anthropology, political science, and history, and still less between these and other disciplines such as archaeology, linguistics, economics, and disciplines in the humanities. Finally, the literature was fragmented along regional lines: There was little sustained comparative work and often little awareness of cross-regional variation in understandings and configurations of ethnicity, race, and nationhood. Much of the literature produced in and on the United States, in particular, was strikingly parochial. This pattern of fragmentation persists in many respects; in some ways, it has even become more pronounced. In part, fragmentation is an unavoidable consequence of the explosion of work on ethnicity, race, and nationalism. Moreover, even as disciplinary compartmentalization has weakened, what might be called paradigmatic compartmentalization has not: discourse-analytic, game-theoretic, institutionalist, political economic, evolutionary psychological, ethnosymbolist, cognitive, network-analytic, and agent-based modeling-oriented work are all, to varying degrees, interdisciplinary undertakings; but apart from a few relatively proximate pairings, there is minimal cross-fertilization among these enterprises. And while the institutionalization of African American studies and other ethnic studies programs in the United States has helped overcome disciplinary boundaries, it has reinforced a group-based compartmentalization.
Source: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115916
The literature on ethnicity, race, and nations and nationalism was long fragmented and compartmentalized. Ethnicity and ethnopolitics; race, racism, and racial politics; and nationhood and nationalism were largely separate fields of study. The literature was fragmented along disciplinary lines as well: There was relatively little cross-fertilization between work in sociology, anthropology, political science, and history, and still less between these and other disciplines such as archaeology, linguistics, economics, and disciplines in the humanities. Finally, the literature was fragmented along regional lines: There was little sustained comparative work and often little awareness of cross-regional variation in understandings and configurations of ethnicity, race, and nationhood. Much of the literature produced in and on the United States, in particular, was strikingly parochial. This pattern of fragmentation persists in many respects; in some ways, it has even become more pronounced. In part, fragmentation is an unavoidable consequence of the explosion of work on ethnicity, race, and nationalism. Moreover, even as disciplinary compartmentalization has weakened, what might be called paradigmatic compartmentalization has not: discourse-analytic, game-theoretic, institutionalist, political economic, evolutionary psychological, ethnosymbolist, cognitive, network-analytic, and agent-based modeling-oriented work are all, to varying degrees, interdisciplinary undertakings; but apart from a few relatively proximate pairings, there is minimal cross-fertilization among these enterprises. And while the institutionalization of African American studies and other ethnic studies programs in the United States has helped overcome disciplinary boundaries, it has reinforced a group-based compartmentalization.
Source: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115916
The literature on ethnicity, race, and nations and nationalism was long fragmented and compartmentalized. Ethnicity and ethnopolitics; race, racism, and racial politics; and nationhood and nationalism were largely separate fields of study. The literature was fragmented along disciplinary lines as well: There was relatively little cross-fertilization between work in sociology, anthropology, political science, and history, and still less between these and other disciplines such as archaeology, linguistics, economics, and disciplines in the humanities. Finally, the literature was fragmented along regional lines: There was little sustained comparative work and often little awareness of cross-regional variation in understandings and configurations of ethnicity, race, and nationhood. Much of the literature produced in and on the United States, in particular, was strikingly parochial. This pattern of fragmentation persists in many respects; in some ways, it has even become more pronounced. In part, fragmentation is an unavoidable consequence of the explosion of work on ethnicity, race, and nationalism. Moreover, even as disciplinary compartmentalization has weakened, what might be called paradigmatic compartmentalization has not: discourse-analytic, game-theoretic, institutionalist, political economic, evolutionary psychological, ethnosymbolist, cognitive, network-analytic, and agent-based modeling-oriented work are all, to varying degrees, interdisciplinary undertakings; but apart from a few relatively proximate pairings, there is minimal cross-fertilization among these enterprises. And while the institutionalization of African American studies and other ethnic studies programs in the United States has helped overcome disciplinary boundaries, it has reinforced a group-based compartmentalization.
Source: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115916
The literature on ethnicity, race, and nations and nationalism was long fragmented and compartmentalized. Ethnicity and ethnopolitics; race, racism, and racial politics; and nationhood and nationalism were largely separate fields of study. The literature was fragmented along disciplinary lines as well: There was relatively little cross-fertilization between work in sociology, anthropology, political science, and history, and still less between these and other disciplines such as archaeology, linguistics, economics, and disciplines in the humanities. Finally, the literature was fragmented along regional lines: There was little sustained comparative work and often little awareness of cross-regional variation in understandings and configurations of ethnicity, race, and nationhood. Much of the literature produced in and on the United States, in particular, was strikingly parochial. This pattern of fragmentation persists in many respects; in some ways, it has even become more pronounced. In part, fragmentation is an unavoidable consequence of the explosion of work on ethnicity, race, and nationalism. Moreover, even as disciplinary compartmentalization has weakened, what might be called paradigmatic compartmentalization has not: discourse-analytic, game-theoretic, institutionalist, political economic, evolutionary psychological, ethnosymbolist, cognitive, network-analytic, and agent-based modeling-oriented work are all, to varying degrees, interdisciplinary undertakings; but apart from a few relatively proximate pairings, there is minimal cross-fertilization among these enterprises. And while the institutionalization of African American studies and other ethnic studies programs in the United States has helped overcome disciplinary boundaries, it has reinforced a group-based compartmentalization.
Source: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115916