Dr Femi Nzegwu
info@afsi.org.uk

Use of scientifically valid non-alienating terminologies in identifying and classifying people: Who is 'ethnic'? Who are 'ethnic minorities'?

The Action For Social Integration (ASI) aims to advance, support and facilitate the effective cultural and social integration of disadvantaged people from refugee and minority 'ethnic' communities. Yet, the very act of promoting effective cultural and social integration by national minority communities requires, as a fundamental pre-requisite, the use of inclusive, non-alienating language in defining these communities. Equally important is the need to ensure that definitions of communities have scientific validity in terms of both history and geography.

If we as a society accept that social integration is desirable and that the need to deliver relevant services to every national group within society especially those currently under-serviced is imperative, then it follows, as a minimum, that the terminology used in defining these communities must be inclusive as well as accurate and scientifically valid. The current generic terminology ethnic minority which is used to define national minority populations within the UK is conceptually flawed, unscientific, alienating and offensive. The term 'ethnic' originates from the Greek word ethnikos which means 'heathen, pagan, primitive, gentile.' As a result the term has always carried a strong connotation of the supposed `inferiority' of those so classified. 'Ethnic' has also been used to define people belonging to, or distinctive of a particular racial, cultural or language group.

The first meaning of this word is obviously racist. The second meaning is not only highly misleading but equally racist because it aggregates as homogenous, individuals of culturally diverse backgrounds. Furthermore the antonym of this term, namely ethnic majority, is not similarly applied to the majority population. It is in this context that no one would recognise anyone being categorised as belonging to the 'ethnic majority'! Hence, not surprisingly, many commentators now use the term 'ethnics' synonymously with 'ethnic minority' to define 'non-white' Britain. More importantly, 'ethnic minority' has no meaning or relevance to those individuals it is used to define. There is no person from any national group who, if asked about their cultural/racial background, would define themselves as an 'ethnic'! It has no meaning or relevance to anybody, save the government/other organisations/individuals attempting (and often failing) to engage with or define these various populations for any variety of reasons - most notably service provision. The fact is that 'ethnic' fails to locate people either within a historical/cultural or geographical framework. It is, in effect, a classification that emanates and is defined on the terms of the codifier and not the subject. It is a racial dualism ('coloured as opposed to 'white', 'black' as opposed to 'white', 'ethnic minority' as opposed to 'white') which by its nature groups national minority populations into one homogenous cluster ('non-white') without the benefit of investigation of other demographic and socio-economic indicators such as race/culture, gender, education, class, religion, age, or for that matter, personal/group preferences. Even the term 'black' as it is used in Britain hardly possesses a concrete historical/cultural or geographical validity, except to the extent that it is a political term indicating 'oppression' that is vis-a-vis a 'white' ruled or 'white' controlled polity. In an era when numerous communities vigorously reject the stereotypes projected onto them and continue to work to raise levels of self worth and esteem within their communities, particularly among the young, the term 'black' is increasingly being questioned in an attempt to develop a more positive, more empowering and more historically authentic referencing within these communities - e.g. African, African Caribbean, Asian, Muslim.

Turning to the concept 'minority' in the phrase 'ethnic minority', this presumably refers to the quantification of these population groups with respect to the whole. If this is the case, then it has scientific legitimacy. Following from this logic a more accurate classification of the varied population groups that currently define multi-cultural Britain would be national groups, with the numerical minority identified as national minorities and the indigenous population defined as the national majority.

This is not a trivial question of semantics or 'political correctness'. Indeed the adoption and use of appropriate language in addressing peoples is fundamental to government/other organisations abilities to monitor the delivery of appropriate provision of services to various population groups. Currently, this crucial monitoring exercise takes place minimally, haphazardly or in most instances not at all. What is needed by all organisations/agencies is a system of population/client identification that will provide baselines of quantity and quality of service utilisation by national groups against which effective care/service delivery, progress and change can be measured. It must be realised that service providers have a duty to give value for money and to be accountable for the services given to all their clients. This can only occur with an appreciation of the need to address the existing fundamental barriers to such activity - as discussed in this paper.

Objectives

The paper is put to your organisation for consideration and discussion with two objectives in mind:

• To replace the terms 'ethnic', 'ethnic groups', and all other 'ethnic' derivatives with the term 'national' in departmental terminology.
• To vigorously promote an internal and external adoption of this more scientific and perhaps more pertinent, more humanising and inclusive terminology in identifying peoples.