Discourses about ethnic group (de‐)essentialism: Oppressive and progressive aspects

TLDR

Social psychologists and discourse analysts have increasingly focused on essentialist thinking as a cognitive process that rationalizes social hierarchies and as a key factor in racism, while anti‑essentialism has emerged as an emancipatory discourse. This study investigates how Dutch and ethnic minority participants define and employ essentialist concepts in group discussions. The authors analyze the variable use of (de‑)essentialism by examining conversational context and topics such as assimilation, group provisions, cultural rights, and agency. The study finds that Dutch and minority participants both use essentialist discourse linking culture and ethnicity, yet also critique it, showing that essentialism is not inherently oppressive and de‑essentialism is not inherently progressive, with their power depending on context and usage.

Abstract

Social psychologists studying intergroup perceptions have shown an increasing interest in essentialist thinking. Essentialist beliefs about social groups are examined as cognitive processes and these beliefs would serve to rationalize and justify the existing social system. Discourse analyses on racism have emphasized that problems of racism are to a large extent problems of essentialism. Anti-essentialism has emerged as an emancipatory discourse in the challenge of hegemonic representations and oppressive relations. The present study examines how, in group discussions, ethnic Dutch and ethnic minority people define and use essentialist notions about social groups. Both Dutch and ethnic minority participants engaged in an essentialist discourse in which an intrinsic link between culture and ethnicity was made. However, there were also examples where this discourse was criticized and rejected. This variable use of (de-)essentialism is examined in terms of the conversation's context and issues at hand, such as questions of assimilation, group provisions, cultural rights, and agency. The main conclusion of this paper is that essentialism is not by definition oppressive and that de-essentialism is not by definition progressive. The discursive power of (de-)essentialist group beliefs depends on the way they are used and the context in which they appear.