the solution to the intensifying number of ethic issues, one of which is through education.
1. Definition of Ethnicity
It seems that in many literatures there is a tendency to refer ethnicity to ethnic group instead of talking about ethnicity in itself, relating it to race, or in
many cases in fact, ended up not to specifically define the term in regard to its flexibility. Literally, ethnic is derived from the Greek ethnos which means nation.
Although the word may signify neutral use, Edwards 1994 and Fishman 1998 concur that it was historically associated with outsiders or barbarians, referring to
its origin as Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible to refer to those which were “neither Christian nor Jewish”. Fishman 1998 adds that even though the term
has mostly lost its negative subtext, some still linger in popular exotic attribute such as in ‘ethnic hairdo’ or ‘ethnic music’.
One popular view on ethnicity which actually focus on the term as itself comes from Cohen 1978 in Fought 2006: 8 which sees ethnicity as “set of
descent-based cultural identifiers used to assign person to groupings that expand and contract in inverse relation to the scale of inclusiveness and exclusiveness of
the membership”, which Koentjaraningrat 2009 may indirectly refer it to unique features. On the opposite end, Emberling 1997 believes that ethnicity is best
regarded as a process of identification and differentiation, rather than an inherent attribute of individuals or group. Fishman 1998 notes that ethnicity is “both
narrower than culture and more perspectival than culture”. The groupings referred to by Cohen 1978 in Fought 2006 and Emberling 1997 above are
generally understood as ethnic groups, from which the definition on this point is much richer and in many literatures, seems to take over the definition of ethnicity
itself. To understand ethnic group, it is necessary to evaluate the
characteristics and some parameters for a population to be called an ethnic group as many experts decide to define it. Barth 1969 mentions four conditions that an
ethnic group: 1. is largely biologically self-perpetuating,
2. shares fundamental cultural values, realized in overt unity in cultural forms,
3. makes up a field of communication and interaction, 4. has a membership which identifies itself, and is identified by others,
as constituting a category distinguishable from other categories of the same order.
Meanwhile Wolfram 2007, quoting the National Council of Social Studies, Task Force on Ethnic Studies 1976, notes that the identification of an
ethnic group usually involves: 1. origins that precede or are external to the state,
2. group membership which is involuntary, 3. ancestral tradition rooted in a shared sense of peoplehood,
4. distinctive value orientations and behavioural patterns,
5. influence of the group on the lives of its members, 6. group membership influenced by how members define themselves
and how they are defined by others. From the parameters above, it can be concluded that an ethnic group
may be seen from two general perspectives, the objective and the subjective views Edwards, 1994. Objectively, an ethnic group is, for example, to share some
fundamental cultural values or having group membership which is involuntary, while self-identification or sense of peoplehood can only come from the
subjective perspective, especially in the point of view of the ethnic group members. These two perspectives are closely related to Geertz’s 1973
primordialist theory on the persistence of ethnic group. The theory believes that ethnicity is considered as a given quality which evokes emotional attachment of
the ethnic group members that it persists. The given quality refers to the objective markers while the emotional attachment, then specifically called primordial
attachment, represents the subjective parameters. Subjective parameters underline the importance of emotional bonds or the sense of group belonging by the ethnic
group members Wolfram, 2007; Fishman, 1998. Shibutani and Kwan 1965 in Edwards 1994: 127 concur, “far more important, however, is their belief that
they are of common descent”. Koentjaraningrat 2009 also agrees that the subjective parameters of ethnic belonging are significant to the definition of ethnic
group, as he argues that it is more appropriate to address the term, not as ethnic group, rather as ethnic fellowship, implying the concern of ethnic self-
identification. The objective markers which give them identity are also important
