However, critics of this theory argue that this view on ethnic identity is too simplistic. They argue that group identities are never fixed, due to the fact that history is constantly moving along, and the ethnic group experiences different events, and traumas which change the way individuals of the group sees the world, and themselves. Additionally, ethnic groups that are in existence today all contain individuals with varying levels of common ancestry. For example, within the Japanese population, there are people with mixed heritage. Primordialism fails to explain how these individuals form their ethnic identities. Which nation do they feel more pride? How about their external appearance? How will others in their country of residence see them as? Will a Japanese person who does not 'look' Japanese be able to form the same connections with his countrymen than a Japanese person who does 'look' Japanese? As stated before, Primordialism is too simplistic in how it determines …show more content…
In reality, there is a multitude of different factors at play which shape the identity of any member of a nation or state. Despite its shortcomings, Primordialism is useful when applied to ethnicity. Primordialists claim that ethnic identity is something that is innate and born with a human being. National characteristics according to this theory would be the physical characteristics of an ethnic group, the skin color, hair type, eye shape, etc. Individuals are born with these qualities and cannot be changed like the ethnic group they were born into.
Instrumentalism:
Instrumentalism is another theory to analyze ethnic identity, and is also a useful tool to explain ethnic conflicts. This theory mainly states that identity is a fluid and constantly changing phenomenon, and views ego as a preference. This is in stark