1.

1 Identity, Inter-Ethnic Relations and Multiculturalism in Ethiopia

Inter ethnic relations and multiculturalism. Ethnicity, race, and nationality pose one of the greatest
challenges to the survival of humankind in the 21stc, for they touch the very core of

the social fabric, personal identity and individuality; they influence how we think of others

and ourselves; they play a role in our morality and political behavior; and they affect our

everyday existence in significant ways. Indeed, they seem to affect most things we do and

think, from the most mundane ways in which we behave to the dearest beliefs we hold

about ourselves and others. Such identities have as much political, sociological and

economic salience as they ever had.

To this end, it is hoped that you will benefit a lot out of this unit in terms understanding the

process of social categorization and identification, as you will rigorously discuss about how

ethnic difference is socially constructed, organized and negotiated –in context of diversity.

And, how ethnic identification, or indeed any kinds of identification, works, and made

socially relevant and the relationship of ethnicity to other analogues or homologues

identifications such as race and national identity.

In this unit therefore, you will be introduced to concepts like ethnicity and race as both a

social construct as well as a constituent feature of people’s identities and lived experiences,

their nature and characteristics and the active role they play in the social, economic and

political life of people. Drawing upon theoretical discourses, the unit will also provide you

insights on the ways in which ethnic identity and ethnic relations are defined and perceived

by people, how particular world-views are being maintained, or contested and how societies

use these constructions for, among other things, nation-building, economic development,

resources competition and group mobilization for different materialistic and political ends.

In addition, the various discussions in the unit incorporate a contextual discussion of

It will shed some light on concrete issues of identity, ethnicity, and race and how ethnic and racial
identification, or indeed any kind of identification, work

in the process of group identification and social categorization. In this way, the section will

offer a set of conceptual tools, which go far beyond the immediate interpretation of day-to

day politics in their applicability.

All animals recognize differences between “self” and “other”. In human societies, these

differences take on enormous significance, partly because humans are so individualistic -

rather than being clone-like automatons, humans have individual personalities. Society

validates that individualism by giving infants unique names. Those names also keep track of

who’s related to whom, sometimes for generations back into the past. What’s the point of

this obsession with who we are? Why am I named “X” rather than “#26-A,” and why do we

go further, adding categorical identifiers such as “ethnic X” or “race Z” to our

identifications?

To understand themselves as a species, humans have to also understand themselves as

individuals within networks of other individuals. This unit explores identity, individual and

collective; and how societies worldwide manage to define and categorically identify

different kinds of identities, such as ethnic, racial and national identity. Brubaker (2004),

inculcate that identity more generally is not real, either, in the sense that it is not a ‘thing’

that people can be said to have or to be. Instead, we should talk about ongoing and open Reflect your
views on the following questions.

 How do you describe who you are (your identity)?

 What are the ways we tell for others who we are?

 Why do people are obsessed with their identity?

 What’s the point of this obsession with who we are?

ended processes of identification. By this logic, identity does not impel people to do

anything; it is, rather, people who engage in identification.

on people thinking that groups exist and that they belong to them. It is also certainly true

that identity depends on processes of identification and does not determine, in any

mechanistic or causal sense, what individuals do (Jenkins, 2008).

Throughout the discussions that will come under the subsequent subtopics, this section will

explore the ways in which ethnic categories and relations are being defined and perceived

by people; how people talk and think about their own group as well as other groups, and

how particular world-views are being maintained or contested. Moreover, by exploring both

differences and similarities between ethnic phenomena, it thereby provides a nuanced and

complex vision of ethnicity, process of ethnic and other identity constructions and group

categorization in the contemporary world.

1.3. Ethnicity – A Short Historical Overview

Dear learners, in this section, the history and meanings of ‘ethnicity’ will be explored. By

making a short historical overview on the use of the term, it will show how the term

‘ethnicity’ have been used in various ways to refer to different human ‘groupings’ and how

this is opened a door for the elasticity and ambiguity of its conceptual meaning. By exploring

different scholarly works and arguments, it will also attempt to define and conceptualize the

concept. Reflect your views on the following questions.

 How do terms like‘ ethnicity and ethnic’ have historically been The study of ethnicity and ethnic
relations has in recent years come to play a central role in

the social sciences, to a large extent replacing class structure and class conflict as a central

focus of attention. This has occurred on an interdisciplinary basis involving social

anthropology, sociology, political theory, political philosophy and history (Erikson, 2002). In

this regard, the academic and popular use of the term ‘ethnicity’ is fairly, modern. According

to John Hutchinson and Anthony Smith (1996), the term “ethnicity” is relatively new, first

appearing in the Oxford English Dictionary in 1953.

the terms “ethnicity” and

“ethnic” to refer to what was before often subsumed under ‘culture’, ‘cultural’, or ’tribal’.

New journals have appeared using the terms in their titles, and special programs of ethnic

studies are showing up in university catalogs. Almost any cultural-social unit, indeed any

term describing particular structures of continuing social relations, or sets of regularized

events now can be referred to as an "ethnic" this or that. This can be seen in the

proliferation of titles dealing with ethnic groups, ethnic identity, ethnic boundaries, ethnic

conflict, ethnic cooperation or competition, ethnic politics, ethnic stratification, ethnic

integration, ethnic consciousness, and so on. Name it and there is in all likelihood, someone

who has written on it using “ethnic” or “ethnicity” qualifiers to describe his or her special

approach to the topic.

Nevertheless, most scholars who uses “ethnicity” find definition either unnecessary or they

are reluctant to provide general framework for the concept. Isajiw looked at 65 studies of

ethnicity in anthropology, and sociology and found only 13 that defined the term. Writers

generally take it for granted that the term refers to a set of named groupings, singled out by

the researcher as ethnic units. Membership in such group is then shown to have an effect

on, or correlation with, one or more dependent variable(s). In this sense, ethnicity is widely

used as a significant structural phenomenon. But that is hardly a definition.

So it is important to be clear about what our subject – ethnicity - is and about what it is not.

None of the founding fathers of anthropology and sociology - with the partial exception of

Max Weber granted ethnicity much attention. Max Weber, in his work entitled “Economy

and Society”, first published in 1922 (1978:385-98), provided the early and influential

sociological conceptions of ethnicity and ethnic group. According to Weber, an “ethnic

group” is based on the belief in common descent shared by its members, extending beyond

kinship, political solidarity vis-a-vis other groups, and common customs, language, religion,

values, morality, and etiquette. In other words, ethnic groups are those human groups that
entertain a subjective belief in their common descent because of similarities or physical type

or of customs or both, or because of memories of colonization and migration. It does not

matter whether or not an objective blood relationship exists, but whether it is believed to

exist.

Perhaps the most significant part of Weber’s argument is that: “ethnic membership does not

constitute a group; it only facilitates group formation of any kind, particularly in the political

sphere. On the other hand, it is primarily the political community, no matter how artificially

organized that inspires the belief in common ethnicity” (1978: 389).

Weber seems to be suggesting that the belief in common ancestry is likely to be a

consequence of collective political action rather than its cause; people come to see

themselves as belonging together – coming from a common background – as a consequence

of acting together. Collective interests thus, do not simply reflect or follow from similarities

and differences between people; the pursuit of collective interests does, however,

Reflect your views on the following questions.

 How do you define or conceptualize ethnicity?

 How do different scholars define and conceptualize ethnicity?

encourage ethnic identification. In terms of collective action, this form of ethnic

communality is a form of monopolistic social closure: it defines membership, eligibility and

access.

Any cultural trait in common can provide a basis for and resources for ethnic closure:

language, ritual, economic way of life, lifestyle more generally, and the division of laboure,

are all likely possibilities in this respect. Shared language and ritual are particularly

implicated in ethnicity: mutual intelligibility of the behavior of others is a fundamental pre

requisite for any group, as is the shared sense of what is ‘correct and proper’ which

constitute individual ‘honor and dignity’. By this token, an ethnic group is a particular form
of status group. Finally, Weber argues that since the possibilities for collective action rooted

in ethnicity are ‘indefinite’, the ethnic group, and its close relative the nation, cannot easily

be precisely defined for sociological purposes.

As Weber (1968) emphasized, it is the effectiveness of social action and, above all, a political

aspect of group action that ‘inspires belief in common ethnicity’ and transforms group

membership into a political community. For Max Weber, an ethnic group is based, on the

belief in common descent shared by its members because of similarities or physical type or

of customs or both, or because of memories of colonization &migration. And “it does not

matter whether or not an objective blood relationship exists”, but believed to exist.

The next great contribution to our understanding of ethnicity comes from the influential

works of the Norwegian anthropologist, named Frederik Barth (1969). Barth in an

exceptionally brilliant ‘Introduction’ part of a collection of scholarly work entitled “Ethnic

Groups and Boundaries”(1969),where he was the editor,provided nothing short of a

Copernican revolution in the study of ethnicity –in and outside anthropology. Hence,

current anthropological conventional wisdom about ethnicity for the larger part is stems

from this influential work of Barth. In his introduction to the collection of “Ethnic Groups

and Boundaries”, Barth (1969), outlined in detail a model of ethnicity.

Barth began with what actors believe or think: ascriptions and self-ascriptions. A

categorical ascription is an ethnic ascription when it classifies a person in terms of his basic,

most general identity, presumptively determined by his origin and background. To the

extent that actors use ethnic identities to categorize themselves and others for purposes of

interaction, they form ethnic groups in this organizational sense.

Barth focused not upon the cultural characteristics of ethnic groups but upon relationships

of cultural differentiation, and specifically upon contact between collectivities thus

differentiated, 'us' and 'them' (Eriksen, 2002). Barth's emphasis was not so much upon the

substance or content of ethnicity, what he called the 'cultural stuff', as upon the social

processes, which produce and reproduce - which organize, if you like-boundaries of

important to recognize that although ethnic categories take cultural differences into

account:

we can assume no simple one-to-one relationship between ethnic units and cultural

similarities and differences. The features that are taken into account are not the

sum of 'objective' differences, but only those which the actors themselves regard as

significant…not only do ecological variations mark and exaggerate differences; some

cultural features are used by the actors as signals and emblems of differences,

others are ignored, and in some relationships radical differences are played down

and denied (Barth, 1969: 14).

The cultural contents of ethnic dichotomies would seem analytically to be of two orders: (i)

overt signals or signs - the diacritical features that people look for and exhibit to show

identity, often such features as dress, language, house-form, or general style of life, and (ii)

basic value orientations: the standards of morality and excellence by which performance is

judged. Since belonging to an ethnic category implies being a certain kind of person, having

that basic identity, it also implies a claim to be judged, and to judge oneself, by those

standards that are relevant to that identity. Neither of these kinds of cultural 'contents'

follows from a descriptive list of cultural features or cultural differences; one cannot predict

from first principles which features will be emphasized and made organizationally relevant

by the actors.

Indeed, ethnic categories provide an organizational vessel that may be given

varying amounts and forms of content in different socio-cultural systems. They

may be of great relevance to behavior, but they need not be; they may pervade all social life, or they
may be relevant only in limited sectors of activity. There is thus

an obvious scope for ethnographic and comparative descriptions of different

forms of ethnic organization. In its most general notion, for Barth, ethnicity is

seen as a ‘social organization of culture difference’. But, the concept of ‘culture’,

ambiguity in the designation of ethnic groups in terms of cultural differences has

been taken on as a challenge by anthropologists.

These are complicated questions, but need to be answered. Before Barth, cultural

difference was traditionally explained from the inside out – social groups possess different

cultural characteristics, which make them unique and distinct (common language, lifestyle,

descent, religion, physical markers, history, eating habits, etc.). Culture was perceived as

something relatively or firmly stable, persistent and intact. Cultural difference was

understood in terms of a group’s property (i.e., to be Gamo is to be in possession of a

distinct culture to that of the Wolayita). According to Frederik Barth (1969), Cultural

difference per se does not create ethnic collectivities. It is the social contact with others that

leads to definition and categorization of an ‘us’ and a ‘them’; hence, cultural difference

between two groups is not the decisive feature of ethnicity. Indeed, ethnicity is essentially

an aspect of a relationship, not a property of a group.

Nonetheless, Barth turned the traditional understanding of cultural difference on its head.

He defined and explained ethnicity from the outside in: it is not the ‘possession’ of cultural

characteristics that makes social groups distinct but rather it is the social interaction with

other groups that makes that difference possible, visible and socially meaningful. Shared

culture is, in this model, best understood as generated in and by processes of ethnic

Reflect your views on the following questions.

 Does this imply that ethnic groups don’t necessarily have a

distinctive culture?

 Can two groups be culturally identical and yet constitute two

different ethnic groups?

 What’s the relationship between culture and ethnicity, after all?

boundary maintenance, rather than the other way round: the production and reproduction

of difference vis-a-vis external others is what creates the image of similarity internally, vis-a
vis each other. Barth and his collaborators ushered in an increasing awareness on the part of

many anthropologists that 'culture' is a changing, variable and contingent property of

interpersonal transactions, rather than a reified entity, somehow 'above' the fray of daily

life, which produces the behaviour of individuals.

In Barth’s own words: ‘the critical focus of investigation from this point of view becomes

the ethnic boundary that defines the group, not the cultural stuff that it encloses’ (1969:

15). The difference is created, developed and maintained only through interaction with

others (i.e., Frenchness is created and becomes culturally and politically meaningful only

through the encounter with Englishness, Germaness, Danishness, etc.). Hence, the focus in

the study of ethnic difference has shifted from the study of its contents (i.e., the structure of

the language, the form of the particular costumes, the nature of eating habits) to the study

of cultural boundaries and social interaction. The boundaries to which we must give our

attention are of course social boundaries, though they may have territorial counterparts. If a

group maintains its identity when members interact with others, this entails criteria for

determining membership and ways of signaling membership and exclusion. Ethnic groups

are not merely or necessarily based on the occupation of exclusive territories; and the

different ways in which they are maintained, not only by a once-and for-all recruitment but

by continual expression and validation, need to be analyzed.

In other words, ethnic boundaries are explained first and foremost as a product of social

action. Cultural difference per se does not create ethnic collectivities: it is the social contact

with others that leads to definition and categorization of an ‘us’ and a ‘them’. At this point,

we should note that contrary to a widespread commonsense view, cultural difference

Reflect your views on the following questions.

 What is an ethnic boundary?

 Is an ethnic boundary physical/territorial boundary per se?

 Why, when and how do individuals and groups maintain ethnic

between two groups is not the decisive feature of ethnicity. ‘Group identities must always

be defined in relation to that which they are not – in other words, in relation to non

members of the group’ (Eriksen, 1993: 10). Thus, in emphasizing boundaries between

groups, and their production and reproduction, Barth immediately shifted the analytical

center of gravity away from this or that settled, bounded group - or 'society' - and towards

complex universes of relationships between groups and their members. In doing so, Barth

emphasized that ethnic identity is generated, confirmed or transformed in the course of

interaction and transaction between decision-making, strategizing individuals. Barth’s work

has transformed and shifted the study of ethnic difference from the study of cultural

contents (language, religion, and customs) to the study of the interaction processes in

which cultural characteristics are “picked up” as markers of differences in the interaction

process. Cultural differences per se do not create ethnic collectivities: The social contact

with others leads to the definition and categorization of an “us” and “them”.

For instance, two distinctive, endogamous groups, say, somewhere in Ethiopia, may well

have widely different languages, religious beliefs and even technologies, but that does not

entail that there is an ethnic relationship between them. For ethnicity to come about, the

groups must have a minimum of contact between them, and they must entertain ideas of

each other as being culturally different from themselves. If these conditions are not fulfilled,

there is no ethnicity, for ethnicity is essentially an aspect of a relationship, not a property of

a group. Conversely, some groups may seem culturally similar, yet there can be a socially

highly relevant (and even volatile) inter-ethnic relationship between them. This would be

the case of the relationship between Serbs and Croats following the break-up of Yugoslavia,

or of the tension between coastal Sami and Norwegians. There may also be considerable

cultural variation within a group without ethnicity (Blom, 1969). Only in so far as cultural

differences are perceived as being important, and are made socially relevant, do social

relationships have an ethnic element. Ethnicity is an aspect of social relationship between

groups with whom they have a minimum of regular interaction.

Furthermore, Barth’s research established a foundation for understanding ethnicity in

universalist rather than in particularist terms. Since culture and social groups emerge only

through interaction with others, then ethnicity cannot be confined to minority groups only.

As Jenkins (1997) and Isajiw (2000) rightly argue, we cannot study minority ethnic groups

without at the same time studying the majority ethnicity.

Generally speaking, Barth understanding of ethnicity has been central to pretty much all

subsequent anthropologizing about ethnicity. Nevertheless, although his was arguably the

most systematic model in depth and detail, the most securely grounded in wider theoretical

arguments about social forms and social processes (e.g. Barth 1959, 1966, 1981), and has

certainly been the most influential, Barth was not alone in establishing the current

anthropological understanding of ethnicity.

Reflecting, on the one hand, the practical ethnographic concern with the everyday lives of

real people, i.e., their ‘actually existing’ social relationships (Radcliffe-Brown, 1952:190), and

on the other, the pursuit of verstehen (‘understanding’), advocated by Weber and Simmel,

Clifford Geertz has elegantly defined ethnicity as the 'world of personal identity collectively

ratified and publicly expressed' and 'socially ratified personal identity' (1973:268, 309).

In spite of the difference in scholarly views of ethnicity among anthropologists, the 'basic

social anthropological model of ethnicity' can be summarized as follows:

 Ethnicity is a matter of cultural differentiation - although, to reiterate the main

theme of social identity (Jenkins 2004), identification always involves a dialectical

interplay between similarity and difference.

 Ethnicity is centrally a matter of shared meanings - what we conventionally call

'culture' - but is also produced and reproduced during interaction.

 Ethnicity is no more fixed or unchanging than the way of life of which it is an aspect,

or the situations in which it is produced and reproduced.

interaction and the categorization of others, and internalized in personal self

identification.

Culture is conceived here partially in the traditional anthropological sense as involving a

total way of life. The total way of life, however, does not necessarily mean simply a set of

distinct everyday customs, although it may include these. Rather, it refers to a unique

historical group experience. Culture is in essence a system of encoding such experience into

a set of symbolic patterns. It does not matter how different the elements of one culture are

from another culture. A distinct culture is a manifestation of a group's distinct historical

experience. Its product is a sense of unique peoplehood. Ethnicity is not a single unified

social phenomenon but a congeries, a “family,” of related but analytically distinct

phenomena. The foundations of ethnicity, the “markers” of ethnicity, the history of

ethnicity, the aims and goals of ethnicity—these vary from case to case” (Eller, 1999).

The emphasis on culture as the point of departure for our understanding of the nature of

ethnicity is not intended to mean that members of an ethnic group must always share one

and the same culture to the exclusion of any other. Rather, it is intended to mean that

persons who include themselves in an ethnicity would have a relation to a group who either

now or at some point in the past has shared a unique culture.

1.5 . Ethnic Groups and Ethnic Identity

Ethnic Group

Notably, the term ‘ethnic group’ is also attached with various meanings as ethnicity.

Scholars have been trying to conceptualize it from different perspectives and as a result,

different definitions have been proposed to define ‘ethnic group’. In this regard, earlier

conception of ethnic group once again associated with Max Weber. According to Weber, an

‘ethnic group’ is based on the belief in common descent shared by its members, extending

beyond kinship, political solidarity vis-a-vis other groups, and common customs, language,

religion, values, morality, and etiquette (Weber, 1978). Anderson (1983), in his part
described ethnic groups as “an imagined community” that possesses a “character and

quality” (Anderson, 1983). Schermerhorn (1996), on the other hand, conceptualize ethnic

group as a unit of population having unique characteristics in relation with others, binding

with common language, myth of origin, and history of ethnic allegiance (1996).

Scholars mainly use it to explain contact and inter-relationship between groups. Taking

Bateson’s (1979) ideas, Eriksen states that since ethnic categories created out of the very

contact between groups, dealing with ethnic groups in total isolation is as absurd as to

speak of the sound from one hand clapping (Eriksen, 2002). In this regard, other scholars

including F. Barth (1969), define ethnic groups as a self-defined group based on subjective

factors and/or fundamental cultural values chosen by members from their past history or

present existing conditions in which members are aware of-and-in contact with other ethnic

groups. Barth (1969) further illustrated that, in a context of inter-ethnic interaction, group

distinctiveness strongly depends on identification of self and ascription by others and

members of a certain ethnic group will be evaluated in accordance with their ‘performance’

of the value standards and ‘possession’ of diacritical features designing the group against

other. This entailed that, ethnic group are defined out of group interaction in which

members of a group keep their social solidarity, identified themselves as belonging to

specific group based on their subjective communalities (language, myth of origin, and

shared cultural entities) that defined in reference with others (Abbink, 2004).

 How do you differentiate ethnic group from other social

categories (like cultural group, racial group, nation etc)?

Ethnic groups constitute an identity as defined by outsiders who do not belong to the group

but identify it as different from their own groups and by “insiders” who belong to the same

group. This generally becomes the basis of mobilizing group’s consciousness and solidarity

and which in certain situation result in political activities (Kasfir, 1976).

By considering the various definitions provided to define ethnicity, Hutchinson and Smith’s

(1996) identified six main features that the definition of an ethnic group, predominantly
consists. This includes;

1. A common proper name, to identify and express the “essence” of the community;

2. A myth of common ancestry that includes the idea of common origin in time and

place and that gives an ethnic group a sense of fictive kinship;

3. Shared historical memories, or better, shared memories of a common past or pasts,

including heroes, events, and their commemoration;

4. One or more elements of common culture, which need not be specified but normally,

include religion, customs, and language;

5. A link with a homeland, not necessarily its physical occupation by the ethnic group,

only its symbolic attachment to the ancestral land, as with diaspora peoples; and

6. A sense of solidarity on the part of at least some sections of the ethnic’s population

(Hutchinson and Smith, 1996:6-7).

 Ethnic Identity

Definitions of ethnic identity vary according to the underlying theory embraced by

researchers’ and scholars’ intent on resolving its conceptual meanings. The fact that there is

no widely agreed upon definition of ethnic identity is indicative of the confusion

surrounding the topic.

Reflect your views on the following questions.

 What is the basis of one’s ethnic identity?

 Can you distinguish between the external and internal aspects

of ethnic identity?

Typically, ethnic identity is an affiliative construct, where an individual is viewed by

themselves and by others as belonging to a particular ethnic or cultural group. An individual

can choose to associate with a group especially if other choices are available (i.e., the

person is of mixed ethnic or racial heritage). Affiliation can be influenced by racial, natal,

symbolic, and cultural factors (Cheung, 1993). Racial factors involve the use of physiognomic

and physical characteristics, natal factors refer to "homeland" (ancestral home) or origins of
individuals, their parents and kin, and symbolic factors include those factors that typify or

exemplify an ethnic group (e.g., holidays, foods, clothing, artifacts, etc.). Symbolic ethnic

identity usually implies that individuals choose their identity, however, to some extent the

cultural elements of the ethnic or racial group have a modest influence on their behavior

(Kivisto & Nefzger, 1993).

On the individual level, ethnicity is a social-psychological process, which gives an individual

a sense of belonging and identity. It is, of course, one of a number of social phenomena,

which produce a sense of identity. Ethnic identity can be defined as a manner in which

persons, on account of their ethnic origin, locate themselves psychologically in relation to

one or more social systems, and in which they perceive others as locating them in relation

to those systems. By ethnic origin is meant either that a person has been socialized in an

ethnic group or that his or her ancestors, real or symbolic, have been members of the

group. The social systems may be one's ethnic community or society at large, or other

ethnic communities and other societies or groups, or a combination of all these (Isajiw,

1990).

Locating oneself in relation to a community and society is not only a psychological

phenomenon, but also a social phenomenon in the sense that the internal psychological

states express themselves objectively in external behaviour patterns that come to be shared

by others. Thus, individuals locate themselves in one or another community internally by

states of mind and feelings, such as self-definitions or feelings of closeness, and externally

by behaviour appropriate to these states of mind and feelings. Behaviour according to

 What is the relationship of the individual to the ethnic?

cultural patterns is thus, an expression of identity and can be studied as an indication of its

character.

We can thus distinguish external and internal aspects of ethnic identity. External aspects

refer to observable behaviour, both cultural and social, such as (1), speaking an ethnic

language, practicing ethnic traditions, (2), participation in ethnic personal networks, such as
family and friendships, (3), participation in ethnic institutional organizations, such as

churches, schools, enterprises, media (4), participation in ethnic voluntary associations, such

as clubs, 'societies,' youth organizations and (5) participation in functions sponsored by

ethnic organizations such as picnics, concerts, public lectures, rallies, dances.

The internal aspects of ethnic identity refer to images, ideas, attitudes, and feelings. These,

of course, are interconnected with the external behaviour. But, it should not be assumed

that, empirically, the two types are always dependent upon each other. Rather, they may

vary independently, as for example, a third-generation person may retain a higher degree of

internal than of external aspects. We can distinguish at least three types of internal aspects

of identity: (1) cognitive, (2) moral, and (3) affective