Minority and majority groups
Minority and majority groups are sociological concepts that describe the power dynamics between different groups within a society. A minority group is characterized by its relative powerlessness compared to a dominant majority group, which often holds social, economic, and political power. These terms are intertwined and reflect a hierarchical relationship, where the minority is often subjected to unequal treatment due to their distinctive cultural, physical, or social attributes. While the sociological definition focuses on power relations, the general public may use these terms more loosely, often equating "minority" with specific racial or ethnic groups, which can lead to misunderstandings and reinforce stereotypes.
The dynamics of minority and majority groups can be observed globally, as seen in examples like apartheid in South Africa, where the majority population was disenfranchised by a minority ruling class. The conflicts that arise between these groups can stem from racial, ethnic, or cultural differences and are prevalent in various regions, including the United States and Eastern Europe. Despite their numerical strength, members of minority groups can experience significant social disadvantages, highlighting the complexity of identity and power within diverse societies. Understanding these concepts is essential for addressing issues of inequality and conflict in ethnically stratified communities.
Minority and majority groups
SIGNIFICANCE: Minority groups are defined by their powerlessness relative to other groups in a society, and majority groups are the reverse: They dominate other groups. This concept helps explain why and how conflict occurs in ethnically stratified societies.
“Minority group” and “majority group” are complementary concepts (one implies the other) that denote a hierarchical relationship of dominance and subjugation between groups. The terms carry much emotional and political baggage because of their association with two related concepts, “race” and “ethnicity.” To understand minority and majority groups, one needs to distinguish between the sociological viewpoint just outlined and the meanings attributed to the terms by the ordinary person in the street. Sociologists tend to define the concepts strictly, whereas nonacademics define them loosely. This lack of precision lends itself to misconceptions, but it is also true that the sociological viewpoint has inherent problems.
Scholarly vs. Popular Definitions
Anthropologists Charles Wagley (1913-1991) and Marvin Harris (1927-2001) have put forward a widely accepted definition of the term “minority group.” In Minorities in the New World: Six Case Studies (1958), they argued that five characteristics identify these groups. First, they are relatively powerless compared with members of the dominant group. Second, they share distinctive cultural and/or physical characteristics that distinguish them from the dominant group. This fact, along with their powerlessness, exposes them to unequal treatment. Third, their distinctive traits cause minority groups to become self-conscious social units. Fourth, an established rule of descent exists for transmitting membership in minority groups across generations. Fifth, members of minority groups tend to marry within their groups.
Most social scientists agree that these criteria are not equally important. They view minority groups’ relative powerlessness as the most important criterion distinguishing them from majority groups. For example, in Majority and Minority: The Dynamics of Race and Ethnicity in American Life (1991), sociologist Norman Yetman argues that “minority group” is synonymous with the term “subordinate,” and “majority group” is synonymous with “dominant.” The main implication of this viewpoint is that, contrary to what one might assume, members of minority groups can constitute a numerical majority in their society, and majority group members might be a numerical minority. The classic example of this is South Africa, where African Americans, although they constitute approximately 75 percent of the population, were powerless under apartheid, while White individuals, constituting approximately 14 percent of the population, were dominant.
Sociologists distinguish between racial, ethnic, religious, and gender groups, on one hand, and minority and majority groups on the other. They view the latter twin concepts as subsuming the others. That is, majority groups and minority groups may consist of distinct races, ethnic groups, religious groups, and gender groups. These various types of majority/minority groups differ from each other symbolically. Thus, racial majority/minority groups are set apart by physical features, ethnic majority/minority groups by their unique cultural attributes, religious majority/minority groups by unique spiritual beliefs, and gender majority/minority groups by societal expectations of sex-linked characteristics. A minority and majority group might display a number of these characteristics simultaneously. An example of an overdetermined minority group would be Black, Haitian, female Catholics.
Nonacademics often adopt a loose definition of minority and majority groups. They tend to ignore the latter concept and focus on the former. In this focus, “minority group” becomes synonymous with specific racial or ethnic groups, and the term “minority” is often used to refer to individuals belonging to these groups. Thus, in the United States, the term “minorities” is often understood to mean Black or Hispanic Americans. This is controversial, because such usage often occurs in a pejorative context and may be viewed as a way of attacking those two groups. Used in this way, the term “minority” can become a weapon in intergroup conflict.
Problems with Definitions
Adopting the sociological viewpoint on majority/minority groups leaves less room for confusion. Nevertheless, this viewpoint also has problems. To begin with, it seems counterintuitive to suggest that numerical majorities can be, in fact, “minorities.” This is not a problem when a group—for example, African Americans—is both numerically smaller and less powerful than the dominant group. As sociologist Pierre L. van den Berghe (Dictionary of Race and Ethnic Relations, 1988) has suggested, however, colonial subjects who vastly outnumber their colonial rulers might take umbrage at the notion that they constitute a “minority.” The problem is that the commonsense understanding of “minority” conflicts with sociological usage; therefore, the potential for confusion exists.
Van den Berghe even argues that this confusion is deliberate, since it serves useful political purposes. In pluralistic societies—such as the United States—that have instituted affirmative action programs to aid historically disadvantaged groups, being identified as a “minority group” can prove beneficial in some instances. The problem lies in deciding which groups are minority groups. African Americans and Hispanics are uncontroversial choices, but whether Jews, Japanese Americans, and Chinese Americans should be considered minority groups is more problematic and controversial. These groups, though numerical minorities, enjoy a level of socioeconomic success which far outstrips that of African Americans and Hispanics. Thus, the term “minority group,” with its connotation of powerlessness and relative deprivation, seems somewhat inappropriate. A fuzzy definition of “minority group,” however, would give these economically successful groups a firmer claim to minority status and, with it, even greater access to societal resources. Van den Berghe suggests that similar confusion over the term “majority group” allows the tiny elite who exercise hegemony over the United States to cloud their identity and escape criticism by being lumped into a larger category—White Anglo-Saxon Protestants—who are perceived, mistakenly, as the dominant group.
Use of the Concept
The concept of minority groups has long been used in Europe to describe national groups who, for whatever reason (for example, through conquest by another group), have come to form small enclaves in societies dominated by other groups. Early in the twentieth century, the concept was adopted by American sociologists seeking a comprehensive term to describe the multifaceted intergroup conflict that has been a recurring theme in American history. With respect to Black Americans, American Indians, the Chinese, and the Japanese, the conflict seemed to be racial; with respect to groups such as Eastern European Jews, the Irish, and Italians, the conflict seemed to revolve around religious and cultural differences. As noted above, the unifying thread was domination by one group (Indigenous White individuals) of these various other groups. This suggested to sociologists such as Donald Young the need for a word to encapsulate all these various conflicts. In American Minority Peoples (1932), he suggested that the term “minority groups” be used to describe the distinctive groups who found themselves in conflict with the White majority.
Since the time of Young’s proposal, the minority group/majority group concept has gained widespread acceptance because of the universality of intergroup conflict following European decolonialization. This process created new states such as India and Pakistan, but it also led to widespread racial, ethnic, religious, and nationalistic conflicts. Not all of these can be described as minority group/majority group situations, but many are. Examples include the Rodiya and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, the Hutu and Tutsi in Burundi, and the Osu and Ibo in Nigeria. In Ethnic Groups in Conflict (1985), Donald Horowitz gives numerous examples of such conflict occurring in formerly colonized areas.
The more industrially developed areas of the world are also the scene of numerous minority group/majority group conflicts. The conflict between Black and White Americans in the United States is perhaps the best known, but to this could be added French Canadians and English-speaking Canadians, Aboriginal Canadians and White Canadians, Australian Aboriginal peoples and White Australians, White New Zealanders and Maoris, and non-White immigrants and White individuals in the United Kingdom. Even more pressing examples are to be found in Eastern Europe, where the breakup of the former Soviet Union has allowed long-standing racial, ethnic, religious, and nationalistic hatreds to flare into open warfare. This breakup has combined with economic recession in Western Europe to reawaken antiminority fervor. Thus, in West Germany, Eastern European, Turkish, Vietnamese, and African immigrants have been repeatedly attacked by neo-Nazi groups. In France, agitation against Arab and African immigrants led the government to pass laws making it easier to track the movement of these immigrants. Even traditionally tolerant countries such as Denmark have experienced anti-immigrant sentiment. The prevalence of this type of conflict illustrates why the twin minority/majority group concept is likely to retain its utility.
Bibliography
Horowitz, Donald. Ethnic Groups in Conflict. U of California P, 1985.
Lewis, Daniel C. Direct Democracy and Minority Rights: A Critical Assessment of the Tyranny of the Majority in the American States. Routledge, 2013.
"Minority Population Profiles." Office of Minority Health, 21 Oct. 2024, minorityhealth.hhs.gov/minority-population-profiles. Accessed 2 Nov. 2024.
Rose, Peter I. They and We: Racial and Ethnic Relations in the United States and Beyond. 7th ed., Paradigm, 2014.
Simpson, George Eaton, and J. Milton Yinger. Racial and Cultural Minorities. 5th ed., Plenum, 1985.
Soen, Dan, et al., editors. Minority Groups: Coercion, Discrimination, Exclusion, Deviance and the Quest for Equality. Nova Science, 2012.
Yetman, Norman, editor. Majority and Minority: The Dynamics of Race and Ethnicity in American Life. 6th ed., Allyn, 1999.
Young, Donald. American Minority Peoples. Harper, 1932.