Breaking down the question
This is a ten-mark question, so it rewards precision and illustration rather than exhaustive theory. The instruction word is explain, and the analytical core is the growing salience of ethnicity — the paradox that ethnic identity, which many mid-century theorists expected to fade under modernisation, has instead become more politically and socially prominent. The phrase with illustrations is a direct instruction to substantiate the argument with concrete cases.
Ethnicity refers to a sense of collective belonging based on shared descent, culture, language, religion or historical memory. Fredrik Barth's insight is essential — ethnic identity is not a fixed cultural essence but is produced and maintained at the boundary between groups. This helps explain why ethnicity can intensify precisely under conditions of contact, migration and competition.
The task is to explain why ethnicity has become more salient rather than less, despite predictions of its decline, and to ground that explanation in examples.
How to approach it
Given the mark weight, aim for a tight structure — a short conceptual opening, three or four clearly reasoned drivers each tied to an illustration, and a crisp close.
Begin by naming the paradox — modernisation theory expected assimilation and the erosion of ascriptive identities, yet ethnicity has grown more salient. Then explain the drivers. Globalisation and rapid change generate insecurity, prompting people to seek refuge in identity — Manuel Castells describes this as resistance identity. Competition for scarce resources, jobs and political power turns ethnic boundaries into mobilising lines. Democratic politics rewards group mobilisation, so ethnicity becomes a resource for claims-making. Migration and diaspora sharpen the sense of difference, while the state's own categories can harden ethnic lines.
Pair each driver with an illustration — the collapse of Yugoslavia, sub-Saharan conflicts, ethnic and linguistic assertion within federal polities, indigenous and autonomy movements, and diaspora identity politics in Western societies. Keep illustrations brief and pointed. Close by noting that ethnicity is a constructed and mobilised identity whose salience reflects modern conditions rather than the survival of tradition.
Model answer
Ethnicity denotes a shared sense of belonging based on common descent, language, religion, culture or historical memory. Classical modernisation theory predicted that such ascriptive identities would dissolve as societies industrialised and integrated. The contemporary world has confounded that prediction — ethnicity has become markedly more salient in politics and social life. Fredrik Barth helps explain why, arguing that ethnic identity is sustained not by cultural content but by the boundary drawn between groups, a boundary that competition and contact can sharpen.
Several forces drive this growing salience. First, globalisation produces dislocation and insecurity, and people respond by anchoring themselves in familiar identities. Manuel Castells calls this a resistance identity, a defensive assertion of belonging against homogenising global forces. The resurgence of ethnic and cultural nationalisms across many regions illustrates this response.
Second, ethnicity is a vehicle for competition over scarce resources, employment and political power. Where opportunities are unequally distributed, ethnic boundaries become lines of mobilisation. The violent break-up of Yugoslavia and recurrent ethnic conflict in parts of sub-Saharan Africa show how quickly latent identities can be politicised under competition and elite manipulation.
Third, democratic and electoral politics reward group solidarity, so ethnicity becomes an instrument for making claims on the state. Linguistic, regional and tribal assertions within federal democracies, including demands for autonomy and recognition, illustrate this instrumental dimension.
Fourth, large-scale migration and the growth of diasporas intensify the awareness of difference. Diaspora communities in Western societies often develop a heightened ethnic consciousness, while indigenous peoples increasingly assert distinct identities and rights.
In each case, ethnicity is best understood as constructed and mobilised rather than as a survival of primordial tradition. Its growing salience reflects the very conditions of modernity — globalisation, competition, democratic mobilisation and migration — rather than their absence. This is the sociological explanation for a trend that once seemed counter-intuitive.
Examiner's perspective
For a ten-mark answer, examiners value economy and evidence. The best scripts state the paradox at once, explain a handful of well-reasoned drivers, and attach a concrete illustration to each, exactly as the question demands.
Weak answers drift into defining ethnicity at length or offer assertions without examples. Invoking Barth's boundary approach and Castells on resistance identity signals theoretical grounding without padding, while the instrumentalist reading — ethnicity as a resource in competition and democratic politics — shows analytical depth. For further conceptual context, see the note on dimensions of stratification. A closing line that frames ethnicity as a modern, constructed phenomenon rather than a relic secures full value.