I have defined a human unit as a group of individuals who are united by the same languages, origin, or, better, who have the same belief as to their common origin, and who possess a certain cultural complex distinct from that of other similar groups; such a group of people preferentially marry among themselves — they are preferentially endogamous. Such a unit may be numerous, often attaining several millions, and it may be very small, containing a few hundred individuals — the number has no great importance as a distinct character of unit. The process of variation of cultural phenomena is going on in these units, as well as the process of variations of all biological phenomena. So the most remarkable feature of ethnos is that it is a biological unit of man in which the reproduction of species is going on and in which the process of physical changes takes place. The line of demarcation between two units is not strictly defined, for there are always two forces at work; namely, those consolidating the units, and those differentiating the units into smaller ones. Since this aspect of the existence of ethnos has a special importance in the problem of languages, I shall return to it later on (vide Section 5). As in any other biological unit, e.g., in the regional varieties of other animals, the ethnos may happen to be in a state of growth, in a state of numerical increase, in a stationary condition, or in a state of decline. As to potential activity, the ethnos may be strong or weak. Naturally, when the ethnos is in a state of growth, it may be suspected of being «strong.»
Since the ethnos is a universal phenomenon, there must be certain reasons [7] which underlie its existence; but I shall not now go into these details and shall confine myself to pointing out how the ethnoses may be formed. Two conditions are of importance; namely, the primary milieu and the interethnical pressure, which will be discussed later on. In fact, the similarity of ecological conditions — topography, climate, vegetation, and animals — in regions where man is living is usually confined to very limited areas. Within these areas, the best adapted unit is the one which lives the longer and becomes familiar with the local conditions. The point of importance is that the unit transmits its experience of adaptation to the local conditions through tradition, and its physical adaptation through the complex mechanism of inheritance, accumulating, in this way, the work of previous generations. Another condition — varied interethnical milieu — is not alike around the world, so every unit is surrounded by slightly different interethnical milieus, and thus the sources of influence are different.
Although the ethnos as a unit may be a concrete physical phenomenon, consisting of physical individuals, where the processes are going on it is not a static phenomenon, and thus it cannot be expressed in static terms. It must not be understood as a «tendency,» for this point of view will appear defective at once when we touch the problem of physical variations, which must be located physically. The conception of this phenomenon must be as one of a process covering more or less numerous units and is thus dynamic and not static.
Referring to the preceding remarks regarding attempts at the finding of a new term for the human unit, it ought to be pointed out that, in so far as I know, two authors have already approached this question so closely that they have used the Greek word ethnos for the new conception of the human unit. However, there are some essential differences between their and my point of view. F. Regnault has proposed («La Question des races devant l'anatomie et la linguistique,» 1928) a new term —«ethnie»— as a linguistic unit opposite to that of «race.» However, F. Regnault gives more than a simple linguistic definition of the «ethnie» which, according to what he says of this unit, seems to be the «ethnical unit» of my definition. In fact, he speaks of the «ethnies» as conqueror, conquered, civilized, migrating, losing their ethnographical complexes, etc. All these characters cannot be confined to the «linguistic unit» only. Moreover, the language may be changed, modified, lost, but the ethnical unit will survive. Therefore the language cannot be taken as the only basis for the differentiation of ethnoses. Moreover, F. Regnault understands his «ethnie» as a static conception, while the phenomenon of ethnos is a typically dynamic one. Here is the second essential distinction between «ethnie» and «ethnos.» In so far as I can see from his paper, he proposed this term for the first time in 1920 (in Revue de pathologie comparee).
Another attempt has been made at finding a new term covering the unit of ethnos. F. de Saussure much earlier (in 1915, I think, for I don't know about the first edition of his book, but I have at hand the second edition of it, which, however, does not seem to differ very much from the first edition, for the editors say «cette seconde edition n'apporte aucun changement essentiel au texte de la premiere») made a definition of «ethnisme»: «Il y a une autre unite [opposed to that of race] infiniment plus importante, la seule essentielle, celle qui est constitute par le lien social: nous l'appellerons 'ethnisme.' Entendons par la une unit6 reposant sur des rapports multiples de religion, de civilisation, de defense commune etc., qui peuvent s'etablir meme entre peuples de races differentes et en l'absence de tout lien politique. C'est entre l'ethnisme et la langue que s'etablit ce rapport de reciprocity.... Le lien social tend a creer la communaute de langue.»—«Cours de linguistique generate,» Paris, 1922, p. 305. «La communaute de langue qui constitue, dans une certaine mesure, l'unite ethnique,… il y a eu un ethnisme roman reliant, sans lien politique, des peuples d'origine tres diverses.»—Id., p. 306. Certainly this definition approaches that of ethnos, but the emphasis is put on ethnographical and linguistical complexes. Yet being conceived as a static one, it meets with the phenomena, like the Roman inheritance, which is certainly a product of disintegration of a larger unit which did not complete its formation. Yet the political aspect of the ethnical unit, of course, ought not to be excluded, as any other ethnographical characteristic.
These two instances suffice to show that such a term was needed, but it ought to be given a more elastic, more definite, dynamic meaning, and it ought not to be confined to the language or ethnographic complex only. As an international term, «ethnie» is, of course, a French adaptation of a Greek word, and as such may not be clear linguistically for other linguistic groups; while «ethnos» preserves its original purity as a foreign word — a scientific term — agreeable to every one. It ought to be pointed out that it is not desirable to limit the content given by me to «ethnos»; and in this respect, as shown, «ethnie» and «ethnisme» cannot be regarded as the same conception as «ethnos.» I defend this term because we need such a one, but if it is again modified and simplified, as has already happened with «race,» then a few decades later the same need will occur again. It is not desirable to transfer this term into the linguistics, where it will be again adapted, but to leave it as an ethnological (biological) conception and term [8].
Another attempt at the analysis of the phenomenon of the ethnical unit should be mentioned; namely, that made by A. Van Gennep, who very closely approached this problem in his analysis of the nationalite [9] In so far as I know, this important contribution to the problem has not yet been completed. In the first volume, published in 1922, he approached the problem of nationality from the ethnographical and linguistical point of view, treating the variations of cultural (including language) complexes and elements observed in regional units. He should inevitably come to the same conception as other authors who approached the problem of human unit [10]. Since this term has quite a definite function it must not be used in the sense of ethnos nor ethnical unit [11].
7. Since these reasons are now more or less clear, and we do not need them for the treatment of the present problem, their discussion here requiring too much space, we hall not give them in this place.
8. During the publishing of the present work there came to my knowledge a new publication by Sir Arthur Keith, entitled «Ethnos, or the Problem of Race Considered from a New Point of View» (London, 1931), in which I see, with great pleasure, that the problem of the formation of races is discussed as going on in ethnoses. However, no definition of «ethnos» is given and great emphasis is put on the problem of «nation.» Since the nation in its relation to the ethnos is already discussed above, I shall not dwell now on the problem as it seems to appear from Sir Arthur Keith's publication.
9. Cf. «Traite comparatif des nationalites» (Paris, 1922). This work appeared during the period when the problem of «nation» and «nationality» attracted the attention of many authors in connexion with the breaking down of the interethnical equilibrium in Europe. Cf. also an increase of interest in the linguistics problems during the same period, infra, Chap. III, Sec 27.
10. As to the term nationality it is good for the phenomenon of nationality, which is a reality; but this term may have limited application, namely, in reference to this phenomenon only. This term is closely connected with another term «nation.» The nationalite may be defined as «belonging to a nation» and as a «potential nation»; while the latter, as will be shown later, is an ethnos (or group of ethnoses) which has a political organization and is recognized by other similar units as a unit of a larger ethnical complex bound by the direct effects of interethnical pressure (equilibrium). Owing to this, the term nationalite ought to be reserved for this particular phenomenon, which has a great importance in the process of perception of the ethnical value of ethnical units, and which is one of the conditions of stabilization of the interethnical equilibrium.
11. Some attempts have already been made at using this term and its equivalents in other languages in the sense of «ethnical unit.»