The notion of primordialism has been used to describe the origins and strength of ethnic attachments in the literature on ethnicity for the last three decades. It was originally coined by Shils and developed by Geertz in the 1950s. Recent trends have shifted emphasis away from primordialism towards structural and circumstantial/situational approaches. These alternative approaches frequently provide implicit criticism of the notion of primordialism by pointing to counter examples, cases of ethnic attachments that vary over time and according to circumstance, hence undermining the contention that such loyalties could be considered ‘primordial’. Here, for the first time, the concept of primordialism is examined in its own terms. We analyse the intellectual history of the notion, its intended meaning and the misunderstandings it has spawned. We identify three aspects of primordialism and submit each to critical scrutiny. We conclude that the term is unsociological, unanalytical and vacuous. We advocate dropping it from the sociological lexicon.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 266 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.