Primordialism is the opposing school of thought that seeks to explain ethnicity. During the emergence of European nationalism in the nineteenth century, the classic forms of Primordialism or 'Perennialism' were espoused. Johann von Herder (1744–1803), a German Romantic nationalist, maintained that the core of a national community was links of land, family, and language. These, according to Herder, indicated that each country was fundamentally distinct, and that these differences were old, as evidenced by folklore and traditions of each ethnicity. As a result, although though the nation-state is new, it is derived from a far older notion of identity (e.g. Herder, 1784).
Anthropologists like Edward Evans-Pritchard (1902–1973), an Englishman, thought of human societies as levels of relatedness, starting with the nuclear family, then the clan, and eventually the ethny (e.g. Evans-Pritchard, 1940). This would appear to explain a number of the issues we've seen with Constructivism. Again, there are several rival Primordialist schools, with differing views on how important genetic variations are to their ethnicity model.
Ethnosymbolists
Anthony D. Smith (1939–2016; e.g. Smith, 2004) was a British sociologist who advocated for what he called the Ethnosymbolic method. According to Smith, present notions of ethnic identity are based on some type of actual 'ethnic' history. Myths, folk memories, shared beliefs, customs, and symbols are the foundations of these identities. The myth of a "Golden Age" or "Glorious Past" is the most important of these mythologies. The 'Intellectuals' operate as chroniclers of these stories, resurrecting the imagined community through the arts, and resurrecting a feeling of ethnic identity when it is required.
The ideas are disseminated by a distinct group, the 'professionals' or 'intelligentsia.' As a result, some type of common, ancient past is the initial step of national or ethnic identity. The second stage involves a group of intellectuals who serve as a link between the past and the present, creating a national image.
However, nationalism and ethnic identity can exist without the occurrence of the second stage.
The difference between Smith and many other Primordialists, though, is that he favors a form of cultural determinism, which has its own set of issues, as we've already discussed. 'A designated human population occupying a historic region, and sharing myths, memories, a unified public culture, and shared rights and obligations for all members,' Smith (2004, p. 65) defines a country. The nuances of Smith's definition are unimportant to us, but it is evident that Smith's notion of 'nation' — and, by implication, ethny — has nothing to do with blood ties. This description is thus incompatible with what is widely understood as a 'ethnic' group in everyday usage: a community bound together by a feeling of shared ancestry.
Kinship Groups
A second school of Primordialists views ethnic groupings as kin networks, or large extended families.
This begs the question of what "family" really means. The 'country,' according to American political scientist Walter Connor (1994, p. 202), is "the greatest group that may command a person's devotion because of felt kinship links; it is, from this perspective, the completely extended family." The term 'felt' is highly crucial in this context. The key point, according to Connor, is that members of an ethnic group feel they are family; whether they are indeed kin is a distinct problem.
Despite this, there are a number of benefits to using this definition. It is consistent with many ethnic groups' shared cultural memory of common ancestry, which may be found in many nation states as well as in pre-modern communities. It also helps to explain why ethnic groupings are related with self-sacrificial behavior. If members truly think that the group is their extended family, then some of the altruistic behavior that they would show towards their own family will be shown towards this extremely extended family as well.
This does not necessitate a genetic explanation; nonetheless, as we will see, it is the most parsimonious since it explains why all social creatures, not just humans, tend to behave altruistically, particularly toward members of their in-group. The most important factor is that members think they are family and understand that they must act altruistically toward them. However, this begs the question of why we should be altruistic to our relatives in the first place. Even if enthys are extended family groups, and even if such groups exist in the animal realm, why should humans treat relatives with more altruism?