When culture, a large part of a social construct and social structure, is made to strip of the ethnic purity, there remains the unsullied ethnic values and principles. The ethnic boundaries become more visible and perceptible when there is no tinge of culture in it. This makes the realisation more convincible. The ethnic boundaries are real and play their role in the larger cultural context when it encounters with a condition living with multiple ethnic groups. One such condition is their means of subsistence and subsequent demands of communication with members of other ethnicity. There might be exchanges of all sorts but not of the principles by which each ethnic group is identified and maintains its identity.
Harrison (1999, pp. 240) confirms that the communicative exchanges between people of the same ethnic group are a proof of some deep rooted strategies to sustain their ethnicity. This is true because the ethnic groups’ hatred is the symptom of the sameness of their identity with another and not in their large and glorified differences. They are fine with the differences, but are not happy when they are compared with a specific ethnic group or a culture. This is evident in the irony that an ethnic group is largely secretive in sharing the intimate secrets of their inherent roots and beliefs among the members of the same group but not other ethnic groups. Li (2015, pp. 672) gives a contemporary example when the Taiwanese and Hong Kong citizens are thrown in the same identity and culture of the Chinese. This is a strong indication that ethnic groups are principled and are not swayed by the lures of modernist attempts to be subsumed in a monoculture. Large displays of their external habits, lifestyle and conduct are just an indication for the public to display their love and respect to one another. Intimate secrets are seldom made public and this remains hidden, maintaining an unsubdued identity of their ethnicity, fuelled by their belief in religion.
Religion is a large contribution in maintaining the intensity of differences between ethnic groups within nationalism and political context (Gerson, 1996, pp. 174). On the contrary, an interesting research by Chestnut (2000, pp. 108) presents an argument that psychologically trained professionals tend to discount the influence of a particular ethnicity or a culture, thus discarding the endorsements of habits, beliefs, practices, etc. This view argues the psychological unity of all humans minus ethnicity and culture. As convincing as it seems, it cannot probably transcend the psychological similarities found in multiple religions and cultures.