Like many other countries, independent Vietnam inherited a polity that was considerably more ethnically diverse than it had been before colonisation, and both of the two Vietnams that coexisted between 1954 and 1975 had to formulate policies targeting their ethnic minorities. Whereas the southern Republic of Vietnam was mainly concerned with pacification and mobilisation of its minorities due to the ongoing conflict, the northern Democratic Republic of Vietnam invested considerable time and energy in developing ethnology as a field of study. (In South Vietnam ethnographic research was largely the preserve of missionaries from the Summer Institute of Linguistics.) Because the minority-inhabited areas of the DRV were not battlefields, Hanoi-based researchers were able to pursue fieldwork aimed at describing and classifying the various ethnic groups — a task which was then continued in the South after reunification in 1976.

By the time of the 1979 census, an official list of 54 ethnic groups (including the majority, generally known as Kinh) was promulgated and was intended to be definitive. For roughly two decades this list remained fixed, but as Masako Ito shows in her detailed study, by the time of the 1999 census, there was ‘intense negotiation to alter the state framework of ethnic group determination’ (p. 2). A number of ‘subgroups’ or ‘local groups’ subsumed under a broader ethnonym now expressed their determination to be recognised as a full-fledged ‘ethnic group’ (dân t ộc) in their own right. In many cases this development was linked to state policies aimed at improving socio-economic conditions in rural areas, some of which specifically targeted smaller ethnic minorities, thus creating an incentive for individuals and communities to be recognised as distinct from the larger groups with which they were currently identified. Ito's book examines this complex process of contestation and the interaction between minority communities, ethnologists, and policymakers at various levels.

As Ito points out, there has been considerable reluctance on the state's part to expand the list of officially recognised minorities, presumably because to do so will open a Pandora's box of demands for reclassification which could potentially generate tensions both among different minority groups and between those minorities and the state. On the one hand, the state wishes to be seen as committed to the survival (as opposed to the assimilation) of all existing ethnic minorities. On the other hand, it also wishes to be the arbiter of their identity and to appropriate for itself the right to define that identity and the labels that go with it. This tension has underlain Hanoi's ethnographic work since its inception in the 1950s.

Ito has done extensive fieldwork and includes several case studies, documented with interviews as well as official documents. The Cao Lan and Sán Chỉ are currently classified together as two components of a single ‘Sán Chay’ group, but this common classification is now being contested. A group of roughly 40,000 people in Quảng Bình province are currently classified as ‘Kinh’ (i.e., ethnically Vietnamese), but at least some of them believe that they constitute a separate ethnic group called Nguồn, not currently on the official list. These groups are classified by Ito as ‘vocal’ because they have actively lobbied for a change in status. She also examines several ‘voiceless subgroups’ who have similar agendas but have garnered less attention for their demands. Finally, she describes the fate of the Ơ Đu, one of the smallest recognised dân tộc, virtually all of whom are married to spouses of larger ethnic groups. Local communities have been resettled for a large dam project, and because the resettlement has been organised according to ethnicity, the Ơ Đu have been scattered as they follow their spouses' ethnic groups to other locations.

Ito's title correctly emphasises the political nature of ethnology/ethnography in Vietnam, insofar as it directly informs ethnic minority policy. (Although she does not specifically point out the fact, the government-published journal on minority development policy [p. 53, Plate 2.1] is co-edited by the team that produces the country's most important academic publication on ethnology). Her study is particularly valuable for its use of internal documents which illuminate the debates and decisions behind the final classification decisions. Some of this information is already known from published ethnographic scholarship, but the unpublished documents provide additional perspectives. The book is also interesting for its insights on the personalities and influence of prominent ethnologists who effectively possess veto power over the demands for recognition from specific groups.

Ito's study is well-organised and well-argued, and the English translation is excellent. The book could be strengthened in two specific ways. The first would be to include more discussion of the original ethnic classification system carried out in the North during the 1950s and 1960s. Understanding the logic behind the decisions made at that time also helps to contextualise the ongoing debates in the twenty-first century. Second, Ito rightly recognises the significance for Vietnam of the Chinese experience with ethnic classification. However, for this discussion she draws mainly on Chinese and Japanese sources and does not make use of the English-language scholarship on the subject. Numerous Western scholars have done work in China similar to Ito's study in Vietnam, and her book would have benefited from reference to their findings.