Ethnicity+and+Ethnic+Conflict,

Namalie Jayasinghe Comparative and Regional Seminar ** Ashutosh Varshney ** “**Ethnicity and Ethnic Conflict**” __ Premise __ : Varshney discusses ethnic and nationalist violence through the lens of four schools of thought: essentialism, instrumentalism, constructivism and institutionalism. ** Arguments about Ethnic Identity and/or Ethnic Conflict – Four Traditions ** // *Varshney lists five, but since he decided to not talk about realism, I took it off the list. // ** Essentialism ** __ Main Idea __ · Ethnic hatred is old and historically rooted – “ancient hatreds”. The primordialism of ethnic groups was a stronger bond and a more powerful motivator of human conduct than the pull of civic ties of the new states. __ Problems with this approach __ : · Variations – if hatred was so rooted, why did ethnic violence rise and fall at various times? · Modern provenance of conflict – there is no such thing as “ancient hatred” – it could be a clash of a new migrant group with the older inhabitants · Constructivism – nations are a modern construction, ethnic animosities happen on a small scale – local and regional. · __ So why is essentialism still around? __ It’s morphed – combined with psychological theories about emotions and human nature – //neo-essentialis**t**// o People hate – the existence of hatred doesn’t need to have an origin in primordial times o Fear, hatred, resentment, rage – especially __resentment__: Petersen argues that most of the ethnic violence in the 20th century Eastern Europe is due to resentment born out of status reversal ** Instrumentalism ** __ Main Idea __ · Ethnicity is not inherent in human nature or intrinsically valuable. It masks a deeper core of interests, which are either economic or political. Leaders manipulate ethnicity in order to get political power or state resources. __ Problems with this approach: __ · Why should the masses listen/follow the manipulations of the leaders? · Why do the leaders think that ethnicity is the means to power INSTEAD of mobilizing on economic or ideological programs? · Ethnic collective action – free rider problems – meaning, why join in with others? __ How do instrumentalist scholars address these issues? __   · ** Collective action problem ** : Hardin says it’s NOT a collective action problem; it’s more of a coordination issue. Therefore it is rational for actors to cooperate if others are cooperating (free-rider a non-issue). All you need is a charismatic leader or a focus to keep it all together. The focus here can be ethnicity. Varshney’s problem with this response is how do you decide what is a coordination game and what is a form of collective action? · ** Restrict the domain of instrumental rationality ** (Fearon and Laitin): Ethnicity is a communication and information device rather than an intense form of group attachment, which may explain some of the violence, but historical indignities may still be relevant. · ** Greed vs. Grievance ** (Collier and Hoeffler): based on a large-N model, Collier and Hoeffler at first argued that it is wrong to think that civil wars were the consequence of accumulated grievances of a targeted ethnic group, believing instead that a greed-based model fit the data better, where rebellion is an industry in which looting generates profits. BUT later said that you can’t totally throw out the grievance model. Better to not separate greed and grievance but instead consider them together as motives for civil war. ** Constructivism – new and dominant approach ** __ Main Idea __ · Ethnic and national are constructs of the modern era. Pre-modern times, identities were locally or regionally based. But modernity transformed the meaning of ethnic identities by bringing “the masses” into an expanded framework of consciousness. · Difference between instrumentalism and constructivism – with instrumentalism, ethnicity is more of a short-run fluid idea, so it can change at different times and places. With constructivism, ethnicity is about the long run “stickiness” of identities. · __ Three Mechanisms __ : o Technological: Print capitalism, spread of vernacular languages o Ideational: Can no longer rely on knowing one’s identity in terms of a hierarchy o Colonial policies/institutions/practices __ Problems with this approach: __ · Constructivism does a good job with explaining identity but not at ethnic conflict. Sometimes the distinction between identity and conflict isn’t drawn. · Problem with the “master cleavage” idea – that every society has two groups in conflict (protestant vs. catholic). Master cleavage is usually on the national level – BUT ethnic conflict tends to be locally or regionally concentrated. · Selection bias: Constructivist arguments based on case studies of violence, not a comparison of peaceful and violent cases. ** Institutionalism ** __ Main Idea __ · Deals with arguments about ethnic conflicts, not identities like with constructivism. Core idea is that the designs of political institutions explain why some multiethnic societies have violence, and others, peace. Institutionalists believe that ethnic pluralism requires political institutions distinct from those that are more homogenous. · Major argument dividing institutionalism – Lijphart vs. Horowitz: Lijphart argues in favor of consociationalism (ethnic group’s affairs are left to its elite) and Horowitz is against this, thinks that political parties need to appeal across ethnic groups, especially since identities could change and elites can’t expect to hold on to the loyalty of a group forever. __ New Developments: __ //Varhshey doesn’t really frame them as weaknesses…// · Moving beyond national-level institutions: Institutionalists beginning to recognize the need to understand local and regional variations. · Relationship between institutions and identity choice: how institutions can transform the salience of identities…identity choice a dependent variable. · Constructivism + Institutionalism: regarding the stickiness or fluidity of identities. Institutionalists beginning to accept fluidity of identities, depending on the institutional context. Are identities fluid only in some circumstances? If so, how fluid are they?