Ethnic Conflict and Nationalism
With the growing influence of industrialization, modernization, and globalization starting in the 20th century, there has been speculation on its relation to the evident explosion of ethnic conflicts. These conflicts have arisen in the Balkans, the Middle East, Northern Ireland, China, Rwanda and Myanmar all in the span of a few generations. Although the circumstances of these conflicts differ from majority rule oppression on the minority to rival groups battling for statehood in civil wars, they all embody deep ethnic tensions unseen in pre-modern times. Differing theories such as the primordialist, modernist and social-constructivist viewpoints have attempted to explain this surge of tensions in the modern context. Regardless of one’s views, there is no question of the persistent, divisive and dangerous onset of ethnic struggles. Based on the research conducted, the spread of modernity has proliferated nation formation and current ethnic conflicts because of increasing anxiety over the uncertainty of globalization which has created a reactionary rise in nationalism.
It is important to first define the terms of modernity, ethnicity, and ethnic conflict in order to understand how they differ from other historical conflicts. Fred Riggs defines modernity, “to refer to the structural changes that link a modern state with industrialization, democratization, and national identity” (274). The modernist perspective uses this definition to claim that as states modernize, they centralize and create shared customs and education which inevitably creates states. On the other side is the primordialist viewpoint which believes that some cultures have characteristics that lead them to develop into nations which later evolve into nation-states. The social-constructivists remedies the two and suggests that both industrialization and ethnies lead to the development of states. Another important term is modern ethnicity which has evolved into more than a cultural identity due to new privileges awarded to citizens of states. Riggs argues, “Passports symbolize this fact of modern life-states admit credentialed aliens as a reciprocal favor, but stateless persons without such credentials are viewed with suspicion and treated like criminals” (277). Understanding nationalism and how it supports these theories on ethnicity is integral to understanding how these conflicts arise.
Nationalism is the vehicle for nation formation especially in our globalizing world. Catarina Kinnvall’s main argument in Globalization and Religious Nationalism: Self, Identity, and the Search for Ontological Security is that “individuals seek to reaffirm their identity in nationalism or religion in increasing uncertain times of globalization” (000000). Furthering understanding of the role of globalization will better the argument for the reactionary rise in nationalism in recent memory.
Catarina Kinnvall’s work is focused on the relationship between globalization and nationalism and consequently, their role in nation formation. The sphere of globalization has grown significantly in the 20th century. She writes, “the globalization of economics and politics is being felt among ordinary citizens as time and space are being compressed and as events elsewhere, real or imagined, are becoming increasingly localized” (742). Although as an international community there is no way we are close to reaching a homogenous culture, the effects of the mainstream global influence is still enough to create anxiety for a number of cultures.
The application of a globalized, free-market capitalist, liberal democracy is unsettling for many. Especially because there is a lot of evidence to suggest that it increases economic inequality and benefits only those who have been already reaping the benefits of the system (742). She continues, “it is a world where many people feel intensified levels of insecurity as the life they once led is being contested and changed at the same time” (742). This is important because in a world of escalating existential anxiety, the appeal for groups or ideologies that offer simple answers escalates as well. Kinnvall notes the significance of nationalism and religion in these circumstances. She writes, “any collective identity that can provide such security is a potential pole of attraction” (742). The dangerous component to these appeals is that they can be exploited by political entrepreneurs that recognize that it is easier to unify people over simple causes than complex ones (742). Many suggest that these entrepreneurs are conditional for ethnic conflicts to arise because they are the figures that push the ideas.
The process of nation-formation is based on the culmination of cultural processes such as education, religion, language and customs. These conditions rally groups of people around a singular identity. Benedict Anderson writes, “the convergence of capitalism and print technology on the fatal diversity of human language created the possibility of a new form of imagined community, which in its basic morphology set the stage for the modern nation” (58). Where globalization emphasizes the importance of homogenization, nationalism emphasizes the ‘will of the people.’ These ‘imagined communities’ are what modern day nations arise from. Kinnvall similarly credits what she calls ‘chosen traumas’ and ‘chosen victories.’ These are the historical stories that a group will have that they can use to create prideful sentiments for one’s nation and sets them apart from the rest of the world. These concepts are the basis for how nations are formed through this means of nationalism. She writes that this is the first step ostracized or disenfranchised groups of people will make in the search of an identity. Rhodes’ defined imagined communities as, “communities that exist because we imagine them to exist. They are social constructs. Groups of individuals, for one reason or another, come to self identify or to be identified by others as a community” (354). This idea says that nationalism is rooted in a somewhat made up, imagined story that unites a group of people. Edward Rhodes references Ernest Gellner who wrote, “‘Nationalism is not the awakening of nations to self-consciousness: it invents nations where they do not exist’” (49). All of these thinkers are proposing the same idea which is that nations are not concrete groups but rather communities united around a language, history, and other cultural processes.
Kinnvall uses the example of the Isreali-Palestinian conflict and how both groups have reclaimed and reinterpreted religious, historical, and archeological evidence to fit each of their claims to Gaza (756). The formation of nationalism within a group is crucial in constructing one’s identity and especially how that identity relates to other groups. The issue with having an imagined shared history is that they are often used to legitimize conflicts with other groups who they may have had or have adversarial relations with. Daniel Bar-Tal writes how the Israel and Jewish case has created a sense of collective fear that supersedes generations. Long term existential threats to them as a people in premodern times as well as modern times solidifies these emotions. He explains, “The trauma of the Holocaust leaves an indelible mark on the national psychology, the tenor and content of public life, the conduct of foreign affairs, on politics, education, literature and the arts” (199). This is an example of how shared history (in this case trauma) permeates a group so deeply that resolving the tensions appears impossible. In the Isreal-Palestinian case, “it was protracted, violent, total, central, with much investment in its continuation; it was perceived as irreconcilable and zero-sum” (610). Although, these communities are imagined, the effects of trauma can manifest itself through generations.
Although it is clear that globalization aids in the formation of nations, then how does it aid in intensifying tensions amongst them? Well, as said before, the uncertainty of globalization is unsettling for many cultures that seek to preserve their identity. Micheal Mann argues that ethnic cleansing (the ultimate form of ethnic conflict) is the dark side effect of an increasing globalizing world. With worldwide integration, is the inevitable spread of liberal democratic values. Often times democratization is the hand of foreign intervention by larger powers at the expense of smaller nations. His argument is based on the fact that ethnic conflicts are typically based on two groups laying claim to the same space. However, there are always examples of a stronger group in a multicultural state desiring to get rid of the others. The conditions of ethnic cleansing are, “often an outgrowth of an unrelated crisis such as a war, ethnic cleansing breaks out when the weaker side fights because of the promise of outside aid-as in the Yugoslav, Rwandan, Kashmiri, and Chechen cases-or when the stronger side believes it can cleanse a state at considerable profit and little risk-as in the Armenian and Jewish genocides” (Ikenberry). All of these examples have undergone different conditions, some authoritarian regimes and others liberal democracies, but all have occurred since the beginning of the 20th century. Further emphasizing that there is a strange correlation between modern times and cases of ethnic conflict.
In terms of the bi-ethnic example, the two groups place their legitimacy in their claim based on popular rule – a fundamentally democratic (and therefore modern) concept. This focus on the ‘rule of the people’ was not founded in the times of absolute monarchical rule. This is the key argument for ethnic conflict being a modern phenomenon. Mann focuses on the transformation from class struggles into ethnic struggles since the onset of the 20th century. He writes, “ethnic hostility rises where ethnicity trumps class as the main form of social stratification, in the process capturing and channeling classlike sentiments toward ethnonationalism” (5). He contends that ‘demos’ or ‘rule of the people’ always becomes conflated with ‘ethnos’ or ‘rule of the ethnie.’ This claims that genocide is therefore not a product of authoritarianism but rather the product of a state embarking on the transition to democracy. This is because homogenization is key to having the democratic processes produce the desired results of the majority.
As stated earlier, it is important to distinguish the differences between ethnicity and the modern form of ethnicity. There are major consequences to people who are not members of a state. Being a citizen offers a wide array of protections such as freedom to travel, easier process to become a citizen or seek refuge in another country, and countless protections that most citizens enjoy from their own government. Therefore, the desire for self-determination as an ethnie is compelling. Riggs writes, “modernization has, transformed the dynamics of multi-culturalism, making it not just an underlying fact of life but, instead, a focus of inter-group tension in the rising malaise of ethnic nationalism and civil wars, genocide, and refugee” (270). The privileges awarded to nation-states in a global world has intensified inter-group tension in states; as to who should decide its fate.
Another element of globalization proliferating ethnic conflict is the increase in diasporas. Riggs writes, “[modernization] means that the number of ethnic minorities in almost every country of the world will also increase, as will the size and activism of diasporas” (288). Diasporas are members of an ethnic community that live outside of the nation-state or the land they claim to be theirs, often on an international scale. These communities still congregate together and establish their own communities in other countries. Diasporas are passionate about their cultural traditions and therefore are commonly very active in the struggles of their nation. An example of this are the diasporas of the Balkans and the Caucasus. Globalization provides an incredible tool – the internet – to connect and mobilize diasporas into supporting and aiding secessionist movements. Mario Koinova argues that in the 21st century, modern tools like universal access to information, cheap transportation, and global media are critical linkages for the diaspora and the homeland. These tools are often what leads to diasporas radicalizing conflicts in ways they otherwise would not be able to in previous times (334). This new modern element to conflicts is another contributing factor to their increase.
In order to argue the case for modernity’s influence on ethnic conflicts you must also examine the counterargument. The counterargument to this claim would be that globalization has no effect on ethnic conflicts, and that therefore ethnic conflicts arise from differing variables that are specific to the conflict. Anthony Smith argues that, “it is in the properties of such communities [ethnies] that one can find the key to the explosive power of nationalism and, hence, of many of the conflicts that wrack the interstate system today” (49). This means that the qualities of ethnies and their belief systems are what determines if they are likely to embark in conflicts. An example of this could be the Rwandan Genocides. This article suggests, “primordialist accounts of the Rwandan and Burundian bloodbaths of the 1990s accentuate the role of ancient antipathies, mistrust and mutual fear between the Hutu and Tutsi identities in the build up to the post-assassination massacres” (Che). The ongoing tension between the different social statuses of the two groups created a chasm of fear that was destined to descend into violence. Smith finds that within ethnies you can, “find powerful assertions of national self-determination that, if long opposed, will embroil whole regions in bitter and protracted ethnic conflict” (61). Obviously, this argument fails to explain the surge of ethnic conflicts in the past 120 years. There will always be historical convictions of self-determination within a state but the modern context is what fosters these feelings and lets them explode into conflict. The fact that communities can decide by ‘rule of the people’ on what their convictions are, is what modernity allows.
Thus, it can be understood that the role of modernity and a globalized world has had a profound impact on identity and ethnicities. Now, more groups than ever before have the ability of self-determination, which can often be at odds with other group’s ideas for themselves. The impact of the ever-growing sphere of globalization can often occur at the expense of certain groups. The uncertainty of how a new global order will affect ethnic groups and their traditions is plenty to create anxieties that are often solved by calls to nationalism for one’s state. They also allow diasporas to be active members of their nation and can often radicalize conflicts from the periphery. Nationalism has certainly gained traction in the past century and will likely continue to do so as our world becomes more homogeneous in terms of economic, political, and ideological values. With this there will likely be more nations formed as more groups aim for self-determination and more conflicts will arise.
Works Cited
Bar-Tal, D. ‘Why does fear overrides hope in…. intractable conflicts’, Political Psychology
Vol.22(3), 2001, pp. 601-627
Bosen, P. (1993) “The Security Dilemma and Ethnic Conflict,” Survival 35:1
CHE, AFA’ANWI MA’ABO. “Linking Instrumentalist and Primordialist Theories of Ethnic Conflict.” AFA’ANWI MA’ABO CHE, June 2016, http://www.e-ir.info/2016/06/01/linking-instrumentalist-and-primordialist-theories-of-ethnic-conflict/.
Gellner, E. (1981) “Nationalism”, Theory and Society. Vol. 10. Springer.
Horowitz, D. ‘The cracked foundations of the right to secede’, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 14,
No. 2, 2003, pp. 5-17
Koinova, M. (2011) “Diasporas and secessionist conflicts: the mobilization of the Armenian,
Albanian and Chechen diasporas”, Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol 34.
Lemay-Hebert, N. ‘Statebuilding without Nation-building? Legitimacy, State Failure and
the Limits of the Institutionalist Approach’, Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2009, pp. 21-45
Mann, M. (2005) “The Dark Side of Democracy Explaining Ethnic Cleansing”, The Dark
Side of Democracy; Explaining Ethnic Cleansing, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shain, Y. and Sherman M. (1998) “Dynamics of disintegration: diaspora, secession and the
paradox of nation-state”, Nation and Nation-state, Vol. 4.
Smith, A. (1993) “The Ethnic Sources of Nationalism”, Survival. JSTOR
Stathis, K. (2003) “Ontology of political violence”, Perspectives on Violence, Vol 3.
Swimelar, S. Education in Post-war Bosnia: The nexus of Societal Security, Identity and
Nationalism, Ethnopolitics, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2013, pp. 161-182
Todorov, M. (1994) “The Balkans: from discovery to intervention”, Slavic Review, Vol. 53
Anne Leahy 