Concepts and Definitions of Ethnic Group, Ethnicity and Ethnic Conflict

The term ethnic is derived from the Greek ethnos, which means stock, multitude, crowd and nation. Many claim that the Greek word in turn derives from the Sanskrit sabbah, community. Today it means primarily people (Bolaffi et al 2003:94). Thus ethnic group can be defined as a group of people who believe sharing one language, particular attachments to kinship, trace common ancestry, having collective memory and history, racial similarity, cultural symbols, common religion, outward physical characteristics,

‘collective proper name, an association with a specific homeland and a sense of solidarity for significant sectors of the population.’² Weber quoted in Stone / Dennis (2003:32) defines ethnic groups as ‘human groups (other than kinship groups), which cherish a belief in their common origins […] that it provides a basis for the creation of a community.’ Scherrer (1999:57-8) refers Ethnicity as a term used to describe a variety of forms of mobilization which ultimately relate to the autonomous existence of specifically ethnic forms of socialization.[…] states, transnational companies, liberation movements, migrants’ organizations, political parties, pressure groups, strategic groups, military leaders and populists all seek to make political capital out of ‘ethnic identity’. Ethnicity is mostly negatively charged in political discourse, having connotations such as

‘primitive’,’ backward’, or ‘’irrational’. According to Markakis (1996:300) ethnic identities are social constructs defined by the historical conditions in which they emerge.

Bolaffi and his associates (2003: 94) suggested that “what we are witnessing today are not the atavistic remnants of an earlier age bound to disappear with modernization, but fairly recent creations shaped by social change.”

Overall, ethnicity implies the existence of an ‘us’ and a ‘them’, and therefore the concept of ‘other’ [that in turn evolve an ethnic Sentiment.] As cited in (Stone/Dennis 2003:32) “ethnic sentiment is an expression of who I am? How I identify myself, to what group of people I belonged.” Generally, there are three main schools of thought on the questions of how ethnic identity is formed and why it persists: the Primordialist, the instrumentalist, and the constructivist. Väyrynen (1999:128) refers Primordialism

2 The last three features for a group sharing the same ethnicity are listed in (Smith1999:21 in Sotiropoulou 2002:2) Smith refers to six main attributes to define an ethnie.

(essentialism) view of an ethnic groups as “givens [rather than chosen in which one cannot simply decide to join].” Ray et al.(2006: 13) further explained view of earlier primordialists (such as Geertz, Isaacs, Naroll, Gordon, Mitchell, Epstein, and Furnivall) considered ethnicity to be a biologically given phenomenon organized around objective markers such as common cultural attributes. Väyrynen (1999:128) added more names of primordialist scholars such as Edward Shils, Clifford Geertz, Anthony Smith, Walker Connor and Donald Harowitz all of them share that ethnic identity and/or ethnicity is historically rooted, deeply embedded in people’s culture, reinforced by collective myths and memories, social institutions and practices, perpetuated inter generationally by early socialization and therefore likely to persist overtime. Harowitz argues people are born into an ethnic group in which they will die. There is antithesis to this primordial theory of ethnicity that ranges from the liberalists’ view to Marxists’ ideology. Esman (2004:38) on his part elaborates justifications of both ideological views regarding the primordial theory. He states “the two leading social philosophies of that era (twentieth century), liberal individualism and Marxism for different reasons rejected ethnicity as a legitimate basis for social organization. To liberals, the individual is the sole legitimate unit of value in human society and presumed social autonomy of the individual is suspect. And Marxists regarded economic class as the sole objective cleavage in the capitalist phase of socio-economic development. Thus, ethnic solidarity was either a surrogate for underlying class divisions, or more likely an expression of ‘false consciousness’

provoked and perpetuated by the capitalist ruling class in order to split and weaken the proletariat by dividing it into mutually hostile ethnic groups. Capitalist assumes ethnicity to evaporate through modernization while Marxists belief ethnicity ‘to be replaced by

‘real’ and ‘objective’ class consciousness:” Nevertheless, as argued by many scholars like Markakis (1996:299) “damned by nationalists as divisive ('tribalism') and by intellectuals as regressive ('primordial'), ethnicity not only survived but also grew stronger as the post-colonial state grew weaker. The fading of nationalism, the failure of development, the decline of the state, and the resulting general insecurity enhanced the political potential of ethnicity, as people sought support in traditional networks of solidarity and forms of identity.”

The other school of thought, Instrumentalism (Voluntarism) considered ethnic identity as “rational choice of an individual to belong him/herself in any group” (Seyoum Y.1997: 25-26). As cited in (Väyrynen 1999:128), the instrumentalists’ view of rational choice that in its extreme form reduces ethnic identification to cost-benefit-oriented economic choices. Ray and his associates (2006: 13) argued that “Instrumentalist’s (some versions of which are referred to as circumstantialists or ethnoskeptics) regard ethnicity either as a surrogate for more basic social forces such as class or colonial domination or as a fraud perpetrated by persons with self-serving objectives to exploit mass publics in pursuit of their political/economic ambitions. [Thus] ethnicity is mainly a myth propagated and exploited by ambitious and unscrupulous political entrepreneurs to build political followings for themselves and help them to attain and secure political power:”

Likewise, Crocker (1999:4) correlates ethnicity as “Machiavellian tendencies and tactics of political leaders.” Overall, according to the instrumentalists view ethnicity is a product of elite manipulation in which leaders mobilize their followers in ethnic lines.

Group identity is not a static concept: As argued by (Samarasinghe et al.1999: 18) “it is dynamic; there are situations where group identity changes over time. This could happen particularly in situation of conflict when population segments feel the need to assert-or even create-their own identity and to politicize it to protect their special interests.” Paul R. Brass (1991) quoted in Ray et al. (2006:12) further concluded that

‘politicized ethnicity is thus the creation “of elites, who draw upon, distort, and sometimes fabricate materials from the cultures of the groups they wish to represent in order to protect their well-being or existence or to gain political and economic advantage for their groups as well as for themselves.”

The third school of thought, that’s also the basic concept share in the course of this study, is constructivism or situationalism, which opposes both the primordial and instrumental approaches. As written in Ray et al. (2006: 12) “constructivists categorically reject the notion that ethnic identity is either a natural/given phenomenon or that it is simply a tool that is invoked and manipulated by ethnic entrepreneurs for individual or collective political ends. Rather ethnic identities are enduring social constructions. They are products of human actions and choices.” Ray et al. (2006: 12) further quoted Max Weber, one of the earlier writers who stressed the social construction of ethnic identity,

viewed ethnic groups as “human groups whose belief in a common ancestry, in spite of its origins being mostly fictions, is so strong that it leads to the creation of a community.”

Austvoll (2006:4) further argued that “an individual can have a particular ethnic identity because other members of the category recognize and treat that individual as if s/he has that particular ethnic identity.” As such, ethnic identity is “socially constructed that can also be fragmented and destroyed eventually rather than natural phenomena” (Kasfir 1979: 370). Ray and his associates (2006: 11) further quoted Rex who categorized three things important for group creation that are “emotional satisfaction or warmth that one receives from belonging to a group; a shared belief in common origin and history of the group, however mythical or fictive, that helps to set up the boundaries of the group; and the felling among group members that the social relations, within which they live, [are]

‘sacred’ and [include] not merely the living but [also] the dead.” In the handbook of FPDL (2003:3) ethnic groups are often compared with an inverted refrigerator. “The refrigerator generates inward coldness, but creates outward warmth. Ethnic groups create inward warmth for their members but also outward coldness, in order to be able to do so.”

Generally, it’s logical to accept that ethnicity by itself cannot be a source of conflict but can be used as a tool to mobilize a certain group of entity constructed through courses of socio-political changes. Thus, ethnic identity itself might vary through time in tune with social characteristics of humans’s dynamic interaction among themselves. However, societies will continue to divide themselves in line with the dichotomy of ‘us’ and ‘them’

that lead to physical antagonism. As Kona (2003:2) expressed the peril of hostility along ethnic lines by stating that “young children are trained from the very early stages of life to identify, hate and target presumed traditional enemies of their ethnic groups.[…] The children grow with mind-sets of enemies and throughout life train to destroy the enemy.”

Tidwell (1998:174) stated “metaphorically, it is as if people are permeated by a spider’s web, or connected by countless invisible webs that link one another’s past and present, and which influence the course of their behaviour.” While framing how collective myths and guilt become persuasive in Bosnia ethnic cleansing Block (1993) in (Oberschall 2007:18) quoted an interview of paramilitaries in Bosnia saying that “ ‘[t]hey’ act in unison; children grow into adults; women give birth to future warriors; even old people stab you from behind; ‘they’ will never change.” As Kaplan (1994 in Oberschall

2007:11) suggested stereotyping the others group particularly absorbed in childhood is dangerous as it lead to hatred. Ancient hatred assumes that ethnic identities and group membership are primordial, sharply distinct, resilient to change, salient across all institutions and activities, and present high risk for repeated destructive conflicts. Even though, there are scholars who argue that ethnicity has nothing to do with conflicts between groups who confront over politico-economic factors, the menace of ethnic conflicts are reportedly boosted. Saideman (2001:4) quoted the speech of Russian Foreign Minister (New York Times Sep.29, 1993), “the threat of ethnic violence today is no less serious than the threat of nuclear war was yesterday.” In his first speech at the UN, as quoted by Wiberd et al. (1999:57-58), President Bill Clinton has affirmed that regional ethnic conflict to be one of the three most important sources of international instability. Moreover as cited in (O'Flynn 2006:3) “in two-thirds of all contemporary conflicts the ethnic factor (ethnicity) is a dominant or influential component. Despite statistics are always open to dispute, all the available evidence supports the view that ethnic conflict is one of the most serious and pervasive political problems that we face today.” As further argued by Wiberd et al. (1999:57-58), “ethnicity is mostly negatively charged in political discourse, having connotations such as ‘primitive`, ‘backward’, or

‘irrational’. […] On the contrary, the importance of the ethnic dimension and its politicization has increased-influencing issues of status and categorization in violent conflicts as well as processes of civilian disputes, social demarcation and exclusion.”

Young M. (2004:6-7) on his part asserted that “political ethnicity commonly known as

‘tribalism’, became visible [in Africa] in the 1950s. It was negatively viewed in two ways: firstly, as antithesis to progress, an artifact of traditionality in the African countryside which modernizers wanted to contain at the social margins, and secondly as a divisive and fissiparous force which posed great danger to the consolidation of new states. The First three independence decades of single-party authoritarianism drove ethnicity into the shadows. The widespread though uneven democratization surge of the 1990s revealed that ethnicity was alive and well. Ethnicity thus proved neither an expression of backwardness easily swept aside, nor a mortal threat to the political order.”

Even if one could argue against the primordial view of ancient hatred as a source of ethnic conflict, the actual rapidly increasing of ethnicity based violent conflicts itself

indicates that fear and hate propaganda among various ethnic groups intensify the crisis further. Oberschall (2007:12) magnified the role of fear as a source of conflict. He argues

“security dilemma (also referred to as the spiral of insecurity) holds that […] what derives the conflict is not hatred, but mistrust and fear.” Esman (2004:71-73) has identified three main conditions that precipitate conflict among ethnic groups. Those are

“[c]ommunity [h]onour /[d]ignity, tangible threats to the vital interests of an ethnic community by another ethnic group and fresh opportunities to gain advantages or redress grievances to upset an unsatisfactory status quo that had previously been considered impervious to change.” More specifically Ray et al. (2006:19) cited that “large-scale ethnic identity formation and politicization is promoted when various ethnic groups are forced to compete with each other for scarce resources and rewards.” Training manual of FPDL (2003:15) stipulated that “competition and fight over scarce resources, or what are perceived as scarce resources, are very often the starting positions in the conflicts between different ethnic groups. ‘Winner-takes-it-all’ competitive approaches transform these conflicts in long-term deadly fights ended from time to time by short periods of dominance that leave one party with the desire for revenge, or periods of compromise that really do not satisfy parties, and are used by both sides to prepare for the next fight.”

Furthermore, the economic root of conflicts like poverty, unemployment, corruption etc, might also lead to physiological factors in which a onetime privileged group may oppose to give up the benefits of domination. Therefore, as Oberschall (2007:15) explained confrontation may be initiated by the group who feel strong and confident of winning against the “threat to its favored position and way of life.” Apart from the economic grievance’s role in ethnic rivalry, cultural differences can also led to confrontation if those differences are ‘politicized and exploited for particular interests’. As Wiberg et al.

(1999:166-7) stipulated the threat evolved on cultural values particularly of collective memories which are “a kind of living history book, giving a record of past traumatic experiences.” Spencer and Wollman (200:98 in Sotiropoulou 2004:10) added “common memories about the past that reflects all kinds of events, including disputes, past injustice and traumas, violence and victimization, wars, and mass violence may fuel conflicts. And if ethnicity is politicized it will offer ‘fertile ground for the nationalistic ideologies to

disintegrate the state and lead its people to conflict. Ethnicity thus became the meat for the nationalist meal.”

According to Horowitz (1985) quoted in Dutceac (2004:24) violent confrontations between groups of people that share the same state but not the same ethnic identity are generally designate as Ethnic conflict. In fact ethnic conflicts could also impact international relations of states. Because the conflict in one state could “threatens to spill over into interstate relations” (Ryan 1995). Moreover if ethnic groups are straddle in different national states due to historical courses, then internal conflict irrupts in one state would automatically spread over to cause ethnic tensions to rise in neighboring states.

Therefore, as Suhrke and Noble (1977:3) argued “ethnic conflicts have peculiar characteristics that place them in the area where domestic and international politics interact. [Because] in many multiethnic states considerations of how a given foreign policy will and should affect the domestic ethnic balance continuously and decisively influences foreign policy formulation.” In this case Ryan (1995:32) suggested as “ethnic groups may be seen as […] a Trojan horse serving the interests of outside powers.”

Soeters (2005:4) described the international dimensions ethnic rivalry and concluded that

“in the current globalizing world nothing remains internal.” Suhrke et al. (1977:213) in their part classified the level of complexity of an ethnic conflict related to factors such as the number of outside parties involved, amount of support, direct response to the conflict and influence on interstate cooperation. Thus ethnic conflicts can be categorized as

“complex conflict expansion, simple conflict expansion, complex conflict containment, and simple conflict containment.” Suhrke and his associates (ibid: 226) have further classified the type of interventions in ethnic conflicts as instrumental and affective approaches. An instrumental intervention is involvement of the third party due to the

“strategic significance of the territory or political alliances of the main protagonists”

while the later is caused when “cross-boundary ethnic ties form the basis for outside involvement in the internal conflict.”

In regards to external involvement, Esman (2004:101-102) classified external influence on ethnic conflicts due to Irredenta³, Diaspora and Strategic Intervention in

3 Irredenta- Itallian word [irredento] means ‘unredeemed’ referring originally to the nineteenth century territories inhabited by Italian speakers, but ruled mostly by foreign states. It became the sacred duty of the

which the latter is motivated (not by ethnic solidarity like others) but solely by realpolitik, by cold-blooded calculations of national self-interest. (For example Israeli arms and financial and advisors support to south Sudan or Kurdish of Iraq) The meaning of land conceived by the people who live within the territory has also a power to invoke conflicts among different ethnic groups. As ethnicity is mostly links with territoriality, ethnic conflicts are somehow connected with territoriality as well. Platteau (1996:31) explained about Evolutionary Theory of Land Rights (ETLR) in which “rapid population growth, increased commercialisation of agriculture [or livestock export market in pastoral areas] plus regionalism [results] increasing land scarcity and growing land values [that in turn would lead to] strategic move to claim more lands or to protect customary access.”

Thus territoriality may be taken as a factor of conflict. Territories are often seen as manifestations of violence, exclusion and power. At the same time, however, territoriality has also traditionally been seen as a solution for the problems of war and violence and its role is essential to the positive values of security and identity. As stated in (Forsberg 1999:91), “territory normally becomes a symbol for social kinship and an inalienable part of the common ethnic identity. In the case of ethnonational groups, the attachment to the territory is linked with a perception of a possessive relationship between people and space.” Ronnquist (1999:148) affirmed Forsberg’s thesis on people and space relation in such a way that “the territory in question is imagined as a historic ‘homeland’ as a rightful inheritance from past generations. This may be far from a very ‘true’ or ‘realistic’

recollection of the group’s past experiences and could perhaps best be described as a half-remembered but never forgotten history.” Similarly the ethnonationalist Irredentas are also major causes of inter-state and intra-state conflicts (ibid: 149). All in all as Kratochwil et al (1985) quoted in (Forsberg 1995:27) cited “territorial disputes tend to be more long standing than other kinds of disputes.” In fact, ethnic conflicts demand a careful analysis of phases of conflict development in relation to the extent of politicisation of identity in order to bring a lasting resolution.

unifying Italian state to ‘redeem’, that is to reunite them with the homeland by diplomatic and if need be, by popular uprisings and military means. (Esman 2004:101-102)