Enduring Divisions: Ethnicity, Conflict, and
Reconciliation in The Great Lakes Region
Submission Date: 2/06/2014 Student Number: 10619437
Ethnicity is sometimes described as if it were skin, a fate
that cannot be changed. In fact, what is essential about
ethnicity is its plasticity. It is not a skin, but a mask,
constantly repainted.
Michael Ignatieff, 1998
Supervisor: Nanci Adler
Holocaust & Genocide Studies MA Thesis
Contents
Introduction
P. 4
Chapter One:
The Construction of Ethnicity and its Relation to Genocide & Ethnic Cleansing P. 10
1.1 A Theory of Ethnicity; what is it? P. 10
1.2 How is Ethnicity Formed? P. 14 1.2.1 Primordialism
1.2.2 Constructivism
1.3 The Link Between Ethnicity & Violence P. 18 1.3.1 Social Identity Theory
1.3.2 The Narcissism of Minor Differences
1.4 How is Violence Engineered? P. 23 1.4.1 Elite Theory 1.4.2 Symbolist Theory 1.5 Conclusion
Chapter Two:
Rwanda, Ethnicity, and its ‘False Reconciliation’ P. 31
2.1 Ethnicity in Rwanda: An Overview P. 32 2.1.1 Colonial Involvement
2.1.2 Sociobiological ‘Differences’ 2.1.3 Socioeconomic ‘Differences’ 2.1.4 Political Identities
2.2 How has the ICTR Dealt With the Question of Ethnicity? P. 37
2.2.1 How was Genocide Proven?
2.3 The Failure of Transitional Justice Models to Resolve Ethnic Divisions P. 42
2.3.1 What is Reconciliation and How can it be Achieved?
2.3.2 The Transitional Justice Mechanisms
2.3.3 Ingando
2.3.4 Gacaca
2.4 Is Denying Ethnicity Going to Lead to More Reconciliation? P. 51 2.4.1 The Politics of Memory
2.5 Conclusion
Chapter Three:
The Democratic Republic of Congo and the Abuse of Ethnic Identity P. 59 3.1 Conflict in DRC: An Overview P. 60 3.1.1 Ethnicity in Eastern DRC
3.2 Myths of Origin and the Abuse of Ethnicity P. 63 3.2.1 Legal Conceptions of Citizenship
3.2.2 Conférence Nationale Souveraine
3.3 Land Disputes & Ethnic Conflict P. 69 3.3.1 The Ituri Conflict
3.3.2 Land Disputes & Ethnicity in the Kivus
3.4 The Role and Challenges of the ICC in DRC P. 77 3.5 Conclusion
Conclusion
P. 82
Bibliography
P. 86
Introduction
This work seeks to investigate three crucial issues: what is the nature of ethnic identity and how is it created? How can societies reconcile after mass ethnic violence? Why do ethnic groups resort to violence? These issues will be addressed in an interdisciplinary manner through the lens of history and social science. What ethnicity is and who is included and excluded from it is difficult to concretely distinguish. As Adam Jones points out, “On one hand, ethnic identification seems so fluid and mutable as to lack almost any ‘objective’ character. On the other hand, ethnicity is arguably the dominant ideological impetus to conflict and genocide worldwide.”1 What does ethnicity mean when
two groups share the same culture, language, territory and traditions? Why is it that ethnic divisions sometimes lead to genocide? Ethnically diverse communities very often live harmoniously within a shared territory, led by civic-‐ minded leaders who watch over their constituents without recourse to violence. As René Lemarchand notes, “Not everything about ethnicity translates into bloodshed and genocide.”2 The question that this work will address is what is the
connection between ethnic groups and violent conflict? Why and when does the ethnic group resort to violence?3 What is the trigger that makes ethnic
differences turn violent? Once a society has experienced mass ethnic violence, how can reconciliation best be achieved?
In order to carry out this investigation, it is first necessary to investigate the theory of ethnicity. Chapter one explores the various models used to explain the process of ethnogenesis. How do groups become ethnicized? What is the difference between ethnicity and race? Why is it that at times ethnically diverse communities can coexist harmoniously, and at other times these ethnic divisions can be the source of violent conflict? The first chapter gets to the roots of these complex questions in order to lay the theoretical foundations for the following chapters. Drawing on works by Fredrik Barth, Jack Eller & Reed Coughlan, and
1 Jones, A., Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction, London: Routledge, (2006), P. 427. 2 Lemarchand, R., The Dynamics of Violence in Central Africa, Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, (2009), P. 49.
James Fearon & David Laitin, ethnicity is demonstrated to be a socially constructed phenomenon. These authors all argue against the primordialist theory of ethnogenesis, which purports the now widely discredited notion that ethnic groups exist prior to any experience or interaction. Once the content of ethnicity has been analysed, and process by which these groups are formed has been established, the links between ethnicity and violence can then be investigated. The work of Jolle Demmers is most helpful in this endeavour. Demmers presents and analyses a number of theories that are key to understanding why ethnic differences lead to violence. Social identity theory highlights the importance of group comparison and competition. Individuals reduce uncertainty and increase security by aligning themselves with groups. This process leads to the formation of in-‐groups and out-‐groups. The work of Michael Hogg is heavily drawn on in order to analyse this theory. His work demonstrates that although a person may have multiple identities, in times of conflict, ethnic and national identities become emphasized due to people’s need to align with an ‘us group’.
A crucial issue is raised in the examination of social identity theory, which gets to the crux of this work: “recategorization to form a superordinate common in-‐ group identity can be difficult to achieve.”4 The relevance of this when
considering the proscription of ethnicity and formation of a singular Rwandan ethnic group is crucial. Ethnic differences are quite often so minor that even those within the conflicting groups cannot tell each other apart. If these groups are so similar, why is it that they can have such deep-‐seated animosities towards each other? This phenomenon can be explained by a theory developed by Sigmund Freud, Michael Ignatieff and Jacques Semelin called the narcissism of minor difference. The Hutu and Tutsis shared a great many similarities and were very difficult to tell apart. Differences are therefore constructed by comparing group identities. Due to their many similarities, these groups felt the need to accentuate their minor differences in order to differentiate themselves from the ‘other’. The theory demonstrates that the closer the identities of the two groups
4 Hogg, M.A., ‘Social Identity Theory’, Contemporary Social Psychological Theories, Ed. Burke, P.J.,
are, the more hostile they may behave towards each other. Two key theories of how the violence between these groups occurs are presented. The elite theory explains this as the result of rational choices by elites in the pursuit of a particular end; violence is orchestrated to serve a particular goal. The symbolist theory of ethnic violence argues that cultural constructions of fear and hostility render the violence both necessary and meaningful. Group myths justify ethnic violence out of fear of their extinction. Each of these theories have their place in the ethnic violence that is investigated in the following chapters.
The second chapter addresses ethnicity in post-‐genocide Rwanda. The crux of this chapter is how reconciliation can be achieved after violent ethnic conflict. Firstly, an overview of ethnicity in Rwanda is investigated. How did these two groups become ethnicized? What is the distinction between them? What was the role of colonialism in this process? This investigation provides the foundation for the subsequent argument to unfold. The constructivist theory of ethnogenesis, as outlined in the previous chapter, provides the structure to this investigation. It is established that migration, socioeconomic and political factors all influenced what it meant to be a Hutu or a Tutsi. What membership to these two groups consists of evolved over time and varied from region to region. Once a solid background of these groups has been established, the main role of this chapter can be addressed: ethnicity and the transitional justice mechanisms of post genocide Rwanda.
States that have experienced such widespread interethnic genocide are faced with an enormous challenge in the post-‐genocide period. How can this society reconcile and live harmoniously alongside each other when one group has killed up to twenty per cent of the other? How can neighbours, friends, families and strangers live alongside those who participated or supported the violence that killed their loved ones? By analysing the court transcripts of the ICTR, this chapter seeks to investigate how the issue of ethnicity has been dealt with in the proceedings. How was genocide proven? How can the ethnic groups be demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be ethnic in their nature? How can the perpetrators be shown to have pursued their victims based on their
ethnicity? It is shown that the answers to these questions have been influential in subsequent cases in tribunals dealing with similar cases of ethnic violence. Before the means by which Rwanda has approached the challenging issue of reconciliation is considered, it is crucial to contemplate the concept itself. ‘Reconciliation’ must be untied and analysed before judgements can be made about how to achieve it. To many Rwandans who have fallen victim to the interethnic violence, reconciliation does not mean friendship or even forgiveness. Survivors do not want to befriend the killers of their loved ones. Crucially, reconciliation is about coexistence without recourse to violence. How can victims, survivors, bystanders and perpetrators live together harmoniously after such widespread ethnic conflict? The interviews and fieldwork conducted by Eugenia Zorbas demonstrate that many Rwandans hold on-‐going ethnic animosities. Her work shows that there is a gap between what ‘ordinary Rwandans’ understand by reconciliation, and how the government is addressing it. These animosities are still widespread; they are simply underground rather than public.
Marie Béatrice Umutesi’s examination of reconciliation brings to light five stages that must be addressed in order for a state such as Rwanda to reconcile with its violent past. These stages have not been successfully addressed. This leads into the crux of this chapter: the failure of the current RPF dominated government’s approach to transitional justice in order to achieve reconciliation. The government’s National Unity and Reconciliation Commission (NURC) approached the need for restorative justice after the genocide. By implementing the ingandos, the government embarked on its campaign to eradicate ethnicity from Rwandan society. The ideologues of the current government understood the violence as deriving from the constructed ethnic categories. They followed the logic that if these categories can be constructed, they can also be deconstructed. This is a short-‐sighted conception of the issue. The fundamental matter that is addressed by analysing the mechanisms implemented by the NURC is whether or not denying ethnicity is going to lead to more reconciliation. This investigation demonstrates that it is not. By denying ethnic identities, divisions are not broken down; they are merely swept out of sight. These
divisions in society remain; trust and reconciliation between the two groups has yet to be achieved. By denying ethnic divisions exist, the government is seeking to enforce reconciliation through a unity that does not exist. In order for these underlying ethnic tensions to be eradicated, ethnicity must be addressed head-‐ on. Tolerance of ethnic divisions must be taught in order to avoid recourse to violence; the past must be addressed, not ignored.
In chapter three, the abuse of ethnicity in the Democratic Republic of Congo is investigated. The aim of this chapter is to use the theories of ethnicity and violence investigated in chapter one in order to examine the cause of ethnic violence in DRC. What the sources of ethnic conflicts in the region are, and how ethnicity is abused are the central research goals. In order to make this exploration, various primary sources are drawn upon. As in the exploration of ethnicity in Rwanda, the chapter begins with an examination of ethnogenesis in the region. DRC is an ethnically diverse country, with over two hundred ethnic groups sharing the territory and fighting over legitimate citizenship. The conflicts in DRC are, as with all conflicts, complex and multifaceted. It makes little sense to talk of a single conflict; there are many armed factions fighting for a plethora of different reasons. Yet to each of these causes of the conflicts, there is an ethnic dimension. Ethnic conflict is both a cause and a symptom of the violence in the region.
This notion of citizenship is one of the principle causes of much of the on going conflict and is tightly bound up with ethnic identity. With citizenship comes certain land rights and economic benefits. Therefore the manipulation of certain ethnic groups offers significant advantages to those who wish to emphasize the indigenousness or foreignness of particular ethnicities. This has been the case with much of the Rwandan diaspora in eastern DRC. The elite theory of ethnic conflict is used here to explain much of the violence between ‘indigenous’ and migrating populations. It is demonstrated that president Mobutu engineered the conflict in order to serve his aim of maintaining his grip on power. Similarly, in Rwanda the ethnic divisions were inflamed and conflict was engineered by a small group of Hutu elites in order to maintain their grip on power. However, as
this work demonstrates, ethnic conflict cannot be reduced to these simplistic explanations. It is shown that the symbolist theory of ethnic conflict can also coherently account for many aspects of the violence in both Rwanda and DRC.
The roots of much of the ethnic conflict in the region are in the crucial disputes over land. DRC is extremely rich in minerals and resources; these ethnic ties to land offer those who control it significant wealth. In Ituri, much of the bitter rivalries between the Hema and Lendu ethnic groups can be largely attributed to land disputes. These divisions are shown to have commenced during colonialism. Parallels are drawn between these groups and the Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda. Through the colonial implementation of ethnic hierarchy, divisions were engendered which have prevailed throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. Similar
disputes over land have been a prominent source of violence in both North and South Kivu. Much the same as Rwanda, the role of the International Court is crucial in order to achieve any sort of reconciliation. Yet unlike Rwanda, the conflict is on going in DRC, posing substantial challenges to its task. In order for these ethnic groups to coexist, the culture of impunity must be eradicated; the International Criminal Court is a crucial mechanism in introducing law and justice in the region. However, the ICC faces major challenges in its quest for justice in the region; these challenges are explored.
The Construction of Ethnicity and its Relation to Genocide &
Ethnic Cleansing
Introduction
This chapter investigates the theory of ethnicity in order to provide the theoretical foundations for the subsequent research. It seeks to get to the heart of what ethnicity is, how it is formed, and how it can lead to ethnic cleansing and genocide. The first section examines how various scholars understand ethnicity and traces the origins of its conception. Ethnicities are demonstrated to exhibit six key features. The second section investigates two opposing theories regarding how ethnicities are formed: primordialism and constructivism. Through a thorough analysis of each theory, primordialism is demonstrated to be an out-‐dated, incoherent explanation for ethnogenesis. The relationship between behaviour and group identity, group processes, and intergroup relations are investigated through an exploration of ‘Social identity theory’. Once it is established that ethnicity is socially constructed, two theories concerning why ethnic groups resort to violence are presented. The ‘rational choice’ approach to ethnic violence is conceptualized in the ‘elite theory’ model, whilst the ‘symbolist theory’ emphasises the role of mythmaking and emotional responses in ethnic conflicts.
A Theory of Ethnicity; what is it?
The notions of ‘ethnicity’ and ‘race’ are often confused and amalgamated. In order to understand ethnicity, it is first important to separate it from the concept of ‘race’. Although there is a degree to which the two concepts overlap, it is important to draw distinctions between them. Classically, race was understood in biological terms, this is referred to as racial naturalism. This theory depicts races as possessing hereditary biological features that are shared by all and only members of that specific race, and “explain behavioural, characterological, and
cultural predispositions of individual persons and racial groups.”5 Within
credible academia, this notion of race has been widely dismissed. Instead, most academics within critical race theory purport the notion that race does exist, but its existence is not biological; it is a socio-‐political existence. Racial lines are drawn between groups with specific physical differences, with a relationship to a certain territory, in response to particular political projects. Peter Forster et al explain the central differences between the two concepts,
Race and ethnicity both depend upon ascription in that they are felt to be determined by birth, and involve categories which are largely self-‐perpetuating: but the notion of ‘race’ involves a stronger suggestion of ascription, and postulates some form of ‘objective’ difference. Ethnicity is felt rather than seen, and can be therefore more malleable.6
The term ‘ethnicity’ derives from the ancient Greek ethnos, which, as Richard Jenkins points out, referred to “a range of situations in which a collectivity of humans lived and acted together.”7 Today, this roughly translates as ‘people’ or
‘nation’. In its most basic, reductive form, this translation maintains its meaning. Ethnic groups are one of the oldest and most basic forms of human association and community. Ellis Cashmore’s conception of ethnicity is a helpful outline, “It describes a group possessing some degree of coherence and solidarity composed of people who are, at least latently, aware of having common origins and interests.”8 He goes on to demonstrate the essence of what ‘ethnicity’ is, “an
ethnic group is not a mere aggregate of people or a sector of a population, but a
self-‐conscious collection of people united, or closely related, by shared experiences
[my emphasis].” In many ways, each ethnicity understands itself as distinct from others, although those outside of the ethnic group may find these distinctions hard to see. A relevant example of this are the Hutu and Tutsi ethnicities, which will be explored further later on in this work. The distinct characteristics of each
5 James, M., ‘Race’, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (Winter 2012), Ed. Edward N. Zalta, (Last
accessed 26/03/14) URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/race/>.
6 Forster, P.G., Hitchcock, M., Lyimo, F.F., Race and Ethnicity in East Africa, London: Macmillan
Press LTD, (2000), P. 20.
7 Jenkins, R., Rethinking Ethnicity: Arguments and Explorations, London: Sage Publications,
(2008), P. 10.
ethnicity, such as language, religious beliefs and traditions are passed on from generation to generation, and form what Cashmore refers to as ‘ethnic baggage’ that the youth are reared to accept.
In order to clarify the complex concept of ethnicity, Don Handelman distinguishes four levels of social incorporation which human communities display. At the lowest level, there is simply the ‘ethnic category’. This is the loosest level of connection, where there is merely a perceived difference and boundary between the ‘in’ group and the ‘out’ group. The next level is the ‘ethnic network’, where there is interaction between the group in order to distribute resources amongst its members. Above this is ‘ethnic association’, whereby the members possess common interests and partake in political organizations in order to express these interests. Finally, there is the ‘ethnic community’ who possess a permanent territory and political organization, in other words, an ethnicity in command of a nation state.9
However, as Anthony Smith and John Hutchinson point out, Handelman’s concept of ‘ethnic community’ does not quite get to the heart of the ‘ethnic’ nature of these theories. They use Richard Shermerhorn’s widely used conception to contribute to Handelman’s structure. Shermerhorn defines the ethnic group as “a collectivity within a larger society having real or putative common ancestry, memories of a shared historical past, and a cultural focus on one or more symbolic elements defined as the epitome of their peoplehood.”10
This definition that Shermerhorn offers makes several crucial points which are overlooked within both Handelman’s levels of incorporation structure and Cashmore’s definition. Firstly, he states that it is a “collectivity within a larger society.” This is important when considering the ethnic make-‐up of nation states; there are no ‘ethnically pure’ states. Each ethnicity lives within a broader community of other ethnicities. The existence of other ‘different’ ethnic groups within national borders strengthens the ‘us’ group. What it was for a man or
9 Handelman, D. in Smith, A.D. & Hutchinson, J., Ethnicity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, (1996),
P. 6.
woman to be considered Tutsi prior to the genocide was in part constructed by what they were not, i.e. Hutu. Secondly, he refers to “real or putative common ancestry”. This demonstrates the apparent inherited nature of ethnicity. A person was judged to be either Tutsi or Hutu based on, amongst other things, their father’s ethnicity. Thirdly, he argues that there are “memories of [a] shared historical past”. This is a crucial aspect to the formation of ethnicity. Each ethnic group uses its own narrative of particular events in its past to enforce what it is to be a member of that specific group. When ‘Hutu nationalism’ was at its strongest, group membership involved reproducing a narrative of years of subjugation by the Tutsi, a rightful claim to Rwanda and a strength and right to rule through their ‘nativeness’. This is a crucial element of the genocide ideology and the central theme of this work. Finally, he claims that ethnicity consists of “one or more symbolic elements defined as the epitome of their peoplehood”. This is where the differentiation between the Hutu and Tutsi ‘ethnicities’ becomes problematic. Both groups shared the same cultural practices, and symbolic elements that supposedly differentiated them. This is an issue that will be explored further later on.
From these varying outlines of ethnicity, Smith and Hutchinson argue that ethnicities exhibit six principle features.
1. A common proper name in order to identify its members and to express its ‘essence’.
2. A myth of common ancestry that denotes the “common origin in time and place that gives an ethnicity a sense of common fictive kinship.” Smith and Hutchinson emphasize that this is a myth rather than a fact. 3. Shared historical memories. This function involves glorifying heroes
and events within the ethnic group. Which narrative to remember is selected.
4. A shared element of common culture such as religion, customs or language.
5. A link with a homeland. This needs only to be a symbolic attachment rather than a physical attachment to the ancestral land.
6. A sense of solidarity within the group. This does not necessarily have to be held by the entire group.11
Smith and Hutchinson rightly highlight the importance of shared myths and memories about the ethnic group. These myths of origin create a sense of solidarity within the group. The formation and use of these myths will be explored further later on.
How is Ethnicity Formed?
Primordialism
There are two principle interpretations of how ethnicities are formed: primordial and constructivist explanations. As Jolle Demmers rightly asserts, in order to understand ethnic violence, we need to understand these distinct explanations of ethnicity. Primordial accounts of ethnicity emphasise its intrinsic ‘naturalness’. This belief purports that ethnicity is somehow in our blood, an unchangeable aspect of our personal make-‐up. Ethnic identities are a priori; they exist prior to any experience or interaction. The primordialist scholar, Clifford Geertz, argues this point, “for virtually every person, in every society, at almost all times, some attachments seem to flow more from a sense of natural-‐ some would say spiritual-‐ affinity than from social interaction.”12 What Geertz fails to
highlight is that although people feel like their ethnicity is natural and somehow in their blood, it does not make it so. Ethnicity is socially constructed, regardless of whether people understand it to be or not.
Primordialist beliefs in the ‘naturalness’ of ethnic categorization, along with similar notions regarding gender and race, have all been widely discredited. Demmers argues that these beliefs are rooted in theology and have been standardized in the histories of most nation building projects. 13 The
11 Smith, A.D. & Hutchinson, J., P. 6,7.
12 Geertz, C., ‘Primordial Ties’, Ethnicity, Eds. Hutchinson, J. & Smith, A.D., Oxford: Oxford
University Press, (1996), P.42.
primordialist theory is usually ubiquitous within genocidal or violent ideologies. The Nazi conception of the Jews was based on a biological difference; a distinction that was in the blood, rather than a sociological one. Similarly, the Hutu conceptions of Tutsis were based on biological differences; an inherent inferiority. The primordialist approach understands ethnic conflict as somehow unavoidable; since the differences between these groups are biological, they will continuously provoke conflict. As Demmers argues, “This means that although there may be ways to contain violence, there is no real solution other than segregation and avoidance.” It is here that the genocidal ideology within this belief system becomes apparent: ‘there is no way these two ethnic groups can co-‐exist, the ‘Other’ must be removed’. Demmers continues, “In some cases, this approach argues, ethnicity simply breads violence. This is inevitable and unchanging, it is innate to human groups.”14
Constructivism
Conversely, constructivism argues that ethnicity is a social, political and cultural construction, which is malleable. This interpretation of ethnicity is widely attributed to the works of Max Weber. Prominent arguments amongst the work of scholars in the constructivist camp state that in terms of features of similarities and differences, ethnic groups have as much in common with neighbouring ethnic groups as they do with their own.15 Demmers coherently
demonstrates the essence of this argument, “The ethnic group thus is an
imagined, constructed community, created through social interaction. This means
that ethnicity is not a thing in itself, but contextual. And therefore dynamic and changeable [my emphasis].”16
However, if ethnic groups are entirely socially constructed, then it should be possible for myself, a white, British male to become a Hutu or a Tutsi if I socially integrated myself into that particular group. Clearly this is problematic. Fredrik Barth explains this issue through what he refers to as the ‘rules of membership’.
14 Demmers, J., P. 25. 15 Ibid.
These rules of membership are malleable, differ from group to group and change over time. Individual members of the group recognise these boundaries and can identify a fellow member based on the shared criteria, whilst also recognising another as somehow ‘different’. This implies a “recognition of limitations on shared understandings, differences in criteria for judgement of value and performance, and a restriction of interaction to sectors of assumed common understanding and mutual interest.”17
As Demmers notes, in some instances these rules are based on economic status. This can be seen in pre-‐colonial Rwanda, where economic status often dictated whether a person was Hutu or Tutsi. In other cases, marriage can provide membership to certain ethnic groups.18 Some group membership rules are more
stringent than others, where only the second or third generation of children from an ethnically mixed marriage are accepted into the group. The rules of membership of an ethnic group become inflexible in times of conflict. During violent ethnic rivalry, such as the Rwandan genocide, how a person perceives their ethnic identity and how they perceive their ethnic differences were of very little importance. The rules of membership were in the eyes of the perpetrators, rather than the victims. This is a crucial aspect to many ethnic conflicts which will be investigated further later on in this work.
Primordialist explanations of ethnicity rest on three main ideas. Firstly, ethnic identities exist prior to any interaction; they are ‘natural’. Secondly, they are “‘ineffable’, overpowering, and coercive.”19 And thirdly, ethnic identities pertain
to emotion or affect. “Thus, primordialism presents us with a picture of underived and socially unconstructed emotions that are unanalysable and overpowering and coercive yet varying.”20 In their essay The Poverty of
Primordialism, Jack Eller and Reed Coughlan expertly dismantle each of these
notions and firmly establish the logical alternative to ethnic formation:
17 Barth, F., Ethnic Groups and Boundaries, Oslo: Scandinavian University Books, (1969), P. 15. 18 Demmers, J., P. 26.
19 Eller, J. & Coughlan, R., ‘The Poverty of Primordialism’, in Ethnicity, Eds. Hutchinson, J. & Smith,
A.D., Oxford: Oxford University Press, (1996), P. 45.
constructivism. The first notion of the apriority of ethnicity is based in the assumption that ethnic membership is unchangeable and inherited. Yet as Coughlan and Eller argue, ethnic membership frequently changes according to situation and circumstance. Primordialist understandings fail to account for the formation of new ethnic groups, such as those that appeared under colonialism. This is rightly outlined as contradictory. There are well-‐documented formations of new African ethnic groups, which claim to be primordialist, yet clearly this cannot be the case. The second notion that they address is the supposed unquestionable and ineffable aspects of ethnic identity to which primordialists subscribe. Clifford Geertz, a primordialist scholar, is criticised by Coughlan and Eller for his “layman’s view” that primordial attachments to ethnic formation are unanalysable for sociologists. Finally, they address the affectivity of primordial understandings. It is not the emotional strength of ethnic bonds to which they take issue, but rather the apriority of these bonds. It is best explained rather by connections between ethnicity and kinship. “[E]thnicity should be regarded as greatly extended form of kinship because the idea of common ancestry ‘makes it possible for ethnic groups to think in terms of family resemblances’”21 The
primordialist views these bonds and emotional ties as somehow just there, regardless of social interaction.
James Fearon and David Laitin provide an interesting argument, which further demonstrates the weakness of the primordial claims about ethnicity. They argue that not only do the content of social categories change over time, but so do the boundaries between them. If, for example, the Balkan region had a different political history during the nineteenth-‐century, Croats and Serbs might be known as the South Slavs, or simply as the Serbs.22 What they mean here is that
changes in political history can alter identities. Therefore, to understand ethnicity as somehow a priori makes little sense. In order to get to the essence of how ethnic violence occurs, it is essential to understand why it is that these groups divide themselves in this way.
21 Eller, J. & Coughlan, R., P. 45-‐9.
22 Fearon, J.D. & Laitin, D.D., ‘Violence and the Social Construction of Ethnic Identity’,
It now seems clear that ethnicity is socially constructed; but what does this mean? How is this identity constructed? Fearon and Laitin offer three ways to characterise what this process entails. Firstly, they point to social and economic processes as agents of construction. The creation of ethno-‐national communities was developed partly by sociological and economic developments, such as the development of linguistics and mass media. These identities are cemented as people realize that “how they communicate (and especially their first language) determines their life chances.”23 Secondly, they point to social construction by
discourse. This is the idea that “individuals are pawns or products of discourses that exist and move independently of the actions of any particular individual.”24
For example, the social construction of ethnic identity involves differentiating one’s self from the other; it is not only who you are, but who you are not. This is a crucial factor to ethnic identity. This can clearly be seen when considering the Rwandan case. The Hutu and Tutsi were groups that shared so many attributes it was, and still is, virtually impossible to tell them apart. However, part of what makes a Hutu a Hutu is their knowledge that they are not a Tutsi; it is their differentiation that helps define them. Thirdly, they point to individuals as agents of construction. By this they mean that the rules of membership and content of ethnic identity is determined by the actions of individuals. For example, the actions of Hutu nationalist politicians prior to the genocide helped to construct what it meant for many people to consider themselves Hutu; their actions helped construct ethnic identity.
The Link Between Ethnicity & Violence
This section will explore the relationship between ethnic groups and violence. Ethnic differences do not always result in conflicts. If this is the case, what is it that triggers conflict between ethnicities? What makes this supposed difference between ethnic groups a source of tension which can lead to violence? The genocide in Rwanda was carried out by two ethnic groups who often could not tell the difference between each other. This demonstrates that ethnic
23 Fearon, J.D. & Laitin, D.D., P. 851. 24 Ibid.
‘differences’ are not as clear-‐cut as many explanations for ethnic violence assume. Humans have a fundamental need to belong and to categorize; this is known as the identity impulse. ‘In groups’ and ‘out groups’ are formed in order to shape this identity. The formation of groups is intrinsic to human nature. Once people align themselves with a particular group, that group becomes the basis for their behaviour. ‘Social identity theory’ attempts to explain the dynamics of this process; “social identity theory is a social psychological analysis of the role of self-‐conception in group membership, group processes, and intergroup relations.”25 In order to understand why the ethnic group resorts to violence, it is
important to understand this concept. Social categorization and the emotional significance attached to group membership is intrinsic to inter-‐group violence.26
Social Identity Theory
It is first important to note that collective phenomena, such as group violence, cannot be sufficiently explained in terms of isolated individual actions. Social identity theory (SIT) states that violence is best understood as the result of an individual’s membership to a particular social group and highlights the importance of group comparison, competition and ultimately, hostility. Demmers sums up Michael Hogg’s argument with clarity, “at the core of social identity theory is the idea that individuals seek to reduce uncertainty and achieve a secure and positive sense of self through their participation in groups. This human tendency results in the formation of in-‐groups and out-‐groups.”27
A clear example of SIT at work is the Banyamulenge’s alignment with the Rwandan-‐backed Rassemblement Congolais pour la Democratie (RCD) in the context of hostility in the Democratic Republic of Congo. During a period of uncertainty and conflict, many members of the Banyamulenge associated themselves with the RCD, partly due to its affiliation with Rwanda, in order to consolidate themselves within a group. Particularly during periods of conflict,
25 Hogg, M.A., ‘Social Identity Theory’, Contemporary Social Psychological Theories, Ed. Burke, P.J.,
California: Stanford, (2006), P. 111.
26 Demmers, J., P. 39. 27 Ibid, P. 40.
