S OCIETAL SECURITY OF M ADHESIS IN N EPAL

(1)

S

OCIETAL SECURITY OF

M

ADHESIS IN

N

EPAL

AN INTEGRATIVE FRAMEWORK OF THE SOCIETAL SECURITY APPROACH AND THE SOCIAL IDENTITY

THEORY APPLIED TO MADHESI IDENTITY POLITICS

UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN

RESEARCH MASTER MODERN HISTORY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS MASTER THESIS

SABINE DANKBAAR S1559265 20-12-2011

(2)

2 The photograph on the front page shows: ‘a view during the Madhesi movement’ in Janakpur.

(3)

3

I. Tables and Figures

Tables

Table 1: Human Development by regional divisions and specified for different Madhesi groups. ... 36 Table 2: Representation in percentages of caste and ethnic groups in different sectors of society in Nepal 1999 and 2005 ... 37 Table 3: Election results for major political parties based on data of the Election Commission Nepal ... 54

Figures

Figure 1: Overview of caste and ethnic groups with regional divisions ... 32 Figure 2: Nepal constituency map of elected FPTP candidates by party ... 54

(6)

6

II. List of Abbreviations

ADB Asian Development Bank

ACHR Asian Center for Human Rights

BCTS Hill Brahman, Chhetri, Thakuri and Sanyasi

CA Constituent Assembly

CBS Central Bureau of Statistics

CPA Comprehensive Peace Agreement

CPN(M) Communist Party Nepal (Maoists)

DFID Department for International Development

FNCCI Federation of Nepali Chamber of Commerce and Industry

GSEA Gender and Social Exclusion Assessment

HDI Human Development Index

HDR Human Development Report

ICG International Crisis Group

JTMM Janatantrik Tarai Mukti Morcha

JTMM-G Janatantrik Tarai Mukti Morcha- Goit

JTMM-JS Janatantrik Tarai Mukti Morcha- Jwala Singh

MJF Madhesi Janadhikar Forum

MJF-D Madhesi Janadhikar Forum- Democratic

MJF-N Madhesi Janadhikar Forum- Nepal

MJF-R Madhesi Janadhikar Forum- Republic

MRMM Madhesi National Liberation Front

NC Nepali Congress

NEFEN Nepal Federation of Nationalities

NEFIN Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities

NGO Non-governmental organization

(7)

7 NSP(A) Nepal Sadbhavana Party (Anandi Devi)

PRIO Peace Research Institute Oslo

SIT Social Identity Theory

SPA Seven-Party Alliance

TMLP Tarai Madhesh Loktantrik Party

TMLP-N Tarai Madhesh Loktantrik Party- Nepal

UDMF United Democratic Madhesi Front

UML Unified Marxist-Leninist

(8)

8

1. Introduction

In 2007 large-scale violent protests of Madhesis in the Tarai region shocked the fragile peace process of Nepal. Until then, the Tarai region had received very little political attention. The Tarai plains, stretching the lengths of the southern border, are home to plain-origin caste groups, Muslims, indigenous ethnic groups (Janajati), and recent migrants from the hills (Pahadis).1 The plains-origin Madhesis directed their violence mainly against the hill-origin Pahadis, who were said to dominate almost all aspects of social, economic and political life.2 The agitations continued for months, until some of the demands were met by the Nepalese government, and Madhesi political parties participated in the elections in 2008. An interesting aspect of the Madhesi movement was that it bridged other fault lines such as caste identities and that the Madhesi identity received a new meaning. Whereas it first referred to the southern geographic region of Nepal, it became to refer to a specific group, with its own characteristics, race and history.3

So far, very little research has been done to the Madhesis. Although they have been discriminated against for decennia, none of the international organizations in Nepal gave them much attention and little scholarly articles have been published on the Madhesis. They are potentially one of the most violent groups in Nepal, and very little is known about them. By focusing specifically on the Madhesis, this study helps to fill this knowledge gap. More insights are provided on how the Madhesis were able to mobilize, and how the mobilization process developed. As already stated, the Madhesis were able to mobilize in a relatively short period of time. Therefore, it lends itself well for studying the specific socio-political circumstances which facilitate securitization. These circumstances can be indicative for mobilization of other social groups.

To study the Madhesi identity mobilization, an integrative framework of analysis will be used, that combines the societal security approach of the Copenhagen School and the Social Identity Theory (SIT) of Taifel and Turner. The Madhesi mobilization is a typical example of a minority group that has mobilized around a separate identity, apart from the Nepalese state. The societal security approach is one of the main approaches which concentrates on security of societal groups, instead of merely focusing on state security. It has successfully incorporated societal identity as part of a bigger theoretical framework. The societal security approach provides explanations on how groups of people mobilize to defend their identity. However, despite its valuable new insights, the societal security approach misses some depth in addressing underlying processes. For example, the societal security approach argues that people want to defend their identity, but fails to address why identity matters to individuals in the first place. From the realm of Social Psychology, the Social Identity Theory (SIT) can provide the missing insights. Although the societal security approach and SIT have different referent objects, societies and individuals respectively, psychological insights of SIT can be added to the societal security approach to strengthen it and to give it more psychological depth.

1

For a map of Nepal see Appendix 1.

2

ICG, 2007, p. 1.

3

(9)

9 The main question of this study is:

To what extent can an integrative framework of the societal security approach and SIT explain the social mobilization of Madhesis from 2007 to 2011?

To answer this question, the theoretical framework in which the societal security approach and SIT are combined, is explained first, in chapter two. The origins of the societal security approach and SIT are explored, together with the main assumptions of both approaches. Insights of both approaches are combined in a comprehensive framework of analysis. The third chapter explains the methodological choices of this study. Moreover, the operationalization of the research questions and methods are further explicated. The methods are a combination of the study of documents of primary and secondary sources, and interviews. In the fourth chapter, the first sub-question is answered; can the Madhesi identity be considered a societal identity? Since the societal security approach focuses on societal identity, it is first important to explore to what extent the Madhesi identity fulfills the conditions of such an identity. In the fifth chapter, the second sub-question, to

what extent and in what way has securitization of the Madhesi identity taken place? is answered.

This chapter takes a closer look at the securitizing actors and their speech acts. Amongst others it is examined what they perceive as threats, to what extent they refer to threats to the survival of their shared identity, who they identify as main perpetrators of the threats, and which strategies they employ to ward off the threats. The last chapter, chapter five, answers the third sub-question; who is

the audience, and how are the speech acts received by the audience? Although in primary works of

the Copenhagen School little attention is paid to the relation between the securitizing actor and the audience, other scholars have brought to the fore that this has important implications for the success of the speech act. To what extent the audience accepts the speech acts of the securitizing actors is therefore included in this study. In the conclusion, an answer is provided to the main question, and the implications of the study are further discussed.

(10)

10

2. Theoretical Framework

In the last decennia, identity has received a prominent stance in national and international politics. In the academic realm, one of the approaches which has successfully incorporated identity as part of a bigger theoretical framework is the societal security approach of the Copenhagen School.4 The societal security approach explains how groups of people mobilize to defend their identity. Although the societal security approach provides useful new insights, it sometimes misses some depths. Since intergroup relations have already been studied for decades in the realm of Social Psychology, these theories can be used to strengthen the approach. In Social Psychology, one of the main theories focusing on identity and intergroup relations is SIT of Tajfel and Turner. Although the societal security approach and SIT have different referent objects, societies and individuals respectively, psychological insights of SIT can be added to the societal security approach to strengthen it and to give it more psychological depth.

This chapter first explores the origins of the societal security approach, and the link to SIT. Subsequently the main assumptions of the societal security approach are explained. Where possible, these are combined with psychological insights of SIT. This results in a comprehensive framework of analysis, which is used in this study.

2.1 Development of the societal security approach

According to Stefano Guzzini, most new approaches in International Relations are developed as a result of on the one hand the historical context, and on the other hand the theoretical discussions within the discipline.5 Ole Wæver describes the development of the societal security approach in similar terms. He distinguishes intra-scientific and extra-scientific roots of the societal security approach.6 By exploring these origins, it becomes clear which problems the societal security approach tries to address. Moreover, it clarifies whether or not a connection exists with the development of SIT.

2.1.1 Extra- and intra- scientific origins

The end of the Cold war in 1989-1991, confronted International Relations’ scholars with a situation that could not adequately be explained by traditional power politics. According to Yosef Lapid and Friedrich Kratochwil, the post-Cold War prominence of ethnic conflicts (especially in Europe) presented security studies ‘with the embarrassment of lacking categories for the issues that all non-specialists would assume the experts could pronounce about’.7 Scholars in the field of security studies recognized that they had been preoccupied too long by ‘a traditional, state and military-centric understanding of security’.8 Especially the wars in former Yugoslavia, and the fragmentation of the Soviet Union shifted their attention from states to ethno-national groups.9 A group of scholars affiliated with the Copenhagen Peace Research Institute started to recognize that security of the

4

Another attempt has been made by Samuel Huntington. In his book Clash of Civilizations he states that after the Cold War religious and cultural identities will be the primary source of conflict. Huntington, 1993.

5

Guzzini, 2000, p. 150.

6

Wæver, 2008, p. 582.

7

Y. Lapid, F. Kratochwil, eds. (1996), Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory, Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, as cited in: Wæver, 2008, p. 582.

8

Barthwal-Datta, 2009, p. 279.

9

(11)

11 nation and security of the state did not mean the same thing. The ‘Copenhagen School’ recognized that the traditional ‘national security’ framework was not very helpful in explaining the ethnic conflicts in Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union. 10 Instead, the cause of these conflicts could be explained by competing societal identities.11

The Copenhagen School has made an important contribution to security studies by acknowledging that in addition to states, communities are significant political realities as well. They argued that societal boundaries rarely coincide with state boundaries. On the one hand, there are numerous examples of identity groups living across state boundaries. For example the Kurds live in Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. On the other hand, there are many examples of several identity groups living in one state, such as the Bosnians, Serbs and Croats who share the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Wæver has stressed that ‘a societal identity is able to reproduce itself independently of the state and even in opposition to the state’s organizational principle’.12 However, the Copenhagen School acknowledges that nations and states are closely linked, especially in West-European nation-states.13

The intra-scientific roots of the societal security approach can be traced back to a general turn within International Relations and security studies towards identity, culture, and constructivism.14_{In the} 1980s social constructivism had developed as a kind of ‘via media’ of International Relations.15 On the one hand social constructivism build further on intellectual developments in sociology and philosophy, on the other hand, it could be seen as an outgrowth of critical theory.16_{According to} Emmanuel Adler, social constructivism occupies the middle ground, in between rationalist and reflexivist theories.17 Social constructivist scholars are united in their interest in the influence of ideas in international politics and their focus on the role of norms, institutions, identity and culture in International Relations. They argue that social interaction creates and gives meaning to ideas, which in turn shape the identities and interests of actors.18 Within security studies, these social constructivist ideas provide the background of the work of the Copenhagen School, and the societal security approach.

The Copenhagen School views societal groups as self-constructed ‘imagined communities’. They only exist because of its members’ sense of collective identity. The scholars argue that it is an individual’s political and personal choice to identify with a certain group by emphasizing some characteristics in

10

It was Bill McSweeney who gave the work of the group of scholars affiliated with the Copenhagen Peace Research Institute in the 1990s the label ‘Copenhagen School’. Among the most prominent authors are B. Buzan, and O. Wæver. The reference ‘Copenhagen School’ is often not a very clear one. In this study the label will refer to the publications which are discussed in chapter 2.1.3. See: McSweeney, 2006.

11

Bilgin, 2003, p. 211.

12

Wæver, 1993, p. 23. 13

Buzan, Wæver, de Wilde, 1998, pp. 123-124.

14

Lapid, Kratochwill, 1996, cited in Wæver, 2008, p. 582.

15

Adler, 1997 p. 321.

16

Finnemore, 1996; Price, Reus-Smit, 1998.

17

Rationalists assume that international relations can be studied from a scientific point of view. They claim that political actors are ‘atomistic, self-interested and rational’. They have pre-defined interests, which are considered exogenous to social interaction. Moreover, they can objectively be studied. Reflexivists reject the idea that the social world can be studied with scientific methods. They claim that the social world is in many cases not quantifiable, and that observations are inherently subjective. They assume that political actors are socially embedded. Reflectivists argue that the world is represented, and only gets meaning in discourse and text; Adler, 1997, pp. 321-324; Reus-Smit, 1996, pp. 192-193.

18

(12)

12 contrast to other available historical or contemporary ties. Moreover, they assert that the extent to which individuals identify with a certain social group is variable. Identities of individuals change over time, and individuals can exhibit different identities in different situations.19 These ideas are in congruence with the broader theoretical framework of social constructivism, and can be contrasted with the so-called primordialist view. Primordialists, like Donald Horowitz, assert that ethnic and national identities are more or less biological features. They stress that societal groups are the result of common genes, as well as long religious and language ties. Additionally, they argue that it lies in our nature to always compare ourselves with other groups, and to identify the most with others similar to us. In contrast to social constructivists, primordialists treat identities as given, as relatively static units.20

2.1.3 Research of the Copenhagen School

The pioneer work of the Copenhagen School is Barry Buzan’s People, States and Fears: An Agenda for

International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era, first published in 1983.21 It was in this book,

that Buzan first raised awareness about broadening the security agenda.22 In further writings, among which The European Security Order recast, Barry Buzan, Morten Kelstrup, Pierre Lemaitre, Elzbieta Tromer and Wæver critically examined the state as sole referent object of security.23 They shifted their attention from ‘the state as referent object and sovereignty as the value to be secured, to society as the referent object and identity as the value to be secured’.24 In Identity, Migration and the

New Security Agenda in Europe Wæver, Buzan, Kelstrup and Lemaitre further elaborated these ideas

and the authors recognized that societal security should be studied in its own right, and not only as part of state security.25 Next to the expansion of the referent object of security, the Copenhagen scholars argued that the sectors to which security applied should be broadened as well. In Security a

New Framework for Analysis Buzan, Wæver and Jaap de Wilde argued that security should not only

be applied to the military sector, but could also be applied to the political, economic, societal and environmental sector. Moreover they elaborated the idea of securitization.26 This has by far been the most successful contribution to the Copenhagen School. In the last place, Regions and Powers; the

Structure of International Security of Buzan and Wæver further elaborates on securitization,

especially its applicability to regions outside Europe. Moreover, the authors discuss the relationship between international system, international society and world society.27 In this study, these publications together with some articles are considered the key works of the Copenhagen School.

Most scholars focusing on societal security use the approach as theoretical framework for a single-case study. In the last decennia, the societal security approach has in many instances been applied to explain minority rights claims, especially in Eastern-Europe, and to explain migration-problems.28 The predominant European focus has yielded some critique, which will be discussed later on. The societal

19

Buzan, Wæver, de Wilde, 1998, pp. 119-120; Roe, 2005, p. 43.

20 Collins, 2002. 21 Buzan, 1983. 22 Alexseev, 2011, p. 511; Booth, 2007, p 162. 23

Buzan, Kelstrup, Lemaitre, Tromer, Wæver, 1990.

24

Booth, 2007, p. 162.

25

Wæver, Buzan, Kelstrup, Lemaitre, 1993; Buzan, Wæver, de Wilde, 1998, pp. 119-120; Bilgin, 2003, p. 211.

26

Buzan, Wæver, de Wilde, 1998.

27

Buzan, Wæver, 2003.

28

(13)

13 security approach goes mostly in tandem with securitization. Whereas the societal security approach asks attention for society as referent object of threats, securitization helps to explain how a certain issue becomes perceived as a threat.

Scholars who have applied the societal security approach in their research, state that societal security has acquired a prominent stance in the field of security studies.29_{It has become a} ‘conceptual cornerstone’ of the Copenhagen School, and according to Theiler, the most innovative element as well.30 Eamonn Butler considers the work of the Copenhagen School on widening the concept of security one of the most influential attempts.31 Moreover, as Monika Barthwal-Datta argues, the securitization approach, which is closely linked to societal security, ‘has emerged as one of the most systemic and comprehensive attempts to unpack the logic of security and to reveal its constitutive function’.32 According to Ken Booth, the biggest success for the Copenhagen scholars manifested itself after the publication of Security: A New Framework of Analysis. He has stated that only after that, securitization theory gained considerable influence in the United States.33 Theiler has argued that by the end of the 1990s, societal security has ‘lost some of its erstwhile centrality’.34 Other developments within the Copenhagen School have shifted attention from societal security to for example securitization. From my literature review it became clear that in the end, securitization received more attention than societal security. It is a pity securitization overshadows the societal security approach, since it is a very useful approach to include security interests of groups, which often differ from state-interests in international relations. By using the societal security approach, and linking it to securitization, this study aims to bring societal security back to fore.

2.2 Social Identity Theory

As became clear in subchapter 2.1.1 the intra-scientific origins of the societal security approach go back to Sociology and Philosophy, but not so much to Social Psychology. A missed opportunity, since intergroup relations have already been studied for decades in the realm of Social Psychology. In the sub-field of Social Psychology which focuses on identity and relations between identity groups, the theory that has become dominant in the past twenty years, is SIT of Tajfel and Turner. SIT is one of the first social psychological theories focusing on groups instead of individuals.

In Social Psychology, scholars have traditionally mostly been concerned with the individual. Although in work of some of the earliest social psychologists it was already acknowledged that groups have an important influence on the self-conception of individuals, it never received proper attention.35 However, in the second half of the 20th century, collectivist perspectives gained influence. Extra-scientifically, the Second World War had showed the urgency of social problems like racial prejudice and group attitudes. The first collectivist theories that were developed were mostly concerned with prejudice and the link between frustration and aggression. Scholars argued that the sense of belonging to a group could be ascribed to a perceived threat of an ‘out-group’, or a common

29

For example Watson, 2005, p. 2 and Butler, 2007, p 1115.

30 Theiler, 2003, p. 249. 31 Butler, 2007, p 1115. 32 Barthwal-Datta, 2009, p. 279. 33 Booth, 2007. 34 Theiler, 2003, p. 249. 35

(14)

14 enemy.36 An alternative approach to intergroup conflict has been represented by Muzafer Sherif. He ascribed conflict between groups to opposed group interests. Real conflicts of interests, for example due to the scarcity of resources, would lead to intergroup competition. Simultaneously, intergroup competition would lead to increased ‘in-group’ attachments.37 Henri Tajfel has criticized these two approaches to intergroup competition. Tajfel stressed that one should not merely take attitudes and behavior towards out-groups as point of departure, but should also explore the causal link from in-group processes to out-in-group behavior and attitudes.38 Moreover, with regards to Sherif’s theory, he has argued that the process of in-group identification has to be studied in its own right, and should not be seen as byproduct of intergroup conflict.39

In the early 1970s Tajfel started experiments to establish the minimal conditions necessary for individuals to distinguish between an in-group and an out-group. He divided his participants completely arbitrarily into two groups, and gave them the task to decide how rewards should be divided over two other subjects. The participants were told which their own group was, and which groups the subjects belonged to. However, the identity of the subjects was unknown. The experiment showed that participants rewarded substantially more money to members of their in-group. Hence, Tajfel concluded that the assignment of individuals to different groups alone is enough to cause in-group favoritism.40 Tajfel elaborated his ideas together with John Turner and collaborators, which resulted in SIT. The theory has gained considerable international influence and gained a central stance in the mainstream literature on group psychology.41 The past twenty years has seen an increase of references to SIT.42

Tobias Theiler and Jarrod Hayes have already made a first attempt to strengthen societal security by adding insights from SIT. In my paper Societal Security and Social Identity Theory. An exploration of

an integrative approach to group identity I further explored the possibilities to integrate SIT and

societal security.43 Both approaches focus on a different level. Whereas the societal security approach is a macro-level theory that focuses on societies, SIT is a micro-level theory that focuses mainly on individuals. However, these micro-level explanations of individual behavior can help to understand the motivational factors of groups. As Wæver has stated, ‘(…) individual level argument is generally a helpful addition to the theory of societal security. It supplies a kind of underpinning, an explanation of why identity dynamics operate in the first instance’.44 Moreover, I concluded that SIT helps to incorporate socio-political circumstances and -dynamics, which add to the explanatory value of the societal security approach. In addition, SIT provides societal security with an opportunity to move away from the predominant focus on ethno-national identity. SIT, by its focus on social identity in general, makes it possible to involve other social identities as well. Lastly, SIT shows that status-threats can have an important influence, next to other perceived status-threats.

36

Out-group can be defined as ‘any group other than the one to which individuals perceive themselves belonging’ in Baron, Branscombe, Byrne, 2004, p. 222; Tajfel, 1974, p. 66.

37

In-group can be defined as ‘the social group to which an individual perceives herself or himself as belonging (‘us’)’ in: Baron, 2004, p. 222; Tajfel, 1979, pp. 33-34.

38 Tajfel, 1974, p. 67. 39 Tajfel, 1979, pp. 33-34. 40 Tajfel, 1974, pp. 67-68. 41

Theiler, 2003, p. 258; Taifel, Turner, 1979.

(15)

15 In this study, the psychological insights of SIT are added to the societal security approach, to develop a comprehensive framework of analysis. This makes it possible to give a more in-depth analysis of social mobilization and securitization.

2.3 Main assumptions of the Societal Security approach and SIT

The societal security approach takes the stance that groups, and more specifically societies, mobilize to defend their identity. According to the Copenhagen School, their goal is to maintain societal security. Some questions can be derived from these statements. In the first place, how can an identity group be distinguished and defined? In the second place, what is meant by ‘societal security’ and why does it matter to groups? In the third place, what are the issues groups want to defend themselves against, and how do these issues come to be perceived as threats? And in the last place, which strategies do groups use to defend their identity? These questions will be addressed in the next sub-sections.

2.3.1 Society

One of the main elements of the societal security approach is societal identity. ‘Society’ is the referent object of the societal security approach, and is defined by the Copenhagen School as follows:

Society is about identity, about the self-conception of communities and of individuals identifying themselves as members of a community. These identities are distinct from, although often entangled with, the explicitly political organizations concerned with government.45

Whereas the first part of the definition can refer to any type of social identity, the second sentence already indicates a special link to the state. The elaboration of the definition by Wæver clarifies the concept of society further. Wæver refers to Tönnie’s classical distinction between Gemeinschaft and

Gesellschaft. Whereas Gemeinschaft refers to a ‘natural’ group, Gesellschaft refers to a group based

on a ‘rational conception of utility’ of its members.46 Wæver has argued that his concept of society refers to both. He follows Anthony Giddens in stating that society is ‘a clustering of institutions combined with a feeling of common identity’.47 Wæver stresses that society is more than the sum of its parts, and is not reducible to individuals.48 He views society as a social and moral structure which interacts with individuals, in which principles of legitimacy and valuation circulate, and which reproduces itself from generation to generation.49_{Theiler has added that society has both an} ‘objective’ and a ‘subjective’ dimension. On the one hand society distinguishes itself from other societies by objective markers such as language and customs. On the other hand, society is based on ‘the community’s survival as locus of identification for its members’, which is subjective.50

Wæver makes a distinction between societal groups and social groups. Social groups can refer to a variety of social units, from small social units such as friends and sports teams, to larger human collectives such as tribes, clans, nations, and religious groups. Society contains many social groups; however they differ in two important ways. Firstly, societal identities are able to compete with the

45

Buzan, Wæver, de Wilde, 1998, p. 119.

46 Wæver, 1993, p. 18. 47 Wæver, 1993, p. 21. 48 Wæver, 1993, p. 18. 49 Wæver, 1993, p. 21. 50

(16)

16 territorial state as a political organizing principle, in contrast to social identities. Secondly, society refers to that social identity which has become part of someone’s individual identity. It is that identity that someone takes to be the decisive basis for him or her, and without which he or she would feel diminished.51 These characteristics are important in distinguishing societal identity from other social identities. However, these two characteristics, especially the latter one, remain quite vague. It does not become clear how one determines when a social identity has become part of someone’s individual identity. This will be further discussed below.

With regards to societal identity as political organizing principle, the Copenhagen School has specified that societal groups can mobilize around many different social identities, but that ethno-national identity has historically acquired prominence.52 National identity has the capacity to organize other social identities around it. Moreover, Wæver has explicated that ‘national identity comprises a package of linguistic, ethnic and cultural similarity which for more than two centuries has been seen as decisive for the construction of large-scale communities’.53 A second social identity that has the capacity to function as societal identity is religion. According to Wæver, religion is comprehensive and robust enough to reproduce its ‘we-identity’ across generations. Since their historical association with the development of the modern state, (ethno-) national and religious identities are more likely to function as political organizing principle than other social identities. National and religious identities are therefore the primary units of analysis for societal security.54

The Copenhagen Schools’ predominant focus on ethno-national groups has been criticized for being Euro-centric. Juergensmeyer has argued that the Copenhagen School exports the European idea of a nation too easily to other regions of the world. He claims that nationalism in other areas of the world is different from ‘Western’ nationalism, since it has for example incorporated religious identity.55 Here, SIT can provide additional insights. SIT makes it possible to take a broader view on identity. Tajfel and Turner claim that individuals have many social identities at the same time, such as gender, occupation and nationality. They argue that the permeability of group boundaries determines whether individuals act more out of their personal or social identities. Moreover, group boundaries determine which social identities are more likely to be decisive for intergroup relations than others.

Tajfel and Turner approach the permeability of group boundaries as a belief system that refers to the ease by which individuals can move from one identity to another.56 If conditions are conducive to leaving one’s group (permeable group boundaries) interactions between individuals are mostly determined by individual characteristics. They refer to this as social mobility. If an individual is not satisfied with his or her group membership, he or she can move individually to another group, for example through talent, hard work or good luck.57 If however, it is difficult for individuals to move from one social identity to another (impermeable group boundaries), interactions between individuals are largely determined by group membership. Then, the only way groups can influence

51

Wæver, 1993, pp. 18-21, p. 40.

52

The combination of ethno-national is used to designate nations based on the reference to ethnic and cultural in contrast to purely civic roots. Wæver, 1993, p. 39.

53

Wæver, 1993, p. 40.

54

Wæver, 1993, pp. 22-23.

55

M. Juergensmeyer (1993), The New Cold War? Religious Nationalism Confronts the Secular State, Berkeley: University of California Press, in Watson,2005, p. 10.

56

Tajfel, Turner, 1979, p. 35.

57

(17)

17 their social identity is by means of social change. Social change refers to ‘changes in the relationships between the groups as a whole, to expectations, fears or desires of such changes, to actions aiming at inducing or preventing them, or to intentions and plans to engage in these actions’.58

According to Tajfel and Turner, major social and psychological conditions that make boundaries relatively impermeable are social differentiation systems and the existence of a strong conflict of values inherent in leaving one’s group respectively.59 Another case can be made for the influence of technology on boundaries between groups. In his book Imagined Communities Benedict Anderson already pointed out that print media has an important influence on the construction of social identities.60 The influence of physical and social technologies that determine the possibilities for transportation and communication, which they refer to as ‘interaction capacity’, has further been explored by Buzan, Charles Jones and Richard Little.61 From their ideas, it can be adapted that limited transportation and communication possibilities make conditions more conducive to staying in one’s group.62

These arguments could help the societal security approach to justify their focus on ethno-national identity. When arguments of SIT are used, the focus on ethno-national identity can be explained by referring to the relatively impermeable group boundaries of ethno-national identity in most countries. For example in the Netherlands, Moroccans, even if they lived in the Netherlands for a long time, are mostly referred to as Moroccans, instead of Dutch. In most cases people are born into their national group, and it is almost impossible to cross the boundary from one ethno-national group to another. The relatively impermeable boundaries make ethno-ethno-national identity a strong identity. In addition, SIT helps to clarify why certain social identities can become part of someone’s individual identity, something the Copenhagen School fails to address. SIT explicates that when boundaries are strong, people are treated according to their group identity all the time. After some time, their group identity will become part of their individual identity, since it becomes impossible to distinguish both identities any longer.

The Copenhagen School has also been criticized due to its focus on society as referent object. Traditional International Relations’ scholars argue that the state should maintain to be the sole referent object of security.63 The Copenhagen School opposes this line of thought, since it claims that state and societal security not always coincide. It replies that they do not dismiss the state as referent object of security, but add an extra category of analysis. More serious criticisms come from a Critical security perspective. These criticisms are directed against the conception of societal groups as independent social agents. One of the most prominent critics is Bill Mc Sweeney. His key charge against societal security is that it reifies a society’s identity.64 Critical theorists argue that the Copenhagen School treats communities as fixed entities, and their identity claims as given. They accuse the Copenhagen School of using communities as objective realities, or independent variables,

58 Tajfel, 1974, p. 78. 59 Tajfel, 1974, p. 82. 60 Anderson, 2006. 61

Buzan, Jones, Little, 1993.

(18)

18 instead of allowing ‘a more fluid notion of society – as a process of negotiation, affirmation, and reproduction’.65

Theiler has identified two types of reification. The first type of reification is in congruence with the primoridalist approach to nations and ethnic groups, which treat these groups as ahistorical entities. But the Copenhagen School clearly distances itself from this approach by taking a social constructivist approach to identity communities, which is already discussed above. The Copenhagen School acknowledges however, that once identity communities are constructed, they can ‘become so stable and psychologically entrenched that it acquires a widely accepted self-referential claim to survival and thereby becomes a potential security object’.66 Social objects, like identity communities, can confront individuals as ‘objective social facts’.67 At a specific moment in time, they can therefore be treated as de facto stable and fixed.68 So, whereas Wæver agrees with Critical scholars that identities are always in a process of constructing and deconstructing, at the same time he argues that once identities are securitized, they can approach individuals as something given.69 Moreover, Scott Watson has suggested that the problem of reification only comes to the fore from wrongful use of the approach; when society is assumed a fixed category prior to the construction of threats.70

The second type of reification is more serious, according to Theiler. This type of reification refers to the treatment of identity communities as separate unit of analysis. Societies are considered to have preferences of their own, and the ability to influence outcomes. They are independent agents, and ‘more than the sum of its parts’.71 At the same time, the Copenhagen school acknowledges that societies are social constructs, and do not exist outside the minds of individuals. Theiler claims that this problem is very common to social sciences in general and difficult to avoid. According to Theiler, SIT can help to find a way out of this dilemma.72

From SIT it can be adapted that the identity and behavior of individuals are determined by social as well as personal identities. Tajfel has stated that ‘the behavior of each individual can be seen as varying on a continuum, one extreme of which consists of acting fully in terms of self and the other of acting fully in terms of his group’.73 Tajfel and Turner acknowledge that these are theoretical extremes, and that in reality social interactions are always to a certain extent determined by personal and social identities.74 According to Theiler, SIT approaches social identities as ‘internalized categories’, which shape group representations and ‘corresponding identifications, preferences and behavior’.75 Theiler has named these group representations ‘psychological facts’. Psychological facts form an inter-subjective reality; they influence the identity and behavior of individuals, but ‘they are not social actors themselves’. Theiler has identified a ‘cycle of group reproduction’, which works as follows:

65

Bilgin, 2003, p. 213; See also: Watson, 2005, p. 3; Theiler, 2003, p. 253; O’Neil, 2006, p. 325.

(19)

19

The community’s members continuously “act out” – or externalize – their internalized representations of the group by thinking, acting and feeling in line with prevailing group norms and the “group prototype”. As individuals externalize their representations of the community in this way and experience other individuals doing the same, the community becomes intersubjectively real. It appears as an object “out there” in social space, liable to be observed and experienced. (…) But as soon as individuals experience the group as objective reality they internalize it anew, with the resulting internalisations bound to be externalized again, and so forth.76

Theiler argues that groups can acquire their own dynamic, which is different from the sum of individual intentions.77 This will be discussed further below, in relation to the ‘societal security dilemma’.

2.3.2 Societal security

According to the Copenhagen School, societies aim to maintain ‘societal security’. The definition of societal security that is most used by scholars, is the following definition of Wæver:

Societal security concerns the ability of a society to persist in its essential character under changing conditions and possible or actual threats. More specifically, it is about the sustainability, within acceptable conditions for evolution, of traditional patterns of language, culture, association, and religious and national identity and custom.78

This definition is quite vague and too broad to make it easily applicable in further research. In later work, Wæver has adapted this definition and stated that societal security is ‘the defense of a community against a perceived threat to its identity’.79 This will be the definition that is used in this study. The Copenhagen School argues that societal security, like state security, should be defined in terms of survival and the absence of threats. At the same time, they claim that societies can never be completely secure, security is always relative.80

From SIT it can be added that the prevailing status system has an important influence on the chance that communities take action to defend their identity. Tajfel and Turner have argued that marginalized groups will not take action if their position is legitimized, institutionalized and justified through a consensually accepted status system (or the status system is sufficiently firm to prevent the creation of alternatives).81 If change is not perceived possible, groups will not take action.

Theiler has criticized the Copenhagen School for failing to address the motivation of societies to protect their identity.82 The societal security approach does not pay sufficient attention to why group identity matters to individuals in the first place. SIT can provide additional insights. Social Psychology scholars such as Tajfel and Turner, have identified that individuals categorize the social world to systematize and simplify their environment. Consequently, individuals internalize their group categorizations, which become part of their self-concept. Moreover, ‘we tend to see those who are placed in the same category – including ourselves – as more similar to each other than is actually the 76 Theiler, 2003, p. 264 77 Theiler, 2003, p. 265 78

(20)

20 case while we overestimate the differences that separate us from members of other groups’.83 In the second place, individuals strive to maintain a positive self-image, which is formed through social comparisons.84 Tajfel and Turner claim that individuals are members of several social groups and these contribute in a positive or negative way to a person’s self-image. 85 Since individuals want to enjoy positive self-esteem, they make group comparisons as flattering as possible, which leads to a tendency to in-group favoritism.86

2.3.3 Threats

As became clear, an important condition of societal security is the absence of threats. From the societal sector, the Copenhagen School has identified three issues that are often identified as threats to societal security.87 In the first place, migration can exhibit a threat to the identity of a community. The influx of other societal groups can cause a shift in the composition of the population and overrun or dilute the original societal group. In the second place, societal threats can be generated by horizontal competition. In this case, the composition of the societal group does not change, but its identity is threatened by an ‘overriding cultural/ linguistic influence’ from another societal group. In the third place, vertical competition can threaten societal security. Vertical competition means that the identity of a societal group ceases to exist because of integration into a wider culture, or secession into a more narrow identity.88 The three different types of threats can be the result of, on the one hand intentional, programmatic and political reasons, and on the other hand, unintended and structural reasons. For example migration can occur due to better economic opportunities elsewhere, or as a result of homogenization programs of the population of a state. Horizontal competition can occur because of the influence of a large culture, or because trade is made dependent on certain cultural adjustments. Lastly, vertical competition is usually the result of intentional policy. For example state institutions are used to shape a common culture or repress a minority group.89

From SIT it can be adapted, that next to the issues described above, status-threats have to be considered. These occur when individuals cannot receive positive self-esteem from intergroup comparisons. Tajfel and Turner differentiate between consensually superior and inferior groups, based on the outcome of intergroup comparisons. When individuals make social comparisons, there will always be groups which lose out and receive a low social status. According to SIT, such an inferior social status can be perceived as threatening by these individuals.90

83

Theiler, 2003, p. 260.

84

Positive self-esteem is said to improve the capacity to be happy. Moreover, it is argued that self-esteem can be considered a basic human need. The discussion on whether or not individuals always strive to achieve a satisfactory concept of themselves, lies beyond the scope of this study. For further reading see for example: Branden, 1969 and Maslow, 1987, in Theiler, 2003, p. 260.

85

Tajfel, 1974, p. 69.

86

Tajfel, Turner, 1979, pp. 43-44.

87

According to the Copenhagen School threats to societal security can be generated by the societal, military, political, economic and environmental sector. Since the current research focuses on intergroup relations, the focus will lie on threats generated by the societal sector. Buzan, Wæver, de Wilde, 1998, p. 121.

88

Competing identities only lead to an objective threat when identities are mutually exclusive; Buzan, Wæver, de Wilde, 1998.

89

Buzan, Wæver, de Wilde, 1998, p. 42; Buzan, 1993, p. 44.

90

(21)

21 The Copenhagen School argues that threats to identity and the salience of identification are interlinked. A threat to the identity of a societal group, leads to stronger identification with this we-identity, and makes people more determined to preserve their identity. The same can be adapted from SIT. Tajfel and Turner showed that a strong conflict of interests makes it difficult for individuals to move to the opposing group, which increases the boundaries between the groups and makes it more likely for individuals to act out of their group membership.91 The scholars also discovered that the more social interactions between individuals are determined by their group membership, the more they show uniformity in their behavior towards the relevant out-group. Moreover, they found out that the more individuals act out of their group identity, the more they show stereotyping in relation to the out-group.92 According to the Copenhagen School, strong group identifications can seem threatening by other societal groups, which can lead to a ‘societal security dilemma’. This is a process ‘in which perceptions of ‘the others’ develop into mutually reinforcing ‘enemy-pictures’ leading to the same kind of negative dialectics as with the security dilemma between states’.93 In this way, conflicts about diverging interests can evolve in something much bigger, because of its ‘self-sustained internal dynamic’.94 This can be linked to the ‘cycle of group reproduction’ of Theiler, which provides more insights into the processes underlying the societal security dilemma. With regards to threats, Theiler has stated following:

...the very act of defending the group (through fences, wars or whatever) is itself a signifying and group-affirming one. By engaging in it, people externalize and affirm the existence of the group and their membership in it to each other and to themselves. (…) In the language of social identity theory, the group becomes more strongly internalized and more salient, and occupies a still larger part of the self. As a result, it becomes still more apt to elicit societal security responses, which in turn makes it still more salient and so on. In this way, the group as social representation that – mediated by securitization – conditions conflictual behavior on the one hand, and intergroup conflict as social process marked by this behavior on the other, can become mutually constitutive.95

As becomes clear from the definitions of societal security above, security is about perceived threats to the we-identity of a group. Not all developments that lead to a change in a society’s identity will be seen as a threat.96 The Copenhagen School takes a dynamic view on identity. Wæver has stated that ‘some change will be seen as part of the natural process by which identities adjust and evolve to meet alterations in historical circumstances’.97 Depending on the nature of societies and the way in which identity is constructed, they are more likely to define certain developments as threats than others. If societies are relatively open, and able to adapt to changes, they will less likely feel threatened, than when they are relatively closed. 98 Moreover, what societies perceive as threats can differ from what can objectively be assessed as a threat. By using security rhetoric, issues can be

91 Tajfel, Turner, 1979, p. 35. 92 Tajfel, Turner, 1979, p. 36. 93

The traditional concept of the security dilemma between states means that an increase in the security of one state decreases the security of another state. It is based on the realist assumptions that states always try to enhance their power and security, and act in a situation of international anarchy. See amongst others: Jervis, 1978, p. 169; Buzan, 1993, p. 46. 94 Buzan, 1993, p. 46. 95 Theiler, 2003, p. 264. 96

Buzan, 1993, pp. 42-43; Buzan, Wæver, de Wilde, 1998, p. 26.

97

Buzan, 1993, p. 42.

98

(22)

22 identified as threat to the survival of the community, without them being an objective threat. The Copenhagen School refers to this security rhetoric as securitization.99

2.3.4 Securitization

The process of securitization is summarized by Theiler as follows:

To securitize is to identify an alleged threat to the survival of the community and to the shared identity it sustains, its presumed origins and perpetrators, as well as a strategy to ward off that threat and thereby render society secure again. Given that these are perceived to be existential threats to something whose survival is sought as an end in itself and is afforded absolute priority, effective securitization often leads to defensive measures that go beyond the limits of what qualifies as politically or morally acceptable conduct in normal circumstances.100

The securitization move is made by a ‘securitizing actor’. Elites or social entrepreneurs within a society can act as securitizing actors by identifying threats and persuading others of their validity.101 Many scholars have rightly criticized the Copenhagen School for focussing too much on the state as securitizing actor. For example Barthwal-Datta insists that more attention should be paid to non-state security actors.102 These non-state security actors are for example civil society groups, research organizations, media or non-governmental organizations (NGO’s). Another relevant addition is made by Thierry Balzacq and Holger Stritzel, who have added that next to identifying the securitizing actors, their social capital or positional power should be taken into account.103 High social capital and/ or strong positional power increase the felicity of the speech act. Some further theorizing is still necessary in this direction, for example the question of how social capital can be measured needs to be addressed.

Balzacq and Stritzel have further argued that the roles of the audience and context are underdeveloped in the Copenhagen School. They claim that the Copenhagen School concentrates to narrowly on utterance of the speech act itself. Balzacq refers to this as illocutionary act. He adds that in addition, the interaction between the audience, context and speech act, the prelucutionary act, should be taken into account. For a speech act to be successful, it has to resonate with the audience. The audience has to accept the claim that a certain issue poses an existential threat to the referent object, as well as that the survival of the referent object is valuable. Balzacq and Stritzel claim that more attention should be paid to the local socio-political context and the influence of facilitating conditions on securitization. Stritzel has stressed that the performative force of an articulated threat text is an important part of the speech act, such as symbolic language. Balzacq further argues that the embeddedness of the speech act in existing discourses is relevant.104 With regards to support of the audience, Balzacq has argued that support of the audience can be expressed through moral or formal support. Whereas moral support refers to support of the general public, formal support refers to support which is backed by the state. Balzacq has stated that these can be more or less congruent with each other. Moral support can for example condition formal backing.105

(23)

23 Booth has criticized the strong reliance on the speech act of the Copenhagen School from a different angle. He claims that people, who have no access to discourse, are left out.106 Barthwal-Datta suggested that reliance on speech acts already presumes that it is possible to speak about the security threat. Additionally, he states that securitization should not only be about words, since media images can also influence securitization.107 Booth has also criticized the Copenhagen school for its strong reliance on the construction of identity threats. He claims that as a result, ‘real’ threats are overlooked. Knudsen and Balzacq have uttered the same worries.108 These criticisms are important to have in mind when drawing conclusions based on the securitization process.

2.3.5 Strategies

According to the Copenhagen School, there are two ways in which societal groups can react to threats if they are perceived as such. In the first place, societal groups can put the threat onto the state’s agenda and move the issue to the political sector. The threat is then considered a matter of state security and state-level measures are then taken to fight the threat. In the second place, societal groups can take their own measures to handle the threat through non-state means.109 The Copenhagen School mostly focuses on the former, for which it has been criticized as being too state- centric.110 Moreover, other strategies are under-theorized. SIT can fill this gap.

Tajfel and Turner have identified several strategies inferior groups can undertake to enhance their social status. They provide more insights into strategies groups can employ without direct reference to the state. In the first place, individuals can try to leave their group, which is referred to as upward social mobility. This is only possible in case of permeable group boundaries.

In the second place, individuals can use the strategy of ‘social creativity’. By redefining or altering the elements of the comparative situation, group members seek positive distinctiveness for their in-group. Social action is directed at changing the status of the group in the social hierarchy, the objective status does not necessarily change. There are three possible ways of executing social creativity. Firstly, the low status group can give a new meaning to their (previously seen as) inferior characteristics, so that these characteristics get a positive value. At the same time attempts to be more like the superior group are rejected. Tajfel argues that this ‘pris de conscience’ starts with an active minority, which is followed by the rest of the group when a positive new version of the social identity is created.111 Secondly, the low status group can create new characteristics for their group which establishes a positive distinctiveness from the superior group. The creation of new characteristics can take place through social action and/or diffusion of new ideologies.112 Thirdly, the

106

For example also gender related insecurities. L. Hansen (2000), ‘The Little Mermaid’s Silent Security Dilemma and the Absence of Gender in the Copenhagen School’, Millennium, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 285-306, in Booth, 2007, p. 167.

107

Barthwal-Datta, 2009, p. 282.

108

Booth, 2007, p. 165-167; O. Knudsen (2001), ‘Post-Copenhagen Security Studies: Desecuritizising Securitization’, Security Dialogue, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 355-368, in Barthwal-Datta, 2009, p. 281; T. Balzacq (2005), ‘The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Agency, Audience and Context’, European Journal of

International Relations, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 171-201, in Barthwal-Datta, 2009, p. 281. 109

Buzan, 1993, p. 43.

110

Barthwal-Datta, 2009, p. 282; Booth, 2007, p. 165-167.

111

An example he mentions are the blacks in the United States, which gained a new self-conscience and came to be proud of their features, stressing the beauty of their dark skin and curly hair; Tajfel, Turner, 1979, p.43.

112

(24)

24 low status group can change its comparison group, ceasing or avoiding the high-status out-group as a comparative frame of reference. The low status group can increase its self-esteem by comparing itself with other subordinate groups.113 To make this solution successful two criteria have to be fulfilled. The in-group has to accept and positively evaluate the new characteristics, and the superior group has to accept these as well. Superior groups however, will usually be reluctant to accept the new group status, since it would devaluate and decrease the status of their own social identity. It is this situation, according to Tajfel, that makes intense hostility and discrimination in relations between groups very likely.114

In the third place, low status groups can try to achieve positive distinctiveness through direct competition with the out-group, referred to as social competition. They take action and give a new interpretation of their group characteristics in order to reverse the relative position of their group, compared to the superior group. Moreover low status groups can take actions to break down the barriers preventing them of access to conditions they previously did not have. In that case they not only try to enhance their subjective status, but their objective status as well. As far as social competition is directed at redistributing scarce resources, it has a big chance of leading to conflict between the subordinate and dominant groups.115

2.4 Conclusion

This chapter has showed that insights of SIT are useful in strengthening the societal security approach. The societal security approach developed on the one hand as a reaction to the post-Cold War reality, and on the other hand it was an outflow of constructivist developments in International Relations, Sociology and Philosophy. It has been a missed opportunity that the Copenhagen School has not incorporated insights of Social Psychology, and especially of SIT.

The focus of this chapter has been on why and how people mobilize to defend their identity. Whereas the societal security approach fails to address why identity mobilization takes place, SIT explicates that social identity matters to individuals because it helps to simplify their environment and can contribute to a positive self-esteem. The societal security approach concentrates on societal groups, which are considered imagined communities. Societal groups distinguish themselves from other social groups by their ability to compete with the territorial state as political organizing principle, and because individuals would feel diminished without this identity. SIT adds that the permeability of group boundaries has a large influence on how important social identities are for individuals. SIT also helps to explain why identities can be treated as social constructs, and as ‘objective social facts’ at the same time, by approaching social identities as internalized categories.

According to the societal security approach, societies want to maintain societal security. Therefore, societies mobilize against perceived threats to their identity. Tajfel and Turner have stressed that social action only takes place when social change is perceived possible. SIT helps to focus more on socio-political circumstances, which are often overlooked by the societal security approach. Mobilization is not likely if the social position of marginalized groups is legitimized, institutionalized and justified through a consensually accepted status system, or a status system that is sufficiently firm to prevent the creation of alternatives.

(25)

25 Threats become perceived as such due to a process called securitization. Securitization acts are made by securitizing actors. These can be state, as well as non-state actors. For securitization of societal identity to take place, securitizing actors, in their speech acts, have to refer to the survival of the community and to its shared identity. Issues that are often securitized are migration, and horizontal and vertical competition. From SIT was added that threats can also be the result of a low status. Another element of securitization is the identification of strategies to ward off the threat. The Copenhagen School has been criticized for mainly concentrating on threats that are put on the state’s agenda. Therefore, the distinction made by SIT between strategies of social competition, social creativity and upward social mobility is a useful addition. Although the Copenhagen School only focuses on the utterance of the speech act, other scholars have successfully stressed the importance of the performative force of the speech act as well. Balzacq and Stritzel have added that the felicity of the speech acts depends to a large extent on the acceptance of the speech act by the audience.

(26)

26

3. Methodology

This chapter will explain the methodological choices made in this study. In the first place, the theoretical foundations of the methodology are explained, which relate to the nature of knowledge. In the second place, it is explained how different sub-questions lead to an answer to the main research question of this study. In the last place, the different methods used, interviews and a study of documents, are clarified.

3.1 Theoretical foundations

The social constructivists’ origins of the Copenhagen School give direction to the methodological approach of this study. The label social constructivism is very broad, and includes a diverse range of perspectives. However, social constructivists are united in their focus on the nature of knowledge. They argue that knowledge is constructed, and cannot objectively be derived from the world ‘out there’. The meaning of reality is not fixed and ready to be discovered, ‘but emerges out of people’s interaction with the world’.116 Social constructivist research therefore concentrates on the construction of meanings. Adler has summarized the social constructivist epistemology as follows:

Constructivists are interested in understanding how the material, subjective and inter-subjective worlds interact in the social construction of reality, and because, rather than focusing exclusively on how structures constitute agents’ identities and interests, it also seeks to explain how individual agents socially construct these structures in the first place.117

The social constructivist epistemology of the societal security approach is for example reflected in the inter-subjective nature of societal identity, and in the focus on perceived societal security, instead of approaching security as ontological reality. The societal security approach concentrates on societal security as constructed reality, and on the construction process itself (securitization).

The social constructivist theoretical foundations go together with a qualitative methodology. The construction of identity and the construction of threats to societal security should be studied by identifying the underlying processes of a speech act according to the Copenhagen School. Speech acts are discursive moves of actors to securitize a certain issue, for example rhetorically through discourse. These speech acts can be expressed through a variety of mediums such as media, literature, technology and propaganda. 118

3.2 Operationalization

The main question of this study is to what extent the social mobilization of Madhesis from 2007 until 2011 can be explained by an integrative framework of the societal security approach and SIT? To answer the main question, three sub questions are formulated.

In the first place, the question is answered if the Madhesi identity can be considered a societal identity? From the integrative framework of analysis could be adapted that the answer depends on two conditions. In the first place, the Madhesi identity has to be taken as decisive for who someone is. Since the societal security approach gives no indicators on how this can be determined, insights of