What conditions result in peaceful coexistence of different peoples (ethnically, religiously, culturally, etc) and what results in violence?
This, of course, is one of those conundrums we've been considering, and a comment along those lines in class a few days ago brought to mind a discussion I'd had in a course on African politics some time ago. One of our readings, "The Political Salience of Cultural Difference" by Daniel Posner, analyzed that question exactly on a tribal level: why had Chewas and Tumbukas formed a peaceful coalition in Zambia yet were hostile towards one another across the border in Malawi? The groups speak different languages, one is matrimonial and the other patrimonial, marriage and farming practices are notably different, etc etc. What makes them friendly in one country and hostile not far away?
In short, Posner's conclusion was this: both groups are larger in Malawi, making them viable opposition in politically-charged settings, ethno-political loyalties (and thereby hostilities) encouraged by political leaders in that country. In Zambia, however, both groups were smaller, and thereby banded together as minorities rather than being mobilized against one another.
Surely there could be more factors involved, but it's a factor that, I'd think, could (and has) played a vital role in religious conflict as well (say, our discussions about the Troubles) how movement leaders choose to mobilize (or not) differences, be it ethnic or religious, etc etc. Perhaps as with our discussion of ethnicity as a social construct, the labeling of "the other" as politically charged is also a matter of social construct... logical, yes? Once these differences have been mobilized, then, matters become all the more complicated and intricate, both in considering the root(s) of the conflict and in attempting to resolve it.
...Considering the above example, probably won't come as a large surprise that I've chosen to focus my papers on religious conflict in Nigeria, where tribal differences once again play a role. Even for those not as intrigued by Africa as myself, though, I'd still recommend taking a gander at that article, if only for the basic consideration of politically mobilizing non-political differences... if that made sense. Hopefully it did...
Sounds a little like these tribes are engaging in realist diplomacy if you ask me. As you said, both tribes in Zambia band together to get more out of the system for both peoples. In Malawi, each want the bigger influence.
ReplyDeleteThe tribes in Zambia probably had more personal interaction with each other than Malawi. It brings us to the point of active engagement between two ingroups. If each group can realize the other is just as human as them, I think there is a reduction in tension. Is the way to break ingroups through engagement with each other? Or is it only ok when the ends justify greater cooperation?
Interesting point on the personal interaction - I'd considered that as well. Easier said than done, though, obviously, not to mention the fact that simply throwing them together could have disastrous results as well (close contact really can go either way, eh?). Could also have a chicken and egg thing involved there - if they interact more, they are more likely to cooperate; if they cooperate, they are more likely to interact more. Does being thrown together lead to cooperation, or does required cooperation result in greater understanding through interaction? ...or maybe this is all one big rhetorical absurdity. heh...
ReplyDelete