Suchergebnisse

The social sciences offer many insights into the causes of the intense ethnic conflicts that characterize the close of the twentieth century, but they also create obstacles to understanding these baffling problems, contends H. D. Forbes in this important book. Forbes takes a critical look at the "contact hypothesis"-the assumption commonly held by social scientists that increased contact between different ethnic groups gives each group more accurate information about the other and thus reduces friction. By distinguishing aggregate from individual relations, Forbes suggests a way out of the perplexities induced by current social science literature on prejudice and discrimination.Drawing on studies of the contact hypothesis in sociology and social psychology and on the literature on nationalism and ethnic conflict, this book provides the most thorough review of contact theory available. Scientific research suggests that increased contact between culturally distinct groups in some cases gives rise to more intense conflict. Yet individuals who get to know each other better generally like each other better. Can these apparently conflicting generalizations both be true? asks Forbes. They are, he argues, and he takes contemporary social science to task for failing to show how and why this is possible. The author clarifies the weaknesses of contact theory, develops an alternative "linguistic model" of ethnic conflict, and concludes with penetrating reflections on the politics and methodology of the social sciences today

"In der Transformationsforschung zu den post-sowjetischen Gesellschaften, insbesondere Rußland, haben sich die anfänglichen Analyseinstrumente als nur bedingt tauglich erwiesen. Die vielfältigen Ungleichgewichte, Machtasymmetrien oder soziale Ungleichheiten, verhindern eine gleichmäßige Einsetzung des gewünschten institutionellen Rahmens auf der Makro-Ebene. Im diametralen Gegensatz zu diesen 'großen' Theorien stehen kulturologische Ansätze, die regionale, nationale, 'ethnische' Mentalitäten untersuchen. Übersetzt man sie in die Begrifflichkeit soziologischer Theorie, so werden hier Handlungskapazitäten individueller und kollektiver Akteure untersucht, die völlig unverbunden und nichtvermittelt den Systemveränderungen gegen überstehen. 'Lebenswelten' und Systemebene sind jedoch empirisch vermittelt, was theoretisch wohl am besten zu fassen ist, wenn die Meso-Ebene der Gruppenvernetzungen, als kollektive Effekte individueller Verhaltensmuster, im Blickpunkt steht. Durch die - oft allerdings nur analytisch gegebene - Trennung der Ebenen kann die 'Reichweite' vieler Theoreme oder Konzeptionssegmente besser eingeschätzt werden. Die Transformationserfolge - oder auch: '-mißerfolge' beschränken sich nicht auf die Etablierung elitärer Po]itik und vertikaler Patron-Klient-Netzwerke; es lohnt sich, das Augenmerk auf 'konservative' Vergesellschaftungsformen wie Milieus und Regionalisierungen zu richten, die sich als relative Stabilitätszonen und Integrationsmedien in Zeiten rapiden sozialen Wandels erweisen konnten. Milieus sollen nicht als 'vormoderne' Sozialformen gefaßt werden, sondern als Indiz dafür, daß mit der sozialstrukturellen Neugliederung der postsowjetischen Gesellschaft nicht nur vertikale Grenzen, insbesondere aufgrund sozio-ökonomischer Ausdifferenzierung, umdefiniert werden, sondern auch horizontale. Während der Milieu-Begriff zu Beschreibung von Alltagsorganisation verwendet wird, bezieht sich der Regionalisierungs-Begriff auf die, zentralstaatlich nicht zu bewä1tigende, Neuorganisation kollektiver Akteure beim Aufbau von lokalen Institutionen". (Autorenreferat)

Some social scientists are sceptical of the explanatory power of ethnicity and seek to explain ethnic differences by references to non-ethnic factors such as discrimination. We challenge this scepticism by considering two theoretical objections: there is no such thing as ethnicity and ethnic categories are unable to explain social processes; and by showing how ethnic strategies affect outcomes that cannot be captured in standard ethnic penalty analyses, we offer a new way to examine ethnic penalties in unemployment. We calculate a set of net ethnic penalties and then analyse longitudinal labour-force data to examine how strategies such as self-employment change ethnic penalties in unemployment amongst six different ethnic groups in Britain. The results show that self-employment reduces the ethnic penalty for Indians, Pakistanis-Bangladeshis and others, but not for Blacks, White-Others and White-British. This supports the argument that ethnicity can provide an explanation for some of the ethnic differentials in the labour market.

AbstractThe political utility of ethnicity is typically attributed to the ease with which it can be observed. However, ethnic visibility is not universal, and I argue that its variation has political implications; namely that more visible group members support ethnic parties at higher rates because they have the most to gain (or lose) from ethnopolitical competition. Using original data from Malawi, I find that individual‐level ethnic visibility is indeed strongly associated with ethnic party support. I provide further evidence that visibility induces party support instrumentally by shaping expectations about others' ability to correctly infer ethnic belonging. I also show that the theory generalizes to the group level, with more visible ethnic groups across Africa being more likely to vote ethnically. These results qualify a central assumption in instrumental theories of ethnic politics—that ethnic identities are always visible—and help explain variation in the success of ethnic political mobilization.

The introduction by Jeffrey Reitz focuses on the evolution of Breton's distinctive institutional framework, which both extends and in some ways alters John Porter's classic analysis in The Vertical Mosaic. Reitz shows how Breton's original concept of "institutional completeness" has been extended to provide a comprehensive framework for the institutional analysis of inter-ethnic relations, creating a unified theoretical structure that has reshaped the study of inter-ethnic relations in Canada and points toward a future research agenda.