Suchergebnisse

Stories about ethnic war -- The symbolic politics of ethnic war -- Karabagh and the fears of minorities -- Georgia and the fears of majorities -- Elite conspiracy in Moldova's civil war -- Government Jingoism and the fall of Yugoslavia -- The power of symbols

This article uses Kaufman's symbolic politics theory of ethnic war as the basis for a broader theory integrating most existing insights about the causes of international and civil war. It starts with findings from psychology showing that people are intuitive thinkers whose decisions result less from rational calculation than from symbolic predispositions—biases such as ideology and prejudice. Studies also show that increased feelings of threat lead to increased aggressive attitudes and behavior. Symbolic politics theory explains how individual attitudes can result in collective action using mobilization theory, with social organization and framing by leaders explaining which attitudes become political action. According to symbolist logic, important causes of war include aggressive symbolic predispositions among leaders or mass publics, heightened threat perceptions, and strong political organizations backing aggressive leaders. Crises and enduring rivalries make war more likely because they strengthen hostile predispositions and threat perceptions, thereby promoting mobilization for war. Cooperative transnational ties and democratic political institutions are among the factors that tend to promote peace.

AbstractIn a 2002 overview, Daniele Conversi rightly highlights 'Nationalism as an emotional bond' as a central theme in Walker Connor's works. Nearly half a century on from Connor's initial assertions, the discipline of psychology has made important strides in understanding the social‐psychological dynamics that influence nationalist feelings. Building on this base of psychological evidence, this essay asks two questions. First, to what degree are Connor's claims supported by or compatible with what psychologists now know? Second, to the extent that Connor's arguments are correct, to what degree have scholarly understandings of nationalist politics recognised the implications of Connor's insights? I conclude that Connor's insights stand up remarkably well, but few have picked up on them, to the lasting detriment of our field of study.

"Symbolic Politics as International Relations Theory" published on by Oxford University Press.

Efforts at building a homogeneous national identity in the Philippines over the centuries have resulted in an unusual pattern of successes and failures. Spanish missionaries successfully spread the Catholic religion in the northern and central portions of the Philippines in the sixteenth century, but failed among the Muslims in the south, introducing an enduring religious cleavage within the country. Enormous linguistic diversity remains despite efforts by three successive regimes to promote first Spanish, then English, then Tagalog as a vehicle for linguistic unity. Finally, despite aggressive elite promotion of a unifying historical narrative of resistance to imperialism (referring especially to the 1896–1902 revolutionary period), regional and ethnic identity have remained very strong relative to national identity, even while national pride has increased. One set of reasons for this relative weakness of Philippine nationalism includes the initial geographical and linguistic fragmentation of the country. Also important were patterns of state-building that enabled the governing elites to build support on the bases of personal, clan and patron–client ties instead of broader identities.

This article examines the utility of opportunity theory, framing analysis, and symbolic politics theory in explaining the causes of ethnic war, focusing on the 1970s Mindanao case. Opportunity variables are present as expected, but process-tracing shows they do not operate according to the hypothesized mechanisms. The framing approach identifies several important dynamics. The resonance of frames was influenced by the salience of the issue highlighted, the narrative fidelity of the frame to preexisting cultural beliefs, the credibility of leaders proposing them, and processes of frame bridging. Symbolic politics theory offers the most complete explanation, embracing most of the alternative explanations' insights while filling in their logical gaps. The symbolist analysis begins with group myths justifying hostility on both sides, the result of past Christian-Muslim warfare. Combined with fears of group extinction, opportunity factors, and hostile popular attitudes, these myths enabled group elites to manipulate emotive symbols to justify mobilization against the other group, creating a security dilemma spiral that resulted in the outbreak of war. Adapted from the source document.