265 - Week 8-10 - Revision Notes .docx

5 Pages
Unlock Document

McGill University
Sociology (Arts)
SOCI 265
John Anthony Hall

Week 8 -10 Revision Notes Sociology 265 – War, States and Social Change Week 8 - Ethnicity and Nationalism Ethnicity = a homogenous group that is larger than a family; membership is determined by rule of descent = it is passed down hereditarily  nation refers to a coherent political community also though = a politicised ethnicity or a cultural community - Gelner: Nationalism = a political principle that holds that political and national unity is one: ethnicity of the rulers should be the same as the community  it is the imposition of a high culture on the variegated complex of local folk cultures o BUT irredentism = the notion that a state has a policy of annexation of another’s state or lands based on claims of common ethnicity or historical entitlement e.g. Balkan Wars w. the notion of brethren Where does ethnicity come from? - primordialist ▯ ethnicity is a natural and even biological condition within human nature e.g. Anthony Smith - modernism  nationalism and ethnicity is a construct derived from necessities and tools of modern society e.g. Benedict Anderson, Hobsbawm, Gelner = needs to be a common culture; modern state is centralised and can penetrate all society When considering states and nations, western and European countries tend to be more homogeneous than less developed countries = Europe has a history of war and ethnic cleansing that has formulated an artificial homogenous ethnic entity - the developing state can introduce a greater degree of nationalism due to the development of democratic institutions bring the ideas of common identity/commonality e.g. 19thC France  education, transportation, infrastructure o states can structure identity through education and cultural repertoire = esp. stronger states which have more materials at hand and have greater focus on social policies - less developed areas therefore have less homogeneity o colonies were ruled indirectly through elites whom benefited from cultural differentiation since this preserved the hierarchy and made them mediators between the colonial power and the native society  artificial notion of separation ALSO colonisation changed the dynamics between differing groups and nationalities e.g. Rwanda where the socially elevated minority, Tutsi’s, where massacred by the lower class Hutus Ethnic violence  attack is ethnic if victims are chosen by ethnic criteria, it is made in ethnic motivation or it is perpetrated in the name of one ethnic group - in the worst cases it has come from state aggression that has trickled down into the everyday strata of society e.g. Bosnia- Serbia conflict of the 1990s = Why does it break out? 1 – rational explanation: ethnic conflict is a function of elite competition or ‘ethnic entrepreneurs’within different groups, whom aim to achieve more advantageous positions within the state = either through separation or recognition of their ethnicity 2- power relations within the state: ethno-political conflicts  determined by elements such as whether the state is exclusionary or the state is collapsing e.g. if the elites which represent different ethnic groups are sharing power and cannot get along - mechanisms: DIFFERENT ETHNO-POLITICAL CONFIGURATIONS MAKE DIFFERENT TYPES OF CONFLICT: if the state is exclusionary on the basis of ethnicity then rebellions are likely to occur whilst if there are segmented states which are characterised by a large number of cooperating elites whom share power, then in-fighting is more likely OR in cohesive states with a shirt history of direct rule, secessionist movements are more likely  ethnic conflicts tend to break out quickly and can be unexpected - why do they break out so rapidly? ▯ ‘tipping game’: when there is a national divide or secessionist movement there are members of a minority whom push for special privileges within the state; people are unwilling to take on the state or show their discontent unless they know that others are doing the same or their families will be safe o ethnic entrepreneurs whom are trying to drive the ethnic movement = must try and create a situation which attracts enough people to create the illusion of safety in order to attract more whom wish for secession and are willing to show these hidden preferences = when people perceive safety in neighbours, they will reveal their preferences or at least falsify them e.g. if under the threat of violence from a particular side - why is it so violent?  ethnic entrepreneurs wish to create a situation of no-return; burn bridges to ensure the ethnic divide is a permanent one even if militarily unsuccessful e.g. desecration of graves, massacres; Horowitz: ethnicity is metaphorical family  fighting in the name of this family brings out a form of emotion that allows greater violence since it makes killing more justifiable; state collapse also leads to ethnic violence = people are worried that credible commitments made by the old state are now invalid and an ethnicity is under threat thus leading to ethnic minorities striking to protect their status quo or get a better situation OR if a majority or minority in the collapse of a previous state perceives their neighbour to be mobilising will react against it esp. if this mobilising force is a homeland to ethnicities within the borders = ethnic minorities try to initiate violence in order to draw the armies of the national movement e.g. Russians in Estonia, Serbians inA-H/Bosnia Are there institutional means or policy that can prevent ethnic conflict? 1 – award any ethnicity their own state = every border of every state should correspond to an ethnicity BUT this creates actual incentives for no nationalisms, whilst the number of states will rise rather than decline e.g. Nigeria post-civil war where the number of recognised provinces within 20 years went from around 10 to 30+ 2 – representation – different minorities are given guaranteed representation within the legislative parties e.g. PM and President are different ethnicities which alternate at each election = no majority is created 3 – state policies – prevent an ethnicity becoming violent e.g. the creation of a common language  vertical advancement is central to the state as it is education that assures advancement = limited incentive for elites to become mediators between the state and the people Week 10 – Capitalism and Globalisation Why capitalism and war? 1­ Hegemonic Stability Theory = great transition wars between the greatest powers occur as a rising capitalist power seeks it’s place in the sun e.g. Germany WW1 as unevenness in power leads to instability within the international system 2­ Marx and Chomsky = capitalist states depend upon the exploitation of the third world and in the struggle to ensure their market shares, they are prepared to fight one another a. Lenin = advanced states fighting with each other for capitalist resources was the central cause of WW1 since acc. to Marx, it was not longer possible to make profits at home due to market saturation b. Luxemburg = chances of investment for big returns were exhausted at the core = there needed to be a 3 W rd c. Chomsky = the big capitalist state (USA) needs to exploit the third world, therefore the invasions of Iraq for oil since the advanced world needs it = capitalist needs produce geopolitical conflict BUT – links between capitalism and war are not tight or necessary 1­ historically: any theory which says that imperialism is based on the needs of capitalism needs to consider the amount of pre-capitalism empires! = realist theory that wars are caused by collapse of the central government and subsequent anarchy are persuasive a. pre-18thC = merchants and trading companies were only at the whim of the state and regulated by them = only after this that the state became more synonymous with capitalism b. Marxist = sociologist societies without capitalism will not need to fight BUT there was conflict between Vietnam and China = more like realist practices 2­ Capitalists rarely fully control the state a. Unique situations: 1971; Ayende of Chile nationalises ITT; the USAthrough the CIAhad a considerable role in bringing the regime down after ITT was able to express their feelings to Nixon and Kissinger and were able to attain them in return for a large donation to Nixon’s re-election campaign b. BUT- normally it is professional politicians in control e.g. Bush’s invasion of Iraq focused on the spread of democracy and the overthrow of an apparently oppressive regime – documents show that even the head of the World Bank, Wolfowitz, focused on this – whilst papers of the Vietnam War focused on anti-communist action for the balance of power and NOT off-shore oil resources 3­ Does capitalism need imperialism? a. Wade: globalised world is not the whole world but the north and the North’s appendages = capitalists want profit and security thus meaning that the greatest amounts of investment, trade patterns and stock markets are also in this area whilst there is little need for markets in the 3 W i. USAhas put more investment in Europe where there are markets and manufactures for high-end, expensive products e.g. Apple technology 4­ Did imperialism benefit capitalism? a. If empires were necessary for the success of capitalism then war might be explained and might actually be necessary for advanced countries to stay rich if they depend on having an empire i. British empire did not make money or bring returns on home investment, imperial investment or overseas investment 1. Greatest rates of return came from Scotland, Canada,Argentina i.e. dominions not imperial possessions 2. Empire was no longer economically viable if BritishArmies had to be sent to putdown colonndl unrest i.e. the Indian army could not be used inAfrica b. Biggest change in the 2 half of the 20thC = decolonisation  Dutch, British, French i. BUT Europeans actually entered the greatest period of economic growth in their histories; not necessary to have empires for their wellbeing 1. Rise of productivity in France, Germany, Belgium and Holland came because they traded with each other in high-end markets  no longer resources but brains which are key commodities 5­ Central argument for capitalism and war = demand for oil a. If the advanced world does not need markets from LEDC’s since they are poor and thus offer little profit i. Study done by t
More Less

Related notes for SOCI 265

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.