Sociology 2: Class 18: Globalization, Culture, Identity 2 Copyright © 2011 by Evan Schofer Do not copy or distribute without permission

Sociology 2:Class 18: Globalization,

Culture, Identity 2

Copyright © 2011 by Evan Schofer

Do not copy or distribute without permission

Announcements

• Final exam review sheet: Handed out today

• Final exam coming up…• Format similar to midterm• Topics: All course material… with main emphasis on

material covered in weeks 5-10

• Today’s Class: Globalization & Culture• What is culture, and how does globalization affect it?• Is culture/ethnicity/religion/identity a source of conflict?• If time allows: Video… Afghanistan

Review: Identity/culture

• Two views of identity/ethnicity/culture:

• 1. Primordial view• Culture/ethnicity/identity is deeply rooted, fundamental

• 2. The “social constructionist” view: identity/ethnicity are malleable: They change over time and with social context

• People exhibit different identities in different contexts• Identities disappear and return (or are “re-invented”)• Political processes and social circumstances shape and

alter identities• Research evidence favors this view…

Social Constructionist View• Evidence: Strongly supports the social

constructionist perspective• 1. Culture/ethnicity/identity is very malleable

– A. Individual identity shift over time & situation• Religious & cultural beliefs change a lot over time• Collective activities, rituals, and hazing can produce

strong commitments to groups– Identity is real – but may vanish/fade in other contexts

• Context matters: If you are surrounded by a particularly type of identity, you are likely to adopt it

– Ex: Republican / Democrat; Religion

• Ex: US conflict w/ Soviet Union/Russia• Strong hatreds (like post-9/11); but they faded.

Social Constructionist View• Empirical evidence: Strongly supports the

social constructionist perspective• B. Entire ethnic identities expand, fade, and

even can be reinvented…– Not as stable as we often assume

– Ex: Quebecois (French) in Canada• French-speaking people moved to Canada. 18th, 19th c.• The “French-speaking” identity faded as people

assimilated• In 1960s/70s the Quebecois identity was revitalized…

people began speaking French again» Problem: Not many French speakers left. Thousands of

French teachers were brought over from France to teach in the schools.

Social Constructionist View

• 2. Identity/ethnicity is often the consequence of political struggles

• Political leaders routinely invoke nationalism and ethnicity to gain followers

• Also, leaders build support by invoking polarizing identities, or demonizing “scapegoats”

– “Us versus them” mentality– Nazis: consolidated power by blaming problems on Jews– Osama Bin Laden: gathers followers by blaming problems on

Westerners / Americans

• Definition: Demagoguery: Political leaders who exploit emotion, prejudice, and fear to gain power

– Issue: this can actually create hostilities; strengthen ethnic, religious, and cultural identities.

Culture and Conflict

• Question: Do cultural differences lead to conflict?

• Samuel Huntington: Clash of Civilizations• An argument related to the primordial view

– A. There are distinct “civilizations” in the world, with different histories, beliefs, and cultures

• Ex: Western, “Confucian”, Islamic, Hindu, Latin American

– B. These will become the main “fault lines” of conflict in the future

• Replacing the “Cold War” battles over ideologies.


• Why will there be conflict among civilizations?

• 1. Differences in civilizations are fundamental

• Different language, history, religion, beliefs about individuals, families, and groups

• “These differences are more fundamental than beliefs about political ideologies and political regimes.” (Reader, p. 28)

• 2. Globalization: The world gets smaller• Globalization increases and intensifies interactions

among “civilizations”.


• 3. Economic modernization is “separating people from local identities” (p. 28)

• Local identities are dying out, allowing groups to organize under broad “civilizations”

– For him, civilizations are primordial… more so than local identities…

• Example: There are many Islamic sects (often in conflict with each other); If those sects unite under “Islam”, the potential for conflict increases

• Result: There is greater “civilization consciousness”.


• Huntington’s prediction: These cultural differences will lead to greater global conflict: A clash of civilizations

• Either among civilizations… or “the West versus the rest”

• Issue: Sociologists have been very critical of this view:

• Sociologists criticize the general idea of coherent “civilizations”… no such thing.

• And, they criticize the primordial view of culture…

Perspectives on identity/culture

• Bowen: “The Myth of Global Ethnic Conflict”• Argues against Huntington (But focuses on civil war, not

global conflict)

• Issue: There are many bloody conflicts raging in developing countries

• Westerners often attribute them to enduring ethnic hatreds

• Treat them as sad but inevitable• And, many fear Huntington-like conflict of “West vs. the

Rest”…


• Bowen: “The Myth of Global Ethnic Conflict”– “The very phrase “ethnic conflict” misguides us. It

has become a shorthand way to speak about any and all violent confrontations between groups of people living in the same country. Some of these conflicts involve ethnicity or cultural identity, but most are about getting more power, land, or other resources.


• Bowen: 3 mistaken assumptions:

• 1. Ethnic identities are ancient and unchanging

• The is the primordial view of ethnicity… it is widely refuted by sociological research

– Instead “ethnicity is the product of modern politics”• Example: Serbs and Croats in the Balkans• Example: Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda.



• 2. Ethnic identities motivate people to persecute and kill

• Answer: “Less than we usually think, and when they do, it is only after long periods of being prepared, pushed, and threatened by leaders who control the army and the airwaves. It is fear and hate generated from the top, and not ethnic differences, that finally push people to commit acts of violence.”



• 3. Ethnic diversity inevitably leads to violence• In fact, most extremely diverse societies peaceful• And, huge conflicts result across groups that are

culturally quite similar– Somalia

• Rather, the issue is often the relationship between ethnic groups and those in power…

Identity Construction and Conflict

• “Ethnic Cleansing” in the Balkans/Yugoslavia– Conflict between Serbs and Croats

• Primordialist claim: Hatred is centuries old: “There will always be blood on the Balkan soil”

– BUT: Surveys suggest that trust and intermarriage were very high in 1980s, before political conflict began

– People lived peacefully in same neighborhoods for decades

– Balkan political leaders strategically invoked ethnicity, stoked hatreds to gain support

– Inflammatory speech about external threat = a powerful frame to garner social/political support

– Invoking hatreds and committing atrocities helps consolidate allies and eliminate political rivals

– Several leaders stood trial for war crimes at the Hague…


• The Rwandan Genocide (1994)• Approx. 800,000 people killed• Primordialist claim: Ethnic hatreds led to conflict

– Hutus vs. Tutsis

– Evidence: Killings were politically motivated• Very complex situation. In a nutshell:• Ethnic identities were first polarized by colonial policies• Recently, one of the Hutu political parties attempted to

consolidate power by attacking and demonizing opponents

– While it was supposedly an “ethnic” conflict, many victims were Hutus (political enemies of the attackers)…


• Example: Katangan revolt in the Congo• Typical account: war is result of “tribalism and ethnicity”

(p. 131, citing Young)

• Actually, Katangans aren’t an ethnic group!• Katanga a province (like a US state) filled with many

different ethnic groups– Often, the provincial borders split ethnic groups… which fought

on opposite sides

• Rather, the war was rooted in economics and politics– For instance: Katanga was wealthy; they wanted to stop

people from migrating, taking jobs.


• Issue: Katangan war did help solidify the “Katangan” cultural identity

• People began to be willing to “die for Katanga”• But, it would be a mistake to assume that conflict was

caused by strong cultural identities• Even strong identities can dissolve quickly; Or, be

replaced by others.

Construction of ethnic polarization

• Example: Polarized identities in US after 9/11• Issue: Who attacked us?

– Saudis? (Most attackers were from Saudi Arabia)– A rich oil baron? (Bin Laden)– Muslim extremists?– An isolated nutcase?

– Questions:• Did US leaders seek to polarize identities after 9/11?

– Either to consolidate support in US or to build momentum for war?

• Could leaders have channeled animosity in a different direction? Or not invoked ethnic/religious identity at all?

– Why “muslim extremists” rather than other options?

Local Reactions to Globalization

• So, if globalization doesn’t inevitably lead to ethnic conflict… what’s up with Al Qaeda?– The general issue: How can we understand

reactions against the West?

Local Responses to Globalization

• Local reactions against Western culture, imperialism:

• 1. Opt out. Ignore or shun the external culture– Examples: Many indigenous groups, the Amish

• Historically most common. Arguably the most “authentically” traditional response to outsiders

• Typical outcome: children abandon traditional culture; traditional groups shrink or disintegrate

– Many traditional societies do not have strong institutions of social control… can’t compete with Western education, media, labor market.


• Reactions against Western culture:

• 2. “Reactionary movements”: Social movements that attack the system, offer an alternative

• Examples: French social movement against American food, popular culture; Some Islamic fundamentalists.

– Note: Some movements attack a specific (or symbolic) part of the dominant culture. Others are total rejections of it.

• Examples from readings, personal experience?


• Kurzman reading: “Bin Laden and other Thoroughly Modern Muslims”

• Argument: There are two kinds of reactionary movements: “Traditional” and “Modern”

– Traditional Reactionary Movements:• Ex: The Taliban in Afghanistan

– Mostly fight to get outsiders to leave• Usually organized by actual indigenous people

– Participants are usually local

• Not very common…


• Kurzman reading: (cont’d)– “Modern” Reactionary Movements:

• Ex: Bin Laden & Al Qaeda

– Typically organized by highly educated people• More like a social movement

– Sophisticated use of media, etc…

• Not really a very “local” response at all…• Argument: These are modern social movements.

“Modern” Anti-Western Movements

• “Modern” anti-Western movements are just like other social movements.

• “Griev

• They rely on:• Resource mobilization: resources, organizational

capacity• Political opportunity structure: allies, lapses in

repression• Framing: Use of symbols, imagery (often religious).

Anti-Western Movements

• Example: Radical Islamic fundamentalist groups

• Resource mobilization: • Leaders are highly educated

– Some even have degrees from American universities

• Weapons & resources from US & USSR (cold war) were critical to the formation of many groups

– Al Qaeda, for example

• Oil rich countries have tremendous resources– It is easy to find donors for any pro-Islamic cause.


• Ex: Radical Islamic fundamentalist groups

• Political opportunity structure• Radical groups clearly took advantage of friendly

regimes (e.g., the Taliban) to train, build capacity• Relative lack of repression in US is an opportunity

– Note: Increased security after 9/11 means fewer opportunities for protest/attacks

– Note: These groups also attack pro-US regimes like Egypt… but repression is much greater.

• Weak unstable countries provide opportunities– Currently: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq.


• Ex: Radical Islamic fundamentalist groups

• Framing: Use of symbols, imagery• Religion provides a powerful set of images

– Enemy isn’t just bad, but “evil” & “satanic”

• Another frame: attacking “imperialism”, the “system”– Standing up for the “little guy”, fighting the “bully”

• Reactionary movements always claim to authentically represent locals; that they aren’t part of the “system”

– Ex: Leaders don’t emphasize educational degrees or wealth; They emphasize the small village they came from.


• Issue for reflection: How would strategies for dealing with Al Qaeda differ if we think of it as a modern social movement?

• Rather than a “traditional” reactionary movement…

The War in Afghanistan

• Question: What drives insurgencies, like the kind in Afghanistan?

• Taliban insurgents seek to overthrow US-supported regime of Hamid Karzai

– Again, popular accounts & media emphasize “grievances” and “ethnicity”/“religion”

• But, research by political scientists and sociologists suggests that we should be skeptical of this

• Ethnic/religious identities are socially constructed• Social movements dynamics (resources/political

opportunities) are most important.

The War in Afghanistan

• What drives insurgencies (e.g., Afghanistan)?– Answer #1: Resources

• The Taliban have historically gotten resources • Example: Weakness in Afghanistan allows a continuing

insurgency• ALSO: weakness in Pakistan, which creates a safe

haven

– Ex: Iraq: Unstable gov’t creates opportunities• Money & weapons coming from: Iran, Saudi Arabia,

former soviet republics, Syria, etc. etc., etc….

Weak States & Conflict• In the news: NY Times June 2, 2008• Taliban Leader Flaunts Power Inside Pakistan• PESHAWAR, Pakistan — With great fanfare, the Pakistani Army flew journalists to a rugged

corner of the nation’s lawless tribal areas in May to show how decisively it had destroyed the lairs of the Taliban, including a school for suicide bombers, in fighting early this year.

• Then, just days later, the usually reclusive leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Baitullah Mehsud, held a news conference of his own, in the same region, to show just who was in charge. He rolled up in an expensive-looking Toyota pickup packed with heavily armed Taliban fighters [and] announced he would press his fight against the American military across the border in Afghanistan.

• Mr. Mehsud’s jaunty appearance in his home base, South Waziristan, a particularly unruly region of Pakistan’s tribal areas, underscored the wide latitude Pakistan’s government has granted the militants under a new series of peace deals, and its impact in Afghanistan, where NATO and American commanders say cross-border attacks have surged since talks for those peace deals began in March.

• The impunity of Mr. Mehsud’s behavior has outraged the Bush administration, which is pressing the Pakistani government to arrest and prosecute him.

• “Bringing Baitullah Mehsud, the head of this extremist group in South Waziristan — capturing him and bringing him to justice, which is what should happen to him,” is what the United States wants from Pakistan, Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte said last month in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

• But the Pakistani government, which at times has considered Mr. Mehsud an ally and is now fearful of his power, appears reluctant to hunt him down. Days before his news conference, Pakistani forces pulled back from his realm in South Waziristan as part of the peace deals.

Weak States & Conflict

• Video: Return of the Taliban• http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/• Chapters 1-3, 6-7

– Chapters 4-5 if time allows…

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/

Documents

Sociology 2: Class 18: Globalization, Culture, Identity 2 Copyright © 2011 by Evan Schofer Do not copy or distribute without permission