Sociology 2: Class 18: Globalization, Culture, Identity 2 Copyright © 2014 by Evan Schofer Do not copy or distribute without permission

Announcements Final exam review sheet: on website Final exam coming up… Format similar to midterm Topics: All course material… but primary emphasis on material covered in weeks 5-10 Today’s Class: Globalization & Culture Is culture/ethnicity/religion/identity a source of conflict?

Review: Perspectives on Culture Sociological theories applied to culture: –Modernization theory: Expects societies to become similar as they modernize “traditional” beliefs/religion/culture will vanish over time as everyone becomes ‘modern’ –World-system theory (& Marxism): Global capitalism will spread a common culture Cultural imperialism perpetuates the economic advantages of wealthy countries –World society theory: World society has a common culture that diffuses Government policies will become more similar.

Review: Homogenization/Hybridity Most theories predict homogenization of culture due to globalization Homogenization: Becoming similar or uniform –BUT: Anthropological observe that the world is more complex; cultures mix Hybrid: A new breed created by joining two or more varieties (e.g., of plant) Hybridization refers to the mixing or blending of cultures –Martell’s conclusion: Homogenization thesis is too simple… but it needs to be “revised rather than rejected” (p. 90) Homogenization & hybridization occur together!

Cultural identity and conflict Issue: Is conflict inevitable when globalization brings cultures into contact with each other? –Does globalization of Western culture generate conflict? Huntington: Clash of Civilizations –And, more generally: Can ideas like culture, ethnicity, and “identity” explain conflict Ex: Genocide in Balkans, Rwanda Ex: Conflict between radical Islamic groups and Western/Christian/capitalist societies –Answer: It depend on what cultural identity is…

Perspectives on cultural identity Two views of identity/ethnicity/culture: 1. Primordial view Culture/ethnicity/identity is “primordial.” It is deeply rooted, fundamental, and enduring Consequently, cultural differences are difficult to overcome –Conflict often results This view is common in media, popular culture.

Perspectives on identity/culture 2. The “social constructionist” view: culture/ethnicity/identity are malleable –Identities change over time and with social context People shift among identities –At different times of life, or depending on social situation Identities disappear and return (or are “re-invented”) –Ex: Quebecois in Canada Cultural identity is often the product (not cause) of political struggle.

Cultural identity: evidence 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 in 1990s

Cultural identity: evidence 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. 18 th, 19 th 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.

Cultural identity: evidence 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.

Huntington: Clash of Civilizations 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.

Huntington: Clash of Civilizations 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”.

Huntington: Clash of 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: Clash of Civilizations 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…

Bowen: Myth of ethnic conflict 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: Myth of ethnic conflict 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: Myth of ethnic conflict Bowen: 3 mistaken assumptions: 1. Ethnic identities are ancient and unchanging The primordial view of ethnicity 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.

Bowen: Myth of ethnic conflict Bowen: 3 mistaken assumptions: 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.”

Bowen: Myth of ethnic conflict Bowen: 3 mistaken assumptions: 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…

Example: Former Yugoslavia a

Example: Balkans “Ethnic Cleansing” in the Balkans/Yugoslavia –Conflict between Serbs, Bosnians, 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…

Rwanda 1994 a

Example: Rwanda 1994 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)… –Not simply Hutu vs. Hutsis…

Example: Congo 1960 Example: Katangan revolt in the Congo Typical account: war is result of “tribalism and ethnicity” (p. 131, citing Young) –Actually, Katangans aren’t a tribe or ethnic group! Katanga is a province (like a US state) filled with many different ethnic groups –Often, the provincial borders split ethnic groups… which fought on opposite sides –The war was rooted in economics and politics –For instance: Katanga was wealthy; they wanted to stop people from migrating, taking jobs.

Example: Congo 1960 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 the United States? –Saudis? (Most attackers were from Saudi Arabia) –A rich oil baron? A crazy person? (Bin Laden) –Muslim extremists? –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? –Focused on political grievances rather than religion? –Why “muslim extremists” rather than other options?

Local Reactions to Globalization So, if globalization and cultural differences don’t inevitably lead to ethnic conflict… How do we make sense of Al Qaeda? The general issue: How can we understand Anti- Western or Anti-US sentiment?

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.

Local Responses to Globalization 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?

Local Responses to Globalization 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…

Local Responses to Globalization 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. “Grievances” aren’t sufficient to explain them 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.

Anti-Western Movements 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.

Anti-Western Movements 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.

Anti-Western Movements 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)? –Resources The Taliban have historically gotten resources –Political opportunities Weak government in Afghanistan: can’t stop insurgency ALSO: weakness in Pakistan creates a safe haven –Many similar dynamics in Iraq Money & weapons coming from: Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. etc., etc…. Unstable gov’t creates opportunities…

Weak States & Conflict Video: Return of the Taliban Chapters 1-3 (19 min), 6-7 (15 min) –Chapters 4-5 (21 min) if time allows…