The Functions of Nationalism

The essence of a particular national ideology is determined by it’s functions. In the contemporary world, nationalism has the two main functions: mobilizational and compensatory. As for it’s legitimational function, it’s importance considerably declined due to the expansion of the liberal-democratic discourse and activation of religious, confessional system, of legitimation. Nowadays, nationalism is comfortably used for mass mobilization, or for compensation of collective traumas. At the same time, nationalistic rhetoric turned out to be very effective tool for weakening of psychological feelings of society’s frustrated segment[1].
[1]Малахов В.С. Национализм как политическая идеология. М. 2005

Indentity in Psychology

There are many ways to research and define identity in psychology. We could tell about personal identity (knowledge and feeling about own uniqueness and differences from other people) as well as about social identity (knowledge and feeling of own belongingness to certain social group or social category). Also identity explores like a role identity, social identity, situational identity, given identity etc.
Modern psychological science suggest multitude of identities, build them into different systems, hierarchies, structures. Psychologists argue about exact definition of identity, try to oppose social and personal identities to each other, and try to find the most appropriate model for representation of personality, like a system, schema, of elaborated identities.
Identity in its true sense could be defined in different categories, situations, relations through which we produce own Selves, personalities, uniqueness of personal life. For that reason, I prefer the term subjectivity rather, than term identity. The term subjectivity elaborated in the course of modern philosophy and psychology of personality. It means the true, unique, non-adaptive mental core of individual, which includes all the things through which a personality signifies itself. Semantically, today, identity is a something that personality has, but subjectivity is something that personality is. Subjectivity is always a product of two issues: 1) personal life experience, 2) ethnic, cultural, social, any other type of the discourse a person lives in.
For the subjectivity we don’t have to separate and define some partial identities – ethnic, religious, professional, gender, etc. All of them involved in the process of subjectivity building and equally presented at the space of personality. So, identities, in the space of subjectivity, represent certain possibilities of the person to define and express own self, by very different ways.
To sum up:
1) Identity is not only the result, but also is the process of subjectivity building, so we need to look on it in both, structural and dynamic perspectives.
2) Identity exists as a discourse, could be expressed through narrative personality tells about own self or through the outside interpretation of that narrative.
3) Identity of the person always exist as intention and being turned to the social and cultural spheres, to the Other (From the capital letter), who personalized itself all possible social identifications (ethnic, religious, national, etc).

Separatist Nationalism

Separatist Nationalism, it’s peculiar ideology, is based on ethnic, linguistic or confessional group’s aspiration towards separation from a particular state. In general, an international society does not support their demands, justifying behavior by means of political-pragmatic, as well as through moral-judicial considerations[1].
Малахов В.С. Национализм как политическая идеология. М. 2005

Religious Nationalism

Religious Nationalism defines nation through a common religion. If a state derives it’s legitimacy in conjunction with religious doctrines, we can characterize it more as a theocracy, rather as a nation-state. In reality, most ethnic and cultural nationalisms have religious aspect in their core. Religion is the marker of a group identity and it is not the motivation for nationalistic demands and pretensions (for example, Irish nationalism)[1].
[1]Wikipedia http://www.wikipedia.org/

Cultural Nationalism

Cultural Nationalism defines nation through the scope of culture. Membership in a nation is neither totally voluntaristic (it’s impossible to familiarize with culture immediately), nor hereditary (particular nation’s successors can be considered as foreigners, if they are brought up in different culture)[1].
[1]Wikipedia http://www.wikipedia.org/

Romantic Nationalism

Romantic Nationalism (organic nationalism, identity’s nationalism) is an extraordinary form of ethnic nationalism, where state derives it’s political legitimacy as a result of nation’s (or race’s) expression. It was the reflection of Romantism and was opposed to the rationalism of enlightenment. Romantic nationalism was stressing on historical ethnic culture, which was totally correlative with the idea of Romantism[1].
[1]Wikipedia http://www.wikipedia.org/

Ethnic Nationalism

Ethnic Nationalism ­defines nation through concept of ethnicity, always including some elements of ancestry. It also contains the idea of shared culture and language of its members. Membership in a nation is hereditary. State derives it’s legitimacy through it’s status – to defend a national group and strengthen it’s culture and social life. An idea of ethnicity is too old, but recent nationalism was heavily influenced by Johan Gottfried Von Herder, who made the concept people soundness, and by Johan Gothlib Fixte. Nowadays, ethnic nationalism is a prevailing form of nationalism and generally it is quoted as nationalism. We have to note, Anthony Smith, an influential theoretician of nationalism studies, uses the term ethnic nationalism to refer to the non Western conceptions of nationalism. He confronts this term to the Western viewpoints, where a geographical territory plays a crucial role in nations’ definition[1].
According to the essence of ethnic nationalism ethnos should be exclusive politically, endowed with the right of self-determination[2].
[1]Wikipedia http://www.wikipedia.org/
[2]Wikipedia http://www.wikipedia.org/

State Nationalism

A variety of civic nationalism, quiet often combined with ethnic nationalism. State Nationalism considers nation to be an unity of people, contributing to state’s maintenance and development. This standpoint is briefly expressed in Mussolini’s slogan: “everything in state, nothing beyond it, nothing against it”. It is not surprising though that this is in opposition with the liberal ideas of individual freedom and liberal-democratic principles. The Jacobin creation of an unitary and centralized French state is considered to be the initial version of state nationalism. Franco’s Spain and modern Turkish nationalism are the later examples of state nationalism[1].
The term State Nationalism is reffered for describing a contradiction of different nationalisms, especially in a case when secession movement is confronted with existed nation state. Secessionists point to state nationalism in order to discredit legitimacy of larger existing state. Thus state nationalism is perceived to be less authentic and less democratic.[2].
[1]Wikipedia http://www.wikipedia.org/
[2]Wikipedia http://www.wikipedia.org/

Civic Nationalism

State derives it’s political legitimacy through an active participation of it’s citizens. The degree of political legitimacy correlates with the degree of people’s will’s representation. The idea of civic nationalism was coined by Jan-Jak Russo and was spread through his theories of social contract. The term social contract itself derives from his book, entitled as Social Contract, published in 1762. Civic nationalism fits well with the framework of nationalisms’ traditions and liberalism. As a type of nationalism, it is in a sharp contrast with ethnic nationalism. Membership in a civic nation is voluntaristic. The civic national ideas were heavily influenced by the development of representative democracy in countries, like the United States and France[1].
[1]Wikipedia http://www.wikipedia.org/

Anti-Colonial/Post-Colonial Nationalism

Anti-Colonial/Post-Colonial Nationalism started just after the process of decolonization, following 1945 . It was directed against the West and the Western values[1].
[1]Heiwood E. Political Ideologies, 2004, pp. 177-214.

Expansionist Nationalism

Expansionist Nationalism is an aggressive and militaristic one, opposing the belief in nation’s self-determination. Chauvinism, once own nation’s priority and domination, is its undividable characteristics. This type of nationalism quiet often is followed by militarism[1].
[1]heivudi e. politikuri ideologiebi. Tb., 2004, gv. 177-214.

Conservative Nationalism

Conservative Nationalism is directed towards the development of existed nation-state and it does not aim to form a new nation-state. On the basis of patriotism and “national pride” it targets at the maintenance of unity. It bears a nostalgic character and is oriented towards the past triumph and might[1].
[1]heivudi e. politikuri ideologiebi. Tb., 2004, gv. 177-214.

Liberal Nationalism

The ancient form of nationalism. It dates back to the French Revolution. The ideas of liberal nationalism was offered by Joseph Madzini; it’s various aspects are also highlighted in the works of Jan-Jack Russo. Woodrow Wilson’s “14 Points” were based on the principles of Liberal Nationalism[1]. Liberal nationalism was strongly backed by political philosophers as they believed in existence of non-xenophobic nationalism, apart from freedom, tolerance, equality and individual rights. Ernest Renan and John Stuart Mill are considered to be liberal nationalists. The liberal nationalists defend the importance of national identity, proclaiming it to be necessary for individuals in order to be endowed with significant and representational autonomy. On the other hand it contributes to proper functioning of liberal democratic state[2].
[1]heivudi e. politikuri ideologiebi. Tb., 2004, gv. 177-214.
[2]Wikipedia http://www.wikipedia.org/

Western and Eastern Nationalisms

Scientists, distinguish two types of nationalisms according to their various characteristics and manifestations: the Western Nationalism and the Eastern Nationalism. In the West (England, France, Netherlands, Swiss, USA, British dominions) the occurrence of nationalism was determined by political factors. It was followed by the formation of nation-state, or, like the case of the US, these two processes were coinciding. Beyond the West, in the central and Eastern Europe, in Asia, nationalism was expressed on later stage of socio-political development. In this case, quiet often, the boundaries of existed nation-state and the boundaries of rising nation were incompatible, so nationalism was found in conflict with the existing nation state. The adjustment of political boundaries in accordance with ethnic demands was primary goal of conflict. As in the Western Europe nationalism arose on later stage of socio-political development, it was expressed through culture. At the same time, newly formed national movements and nationalisms of the Eastern Europe, and in other parts of the World, were heavily influenced by the West, served as a model and example. Such strong dependence on the West was humiliating the pride of indigenous people and local elites, thus, when their own nationalisms, accompanied with liberal and rational viewpoints, emerged, they turned out to be confronted with the “alien” models of nationalism[1].
It should be noted, each nationalism is spurred by the cultural contact with an old, previously existed nationalism. Nationalism and nationalists of the central and Eastern Europe were motivated by the past myths and dreams about future; they hoped for the better future and homeland, which was closely connected to ancient times and historical past. These nationalisms did not have any links with their contemporary time and they hoped for transformation into political reality. The Western nationalism, with it’s origins, was related with the 18th century’s personal freedom and rational cosmopolitism. While the Central and Eastern European, as well as Asian nationalisms, had different way of development. They were not based on political and social reality, thus missing self-confidence and faithfulness[2].
[1]Kohn H. Western and Eastern Nationalisms. Nationalism Edited by John Hutchinson and Anthony D.Smith; Oxford-New York, Oxford University Press 1994. pp.162-165
[2]Kohn H. Western and Eastern Nationalisms. Nationalism Edited by John Hutchinson and Anthony D.Smith; Oxford-New York, Oxford University Press 1994. pp.162-165

History of Nationalism

An idea of nationalism, followed by the formation of it’s various forms, was structured long before the era of nationalism. It’s roots trace back to Greeks and Jews. Nationalism’s revitalization in Europe coincides with the epoch of Renaissance and Reformation. Greek-Roman patriotism was literary revived and restored in the era of Renaissance. But this new occurrence did not have any all encompassing effect on masses by that time and it disappeared with the start of Europe’s retheologization, just after the beginning of Reformation and Counter-Reformation. We have to note, Reformation, and Calvinist form in particular, sparked the resurgence of Old Testament’s nationalism[1].
[1]Kohn H. Western and Eastern Nationalisms (pp.162-165). Nationalism Edited by John Hutchinson and Anthony D.Smith; Oxford-New York, Oxford University Press 1994.

Modernism

According to various modernist theories by 1800 no nation had ever had more, than local loyalty. National identity and unity wes constructed from above, by the European states, as it was necessary for modernization of economics and society. Printing press and capitalism was considered as a necessary precondition of nationalism by modernist theoreticians. According to their viewpoint ethnic conflicts are indispensable side effects of nationalism[1].
Contemporary theoreticians are influenced by postmodernism and point to social constructivism of nations. Benedict Anderson terms nations as “imagined communities”. Ernest Gellenr admits: “Nationalism is not an awaking of nations’ self-consciousness: It gives birth to nations on various places, where they had not existed in the past”. Anderson and Gellenr use the terms imagined and invented neutrally and descriptively. In this context, nations are not considered as a factual and fantastic substances[2].

[1]Wikipedia http://www.wikipedia.org/
[2]Wikipedia http://www.wikipedia.org/

Instrumentalism

Instrumentalism defines ethnic identity as an ideology of group’s mobilization and a tool of their interests’ achievement[1]. Instrumentalism emphasis the analyzes of material interests (first of all economic interests, promoting to conflicting behavior of particular ethnic group). Instumentalists stress on political motivation. Instrumentalism was formed in the framework of Marxism and functionalism. According to Marxists’ viewpoint, class conflict is superior then ethnic conflict. Bourgeoisie uses ethnic conflict in order to fulfill their interests. Hechter, Rabushka and others stress on the role and importance of “ethnic producers” and representatives of cultural sphere in various ethnic conflicts. They fulfill their political goals through a proper manipulation of people’s ethnic solidarity[2].
[1]Шадже А.Ю. Феномен кавказской идентичности – В журн. Научная мысль кавказа. №1 (29), Ростов-н/Д, 2002, с.36-45.
[2]Малахов В.С. Национализм как политическая идеология. М. 2005

Constructivism

Constructivism perceives ethnic identity to be a product of human activity.

Primordialism

Primordialism considers ethnic identity to be an objective creation. It is a historically formed entity on the basis of biological, cultural and geopolitical characteristics. Some nationalists consider themselves to be the decedents of previously existed nation. This assumption is backed by the primordialist theoreticians of nationalism. According to this theory, nation, or at least an ethnic group, is conceded as a social reality, having 20.000 years long history[1]. According to primordial theory, roots of ethnic conflicts takes us back, down to the history of particular ethnic groups. Thus, an analyzes of historical background is a primary goal.
[1]Wikipedia http://www.wikipedia.org/

Race

Term race has two meaning. The first one has classificatory connotation and refers to various types and samples of people. While the second one is assosiated with genetics, as it is bound with the idea of family and ancestors. In the era of enlightens, another connotation was added to this concept: the term race was used to describe the various sub-groups of humanity, according to morphological differences: color of skin, shape of head, etc. As a result of significant development of philology, language was considered as an important determinant of nations’ “race” by European intellectuals and thus these two terms were mixed erroneously. Shortly, in the 19th century there existed two confronted viewpoints about nation: in the first case, subjective will of individual was stressed and highlighted (conceptualized by Ernest Renan in 1880’s), while the other was biological version, underling the various aspects, like fatality of birth, blood and genes[1].
[1]Ghelabi V.Y. Ethnicity in International Conflicts: Revisiting an Elusive Issue

Conflicts over Political Institutions

Disagreement over political institutions can also become a basis for an ethnic rivalries. The roots of these conflicts can be found not only in ideological doctrines. Confronted political parties, governmental fractions and institutions also serve for their basis. As a result of their analyzes, it was proved that each post-Soviet state has border dispute with it’s neighbour (Armenia vs. Azerbaidjan, Moldova vs. Ukraine, Russia vs. Kazakhstan, Russia vs. Estonia)[1].
Inter-ethnic tensions on the basis of political institutions generally coincides with the period a political transition, when power is transmitted from one group to another. This phenomenon has different explanations: 1. when transition is accompanied by the transformation of political institutions (for example, communism is changed by capitalism) an ethno nationalism and ethnic tensions are used by political elites in order to distance from an old regimes. 2. during transition there are no political institutions managing ethnic conflicts, thus conflict can not be developed in a peaceful way and it takes form of violence. According to another explanation, as the institutions and ideologies, once used for mobilization of masses, ceased their existence during transition period, they are replaced with another powerful tool – ethnicity[2].
[1]Rupesinghe K. Tishkov V. Ethnicity and Power in the Contemporary World
[2]Baird A. An Atmosphere of Reconciliation: A Theory of Resolving Ethnic Conflicts Based on the Transcaucasian Conflicts. The Online Journal of Peace and Conflict Resolution. Issue 2.4 November 1999. ISSN 1522-211X.

Conflicts of Uncontrolled Emotions

Rebellions and massacres are often caused due to the hysterical behavior. Their organizators generally have very implicit aims and objectives. Thus, neither researchers, nor politicians are able to find justification for Phergan case: attacks on Meskhetian Turks in 1989, during the Phergan rebellion and other instances of assaults on other ethnic groups, residing on this territory[1].
[1]Rupesinghe K. Tishkov V. Ethnicity and Power in the Contemporary World

Conflicts of Historical Contention

These type of conflicts stem from historically contested territories. In this case, the following issues can serve as a basis for further controversy:
1. An administrative status of an ethnic territory (Cases in Abkhazia, Chechnya, are illustration of this statement);
2. Conflicts that arise due to the alteration of demographic situation in particular regions or as a result of increase of non-indigenous population. Ethnic majorities are afraid of loosing of their privilege status or they try to regain their status in terms of their national rights.
3. Conflicts, bearing ethno-territorial character, that arise as a “historical echo” of people’s deportations. Generally, this type of conflicts occur over particular territories, where forcibly deportated people were resettled during deportations, or after their repatriation. These processes, in both cases, sparkle ethnic clashes between indigenous people and settlers[1].
[1]Rupesinghe K. Tishkov V. Ethnicity and Power in the Contemporary World

Conflicts of Ideological Doctrines

The first type of conflicts can be referred as conflicts of Ideological Doctrines. Usually they have a deep historical roots. The demands of confronted sides are formulated through the slogans and programs of national movements. It differs from an ordinary rebellion as long as it’s political demands bear a strong nationalistic colouring; they are being elaborated by theoreticians and ideologists of a particualr national movement. Worsening of a social-economic situation can contribute to the spread of abovementioned doctrines and determine the extent of their violence’s manifestation. The leaders of such “ideals” are ready to sacrifice not only an economic prosperity and personal comfort, but also their life; they are ready to die for it.[1]
[1]Rupesinghe K. Tishkov V. Ethnicity and Power in the Contemporary World

National Movement

John Rotshild tries to explain the occurrence of national movements of various national groups in the framework of one unitary state in terms of reaction at success or failure in different fields: economics, politics, culture, etc. In the first case, minority groups do not want to accept the fact of worsening of their living conditions or lowering of their status. In the second case, they protest against society’s indifference towards their position. Considering this particular situation, E.Biorch notes: there is no explanation for the fact, that most of the groups are uninterested in “successes ” or “failures” in concurrency for social welfare[1].

[1]Малахов В.С. Национализм как политическая идеология. М. 2005

Ethnic Conflict

In the analytical literature dedicated to the problems of ethnic conflicts and quiet often noted as ethnoconflictology, there is no general agreement which conflicts can be considered as ethnic conflicts, and which ones are beyond of it’s scope. Likewise, the nature of an ethnic conflict is quiet vague in itself. So, it is principally impossible to differentiate the characteristics, forming an unique nature of an ethnic conflict, separating it from other types of social conflicts. At the same time, conflicts, falling into the category of ethnic conflicts, should be considered in a broader perspective – under the class of social conflicts. It should be mentioned, not every member of ethnic groups, participating in an ethnic conflict, is prone to conflicting behavior[1].
The detailed definition of an ethnic conflict is offered by sociologists Hugh Miall: ethnic conflicts are the struggle for maintenance of one’s own peculiar identity. Ethnic groups, inclined to conflicting behavior, strive for equality with other groups (for example in decision-making process). Ethnically diverse societies are divided on ethnic lines in a way that some of them are forced to integrate in the national culture of their encompassing state, eading to frustration, polarization and violence. In it’s wider sense, an ethnic conflict is a violence between two ethnic groups in the framework of one unitary state, where the issue of ethnicity serve for the basis of confrontation.[2]
Ethnic conflicts are not mere the creation of contemporary time. Ethnic conflicts have arisen during the whole history of humanity. The desire to preserve ethnic minorities’ peculiar identity, either through national liberation, or through gaining the status of national autonomy, was the cause of these conflicts. The fair of loss of cultural traditions, ethnic heritage and national language contributed to conflicting situation[3]. Some scientists point to the perenniality of ethnic conflicts and the 20th century is considered to be the watershed in it’s historical development.[4]
[1]Малахов В.С. Национализм как политическая идеология. М. 2005
[2]Baird A. An Atmosphere of Reconciliation: A Theory of Resolving Ethnic Conflicts Based on the Transcaucasian Conflicts. The Online Journal of Peace and Conflict Resolution. Issue 2.4 November 1999. ISSN 1522-211X.
[3]Tishkov A. Ethnicity and Power in the Contemporary World. Edited by Kumar Rupesinghe and Valery. http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu12ee/uu12ee00.htm#Contents
[4]Baird A. An Atmosphere of Reconciliation: A Theory of Resolving Ethnic Conflicts Based on the Transcaucasian Conflicts. The Online Journal of Peace and Conflict Resolution. Issue 2.4 November 1999.

Self-Determination

Nation is closely tied with a process of self-determination. On the basis of this process the peculiar characteristics of a particular nation is determined and emphasized. The national self-determination is an undivided part of the national policy. This is an expression of democracy in nationalistic relations. The sense of national self-consciousness – interrelations, traditions, ideas and viewpoints, as well as present-day place of a particular nation in the contemporary world and the perspectives of it’s future development – serve for the basis of a given nation’s formation and maintenance.
The process of self-determination often leads us to ethnic conflicts.

Patriotism

Quiet often, nationalism is firmly tied with patriotism. But there is still one main difference: apart from nationalism, patriotism is the highest loyalty towards state and it’s institutions, not a devotion to the nation[1]. In general speaking, patriotism refers to the prevalence of one particular nation and it’s interests over others in multicultural states[2].
[1]Политика Толковиы СловарьРусско-АнглийскийМ. 2001
[2]Nationalism Study Project: Anthony D. Smith – Nationalism and the Reconstruction of Nations http://www.nationalismproject.org/what.htm

Nation Building

The concept nation building is a political process of nation’s formation, undertaken by governmental structures (communication networks, an educational system based on sole national language etc) serving for one primary principle: centralization of a decision making process and extension of it’s control over subjugated population[1]. Miroslav Hroch points at three constant factors of the nation-building process: 1. Remembrance of the common past, perceived as a “fate” of a particular group; 2. Tightnees of the lingusitic and cultural links, contributing to the high level of social communication, as an in-group level, as well as outside of it; 3. An equality of all members of the group, organized in the form of civil society[2].
[1]Nationalism Study Project: Anthony D. Smith – Nationalism and the Reconstruction of Nations http://www.nationalismproject.org/what.htm
[2]Nationalism Study Project: Anthony D. Smith – Nationalism and the Reconstruction of Nations http://www.nationalismproject.org/what.htm

Irredentist Nationalism

An irredentist nationalism deserves special interest. When existing state tries to enlarge it’s borders in order to encompass particular territories of a neighbour state, inhabited by it’s kin nation, we can speak about irredentist nationalism[1].
[1]Nationalism Study Project: Anthony D. Smith – Nationalism and the Reconstruction of Nations http://www.nationalismproject.org/what.htm

Ethnonationalism

Nationalism sometimes is referred as an ethnonationalism. The term ethnonationalism stresses the ethnic dimension, rather then civic, political and cultural features of nationalism.
Ethnonationalism is the highest degree of emotionality and irrationality. The post Cold War era was characterized by the overestimation of the collective identity from the side of concrete ethnic groups. Their uniqueness was emphasized, thus living no chance of existence side by side with other ethnic groups in the boundaries of one and the same nation state; in other cases collective identity is threatened by the external or internal enemies. Ethnonationalism can trigger off “total conflicts”, characterized by the highest level of barbarity. This last statement has some explanations: on an individual level each person is automatically considered to be the warrior, even in the case if he/she is not prone to be. On a collective level rebel group considers itself to be enrolled in a death struggle, where it’s rescuing depends on total extinction of other ethnic group(s). An argument – self rescuing through an ethnic purification contributes to legitimization of nonhuman militarist methods. Generally, the wars waged by the name of ethno nationalism demonstrate the disastrous axiom: humans can not survive and live beyond the borders of ethnie[1].
[1]Ghelabi V.Y. Ethnicity in International Conflicts: Revisiting an Elusive Issue

Nation State

Concept nation state is one of the most widely used term in nationalism studies. In this case, the residing territory of a nation and the territory of a particular state are coinciding. The state is represented by the sole hegemonic nation. The whole state is governed by the single nation. But quiet often this is a rhetorical fiction and a political tool, as there does not exist any nation state in it’s true sense. We can speak about less homogenic and more heterogenic states[1].
Nation state is a specific form of a state (political entity) providing particular nation (cultural entity) with a sovereign territory, therefore deriving it’s legitimacy through this function. The nation state can be defined as a sovereign state, unifying it’s subjects/citizens by means of language and common origins. Generally, it’s an unitary state, with a government and laws[2].

[1]Nationalism Study Project: Anthony D. Smith – Nationalism and the Reconstruction of Nations http://www.nationalismproject.org/what.htm
[2]Wikipedia http://www.wikipedia.org/

Nationality

The term nationality refers to the biologically determined, stable unity of people, which is formed historically and is represented in shape of tribe and people (Russians, Georgians, Polish etc). The term nationality is more tighter, than the term nation. But we can note some differences between them: there are some nationalities without own nationhood. The representatives of one and the same nationality can be divided among different states (e.g. Armenians, Jewish etc.).
The term nationality refers to citizenship of a particular state (country). As most of the states are consisted of more than one ethnic group, nationality does not always coincides with ethnicity [1].
[1]Wikipedia http://www.wikipedia.org/

Ethnicity

The term ethnicity refers to the social and cultural forms of identification and self-identification; it is an identification with the particular ethnic group. On the basis of identification the sense of belonging to the particular ethnic entity is formed and comprehended.
In English language the term ethnicity has wider meaning. It is used to describe not only the modern links of personality with the nation, but imagined bonds between the common past and culture are also covered under this notion[1].
In political theory, the term ethnicity is used to characterize a group, with a strong coherence and solidarity. The group is an unity of people, possessing of common interests and origins. Quiet often these features are latently scrutinized. Thus, an ethnic group is not merely a cohesion of humans, but it is an unity of closely related people, with common history and consciousness[2].
As Valery Tishkov notes, the term ethnicity is an indefinite and vague term in an Anglo-Saxson World and perhaps this vagueness contributes to it’s constant replication. Problem arises immediately, after an unsuccessful attempt to define the meaning of ethnicity, facing a wide range of definitions. As the term itself is comprised of numerous subjective and objective elements, this adds to it’s dynamic character[3].
O.Patchekov offers: It will be quiet usefull to reject the term ethnicity wherever it is possible, or dismiss it in particular situations, where it won’t help us to portray reality adequately. This proposition has some justification: ethnicity, closely tied with nationalism, is a political phenomenon, thus bearing a lot of inner threats.[4]
[1]Wikipedia http://www.wikipedia.org/
[2]Rupesinghe K. Tishkov V. Ethnicity and Power in the Contemporary World
[3]Rupesinghe K. Tishkov V. Ethnicity and Power in the Contemporary World
[4]Patchenkov O. Ethnically based conflicts on post-socialist space (internet misamarTi sanaxavia).

Ethnic Group

An ethnic group is an unity of people characterized by the common myth of origin and historical memory. An ethnic group is endowed with the unique and distinguishable culture – special customs and traditions. An ethnic group is a population, identifying themselves with one-another on the basis of common genealogy or ancestry. Generally, an ethnic group is united by the common culture, specific behavior, linguistic and religious practices. In this sense an ethnic group is a cultural entity[1].
[1]Wikipedia http://www.wikipedia.org/

Ethnos

The term ethnos derives from the Latin world ethnos, which means people. Initially it was used to designate non-Greek people, thus it referred to foreigners. Later, in Catholic-Latin usage a new connotation was ascribed to the term – pagan. Since 18th century the noun ethnos was not associated with the concept pagan. It’s contemporary denotation resembles to it’s original Greek meaning[1].
Due to the some ambiguities between the terms nation and ethny, scientists try to differentiate their meanings and stress their epistemological interconnection while dealing with the problem of nationalism. Bth notions are too awkward from the social sciences point of view. Nation is used interchangeably at least with the four other key concepts: people, state, race, ethnos. As for the term ethny, it’s exact meaning is totally unknown.[2]

[1]Wikipedia http://www.wikipedia.org/
[2]Ghelabi V.Y. Ethnicity in International Conflicts: Revisiting an Elusive Issue

Ethnie

The concept ethnie was coined in the 19th century by the French sociologist Georges Vacher de lapouge. This neologism aimed at designating the different nations, constituting from various races and creating unique national solidarity. In reality, considering previously existed notions – people, nation and race, the new term ethnie did not offer any significant novelty. The concept acquired a valuable meaning in French language. In the framework of ethnology (before it’s transformation into anthropology) the term was referred to describe “primitive” and “archaic” non-Western societies. Some authors referred to this notion in order to designate a range of people, interrelated through their linguistic affiliation. For others, it was merely a synonym of the term race. Nowadays, the term ethnie, bearing a kind of political dimension, is used as a substitute for the discredited concept race. The term ethnie became particularly important by the end of 1986, when the works of British sociologist Anthony D. Smith were published[1].

[1]Ghelabi V.Y. Ethnicity in International Conflicts: Revisiting an Elusive Issue

Nation vs. Ethnie

It is important to distinguish the meanings of nation and ethnie. As Anthony D. Smith notes, the term ethnie is the same as an ethnic group,but generally this term is used to describe larger entities. Their main distinguishing characteristic is nation’s relation with politics. Nation possess or it aspires to gain the status of nationhood. Nation is bound with the territory (the place of it’s residence) and popular culture (shared by the most of its members)[1].
Anthony D. Smith points to some distinguish characteristics of these two concepts: nation is a variety of ethnie and is formed as a result of a gradual development of ethnie. Ethnie is a historical-cultural entity and is totally different from a nation – being a monolithic unity, popular culture, historical territory and legal rights. To summarize, nation simply refers to the aspects like territory, education and legal rights, while other characteristics – kinship and cultural features – are left out of it’s scope; although some links with an old cultural myths and with the memory of ethnie is maintained. Ethnie can be considered to be the primordial form of a nation, sometimes referred as a proto-nation. Ethnie stands for the basic cultural unit, characterizing the human diversity before the existence of a nation. On the other hand, nation stands for the modern version of an archaic ethnie.[2]
[1]Nationalism Study Project: Anthony D. Smith – Nationalism and the Reconstruction of Nations http://www.nationalismproject.org/what.htm
[2]Ghelabi V.Y. Ethnicity in International Conflicts: Revisiting an Elusive Issue

Nation

In scientific literature there are variety of definitions. The world nation has a Latin origin and the term exists in various Anglo-Roman languages, deriving from the world native. In it’s wider sense, the world nation refers to unity of people, social group – sharing historical memory and common myth of origins. Common blood, language, culture, religion and other factors contribute to unity of nation and the members of a nation have a strong devotion towards it (nation). As Walker Connoer notes: “the essence of nation is in it’s psychological bonds, unifying, and at the same time, separating the group of people from non-members, through subconsciosnes of it’s members”[1]. The same characteristics are offered by I.B.Stalin. According to his definition a nation is a hostorically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psycological make-up manifested in a common culture. It is only when all these characteristics are present together that we have a nation[2]..
For a long time the term nation depicted the population of a particular country. It was used to describe a people, residing on one and the same territory under the exclusive political government, in spite of their origins. In 16th-17th centuries more strict and aristocratic meaning of the term was dominating: the usage of the term nation was restricted and it was used to describe the nobility/aristocracy, while the term people refered to the lower classes of society.The term nation maintained it’s elitist connotation previous to the French Revolution[3].
[1]Conversi D. Conceptualizing nationalism: An introduction to Walker Connor’s work
[2]Stalin J. The Nation. Nationalism. Edited by John Hutchinson and Anthony D.Smith; Oxford-New York, Oxford University Press 1994. pp. 18-21.
[3]Ghelabi V.Y. Ethnicity in International Conflicts: Revisiting an Elusive Issue

Fundamentalism

The term Fundamentalism was coined in the 20th century, when whole series of works were published in the US under the title: The Fundamentals. A Testimony to the Truth. It is also strictly linked with the protestant movement, aimed at prohibition of Darwinian Theory. The next wave of religious fundamentalism erupted in the 1970’s, after the Islamic Revolution of Iran. Nowadays, the term is widely used in politics and in scientific circles. It denotes the complex of religious and political phenomenon and is an expression of traditional cultures’ protest against modernization processes. Or it simply designates the existence of facts, bearing fanatic-irrational and destructive stamp[1].
[1]Konstantine Kostiuk “An Orthodox Fundamentalism”, The Journal “Zgvari”, 2(7) February, 2006, pp.38-43

Nationalism vs. Regionalism

There is a great difference between nationalism and regionalism. Regionalism is an awareness of an unity by the people, compactly settled on a vast territory in the borders of one particular nation. They do not pose the question of sovereignty. Quiet often, regionalism can spur the formation of an ethnic group, bearing distinctive cultural identity, aspiring at separation from an existing nation state.[1]
[1]Goodwin B. Using Political Ideas. Oxford University Press, 1997.

Nationalism vs. Religious Fundamentalism

The issue of nationalism and religious fundamentalism’s interdependence deserves particular interest. Close links between nationalism and religious fundamentalism is caused due to the sole crucial factor: fundamentalism offers us very detailed and concrete action plan, while nationalism is a phenomenon merely dependent on language and ethnicity, not providing any basis for the future action.

Functions of National Ideology

The essence of a particular national ideology is determined by it’s functions. In the contemporary world nationalism has two main functions: mobilizational and compensatory. As for it’s legitimational function, it’s importance considerably declined due to the expansion of liberal-democratic discourse and activation of religious system – a confessional system of legitimation. Nationalism is comfortably used for mass mobilization, or for compensation of collective traumas. At the same time, nationalistic rhetoric turned out to be very effective tool for weakening of psychological feelings of society’s frustrated segment[1].
[1]Малахов В.С. Национализм как политическая идеология. М. 2005

Anthony D. Smith

According to Anthony D. Smith’s definition, nationalism in the 20th century is expressed thorugh the ideological movement, directed at social group’s autonomy, mobilization and individuality, whose members consider social group as an active or potential nation. In an extreme situations, nationalism emerges in the form of ethnic collisions, when one or more ethnic groups compete at the expense of one-another’s interests[1].
It is important to distinguish national movement, which intends to establish a nation-state, on the one hand, and nationslism – more radical doctrine, for which national interests are the top priority, on the other hand[2].
[1]LeBouthillier A.E. What is Nationalism? Introduction to Nationalism. http://www.davidduke.com
[2]Wikipedia http://www.wikipedia.org/

Nationalism

Nationalism is the phenomenon of the 19th-20th centuries. It is a feeling of harmony, playing a vital role in the maintenance of societies’ unity. Nowadays, nationalism is determined as a politically perceived collecticve action of a particular group or a nation, directed towards maintenance or attainaning of increasing territorial autonomy or sovereignty[1]. According to the idea of nationalism, ethnically and culturally determined nations are the “main units” in human’s social life, forming the basis for specific cultural and political demands of a particular nation. Nation is the only legitimate basis for the state and each nation is entiteld to be in possession of it’s own particular state[2].
Nationalism is a complex phenomenon. Its an ideological viewpoint, influencing each sphere of everyday life: politics, culture, economics, social conditions.
Nationalism is an ideological and social-political movement of a particular group, which can be defined as an actual or potential nation. Nationalism is directed towards political autonomy or sovereignty. Quiet often it is used as a synonym of the struggle for maintenance of cultural identity – an unique socio-cultural characteristics. Generally, under the icon of nationalism there is a people or a particular ethnic group, aspiring for unity or maintenance and defence of their identity. An expression of nationalistic sentiment from the side of a particular people or an ethnic group can be motivated by the belief in gaining the status of nation.
[1]Goodwin B. Using Political Ideas. Oxford University Press, 1997.
[2]Wikipedia http://www.wikipedia.org/

Elite Manipulation Theory

Elite manipulation theory, explaining ethnic conflicts as elite driven clashes and controversies, is one of the most widespread approach to the study of nationalism and ethnic conflicts. Although being aware of the main deficiencies of the proposed approach, reseracher should critically reflect both – the theory, as well as empirical case, being contextualized in its frame, while trying to inter-relate them with one another. This helps to offer multidimensional and substantial analysis of various problems related with the issue of ethnic conflicts and ethnicity, being multidimensional and interdisciplinary problem in their origins and essence.
First and foremost the major tendency should be overcome in the analysis of ethnic conflicts, treating ethnic groups as internally homogenous, externally bounded groups, while the analysis of those political, social, cultural and psychological processes through which categories get invested with groupness should be grounded, as this new approach will help us not to “adopt categories of ethnopolitical practice, as our categories of social analysis”[1], thus get rid off unintentionally doubling or reinforcing the reification of ethnic groups in ethnopolitical practice with a reification of such groups in social analysis. On the other hand, this will be a step towards clearly differentiating between the masses and leaders, as in most cases the last serve to be the drivers of ethnic conflicts, rather the first.
The proposed new line of approach towards the study of ethnicity and ethnic conflict suggests us to look at the interrelation of subjective and objective factors, involved in process, being in close interrelations with each other. Exactly they make the complex web, under which conflicting transformation of processes are made possible and are still maintained. On the other hand, we should look at organizations and individuals more closely, as although organizations serve as protagonists of ethnic conflicts and violence, in reality conflict can be carried out spontaneously by individuals through different actions.
Dealing with the process of use and misuse, interpretation and misinterpretation of ethnicity, we should think about the stage of ethnic mobilization as a necessary phase for both – conflicting interpretation and transformation of developments. The main problem is to find explanation why ethnic mobilization takes place in particular regions and under what circumstances it is made possible. This leads us to differentiate various relevant actors involved in interaction and point to those territorial units and persons on spot – placed on particular positions – providing recourses for conflicting transformation of processes.
[1]Rogers Brubaker. Ethnicity without Groups. (Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England: Harvard University Press, 2004).

Svante E. Cornell

Svante E. Cornell’s two works – “Small Nations and Great Powers – A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflicts in the Caucasus”[1] and “Autonomy as a Source of Conflict – Caucasian Conflicts in Theoretical Perspective”[2] could be taken as significant investigations, analyzing the role of politization of ethnicity in the post-Soviet Caucasian conflicts through comparative perspective, closely looking at the role of agencies – both regional and international – playing crucial role at the period of formation and escalation of conflict, later contributing to the persistence of the gained status quo. Evaluating the post-Soviet regional ethnic upheavals in the light of the Soviet time regional policy, the idea that distribution of power between majorities and minorities, artificially constructed territorial-administrative borders and borderlands (in the North Caucasus in particular) found to be the subject of manipulation in the post-Soviet period, transformed as a bone of contention between various ethnic groups as a result of the Soviet time policies, implemented in the filed of education, administration, governmental organization, etc, is strongly stressed.
Cornell closely looks at autonomy, to be precise, the Soviet time autonomous statuses, separating it as one of the major sources of the post-Soviet conflicts, providing minority ethnic groups with certain power through local administrative institutions, contributing to exercise independent policy, in most cases directed against central governments, thus successfully pushing them towards conflicting behavior.
Territorial autonomy was the major institution escalating situation between center and peripheries in the post-Soviet Caucasus. This is particularly true in respect with Georgia and Azerbaijan. After the dissolution of the USSR, in the newly independent states of the South Caucasus, ethnic problems arose in those regions and ethnic sentiment was exacerbated among those minorities, which were provided with territorial autonomous status in the framework of the Soviet Union. Minority elites, driven by rational calculations and desire for retaining their positions, with the significant external encouragement, found autonomy as a toll and the main institution, providing plenty of political and economic resources, serving as the basis for shaping and expressing their aspirations.[3]
Through manipulation of the various aspects of territorial autonomy, i.e. when, how, under what circumstances it was created, as well as through hypothetical bargaining over the future type of relations with the political entity it formed part and with the former center – Moscow, territorial autonomy served as a fruitful basis to form and ground the new type of internal and external loyalties and allegiances, quite often, directly or indirectly, uniting the former center and the former second order unit against the newly independent state. In the framework of our research, the abovementioned idea could be formulated as follows: Tskinvali + Moscow vs. Tbilisi.
[1]Svante E. Cornell. Small Nations and Great Powers – A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus. (Richmond: Curzon Press, 2001).
[2]Svante E. Cornell. “Autonomy as a Source of Conflict – Caucasian Conflicts in Theoretical Perspective” World Politics, Vol. 54: 2. (The Johns Hopkins University: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), 24.
[3]Svante E. Cornell. Small Nations and Great Powers – A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus. (Richmond: Curzon Press, 2001).

Mark R. Beissinger - Nationalist Mobilization and the Collapse of the Soviet State

Mark Beissinger totally concentrates on the case of the Soviet Union, analyzing the interplay of the post-Soviet nationalisms, structures and agencies, through which mobilization of ethnic groups were made possible. Pointing to the absence of analysis of agencies in the literature around nationalism in general, and in those researches, appearing after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, in particular, he stresses the deficiency of the idea considering nationalism as a result of interaction of historically supported social interests and identity position, where structure, not an agency is referred as the major substance of analysis: “the idea that identities could be defined in the context of agency or nationalism, both, structured and structuring phenomenon, has not received sufficient attention yet”.[1]
Probably the most important part of his theoretical viewpoint about the general study of ethnic conflicts is expressed by pointing to the existing difference between the study of nationalist events and the eventful study of nationalism, i.e. nationalism needs to be understood not only as a cause of action, but also as the product of action. The cause-effect relationship serves to be the major theoretical issue in need to be thoroughly addressed.[2]
Bringing the post-Soviet conflicts into his theoretical considerations, Beissinger notes: “Precisely because political controls were so extensive and exaggerated in the Soviet Union, one can more clearly isolate the effects of altering these constraints on the role of agency, than where political constraints operated with less force”.[3]
[1]Mark R. Beissinger. Nationalist Mobilization and the Collapse of the Soviet State. (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 9.
[2]Ibid., 11.
[3]Ibid., 36.

Alexei Miller - Between Local and Inter-Imperial – Russian Imperial History in Search of Scope and Paradigm

The crucial suggestions for theoretical and methodological analysis of ethnicity and nationalism can be found in the article “Between Local and Inter-Imperial – Russian Imperial History in Search of Scope and Paradigm”.[1] The paper sets the major task of researcher as follows: “Identify those participating in interaction and to understand the logic of their behavior, reconstruct the context of interaction as fully as possible.”[2]
[1]Alexei Miller. Between Local and Inter-Imperial – Russian Imperial History in Search of Scope and Paradigm. Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 5, 1, Winter, 2004.
[2]Ibid., 15.

Donald L. Horowitz - Ethnic Groups in Conflict

Another crucial author in the field of study of ethnicity is Donald L. Horowitz, formulating his major ideas in the fundamental study Ethnic Groups in Conflict,[1] which deals with the theories and practices of ethnic conflicts, ethnic observance and affiliations. Looking at the goals of ethnic conflicts and analyzing cultural differences or the divergent interest of ethnic groups, as well as explaining reasons of many attempted ethnic secession but few irredentas,[2] lead us to find the reasons of salience and exacerbation of ethnicity and ethnic conflicts at a particular time and under concrete circumstances.
To some extent Horowitz shares Brubaker’s approach to the study of ethnic conflict, mentioning: “ethnic conflict is, of course, a recurrent phenomenon, shifting contexts make ethnicity now more, now less prominent”[3], further adding that ethnic conflicts are generally influenced externally by international environment, internally by rationalistic and materialistic calculations, thus “theories of ethnic conflicts should specify what the groups are fighting over – which is not as obvious as it seems – and why ethnic lines of conflict are so important.”[4]
Although considering history as a weapon, that can fuel ethnic conflict, Horowitz neglects the idea of interpreting ethnic conflicts as a “revived form of an earlier conflict”.[5] Supporting the idea of seeing ethnic conflict as by product of modernization, he points to “the role of elite ambitions and the role of differential modernization of ethnic groups in fostering conflicts”.[6] Although referring to non modernized parts of the world, he does not neglect the deficiencies of modernization approach: “modernization theorists might rejoin that the elites in those areas, small though they may be, are disproportionately important ... [concluding that] ... one is left to surmise, either elite manipulations can, without more, induce mass action, or the masses follow only so long as there is a payoff.”[7]
Finally, as most of the contemporary ethnic conflicts are matter of secession, Horowitz asserts various aspects, related to the emergence of secessionist movements and later contributing to its successful development, forming the internal and external triangles: the first one comprised of domestic politics – relations of various groups – relations of various regions, within a particular state and the external triangle, shaped by international politics, balance of interests and forces, that extend beyond particular state.
[1]Donald L. Horowitz. Ethnic Groups in Conflict. (London: University of California Press, 1985).
[2]Ibid., 2.
[3]Ibid., 4.
[4]Ibid.,15
[5]Ibid., 99
[6]Ibid., 101
[7]Ibid., 104

Brown B. Marilynn - The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love or Outgroup Hate?

In the analyses of the divergent causes of ethnic conflicts, depicting the crucial role of particular agencies and personalities, Marilynn Brewer’s opinion could be considered a bit vague, while looking the problem from socio-psychological angel, admitting: “A direct relationship between intense in-group favoritism and out-group antagonism might also be expected in highly segmented societies that are differentiated along a single primary categorization, such as ethnicity and religion”,[1] so the role of agencies is missing in her statement, thus, unintentionally, all responsibility and weight of reason is vested on ethnic groups, explaining conflict through ethnic terms in general.
[1]Brown B. Marilynn. “The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love or Outgroup Hate?” Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 55, No. 3, 1999, 439.

Paul Brass - Ethnicity and Nationalism: Theory and Comparison.

Paul Brass points to the role and aims of elites, “who draw upon, distort, and sometimes fabricate materials from the cultures of the groups, be it a language of an ethnic group, the already existing status, the political-administrative devolution or decentralization of the political power, in order to protect their well-being and existence, or to gain political and economic advantage, not for their groups, but for themselves first and foremost”,[1] hence “transforming the nationalist sentiment militant.” [2] Thus, nationalism and ethnic conflicts could be referred as the complex and specific types of interaction between the leaderships of centralizing states and elites, from non-dominant, mostly peripheral, ethnic groups, being formed and determined by multiple internal and external loyalties and allegiances.[3]
[1]Paul Brass. Ethnicity and Nationalism: Theory and Comparison. (New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1991), 8
[2]Russell Hardin. One for All – The Logic of Group Conflict. (Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1995), 152
[3]Paul Brass. Ethnicity and Nationalism: Theory and Comparison. (New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1991), 9.

Ted Robert Gurr and Barbara Harff - Ethnic Conflict in World Politics

The intricate dimension and close ties between organizations, leadership, general political context and external influences in fueling and triggering ethnic hatred and warfare, as well as the underlying reasons and conditions, under which ethnic groups refer to conflicting behavior and collective actions, being organized by leadership, are analyzed by Ted Robert Gurr.[1] As Gurr mentions, “manipulation of ethnic differences mobilizes ethnic groups for the political actions, posing demands to governments. While the future collective action is shaped by both subjective and objective conditions, i.e. by the political context and by cohesion of the group, the strategies and tactics of its leaders, the nature of the political system, that governs it, and outside encouragement”.[2]
[1]Ted Robert Gurr and Barbara Harff. Ethnic Conflict in World Politics. (Boulder: Westview Press, 1994), 78.
[2]Ibid., 84.

Monica D. Toft - The Geography of Ethnic Violence

Monica Duffy Toft considers elite-manipulation approaches as the best option to explain reasons why rational actors, political elites, representing states and ethnic groups, resort to violence, as in most cases they [elite-manipulation theories] “straddle material and nonmaterial explanations leaders use to rally support, be it charisma or ability to evoke history and national identity”.[1] Although elite manipulation theory can not be generalized and accepted as a remedy and explanation for all cases, as most of them could fall beyond the framework of its approach. We should not overestimate the value of elite-manipulation approach, as it contains dangers to over predict the power of nationalism and violence, misleading us to properly evaluate the different roles of elites and masses. As elites quite often refer to history for personal gains, and elite-manipulation theory does not explain the reasons of success and failures of particular elites, we could not catch the true sense of elite manipulation of symbols and myths, as well as the cases of perception and interpretation of history for personal gains. In reality, elite-manipulation explanation does not address such cases either logically or empirically.[2]
[1]Monica D. Toft. The Geography of Ethnic Violence - Identity, Interests, and the Indivisibility of Territory. (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2003), 2.
[2]Ibid., 9.

Tellis, Szayna, Winnefeld - Anticipating Ethnic Conflict

Ashley J. Tellis, Thomas S. Szayna and James A. Winnefeld go on the Brubaker’s line in their joint book “Anticipating Ethnic Conflict”: ethnicity can be useful tool for political mobilization, although ethnic action does not occur spontaneously but rather requires mobilization and direction, bringing political significance to ethnic attachments and feelings.[1] Frederick Barth further notes, “Ethnic groups are categories of ascription and identification by the actors themselves. We are interested in different processes that are involved in generating and maintaining ethnic groups”,[2] while Harald Eidheim points to ethnic groups, as social categories providing a basis for status ascription and, consequently, interethnic relations are organized with reference to such statuses.[3]
[1]Tellis J. Ashley, et al. Anticipating Ethnic Conflict (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 1998), 2.
[2]Frederick Barth. (ed). Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: Social Organization of Culture Difference. (Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1994), 10.
[3]Harald Eidheim. When Ethnic Identity is a Social Stigma. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: Social Organization of Culture Difference, Edited by Frederik Barth (Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1994), 39.

Rogers Brubaker - Ethnicity without Groups

The weaknesses of common and all accepted approaches towards study of ethnicity in general and ethnic conflict in particular is analyzed by Rogers Brubaker in his work entitled Ethnicity without Groups.[1] Pointing to the great deal of literature dedicated to such concepts as class, identity, gender, ethnicity, or multiculturalism, where concept group is implicated, for Brubaker the major problem lays in the treatment of the central concept group – being taken as granted in the study of ethnicity and ethnic conflict in particular. Alternatively he suggests the term groupism for denoting the tendency of treating ethnic groups as chief protagonists of social conflict and fundamental units of social analysis, being accepted as substantial entities to which interests and agency can be attributed. Thus, ethnic groups should not be considered as internally homogenous, externally bounded groups, perceived as unitary collective actors with common purposes.
For Brubaker groupness is something that happens, or not happens, thus the line of analysis should include the analysis of those political, social, cultural and psychological processes through which categories get invested with groupness, i.e. highlighting those circumstances determining the success or failure of crystallization of group feelings. The process should be looked from the two angels – from above and from below – as to grasp how categories are proposed, propagated, imposed, institutionalized, discursively articulated, organizationally entrenched and generally embedded in multifarious forms of “governmentality”.[2]
In existing scientific literature around the problem of ethnicity and nationalism, especially in the post-Soviet space, the major problems stem from the absence of tradition and non-existence of clear demarcation between various terms and concepts, quiet often using them interchangeably, intentionally (mostly the case when scientists serve to be the major ideologies and intellectual supporters of political entrepreneurs) or unintentionally (being the result of the Soviet time norms of approaches towards ethnicity, leaving its stamp on several generations of scientists). Although various theories (rational choice, game theory, cognitive theory, network theory, etc) challenge the tendency to address ethnic groups as real, substantial things-in-the-world in line with various constructivist approaches, treating ethnic groups as constructed contingent and fluctuating.
We could conclude, for Brubaker, the major problem lays in automatic equalization of ethnicity, and ethnic conflict in particular, with ethnic groups in general settings, be it academic discussions over the subject or different sort of political discourses, suggesting not to “Adopt categories of ethnopolitical practice as our categories of social analysis”[3]. Reification itself, to be precise, reifying groups, is what ethnopolitical entrepreneurs are doing. So, for Brubaker not the process itself, but those conditions and circumstances, under which this practice of reification, i.e. crystallization of group feelings can work, matters more for analyses.
In line with his theory Brubaker suggests to look at agencies – various kinds of organizations and their empowered and authorized incumbents (ministries, offices, law enforcement agencies, armed forces units; terrorist groups, paramilitary organizations, armed bands, loosely structured gangs, political parties, ethnic associations, social movement organizations) being organizations and agencies of and for particular ethnic groups – more closely, which, according to his opinion, are major protagonists of ethnic conflicts, inspiriting most ethnic violence, i.e. differentiate between interests of ethnic groups and their representing organizations. The roles of organizations and individuals in propagating and flaming ethnic conflicts should be clearly differentiated, as conflict can be labeled as ethnic through actions of perpetrators, victims, politicians, officials, journalists, researchers, etc, as they not only interpret the violence, but constitute it as ethnic.[4] In this line, Ronald Grigor Suny notes: “The actions and understandings of ethnic masses have been equated or confused with the activities of their leaders, the writings of their intellectuals, or votes of bodies that claim to represent them”.[5]
Concluding, we should consider Brubaker’s suggestions could be valid only for particular cases, as containing high probability of misleading our analyses while trying to approach though the same prism divergent occurrences influenced by different historical circumstances.
[1]Rogers Brubaker. Ethnicity without Groups. (Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England: Harvard University Press, 2004).
[2]Ibid.
[3]Rogers Brubaker. Ethnicity without Groups. (Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England: Harvard University Press, 2004).
[4]Ibid.
[5]Ronald G. Suny. The Revenge of the Past: Nationalism, Revolution and the Collapse of the Soviet Union. (Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 1993), 11.

Ethnic Group

An ethnic group is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of preferential endogamy and/or a presumed or real common ancestry. Ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness and the recognition of common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioral or biological traits, real or presumed, as indicators of contrast to other groups.
The sociologist Max Weber once remarked that "the whole conception of ethnic groups is so complex and so vague that it might be good to abandon it altogether."
In any case, Weber proposed a definition of ethnic group that became accepted by many sociologists:
[T]hose human groups that entertain a subjective belief in their common descent because of similarities of physical type or of customs or both, or because of memories of colonization and migration; this belief must be important for group formation; furthermore it does not matter whether an objective blood relationship exists.
Anthropologist Ronald Cohen, in a review of anthropological and sociological studies of ethnic groups since Weber, claimed that the identification of "ethnic groups" by social scientists often reflected inaccurate labels more than indigenous realities:
... the named ethnic identities we accept, often unthinkingly, as basic givens in the literature are often arbitrarily, or even worse inaccurately, imposed.
Cohen also suggests that claims concerning "ethnic" identity (like earlier claims concerning "tribal" identity) are often colonialist practices and effects of the relations between colonized peoples and nation-states. Harold Isaacs has identified other diacritics (distinguishing markers) of ethnicity, among them physical appearance, name, language, history, and religion; this definition has entered some dictionaries. Social scientists have thus focused on how, when, and why different markers of ethnic identity become salient. Thus, anthropologist Joan Vincent observed that ethnic boundaries often have a mercurial character. Ronald Cohen concluded that ethnicity is "a series of nesting dichotomizations of inclusiveness and exclusiveness". He agrees with Joan Vincent's observation that (in Cohen's paraphrase) "Ethnicity ... can be narrowed or broadened in boundary terms in relation to the specific needs of political mobilization. This may be why descent is sometimes a marker of ethnicity, and sometimes not: which diacritic of ethnicity is salient depends on whether people are scaling ethnic boundaries up or down, and whether they are scaling them up or down depends generally on the political situation.

Nationalism

The concept nationalism can refer to an ideology, a sentiment, a form of culture, or a social mocement that focuses on the nation. While there is significant debate over the historical origins of nations, nearly all specialists accept that nationalism, at least as an ideology and social movement, is a modern phenomenon originating in Europe. Precisely where and when it emerged is difficult to determine, but its development is closely related to that of the modern state and the push for popular sovereignty that came to a head with the French Revolution in the late 18th century. Since that time, nationalism has become one of the most significant political and social forces in history, perhaps most notably as a cause of both the First and Second World Wars.

The Aim and Mission of the Project

The Nationalism Studies is intended to respond to the growing demand of the modern world. The network promotes the combination of social science with history, being an excellent professional foundation for those who study the issues of nationalism.The project encourages a critical and non-sectarian study of nationalism with special emphasis on problems created by the new configuration of states, nations and minorities in the various parts of the modern world. Students are encouraged to engage in an interdisciplinary study of nationalism, a subject that is inherently and fundamentally interdisciplinary. A wide range of relevant disciplinary expertise including history, social theory, economics, legal studies, sociology, anthropology, international relations and political science will provide with a truly interdisciplinary study of nationalism. The program offers a wide selection of courses that provide a complex theoretical grounding in problems associated with nationhood and nationalism combined with advanced training in the methodology of applied social science. When examining a phenomenon as complex as nationalism, it's impossible to get a real grip on the material without such an approach.
The Nationalism Studies Project was established with the aim of engaging students in an empirical and theoretical study of issues of nationalism, self-determination, problems of state-formation, ethnic conflict, minority protection and the related theme of globalization. The program encourages a critical and non-sectarian study of nationalism. Students are encouraged to engage in an interdisciplinary study of nationalism, a subject that is inherently and fundamentally interdisciplinary. The project represents a wide range of disciplinary expertise relevant to the study of nationalism including history, social theory, economics, legal studies, sociology, anthropology, international relations and political science. The project offers a wide selection of courses that provide a complex theoretical grounding in problems associated with nationhood and nationalism combined with advanced training in the methodology of applied social science. Additional courses focus on placing problems of nationalism in the context of economic and political transition as well as constitution building in post-1989 Caucasus and the whole post Soviet space, bringing the analyses of the regional countries in a comparative perspective.