INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH
Vol. 3. No. 1. January, 2011, Part III
MAIN APPROACHES TO THE DEFINITION
OF ETHNIC CONFLICT
Mukhtar Senggirbay
PhD student of the Al-Farabi Kazakh National University (KAZAKHSTAN)
ABSTRACT
The article touches the major theoretical approaches in definition of the ethnic conflict in political sciences,
providing theories of American, European, Russian and Kazakhstani experts. It briefly observes the first theses and
the development of ethnic conflict theory, emphasizing on the differences between Soviet and Western approaches
to the problem, which resulted in dramatic tension and bloodshed in the territory of former Soviet Union. The goal
of the research is to compare the main approaches to the theory of ethnic conflict and to provide its own vision of
the topic, taking into account the current ethnicity-based tensions and apprehension in the region, including
Kazakhstan, the home country of the author.
The novelty of the work is that the author encourages the integration of the Russian-language dominated
part of the world to the Western community through revising and analyzing the past theories, and facilitates the
best understanding of the phenomenon of ethnic conflict. The article provides the new definition of the ethnic
conflict based on the analysis of the various interpretations that exist in the contemporary political community of the
world.
The increasing of the collisions among diverse [ethnic] groups with reference to their ethnic, racial or
religious differences has resulted in the necessity of giving a scientifically peremptory definition to the phenomenon
of ethnic conflict – the phrase which is frequently used by the public, although it doesn’t have ultimate and
undisputable definition given by international experts yet. The fact that the phenomenon itself has not been defined,
has created obstacles in identifying the nature and the causes of the conflicts, which were labeled as ‘ethnic’ by
international community or by the national governments, as well as it brakes the implementation process of the
conflict mitigation and preventing mechanisms.
Kazakhstani social sciences community has not developed the “ethnic conflict” theory yet, in particular the
works of Western experts are mostly remaining untouched. As a multi-ethnic nation on the nation-founding stage
Kazakhstani community should be aware of this phenomenon, particularly considering the political science
approach, and should observe the major theories of the Western experts who take the lead in this topic. The
topicality of this work is the analysis of the ethnic conflicts theories of the classic and contemporary American and
European researchers, and provision of comparative analysis with the current Russian theories.
The augmentation of ethnic conflicts worldwide after the Cold War has made the scientists of various
fields to draw their attention to this phenomenon. While a range of earlier studies existed from as far back as the
1950s, these were concerned predominantly with nationalism per se, or focused on particular cases of minorities
(such as various German communities resident outside of Germany and Jewish minorities in Europe [1]. Since
1970’s such experts as Rabushka, Shepsle, Esman and others have developed the systematized approach to the
political side of the ethnic conflict, conducting deep analysis of the certain manifestations of the phenomenon and
indicating main concepts of the ethnic conflict theory.“Ethnic Groups in Conflict” by Donald Horowitz (published in
1985, reprinted in 2000) is the core determinant study of the topic. Despite the long period of time that has elapsed
since the publication of Horowitz, and a number of research conducted by scientists worldwide, there is still no
definitive and explicit scientific definition of "ethnic conflict".
The “ethnic conflict” is frequently used in the ethnology, psychology, political and social sciences and
none of those disciplines provided the exact meaning of the phenomenon. Bruce Gilley of the Princeton University
has provided the simple explanation of it, and said, “As a concept, corporatism needed to be defined so as to be
identifiable, measurable and disprovable. At present the concept of ethnic conflict is none of these things.
Definitions range from competing ‘meta-narratives of meaning’ to violent conflagrations where the combatants
display different cultural symbols.” [4]. Apparently, though the parties involved into the ethnic conflict are
identifiable, but it’s not clear why the certain conflicts libeled as “ethnic”, as the most conflicts between groups of
people are mostly caused by social problems or straitened circumstances. That is why most of the experts try to
distance from the “ethnic” aspect and try to concentrate on the real causes of the conflict.
Karl Cordell and Wolff Stefan consider that there is no any single conflict in the world solely based on the
ethnicity. “Ethnic conflict is a term loaded with often legitimate negative associations and entirely unnecessary
confusions. The most important confusion is that ethnic conflicts are about ethnicity – ethnicity is not the ultimate,
irreducible source of violent conflict in such cases. Alternatively, ethnicity may provide the mobilizational basis for
collective action, with violence being used as a tactic” [2]. The authors also emphasized the debatableness of the
term ‘ethnicity’.
Cordell and Stefan speculate that the ethnic conflict may not describe the conflict based on ethnic
differences, because at least one of the parties explain its dissatisfaction in ethnic terms. “At least one party to the
conflict will claim that its distinct ethnic identity is the reason why its members cannot realize their interests, why
they do not have the same rights, or why their claims are not satisfied.” [3]. As it turned out, the ‘ethnic’ might serve
as a cover of any other conflicts between any groups of people.
B a k u , A z e r b a i j a n | 889
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH
Vol. 3. No.1. January, 2011, Part III
When we speak about conflicts we remember violence, war and refugees, therefore the ‘conflict’ itself has
a negative shade. But in the scientific vocabulary it is the simply neutral category. That is why we suggest using the
international term ‘conflict’ while writing works in Kazakh or in any other languages instead of using negative and
frequently inappropriately used alternatives of the phenomenon, such as ‘quarrel’, ‘clash’ or ‘collision’. “Ethnic
conflict is a consequence of ethnic pluralism. Ethnic pluralism occurs when two or more ethnic communities are
present in the same political space. Political space normally refers to the area under the jurisdiction of the same
political authority – in modern times a territorial state with an effective government. When ethnic communities
encounter one another, their contact provide the necessary condition for conflict,” Milton Esman concluded [5].
Thus and so, wherever two or more ethnic groups exist the conflict may occur. But it doesn’t necessarily
lead to the violence or cleavage. The ethnic conflict between French-dominated Quebec and English-dominated
rest regions of Canada has been continuing for the decades, but the dialog show civilized character in line with the
laws of Canada. “An analysis of civil wars between 1945 and 1999 revealed that ethnic or religious diversity do not
make a country more prone to large-scale violence,” Esman emphasized [6].
The classic of the ethnic conflict theory, an American scientist Donald Horowitz stated that only the
concept of ‘conflict’ has a significant distinguished and scientifically grounded explanation. “Among the elusive
elements in ethnic conflict theory is an acceptable definition of conflict. Most definitions embody an element of
struggle, strife or collision, and in this way distinguish conflict from competition. Some go further and suggest that
conflict entails the struggle for mutually exclusive rewards or the use of incompatible means to a goal. Although
much ethnic conflict is properly described in these terms, mutually exclusive ends or means nevertheless need not
be intrinsic to all conflict.” [7]. Horowitz finds as most applicable the definition of the conflict given by social conflict
researcher Lewis Coser, who said that the conflict is the struggle in which the aim is to gain objectives and
simultaneously to neutralize, injure, or eliminate rivals.
According to Esman, when political scientists speak of conflict they refer to competition among groups for
power, resources, opportunities, status, or respect, competition that is usually pursued and adjusted by peaceful
means, but may under some circumstances turn violent.
Supporting the idea of Karl Deutsch, who used the term “social mobilization” with regard to the ethnic
conflict concept, Horowitz concludes that the people who experienced or at least made attempts to the to
modernize themselves or those, who went through the social mobilization process may encounter the ethnic
conflicts. Thus he suggested that ethnic conflict is the product of something analogous to a race between rates of
social mobilization and rates of assimilation. The proportion of mobilized but unassimilated persons is the first
crude indicator of group conflict. We can observe here the social phenomenon that frequently happens in the postcolonial societies. In other words, the well-educated and stable part of the colonized nation, who kept the traditions
and adapted them to the modern realities experience urbanization and changing the lifestyles, activities and jobs.
They move from rural areas to the urban cities, start occupying industrial sphere instead of agricultural. This
process will eventually result in clashes between them and the urban population, who already assimilated and
renounce the ethnic values of the local people. As a result, newly established well-educated and unassimilated
urban population launches a race for the assets of the modernization and try to push aside assimilated ones, and it
may cause conflict with those who already enjoy the amenities of the urban civilization.
Marx’s theory treats ‘ethnic conflict’ as a fiction, something artificial, which doesn’t exist in the human
society. He concluded that the belief on differences between ethnic groups’ goals can not be used as an
operational definition of the phenomenon itself.
Russian scientist Anatoliy Yamskov suggested narrower definition of ethnic conflict, calling it “the fast
changing social and political state, during which significant part of the one or more local ethnic group expresses its
desire to change the established status-quo” [8]. To make this happen the separatist groups should do at least one
of the following:
First, they start moving to other regions explaining this with the ethnic differences, and the society accepts
this process as the “mass movement of the alien ethnic groups”. This causes break of the ethno demographic
balance, and the number of other ethnic groups will tend to increase.
Second, the political movements (“national” and “cultural” parties) with clear ethnic claims and intentions
to change the situation in order to protect the objectives of the certain ethnic group will be established in the
country. This will provoke the central government for retaliatory measures, and mobilize the rest ethnic groups
against “separatists”.
Third, non-titular ethnic groups gather spontaneously to protest against central government’s actions,
condemning it on harassment.
In other words, Russian expert define ethnic conflict as incomprehension between two or more ethnic
groups or between the government and ethnic group based on their ethnic difference. At least one side of the
conflicting groups should declare that the cause of this incomprehension is ‘ethnic’.
The Russian experts mostly consider ethnic conflict as a part of the social conflict concept. Social conflict
is the type of collision during which the rival groups try to occupy the territory and resources of each other,
threatening the lives, properties and culture of the groups or individuals. This type of fight goes in attacking and
defending forms.
One of the great challenges in defining the appropriate meaning of the ethnic conflict is the confusion
between ethnicity and nationality, those two very often used as the synonym of each other. According to Russian
experts, some people who back the ethnic nationalism use this concept as their main goals. “These kinds of
differences can be observed in various countries worldwide in spite of their level of economic development and
political orientation. It especially clearly identified in the young nations with mixed ethnic composition. If there are
some ethnic enclaves with high political deprivation in the rich country it may cause not only ethno political
890 | www.ijar.lit.az
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH
Vol. 3. No. 1. January, 2011, Part III
conflicts, but even endanger the integrity of the country” [9]. It reveals the dispute over the basic principles of
statehood, as some people consider the nation as the statehood of the ethnicity, whereas other experts prefer the
political principles of founding an independent nation. As the young nation Kazakhstan is also experience such kind
of turbulences. For instance, in fall 2009 there were tensions between the government and the national patriotic
groups, who protested against the official version of the National Unity Doctrine of Kazakhstan, the document,
which indicated the main principles of the Kazakhstani statehood. The national patriotic groups, which struggle for
the “state of ethnic Kazakhs”, were not satisfied with the document, which didn’t provide the Kazakh ethnicity any
privileges in comparison with other ethnic groups holding Kazakhstani citizenship. They rejected the ‘Kazakhstani
nation’ idea, finding it as the step to eliminate Kazakh identity.
Most experts in Kazakhstan treat ‘nation’ as ‘ethno nation’. Thus, the term “nation” which means “the
group of politically organized people, which determined its sovereignty by itself” has got particularly ethnic shade.
Because most of the Kazakhstani experts treat nation as the highest level of the ethnic development [10].
Both the Russian and Western experts confuse with specifying the principal differences between
nationality and ethnicity. The Russian sociologist Sorokin says that none of the definitions of nationality can give
exhaustive explanation of the subject. The Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics states that the only working
general definition of ethnicity is that it involves the common consciousness of shared origin and traditions, “The
Greek ethnos is variously translated ‘tribe’ or ‘nation’ and its meaning can be taken as being some way between
the two. Ethnicity is a quality of belonging to an ethnic group. But the question of what is an ethnic group, as
opposed to any other kind of group, is one which permits no simple answer. Ethnic groups are not races, since
ethnicity can be more precisely defined than race or even logically independent: Serbs and Croats are also Slavs,
and Jew might be black or white. Nor does membership of an ethnic group relate a person necessarily to a
particular territory in the way that nationality does. Nevertheless ‘ethnic conflict’ can be the same thing as conflict
between nations or races as it can also be conflict between religious groups. Ethnic conflict in Northern Ireland
(‘Catholic’ and ‘Protestant’), Lebanon (where the Christian Arabs have been conflict with Muslim Arabs), and in the
Balkans (where the Orthodox Serbs differ from Catholic Croats and from Muslims principally in terms of religion)
are all conflicts primarily identified by religious affiliation. Language for the Basques, Welsh or Georgians for
example is a more important badge of ethnicity than race, nationality or religion” [11].
Harvard University specialists have provided a list of features that was used in categorizing the ethnic
origin of the people living in the United States. “All the groups treated here are characterized by some of the
following features, although in combinations that vary considerably:
1. Common geographic origin;
2. Migratory status;
3. Race;
4. Language or dialect;
5. Religious faith or faiths;
6. Ties that transcend kinship, neighborhood, and community boundaries;
7. shared traditions, values and symbols;
8. Literature, folklore and music;
9. Food preferences;
10. Settlement and employment patterns;
11. Special interest in regard to politics in the homeland and in the United States;
12. Institutions that specifically serve and maintain the group;
13. Internal sense of distinctiveness;
14. External perception of distinctiveness [12].
The American scientist Milton Esman defines ethnos as the unit that shares common culture, faith and
racial peculiarities. Most of them are descended to generations. While such categories as race, religion and culture
can be distinguishable easily, sometimes it is too difficult to determine which group is identified by which category.
For instance, the Catholic, Orthodox and Muslim communities of Bosnia, which experienced colonial rule of
different empires, speak in common language. There were no ground boundaries between them. Can we
determine them as different ethnic groups or they are just religious groups? Is Hispanic American racial category or
simply cultural category? What about Malaysian Chinese? Are they racial, religious or ethnic groups?
The reason for providing these identity categories is that in case if their differences are not identified
comprehensively, there might be serious obstacles in predicting the possibility of ethnic conflicts between certain
ethnic groups. If experts can quickly find an answer to the question “What is the main category of disagreement
based on ethnicity between certain ethnic groups?” then it is easier to prevent the newly starting ethnic conflict.
In comparison to the nationality, which can be chosen personally, the ethnicity is descended category and
it is imbibed in the society. But sometimes other groups can determine the ethnic membership of the certain group,
or impose the identity by force. For instance tsarist Russia called ethnic Kazakhs as “Kyrgyzs” or “non-Russians”,
Nazi German government identified Jewish people by itself using different methods.
In conclusion, we admit that despite its frequent using by masses, the ethnic conflict is the category that
can not be determined by undisputable comprehensive definition. There are some reasons for this, first of all, the
debatableness of the ethnicity. Apart from variety of categories that can explain the ethnicity, each people and each
individual may have his or her own vision of the ethnicity, and it is the category that can be varied depending on the
time and geography. It can be observed not only in the ethnic-based nations such as Georgia or Malaysia, it also
occurs in the United States and Canada, the countries that chosen the civic nationalism. Therefore ethnos is not
something that is only connected and confined with genetic differences, race, language, religion and traditions. And
B a k u , A z e r b a i j a n | 891
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH
Vol. 3. No.1. January, 2011, Part III
we need to avoid treating conflict as the negative category. In this case we will come closer to our main goal of
defining the ethnic conflict.
We would like to formulate our own definition of the phenomenon, describing ethnic conflict as the discord
among the group of people that can be differed from each other based on their religious, cultural, racial peculiarities
as well as language and origin and provoked by the social, political, cultural, spiritual and economic competition. It
may occur between the government and ethnic group or between two or more ethnic groups, and it is the normal
situation in the country or region that inhabited by the groups with different religious, cultural, genetic and language
origins. Ethnic conflict is the expression of the variety of opinions between various groups or between the
government and ethnic group and it might not be followed by violence. At least one of the involved groups claims
that the problem is on ethnicity and the conflict occurred because of their ethnic origin.
REFERENCES
1.
K.Cordell and S.Wolff. Ethnic conflict. Causes-Consequences-Responses, Cambridge Polity Press,
2009, Cambridge, UK, p.25.
2. Ibid p.4.
3. Ibid, p.5.
4. G.Bruce. Against the concept of ethnic conflict. Third World Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 6: 1157-1166
(2004).
5. M.Esman. An introduction to ethnic conflict. Cambridge Polity Press, Cambridge, UK, 2004, p. 3.
6. Ibid. p.6.
7. D.Horowitz. Ethnic Groups in Conflict. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 2000, p. 95.
8. Ямсков А. Этнический конфликт: проблемы дефиниции и типологии // Идентичность и
конфликт в постсоветских государствах. Сб. Статей / Московский центр Карнеги. – М., 1997.
– стр. 205.
9. Шабаев Ю.П. Садохин А.П. Этнополитология. – М., 2005. – стр. 101.
10. Малинин Г.В., Дунаев В.Ю., Курганская В.Д., Нысанбаев А.Н. Теория и практика
межэтнического и межкультурного взаимодейтствия в современном Казахстане. – Алматы,
2002. – стр. 20.
11. Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2003, p. 178.
12. Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups. Editor Stephan Thernstrom. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1980. p. vii.
892 | www.ijar.lit.az