The following symposium is based on papers presented at a panel sponsored by the section on Ethnicity, Nationalism and Migration of the International Studies Association held during its conference in Toronto, Canada, during its conference in March 1997. An introduction by the panel chair, Henry Teune, sets the stage by placing the contemporary rise of ethnonational conflict in its global historical context. The four papers presented at the panel, as published here, reflect different disciplinary perspectives on the main theme. All deal with the acceleration of ethnic conflict since the end of the Cold War and seek to explain how external influences based on world-system dynamics have shaped and, in turn, been influenced by cross-cultural confrontations and interactions.

The four authors are influenced by the distinctive outlook of their academic disciplines: anthropology, communications, political science and sociology. In any such interdisciplinary conversation, familiar words may well have different meanings, and the same concept may be represented by different terms. As a crutch to help readers see how the different approaches are interrelated, whether they reinforce or contradict each other, a glossary-index has been assembled and can be found at the end. It contains key words taken from all four of the texts, followed by excerpted "contexts" in which these words are used or their meanings are defined. Notes by the editor offer semantic comments on their connotations and links with the texts are provided. A general comment by Didier Bigo offers a synthesis of some of the main points of agreement among the authors and comments briefly on each paper, including criticisms of points on which Bigo holds a different opinion. Readers who work backward from these comments and the glossary may find that some of the puzzles which will undoubtedly emerge from a straight-line reading of the papers which are arranged alphabetically, by author, and promise no logical thematic development.

However, a few preliminary remarks may help place them in perspective. Both Friedman and Hall are strongly committed to a synthetic world-system perspective, though with differences of emphasis, as befits an anthropologist and sociology. In Friedman's view, "modernity" needs to be seen as a transhistorical phenomenon, fluctuations in the extent of modernity having taken place since ancient times. In this perspective, the modern world may be seen as simply more modern than it was at any time in the past. In this context, inter-ethnic (or inter-cultural) relationships have been pervasive in all world-systems but the extent to which they have led to conflicts varies from relatively minor in the past to exceedingly invasive in the present. These changes are attributed to structural transformations in the dynamics of world systems, most notably in relations between centers, semiperipheries, and peripheries. Shifts in the degree to which hegemonic power is concentrated or dispersed in these systems is associated with fluctuations in the degree of ethnic homogeneity or heterogeneity, and the levels of conflict to be found among nations and ethnic communities at different times and places. The rise and fall of exchanges within and at the frontiers of world-systems, involving the movement of goods, people, information, and money are all factored into complex interactive patterns that help us explain the world today and anticipate some future outcomes.

Hall shares many of Friedman's views but he adds some distinctive emphases of his own. Interestingly, his understanding of modernity has shifted from a usage that focuses on the present day, making it a temporal construct, to one which links it with developments of recent centuries, making it both a qualitative and historical matter yet. This enables him to talk about what was "pre-modern" or "ancient." However, he sees ethnicity as a perennial feature of all civilizations and world systems, and he emphasizes the fact that all states, ancient as well as contemporary, have been multi-ethnic (or multi-cultural). In this context, he notes that the rise of the notion of an ethnically homogeneous state (or a national state) is a modern notion -- a product of recent history. However, he stresses that it has rarely, if ever, been actualized and the preoccupation of so many contemporary political leaders to match ethnicity and citizenship in a state undergirds much of the tension we are now experiencing throughout the world.

Tehranian, who specializes in Communications, brings his Iranian background and Islamic history into the core of an analysis which jolts us out of our Western bias by referring to the classical analysis by Ibn Khaldun of the age old struggle between settled agricultural communities and pastoral nomads. Tehranian sees that a counterpart struggle is taking place in today's world with an accelerated flow of migrants (global nomads), ranging from cosmopolitan elites to marginalized refugees. He sees them as actors in many localized conflicts where they may reinforce or clash with parochials who have never left home. His analysis also links these historical perspectives with a special interest in information and communications as a revolutionary dimension of our contemporary post-Cold War era. He stresses the globalization process, in which the information revolution and its imperial consequences leads in some social contexts to universalistic norms and the acceptance of cultural differences, but in other contexts, it reinforces opposite tendencies. They lead to ethnification, localism, parochialism, and traditionalism as individuals and groups seek to find and maintain a unique place for themselves in an increasingly overpowering world. Much of the ethnic violence that has become so explosive in the contemporary scene can be explained, he thinks, by these exceptional yet not unprecedented trends.

As for my own paper, I bring the perspective of a political scientist broadly interested in comparative governance. I view the increased intensity of ethnic identity and conflict as part of a process of modernization which has ancient roots but distinctive contemporary features as located in the interdependence of industrialization, democracy and nationalism, processes that evolved in Western Europe (admittedly as a semiperiphery and late-bloomer in the Afro-Eurasian world system). Among the negative side-effects of modernity that weigh most on the current world chaos, Riggs argues, was the rise of industrial imperialism and the inter-imperial wars it generated. He sees the Cold War as the final episode in this long-term epic, and the rise of a host of unstable and weak new states as one of its sequels. In all these states -- and increasingly also among indigenous peoples brought unwillingly within the domains of the more industrialized democracies -- a growing sense of injustice and demands for self-determination prevail. Rebellious peoples see independence or autonomy as a reasonable and just option that will enable them to achieve the promised rewards of industrialism and democracy. now fuels a rising tide of ethnic nationalism and tensions with established states. In this perspective, antecedents for ethnicity and modernity can be found long ago in ancient world-systems, but since the rise of modernity in its contemporary form, distinctive new features of the state, citizenship, industrialism, nationalism and democracy intertwine to create the contemporary chaos of ethnonational conflict.

Return to top of this page
Updated: 9 Oct. 1997

See linked pages: [] Friedman || Tehranian || Riggs || Hall || Bigo Teune Glossary []

******************************************************************