Nations States, Statistical Groups, Individuals and Other Groups (original) (raw)
Related papers
Penultimate draft of "Social ontology for all (kinds of groups)".docx
Contemporary theories of institutional group agency have focused on modeling democratically legitimate institutional group agents. Yet many countries in the world are democratic only on paper, with their governing structures relying, to a large extent, on informal power networks. These regimes are oppressive towards their citizens. I offer a theory of what kind of agents oppressive or de facto nondemocratic groups are and how this view overcomes the limitations of other theories in modeling such groups' intentionality. My account focuses on the relation between systemic-level traits, which are brought about via a web of interrelated but not jointly intended individual behaviors, and individuals' truncated awareness in group actions. In oppressive societies in which most (or any) individuals may not intend the systemic-level result, the haphazard nature of action coordination and joint intention as collective structures that support the regimes can be seen to challenge two prominent theoretical approaches.
Towards a New Formulation of the Concept of Ethnic Group
Ethnicity, 3: 202-13, 1976
In this paper I propose a new formulation of the concept of ethnic group that permits the recognition of such groups as having a ‘primordial’ quality, that of descent which is given by birth, while also taking their specific form as the consequence of the structure of exchanges of marriage, of goods and services, and of messages between groups. In my attempt to formulate a new social science concept for considering ethnic groups, I have found it valuable to turn to ideas drawn from a non-Western as well those from a Western intellectual tradition. Implied in this effort is a call for a less ethnocentric social science.
Both the modernists and primordialists are confronted with identical manifestations of the ethnic phenomenon. Their explanations of this phenomenon, however, differ substantially and do not seem reconcilable, since a primordial phenomenon cannot have emerged for the first time with the modern human. Nevertheless, one does not have to accept the modernist position if one abandons primordialism. Some nations, namely, may have emerged in pre-modern times, but as a consequence of a particular historical moment and not as a matter of necessity. For instance, the ancient Greeks, Jews and (to a lesser degree) Romans exhibited a type of collective identity which may be called national identity (Kohn 1945) and which does not have to be a natural form of social cohesion. In that respect, modernists can justify their claims only by adopting a restrictive use of the term 'nation.' Those who do not accept such a restrictive use may allow the modernist only the minimalist and tautological statement that 'modern nations are a modern phenomenon.' The fact that similar manifestations of the ethnic phenomenon are explained by cogent, but different (sometimes conflicting) theories, often depending on the selection of cases (as a more detailed insight in the mentioned theories would reveal), might indicate that it is perhaps impossible to develop a universal theory of nation formation. This article will cautiously side with this claim on the basis of an interpretation of a number of cases of nation formation and nation assimilation in two (former) multinational and authoritarian states (the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia), which applied mechanisms of state power to manipulate ethnic processes. The fact that contemporary mechanisms of coercive state power were only in some cases successful in the direction of ethnic processes will serve as the basis for the development of a model of nation formation which seems most appropriate for the regions. This article will concentrate on Caucasia, Macedonia and Montenegro. This model, however, will not claim its universal validity. On the contrary, it is supposed to serve as an illustration of the assertion that nation formation and nationalism may be explained by different theoretical models, frequently depending on the cases they address.
A Plea for Peace Building: Why do we need Group Rights
This article deals with group rights that are intended to regulate the relationship between the majority and minority groups. Group rights are discussed extensively not only in political science but also in sociology and jurisprudence. Although this discussion covers all minorities in the abstract, the focus of this paper deals solely with national minorities. 1 My aim is to answer the following questions: Can a conflict between a majority and a minority be solved by group rights? Are group rights morally justifiable? To what extent are group rights compatible with concepts of democracy and/or concepts of justice? Key words: ethnic conflict, group rights, justice as fairness, peace building Conflict exhibits a two-‐dimensional character. On the one hand, it concerns the struggle for power and the distribution of resources; on the other hand, it also involves recognition of values and identity. Ultimately inherent in both dimensions is the problem of justice. Therefore, only those concepts of conflict resolution that democracy regards as its " duty " will be described here. But first, I will make a case for those " group rights " that provide the theoretical/intellectual basis for conflict resolution. The debate concerns the issue of to what extent individuals can be protected and their interests enforced. The central question is whether this support should be provided by granting individual rights or rights for the group as a whole. First it must be noted that in classical liberal theory mention of group rights is hardly to be found. The Paretian concept of justice in classical liberalism is target-‐oriented with maximizing public welfare as its main goal. To determine how this can be achieved, the premises of the theory must be explained. According to classical liberal theory, any social system consists of two categories: individuals and society. While individuals are regarded as main actors, society as whole must also be taken into account. The two-‐part constellation of this model is built on the duties, rights, and goals of both corporate bodies and individual people. All individuals that are free and equal strive to maximize 1 In research literature, the term " national minority " is synonymous with " ethnic minority " (see Gornig 2001: 37).
Towards a New Formulation of the Concept of Ethnic Group_Rev
Ethnicity, 3: 202-13, 1976
In this paper I essay to formulate an alternative to the concept of “ethnic group” as used in Western social science. The standard concept implicates the popular idea, an idea originally derived from the Greeks, of, “a group of people of the same race or nationality who share a common and distinctive culture”. My alternative conception culture as a primary defining characteristic while also taking into account the apparently contradictory fact that in the course of structural interactions the content of culture associated with ethnic groups often undergoes significant alteration. In my effort, I begin by drawing on a non-Western intellectual tradition-one found in Thailand where the conventional understanding of what Westerners call ethnic groups has been quite differently formulated. By approaching the question via a non-Western tradition, I hope to be able to identify a possible solution for the problems that have developed in connection with the Western concept.
Whose Mobilisation? An Ontological Primer on the Mobilisation of National Minorities
New nation-states and national minorities, 2013
No political analysis can proceed in the absence of assumptions about political ontology. That such assumptions are rarely explicit hardly makes them less consequential' (Hay 2008: 81 ). This chapter argues that, prior to investigating the mobilisation ofnational minorities in nationalising states, we should establish whose mobilisation we are talking about. The key question we setout to answer is: What ontological perspective allows us to assume that mobilised national minorities actually exist? While research results in the field of comparative ethnic mobilisation studies are highly sensitive to the views researchers hold about the nature of ethnic groups and ethno-political collective action, ontological considerations have largely remained implicit in their research. This chapter seeks to discuss the ontological assumptions involved in studying minority mobilisation explicitly, and to show how they affect the answers to our research questions.
Collective Responsibility, National Peoples, and the International Order
Rechtsfilosofie en Rechtstheorie, 2010
Can we properly assign responsibility to national peoples for the injustices and losses they impose on others? This is an important question for legal and political philosophy in general and the global justice debate in particular. And yet not many theorists are inclined to take ...
2015
This thesis creates a theoretical framework that explains the size of polities in world systems. Namely, it explains the size of nations during the rise of the territorial state, and additionally explains the emergence of supranational polities in a globalized world. The question this thesis seeks to answer is whether there exists a – previously undetected – underlying parameter that governs the size of “nations” and “civilizations”, and which would account for both phenomena. The hypothesis is that there is a direct correlation between the size of the world system and the size of the dominant actors within the system. To this end, the thesis applies a theory from the field of social psychology, called optimal distinctiveness theory, to the world-system level explaining the size of both nations and civilizations. The study focuses on two case studies, one from each of two different world systems. The first case study will be the formation and consolidation of the German nation from the end of the Holy Roman Empire to the founding of the German Empire. The second case study will deal with the ongoing formation of the European Union. This paper stipulates that both these cases are functions of the same principle of optimal distinctiveness. Group identities were successful when they were of an appropriate size relative to that of the total size of the system to which they belong. This size needed to be powerful enough to secure the group interest, while small enough to remain distinct. The claim is that a system confined to European actors produced nations and the new global system produces “civilizations”. This work identifies one underlying reason for the existence of the national and supranational structures, which are the subject matter for the field of political science and international relations. By understanding the reason that nations of certain sized polities formed instead of others, we may better understand recent trends in nationalism. Additionally this allows us to understand an underlying reason behind the formation of the European Union, a subject which has gained in importance over the recent years. This thesis postulates that we are currently in the midst of a transition in the world system, with the types and sizes of emerging dominant actors changing as well. In gaining an understanding of the forces that form polity size, potential trajectories of various regions in the world become clearer. This thesis does not intend to contravene most current theories surrounding issues of nationality and identity. Instead, it intends to explore a complementary role that can be used in conjunction to many different schools of thought. Previous works have focused on how the nation-state arose and the different socio-political, economic, or military reasons that drove the process. This thesis deals with the question of why particular nations arose and not others, either larger or smaller. According to the optimal distinctiveness theory, individuals are caught between two separate forces concerning how large an in-group they wish to belong to. The first is the individual's desire to belong to a group that is large enough to fulfill the psychological needs of inclusiveness and collective identity, where the individual feels part of something larger than itself. The second need – with which this comes into conflict – is the individual's wish to be separate from others in order to form a distinct exclusive identity. Because of this, individuals are pushed to form groups that are small enough to be distinct yet large enough to be meaningful. This thesis proposes that actors on the world system level are formed in a similar manner. In the first case study will examine the formation of German nationalism during the nineteenth century. This is a century that commenced with Napoleon's conquests, which put a final end to the Holy Roman Empire. This was followed with the formation of a German confederation in the congress of Vienna, which also included Austria. During the Frankfurt Parliament of 1848, the subject of German nationality was debated from a wide variety of angles. Questions of what “Germany” meant and what it should include were actively debated among the members of the parliament. Different options were put forth with goals ranging from the small to the very large. Bavaria wanted a three-state solution, with Austria, Prussia, and a Bavarian-led “third Germany” composing separate states. Austria pushed for a large “Greater Germany”, which would include all of its Slavic holdings as well as the areas under the German Confederation. Prussia pushed for a “Little Germany”, which would include the German territory not under Austrian rule. These options were debated according to the size and strengths of the various proposed states as well as the legitimizing identity that would be needed in each case. The thesis shows how much of this discourse surrounded the search for a definition of Germany that would produce a polity of a certain size. The prospective Germans wanted an optimally distinct polity large enough to compete with other European states but not too large that it would include too wide a difference of peoples. To this end, Germany was defined in a way which excluded areas detrimental to the distinctiveness of the German state and included areas which increased its power. The section dealing with the European Union will looks at the creation of the union from its beginnings after World War II until today. The European polity was formed in the context of the post-WWII world system. This is a time which saw both the decolonization of Europe's colonial empires and the emergence of the US and USSR as the dominant powers in the world. The formation of the European Union was driven by the need to form an optimally distinct polity capable of competing with the “superpowers” of a global age. To achieve this European membership and identity is being tailored to meet that need. In both cases, special attention is given to those areas and peoples about which there was a question surrounding their inclusion within the polity. In the German case, this concerns Austria, Slavic peoples under Austrian control, and parts of Poland under Prussian control, among others. In the European case, Turkey, Eastern Europe, and also Great Britain. It is through those gray-area cases, where the merits of inclusion or exclusion were actively debated, that the forces of optimal distinctiveness may best be seen. These two different case studies provide complementary understandings that may help to revise existing paradigms that limit our conception of identity, and better enable us to understand the trials involved during polity formation and system change. One example of this is how each setback or obstacle for the European Union is considered a sign of its downfall by the popular press. However, when compared to the parallel occurrences of German princes and royals obstructing the creation of a German state, national and state objections against the European project are placed in a more understandable historical context. Similarly, the current nations of Europe are so ingrained in our collective consciousness that it is indeed difficult to conceptualize what pre-German Germany actually meant. By considering the familiar pre-EU Europe for comparison, it is possible to understand how an identity can shift from being unimportant in terms of political structure to being the basis thereof. By presenting the facts in such a manner, it is shown that a persistent drive toward polities of an optimally distinct nature has been the basis for both the nationalism of the 19th century and the EU as a civilization in the present.