4 Impact of Modernization on Ethnicity

Siddhartha Mukerji

Introduction

The study of ethnicity in modern societies has assumed special attention in contemporary works on comparative political analysis. It was generally believed that primordial identities and ethnic solidarity will weaken with the impact of modernization. The universal values and the attempts to homogenise political cultures in modern Europe were seen to impose uniformities in political administrative practices especially with the standardization of languages. However, quite contrary to what was assumed, identities under the impact of modernization assumed new meanings and dimensions. Minority ethnic groups in countries like UK, Spain, France, Belgium, Russia, Canada and later United States made new demandsbefore the state. Uniformity of law and regulations sometimes created problems of assimilation and took the form of sub-national movements. This led to series of conflicts and sometimes took violent forms like riots and pogroms. The biggest challenge that emerged before the government in modern societies was how to maintain democratic stability amidst political disturbances arising out of ethnic nationalism.

Ethnic identities also became an important source of political mobilization by political parties in both developed and developing countries. The political elites often made ethnic appeals to garner electoral support of ethnic groups. New political formations emerged that exclusively focused on the votes of such groups. These are often referred to as ethnic parties. With the growing significance of ethnic identities in politics, a clear pattern of party preference amongst ethnic groups is being witnessed. For instance, the marginalized ethnic groups particularly the Blacks and Hispanics have largely extended their support to the Democrats. The phenomenon however became very common in multiethnic societies of the Third World countries. Ethnic mobilization of Tamils in Sri Lanka, Muslims in India, and Chinese minority in Malaysia and Baluchs in Pakistan are some common examples.

This module attempts to discuss and analyze some of the phenomenon of ethnic mobilization, ethnic parties and conflicts in the wake of modernization. It begins by explaining the meaning and nature of ethnicity followed by a comprehensive account of theoretical explanations of modernization and ethnicity from a comparative perspective. In addition, there is an attempt to understand the concepts of ethnic mobilization, ethnic parties and ethnic conflicts in modern societies.

Meaning and Nature of Ethnicity

The word ‘ethnic’ has assumed multiple meanings during different phases of history. But more recently, it got linked to racial identity in the 20th century United States. Ethnic groups included people of non-Northern and West European origin. It refers to, ‘a community type group of people who share the same culture or to descendants of such people who may not share this culture but who identify themselves with this identity group.’ Clifford Geertz underscores the primordial tie in order to characterize an ethnic group.

Kanchan Chandra defines ethnicity with certain restrictions. First, it only includes identity categories such as race, caste, dialect, family, tribe, language, clan and not categories such as descendants of landowners. Second, the identity groups should only comprise a subset of the country’s population and not the whole. Example, Indians forming a sizeable population in a foreign country will be considered as an ethnic group in that country.

Ethnicity is generally used synonymously with other terms like ‘nation’ and ‘race’. However, its distinctiveness with these categories become clear once it is seen to be constitutive of three core components namely, common history, common descent and common homeland. Citing the distinction, J. Milton Yinger defines an ethnic group as ‘a segment of a larger society whose members are thought, by themselves and/or others, to have a common origin and to share important segments of a common culture and who, in addition, participate in shared activities in which the common origin and culture are significant ingredients…Some mixture of language, religion, race, and ancestral homeland, with its related culture is the defining element. No one of these by itself demarcate an ethnic group.’i

An ethnic group gets converted into nationhood or federalism when it is territorially concentrated. Examples of this are Quebecois, Basques, Sikhs, Kashmiris, Bengali Muslims, Eritreans, Filipino Muslims, Sri Lankan Tamils and Acehnese. If the ethnic groups are dispersed they mainly demand for affirmative action like employment, education, protection of language, culture and religion, and so on. However, territorial concentration in many cases could be a necessary and not a sufficient condition for nationhood. For example, while Basques in Spain demanded separatism; Catalans, though territorially concentrated did not.ii

Similarly, Horowitz (1985) defines ethnicity as, a sense of collective belonging which could be based on common descent, language, history, culture, race of religion (or some combination of these.’iii

Ethnicity and related aspects like ethnic movement, ethnic mobilization and ethnic conflict have an important bearing in contemporary politics. They seem to impact democratic stability, institutional change, electoral politics, political participation in both developed and developing countries. Ethnic groups form political organization to assert their claims for rights, representation and resources.

Theoretical Positions on Modernization and Ethnicity

The resurgence of ethnicity in modern societies challenged the basic premise of Modernity paradigm in comparative politics that modernization will result in weakening of ethnic and parochial identities in democratic societies. The advocates of political modernization highlighted the superiority of Western political institutions and culture that was essentially democratic and had abandoned parochial political culture based on ethnic solidarities to pave way for greater dynamism in political process. Gabriel Almond emphasized two cardinal features of modern societies in the West:

    1.      Structural differentiation

2.      Secularization of culture

It is the second aspect of political modernization that renounces authority based on parochial or ethnic identities and envisages the practise of democratic culture and norm of legitimate authority. Hechter (1975) has called this phenomenon as diffusion erasure which implies that, ‘the salience of ethnicity should decrease as modernization diffuses over a culturally heterogeneous population.’iv

This approach to Comparative politics came to be challenged with resurgence of ethnic groups in advanced industrial societies like Britain, France, Canada and Belgium. Hechter explains this countervailing fact by advancing the reactive-ethnicity model in which he views ethnic solidarity as a reaction to exploitation of the ‘cultural distinct periphery’ by the ‘dominant centre’ in modern societies. In such societies modernity did not uproot the assignment of social roles through cultural markers. The cultural division of roles often deprived the ethnic minorities of the rights and entitlements available to the cultural majority. Hechter further observes that, ‘with cultural division of labour, ethnic boundaries tend to coincide with lines of structural differentiation, and ethnic solidarity is increased.’v

The other explanation for ethnic resurgence in modern societies is offered by the diffusion-competition model. The main proponents of this theoretical position are Hannan (1979), Nielsen (1980), and Ragin (1979). It states that the impact of industrialization and market economy in modern societies make the culturally heterogeneous population more homogenous as modernity gives precedence to the universatlistic criteria of rationality, logic and merit, that is ascribed status over ascriptive positions of individuals. Hannan (1979) finds a definite link between ethnic identity and ecological process. He states that modernization affects ethnicity in two contradictory ways:

1.      Modernization reduces ethnic diversity

2.      Modernization increases the possibility of large-scale ethnic mobilizationvi

The two models of modernization and ethnicity contrast with each other. The reactive-ethnicity model locates the possibilities of ethnic solidarity only when there is culturaldivision of labour resulting in discrimination and sometimes social exclusion. On the other hand, the diffusion-competition model draws a picture of modern societies in which competitive feelings amongst different cultural groups brings the members together and heightens the solidarity within them.

Finding shortfalls in explanations offered by the two models Francois Nielsen observes that being primarily structuralist theories they underplay the significance of inherent processes of modernization that affect ethnic solidarity. These theories omit the underlying political processes that are at work in triggering ethnic mobilization and strengthening ethnic bonds. This explanation approximates well with the instrumentalist perspective that views ethnicity or ethnic identity as an instrument, ‘for gaining political power and drawing resources from the state.’vii It further states that ethnic conflicts are commonplace in multiethnic societies and conflicts take place when political leaders play around with ethnic identities to garner political support and capture power.

Also contrary to the claims of the diffusion-competition model, Essentialism argues that the universalistic criteria of rationality and scientific temperament were not able to weaken the powerful bonds of ethnic solidarity. The primordialism of ethnic groups is far more powerful than the pulls of civic ties imposed by modernization. The most vocal advocates of this position are Clifford Geertz and Connor. Connor (1972) stated that, ‘Man is a national, not rational anima, and the core of nationalism lay the notion of shared blood or shared ancestary.’viii This school of thought that accounts for nationalism based on ethnic solidarity is also referred to as the ‘Ethno-symbolists’ or ‘Cultural Institutionalists’. They refute the claims of modernists that modernization attempts to weaken primordial ethnic ties and universalize norms and practices. Giving due reference to European societies, they state that the processes of national and state-building are shaped by per-modern alignments and ethnic ties. They underscore the vitality of myths, memories and symbols that serve as bases for group solidarity. Their core argument is that, ‘pre-modern ethnic and proto-nationalist identities and interests shape modernization as much as they are shaped by modernization.’ix The main advocates of this approach to nationalism and modernization are Anthony Smith, John Armstrong and Adrian Hastings.

A new way of correlating modernization with ethnicity and nationalism historically is Constructivism. Its core argument is that the ethnic and national identities are the constructs of modernization. Modernity brought the issue of ethnicity centre xstage of politics by,‘transforming the meaning of ethnic identities by bringing the masses into a vastly expanded framework of consciousness and meanings.’ Peter Anderson sociological works on modernity and nationalism highlights the importance of print-capitalism in transforming the local cultural identities into larger national identities in modern European societies.

Modernity according to Constructvists brought about ideational changes in human life. In traditional societies, identities were based on one’s placement in the hierarchical social structure. In modern societies, occupational positions in a hierarchical set-up are based on merit. The Constructivists state that much of ethnicity in the modern world is about resisting discrimination and exploitation and strive for dignity than material self-interest.xi

Ethnic Mobilization in Advanced Capitalist Societies

Ethnic mobilization has been an observable phenomenon in modern polities after the end of World War II. It has emerged as one of the significant basis of political cleavage, group conflict and demand for territorial autonomy since then. Some of the prominent examples in the advanced capitalist societies are Celtics in Britain, Quebecois in Canada, Basques in Spain, and Flemish in Belgium.xii Ethnic mobilization and movements are found to be disintegrative and disruptive in modern societies by both Marxists and liberals. Marxists find ethnic movements as a basis of overshadowing class struggle in capitalist societies. For instance, it was apprehended by Marxists that the Celtic movement in Britain shall eclipse class struggle and may post a threat to national integrity.

Lipset and Rokkan advance a different version of cleavage politics and mobilization in modern societies. They state that, ‘different types of political cleavages predominate during different phases of the development of modern polity. Geographically and culturally-based cleavages are superseded by functional cleavages. The predominance of functional cleavages in modern polities was brought about by Industrial Revolution.’xiii

Comparative research on modernization and ethnicity by Lipset and Rokkan (1967) has shown that ethnic mobilization takes place in modernizing economies when certain structural elements are present. These are: ‘the equal size of ethnic population residing within geographical boundaries of the state; relatively advanced development of a periphery compared to an ethnically different core region; underdevelopment of class cleavages expected under normal conditions to produce class-based parties; a strong history ofperipheral region government and thus parties; and intense and strong nationalism of a dominant core ethnic group producing an isomorphic ethnic reaction in the periphery.’xiv

Ethnic mobilization in modern societies is also explained by Economic models of ethnicity. There are two lines of arguments in this regard. The first one is the ‘Split Labour Market theory’ which states that, ‘ethnic conflicts peaks when two or more ethnic groups competing within the same labour market (that is without a cultural division of labour) command different wages.’ According to this model, there is a three-way competition and exploitation among majority-group owners and higher and lower-priced ethnically divided groups. This leads to ethnic antagonisms. The second explanation of ethnic solidarity and mobilization is given by the ‘Segregated labour market theory’. According to this theory, economic institutions and network relation play a significant role in maintaining ethnic solidarity. The explanations are offered in the light of comparative studies of ethnic solidarity and mobilization of ethnic groups like Japanese Americans, the Welsh and the Scots by Bonacich and Modell (1980). They however show that while ethnic solidarity has declined over a period of time, ethnic politics has not disappeared.

The Comparative studies on modernization and ethnicity locates two types of ethnic political mobilization in advanced capitalist countries:

1.      Political mobilization in underdeveloped regions of multinational states like Wales, Scotland, Flanders, Quebec, and Basques

2.      Political mobilization of economically advantaged and disadvantaged ethnic groups in United States. xvJuan Diez in his ethnographic research has shown the patterns of voting behaviour of Basques and non-Basques in the overdeveloped region of Basque country in Spain.

Ethnic mobilization is also linked with the phenomenon of ethnic nationalism. Paul W. Zargorski defines ethnic nationalism as, ‘a form of nationalism that seeks to mobilize a minority community based in an identified territory within an existing state; its aim is to gain full statehood for that group.’xvi It is a phenomenon that is common in both developed and developing countries. Some examples are Basques in Spain; the Chechens and related groups in Russia; Catholic Irish in the British province of Northern Ireland; and Corsicans of France.

In explaining ethnic nationalism and associated mobilization, Ashutosh Varshney makes a careful distinction between two types of nationalism; nationalism of exclusion and nationalism of resistance. In the former the dominant cultural groups tends to impose its own values on minority ethnic groups and excludes them from power politics. The excluded groups are forced to follow the dictates of dominant culture, religion or language via the state. On the other hand, nationalism of resistance the minority ethnic groups resists such moves and take efforts to preserve their own cultural identity.xvii

The issue of ethnic nationalism has emerged as a big challenge before the state. In the past, it created hurdles before the processes of state and nation-building. The democratic states like India resorted to the method of accommodation while preserving the culture of the ethnic minorities. On the contrary, the demand for autonomy of the Tamils in Sri Lanka created conditions for serious confrontation between the government authorities and the ethnic minority. The quest for autonomy has not only given rise to ethnic mobilization in the developing countries but also led to ethnic resurgence in advanced capitalist countries like Canada and Spain.

Ethnic Parties

Ethnic Parties result from politicization of ethnic divisions in societies. Defining ethnic parties, Kanchan Chandra states that, ‘ethnic parties appeal to voters as champions of the interest of one ethnic category or set of categories to the exclusion of others, and makes such an appeal central to its mobilization strategy..the key aspect of definition is exclusion.’xviii Elaborating further on this account, Chandra highlights three key aspects of an ethnic party which are particularity, centrality, and temporality of interests the parties seek to fulfil. Particularity here implies that an ethnic party always excludes some group or the other. Then, the interests and rights of the group they represent are central to their party agenda. Finally, the ethnic nature of a party changes over time. It does not remain a permanent feature.xix

Ethnic Parties and mobilization is seen to be directly linked with the process of modernization. Modernization theorists like Karl Detsch, Ernest Gellener and Benedict Anderson show that ethnic mobilization and ethnic parties are a characteristic feature of modernizing economies. They predicted that the ethnic parties are more likely to proliferate in economies that are in transition and least likely to multiply in pre-industrial or post-industrial societies.

However, ethnic parties emerged in many post-industrial and advanced capitalist parliamentary democracies of the West Europe. They tend to claim political representation and a share in power. Representing the minorities, these parties tend to demand special packages and benefits for their communities. Countries like Canada, Spain, United Kingdom, Ireland, Turkey, South Africa, India, and Sri Lanka have witnessed the rise of ethnic parties in electoral politics.xx

Ethnic parties resort to ethnic mobilization by exclusively focusing on the target group for electoral support. In this regard Horowitz observes that, ‘political entrepreneurs organizing ethnic parties find a ready-made clientele…waiting to be led.’ Therefore, these parties have been successful in mobilizing support in Western democracies. This has resulted from diversion of votes from both Left and Right parties as they make ethnic appeals like devolution of power and autonomy, preservation of cultural rights, and even economic incentives. However, the ethnic parties in Western democracies have had to compete with parties based on other social cleavages particularly class and religion. It is clearly shown that the after the Second World War ethnic cleavages in politics has assumed greater salience than class. In a comparative survey, Sonia Alonso has clearly shown that ethno-nationalist parties performed successfully in the sub-national elections of Western parliamentary democracies. The ethnic groups that were being surveyed included Basques, Catalans, Gallegos, Faeroese, Inuit, Irish Protestants, Quebecois and Flemish.

There are multiple explanations about the increasing support for ethnic parties. The materialistic interpretation offered by Robert Bates, Michael Hetcher, Albert Breton and Russell Hardin states that individuals support ethnic parties in order to extract material benefits or ‘benefits of modernity’ like jobs, technology and modern education. The socio-psychological explanation of ethnic mobilization on the other side argues that individuals are greatly desirous of self-esteem and dignity and feel that only ethnic parties can ensure them a life of dignity and self-respect.xxi

Ethnic Conflicts in Modern Times

All ethnic-plural societies are ridden with identity-based cleavages and involve ethnic conflicts. These conflicts may take violent overtones when they assume extreme form. Since freedom of expression is given chief importance in democratic societies, the possibilities for conflicts within the confinements of law and order requirements are much higher. On the contrary, in authoritarian polities expressions of ethnic identities are suppressed by the stringent laws and regulations.

While defining ethnic conflicts, Ashutosh Varshney puts forth the definition given by Donald Horowitz according to which, ‘all conflicts based on a scriptive or group identities, real or imagined, race, language, religion, caste or tribe can called be termed ethnic.’xxii This will include the Protestant-Catholic Conflict in Northern Ireland; Black-White Conflict in United States and South Africa; Malay-Chinese conflict in Malaysia; Hindu-Muslim conflict in India; Tamil-Sinhalese conflict in Sri Lanka and the Shia-Sunni Conflict in Iran.

It is shown that ethnic conflicts have been a common phenomenon worldwide after the World War II. Around one-half of the world has witnessed ethnic conflicts and almost 80% of the deaths world over has been internal much of which were as result of ethnic violence. Robin Williams cites several reasons for proliferation of ethnic movements and resulting conflicts and violence after World War II. These are: ‘rise of the number of new multiethnic states; increased resources of mobilization; mass communication; diffusion of ideologies and external intervention in internal politics.’xxiii He considers ethnic conflicts as a commonplace phenomenon in more complex modern societies.

Ethnic conflicts may take the form of collective violence perpetrated by one group against the other. Varshney highlights three major forms of the collective violence- riots, pogroms and civil war. In riots state neutrality may be abandoned or retained. Pogroms are brutal form of ethnic violence where state either remains a silent spectator or supports the dominant cultural community. In case of civil wars, the state appears to be a combatant fighting an armed rebel group. The difference between pogroms and civil wars is that in the former the minority ethnic group is unarmed and vulnerable and in case of latter both the groups are well equipped for physical attack. For instance, in Malaysia in 1969 the Malay-Chinese riots did not transform into a civil war. xxiv

Conclusion

Ethnic solidarity in modern societies has given new perspectives of understanding their political process. New methodologies based on rigorous ethnographic research are being formulated to understand the impact of ethnicity on voting behaviour, political institutions, economic policies and overall party politics. Comparative studies on ethnicity helps explain the nature and forms of mobilization strategies adopted by ethnic parties particularly in developing nations. The theorization of ethnicity and modernization has also served to locate the factors behind ethnic resurgence in modern societies. It further explains the difference between the nature and trends of ethnic mobilization in developed and developing countries.With increasing migration of Asians and other groups in European countries, the challengebefore the governments is how to assimilate the immigrants and ethnic minorities into the dominant culture. The demands for political representation and preservation of minority culture have put new strains on the governments. In response to the challenges faced due to ethnic migrants, the governments particularly in United States and United Kingdom have come up with revised visa policies that are restrictive in nature. To conclude, ethnicity as assumed has not faded because of modernization. Rather, ethnic groups have found new grounds of solidarity in the modern age with the purpose of gaining equal access to the resources of the modern market. Ethnicity has made inroads in the realmof politics and opened new avenues for making political appeals.

End Notes:

i  J. Milton Yinger (1985) Ethnicity,

ii   Ashutosh Varshney (2007), Ethnicity and Ethnic Conflict in Carl Boix’s and Susan C. Strokes’ ed., The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, New York: Oxford University Press, p.277

iii  Ashutosh Varshney (2007), Ethnicity and Ethnic Conflict in Carl Boix’s and Susan C. Strokes’ ed., The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, New York: Oxford University Press, p.277

iv  Francois Nielsen, “Toward a Theory of Ethnic Solidarity in Modern Societies”, American Sociological Review, 1985, vol.50, p.133

v Ibid., p.133

vi Charles C. Ragin, “Ethnic Political Mobilization: The Welsh Case”, American Sociological Review, August 1979, vol.44, no.4, pp.622-623

vii    Ashutosh Varshney,  Opcit., p.283

viii  Ibid., p.280

ix  Brendan O’ Duffy (2009), “The Nation-State and Nationalism” in Judith Bara and Mark Pennington’s ed., Comparative Politics, New Delhi: Sage Publications

x Ibid., p.285

xi  Ibid., p.286

xii  Charles C. Ragin, op.cit., p.620

xiii  Ibib., p.620

xiv   Susan Olzac, “Contemporary Ethnic Mobilization”, Annual Review of Sociology, 1983,

vol.9, p.358

xv

• xvi Paul W. Zargorski (2009), Comparative Politics: Continuity and Breakdown in the Contemporary World, New York: Routledge, p.224
• xvii Ashutosh Varshney, “Nationalism, Ethnic Conflict and Rationality”, Perspectives on Politics, March 2003, vol.1, no.1, p.86
• xviii Kanchan Chandra, “Ethnic Parties and Democratic Stability’’, Perspectives on Politics, June 2005, vol.3, no.2, p.236
• xix Kanchan Chandra, “What is an Ethnic Party?”, Party Politics, 17 (2), Sage Publications, p.155
• xx Sonia Alonso, “Enduring Ethnicity: The Political Survival of Incumbent Ethnic Parties in Western Democracies”, Working Paper, Doctora Miembro, Juan March Institute, Berlin, December 2005, p.1
• xxi Kanchan Chandra, “A New Cross-National Database on Ethnic Parties”, Working Paper for the Annual Meeting of the Mid-Western Political Science Association, 24-27 April 2002, p.4
• xxii Ashutosh Varshney, “Nationalism, Ethnic Conflict and Rationality”, Op.cit., p.86
• xxiii Robin M. Wiiliams, “The Sociology of Ethnic Conflicts: Comparative International Perspectives”, Annual Review of Sociology, 1994, vol.20, p.51
• xxiv Ashutosh Varshney (2007), “Ethnicity and Ethnic Conflict”, Op.cit. p.279

References and Essential Readings:

• Almond and others (2004), ed., Comparative Politics Today, Pearson Education Black, C.E., ed., Comparative Modernization: A Reader, Free Press
• Connell, James O. “The Concept of Modernization”, in C.E. Black’s, ed., Comparative Modernization: A Reader, Free Press
• Dahrendorf, Ralf (1992), “Democracy and Modernity: Notes on the European Experience”, in S.N. Eisenstadt’s, ed., Democracy and Modernity, Leiden University, the Netherlands Deutsch, Karl W. “Social Mobilization and Political Development”, The American Political Science Review, Sepetember 1961, vol.LV, no.3
• Einhorn, Eric S. (2005), “Liberalism and Social Democracy in Western Europe”, in Howard J. Wiarda’s ed., Comparative Politics: Critical Concepts in Political Science, London and New York: Routledge
• Giddens, Anthony (1990), The Consequences of Modernity, Cambridge: Polity Press
• Huntington, Samuel “The Change to Change: Modernization, Development and Politics”, inC.E. Black’s, ed., Comparative Modernization: A Reader, Free Press
• Kreutzmann, Hermann “From Modernization Theory Towards the Clash of Civilizations: Directions and Paradigm Shifts in Samuel Huntington’s analysis and prognosis of Global Development”, GeoJournal, 1998, vol.46, no.4Pye, Lucian (1966), Aspects of Political Development, Little Brown
• Sarangi, Asha (2009), ed., Language Politics in India, New Delhi: Oxford University Press
• Wiarda, Howard J. (2005), ed., Comparative Politics: Concepts in Political Science, London
• and New York: Routledge