The Anthropology of Crime and Violence - Essay Example

Exploring ‘Nationalism’ and ‘Violence’ Violence is inherent within everyday life. Consequently, defining nationalism, without presenting an act of violence that comes with it, is difficult in the present day. Nationalism has been stereotyped with acts of excessive violence. Nationalist discourses have been associated with acts of bloodshed, martyrdom and killings among other forms of violence. For example, the birth of many nations has been through violence and revolutions. Nationalism has been implicated both directly and indirectly in small scale and mass violence (Kapferer, 2011). When looking at the nationalism amongst minority groups, images of terrorism and violent insurgents arise (Brown, 2000). This has led to the association of nationalism with both structural and symbolic violence. These associations have, in turn, created the belief that there is a strong affinity between nationalism and violence; however, despite these countless and boundless associations, nationalism does not inherently embed symbolic or structural violence (Malesevic, 2013). Rather, nationalism encompasses both symbolic and structural violence to a certain extent and the degree to which it does is characterized and shaped by the various incidents that have transpired throughout the past. This paper will explore the origins of nationalism and violence, later considering the role of culture within nationalism and violence to better understand its place within society. By the same token, the relational and dynamic interplay of structural and symbolic violence within nationalism will be discussed through the examination of the political and psychological mechanisms that lead to such associations in illustrating their correlation and significance. Finally, the influence of the state, with respect to its weight and impact, will be assessed and valued. Disentangling ‘Violence’ from ‘Nationalism’ Not all forms of nationalism are violent, despite their historical relatedness. In many instances throughout history, radical nationalists have advocated for the use of violent responses and reactions, building and strengthening the correlation between nationalism and violence (Scherrer, 2003). Some scholars have made the claim that it is only through war that a nation sprouts. Nationalism can be defined as the ideology that is grounded on shared beliefs (Malesevic, 2013). This thought looks at the nation as the most important unit of the human political legitimacy and their solidarity. The definition of nationalism does not presuppose the use of violence whether organized or symbolic (Eller, 2006). Most violence, including cultural agitations, has in fact shown very little connectedness to nationalism. To fully understand why nationalism has been associated with violence, it would be vital to look at the normative origins and evolutions of both (Kapferer, 2011). Nationalism is a novel phenomenon, which is brought about by structural changes and it cannot thrive where there are different empires, kingdoms, cities and states. There must be shared culture that helps in distinguishing nations and people, grouping them based on their common characteristics (Hutchinson, 2010). There cannot be nationalism without the use of standardized vernaculars, literacy through state education, constitutional state, urbanization and infrastructural development. Ultimately, nationalism is the state of an “us” versus “them” mentality (Dieckhoff & Jaffrelot, 2005) and the constellation of ideas, principles, standards and norms within nationalism is based on those in control of a state as well as the domestic contenders. With this in mind, the conception that nationalism is a modern phenomenon materializes (Gellner & Breuilly, 2008), showing dissimilarity and division from the conception of violence, as violence is regarded to be a timeless phenomenon. When there is no control from an external power, chances of wars and revolutions become high; however, control is often exercised in form of laws, integration and taxes to bring a sense of shared belonging and responsibility (Nagengast, 1994). The Dynamic Interplay Between ‘Nationalism’ and ‘Violence’ It’s important to note that there is no specific nationalizing mechanism that makes nationalism violent. It’s also important to note that there is no nationalizing mechanism that can prevent it from becoming structurally or symbolically violent (Pickel, (n.d)). This implies that there is no casual, causal explanation for violence or its absence but rather, deeper social and psychological mechanisms play a part in such nationalistic violence. In this regard, the most prominent precipitator of nationalistic violence is polarization (Brown, 1998). It has been argued that the cause and effect of both structural and symbolic violence is polarization and this polarization, in effect, is notably relative, since the polarization of today is vastly different from the polarity of yesterday. When there is an increase of polarity, often the likelihood of violence accompanying it increases (Malesevic, 2013). Moreover, this polarity may be in low form or non-existent in some states. On the contrary, it may be very high for other states or groups. An example is the cold war era where the USA and a lot of states, especially those in the Middle East, had seen the emergence of a high level of violence, substantiating from the notion of nationalism (Malesevic, 2013). Henceforth, more often than not and without a doubt, a depolarization between parties has the potential to eliminate the cultivated associations of structural and symbolic violence (Kapferer, 2011). Nevertheless, the most noteworthy notion is that with time, nationalism and the associated ideas, ideals and behaviors inevitably change. This change subtracts the existence and manifestation of structural and symbolic violence, unless they are carried on (Malesevic, 2013), thus indicating that nationalistic violence changes over time. The Powerful Political Culture and Violent Nationalism In a democracy, the politically basic unit is people. Politics is intertwined with the cultural norms and values of individuals living within a democracy, creating a vast array of sensitivities that pose potential for conflict (Das, 2000). Some of the liberal democracies have been built through the use of ethnic cleansing and the democratization process has, in some instances and through some events, fostered ethnic cleansing. While ethnicity is a major cause of inequality, based on gender, region or class (Galtung, 1990), structural and symbolic ethnic conflict and violence only occurs if one group instigates exploiting the other. Accordingly, the weaker group in a nationalist conflict looks for external support and will only opt to engage in conflict when support becomes available while the alternative party, often more powerful and inflicting the discrimination, always depends on their military might to carry out acts of crime (Malesevic, 2013). Most compellingly, symbolic and structural violence cannot occur without support from strong coercive social settings and mass idealization (Guibernau & Rex, 2010). Genocides are implemented through the application of social effects amongst small groups. Such cohorts utilize their capability of building emotional dominance within their hierarchy, reinforcing their power through the symbolic violence inherent within the system. To maintain a sense of purpose, belongingness and strong social cohesion, the group isolates themselves from the mainstream society. Thus, the willingness to contribute to both the structural and symbolic violence that results within this sphere stems from the sense of personal obligation and at times, preference, rather than a nationalism commitment (Fearon & Laitin, 2000). Nationalism is a vital political force in the modern world. It has strong impact on the political processes. While the many dynamics interacting with nationalism cannot lead to the perpetration of symbolic or structural violence alone or through combination, political mechanisms can. Research has shown that political brokerage and boundary activation can lead to nationalism violence (Kapferer, 2011). Through the use of brokerage, political ties between non-collective actors are established. Brokerage leads to stimulation of boundary activation. In social life, social boundaries do exist (Pickel, (n.d)) and through brokerage and boundary activation, it is possible to explain what leads to violent and non-violent nationalism. These mechanisms have the capability to combine and reinforce each other, thereby encompassing the aptitude of making peaceful neighbors, enemies (Nagengast, 1994). Through brokerage and boundary activation, there is the potential of changing the social order as well, and this can further lead to non-violent or violent forms of nationalism. Together with politics, states and governments have an immense degree of weight and power that influences nationalism and the violence that it can actually or conceptually embed. The Authority and Effect of the State Specific nationalist ideologies, legitimized by the state, have the capability to initiate wars, various forms of racism and the oppression of minority or unfavorable groups (Scherrer, 2003). In an ideal state, there is no war and resistance is managed to ensure there is no social upheaval (King, 2004). Crisis arise when the demand of the people in the peripheries are not met. Nationalists’ strategies can only be successful when the state has the capability to increase their influence and respond to the popular demands. The inhabitants then become true nationalists when their needs are met satisfactorily (Gorski & Turkmen-Dervisoglu, 2013). Nonetheless, the state also has the ability to popularize or sway thoughts and positions, as attached to nationalism, depending on their interests. When these needs are not met, conflicts and reasoned acts of both symbolic and structural violence can occur. An example is the African countries where organization through use of tribal lines is a major threat (Diamond & Plattner, 1994). On the contrary, a successful example of non-violent nationalism is known to exist in Mauritania. Mauritania is made up of people from different ethnic origins and there is no clear majority. Despite the differences, Mauritania has been able to avoid ethnic violence, as all groups in the country maintain their distinct ethnic practices while embracing nationality (Gurr, 2000). There is no ethno-political dominance and the state has taken great efforts in ensuring a collective nationality is maintained (Malesevic, 2013). By and large, the power of the state must be fully legitimized in order for nationalization to eliminate the violence engrained within it and for the lives of the state’s citizens to be made inherently more meaningful (Schmidt & Schroder, 2001). If a state fails to make the citizens see that it represents the realization of their dreams, then its power is bound to become illegitimate and conflicts can arise (Arendt, 1970). Within this regard, in some cases, warfare in a state can also act as an integrating force. Likewise, the identification and prosecution of the perpetrators of violence, namely the enemies, may also be a major tool for integration. Nationalism is a form of ideology and establishes the cultural and social boundaries and excludes those who cannot fit in. Although nationalism leads to opposition between the citizens and non-citizens of a state (Kapferer, 2011), its success within the state is directly connected to its position as the only monopoly of both structural and symbolic violence (Diamond & Plattner, 1994). Consequently, it is the obligation and aspiration of any state to ensure that there is law, order and persuasion, not only for nationalism to exist, but also for it to be a positive contributory. Violence will always and inevitably result from the discrepancies between the nationalist and ethnic ideologies (Malesevic, 2013), so the state’s effect will depend not only on the level of control exercised, but also their internal manipulation and regulation capabilities. Final Words Nationalism embeds both symbolic and structural violence to a certain degree. This does not fully imply that structural and symbolic violence is inherent to nationalism, but rather that they are conceptions that have become intertwined through past experiences and the similitude of their dynamics. Based on the origin of both violence and nationalism, one is able to see the link that connects and separates ‘violence’ from ‘nationalism’ and vice versa. While nationalism is not inherently violent, acts of violence do perpetuate when there are discrepancies between people, institutions or the state. Furthermore, factors like culture or politics may influence the power and potency of nationalism, through acts of radicalization and polarization amongst a collective, causing unavoidable structural or symbolic violence to result. Violence, both structural and symbolic, occurs when the state fails to cater for the needs of all citizens equally. While the change of the Nationalist Doctrine regarding violent action is caused mostly by the structural circumstances and becomes difficult to intervene in, it is ultimately the state’s effect and influential, monopolizing interference that will control and regulate the violence that results from nationalism. All in all, violence, ideologically, is associated mostly with nationalism than with any other construction. Even though much of the modern day nationalism is expressed through structural or symbolic forms of violence, it is important to realize and appreciate that not all violence is attributable to nationalism. Read More