Politicized ethnicity: a comparative perspective 1st edition anke weber all chapters ebook PDF downl
Politicized
Ethnicity: A Comparative Perspective 1st Edition Anke Weber
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://textbookfull.com/product/politicized-ethnicity-a-comparative-perspective-1st-edi tion-anke-weber/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
Populism Around the World A Comparative Perspective
The Struggle against Corruption: A Comparative Study
Edited by Roberta Ann Johnson
Women, Democracy, and Globalization in North America: A Com parative Study
By Jane Bayes, Patricia Begne, Laura Gonzalez, Lois Harder, Mary Hawkesworth, and Laura Macdonald
Politics and Ethnicity: A Comparative Study
By Joseph Rudolph
Immigration Policy and the Politics of Immigration: A Comparative Study
By Martin Schain
Politics, Policy, and Health Care: A Comparative Study
By Paul Godt
Social Movements in Politics, Second Editio n
By Cy rus Ernesto Zirakzadeh
The Development of Institutions of Human Rights: A Comparative Study
Edited by Lilian A. Barria and Steven D. Roper
T he Changing Basis o f Political Con f lict in Advanced Western Democracies: The Politics of Identity in the United States, Belgium, and the Netherland s
Edited by Alan Arwine and Lawrence Mayer
Politicized Ethnicity: A Com parative Persp ective
All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission. In accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, Saffron House, 6-10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS.
Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.
First published 2016 by PALGRAVE
MACMILLAN
The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, RG21 6XS.
Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of Nature America, Inc., One New York Plaza, Suite 4500, New York , NY 10004-1562.
Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the wor ld.
ISBN: 978-1-349-56922-9
E-PDF ISBN: 978–1–137–34945–3
DOI: 10.1057/9781137349453
Distribution in the UK, Europe and the rest of the world is by Palgrave Macmillan®, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Weber, Anke, 1982– author
Politicized ethnicity : a comparative perspective / by Anke Weber, Wesley Hiers, and Anaïd Flesken. pages cm.—(Perspectives in comparative politics)
1. Ethnicity—Political aspects—Case studies. 2. Ethnic groups— Political activity—Case studies. 3. Group identity—Political aspects—Case studies. 4. Cultural pluralism—Political aspects—Case studies. 5. Social integration—Political aspects—Case studies. 6. Kenya—Ethnic relations— Political aspects. 7. Tanzania—Ethnic relations—Politcal aspects. 8. Bolivia—Ethnic relations—Political aspects. 9. Peru—Ethnic relations Political aspects. 10. United States—Ethnic relations—Political aspects. I. Hiers, Wesley, 1972– author. II. Flesken, Anaïd, author. III. Title.
GN495.6.W43 2015 305.8—dc23 2015019004
A catalogue record for the book is available from the British Librar y.
To F lorens, Katie, Andrew—for their love and support
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Anke Weber conducted her initial research on the politicization of ethnicit y and early research on Kenya and Tanzania, includin g t he field work, at the Universit y of Zurich, Switzerland. She is particularly g rateful to her PhD supervisor, Kat ja Michaelowa, for the freedom and encoura gement to ex plore this strand of research, and to members of the Center for Comparative and International Studies (CIS) for valuable comments on earlier versions of chapter two. The analy sis of the African cases could not have been written without the knowled ge, insig hts, and dedication of many Kenyans and Tanzanians from academia, politics, and ministries in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, who kindly agreed to an interview with Anke Weber and who tried their best to answer all of her questions. Their effort to ex plain why ethnicit y matters—or does not matter—in their countr y was instrumental in the writing of this book. Asante sana! The fieldwork conducted in Kenya and ! Tanzania was only possible with the financial support of the Swiss National Science Foundation (Project: 100012–121617), and this is g ratefully acknowled ged.
Wesley Hiers g ratefully acknowled ges postdoctoral fundin g from the Dietrich School of Arts & Sciences and the Department of Sociology at the University of Pittsburgh, which made possible the research and writing of this book project. Versions of chapter four were presented at the 2014 meetin g s of the Eastern Sociolog ical Societ y as well as in the Workshop on Power, Resistance, and Socia l Ch ange in Pitt’s Department of Sociology. Wesley Hiers thanks all of the participants for their feedback, particularly John Markoff and Suzanne Sta ggenborg, as well as Andreas Wimmer,
Acknowledgments
Rogers Bruba ker, and Mich ael Mann for t he many way s over t he years that they have contributed to his thinking about ethnic pol itics f rom a comparative and h istorica l perspective.
Anaï a d Flesken conducted her initial research on ethnic politicization in Bolivia at the Exeter Centre for Ethno-Political Studies, UK. The Universit y of Exeter and the Societ y of Latin American Studies generously supported the research, including fieldwork. A postdoctoral fellowship at the Institute of Latin American Studies, GIGA Hamburg, Germany, partially funded by the Fritz Thy ssen Foundation, allowed continuing the research on both Bolivia and Peru. All funders are thanked for their support. Ana ïd Flesken also thanks her collea g ues, particularly Almut Schilling -Vacaflor and Riccard a F lemmer, for sh aring t heir k nowled ge and insig hts, and Carola Betzold and Andrew Zammit-Mang ion for patient reading of various versions of chapter three.
Last but not least, all three authors would like to thank their editor Kay Lawson for pushing them through this project and for the various helpful comments along the way.
S ERIES EDITOR FOREWORD
Politicized Ethnicity: A Comparative Perspective by Anke Weber, e Wesley Hiers, and Ana ïd Flesken uses the comparative method to provide important new answers to complex and timely questions: What are the circumstances that cause politicians to base their campaig ns and policies on ethnic identities and what are the consequences when they do so?
To find their answers, the authors develop a theoretical framework and analyze the same factors in five case studies, Kenya, Tanzania, Bolivia, Peru, and the United States. Their sample reflects the heterogeneit y found in the real world, and the book respects case-specific factors as well, yet the evidence in each case supports the general theoretical hypotheses, suggesting that the analy tical framework mig ht be generalized to other cases. Certainly it is put to a rigorous test in the four developing countries, which are studied in pairs (Kenya and Tanzania, then Bolivia and Peru). In both sets we find that two countries in the same region, with many similarities in their histories and conditions, have moved in opposite directions with respect to the treatment of ethnicit y. Why is ethnicit y so shar ply politicized in Kenya and sig nificantly so in Bolivia, and yet so much less so within neig hboring states (Tanzania and Peru)? By examining the differences within each pair that lead to these different outcomes, this book guides us to a far more sophisticated understanding of the dy namics of ethnic politicization in developing countries in general.
A lt hough t he United States is treated on its own, t here too the discussion probes more deeply than is sometimes the case. Here we are offered a long -term view of the politicization of the
relations between whites and African-Americans throug hout the histor y of this countr y. It is a histor y that beg ins with slaver y and continues at the present time, but it is not a sing le straig htforward line, nor one that is consistent from reg ion to reg ion within the United States. It has not alway s been politically advanta geous to play politics with racial prejudice, and those who find it useful are not alway s members of the same political part y. Althoug h occasionally ethnicit y can be politicized by and for the oppressed, as when citizens are asked to support candidates determined to enact pol icies speci f ica lly out l awing t he exercise of racia l bias, overa ll the tale has been and is a sad and disgraceful one, with outrageous consequences.
This book is a ver y welcome addition to the series Perspectives in Comparative Studies, a series in which each book presents an overview of a timely topic in contemporar y political discourse and develops a theoretical framework for its study, then presents three or more case studies, and concludes by summarizing the varied causal mechanisms and drawing out the new hypotheses that their research has uncovered. Here the authors are extremely careful to make no exaggerated claims, but the f act of colonial or protocolonial administrative rule, the question of access to resources, language choices and nation-building policies, as well as the skills and motives of political entrepreneurs, all emerge as important variables. Despite their caution, the authors’ evidence and their reasoning are strong. Politicized Ethnicity: A Comparative Perspective offers a profound and nuanced understanding of what is really going on when competitors for power wilfully pit their followers against ethnic “others” for political gain.
C HAPTER ONE
Politicization of Ethnicity
Introduction
Ethnic diversity is widely seen as an impediment to economic prosperity and stable democracy: ethnically diverse countries seem to exhibit low macroeconomic stability (Alesina and Drazen 1991), diminished g rowth rates (Easterly and Levine 1997), increased corruption (Mauro 1995), low quality of governance (LaPorta et al. 1999), democratic instability (Rabushka and Shepsle 1972; Fish and Brooks 2004), as well as increased risk of violent conflict (Sambanis 2001; Wimmer et al. 2009b). Whereas early studies ascribed this effect to ethnic diversity per se, more recent studies recognize that it is indeed the role of ethnicity in the political process, that is, the politicization of ethnicity, which explains these outcomes.Yet the question remains which factors lead to the politicization of ethnicity.While an extensive literature links ethnicity to the emergence of civil conflicts, few authors have focused exclusively on the question under which circumstances ethnicity emerges as a politically salient identity. Evidence on the causes of the politicization of ethnicity is scarce and often focuses on only one factor to explain politicization. In particular, convincing country examples that include a discussion of a comprehensive set of explanator y f actors remain scarce. The present book aims to fill this gap.
T h is book offers an extensive comparative ana lysis of f ive cases in t hree reg ions—namely Kenya, Tanzania, Bolivia, Peru, and t he United States—to demonstrate how colonia l ad ministrative
rule, access to resources, nation-building and lang ua ge policies, as well as political entrepreneurs contributed to ethnicit y politicization in these countries. Usin g these five case studies, this book pursues the following questions: Which factors drive the political salience of ethnicit y in particular countries? Why is ethnic identity an important (or irrelevant) factor in the political sphere? In answering these questions, we make two main arg uments. First, politicization is a relational, dy namic process in which structure and a genc y intertwine. We provide the reader with a framework t h at ana ly tica lly situates and clearly def ines our dependent variable, the politicization of ethnicity, and that reveals the sequence of processes leading to this outcome. This framework identifies how ethnic identities are transformed into socially salient ethnic identities, and how some of these socially salient ethnic identities come to be used for political mobilization, that is, become politicized. Our second main argument is that the major factors contributing to politicization are generally long run in nature. Colonia l ad ministrative ru le, access to resources, and nation building are the major factors that determine the deg ree to which et h nicit y is enduringly pol iticized. Actions by pol itica l entrepreneurs, in contrast, play a major role in short run, intense bursts of politicized ethnicit y.
In the remainder of this chapter we first develop our dependent variable, t he pol iticization of et h nicit y. We t hen l ay out ou r theoretical framework, which combines existing literature into a comprehensive ana lytica l f ramework. Last, we speci f y in greater detail our empirical approach including the selection of cases and include a roadmap of the book.
The Politicization of Ethnicit y
A first step in defining “politicization of ethnicity” is defining what we mean by ethnicity. In accordance with much of the vast literature on the conce pt, we define ethnicit y to mean the p erce p tion o f a common ori g i n , based on a set of common attributes, such as language, culture, history, locality, and/or physical a pp earance (Connor 1978, 386; Cornell 1996, 269; Geertz 1996,
43–44; Horowitz 2000, 17–18, and 50; Hutchinson and Smith 1996; Weber 1996 [1922], 35). Any of these can be markers for the formation of putative g rou p s alon g ethnocultural, ethnoreligious, ethnoracial, etc., lines. Key to ethnicity is the belief (held f by p eo p le either “inside” or “outside” an ethnic cate g or y, but usually both) that one or more of these markers creates a boundar y between insiders and outsiders, and that, with res p ect to the insiders, the g roup is self-contained and could exist in p er p etuit y via sexual re p roduction. These latter characteristics, that is, b oun d e d p erd urabi l it y via sexua l re p ro duction, are w h at ma ke these groups “ethnic” in the sense of constituting them as “ethnos” (the Greek for “ peo ple”).
The shift from ethnicit y per se to the politicization of ethnicit y as the source of social disharmony was the recog nition that ethnic identities are not, in fact, based on ancient, fundamental categories and hence fixed, but are instead socially constructed and thus chan g eable and contin g ent. While this constructivist approach to et h nicit y is tod ay virtua lly universa lly accepte d (e.g., Eriksen 2010; Gil-White 1999; Hale 2004; Chandra 2012), t here is l itt le a g reement on how ethnic identities are constructed, w and few studies examine either why this and not some other identit y is constructed (see Posner 2005, 1–2) or why it becomes an im portant issue in the political sphere. And while it is convenient to spea k of et h nic groups, how much “groupness” is actuall y entailed by ethnic boundaries varies considerabl y over time and space (Bruba ker 2006) and t here fore must be empiricall y investi g ated.
If the above is what is meant by ethnicit y, then what does it mean for ethnicit y to be politicized ? Stated in the starkest terms, politicization describes the process of becoming political. Our specification of the political is state centered, though with a broad construal of state. Ethnicit y must enter the formal state/political arena to count as politicized. Civil societ y g roups and individuals (e.g., social movements, nongovernmental org anizations (NGOs), media fig ures) may attempt to politicize ethnicit y, but their efforts register as politicization in our terms only when they gain attention in t he forma l pol itica l arena. T h is speci f ication pl aces pol iticians, parties, policies, and power at the center of analy sis, along
with institutions and practices that connect the formal political arena wit h societ y (e.g., elections/state bureaucracies). Or to put it another way, this specification prioritizes certain actors ( politicians, part y officials, voters), actions (claims makin g, state-polic y creation and implementation, voting ), and institutions ( parties, state bureaucracies, elections). The politicization of ethnicity occurs when specif ic types of “ethnic actions” are carried out in the context of institutions that are linked to the state/political arena. Power pervades this process in the sense that actors carr y out these ethnic actions eit her in t he pursuit of power (whet her to acquire or maintain it) or in the use of power (particularly control of the state) already acquired.
Forms of Politicization
Politicization by ethnic actors can take on different forms, most importantly discursive and nondiscursive forms. The most direct form of ethnicit y p oliticization manifests in the realm of discourse, particularly claims making. Ethnicity is politicized overtl y when actors frame “social, cultural, and economic interests, g rievances, c l aims, anxieties, and as pirations” in ethnic terms and bring these claims “into the political arena” (Rot hschild 1981, 8–9). More s p ecificall y, p oliticization occurs when politicians and party officials invoke ethnicity in the course of p ol itick in g for exam ple, bui ld in g coa l itions in t he context of cam p ai g nin g or ar g uin g for/a g ainst pol ic y proposa l s in party platforms or laws.
One specific form of politicization is throug h the formation of et h nic parties. O f t he eig ht criteria identi f ied by Ch and ra (2011) in a review of the literature on ethnic parties, four are discursive and therefore can be collapsed under the general categor y of d iscourse: et h nic parties can be identi f ied by t heir name, by the social categories for which they explicitly advocate, by the issues for wh ich t hey expl icit ly advocate, and by t heir impl icit campaig n messa ge. These invocations can be overt—for example, in t he United States the Democratic Part y equated the post-Civil War en franchisement of African Americans with “neg ro domination” (Hiers 2013); and in Nigeria prior to t he 1966 coup “t he
Northern People’s Cong ress was open only to people of Northern orig in” (Horowitz 1985, 292). In its starkest form, ethnic claims making is used to instig ate ethnopolitical violence in the name of seizing and maintaining political power.
But discourse is not alway s overt. It is often rather subtle: in politicizing ethnicity, political entrepreneurs often opt for “code words” (see, e.g., Chandra 2011; and es p. Gad j anova 2012). The aim of such subterfu g e is plausible deniabilit y : in res p onse to char g es that the y are fosterin g divisiveness and discursive forms of exclusion, t hose who pol iticize et h nicit y wit h coded language are able to claim that they are promoting no such thin g. This leads to a somewhat p aradoxical phenomenon: the p oliticization of ethnicit y can center on p olitical stru gg les over whether ethnicit y is bein g p oliticized—that is, a si g nificant part of ethnicit y politicization can be, in the face of Actor Y ’s vehement denials, Actor X claiming that Actor Y is politicizin g ethnicit y.
It is not just in t he electora l arena t h at et h nicit y can become politicized. Another discursive form of ethnicity politicization is t h rou gh t he formation of “et h nica lly based g overnmenta l policy” (Cornell and Hartmann 1998, 157). This includes the passa g e of laws that favor one ethnic g roup over others (e.g., South Africa’s apartheid s y stem or pre-1960s Australia’s starkl y d i fferentia l lega l treatment of “wh ites” and “aborigines”), as well as the administration of prima facie neutral laws in way s that h ave simi l ar effects (e.g., t he US Sout h ’s ad ministration of votin g laws in a way that de facto allowed only whites to vote after a chan g e in the US Constitution prohibited votin g exclusions on an ex plicitly racial basis). These uses of political power amount to “formally institutionalizin g the ethnic boundar y in the political structure of the country . . . ” (Cornell and Hartmann 1998, 156). The use of political power to politicize ethnicit y also includes, usually more subtly, the reservation of all or most g overnment jobs, or hig h g overnment jobs, includin g militar y positions, for a sin g le ethnic g roup, to the g eneral or absolute exclusion of others ( Wimmer 2002, 91–95; see also Cederman et al. 2006, which uses t h is d iscriminator y stand ard to identi fy “pol itica lly relevant ethnic g roups”).
Politicization that takes le g al and administrative forms— t h at is, p ol iticization t h at emer g es out o f t he use o f p ol itical p ower rather than onl y its pursuit—assumes a necessaril y endurin g form that blurs the distinction that we make between structural factors and short-term actions b y p oliticians in the following way. It is an instance of ethnicity politicization in the sense that the state and p olitics become thorou g hl y ethnicized (akin to, and sometimes because of, the p resence of ethnic p arties and ethnic votin g ). But it also can resemble a p re p ol iticize d form o f socia l sa l ience to t he extent t h at et h nicization becomes a factor in everyday life—that is, taken fo r g ranted to the p oint that the p rocessual character im plied b y “ p oliticization” becomes instead somethin g structural, p art o f t he background conditions of social life. Even when this happ ens, however, these laws and administrative p ractices lay the groundwork for later rounds of politicization, as subordinate ethnic g roup s eventuall y stru gg le to chan g e the exclusionar y status q uo an d d ominant et h nic g roup s stru ggle to maintain it; under such circumstances, “a relativel y favored ethnic g roup p erceivin g its d omination to b e t h reatene d can b ecome as mi litant as a deprived one struggling to end its subordination” (Rot hschild 1981, 39). In other words, usin g p olitical p ower to draw ethnic boundaries throu g h the creation of laws and state a d ministrative practices is itse lf an instance of et h nicity pol iticization, but it also, b y virtue of institutionalizin g these ethnic b oun d aries, ensures t h at t hese et h nic id entities wi ll remain salient lon g after the eventful moment of p oliticization (i.e., the creation of an ethnic law or administrative p ractice) has p assed, thereb y creatin g the conditions for subse q uent rounds o f p oliticization.
Politicization within the Population
Yet t he d egree of pol iticization is d etermined not on l y by t he suppl y of discursive or nondiscursive actions by ethnic actors, but also by the support for such actions in the population. Here we g o back to ethnic parties, identif y in g them on the basis of who votes for t hem. Li ke Ch and ra (2011), we follow t he insi ghts
of Donald Horowitz: “To be an ethnic part y, a part y does not h ave to command an exclusive hold on t he a lleg iance of g roup members. It is how the party’s support is distributed, and not how t he eth nic group’s support is distributed, that matters” (Horowitz 1985, 293). In other words, where multiple ethnic cate g ories are politically relevant, a party that relies on the exclusive or nearly exclusive support of a sin g le ethnic g roup is an ethnic part y even if the voters in that ethnic g roup distribute their support to more than one part y : “Where part y boundaries stop at g roup bound aries, it is appropriate to spea k of et h nic parties, reg ardless of whether any one group is represented by more than one part y” (Horowitz 1985, 298). At the limit, where g roup boundaries and part y boundaries are coterminous, both parties and voters are t horoughly ethnicized in the sense that voting occurs strictl y alon g ethnic lines, which makes each part y a reflection of its ethnic base and the election results tantamount to an ethn ic census.
Having mentioned this much-invoked “ethnic census” metaphor, it is important to note that the g roup boundaries relevant for the identification of ethnic parties are not necessarily coincident with the group boundaries of a population census. “The line” that distinguishes a party that is ethnic from one that is not “cannot be drawn . . . by separating parties that speak for one ethnic categor y from parties that speak for many” (Chandra 2011, 157). The relevant g roup boundaries for identifying an ethnic party depend on “political context” (Horowitz 1985, 299). A party that depends on two or more ethnic g roups is still an ethnic party so long as it relies on these g roups to the near or total exclusion of at least one other. Whether a party is “ethnic” “lies not in the number of categories that [the party] . . . attempts to include, but in whether or not there is a category that [it] . . . attempts to exclude” (Chandra 2011, 157).1 For example, in Malaysia where the three most important politically relevant categories are Malay, Chinese, and Indian, the parties that draw the vast majority of their support from Chinese and Indians are neither “multiethnic” nor “nonethnic” by virtue of this support base or their own self-description, because the relevant dividing line is Malay/non-Malay (Horowitz 1985, 299–300).
Ethnicity Politicization as a Continuum
In summar y, politicization of ethnicity can be assessed by combining information on the two aforementioned areas, namely (i) whether ethnic claims are made in the political arena and whet her et h nica lly based government pol icy exists, and (ii) whether voters respond to these claims and parties draw exclusive support from specific ethnic g roups. Politicizing ethnicit y may be a gradual process and there exist various degrees of politicization. Table 1.1 provides an overview of how the key indicators (left column) change when moving from a low degree of politicization of ethnicit y (left side) to a hig h deg ree of politicization (rig ht side). At one extreme, a low deg ree of politicization can be characterized by politicians voicing inclusive statements and prog rammatic content, voters allocating their support equally among political parties, and the implementation of policies that provide equal access to rig hts and resources of all citizens. At the other extreme, a hig h level of politicization is characterized by overt ethnic claims in the political sphere, political parties drawing unique support from specific ethnic g roups, and existence of policies that exclude or favor certain ethnic groups.
Explanations for Ethnicity Politicization
The d iscussion of how ethnicity becomes politicized has already w touched upon why it does so. One prominent factor in the above y discussion is the variety of actors in the pursuit or defense of power. Here we consider how these actors are motivated by and draw upon historical and structural leg acies that have already laid the foundation of ethnicity politicization. With our focus on structural factors and actors, the app roach taken in this book deviates from demographic approaches which assume that politicization arises more or less automatically from the demo g ra phic ethnic structure in a societ y. While today few in-de pth case studies assi g n such a direct effect to demo g raphy, quantitative studies often include demo g raphic measures in mo d e l s ca lcu l ating t he (of ten a d verse) e ffects o f et h nic d iversit y. Such studies rel y on measures of (i) the (relative) size and
T able 1 .1 Measurin g the de g ree of p oliticization
Indicator r Low d egree o f po l iticization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . h ig h d e g r ee o f po l iticization
✓ Use of explicit ethnic statements in the political s p here in form of oral or written communications b y p oliticians and in p art y manifestos. Ethnic references are used by politicians to exclude or mobilize specific e thnic g rou p s on the basis of their ethnic cate g or y .
✓ E t hni c c l a im s fr o m civil societ y that are not, however, p icked u p in the political s p here
✓ Subtle or im p licit ethnic claims, i.e. not usin g stark e thnic terms but referrin g to code words, which are un d erstoo d b y t h e wi d er pu bl ic in et h nic terms
( e.g. “madoadoa” [translation: spots] as a reference to t he Kiku y u ethnic g rou p settled in the Rift Valle y P rovince in Ken y a; or, in t h e US context, statin g o pposition to “ f orce d b using” rat h er t h an sc h oo l d e-se g re g ation)
✓ Or g anized ethno p olitical violence in the name o f seizin g and maintainin g p olitical p ower
✓ Et h nic p arties, i.e., p arties d raw exc l usive su pp ort f rom one (or more) d istinct et h nic g rou p s an d are n ot supporte d b y ot h er et h nic groups (in its extreme form this is an “ethnic census” )
✓ Rig h ts in t h e po l ity are d istri b ute d a l ong et h nic l ines. Examp l es o f overt exc l usionary po l icies are r acia l s l avery, b arring certain et h nic groups f rom b asic citizen rig h ts, suc h as voting or testi f ying i n court, an d d istri b uting b asic resources, suc h as e ducation or housing, along ethnic lines ✓ A ll ocation o f pu bl ic o ff ices to co-et h nics
✓ In c l us iv e c l a im s in t h e p olitical s p here, i.e. statin g that ethnicit y should not matter in the political sphere or stressin g the national identit y
E thnic rhetori c in the politica l s p her e
✓ Pro g rammatic p olitical state m e n ts ✓ R h eto ri c v o i d o f r e f e r e n ces to et h nicit y
E l ectora l su pp ort o f p artie s ✓ Catc h -a ll p arties or p arties wit h nationa l covera g e, i.e. parties d raw support f rom a ll ethnic group s
O vert exc l usionary p o l icie s ✓ Imp l ementing inc l usive po l icies t h at aim at d ecreasing t h e sa l ience o f speci f ic et h nic i d entities an d at f ostering a nationa l i d entity ✓ Imp l ementing a l ega l structure t h at f osters equa l access t o resources
distribution of ethnic g roup s (e.g., Gurr 1993; Mozaffar et al. 2003; Montalvo and Re y nal-Querol 2005); (ii) ethnic fractionalization, which ca ptures the probabilit y that two randoml y sam pled individuals in a societ y belon g to different ethnic categ ories (e.g., Easterl y and Levin 1997; Alesina et al. 2003; Fearon 2003); or (iii) cross-cuttingness, which assesses the extent to which different ethnic cleava g es overla p (e.g., Selway 2011). While these a pp roaches may be fruitful once ethnic differences are p oliticized, the y do not ex plain how ethnic differences b ecome sa l ient or pol iticize d to b eg in wit h , as t he y treat t he ethnic demographic structure as given rather than constructed. Hence, the y are not able to answer the question why ethnic dif- c ferences are the basis of mobilization, nor why these et hnic d ifferences rather than others are relevant.
Chandra (2004) and Posner (2004, 2005) most famously combine the demographic structure with constructivist arguments, demonstrating that attributes present in the population may be used by pol itica l entrepreneurs as bases for et h nic mobi l ization if they result in minimum winning coalitions. That is, politica l entrepreneurs consider t he viable size of g roups for pol itica l competition during mobilization, combining attributes to create minimum winning coalitions and thus creating and politicizing ethnic boundaries in the process.2 However, in these accounts salience and politicization go hand in hand in a rather short-term process; ethnic boundaries are made salient in order to politicize. And both Posner and Chandra acknowledge that demographic structure and political entrepreneurs are not the only factors, as they work in historical and structural contexts. Thus, while the relative g roup size arg ument has received some empirical support and is plausible, it needs to be complemented with analy ses of the structural enablers of ethnic mobilization to arrive at a comprehensive ex planation.
Li kel y can d id ates for structura l ena blers are gree d and grievance. While virtuall y all studies of ethnic p olitics a g ree that pol itica l competition over scarce resources pl ays a centra l role (see, e.g., Olzak 1983; Horowitz 1985; Wimmer 1997; Lieberman and Sin g h 2012a), accounts differ on how and why competition matters. In a first set of approaches, the so-called
instrumentalist or g reed a pp roach, actors—both elites and followers—act out of rational interest and choose or create ethnicit y on the basis of their shared p references, mobilizin g in order to attain access to scarce resources. To be complete, these a pproaches would need to be able to ex plain both why ethnicity and no other social categorization has been chosen for the b asis of mobilization, and why this ethnic cate g orization rather than another is selected (see also Cohen 1978; Loveman 1999; Posner 2005; Wimmer 2008). In the second resource-oriented a pp roach , t he g rievance a pp roach , et h nicit y d evel o p s “naturally” from unequal access to resources, as powerful actors share resources with their p erceived in- g rou p while discriminatin g a g ainst their p erceived out- g roup. The salient ethnic lines are t hose that overla p with these ine q ualities, as the y are taken to easil y distin g uish between in- and out- g roup. Once ethnicit y is salient, the discriminated population will politically mobilize to g ain access to resources (see, e.g., Gurr 1993). Yet a g ain, to b e com plete, t hese a pproaches wou ld nee d to b e a ble to ex pl ain where the former inequalities come from, which points to long er-term structura l f actors.
While incomplete, the greed and grievance approaches themselves are not conflicting but perhaps complementar y: the main difference seems to be that g reed is an active motivator in the creation of groups by actors, while grievances arise after group differences. Both work in tandem for the continued politicization of ethnicity. Competition over scarce resources can hence be seen as a main factor driving politicization among actors.
While com p etition over scarce resources is an im p ortant ex planator y factor, it is not the onl y one. In p articular, it is still necessar y to ex plain wh y s p ecific ethnic cate g ories are used as rallying ground. Here, we can draw on a further line o f research focusin g on institutions as creatin g , p oliticizin g , as well as de-em phasizin g ethnic differences (e. g., Brubaker 1996; Berman 1998; Lieberman and Sin g h 2012a, 2012b; Wimmer 1997, 2013; see a lso Olzak 1983). This includes accounts of the creation of localized ethnic identities as well as broade r nationa l cate g ories t h rou gh p ol icies. In a dd ition, t h is l ine o f research ex plores how p olicies and the lo g ic of different
p olitical s y stems incentivize and exacerbate ethnic com p etition and conflict. In the followin g , the y are distin g uished b y the underl y in g mechanism.
On the one hand are accounts that demonstrate how institutions create and politicize ethnic boundaries and hence make these hegemonic in social and political relations (e.g., Lieberman and Sing h 2012a). These authors view institutions as instrumental in ex plaining why ethnic identities emerge as salient identities and how hig hly salient ethnic identities lead to ethnic conflict. Yet a g ain, th is research does not answer t he question why ethnic, and not class, differences are made salient and why these, and not other, ethnic differences are sig nificant.
Besides having neg ative consequences for ethnic salience, institutions mig ht also effectively counter the emergence of salient ethnic identit y throug h nation-building policies. Nation-buildin g policies designed to expand the boundary of who is included in the national identit y and who is excluded critically influence t he sa l ience of et h nic bound aries perceived in t he popu l ation (Wimmer 2013, Ch.3). In practical terms, nation-building pol icies might encompass t he abol ition of d iscriminator y pol icies; implementation of housing and schooling policies that foster interming ling of different ethnic g roups (McGarr y and O’Lear y 1993, 17); but also lang ua ge policies desig ned to create an overarch ing nationa l identity or to accommod ate l anguage d iversity (see Laitin 1992; Ky mlicka and Grin 2003; Brubaker 2006, 139). W h i le nation-bui ld ing pol icies seem to be an important piece in the puzzle to ex plain why ethnic identities are not salient in some countries and emerge as hig hly salient factors in others, it is not clear under which circumstances nation-building projects are successful. Whether it is the specific strategy of nation buildin g— that is, incorporation of minority ethnic groups into the majority identity, forming a national identity based on a mix of existing identities, or emphasis shifting from local ethnic g roups to overarching national identity (Wimmer 2013, 50–52)—or, rather, the level of preexisting salience of ethnic identities in the population remains, however, unanswered. Moreover, some nation-building strateg ies, particu l arly t hose t h at emerge a f ter an extended period of widespread and leg ally sanctioned ethnic exclusion, may in fact,
with the help of political entrepreneurs, facilitate the continued politicization of ethnicit y. In such cases, components of the inclusive nation-building strategy that aim to reverse some of the past effects of ethnic exclusion—for example, through affirmative action policies in employ ment, education, and government contracts, or through the drawing of electoral district boundaries in such a way to promote the descriptive representation of previously excluded g roups—can become fodder for claims of “reverse discrimination” and “reverse racism” in the political arena, claims in essence t h at t he h istorica lly dominant g roup (or g roups) is now being subordinated to a new legal exclusion. The United States is a good example of this, particularly in relation to affirmative action policies (see, e.g., Edsall and Edsall 1992).
Besides directly influencing the salience of ethnic identities, institutions also provide incentives for political actors to draw certain type of boundaries. While these political-institutional setting s mig ht be helpful to understand the extent of ethnicity pol iticization, t hey cannot ex pl ain t he emergence of politicized e ethnicity. Political-institutional settings merely reinforce the usef u l ness of et h nicit y for pol itica l campaig ning. One such ind irect ly working institution is the electoral system. In particular, plurality electoral s y stems are thoug ht to be conducive to ethnic appeals during election campaig ns, especially so if the polit y encompasses few l arge et h nic categories, as et h nic categories seem to be readymade support bases. Campaig ning and voting along ethnic lines lead to t he permanent exclusion of minority groups (e.g., Lijph art 1977; Diamond 1999). But proportional representation, too, may foster ethnic appeals during election campaig ns: as even small parties may enter government under this s y stem, it facilitates ethnic part y formation. While, on the one hand, this may ascertain minority representation (e.g., Lijphart 1977, 2004), on the other hand, it may g ive rise to extremist parties and thus serve to reinforce seg reg ation along ethnic lines in the long run (Horowitz 1985; Taa gepera 1998; Reilly 2001). Proportional representation may not only fix already existing deep divisions, but also further their development in ethnically diverse democracies and even more so in democratizing countries (Birnir 2007). Huber (2012), in contrast, arg ues that proportional representation lowers
politicization because multiple parties may target the same g roup of voters a long cleava ges ot her t h an et h nicit y. So f ar a ll t h at seems certain is that no electoral s y stem exists that is perfect for all contexts (e.g., Diamond 1999; Reynolds 2002).
Similarly suspected to increase ethnic politicization—and similarly debated—are levels of decentralization. Some argue that hig h levels of decentralization foster ethnic political mobilization as local politicians have the precedent as well as the means to demand ever-larger shares of political power (e.g., Treisman 1997; Ha le 2000). Ot hers, however, reason t h at decentra l ization decreases ethnic political mobilization as local politicians are less motivated to mobilize since their demands are alread y being heard (e.g., Tsebelis 1990; Kaufmann 1996; Stepan 1999). More recent ly, Brancati (2006) presents support for both arg uments while Miodownik and Cartrite (2010) show that the effect is nonlinear, with high levels of decentralization decreasing the likelihood of mobilization, and low to moderate levels increasing it. W h i le bot h electora l s y stems and decentra l ization may partially ex plain the usefulness of ethnicit y in the political process, t hey do not add much to t he ex pl anation of why certain et h nic groups become salient identities.
In summar y, institutions constitute the context in which political actors may politicize ethnicit y in competition over scarce resources. Any ch anges in t he intensity of et h nic pol iticization hence arise from chang ing institutions, resource distribution, or (t he strategies of ) actors. T hese ch anges constitute critica l moments, which, despite the name, may var y considerably in thei r temporal duration. Attention to such critical moments of chan ge is implicit in many approaches, but few authors make them ex plicit. For example, long -term structural ex planations focusing on colonialism or modernization assume that major societal shifts change the structural (institutional or economic) context. And short-term ex planations focusing on political entrepreneurs implicitly assume a crit ica l moment when d ifferent entrepreneurs perceive different opportunities for mobilization. In our integ rated framework we aim to make these critical moments explicit. In particular colonization, nation-bui ld ing efforts, and democratization, but a l so internal and international wars, constitute critical moments that
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of R. L. Stevenson
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
Title: R. L. Stevenson A critical study
Author: Frank Swinnerton
Illustrator: John Singer Sargent
Release date: January 24, 2024 [eBook #72789]
Language: English
Original publication: London: Martin Secker, 1914
Credits: Terry Jeffress, David E. Brown, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)
R. L. STEVENSON
UNIFORM WITH THIS VOLUME:
J. M. SYNGE
B P. P. H
HENRY JAMES
B F M H
HENRIK IBSEN
B R. E R
THOMAS HARDY
B L A
BERNARD SHAW
B P. P. H
WALTER PATER
B E T
WALT WHITMAN
B B S
SAMUEL BUTLER
B G C
A. C. SWINBURNE
B E T
GEORGE GISSING
B F S
RUDYARD KIPLING
B C F
WILLIAM MORRIS
B J D
ROBERT BRIDGES
B
F. E. B Y
MAURICE MAETERLINCK
B U T
Yours truly
Robert Louis Stevenson
R. L. STEVENSON
A CRITICAL STUDY
BY
FRANK SWINNERTON
LONDON
MARTIN SECKER
NUMBER FIVE JOHN STREET
ADELPHI
MCMXIV
BY THE SAME AUTHOR
THE MERRY HEART THE YOUNG IDEA THE CASEMENT THE HAPPY FAMILY ON THE STAIRCASE
GEORGE GISSING: A CRITICAL STUDY
The Sargent portrait of Stevenson which forms the frontispiece to this volume has been included by permission of Mr. Lloyd Osbourne, to whom the publisher wishes to express his acknowledgments and thanks.
TO DOUGLAS GRAY IN
MALICE
I
BIOGRAPHICAL I
A the purpose of this book is entirely critical, and as there already exist several works dealing extensively with the life of Stevenson, the present biographical section is intentionally summary. Its object is merely to sketch in outline the principal events of Stevenson’s life, in order that what follows may require no passages of biographical elucidation. Stevenson was a writer of many sorts of stories, essays, poems; and in all this diversity he was at no time preoccupied with one particular form of art. In considering each form separately, as I purpose doing, it has been necessary to group into single divisions work written at greatly different times and in greatly differing conditions. In Mr. Graham Balfour’s “Life,” and very remarkably in Sir Sidney Colvin’s able commentaries upon Stevenson’s letters, may be found information at first hand which I could only give by acts of piracy. To those works, therefore, I refer the reader who wishes to follow in chronological detail the growth of Stevenson’s talent. They are, indeed, essential to all who are primarily interested in Stevenson the man. Here, the attempt will be made only to summarise the events of his days, and to estimate the ultimate value of his work in various departments of letters. This book is not a biography; it is not an “appreciation”; it is simply a critical study.
II
Stevenson was born on November 13, 1850; and he died, almost exactly forty-four years later, on December 3, 1894. His first literary work, undertaken at the age of six, was an essay upon the history of Moses. This he dictated to his mother, and was rewarded for it by the
gift of a Bible picture book. It is from the date of that triumph that Stevenson’s desire to be a writer must be calculated. A history of Joseph followed, and later on, apparently at the age of nine, he again dictated an account of certain travels in Perth. His first published work was a pamphlet on The Pentland Rising, written (but full of quotations) at the age of sixteen. His first “regular or paid contribution to periodical literature” was the essay called Roads (now included in Essays of Travel), which was written when the author was between twenty-two and twenty-three. The first actual book to be published was An Inland Voyage (1878), written when Stevenson was twenty-seven; but all the essays which ultimately formed the volumes entitled Virginibus Puerisque (1881) and Familiar Studies of Men and Books (1882) are the product of 1874 and onwards. These, indicated very roughly, are the beginnings of his literary career. Of course there were many other contributary facts which led to his turning author; and there is probably no writer whose childhood is so fully “documented” as Stevenson’s. He claimed to be one of those who do not forget their own lives, and, in accordance with his practice, he has supplied us with numerous essays in which we may trace his growth and his experiences. That he was an only child and a delicate one we all know; so, too, we know that his grandfather was that Robert Stevenson who built the Bell Rock lighthouse. In the few chapters contributed by Robert Louis to A Family of Engineers we shall find an account, some of it fanciful, but some of it also perfectly accurate, of the Stevenson family and of Robert Stevenson, the grandfather, in particular. In Memories and Portraits is included a sketch of Thomas Stevenson, the father of Robert Louis; and in Mr. Balfour’s “Life” there is ample information for those who wish to study the influences of heredity.
For our own purpose it may be interesting to note three points in this connection. As a boy, and even as a youth, Stevenson was expected by his father to be an engineer and to carry on the family tradition. His early training therefore brought him much to the sea, with rather special facilities for appreciating the more active relations of man to the sea. The second point is that the Stevensons had always been, true to their Scots instincts, very strict religious disciplinarians (Robert Stevenson the elder is very illuminating on this); but that
they were also very shrewd and determined men of action. Finally, another grandfather of Robert Louis, this time on the Balfour side, was in fact a clergyman. Stevenson significantly admits that he may have inherited from this grandfather the love of sermonising, which is as noticeable in An Inland Voyage and in Virginibus Puerisque as it is in his latest non-fictional work. We cannot forget that his contribution to festivities marking the anniversary of his marriage was upon one occasion a sermon on St. Jacob’s Oil, delivered from a pulpit carried as part-cargo by the “Janet Nichol.” From his mother, too, he is said to have inherited that constitutional delicacy which made him subject throughout his life to periods of serious illness, and which eventually led to his early death.
There was one other influence upon his childhood which must not be neglected as long as the pendulum of thought association swings steadily from heredity to environment. That influence was the influence exercised by his nurse, Alison Cunningham. It is admitted to have been enormous, and I am not sure that it is desirable to repeat in this place what is so much common knowledge. But it is perhaps worth while to emphasise the fact that, while Alison Cunningham was not only a devoted nurse, night and day, to the delicate child, she actually was in many ways responsible for the peculiar bent of Stevenson’s mind. She it was who read to him, who declaimed to him, the sounds of fine words which he loved so well in after life. The meaning of the words he sometimes did not grasp; the sounds—so admirable, it would seem, was her delivery—were his deep delight. Not only that: she introduced him thus early to the Covenanting writers upon whom he claimed to have based his sense of style; and, however lightly we may regard his various affirmations as to the source of his “style,” and as to the principles upon which we might expect to find it based, the sense of style, which is quite another thing, was almost certainly awakened in him by these means. Sense of style, I think, is a much greater point in Stevenson’s equipment than the actual “style.” The style varies; the sense of style is constant, as it must be in any writer who is not a Freeman. Alison Cunningham, being herself possessed of this sense, or of the savour of words, impressed it upon “her boy”; and the result we may see. All Stevenson’s subsequent “learning” was so
much exercise: no man learns how to write solely by observation and imitation.
From being a lonely and delicate child spinning fancies and hearing stirring words and stories and sermons in the nursery, Stevenson became a lonely and delicate child in many places. One of them was the Manse at Colinton, the home of his clerical grandfather. Another was the house in Heriot Row, Edinburgh, where he played with his brilliant cousin R. A. M. Stevenson. R. A. M. was not his only cousin —there were many others; but the personality of R. A. M. is such that one could wish to know the whole of it, so attractive are the references in Stevenson’s essays and letters, and in Mr. Balfour’s biography. I imagine, although I cannot be sure, that it was with R. A. M. that Stevenson played at producing plays on toy-stages. We shall see later how impossible he found it, when he came to consider the drama as a literary field, to shake off the influence of Skelt’s drama; but anybody who has played with toy-stages will respond to the enthusiasm discovered in A Penny Plain and Twopence Coloured, and will sympathise with the delight which Stevenson must later have felt on being able to revive in Mr. Lloyd Osbourne’s company the old Skeltian joys.
School followed in due course, the attendances broken by sickness and possibly by the incurable idleness which one supposes to have been due to lassitude rather than to mischief. Mr. Balfour details the components of Stevenson’s education, from Latin and French and German, to bathing and dancing. Football is also mentioned, while riding seems to have developed into a sort of reckless horsemanship. When he was eleven or twelve Stevenson came first to London, and went with his father to Homburg. Later he went twice with Mrs. Stevenson to Mentone, travelling, besides, on the first occasion, through Italy, and returning by way of Germany and the Rhine. It is, however, remarkable that he does not seem to have retained much memory of so interesting an experience; a fact which would suggest that, although he was able at this time to store for future use ample impressions of his own feelings and his own habits, he had not yet awakened to any very lively or precise observation of the external world. That observation began with the determination to
write, and Stevenson then lost no opportunity of setting down exactly his impressions of things seen.
In 1867—that is, after the publication, and after the withdrawal, of The Pentland Rising—Stevenson began his training as a civil engineer, working for a Science degree at Edinburgh University. One may learn something of his experience there from Memories and Portraits and even from The Memoir of Fleeming Jenkin. It was now that he met Charles Baxter (the letters to whom are the jolliest and apparently most candid of any he wrote), James Walter Ferrier, Sir Walter Simpson (the real hero of An Inland Voyage), and Fleeming Jenkin, whose wife mistook Stevenson for a poet. Here, too, he joined the “Speculative Society,” of which presently he became an unimportant president. Moreover, the friendships formed at the University led to the foundation of a mysterious society of six members, called the L.J.R. (signifying Liberty, Justice, Reverence), which has been the occasion of much comment on account of the secrecy with which the meaning of the initials has been guarded. It was while he was at the University that his desire to write became acute. By his own account, he went everywhere with two little books, one to read, and one to write in. He read a great deal, talked a great deal, made friends, and charmed everybody very much. In 1868, 1869, and 1870 he spent some time on the West Coast of Scotland, watching the work which was being carried on by his father’s firm at Anstruther, Wick, and finally at Earraid (an island introduced into Catriona and The Merry Men). In 1871 he received from the Scottish Society of Arts a silver medal for a paper (A New Form of Intermittent Light for Lighthouses); and two years later another paper, On the Thermal Influence of Forests, was communicated to the Royal Society of Edinburgh. But it was in 1871 that Stevenson gave up, and induced his father most unwillingly to give up, the plans hitherto regarded as definite for his future career. He could not become a civil engineer; but determined that he must make his way by letters. A compromise was effected, by the terms of which he read for the Bar; and he passed his preliminary examination in 1872.
In 1873 Stevenson, then in great distress because of religious differences with his father, made the acquaintance of Mrs. Sitwell (now Lady Colvin) and, through her, of Sidney Colvin himself. The importance of these two friendships could hardly be over-estimated. Mrs. Sitwell gave readily and generously the sympathy of which Stevenson was so much in need; and Mr. Colvin (as he then was) proved to be, not only a friend, but a guide and a most influential champion. It was through Mr. Colvin that Stevenson made his real start as a professional writer, for Mr. Colvin was a writer and the friend of writers, a critic and the friend of—editors. Stevenson’s plans for removal to London were made, and to London he came; but he was then so prostrated with nervous exhaustion, with danger of serious complications, that he was sent to the Riviera for the winter. Mr. Colvin joined him at Mentone, and introduced him to Andrew Lang. Thereafter, Stevenson went to Paris; and it was not until the end of April, 1874, that he returned to Edinburgh, apparently so far recovered that he could enjoy, three months later, a long yachting excursion on the West Coast. Further study followed, and at length Stevenson was in 1875 called to the Scottish Bar, having been elected previously, through Mr. Colvin’s kindly agency, a member of the Savile Club. Membership of the Savile led to the beginning of his association with Leslie Stephen, and to his introduction to the then editors of “The Academy” and “The Saturday Review.” In this period of his life occurred the journey described in An Inland Voyage, and his highly important “discovery” of W. E. Henley in an Edinburgh hospital.
Finally, it is important to remember that in these full years, 18741879, Stevenson spent a considerable amount of time in France, where he stayed as a rule either in Paris or in the neighbourhood of Fontainebleau, most frequently at Barbizon. Details of his life in France are to be found in The Wrecker, in the essay called Forest Notes in Essays of Travel, and in that on Fontainebleau in Across the Plains. He was writing fairly steadily, and he was getting his work published without embarrassing difficulty, from Ordered South in 1874 to Travels with a Donkey in 1879. And it was in Grez in 1876 that he made the acquaintance of Mrs. Osbourne, an American lady separated from her husband. The meeting was in fact the turning-
