The analysis of the voting motivation and behaviour of citizens in African countries is often seeing ethnicity and bonding’s evolving through it as one of most determine factors. The assumption is that in many countries on the African continent citizens vote along their ethnic lines. And ethnicity is furthermore an important factor in, and a reason for, conflicts. Recently the elections in Kenya draw attention to the high potential of cleavages conditioned by ethnicity. But what is defining this ethnic identity? Is it natural or can it be shed? And how big is the role it actually plays in elections, the rise of cleavages and daily life?
Coming from a constructive perspective ethnicity developed in a context of history, geographic landscape, political surrounding and cultural values and habits. A person is born into a society. This society provides habits and rituals, perspectives, general values and guide lines on how to perceive and manage daily live. It bears assumptions of what is good and evil, what is natural and what changeable. The way daily life is managed within a community automatically creates a frame in which actions and discourse are performed. These frames are highly variable depending on the circumstances they emerge in. Based on shared frames, habits, values etc. a collective identity can be built. Such is helpful to build a sense of solidarity within a group which helps the individual to feel safe and connected. An collective identity can be created or strengthened by the strategy of othering. So the focus is on what distinguishes the one group from the other. If this collective identity is not limited to one specific part of daily life or society but seen very broad with impact on every second of the day of an individual this can be seen as an ethnic group if a shared history and relatively stable collective identification under one frame is added. It is a attractive concept used to make sense of the world, to trace one owns origin and receive guide lines. Someone new born is introduced exclusively to the one frame his*her parents belong to when trying to understand the world surrounded by the explanations provided by the collective identity. The construction of identity and to orientate oneself by society is quite universal. Yet there are not only various ethnicities emerging but also areas where e.g. the sexual orientation or class takes the role of building a collective identity that is much more limited to one part of life. Ethnic identity can be much more fluid, less meaningful.
One possible explanation for the delusion of the ethnic concept can be the practice of intermarriage. If there is a child born it is not obvious within which frame it is going to be raised. Living with a mixture of habits and perceptions none of them is strong enough to identify with the collective identity and there is no unconditional solidarity with one group anymore. New identities are created based other things in common and distinction from other groups. E.g. the citizenship thus the nationality can offer a collective identity. It is granting the same basic conditions, laws, duties and rights among all members. But intermarriages do not necessarily lead to resolving of ethnicity. There are various options whether the child or the parents decide to choose only one clear defined ethnicity, for example when the parents get divorced very early and the child stays with one of the parents.
Mobility can be less radical in the delusion of ethnicity but definitely needs to be taken in to consideration. Whether the mobility is caused through climate catastrophes, economic crises etc. or wealth and the possibility to travel etc. it accrues contact and exchange. This can, in the best scenario, rise to an understanding of each other which creates respect and contains the possibility of learning from each other. On the other hand is the worst scenario an emerging hatred through e.g. prejudices and xenophobia. Therefore mobility can lead to destruction of ethnicity concepts as well as to construction through “othering”.
So in which ways ethnic identities are constructed and how they function is strongly related to the context and maybe a little bit coincidence. Therefore there are great local differences in the role ethnicity as collective identity is playing in a certain society.
The range of development in a country and the money individuals have is not really a factor with direct influence. The possibility of mobility caused by catastrophes and intermarriage are everywhere. Rather than wealth the structures who define how the wealth is distributed among members of the society are influencing the position taken by ethnicity. If wealth in a patrimonial system is trickled-down along ethnic lines this promises advantages for the leader in terms of having a reliable supporting group as well as for the members of an ethnic group by benefiting from the wealth without great effort. Hence political actors use the over history created ethnic collective identities and manifest them. Beyond economic client-structures the chances of participation and wield influence can also be tied to ethnicity. Looking on the African continent some of the differences can be drawn back to the context of postcolonial leaders. Most of this leaders still have their shadows over their countries because they primarily shaped the political system and understanding after the colonial time. If they did so among ethnic lines this mostly remains till today. Among a lot of other sources it can play a role in elections, cause cleavages and determines daily life and identity.
Coming from a constructive perspective ethnicity developed in a context of history, geographic landscape, political surrounding and cultural values and habits. A person is born into a society. This society provides habits and rituals, perspectives, general values and guide lines on how to perceive and manage daily live. It bears assumptions of what is good and evil, what is natural and what changeable. The way daily life is managed within a community automatically creates a frame in which actions and discourse are performed. These frames are highly variable depending on the circumstances they emerge in. Based on shared frames, habits, values etc. a collective identity can be built. Such is helpful to build a sense of solidarity within a group which helps the individual to feel safe and connected. An collective identity can be created or strengthened by the strategy of othering. So the focus is on what distinguishes the one group from the other. If this collective identity is not limited to one specific part of daily life or society but seen very broad with impact on every second of the day of an individual this can be seen as an ethnic group if a shared history and relatively stable collective identification under one frame is added. It is a attractive concept used to make sense of the world, to trace one owns origin and receive guide lines. Someone new born is introduced exclusively to the one frame his*her parents belong to when trying to understand the world surrounded by the explanations provided by the collective identity. The construction of identity and to orientate oneself by society is quite universal. Yet there are not only various ethnicities emerging but also areas where e.g. the sexual orientation or class takes the role of building a collective identity that is much more limited to one part of life. Ethnic identity can be much more fluid, less meaningful.
One possible explanation for the delusion of the ethnic concept can be the practice of intermarriage. If there is a child born it is not obvious within which frame it is going to be raised. Living with a mixture of habits and perceptions none of them is strong enough to identify with the collective identity and there is no unconditional solidarity with one group anymore. New identities are created based other things in common and distinction from other groups. E.g. the citizenship thus the nationality can offer a collective identity. It is granting the same basic conditions, laws, duties and rights among all members. But intermarriages do not necessarily lead to resolving of ethnicity. There are various options whether the child or the parents decide to choose only one clear defined ethnicity, for example when the parents get divorced very early and the child stays with one of the parents.
Mobility can be less radical in the delusion of ethnicity but definitely needs to be taken in to consideration. Whether the mobility is caused through climate catastrophes, economic crises etc. or wealth and the possibility to travel etc. it accrues contact and exchange. This can, in the best scenario, rise to an understanding of each other which creates respect and contains the possibility of learning from each other. On the other hand is the worst scenario an emerging hatred through e.g. prejudices and xenophobia. Therefore mobility can lead to destruction of ethnicity concepts as well as to construction through “othering”.
So in which ways ethnic identities are constructed and how they function is strongly related to the context and maybe a little bit coincidence. Therefore there are great local differences in the role ethnicity as collective identity is playing in a certain society.
The range of development in a country and the money individuals have is not really a factor with direct influence. The possibility of mobility caused by catastrophes and intermarriage are everywhere. Rather than wealth the structures who define how the wealth is distributed among members of the society are influencing the position taken by ethnicity. If wealth in a patrimonial system is trickled-down along ethnic lines this promises advantages for the leader in terms of having a reliable supporting group as well as for the members of an ethnic group by benefiting from the wealth without great effort. Hence political actors use the over history created ethnic collective identities and manifest them. Beyond economic client-structures the chances of participation and wield influence can also be tied to ethnicity. Looking on the African continent some of the differences can be drawn back to the context of postcolonial leaders. Most of this leaders still have their shadows over their countries because they primarily shaped the political system and understanding after the colonial time. If they did so among ethnic lines this mostly remains till today. Among a lot of other sources it can play a role in elections, cause cleavages and determines daily life and identity.
No comments:
Post a Comment