Sociology 2:Class 19: Globalization,

Culture, Identity 2

Copyright © 2008 by Evan Schofer

Do not copy or distribute without permission

Announcements

• No office hours on Thursday June 5

• Final exam: Tuesday June 10• Midterm review sheet handed out last week

– Also on course website

• Format similar to midterm• Topics: All course material… with main emphasis on

material covered after the midterm

• Final review sheet issue:• “Boomerang effect” not on final

• Today’s Class: Globalization & Culture• What is culture, and how does globalization affect it?• Is culture/identity a source of conflict?

Review: Identity/culture

• Two views of identity/ethnicity/culture:

• 1. Primordial view• Culture/ethnicity/identity is deeply rooted, fundamental

• 2. The “social constructionist” view: Culture/ethnicity/identity are malleable: They change over time and with social context

• People exhibit different identities in different contexts• Identities disappear and return (or are “re-invented”)• Political processes and social circumstances shape and

alter identities• Research evidence favors this view…

Culture and Conflict

• Huntington: Cultural differences will lead to global conflict: A clash of civilizations– Issue: There are many bloody conflicts raging in

developing countries• Westerners often attribute them to enduring ethnic

hatreds: sad but inevitable• Some see them as hints of future “clash” of civilizations

– Responses• Bowen: “The Myth of Global Ethnic Conflict”• Hironaka: “Ethnic Conflict in Weak States”

– Focus: civil wars (not global conflict)

Perspectives on identity/culture

• Question: Do ethnic hatreds explain civil wars?

• Hironaka’s Argument: No…• Civil wars are a product of political struggle… made

worse by:– Weak governments– External funding & weapons that support conflicts…

• Emphasis on ethnic identity/conflict = a Western stereotype… not at all describing what is happening “on the ground”.

Perspectives on identity/culture

• Example: Katangan revolt in the Congo• Typical account: war is result of “tribalism and ethnicity”

(p. 131, citing Young)

• Actually, Katangans aren’t an ethnic group!• Katanga a province (like a US state) filled with many

different ethnic groups– Often, the provincial borders split ethnic groups… which fought

on opposite sides

• Rather, the war was rooted in economics and politics– For instance: Katanga was wealthy; they wanted to stop

people from migrating, taking jobs.

Perspectives on identity/culture

• Issue: Katangan war did help solidify the “Katangan” cultural identity

• People began to be willing to “die for Katanga”• But, it would be a mistake to assume that conflict was

caused by strong cultural identities– Example: Cold War: I knew people in high school that wanted

to “Nuke those commie Russian bastards”– Now, it seems odd/quaint…

• Even strong identities can dissolve; Or, be replaced by others (e.g., desire to fight radical Islamic fundamentalists).

Local Reactions to Globalization

• So, if globalization doesn’t inevitably lead to ethnic conflict… what’s up with Al Qaeda?– The general issue: How can we understand

reactions against the West?

Local Responses to Globalization

• Local reactions against Western culture, imperialism:

• 1. Opt out. Ignore or shun the external culture– Examples: Many indigenous groups, the Amish

• Historically most common. Arguably the most “authentically” traditional response to outsiders

• Typical outcome: children abandon traditional culture; traditional groups shrink or disintegrate

– Many traditional societies do not have strong institutions of social control… can’t compete with Western education, media, labor market.

Local Responses to Globalization

• Reactions against Western culture:

• 2. “Reactionary movements”: Social movements that attack the system, offer an alternative

• Examples: French social movement against American food, popular culture; Some Islamic fundamentalists.

– Note: Some movements attack a specific (or symbolic) part of the dominant culture. Others are total rejections of it.

• Examples from readings, personal experience?

Local Responses to Globalization

• Kurzman reading: “Bin Laden and other Thoroughly Modern Muslims”

• Argument: There are two kinds of reactionary movements: “Traditional” and “Modern”

– Traditional Reactionary Movements:• Ex: The Taliban in Afghanistan

– Mostly fight to get outsiders to leave• Usually organized by actual indigenous people

– Participants are usually local

• Not very common…

Local Responses to Globalization

• Kurzman reading: (cont’d)– “Modern” Movements:

• Ex: Bin Laden & Al Qaeda

– Typically organized by highly educated people• More like a social movement

– Sophisticated use of media, etc…

• Not really a very “local” response at all…• Argument: These are modern social movements.

“Modern” Anti-Western Movements

• “Modern” anti-Western movements are just like other social movements. They rely on:

• Resource mobilization: resources, organizational capacity

• Political opportunity structure: allies, lapses in repression

• Framing: Use of symbols, imagery (often religious).

Anti-Western Movements

• Example: Radical Islamic fundamentalist groups

• Resource mobilization: • Leaders are highly educated

– Some even have degrees from American universities

• Weapons & resources from US & USSR (cold war) were critical to the formation of many groups

– Al Qaeda, for example

• Oil rich countries have tremendous resources– It is easy to find donors for any pro-Islamic cause.

Anti-Western Movements

• Ex: Radical Islamic fundamentalist groups

• Political opportunity structure• Radical groups clearly took advantage of friendly

regimes (e.g., the Taliban) to train, build capacity• Relative lack of repression in US is an opportunity

– Note: Increased security after 9/11 means fewer opportunities for protest/attacks

– Note: These groups also attack pro-US regimes like Egypt… but repression is much greater.

• Weak unstable countries provide opportunities– Currently: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq.

Anti-Western Movements

• Ex: Radical Islamic fundamentalist groups

• Framing: Use of symbols, imagery• Religion provides a powerful set of images

– Enemy isn’t just bad, but “evil” & “satanic”

• Another frame: attacking “imperialism”, the “system”– Standing up for the “little guy”, fighting the “bully”

• Reactionary movements always claim to authentically represent locals; that they aren’t part of the “system”

– Ex: Leaders don’t emphasize educational degrees or wealth; They emphasize the small village they came from.

Weak States & Conflict

• Hironaka: Weak states & external resources are the primary drivers of civil war

• Not “ethnic” or Islamic” identity

– Example: Weakness in Afghanistan allows a continuing insurgency

• ALSO: weakness in Pakistan, which creates a safe haven

– Ex: Iraq: Unstable gov’t creates opportunities• Money & weapons coming from: Iran, Saudi Arabia,

former soviet republics, Syria, etc. etc., etc….

Weak States & Conflict• In the news: NY Times June 2, 2008• Taliban Leader Flaunts Power Inside Pakistan• PESHAWAR, Pakistan — With great fanfare, the Pakistani Army flew journalists to a rugged

corner of the nation’s lawless tribal areas in May to show how decisively it had destroyed the lairs of the Taliban, including a school for suicide bombers, in fighting early this year.

• Then, just days later, the usually reclusive leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Baitullah Mehsud, held a news conference of his own, in the same region, to show just who was in charge. He rolled up in an expensive-looking Toyota pickup packed with heavily armed Taliban fighters [and] announced he would press his fight against the American military across the border in Afghanistan.

• Mr. Mehsud’s jaunty appearance in his home base, South Waziristan, a particularly unruly region of Pakistan’s tribal areas, underscored the wide latitude Pakistan’s government has granted the militants under a new series of peace deals, and its impact in Afghanistan, where NATO and American commanders say cross-border attacks have surged since talks for those peace deals began in March.

• The impunity of Mr. Mehsud’s behavior has outraged the Bush administration, which is pressing the Pakistani government to arrest and prosecute him.

• “Bringing Baitullah Mehsud, the head of this extremist group in South Waziristan — capturing him and bringing him to justice, which is what should happen to him,” is what the United States wants from Pakistan, Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte said last month in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

• But the Pakistani government, which at times has considered Mr. Mehsud an ally and is now fearful of his power, appears reluctant to hunt him down. Days before his news conference, Pakistani forces pulled back from his realm in South Waziristan as part of the peace deals.

Weak States & Conflict

• Video: Return of the Taliban• http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/• Chapters 1-3, 6-7

– Chapters 4-5 if time allows…

Anti-Western Movements

• Issue for reflection: How would strategies for dealing with Al Qaeda differ if we think of it as a modern social movement?

• Rather than a “traditional” reactionary movement…