Primordialism and Ethnic Conflict: Theory and Case Studies

Introduction: Race, Ethnicity, and the Question of Group Identity

Ethnicity is one of the more fluid concepts in sociology because one's ethnicity is largely defined by membership in a social group. The social group shares a common background, whether through experience or ancestry, and its members share characteristics that set them apart from other groups. Many times these characteristics are stereotyped, but those stereotypes are derived from a reality in which the majority of group members do, indeed, share them. Moreover, one's ethnicity is not limited to a single background. A person can have multiple ethnicities by belonging to a family that draws from multiple different ethnic traditions. A person can also have multiple ethnicities because larger ethnic groups can be further subdivided into smaller ethnic groups, sometimes referred to as tribes.

Ethnicity is also intertwined with race, which is an interesting concept. Genetic analysis has revealed that there is greater similarity than difference among humans from different races. In fact, there is significant disagreement over the existence of races as a valid biological category, so much so that some scholars dismiss the notion of race on scientific grounds. However, there is no doubt that race plays a critical role from a socio-cultural perspective. "Irrespective of the fact that race is not a biologically valid construct, however, few would reject the notion that race is very real in terms of individuals' lived experiences. This is especially so given the fact that, since its inception, biological notions of race have largely functioned as an accepted truth about the nature of human difference" (Caliendo & McIlwain, 2011, p. xxii). Race may not be a real biological classification, but it is a social construct. Furthermore, the line between race and ethnicity is blurred. Therefore, when examining theories of ethnicity, theories of race will necessarily become relevant.

It is well recognized that both race and ethnicity have been used not only to separate people, but also to assign status and priority to different groups. Issues of power and control are deeply connected to ideas of race and ethnicity. Why does the motivation behind ethnic identification matter? In other words, does it matter why people subdivide into ethnic and racial groups? Many would suggest that, yes, it does matter, because the reasons people believe in racial and ethnic divisions can help explain ethnic conflicts. More importantly, understanding why people are motivated to divide themselves into smaller subgroups organized around race and ethnicity may be one of the keys to preventing or resolving ethnic conflicts.

While there is general consensus about what constitutes an ethnic group, there is disagreement about how ethnic groups operate within the broader context of human society. The two most significant theories about ethnicity are primordialism and instrumentalism, though essentialism, perennialism, constructivism, and modernism also figure prominently in the scholarly debate. Primordialism looks at ethnicity as a construct that is part of the human condition. The perspective suggests that ethnic groups have always been part of human society and that modern ethnic groups can trace their roots to the past. Some primordialists even suggest that ethnic divisions are natural, not simply historical, though they have difficulty accounting for the appearance and disappearance of ethnic groups over time. Others suggest that ethnicity is linked to kinship, so that ethnic identity can be traced to families or clans. Some primordialists argue that ethnicity is not actually primordial, but that it is perceived by humans to be primordial. Other views are more likely to link ethnicity with nations and political power, or to treat ethnicity as primarily a social construct. These differences in emphasis have different consequences: for strict primordialists, ethnicity is not fluid, while other views may treat it as a more changeable concept.

Primordialism vs. Circumstantialism: Core Theoretical Distinctions

Comparing the primordial view to the circumstantial view of ethnicity, some significant differences become immediately apparent. From the primordial perspective, the rationale for ethnic group formation is based on blood, kinship, family, and cultural connections, and is rooted in the circumstances of birth. The orientation of ethnic and racial identities is toward local community interests. Group ties are considered a given because they are linked to blood ties — they are rooted in history and therefore largely unaffected by circumstance. From this perspective, ethnic interests take precedence over class interests (Cornell & Hartmann, 2007, p. 71).

Under a circumstantial perspective, by contrast, the rationale for group formation is based on either utility or organizational experience. The ethnic group is oriented toward political, economic, and status interests. Group ties are considered instrumental — a matter of convenience and choice. These groups are understood as a product of history and circumstance and are therefore changeable. Furthermore, the circumstantial perspective suggests that class interests can be more important than ethnic interests (Cornell & Hartmann, 2007, p. 71).

At its heart, primordialism is an evolutionary theory of ethnicity. The blood ties that form a significant part of ethnic identity are clearly connected to genetic evolution. However, there is also an element of social Darwinism in primordialist theories. By establishing strong ties around groups linked by blood, people were more likely to ensure the survival of individuals who shared some — though not all — of their genetic material. While evolutionary perspectives can provide useful frameworks for studying sociocultural phenomena such as ethnicity, and help explain how ethnic beliefs can lead to conflict, they do not necessarily explain how those feelings produce some of the more extreme problems associated with race and ethnicity (Harvey, 2000, p. 38). Harvey asks: "Why are 'ethnic' ties any more important than others for satisfying these needs? Could we not accommodate our desire for affiliation, communal anchorage or security in several other ways that have little to do with cultural or ethnic traits — for example, through political, class, occupational, or functional identities? The answer from an 'evolutionary' perspective is that ethnic ties are inherently more potent (and fit) as an organizing force than, say, ties based on class or occupation" (Harvey, 2000, p. 41). In other words, kinship bonds are more permanent, and far less voluntary, than the opt-in categories that could otherwise be used to align people around shared needs for security and survival.

The Origins and Key Features of Primordialist Theory

Primordialism was developed in the 1950s by Harold Isaacs, who equated ethnic identity with basic group identity (Cornell & Hartmann, 2007, p. 51). These primordial attachments became the foundation of the theory, which built upon eight characteristics that Isaacs identified as components of basic group identity: the physical body, one's name, the history and origins of one's birth group, nationality or other group affiliation, one's first language, religion of origin, culture of origin, and the geography and topography of one's place of birth (Cornell & Hartmann, 2007, p. 51). Crucially, none of these characteristics are within the individual's control — they happen to a person before that person has an opportunity to make any choices. "The identity created by these elements is therefore incomparably resilient and enduring" (Cornell & Hartmann, 2007, p. 51).

The primordialist view of ethnicity also suggests that ethnic conflict is largely unavoidable. Because these identifying factors are ingrained in individuals at a very young age, they are highly resistant to assimilation with other ethnic groups. The resistance that European-Americans have historically shown to treating non-European-Americans — including Native Americans and African-Americans — as equal human beings seems to support the notion that there is a primordial impulse against assimilation. Those examples also highlight some of the dangers inherent in primordialism: the idea of fixed ethnic or racial identity that makes groups fundamentally separate from other humans can be extremely dangerous. "Westerners have invented ethnic and racial identities not only for others but also for themselves, often with tragic and devastating consequences. Hitler's concoction of the Aryan master race is the most infamous and horrifying example" (Cornell & Hartmann, 2007, p. 54).

However, the primordialist view does not suggest that ethnic identities are only imposed from the outside; it also examines how self-imposed ethnic identities can exacerbate tensions between groups. "Much of the blame for the conflicts among Serbs, Croats, and Muslims was laid at the feet of centuries-old ethnic identities, rooted in primordial attachments of long duration, that were submerged under the weight of imperial and then communist domination, only to reemerge explosively when the control of these authoritarian regimes was removed" (Cornell & Hartmann, 2007, p. 54). The fact that such conflicts could be suppressed, however, seems to argue against the elemental nature of primordialism: if an authoritarian regime is capable of suppressing intergroup conflicts, how can those conflicts be considered a basic element of ethnic group identity?

The reality is that many people are willing to fight and die to retain their ethnic heritage, even when adherence to that heritage carries significant economic, social, or political costs. The primordialist perspective helps explain the depth of that commitment. Primordialism "focuses on the intense, internal aspects of group solidarity, the subjective 'feeling of belonging' that is often associated with racial or ethnic group membership" (Cornell & Hartmann, 2007, p. 54). Some primordialists, such as Geertz, therefore suggest that ethnic and racial ties may fill primordial needs for belonging, rather than ethnicity itself being primordial in origin (Cornell & Hartmann, 2007, p. 58). "The key is the claim to primordiality that ethnicity typically makes — its presentation of itself in terms of blood ties. Perception and attribution are more important than the presence or absence of a genuine blood connection" (Cornell & Hartmann, 2007, p. 58). As a result, rather than beginning with ethnicity, discussions of primordialism can begin with the individual and then examine that individual's perceived blood ties to their ethnic group (Cornell & Hartmann, 2007, p. 58). The importance of these blood ties lies not in the fact that they are objectively primary and defining, but in the fact that people view them as both primary and defining.

Conclusion: Primordialism in Modern Ethnic Analysis

Primordialist theories do a very good job of explaining some of the most significant ethnic conflicts of modern times. When one examines the different ethnic origins of the various groups involved in these conflicts, the historical context between them makes it understandable how violence would emerge as an evolutionary response. Even horrific acts, such as rape as an instrument of war, can be understood within the context of primordialism, because sexual violence would accomplish forced assimilation — creating blood ties — in a way that other acts of war would not, given the primordial theory's emphasis on kinship as the foundation of ethnic identity.