What do you think?
Rate this book
Ethnic Groups in Conflict, Updated Edition With a New Preface
Drawing material from dozens of divided societies, Donald L. Horowitz constructs his theory of ethnic conflict, relating ethnic affiliations to kinship and intergroup relations to the fear of domination. A groundbreaking work when it was published in 1985, the book remains an original and powerfully argued comparative analysis of one of the most important forces in the contemporary world.
711 pages, Paperback
First published July 25, 1985
18 people are currently reading
554 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
August 4, 2020
“The history of all hitherto existing human society is the history of ethnic struggles,” a less popular philosopher than Karl Marx might have written. Marx's analysis of class warfare made obvious sense in the context ethnically-homogenous societies that had just undergone industrialization. But as Horowitz argues here in diverse societies ethnicity tends to become the primary marker of identification, including in group conflict. Industrialization created a wave of new modern identities in the places that it happened: suddenly instead of just a Frenchman a person could identify as a socialist, a liberal, a fascist, a nationalist and so forth. One thing that World War II demonstrated was that these identities had real purchase. Since this is a book specifically about ethnic conflict however it is primarily focused on Asia and Africa. In societies that industrialized later, ethnicity always remained the most salient marker of identity. The other ones usually only penetrated skin-deep. But as our own political faiths in the West go into decline, we may see ethnicity again become a primary marker of conflict here as well.
One of the big misconceptions of modernization theory is that the upwardly-mobile classes educated in the modern way would discard ethnic concerns and focus on universal ones. This turned out to be almost exactly opposite in many cases. In countries around the world modernized elites have been among the strongest drivers of ethnic conflict. The higher they get on the hierarchy of needs, the more that status-related demands become relevant (The working-classes and underclasses of any ethnicity are concerned with other things.) Ironically it is only people doing relatively well who can start making weighty historical demands on behalf of oppressed groups. When they do so they are usually citing the suffering of lower-economic orders with whom they share an ethnicity. In diverse societies a battle for status often emerges and the symbolic register of politics becomes very important. Symbolic acts that establish the status of one group and reduce the relative status of another are highly prized. Even if they do nothing to improve material conditions, they satisfy status demands and perhaps give a leading indicator of future power dynamics.
Horowitz argues that Marxian analysis is wrong in application: most of the time the lower-orders want to emulate the lives of those above rather than abolish them. In diverse societies different economic classes of the same ethnicity also tend to identify with one another rather than along cross-ethnic lines united by economic status. Even when Marxist parties have formed in the developing world, they have almost inevitably would up being captured to serve the needs of one particular ethnicity. I would argue that it is a little more complicated in post-industrial societies where discussion of ethnicity still has some remaining taboo (though its eroding) and there are other universalist identities to which people subscribe. There also does seem to be some cross-ethnic solidarity among the very rich, a subject which became the focus of public ire during the protests tied to the Occupy Movement. If someone can develop a compelling theory to explain the structure of post-industrial society and mobilize the disenfranchised for their shared interests on that basis it would be welcome.
It's quite remarkable that this book was written in the 1980s, before the explosion of ethnic violence that attended the end of the Cold War. Samuel Huntington blurbed this book and that seems quite appropriate. It is an extremely dense, thorough and repetitive work that seemed to be vying to become a foundational text by piling on as much data as possible from around the world to make its case. I was mainly concerned with the high-level arguments, which I found more or less compelling. On some level it is actually somewhat disturbing to observe the predictability and lack of variation in human behavior. It remains to be seen how much that broad new ethnic identities can coalesce in Western societies where people have been thoroughly atomized over generations by the reigning socio-economic system.
Let's hope that they don't coalesce. But if they do, there are still ways to attenuate ethnic conflict: including federal models, power sharing and various forms of symbolic and material concessions. It is better to consider those when looking at political disputes around the world rather than insisting that ethnic conflict is an archaic relic of a bygone time. All the evidence seems to point in the opposite direction.
One of the big misconceptions of modernization theory is that the upwardly-mobile classes educated in the modern way would discard ethnic concerns and focus on universal ones. This turned out to be almost exactly opposite in many cases. In countries around the world modernized elites have been among the strongest drivers of ethnic conflict. The higher they get on the hierarchy of needs, the more that status-related demands become relevant (The working-classes and underclasses of any ethnicity are concerned with other things.) Ironically it is only people doing relatively well who can start making weighty historical demands on behalf of oppressed groups. When they do so they are usually citing the suffering of lower-economic orders with whom they share an ethnicity. In diverse societies a battle for status often emerges and the symbolic register of politics becomes very important. Symbolic acts that establish the status of one group and reduce the relative status of another are highly prized. Even if they do nothing to improve material conditions, they satisfy status demands and perhaps give a leading indicator of future power dynamics.
Horowitz argues that Marxian analysis is wrong in application: most of the time the lower-orders want to emulate the lives of those above rather than abolish them. In diverse societies different economic classes of the same ethnicity also tend to identify with one another rather than along cross-ethnic lines united by economic status. Even when Marxist parties have formed in the developing world, they have almost inevitably would up being captured to serve the needs of one particular ethnicity. I would argue that it is a little more complicated in post-industrial societies where discussion of ethnicity still has some remaining taboo (though its eroding) and there are other universalist identities to which people subscribe. There also does seem to be some cross-ethnic solidarity among the very rich, a subject which became the focus of public ire during the protests tied to the Occupy Movement. If someone can develop a compelling theory to explain the structure of post-industrial society and mobilize the disenfranchised for their shared interests on that basis it would be welcome.
It's quite remarkable that this book was written in the 1980s, before the explosion of ethnic violence that attended the end of the Cold War. Samuel Huntington blurbed this book and that seems quite appropriate. It is an extremely dense, thorough and repetitive work that seemed to be vying to become a foundational text by piling on as much data as possible from around the world to make its case. I was mainly concerned with the high-level arguments, which I found more or less compelling. On some level it is actually somewhat disturbing to observe the predictability and lack of variation in human behavior. It remains to be seen how much that broad new ethnic identities can coalesce in Western societies where people have been thoroughly atomized over generations by the reigning socio-economic system.
Let's hope that they don't coalesce. But if they do, there are still ways to attenuate ethnic conflict: including federal models, power sharing and various forms of symbolic and material concessions. It is better to consider those when looking at political disputes around the world rather than insisting that ethnic conflict is an archaic relic of a bygone time. All the evidence seems to point in the opposite direction.
April 4, 2012
the standard book on "ethnic conflict". The book to read on theoretical insights on the matter, not so much for the (exhaustive) qualitative evidence from the 1970s/80s.
May 29, 2019
Probably still the best book on the topic
June 7, 2012
An excellent overview of the politics of ethnicity and a historiography of various political movements and efforts that have both ameliorated and exacerbated ethnic tensions. This version is now out of date, however; published in 1987, it does not reflect any of the scholarship or real world events following the collapse of the USSR and the worldwide growth of identity-based extremism.
Nonetheless, an excellent foundational text for ethnicity and ethnic conflict.
Nonetheless, an excellent foundational text for ethnicity and ethnic conflict.
Read
November 3, 2024Lots of examples about Malaysia and Nigeria/Kenya/ex-British Africa make me want to reread Tan Twan Eng and Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie... time for my yearly rereads of Purple Hibiscus and The Power of One??!
Shoutout to Professor Zhou for a really good syllabus this term even if Horowitz is a little dense for my taste
Shoutout to Professor Zhou for a really good syllabus this term even if Horowitz is a little dense for my taste
December 28, 2024
i will come crawling back to this for my qualifying exam mark my words
July 28, 2016
This is an excellent, thorough and comprehensive investigation of ethnic conflict in the broadest sense, from ethnically-based democratic party politics to military coups, ethnic riots, irredentism and secessionism. In its almost 700 pages it covers every imaginable facet of the issue in considerable detail. To my mind, the work's greatest strength is the fact that rather than just presenting dry theory, multiple real-world examples are given for every point that's made. This, along with Horowitz's clear and engaging prose, means that even someone quite new to this topic can easily grasp the arguments. What's more, it means that as well as learning about the general theory of ethnic conflict, the reader will also learn a great deal about the history and politics of various countries around the world (chiefly in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean).
Some reviewers have suggested that the work is overlong, but I really can't say that any of the content feels superfluous at all. I admit reading through cover to cover was a slog that I'm unlikely to repeat (it took me three and a half weeks!), but I have no doubt I'll refer back to it in the future as a reference work.
The work's obvious apparent shortcoming is the fact that it was published in 1985 and so contains nothing about the ethnic conflicts that occurred since then, most notably those that have taken place in the formerly socialist countries of Eurasia since the start of the 1990s. However, it seems to me that much of the theory that Horowitz presents can adequately be applied to these cases. The limitation to this is the fact that the vast majority of Horowitz's arguments apply primarily or only to postcolonial, developing countries, and as such may be more relevant to the countries of the Caucasus and Central Asia than to those of Eastern and Central Europe.
My only real criticism – and it is not a huge one – is that Horowitz sometimes gives too little context for his examples. For me, this was largely an issue with African examples, about which I previously knew little. Fortunately, reading in the 21st century it's no big deal to quickly get on Wikipedia to find the background information you need.
Some reviewers have suggested that the work is overlong, but I really can't say that any of the content feels superfluous at all. I admit reading through cover to cover was a slog that I'm unlikely to repeat (it took me three and a half weeks!), but I have no doubt I'll refer back to it in the future as a reference work.
The work's obvious apparent shortcoming is the fact that it was published in 1985 and so contains nothing about the ethnic conflicts that occurred since then, most notably those that have taken place in the formerly socialist countries of Eurasia since the start of the 1990s. However, it seems to me that much of the theory that Horowitz presents can adequately be applied to these cases. The limitation to this is the fact that the vast majority of Horowitz's arguments apply primarily or only to postcolonial, developing countries, and as such may be more relevant to the countries of the Caucasus and Central Asia than to those of Eastern and Central Europe.
My only real criticism – and it is not a huge one – is that Horowitz sometimes gives too little context for his examples. For me, this was largely an issue with African examples, about which I previously knew little. Fortunately, reading in the 21st century it's no big deal to quickly get on Wikipedia to find the background information you need.
December 16, 2010
A somewhat foundational work in the 'ethnic conflict' literature. Qualitative evidence mainly stemming from Southeast Asia, Africa and the Caribbean, but the theoretical insights are what you read the book for.
August 17, 2008
Exhaustive analysis of the subject, and one of its standard texts. Exhaustive in the good and the bad sense of the word.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews