Sie sind auf Seite 1von 38

| 


  
   

 
 

 


Y    
 

      


       


  !"#
m i   

 
m m  
 
  i ! !
i    
  i  i   i
 mm !
  i ii  
  
""#   
 
$ i  
 
  i     ii i
%"&iii '()*r 

‰
ii i i  

 i+ + i i
‰ % i i  

 i
i i i ,

* Van den Bergh 1967:9


á +   -i i 
,
ii -+ +
i ii  i   i i 
 "
  i i

ii i i i   
  + .   i 
 "
 #   '(()'/0
‰ n Whiteness:
R. Frankenberg 1993: A structural location
tat confers exclusive privilege, s tandpoint
from which to view and assess Self and
ther, and a set of cultural practices that
is usually unmarked, unnamed, and
normatively given. This relative invisibility
both enhances and is an effect of its
dominance.
µFaye Harrison 1995: ³The dominant site
from which knowledge is produced and
validated´
‰ i
 1222 
 +

i  
‰ i    
34 i 
+i "
‰ i      

i
 
‰ i   +i
+ i   
i  
i 
‰ i   
   i
+ 
 i 

 i i  
 "
‰ The centrality of the notion of the state in
the social sciences
‰ ric Wolf and the post French
revolution growth of the social
sciences. Comte, San Simon and
later others: social forces can be
consolidating. Not disruptive.
‰ The state as a taming, organizing
institution that will help put social
forces into check, constructively.
‰ n fact the notion of the constructive state
is earlier: part of Augustine world view
(right to refuse lecture)
‰ And other foundational notions of the state
in western thought (Avineri)
‰ Ties in with uropean history:
‰ 1648 (Westphalia): birth of the ethnic state
‰ 1848: birth of the ethnic nation
‰ The idea of the ethnic nation-state: a pillar
of modernity. The basic category in the
social science.
‰ There is a link to Hegel here.
‰ Best exemplified by the 1983 trilogy.
‰ ellner: Nationalism as a false
conciousness, inculcated by interested
parties in order to facilitate the transition
from agrarian to industrial civilization. A
bureaucratic class was needed, and was
produced through nationalized and
democratized education system and culture.
‰ Anderson - the masses took part as well.
‰ Hobsbawm and ranger:
‰ And note: the primordial ethnic state is not the
only option
‰ The Westphalian vision opens a space for
another vision too: that of the Melting pot.
‰ The potent immigrants¶ state will enable people
to assimilate and become one through the force
of equal citizenship. Naturalized subjects.
‰ f course both primordialists and relationalists
must tackel the tensions and contradictions that
keep emerging between that vision and real life
out there.
‰  ʯʠʫ 
‰ The problem of uro-centrality in this model of the
state and its ethnic origins:
‰ Chaterjee¶s valid reservations about applying the
uropean concept of the state on the post-colonial
state. (post colonial in the temporal sense, not the
theoretical sense developed in post-colonial theory)
‰ And the cobbling together of M states or African
States or S Asian state and their boundaries by
external imperial powers. This created a reality that
contradicts the very spirit of Westphalia: all M states
are multi-ethnic a-priori!
‰ A vision developed elsewhere, in a specific historical
and political context
‰ The circumstances of importing it elsewhere are
problematic
‰ And, specific contexts: The ttoman reality
that preceded modern statehood in the M,
for example, was on of benign co-existence
of multiple ethnic groups, in the shaddow of a
state largely oblivious to identity
(preoccupied, at best, with taxation and
military recruitment.
‰
‰ Admittedly, much of this could be argued about
uropean states too: particularly if we take the
relational thesis, which claims that states emerge
through invention, imagination and manipulation.
‰
et in the M it is still different: the chief agent is
after all not the local elite, which is capable of gradual
development and elaboration of a narrative and
national ideology in keeping with local society and
cultural norms.
‰ nstead, in the M we had external agents and local
elites which depend on them to do it.
‰ What is happening in raq today is the most vivid
example.
‰ But look at raq at the 1920, at Fahlawi ran, at post
Mandate Lebanon or Syria, and you find similar
dynamics.
‰ This essentially is Kandioti¶s and Cole¶s critique and
attempt to relate theory to the post colonial M.
‰ This theoretical conundrum happens in
an area with extraordinary diversity. Due to:
‰ eographical
‰ eo-Political
‰ ttoman heritage of coexistence
‰ And relatively stable situations in terms of
groups¶ boundary maintenance.
‰ And, as Maoz and Sheffer emphesize, it all
take splace in a region where the legitimacy
of talking, asking questions, researching and
of course writing and publishing about
µethnicity¶ is often non existence.
‰ No word in Arabic for ethnicity. And no
incorporation of the uropean term (such as
etniyut in Hebrew).
‰ So tough task indeed.
‰ So the two approaches are not incompatible or
contradictory.
‰ None of them can be easily dismissed.
‰ Nor do we need to chose one and stick to it.
‰ Nor can we claim that they developed in two
separate paradigmatic trajectory, divorced and
isolated of each other.
‰ And while the relational approach is often more
nuanced and has a better explanatory value, we
will at times find ourselves taking primordial
viewpoints seriously in this course.
‰ f only because they often are nearer the way
actors - lay people as well as ethnic
enterpreneurs and advocates of the nation - tend
to read reality.
‰ s one of them more µsociological¶
‰ s one more µAnthropological¶
‰ ne of them is certainly more Focaudian