Introduction
Given the fact that the realities of living in the post-industrial world are being closely associated with the escalation of ethnocultural violence in Third World countries and also in Western countries that become increasingly multicultural, it comes as no surprise that the growing number of sociologists and anthropologists seek to define the metaphysical roots of this violence. In its turn, this brings them to indulge in conceptualizing the subject of culture and on those socio-political factors that account for the establishment of one’s existential identity. In this paper, we will aim to briefly outline the foremost ideas, in regards to the methodology of conflict resolution, contained in articles “The Culture Question and Conflict Resolution” by Kevin Avruch and Peter Black, “Conflicts as Traps and Imagined Entrapments” by J.P. Linstroth and “Identity in Mashpee” by James Clifford, while providing readers with the critical assessment of these ideas, as we believe that neither of the articles offers a truly comprehensive insight onto the very essence of ethnocultural violence since authors had intentionally made a point in avoiding the discussion of particulars of people’s racial affiliation as such that define people’s ability to possess cultural capital in the first place.
Analytical part
In their article “The Culture Question and Conflict Resolution”, Kevin Avruch and Peter Black suggested that, given the fact that there is no universally accepted definition of culture, it is utterly inappropriate to refer to culture as “thing in itself”, which is being capable of manifesting its operational subtleties within the context of indulging in confrontation with other cultures: “The reification of culture leads to the notion that it is a thing that act, rather than a property of human consciousness” (1991, 29). Therefore, under no circumstances can the culture be referred to as homogeneous sublimation of people’s existential uniqueness: “Perception is structured socially, that it, it differs from family to family, group to group, tribe to tribe, and nation to nation” (1991, 28). Neither can we refer to culture as being simply a custom.
In its turn, this suggestion has led authors to reject the idea that the ultimate solution to cultural conflicts should be concerned with the process of “getting to know” other cultures. According to the authors, conflicting parties should simply seek to assess their grievances from the opponent’s perspective in a rationalistic manner. Avruch and Black refer to this approach to dealing with ethno-conflicts as “intercultural”: “Intercultural perspective broadens (conflictual) context to include at least two individuals of groups, from different cultural traditions” (1991, 37). The ultimate conclusion of “The Culture Question and Conflict Resolution” can be formulated as follows: in order for ethno-conflicting individuals or groups of people to be able to reach mutual understanding, they would have to tackle “irreconcilable differences” between them with their sense of rationale.
Essentially the same idea is also being present throughout the entirety of James Clifford’s article’s “Identity in Mashpee”. In it, the author provides us with a detailed account of what had happened, when in 1976 Mashpee Warnpanoag Tribal Council (Cape Cod, Massachusetts) tried to substantiate its land claims on the account of Mashpee people possessing a strong tribal identity. However, during the course of legal deliberations, it came to judges’ attention that there were no objective reasons to think of Mashpee members as being any different from the rest of Americans: they have ago abandoned their Native language, Mashpee tribal rituals have no role in defining these people’s existential mode, and the most important – the bulk Cape Cod’s Natives reside outside of claimed land’s boundaries. This has led Clifford to a paradoxical but fully valid conclusion that the traditional significance of people’s cultural identity, such as language, religion, and a variety of ethnographically defined customs can no longer be thought of as being conceptually objective. Had it been the case, Mashpee Natives would not have a reason to be endowed with Native identity, in the first place. And yet, they are. This can only mean one thing – individual’s existential identity is only being indirectly related to his or her cultural background as such that derives out of the depth of “collective ethnography”: “All the critical elements of identity are in specific conditions replaceable: language, land, blood, leadership, religion. Recognized, viable tribes exist in which any one or even most of these elements are missing, replaced, or largely transformed” (1988, 201). Given the fact that Clifford articulated this idea before the talks of Globalization had attained fully legitimate status, it would only be logical on our part, to refer to it as being particularly insightful.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about most of the ideas, contained in J.P. Linstroth’s article “Conflicts as Traps and Imagined Entrapments”, because these ideas imply the counter-productive essence of euro-centric concept of rationale, when utilized to deal with ethno-cultural conflicts. The following quotation is the condensate of author’s “progressive” insights, in regards to article’s subject matter: “Peacekeepers assume too much by foisting Western ideological discourses upon the people they wish to help…Most prevalent approaches to peace are limited to Western perspectives and self-interests and do not go very far in getting us closer how non-Western and established forms of informal justice systems operate” (21). Yet, the objective reality points out to something entirely opposite – every time a particular Third World country frees itself of “White oppression”, it automatically begins to regress back into primeval savagery, with never-ending violence becoming the norm of life for the citizens of this country. Therefore, it is quite impossible to agree with the author when he suggests that, in order for a conflict-theorist to come up with a valuable advice as to how ethno-violence in a particular part of the world can be effectively dealt with; he would have to spend some time living among tribalistically-minded people. On the contrary – those who want to help individuals filled with ethnic hatred to put aside their grievances must raise above the petty existential challenges these people experience on daily basis, while assuming the role of unemotional arbiters, capable of enforcing peace with whatever the means necessary.
Critique/Conclusion
Even though the authors of analyzed earlier articles have invested a great effort in contemplating on the subject of culture, it appears that neither of them was able come close to understanding culture as fully objective biologically-historical concept. It is important to understand that culture is nothing but an aesthetic reflection of people’s ability to act as facilitators of scientific and social progress. In its turn, such their ability derives out of these people’s capacity to operate with highly abstract categories (IQ). This is exactly the reason why low standards of living in Third World countries correlate rather well with these countries citizens’ lack of cultural refinement.
As it is being revealed in Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen’s revolutionary book “IQ and the Wealth of Nations”, the average rate of citizens’ IQ in Equatorial Guinea equals 52. It is namely this fact, and not the “legacy of Western colonialism”, which explains why the overwhelming majority of Guineans (as well as the rest of “pure” Black Africans) are being simply incapable of assessing surrounding reality, other than through the lenses of their animalistic urges, which explains their violent attitudes. As Lynn and Vanhanen had put it: “There is a positive correlation between brain size and intelligence so the race difference in brain size suggests a genetic basis for the difference in intelligence… Black infants reared by White middle class adoptive parents in the United States show no improvement in intelligence, contrary to the prediction of environmental theory” (2002, 1994). This is why environmentalist approaches to cultural conflictology cannot be referred to as anything but conceptually fallacious – it is our genes which define our endowment with culture and therefore, our ability to act in socially appropriate manner.
Apparently, only few researchers were able realize a simple fact that the notion of culture is being synonymous to the notion of intelligence, which is why people incapable of operating with abstract categories cannot be endowed with cultural identity by definition. This also explains why, despite the fact that the hawks of political correctness had applied a considerable effort into discrediting the very concept of euro-centrism as something “evil”, it is namely the Western culture which continues to be perceived as the only “true” culture by people in Third World. It is not by an accident that even the governmental officials from such “countries” as Equatorial Guinea and Central African Republic always wear Western suits on official occasions – they want to prove to the world that they are being just as “cultural” as their former White “oppressors”, despite the fact that these officials often end up facing the charges of cannibalism.
Therefore, when it comes to finding the most effective methods for ending ethno-cultural conflicts, one would benefit so much more by studying the history of French Foreign Legion, for example, as opposed to reading sophistically sounding but utterly meaningless articles as to how people should go about “learning to appreciate differences”. As Hannibal Lector used to say: the first principle – simplicity. When two dogs get involved in a vicious fight, we do not go about finding subconscious motivations behind the outbreak of this animalistic violence, but simply shower them with cold water from the hose.
Bibliography
Avruch, Kevin & Black, Peter “The Culture Question and Conflict Resolution”. Peace & Change 16 (1991): 22-45.
Clifford, James “Identity in Mashpee” in The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Ethnography, Literature and Art. Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press, 1988.
Harrison, Faye “Introduction: Expanding the Discourse on “Race”. American Anthropologist, New Series 100.3 (1998): 609-631.
Lynn, Richard & Vanhanen, Tatu IQ and the Wealth of Nations, Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002.