Nationalism and Ethnicity: Upcoming Conferences and Events

Call for Papers and Panels: Rethinking Territoriality – Between Independence and Interdependence

University of Edinburgh, 16-18 September 2015

This conference will bring together, for the first time, the three IPSA research committees to examine different aspects of territoriality evident in the world today. The conference, convened in Edinburgh one year after Scotland’s historic independence referendum, will provide an opportunity to examine the politics of territorial, ethnic and linguistic identity, state traditions and language regimes, the dynamics of federalism and multi-level government, and relations between power and territory in the context of regional integration.

Organizers invite proposals for individual paper contributions or for panels engaging these issues. We welcome case studies and comparison of issues of territoriality evident in any part of the world, as well as papers adopting a theoretical perspective on territorial or identity and language politics. We aim to feature the best of contemporary research on territoriality, including new research by established academics as well as early career scholars.

Proposals for papers should include full contact details (including an email address, mailing address, and affiliation) of the author(s) and an abstract of up to 200 words.

Panel proposals must include:

– a minimum of three papers and a maximum of five.

– contact details of paper-givers, and (if you have them) the discussant and chair

– Panel title and individual paper titles

– Short description of panel (max 200 words)

Conference languages are English and French. The final deadline for electronic submission of proposals for papers or panels will be 28 February 2015. Proposals should be submitted to: http://form.jotformeu.com/form/42413501455344

Call for Submissions: “Nations, history and comparison: a conference on historical sociology and the study of nationalism”

University of Edinburgh, 14-15th of May, 2015.

The University of Edinburgh’s Ethnicity, Nationalism and National Identity Network (ENNIN), in association with the Historical and Comparative Sociology Study Group of the British Sociological Association invite abstracts for a two-day conference entitled “Nations, history and comparison: a conference on historical sociology and the study of nationalism”. This conference is part of the 50-year anniversary of Sociology at the University of Edinburgh, and will be held Thursday and Friday, May 14-15, 2015.

The conference aims at providing a stimulating environment to exchange ideas and build networks in a welcoming setting that encourages interdisciplinary dialogue and approaches. One of the great strengths of historical sociology and the study of nationalism is the breadth of the fields and perspectives that they encompass, and we encourage submissions from all angles and topics which might fall within the frame of historical sociology or the study of nationalism.

Topics might include but are not limited to:

Nationalism and Power
Nationalism and Violence
Why History matters
Methodology
Regional sections: Latin America, Middle East, South East Asia
Describing and Explaining Social Processes
New Directions in Historical Sociology
Bridging the gap between the Macro and Micro in Historical Sociology

Confirmed speakers include:

Professor Donald Bloxham, School of History, Classics and Anthropology, University of Edinburgh
Professor Lindsay Paterson, Department of Social Policy, University of Edinburgh
Professor Roland Dannreuther, Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Westminster
Professor Jonathan Hearn, Department of Sociology, University of Edinburgh

Abstracts of 250-300 words to be e-mailed to ennin.rg@ed.ac.uk by Thursday, January 30th 2015. The proposals should include your name, contact details and institutional affiliation.

Final decisions and general registration for the conference will begin in February.

Call for Papers: Modes and forms of insurgency in the contemporary world: an inquiry into the causes and consequences of non-state governance and their relevance to current world affairs

Section of the Conference / The Worlds of Violence / 9th Pan-European Conference on International Relations

Wednesday 23-Saturday 26 September 2015, Giardini Naxos, Sicily, Italy

Organised by the European International Studies Association and the University of Catania

Chairs: Abel Polese (Tallinn University), ap@tlu.ee Donnacha Ó Beacháin (Dublin City University) donnacha.obeachain@dcu.ie

Recent events in Ukraine and Syria are only the ultimate expression of a tendency that we have observed, with regularity and in very different regions of the world. Although under-researched thus far insurgency has emerged as a major phenomenon of recent years. In this panel we understand insurgency in a dynamic manner and as a name for several points on a spectrum. The most visible expressions of insurgency are, in our view, the more or less successful attempts to separate administratively from a state as has occurred in Georgia, Sudan and more recently in Ukraine. There are, however, intermediate situations leading to more autonomy, the emergence of local or sub-national forces claiming control over either a territory, a sector, or challenging the competence of a state in a given field (economy, police, judiciary) that this section seeks to explore.

The aim of this section is to explore economic, political and judicial aspects of insurgency, here intended as a multi-faceted phenomenon affecting one or more competencies of a state. The goal is to establish a dialogue based not only on a variety of geographically diverse case studies but also to concentrate on a particular aspect of insurgency and, equally important, to study pre-insurgency situation or situations that might, or might not, lead to insurgency such as insubordination in a particular field (informal governance, security or networks progressively, but still marginally, taking over state competencies in a given region)

Organizers welcome submissions that relate to the following themes:

-Insurgent governance in the former USSR and the role of Russia in the region: Although insurgency is a worldwide phenomenon, the frequency and intensity observed in the former USSR in recent years sheds light on new tendencies. By examining the various forms of insurgency we plan to explore also the role of Russian foreign policy and its capacity to stabilize/destabilize the region.

-Informality and forms of pre and micro insurgency: Underneath the widely reported insurgency that claims control over a portion of a state or a territory there is a myriad of micro opportunities for small-scale insurgency that could, but also could not, evolve into macro insurgency. We refer here to private militia, criminal networks but also less visible phenomena such as informal local governance or informality (in economic activities, judicial courts, informal connections and networks growing to become a major voice in the politics and policies of a given territory without formally taking control of it)

-Winners and losers of insurgency: warlords and fear-based organizations: In spite of the general understanding that war and violence bring more damage than benefits there are categories of people and sectors benefiting from insurgency, especially when this escalates into violence. This panel would explore phenomena such as warlords and the political and power advantages for certain groups, or even countries, in insurgency situations

Other possible topics for papers might include, but are not confined to:

– Business development and the economic policy of insurgency

-Proxy militias, non-traditional warfare and their role in foreign policy

-The relationship between social capital, civil society and insurgency

Please send an abstract, indicating which panel you intend to participate in, and a short bio to:

Abel Polese (Tallinn University), ap@tlu.ee Donnacha Ó Beacháin (Dublin City University) donnacha.obeachain@dcu.ie

For more information, please visit http://www.paneuropeanconference.org/2015/

The deadline for receiving abstracts is January 15th, 2015.

Upcoming Conference: Images of Identity: International Symposium at the University of Zurich

30-31 January 2015, Switzerland

Words and images have always been used to fashion, refashion and challenge identities. In the age of discovery, written and visual texts combined to negotiate identities of self and other; the nineteenth and twentieth centuries saw an explosion of visual technologies. In the early twenty-first century, our lives have become more permeated by multimedial texts and images than ever before.

This two-day symposium hosted by the English Department at the University of Zurich aims to explore the constitution of personal, national and cultural identities at the intersection of the verbal and the visual. It will focus on the multiple relations between identities, words and images, addressing issues such as visual culture, transmediality, iconicity, and the materialities of words and images.

Keynote speakers

Prof. Dr. Kath Woodward (Milton Keynes)

Prof. Dr. Chris Morash (Dublin)

Understanding Nationalism in the Graveyard of Empire (III): Beneath the Eagle’s Wings

Leave a Reply

The last part of this series on the historiography of nationalism in Ukraine, ‘Histories Divided and Entwined’, looked at the significance of regionally-differentiated understandings of Ukrainian history. Scholars have emphasised that particular regions in Ukraine have been pivotal for the development of other national ideas in addition to only the Ukrainian, the most significant contemporary example being the attachment felt by Russians towards Crimea, where the Ukrainian-Russian conflict of 2014 began. In recent televised remarks, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev reiterated that “When we speak about Crimea … we realize that it is our history, our destiny and our pain too”. Lev Golinkin, writing in the new York Times has recently noted that the vast majority of the 450,000 Ukrainians who have fled the country since April have gone to Russia. Nicolai Petro of the University of Rhode Island has summed up the conflict as ‘a war over Ukrainian identity’: ‘For the westernmost regions (Galicia), being Ukrainian means suppressing Russian culture so that Ukrainian culture can thrive in its stead. Here, creating a Ukraine that is antithetical to Russia is commonly referred to as making a “civilizational choice” in favor of Europe. For the eight Russophone regions of eastern and southern Ukraine (which I call the Other Ukraine), being Ukrainian means being a distinct nation that is still very close to Russia. These Ukrainians do not wish to join Russia, but neither do they wish to be forced to forsake Russian culture in order to be considered loyal Ukrainians.’

In short, no analysis of nationalism in Ukraine, historical or otherwise, can begin without exploring not only the political role of Russia in Ukrainian affairs, but the role occupied by Ukraine in the Russian nationalist historical imagination.

The dispute over the meaning of the name ‘Ukraine’ itself encapsulates the contested relationship between the country and Russia. It was towards the mid-nineteenth century that ‘Ukrainian’ began to gain currency as an ethno-cultural as opposed to merely geographical identifier, a shift in meaning opposed by the imperial authorities, for whom the country was known as ‘Little Russia’.

As Theodore Weeks notes in his contribution to the Oxford Handbook of the History of Nationalism (2013), ‘The Russian [imperial] government never considered Belorussians and Ukrainians to make up separate nations, rather they were seen as branches of the Russian people speaking dialects of the Russian language.’ The early decades of Soviet rule in Ukraine resulted in limited recognition of Ukrainian ‘separateness’ as a result of the policy of indigenization, which in turn caused discontent among those Russians in Ukraine who saw themselves as victims of ‘reverse discrimination’. Weeks concludes that over a period of roughly 150 years until the present day a Russian fear of national separatism ‘has played a constant – if not primary – role in Russian politics.’

Andrew Wilson, in The Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation (2009) also argued that an inability to ‘engage seriously with the reality of Ukraine’s separate existence’ has conditioned Russian political and academic perspectives on Ukraine since 1991. Ukraine, according to this thinking, ‘is an artificial buffer state with no prospect of long-term coherence.’ (Wilson 2009: 300) Ukrainians, by contrast, demonstrate a more varied view of Russia, ranging from ‘rabid Russophobia in western Ukraine to equally Ukrainophobic Russian nationalism in Crimea. (Wilson 2009: 308)

Important recent historiography has demonstrated that Ukraine has played a dual role in ‘the Russian mind’, as a historical point of origin for ‘Slavdom’ and therefore the Russian nation, and also a place from where Russian unity – an often tenuous concept in the country’s history – was threatened. Faith Hillis, in Children of Rus’: Right-Bank Ukraine and the Invention of a Russian Nation (2013), finds that ‘Russia first encountered the challenge of modern nationalism in its western frontier.’ (Hillis 2013: 3) As Geoffrey Hosking noted in his work Russia and the Russians (2012 edn.): ‘Russia has usually been a multi-ethnic empire without a dominant nation’ which has with respect to Russia ‘rendered the distinction between internal and foreign affairs much less well-defined than in most polities.’ (Hosking 2012: 4) Ukraine was the locus for one of the most important foundational events for the Russian national(ist) historical narrative, the Russian Polish War of the 17th century. The Russian imperial state, apparently unable to forge a genuinely unifying idea of Russianness for its Russian subjects (Hosking 2012: 344), was presented with the alternative of defining itself as an empire of the Slavic people. The challenge of Ukrainian nationalism that defined itself against Russia posed a threat to this mode of Russian self-identification, and in a circular process that is familiar to students of other national conflicts, Russian attempts to suppress nascent Ukrainian ‘separateness’ only gave impetus to its development. (Hillis 2013: 16) Hillis has argued that the role of Ukrainian disillusionment with Russia, as opposed to straightforward ‘Russophobia’, should not be underestimated by the historian: ‘Many of the first [nineteenth-century] intellectuals to imagine a separate Ukrainian nation were in fact alumni of the Little Russian lobby.’ (Hillis 2013: 16)

Ilya Prizel, in National Identity and Foreign Policy (1998) has argued that ‘Russia’s history has been marked by a powerful and overbearing state but a weak, and even uncertain, national identity’, and that Ukraine’s history has been burdened by both these problems. (Prizel 1998: 2) The notion of a ‘Russian civilisation’ that takes precedence over established borders (as opposed to one of a Russian national identity that is bounded within the country’s historic borders) is, Prizel argues, an enduring idea with an old vintage in Russian history, and has continued to shape Moscow’s policy on its neighbours. But what made Ukraine so significant in this respect was that ‘the incorporation of Ukraine…fused Russia’s national identity within an imperial identity.’ (Prizel 1998: 157) Ukraine, in this light, becomes a matter of existential importance for Russianness, not just an object of power politics.

What these studies have in common and bring to light is the dual and at times conflicting role played by Ukraine in the development of Russian national identity not only in providing it with an important point of origin (such as the idea or myth of Kievan Rus’) but in offering an unsettling challenge to the very idea of Russianness. Seen in this light, it is less unsurprising that Prime Minister Medvedev should refer to Russian ownership of Crimea not only as ‘our destiny’ but also as ‘our pain’.

References

Faith Hillis, Children of Rus’: Right-Bank Ukraine and the Invention of a Russian Nation (2013)

Geoffrey Hosking, Russia and the Russians (2012 edn.)

Ilya Prizel, National Identity and Foreign Policy: Nationalism and Leadership in Poland, Russia, and Ukraine (1998)

Theodore Weeks, ‘Separatist Nationalism in the Romanov and Soviet Empires’, in John Breuilly (ed.), Oxford Handbook of the History of Nationalism (2013

Andrew Wilson, The Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation (2009)

Nicolai N. Petro, ‘The Real War in Ukraine: The Battle over Ukrainian Identity’, The National Interest, 4/12/14

Lev Golinkin, ‘Driving Ukrainians Into Putin’s Arms’, New York Times, 8/10/12

‘Dmitry Medvedev, Russian PM, says Crimea is “our destiny”‘, CBC News, 10/12/14

New Book: Nationalism, Ethnicity and Boundaries

Leave a Reply

Nationalism, Ethnicity and Boundaries: Conceptualising and understanding identity through boundary approaches

Edited by Jennifer Jackson and Lina Molokotos-Liederman – Routledge – 2014 – 252 pages

Series: Routledge Studies in Nationalism and Ethnicity (Based on the 2012 ASEN Conference)

Nationalism and ethnicity have become, across time and space, a force in the construction of boundaries. This book analyses geographical and physical borders and symbolic, political and socio-economic boundaries, and how they impact nationalism and ethnic identity.

Geographic and other tangible borders are critical components in the making and unmaking of boundaries. However, symbolic or intangible boundaries along national, ethnic, political or socio-economic criteria are equally significant. This volume connects some important contributions in the relevant literature from across the disciplines by bringing together considerations of territorial and symbolic boundaries and borders with boundary-infused conceptions of ethnicity and nationalism. It also shifts the focus towards a better understanding of the various ways that members of national and ethnic categories, as well as non-members, understand which boundaries are relevant to social categories.

This volume contributes in particular a greater systematization when it comes to understanding boundary processes by incorporating a strong theoretical framework with case studies that shed light on these processes. This comparative approach demonstrates how and under what circumstances boundaries assume particular characteristics and in what cases they become more or less permeable, salient, visible and/or durable. It also sheds light on how social actors construct groups and communities through the use of boundaries and how individuals understand their obligations towards the groups and categories they find themselves in. Finally, the book helps establish more concretely how individuals think of themselves in comparison to others and how they perform their differences and similarities.

Organised into three sections on theory, national case studies and comparative perspectives, the book includes contributions from experts in the field presenting detailed national and transnational case studies, including the UK (England and Scotland), Israel, the post-Soviet States, Ireland, and Canada, as well as examples from several other countries.
The aim in editing this volume has been to to provide a critical evaluation of the use of borders, boundaries and boundary-making in the study of nationalism and ethnicity and a point of reference for a methodological and conceptual reflection on the complex and multifaceted interactions between nationalism, ethnicity, symbolic boundaries and physical borders. It is hoped that both the theoretical work and case studies presented in this volume will prompt further interest and inspire further research in this field.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction Jennifer Jackson
Part I: Theoretical framework and methodological considerations
2. Boundaries and borders Richard Jenkins
3. Aspects of boundary research from the perspective of longue durée Jean Terrier
4. Modernity, globalization and nationalism: the age of frenzied boundary-building Daniele Conversi
5. Ethnic boundaries: A critical rationalist perspective Michael Banton
Part II: Case Studies
6. Boundaries and Belonging: dominant ethnicity and the place of the nation in a globalizing world Michael Skey
7. A’ the Bairns o’ Adam? The Ethnic Boundaries of Scottish National Identity Michael Rosie
8. Ethnicity and boundaries in Jewish nationalism Yitzhak Conforti
Part III: Comparative Perspectives
9. Nationalizing states revisited: projects and processes of nationalization in post-Soviet states Rogers Brubaker
10. Negotiating national identity in Northern Ireland and Quebec: youth perspectivesJennifer Jackson
11. The migration of frontiers. ethnonational conflicts and contested cities Wendy Pullan

Jennifer Jackson’s dissertation, for which she was recently awarded her doctorate from University College Dublin, compares the origins and evolution of ethnic and national boundaries in Northern Ireland and Quebec and explores the ways in which young people negotiate these boundaries.

Lina Molokotos-Liederman is a sociologist of religion, a visiting fellow at the Uppsala University Religion and Society Research Centre (CRS) and a postdoc associate of the Groupe Sociétés, Religions et Laïcité (GSRL/CNRS) in Paris.

The book can be ordered here

Check out SEN Special Issues based on past ASEN conferences:

Forging the Nation: Performance and Ritual in the Re(production) of Nation

Nationalism, Ethnicity and Boundaries

The Scottish independence referendum: effects and reactions in the UK and abroad

Leave a Reply

The tiny victory of the ‘no’ side reveals Scotland’s strong perception of its identity and frightens the international community.

In the 18 September Scottish independence referendum, a slight majority of those who participated in the referendum voted ‘no’. Indeed, the ‘no’ side won with a narrow advantage – 55% to the 45% of the ‘yes’ side – while turnout was around 84% of eligible voters. Scotland decided to stay in the United Kingdom, meeting the expectations of Westminster, despite a poll that shook the unionist side 10 days prior to the vote, predicting victory for the pro-independence side.

It was an emotional loss for the Scottish movement for independence, which has passionate support among some within the country. Situated in the framework of a long difficult relationship is the current Scottish question, led by Salmond and the Scottish National Party, whose victory in the 2011 elections strengthened the nationalists’ control of Holyrood and brought Scotland to the referendum.

It would appear that the issue of Scottish independence has had an impact not only on the future of the nation itself, but is relevant to the overall geopolitical arrangement of Europe. It is part of a more general trend that affects the integrity of Europe, pushing other ‘stateless nations’ to seek their own independence. Indeed, it is only one among a chain of regions in the Western democracies calling for independence, such as Flanders in Belgium, or Catalonia and the Basque Country in Spain. In fact, Catalonia’s support to Scotland’s claim for independence shows the extent to which European secessionist movements are connected to one another and benefit from one another’s success.

The international and national press have long held a stance of general indifference towards the issue of Scottish independence. A shift in public discourse occurred in early 2014, when opinion polls signaled that the Scottish nationalist cause was exceeding expectations only a few weeks before the referendum, when a YouGov survey showed a sudden loss of 22 points for the ‘no’ side (Limes, Hulsman). This prompted politicians to re-evaluate their somewhat complacent attitude toward the referendum, on both national and international ground. In a public press conference on 5 June, American President Barack Obama expressed his concern, wishing that the UK would remain ‘a strong, robust, united and effective partner’.

Some days later, the Chinese Prime Minister Li Quekiang struck a similar tone on the occasion of a three-day trip to the UK, stating that PRC would ‘welcome a strong, prosperous, and united United Kingdom’. In his speech, the Chinese Premier pointed out his concern for the alleged implications that Scottish secession would have on separatist ambitions abroad, doubtless preoccupied with what the possibility that people could decide their own fate might mean for Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang.

The political implications of the Scottish independence referendum highlight the fragility of the identitarian bond that links the states within the EU

The effects of the Scottish referendum have been felt far beyond London, as identified by the BBC monitoring report entitled ‘Scottish independence: World media suggests ‘domino effect’’, which shows the growing international press engagement on the matter. The shock stemming from the real possibility of a secession affecting the UK has its basis in the common and unquestionable assumption of a state’s continuity, as well as that of its indisputable borders and institutions. However, the official reactions of governments across the world sharply contrast the resonance that the referendum had among secessionist movements, such as those of Spain and of the Canadian province of Quebec.

The referendum led European governments to worry about a change in the geopolitical status quo of the European Union. A possible Scottish departure from the UK would have represented a decrease in the influence of a prominent ally for both the EU and the United States. The damage would have been visible not only in terms of international credibility, but the consequences would have also been felt in terms of defence policy. The UK without Scotland would mean a smaller British army, a different nuclear policy and, worth considering, is its potential impact on NATO. Furthermore, the threat of the success of the pro-independence camp has re-legitimized several secessionist movements in Europe, compelling local governments to take action. Despite the victory of the pro-unionist camp, the debate does not end here. Cameron’s draft law, meant to be ready by January 2015, aims to recognize many new Scottish powers. This action could lead London to concede further jurisdiction to Wales and Northern Ireland, and this would involve a radical change in the British domestic political and social balance.

On the other hand, Cameron has to balance the consequences stemming from new powers for Scotland. In the UK there are concerns related to the possible disadvantages this implies for the country. In fact, according to Conservative lawmaker James Wharton, as reported by Reuters, although England is the biggest British nation, it is the only region that does not enjoy any devolution of powers. Therefore, despite the tidy victory of the ‘no’ side at the polls, the level of uncertainty remains very high, and for the moment there is no definitive political solution on the horizon.

W. Walker, International Reactions to the Scottish Referendum, International Affairs 90: 4, 2014

M.Gillies, Londra Ballerà da sola?, in Limes, L’impero è Londra, p. 59-80,2014

Article written by Sabella Festa Campanile

For more on the topic of Scottish referendum, please check out the following article published in SEN:

Journal:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecaf.12028/abstract

SEN News Bites: 1-7 December 2014

Leave a Reply

NBC News (02/12/2014) reports on plans to conduct field tests for the 2020 Census in the US, particularly with regard to how to design questions on race and ethnicity which are generating a lot of debate.

American Thinker (05/12/2014) features an opinion piece reflecting on issues of legitimacy in relation to the Israeli state and the challenges this contention poses for national identity.

my Republica (06/12/2014) reports on Nepal’s official opposition to ethnicity-based federalism based on the nation’s presumed inability to sustain this institutional arrangement.

The Guardian (07/12/2014) reports the key findings of and reflects on a recently published report by the British Equalities and Human Rights Commission on the current position of different racial groups and ethnic minorities in Britain.

The Japan Times (07/12/2014) features an opinion piece on the role of national remembrance and the politics of memorialisation in the relations between East Asian nations.

News compiled by Anastasia Voronkova

If you would like to write a response to any of these news stories, please email us at sen@lse.ac.uk