By Kathleen Malley-Morrison and Tristyn Campbell, review of “Handbook of Ethnic Conflict: International Perspectives.”
Through the centuries, wars have been labeled in many different ways–e.g., by the nationality of the combatants (e.g., Sino–Japanese War, Philippine–American War), and the country (e.g., Korean War, Vietnam War, Afghanistan War) or region (e.g., Persian Gulf War) wherein the violence occurred . Now, of course, we have the “war on terrorism,” located, it seems, everywhere.
In contemporary society, war is generally equated with “armed conflict.” Project Ploughshares identified two major types of armed conflict (interstate and intrastate) and three types of intrastate armed conflict (state control, state formation, and failed state). Generally, since the end of World War II, interstate armed conflict declined, and most armed conflicts have been intrastate.
Framing some forms of intrastate armed conflict as “ethnic” or “interethnic” conflict, as done in the “Handbook of Ethnic Conflict: International Perspectives,” is a relatively recent phenomenon; the handbook provides case studies of 20 ethnic conflicts, including the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Kosovo, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The Israel–Palestine conflict and Philippines–Mindanao conflict can be seen as examples of what Project Ploughshares labels state formation conflicts, characterized by communal or ethnic interests struggling for regional autonomy or secession. The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is a prime example of a failed state unable to provide even minimum security to inhabitants.
What is gained by framing these struggles as ethnic conflicts rather than simply intrastate conflicts? Framing conflicts this way reminds us that armed conflicts occur not only between nations, or nations and nonstate parties, or religions, but between people who identify with groups, and who often try to deal with life’s challenges by relying on group memberships.
For scholars committed to understanding the causes of war and peace, such framing humanizes the analyses, rather than embedding them only in abstractions such as “historical events,” “economic factors” and “political causes.”
For psychologists, framing conflicts as ethnic legitimizes viewing them not just as products of political, economic, and historical forces but as clashes involving psychological dimensions that may underlie all other contributing factors. Moreover, categorizing armed conflicts as ethnic reminds us that solutions require attention not just to economic inequalities, human rights violations, and disputed borders, but also to human emotions and ways of thinking.
Think about armed conflicts of relevance to you. Does reframing them in the language of emotions and ways of thinking influence your thinking? How?
Copyright American Psychological Association. This article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the APA journal PsycCRITIQUES. It is not the copy of record. Information about the journal is at http://www.apa.org/psyccritiques/
