Kodzoquo
30th November 2001, 20:23
I. The Caucasus and Nationality
A. The Caucasus and Ethnicity
Are ethnic conflicts inevitable? Is there a fatal predestination for every ethnic entity to compete with other ethnic entities in a Darwinian struggle for existence, to see the only guarantee of its own ethnic reproduction in the expulsion, suppression or extermination of other ethnic groups? Given its patchwork of ethnic diversity, perhaps no part of the former Soviet Union provides more fertile ground for interethnic strife than the Caucasus region. The civil war in Chechnya is seen as indicative of the potential for greater instability in the region. Alternatively, this report contends that, although political cleavages in the Caucasus often mirror ethnic divisions, at heart these disputes are as much economic and political conflicts, triggered by the ongoing uncertainty of economic transformation, as ethnic conflicts. Given this, despite extensive ethnic diversity, the Caucasus region is not invariably condemned to ethnic turmoil.
B. A Taxonomy of Ethnic Identity
The birth of ethnicity or of a particular ethnic unit can be considered as a process of adaptation to a cultural or social environment analogous to natural selection. Unlike the animal kingdom, the development of human ethnic groups entails both a biological exchange as well as the transference of cultural information and values through socialization. Having once emerged, ethnic identity tends to reproduce itself as a means for group competition for identity and resources. Such extended self-reproduction becomes the raison d’etre of ethnic group activity.
That being said, ethnic groups vary as to the intensity of ethnic identity and the types of activities and political objectives pursued. Ethnic groups can be classified based on the density of intra-group communication as the key distinguishing feature. At the lowest level, tribes are primarily denoted by oral communication traditions with a limited scope for ethnic communication. The development of written traditions allows nationalities (or, in Russian, narodnosti) to emerge. Finally, as deeper and more extended communication networks develop via mass media and mass education, the highest type of ethnicity, a nation, emerges. Nations differ from narodnosti in that they seek to establish an independent nation-state and primacy over other ethnic groups within a given territory. This sort of interaction is readily observable in the southern Caucasus in the Armenian-Azeri conflict around Karabakh, in Georgia’s military intervention in Abkhazia, in Azerbaijan’s claims to the oil resources of the Caspian shelf, and in the general squeezing out or restriction of ethnic or cultural minorities in all the newly independent Trascaucasian nations.
In contrast, not only the northern Caucasus, but probably in the whole Russian Federation, only four ethnic groups can fairly be labeled nations: Volga Tartars, Chechnyans, Yakuts and Tuvans. Narodnosti would certainly include Buriats, Chusvashs, Bashkirs, and -- although with less certainty - Ossets, Kabardins, Adyghes, Karachais and Maris. Finally, those groups best labeled as tribes would include Karels, Komis, Udmorts, Mordvins, Khahass, Altaians, Balkars, Cherkess and Kalmyks. The different classes of ethnic groups in the northern Caucasus have all undertaken actions aimed at ethnic self-assertion and self-reproduction. Yet while all pursue ethnic issues and seek to establish an ethnic "space," it would be misguided to assume that ethnic competition invariably leads to violent conflict. Only Chechnya has openly fought for full independence. Other strategies to increase ethnic autonomy include negotiating treaties with Moscow for new rights and privileges for the republic under the Federal Constitution (done in North Ossetia and Kabardin-Balkaria) or declaring the republic an "economic free zone" (done in Ingushetia). Even for groups fairly labeled as nations, the move to full independence may be undesirable, since none of the Caucasian republics can be economically self-supporting. The great mistake to be made in analyzing the Caucasus is to assume that all groups are essentially nations seeking to carve out independent nation-states from the old Soviet republics.
C. Ethnic or Political Conflict?
A good example of this can be seen in disputes between Georgia and Abkhazia. Abkhazia had long been associated with Georgia under the Soviet system and Abkhazians lived peacefully within a Georgian-dominated media and educational structure. Politically and culturally, however, Abkhazians were more oriented to Russia - which was larger and less culturally threatening - than Georgia. Yet this ethnic marriage was largely nonproblematic until the collapse of the Soviet Union. With the dissolution of the USSR, Abkhazians resisted incorporation into the newly independent Georgian nation, leading ultimately to the Georgian-Abkhazian War of 1992-93, which produced de facto independence from Georgia. Superficially, this seems like the classic example of an inter-ethnic conflict. Although true in a strict sense, there is really no great ethnic enmity between Georgians and Abkhazians, noted by a high percentage of mixed marriages. Abkhazian demands were not for independence as an expression of nationhood, but rather for association with federal Russia rather than Georgia. The conflict turned on the desire to change political association, not to secure ethnic independence per se.
All of this leads to the conclusion that the essence of most of the conflicts in the Caucasus is not inherent and historically predetermined enmity between ethnic units, but results rather from political manipulations of the ethnic elite, which tries to exploit ethnic identity to safeguard for themselves the benefits of political power during a period of economic transformation.
by S.A. Arutiunov
Head, Caucasian Studies Department
Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology
Russian Academy of Sciences
A. The Caucasus and Ethnicity
Are ethnic conflicts inevitable? Is there a fatal predestination for every ethnic entity to compete with other ethnic entities in a Darwinian struggle for existence, to see the only guarantee of its own ethnic reproduction in the expulsion, suppression or extermination of other ethnic groups? Given its patchwork of ethnic diversity, perhaps no part of the former Soviet Union provides more fertile ground for interethnic strife than the Caucasus region. The civil war in Chechnya is seen as indicative of the potential for greater instability in the region. Alternatively, this report contends that, although political cleavages in the Caucasus often mirror ethnic divisions, at heart these disputes are as much economic and political conflicts, triggered by the ongoing uncertainty of economic transformation, as ethnic conflicts. Given this, despite extensive ethnic diversity, the Caucasus region is not invariably condemned to ethnic turmoil.
B. A Taxonomy of Ethnic Identity
The birth of ethnicity or of a particular ethnic unit can be considered as a process of adaptation to a cultural or social environment analogous to natural selection. Unlike the animal kingdom, the development of human ethnic groups entails both a biological exchange as well as the transference of cultural information and values through socialization. Having once emerged, ethnic identity tends to reproduce itself as a means for group competition for identity and resources. Such extended self-reproduction becomes the raison d’etre of ethnic group activity.
That being said, ethnic groups vary as to the intensity of ethnic identity and the types of activities and political objectives pursued. Ethnic groups can be classified based on the density of intra-group communication as the key distinguishing feature. At the lowest level, tribes are primarily denoted by oral communication traditions with a limited scope for ethnic communication. The development of written traditions allows nationalities (or, in Russian, narodnosti) to emerge. Finally, as deeper and more extended communication networks develop via mass media and mass education, the highest type of ethnicity, a nation, emerges. Nations differ from narodnosti in that they seek to establish an independent nation-state and primacy over other ethnic groups within a given territory. This sort of interaction is readily observable in the southern Caucasus in the Armenian-Azeri conflict around Karabakh, in Georgia’s military intervention in Abkhazia, in Azerbaijan’s claims to the oil resources of the Caspian shelf, and in the general squeezing out or restriction of ethnic or cultural minorities in all the newly independent Trascaucasian nations.
In contrast, not only the northern Caucasus, but probably in the whole Russian Federation, only four ethnic groups can fairly be labeled nations: Volga Tartars, Chechnyans, Yakuts and Tuvans. Narodnosti would certainly include Buriats, Chusvashs, Bashkirs, and -- although with less certainty - Ossets, Kabardins, Adyghes, Karachais and Maris. Finally, those groups best labeled as tribes would include Karels, Komis, Udmorts, Mordvins, Khahass, Altaians, Balkars, Cherkess and Kalmyks. The different classes of ethnic groups in the northern Caucasus have all undertaken actions aimed at ethnic self-assertion and self-reproduction. Yet while all pursue ethnic issues and seek to establish an ethnic "space," it would be misguided to assume that ethnic competition invariably leads to violent conflict. Only Chechnya has openly fought for full independence. Other strategies to increase ethnic autonomy include negotiating treaties with Moscow for new rights and privileges for the republic under the Federal Constitution (done in North Ossetia and Kabardin-Balkaria) or declaring the republic an "economic free zone" (done in Ingushetia). Even for groups fairly labeled as nations, the move to full independence may be undesirable, since none of the Caucasian republics can be economically self-supporting. The great mistake to be made in analyzing the Caucasus is to assume that all groups are essentially nations seeking to carve out independent nation-states from the old Soviet republics.
C. Ethnic or Political Conflict?
A good example of this can be seen in disputes between Georgia and Abkhazia. Abkhazia had long been associated with Georgia under the Soviet system and Abkhazians lived peacefully within a Georgian-dominated media and educational structure. Politically and culturally, however, Abkhazians were more oriented to Russia - which was larger and less culturally threatening - than Georgia. Yet this ethnic marriage was largely nonproblematic until the collapse of the Soviet Union. With the dissolution of the USSR, Abkhazians resisted incorporation into the newly independent Georgian nation, leading ultimately to the Georgian-Abkhazian War of 1992-93, which produced de facto independence from Georgia. Superficially, this seems like the classic example of an inter-ethnic conflict. Although true in a strict sense, there is really no great ethnic enmity between Georgians and Abkhazians, noted by a high percentage of mixed marriages. Abkhazian demands were not for independence as an expression of nationhood, but rather for association with federal Russia rather than Georgia. The conflict turned on the desire to change political association, not to secure ethnic independence per se.
All of this leads to the conclusion that the essence of most of the conflicts in the Caucasus is not inherent and historically predetermined enmity between ethnic units, but results rather from political manipulations of the ethnic elite, which tries to exploit ethnic identity to safeguard for themselves the benefits of political power during a period of economic transformation.
by S.A. Arutiunov
Head, Caucasian Studies Department
Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology
Russian Academy of Sciences