Prof, theoretically ethnic violence is include of realism perspective? could you please recommend the article related to realism and ethnic/communal violence? thanks Prof
The article I talk about at the end is Posen, B. R. (1993). The security dilemma and ethnic conflict. Survival, 35(1), 27-47. I think the article can be found here: nghiencuuquocte.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Barry-Posen-Ethnic-Conflict-and-Security-Dilemma.pdf
So this pulls from several different books/articles. For frustration aggression, I would recommend Gurr's "Why Men Rebel," which isn't exactly frustration aggression but critiques the theory and then tries to offer a fix. For emerging anarchy, Barry Posen's article is the source of this argument. The other three theories are discussed in an edited volume. The "Closing Window" is James Fearon's chapter on the commitment problem. Kaufman's (I think) chapter introduces ancient hatreds, critiques it, and offers elite manipulation as the alternative. Citations are below. Gurr, T. R. (2015). Why men rebel. Routledge. Lake, D. A., & Rothchild, D. (1998). The international spread of ethnic conflict: Fear, diffusion, and escalation. Princeton University Press. Posen, B. R. (1993). The security dilemma and ethnic conflict. Survival, 35(1), 27-47.
I have a question about the Frustration-Aggression Thesis. You mentioned that there is data that shows that minorities do not usually rise against their oppressors and that it is in fact the vast majority of agitation comes from the people who have education and resources. Do you have any links, articles, books or any other sources for this claim? Thank you.
So this critique of Frustration-Aggression comes from the pioneers of "Resource Mobilization theory," McCarthy, Zald, and McAdams. The two most influential publications are listed below: McAdam, D. (1982). Political process and the development of black insurgency, 1930-1970. University of Chicago Press. McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. 1977. Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82(6): 1212-1241.
My skepticism about Frustration-Aggression theory also comes from some of the work on civil war. Fearon and Laitin offer an update of Resrouce Mobalization theory. But, Gurr also provides an important insight. Gurr argues that it is not the objective level of oppression people face but the disconnect between their material conditions and their expectations. Fearon, J. D., & Laitin, D. D. 2003. Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War. American Political Science Review, 75-90. Gurr, T. R. 2015. Why men rebel. Routledge.
There is also lots of anecdotal evidence from the terrorism literature that suggests that doctors and engineers are the most likely professions to become terrorists. I don't think anyone has fully synthesized the argument but there are two components: 1) being successful but not successful enough to get the power a person craves (i.e. Gurr), 2) being trained to see problems as aberrant. In medicine you cut, or burn, or poison maladies. In engineering problems (including social problems) are seen as design flaws that can be fixed by starting over with an eye to better design." I don't have citations memorized for this as it isn't my core area of research, but a bit of digging on professions and terrorism should turn up some interesting papers.
Prof, theoretically ethnic violence is include of realism perspective? could you please recommend the article related to realism and ethnic/communal violence? thanks Prof
The article I talk about at the end is
Posen, B. R. (1993). The security dilemma and ethnic conflict. Survival, 35(1), 27-47.
I think the article can be found here:
nghiencuuquocte.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Barry-Posen-Ethnic-Conflict-and-Security-Dilemma.pdf
@@BrianUrlacherPoliSci Thank you so much Prof. Already downloaded!
Prof, is there any specific book/article that explains in depth all of the five thesis' on ethnic violence?
So this pulls from several different books/articles.
For frustration aggression, I would recommend Gurr's "Why Men Rebel," which isn't exactly frustration aggression but critiques the theory and then tries to offer a fix.
For emerging anarchy, Barry Posen's article is the source of this argument.
The other three theories are discussed in an edited volume. The "Closing Window" is James Fearon's chapter on the commitment problem. Kaufman's (I think) chapter introduces ancient hatreds, critiques it, and offers elite manipulation as the alternative.
Citations are below.
Gurr, T. R. (2015). Why men rebel. Routledge.
Lake, D. A., & Rothchild, D. (1998). The international spread of ethnic conflict: Fear, diffusion, and escalation. Princeton University Press.
Posen, B. R. (1993). The security dilemma and ethnic conflict. Survival, 35(1), 27-47.
@@BrianUrlacherPoliSci Thank you. :)
I have a question about the Frustration-Aggression Thesis. You mentioned that there is data that shows that minorities do not usually rise against their oppressors and that it is in fact the vast majority of agitation comes from the people who have education and resources. Do you have any links, articles, books or any other sources for this claim? Thank you.
So this critique of Frustration-Aggression comes from the pioneers of "Resource Mobilization theory," McCarthy, Zald, and McAdams. The two most influential publications are listed below:
McAdam, D. (1982). Political process and the development of black insurgency, 1930-1970. University of Chicago Press.
McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. 1977. Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82(6): 1212-1241.
My skepticism about Frustration-Aggression theory also comes from some of the work on civil war. Fearon and Laitin offer an update of Resrouce Mobalization theory. But, Gurr also provides an important insight. Gurr argues that it is not the objective level of oppression people face but the disconnect between their material conditions and their expectations.
Fearon, J. D., & Laitin, D. D. 2003. Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War. American Political Science Review, 75-90.
Gurr, T. R. 2015. Why men rebel. Routledge.
There is also lots of anecdotal evidence from the terrorism literature that suggests that doctors and engineers are the most likely professions to become terrorists. I don't think anyone has fully synthesized the argument but there are two components: 1) being successful but not successful enough to get the power a person craves (i.e. Gurr), 2) being trained to see problems as aberrant. In medicine you cut, or burn, or poison maladies. In engineering problems (including social problems) are seen as design flaws that can be fixed by starting over with an eye to better design." I don't have citations memorized for this as it isn't my core area of research, but a bit of digging on professions and terrorism should turn up some interesting papers.
@@BrianUrlacherPoliSci thank you for everything! This has been very helpful! I will read the sources.