Modern Hatreds: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War (Cornell Studies in Security Affairs) by Stuart J. Kaufman

Modern Hatreds: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War (Cornell Studies in Security Affairs) Reviews

• 
  Pat MacEwen

  Good to excellent coverage of ethnic conflicts in Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Moldova, and the former Republic of Yugoslavia. Most of these are little known in the West, and accounts of ethnic conflict are always distorted by fragmentation of the histories involved as well as ideology and the myth-making exercise that is nationalism. The author carefully details the similarities in the symbolic politics of each of these conflicts while trying to point out the differences that resulted in war, or not, or the nature of the warfare that resulted from the conflict. One of Kaufman's chief concerns is distinguishing between ethnic conflicts he considers "mass-led" versus "elite-led" but in his discussions of the various leaders and their actions, he seems to assume a level of rationality that is, to me, deceptive. As Professor Mahmoud Mamdani has pointed out, there is at the heart of every genocide a small, cold-hearted, clear-sighted, intelligent cabal of utter psychopaths, and any attempt to head off or cut short an ethnic conflict rolling down that road WILL FAIL if we don't take that simple fact into consideration.
• 
  Brett C

  Great book demonstrating the theories of ethnic violence and the hysteria involved with creating tension and breeding violence among different ethnic groups. The author gives good theoretical explanation to the use of symbols, myths, and politics that can be misused to spark interethnic violence among people living together. The book goes over Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and the former Yugoslavia. Great book for research or for general education on ethnic violence.
• 
  Kamran Motamedi

  Kaufman proposes the theory of "symbolic politics" which is based largely on the ideas of Crawford Young and Donald Horowits (in psychological aspects). To me, his theory which is a kind of mixture of other theory, makes sense, the first two chapters of the book are a good intro to the subject as he reviews the main theories in ethnic conflicts, however, I think he underestimates the economic rivalry. Chapter three has a good review on Karabakh conflict, between Armenian and Azerbaijanis, the horrific conflict that (in my judgement) rooted in 1813 Treaty of Gulistan which transferred Karabakh from Persia to Russia, from that time on Azerbaijan was divided in two: the northern part of Russian Empire and the southern part that remained under Persian authority. Another treaty that influenced on this conflict but neither of rivalry side were involved was the Treaty of Turkmenchay (1828) again between Russian Empire and Persia. Like the 1813 Treaty of Gulistan, this treaty was imposed by Russia, following military victory over Persia. “The 1828 Russian annexation of the Nakhjivan and Erevan areas impelled further changes.
  bachelor student opinion :)
• 
  Kristian

  Excellent overview of complex ethnic conflicts.
• 
  Colm Fox

  I liked the emphasis on myths and symbols, however there is so much in this theory that it is almost hard to be wrong. I don't imagine that it's hard to find groups with hostile myths that engage in conflict. A better question is how these hostile myths get generated in the first place. Having said that I'm not sure if there is always, or even usually a polarization (development of hostile myths and symbols) before conflict. I do agree on Kaufman's critique of the security dilemma. It does appear to be under-specified.
• 
  Sergei

  Stuart J. Kaufman takes tight to a new level.