Ethnic Conflict and Civil Society: India and Beyond
Ethnic Conflict and Civil Society: India and Beyond
复制标题
种族冲突与公民社会：印度及其他地区
DOI：
10.1353/wp.2001.0012
复制
发表时间：
2001
期刊：
影响因子：
5
通讯作者：
A. Varshney
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Varshney
学者们要么研究公民社会，要么研究种族冲突，但还没有系统地尝试将两者联系起来。为了探索可能的联系，本文提出了两个相互关联的论点。首先，种族间和种族内的公民参与网络在种族冲突中发挥着非常不同的作用。由于种族间的网络能够搭建桥梁、管理紧张局势，因此它们是和平的推动者。但是，如果社区只是按照种族内部的界线组织起来的，并且与其他社区的联系非常薄弱（或者根本不存在），那么种族暴力就很可能发生。第二，公民网络，无论是内部的还是种族间的，也可以分为另外两种类型：联合形式的参与和日常形式的参与。这种区别是基于公民互动是否正式。这两种形式的接触，如果有力的话，都能促进和平；相反，它们的缺失或软弱就会为种族暴力打开空间。然而，在这两种形式中，联系形式比日常接触更牢固，尤其是在政治家试图根据种族界线将人们两极分化的情况下。这两种观点对民族冲突理论和社会资本理论都有借鉴意义。
Scholars have worked either on civil society or on ethnic conflict, but no systematic attempt has yet been made to connect the two. In an attempt to explore the possible links, this article makes two interconnected arguments. First, interethnic and intraethnic networks of civic engagement play very different roles in ethnic conflict. Because they build bridges and manage tensions, interethnic networks are agents of peace. But if communities are organized only along intraethnic lines and the interconnections with other communities are very weak (or do not exist), ethnic violence is then quite likely. Second, civic networks, both intra- and interethnic, can also be broken down into two other types: associational forms of engagement and everyday forms of engagement. This distinction is based on whether civic interaction is formal or not. Both forms of engagement, if robust, promote peace: contrariwise, their absence or weakness opens up space for ethnic violence. Of the two, however, the associational forms turn out to be sturdier than everyday engagement, especially when confronted with attempts by politicians to polarize the people along ethnic lines. Both arguments have significance for theories of ethnic conflict and social capital.