Introduction
In an era characterized by globalization, migration, and intensified cross-border mobility, ethnic diversity has become a defining feature of many contemporary societies. This growing prevalence of multiethnic societies has revived a long-standing debate in political science and international relations: are societies characterized by ethnic heterogeneity more prone to violent conflict? While some scholars argue that diversity fosters intergroup cooperation and tolerance, others maintain that ethnic cleavages heighten mistrust, insecurity, and the likelihood of violence. The disparity in scholarly consensus underscores the need for a comprehensive review of existing literature to discern patterns, identify gaps, and synthesize findings. Building on these foundations, the review will first define key terminology. Secondly, it will transition to an exploration of theoretical perspectives on ethnic diversity and conflict.
Definitions
Ethnicity, nationhood, and social identity
Following Stanfield (1996), multiethnic societies are culturally plural social formations rooted in historical processes of migration, conquest, and state formation. In these societies, individuals identify with and maintain connections to various ethnicities, languages, religions, or cultural traditions. At the core of multiethnic societies lies the notion of ethnicity itself, defined as a collective belonging based on common descent, language, history, culture, race, or religion, shaping patterns of inclusion and exclusion (Horowitz, 1985). Social identification with an ethnic group depends on both material and symbolic factors. Shayo (2009) argues that social identification is linked to two specific elements: the group’s status and the perceived similarity to other members. Sambanis and Shayo (2013) formalize this insight through the concept of a Social Identity Equilibrium, describing three main variables in this relationship: individuals’ identity, their social environment; and their actions.
A key distinction in the existing literature concerns ethnicity versus nationhood. Varshney (2013) defined a nation as a group that combines ethnicity with political sovereignty and territorial claims, whereas ethnic groups may lack a state of their own. On the one hand, a nationality is a large ethnic group with cultural rights related to language and sometimes religion, but not necessarily including the territorial factor in the equation. On the other hand, an ethnic group is a smaller collectivity, different from a nationality but not large enough to be called so. However, identification is not as straightforward (Sambanis and Shayo, 2013).
Conflict and Types of Violence
Conflict is frequently conflated with violence, yet not all conflicts are violent. Varshney (2013) distinguished between violent conflict and institutionalized forms of contestation. This review focuses specifically on the former.
Ethnic conflict is defined by Esteban et al. (2012) as violence involving a rebellion against the state on behalf of an ethnic group. In relation to multiethnic societies, Varshney (2013) conceptualizes such violence as collective, involving a group on another, a group on an individual, an individual on a group, the state on a group, or a group on agencies of the state. Importantly, the state’s role varies across forms of violence (Kalyvas, 2006). Often, in an ethnically plural society, where freedom of expression is not curtailed, some conflict on identity-based cleavages is typically to be expected. However, other forms of conflict, such as intergroup and intra-group conflicts, are also popular in societies presenting a multiplicity of ethnicities.
Conventional Approaches
In multiethnic societies, conventional approaches to analyzing these drivers delve into the historical, socio-political, and economic dimensions of intergroup relations. Collier and Hoeffler (2004) explore the drivers of civil war onset across countries, referring to the “Greed vs. Grievance” framework. The greed category implies economic motivations, such as the opportunity cost of fighting and natural resource extraction; while the grievance category implies social and political divisions. Their findings suggest that only “Ethnic Dominance” (i.e. considering one ethnic group being a majority) has adverse effects: societies characterized by ethnic and religious diversity are safer than homogeneous societies as long as they avoid dominance. Fearon and Laitin (2003) conclude that the risk of conflict onset is instead related to a state capacity interpretation, implying that the prevalence of internal war in the 1990s is the result of an accumulation of protracted conflicts since the 1950s rather than a post Cold War change within the international system.
However, Collier and Hoeffler’s “Greed vs. Grievance” framework implies some limitations. We ought to consider two elements: potential reverse causality and potential omitted factors. The first implies the possibility that these drivers of conflict can be consequences of conflict as well. The second implies that there are other factors outside of this framework that can lead to conflict. Furthermore, Collier and Hoeffler (2004) consider conflicts from 1960 to 1999, excluding colonial ones and the ethnic cleavages that influenced state-formation. Additionally, the notion of civil war specifically refers to its “onset,” while not taking into consideration its continuation.
Considering an international relations approach, Tang (2011) critiques the application of the security dilemma to ethnic conflict, arguing that many scholars have misinterpreted it. Tang (2011) offers a more rigorous interpretation of the security dilemma, called the “BHJ Formulation”: anarchy, which leads to uncertainty, fear, and the need for self-help for survival or security; lack of malign intention on both sides; and some accumulation of power. Tang critiques the expansionist drive and the rational choice theory realm. In the first case, he criticizes how attempts to apply the security dilemma erroneously believe that almost all wars are caused by it as a result of an action-reaction spiral (Posen, 1993; Kaufman, 1996; Roe, 1999). In the second case, he criticizes how the security dilemma is treated as a problem of credible commitment and producing misleading understanding. Tang claimed that the existence of a gap stems from the security dilemma application.
Ethnic Heterogeneity
The diversity of ethnic backgrounds within human societies is a defining characteristic, representing a rich tapestry woven from a plethora of cultural, linguistic, and ancestral threads. Within this context, the concepts of fractionalization and polarization emerge as pivotal lenses through which to examine multiethnic societies. Fractionalization measures the distribution of ethnic groups, while polarization evaluates the degree of tension and division between them.
Montalvo and Reynal-Querol (2005) examine whether ethnic heterogeneity of the population does affect civil war, defining it as the way the population is sorted out into various ethnic groups. First, they associate the concept of ethnic fractionalization with the notion of “ethnic diversity”, notably the probability that two randomly selected people belong to two groups, hypothesizing that fractionalization increases conflict because power is splintered across many groups. Second, they define ethnic polarization in relation to how close a distribution is to two equally sized large groups, hypothesizing that polarization increases conflict as power is divided in the hands of two groups with distinct goals. Overall, they find that the latter has consistent effects on conflict incidences, while the former does not.
Esteban, Mayoral and Rey (2012) bring into the conversation the notion of distance in relation to how groups are socially, ideologically, and linguistically different. It results that distance-based polarization affects both conflict incidence and onset, while MRQ ethnic polarization (from Montalvo-Reynal-Querol, 2005) only has effects on conflict incidence. In both MRQ and EMR works, the scope of analysis is expanded to conflict incidence, hence war starting and continuing, instead of just onset.
Emotions
In the context of multiethnic societies, where individuals navigate the intersections of multiple cultural identities, emotions emerge as forces that can either foster cohesion or ignite discord. Herrmann (2012) argues that the most common origins of beliefs are the stimuli coming from the environment. Unconscious factors on the inside motivate the formation of conscious beliefs about the outside, with attachments to the nation and the emotional appraisals these unleash playing key roles. Hutchinson and Bleiker (2014) theorize the process through which individual emotions become collective and political. They search for a middle ground between two opposing poles: macro approaches that identify generalizable propositions about the nature and function of political emotions, and micro approaches that examine how specific collective emotions have political significance in specific situations. Even though these two approaches are often seen as incompatible, the authors argue that combining them offers ideal opportunities to to understand how individual emotions can become collective and political.
The literature specifically examines emotions in relation to multiethnic societies as a result of conflict, not a cause. The main argument relates to the fact that multiethnic societies are more prone to conflict because ethnic differences give rise to a sense of threat and fear, driving antipathy. The constructivist realm does not depict groups as strict rational actors, but instead consider their actions to be influenced by social behavior and circumstances.
Petersen (2017) conceptualizes emotions as “the residue of lived experience,” emphasizing fear, anger, and humiliation as key drivers of political mobilization. Fear generates defensive behavior, anger motivates punishment and retaliation, and humiliation arises from sustained subordination. Crucially, these emotions shape belief formation, information processing, and preferences, creating feedback loops that can facilitate the emergence of ideologies such as nationalism or religious extremism. Complementarily, Moro (2017) shows that leadership plays a crucial role in channeling emotions into ideological narratives, allowing individual emotions to become collective identities that sustain ethnic mobilization and, in some cases, violent conflict.
Conclusion
This literature review demonstrates that multiethnic societies are not inherently more prone to conflict. Key findings include insights from conventional frameworks such as the “Greed vs. Grievance” model, as well as critiques and alternative perspectives such as Tang’s “BHJ formulation” and examinations of ethnic heterogeneity (add source). However, these frameworks remain incomplete without integrating emotions as mediating mechanisms. Promising avenues for research include further exploration of the mechanisms linking ethnic diversity to conflict, considering historical legacies, socio-economic factors, and political institutions. Additionally, there is a need for more nuanced examinations of the role of emotions in shaping intergroup relations within multiethnic societies in order to understand the nature of conflict dynamics and pave the way towards fostering harmony and sustainable peace.
Bibliography
Collier, P. and Hoeffler, A. (2004) ‘Greed and grievance in civil war’, Oxford Economic Papers, 56(4), pp. 563–595. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpf064.
Esteban, J., Mayoral, L. and Ray, D. (2012a) ‘Ethnicity and conflict: an empirical study’, American Economic Review, 102(4), pp. 1310–1342. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.4.1310.
Esteban, J., Mayoral, L. and Ray, D. (2012b) ‘Ethnicity and conflict: theory and facts’, Science, 336(6083), pp. 858–865. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1222240.
Fearon, J.D. and Laitin, D.D. (2003) ‘Ethnicity, insurgency, and civil war’, American Political Science Review, 97(1), pp. 75–90. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055403000534.
Herrmann, R.K. (2017) ‘How attachments to the nation shape beliefs about the world: a theory of motivated reasoning’, International Organization, 71(S1), pp. S61–S84. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818316000382.
Horowitz, D.L. (1983) ‘Racial violence in the United States’, Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 37(3), pp. 8–30. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/3823314.
Hutchison, E. and Bleiker, R. (2014) ‘Theorizing emotions in world politics’, International Theory, 6(3), pp. 491–514. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971914000232.
Kalyvas, S.N. (2006) The Logic of Violence in Civil War. Cambridge University Press.
Michalopoulos, S. and Papaioannou, E. (2016) ‘The long-run effects of the scramble for Africa’, American Economic Review, 106(7), pp. 1802–1848. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20131311.
Montalvo, J.G. and Reynal-Querol, M. (2005) ‘Ethnic polarization, potential conflict, and civil wars’, American Economic Review, 95(3), pp. 796–816. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828054201468.
Moro, F.N. (2017) ‘Organizing emotions and ideology in collective armed mobilization’, PS: Political Science & Politics, 50(4), pp. 944–947. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096517001044.
Petersen, R. (2017) ‘Emotions as the residue of lived experience’, PS: Political Science & Politics, 50(4), pp. 932–935. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096517001019.
Sambanis, N. and Shayo, M. (2013) ‘Social identification and ethnic conflict’, American Political Science Review, 107(2), pp. 294–325. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055413000038.
Shayo, M. (2009) ‘A model of social identity with an application to political economy: nation, class, and redistribution’, American Political Science Review, 103(2), pp. 147–174. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055409090194.
Stanfield, J.H. (1996) ‘Multiethnic societies and regions’, American Behavioral Scientist, 40(1), pp. 8–17. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764296040001004.
Tang, S. (2011) ‘The security dilemma and ethnic conflict: toward a dynamic and integrative theory of ethnic conflict’, Review of International Studies, 37(2), pp. 511–536. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210510000616.
Varshney, A. (2009) ‘Ethnicity and ethnic conflict’, in C. Boix and S.C. Stokes (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics. Oxford University Press, pp. 274–294. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199566020.003.0012.