THEMATIC RESEARCH LINES

Currently, main research lines of the School reflect the research fields tentatively identified in the ICCS project proposal and the further development specification. Based on those promising empirical research directions we arrived at four general research lines.

1. Research line “Sub-national governance constellations” *

One of the main puzzles in the wider Caucasus region is the emergence of different social and political orders since the breakup of the Soviet Union and the question how the relative stability and instability of those orders can be explained. The first part is analytical-descriptive: what kind of constellations of actors do we observe,, what resources do these actors aim to acquire and what resources do they use to get what they want and which formal and informal institutions exist that inform and constrain their strategic actions. The second part asks for causation and is analytical-empirical: what makes the observed order stable or instable; how can this be modelled and how can the models be confirmed or falsified using quantitative and qualitative research.

This research line covers interdisciplinary problems relating to the sustainability of post-soviet governance architectures, of power and its perception, representation and legitimacy, as well as dynamics of social order and institutional change. It links to the discussion of the role formal and informal institutions play – in competition with each other, in a functionally redundant way, or integrated into hybrid forms of governance – in order to explain observed stability or instability. It also links to recent questions of a special post-soviet or Russian approach to keeping political order with limited resources and under difficult framework conditions – investing in a selective power vertical while outsourcing other aspects of governance to a variety of local institutions and actors. *

2. Research line “violence and the institutional (dis-)embedding of conflicts”

Conflicts can be dealt with in a more or less violent way and conflict processing can be more or less embedded into institutional rules. From there we extracted four ideal types of conflict processing: “destruction” as the most violent and least embedded process, “warring” and “feuding” as embedded though violent processes, “avoidance” low on both violence and embedding and, finally, “procedures” as low on violence and high on institutional embedding.

Empirically observable conflicts correspond, however, very rarely to only one of the above mentioned ideal types, especially when we analyse them over time or look at different manifestations of the same conflict in different places or for different actors. Contrary to simplistic models, resort to violence is more than a change of means or an “escalation”, but embedded in a broader historical and cultural setting that has to be explored (Das 2007, Heitmeyer/Hagan 2003, Siegelberg 1994).

For many, violence (and the arbitrary use of physical force in particular) has strong negative implications for the effectiveness and legitimacy of institutions that provide social order via distributional rules. In a conflict, violence can swiftly change “everything”. At the same time, violence can be socially productive in shaping bonds and relationships, in particular if it is widely accepted or even credited with prestige (Das 2007, Tilly/Tarrow 2007, Tilly 1985). This is shown by a range of examples in the post-soviet context, most explicitly by the pacification of Chechnya by an oppressive local regime using arbitrary and unaccountable violence.

Hence, forms and functions of violence in local conflict processing as well as the implications this has for the effectiveness, legitimacy and emergence or survival of vital societal institutions is a critical research issue for the region.

3. Research line “development and social order”

When sociological theory deals with conflicts it often does so by treating them as a universal aspect of social organisation that facilitates endogenous, i.e. not externally induced, social change. This causal assumption can be turned upside down for externally induced change. Changes in the environmental, political or economic framework conditions put pressure on established social order to adapt. This typically causes conflicts about the distribution of power, the organisation of access to resources and control over meaning within society.

This dynamic interplay between social change and conflict processing is especially relevant in cases of politically steered development processes. Development programmes driven by international development organisations, by national states or by the non-governmental development sector intervene in societies in order to achieve planned change and to have an intentional impact on (certain elements of) local social order. Development programmes introduce new resources, condition access to the resources on new distributive rules and organisational principles.

However, development interventions are also often and sometimes explicitly used to stabilise society after violent conflict or to prevent violent conflict in form of political resistance or insurgencies. The impact expectation of such national or international development interventions is that development may address key problems or “grievances” that are thought to be conducive to destructive and destabilising social action. Development is supposed to make societies more resilient against destabilisation.

When development interventions are part of political stabilisation efforts they often have to deal with the issue of institution building or institutional adaptation (most explicitly in so-called state building interventions) (Ginty 2012). Institutions always have distributional consequences. Hence, changes in the institutional setup of society will almost always affect the distribution of power and resources in society. It is in this sense that development interventions are always a political process that needs to position itself vis-à-vis the existing power constellations and institutional setup of the society targeted with development measures.

4. Research line “politics of culture and identity”

In terms of languages, ethnic and religious identities and micro-social organisation, the Caucasus is one of the most diverse regions on earth. In political terms “we-group” formation with reference to cultural sameness and difference has been a constant feature of mobilisation in distributive as well as normative conflicts. Hence, under specific political context conditions, culture is a symbolic resource for endostrategic mobilisation and integration of conflict groups in competition or confrontation with culturally “othered” groups. This strategic or functional aspect of cultural identities as markers of principle or even essentialist borders has been a common trait in post-soviet conflicts; what constitutes relevant cultural differences has, however, been changing over the past 25 years. Currently, the recurring political tension between Russian, Western and Islamist or Christian-Orthodox presence and influence in the region has led to a revival of ideological mainstreaming of discourses on cultural norms and values.

At the same time, culture has been conceptualised in its enabling capacity for socialised humans to learn and command different social languages (polytaxis), to communicate across different normative orders and integrate a variety of symbolic systems (syncretism) into everyday life. In this sense culture is not a symbolic bastion against change but rather a vital prerequisite for humans to play for adaptive social change.

Research into the implications of cultural diversity in times of political manipulation and ideological competition provides insights and analysis that are highly relevant for prospects of peaceful conflict transformation and socio-political stability in the region. **

* This research line integrates well with current research on conflict, governance, statehood and social order that move beyond traditional definitions of the state as the singular point of reference for political organization of society (e.g. Scott 2009.; Risse/Lehmkuhl 2007; Working Group Conflict 2012; Mielke et al. 2011).

** This research direction relates to social anthropological and sociological research into conflict, culture and identity formation in local social contexts that are affected by wider national, regional or even global political trends, technological innovations and at time outright interventions (e.g. Voell/Khutsishvili 2013; Daxner et al. 2010; Edelman/Haugerud 2005; Schlee 2002; Elwert 1996; Castells 1997).

Literature

Bonacker, Thorsten 2008: Sozialwissenschaftliche Konflikttheorien - Einleitung und Überblick, in: Bonacker, Thorsten (Ed.): Friedens- und Konfliktforschung, Wiesbaden, VS, Verl. für Sozialwiss., 9-29.

Castells, Manuel 1997: The Power of Identity, Oxford, Malden, Blackwell.

Coser, Lewis A. 1956: The Functions of Social Conflict, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Dahrendorf, Ralf 1968: Essays in the theory of society, Stanford, Calif., Stanford University Press.

Daxner, Michael/Free, Jan/Bonacker, Thorsten/Zürcher, Christoph 2010: Einleitung, in: Bonacker, Thorsten/Daxner, Michael/Free, Jan/Zürcher, Christoph (Eds.): Interventionskultur. Zur Soziologie von Interventionsgesellschaften, Wiesbaden, 7-17.

Dubiel, Helmut 1992: Konsens oder Konflikt? Die normative Integration des demokratischen Staates, in, Obladen, Leske und Budrich, 130-137.

Eckert, Julia M. 2004: Einleitung: Gewalt, Meidung und Verfahren: zur Konflikttheorie Georg Elwerts, in: Eckert, Julia M. (Ed.): Anthropologie der Konflikte. Georg Elwerts konflikttheoretische Thesen in der Diskussion, Bielefeld, Transcript, 7-25.

Edelman, Marc/Haugerud, Angelique 2005: The anthropology of development and globalization: from classical political economy to contemporary neoliberalism, Malden, Mass. [u.a.], Blackwell Publ.

Elias, Norbert 1987: The Retreat of the Sociologists into the Present, in: Theory, Culture & Society 4, 223-247.

Elwert, Georg 1996: Kulturbegriffe und Entwicklungspolitik – über „soziokulturelle Bedingungen der Entwicklung“, in: Elwert/Jensen/Kortt (Eds.): Kulturen und Innovationen. Festschrift für Wolfgang Rudolph, vol. 30, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 51-88.

Elwert, Georg 2002a: Conflict: Anthropological Aspects, in: Smelser, Neil J./Baltes, Paul B. (Eds.): International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Science, Elsevier, 2542-2547.

Elwert, Georg 2002b: Sozialanthropologisch erklärte Gewalt, in: Heitmeyer, Wilhelm (Ed.): Internationales Handbuch der Gewaltforschung.

Elwert, Georg 2004: Anthropologische Perspektiven auf Konflikt, in: Eckert, Julia M. (Ed.): Anthropologie der Konflikte. Georg Elwerts konflikttheoretische Thesen in der Diskussion, Bielefeld, Transcript, 26-38.

Esser, Hartmut 2003: Institutionen als 'Modelle' : Zum Problem der 'Geltung' von institutionellen Regeln und zur These von der Eigenständigkeit einer 'Logic of Appropiateness', in: Schmid, Michael/Maurer, Andrea (Eds.): Ökonomischer und soziologischer Institutionalismus, Marburg, 47-72.

Ginty, Roger Mac 2012: Routine peace: Technocracy and Peacebuilding, in: Cooperation and Conflict 47, 287-308.

Gunya, Aleksey/Koehler, Jan/Zürcher, Christoph 2008: Empiricheskie issledovaniya lokal'nykh konfliktov : Vvedenie v metodologyu i metody polevykh issledovanii, Moskva, Media-Press.

Gunya, Alexey/Daxner, Michael/Koehler, Jan/Tenov, Timur/Chechenov, Aslan/Shogenov, Murat 2013: Конфликты и развитие: введение в методологию и методы исследования [Conflicts and development: introduction to the methodology and research methods], Nalchik, KBSU Press.

Knight, Jack 1992: Institutions and Social Conflict, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Koehler, Jan 2004: Institutionalisierte Konfliktaustragung, Kohäsion und Wandel. Theoriegeleiteter Praxischeck auf Gemeindeebene, in: Eckert, Julia (Ed.): Anthropologie der Konflikte; Georg Elwerts konflikttheoretische These in der Diskussion, Bielefeld, Transcript, 273-297.

Koehler, Jan 2013: Institution-centred conflict research. The methodology and its application in Afghanistan (Freie Universität Berlin: Doctoral Thesis), Berlin.

Mayntz, Renate/Scharpf, Fritz W. 1995: Der Ansatz des akteurszentrierten Institutionalismus, in: Mayntz, Renate/Scharpf, Fritz W (Eds.): Gesellschaftliche Selbstregelung und politische Steuerung, Frankfurt a.M./New York, Campus, 39-72.

Mielke, Katja/Schetter, Conrad/Wilde, Andreas 2011: Dimensions of Social Order: Empirical Fact, Analytical Framework and Boundary Concept, Bonn.

North, Douglas 1990: Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge, CUP.

Risse, Thomas/Lehmkuhl, Ursula (Eds.) 2007: Regieren ohne Staat? Governance in Räumen begrenzter Staatlichkeit, Baden-Baden, Nomos-Verl.-Ges.

Scharpf, Fritz W. 2000: Institutions in Comparative Policy Research (Working Papers 00/3), Cologne, Max-Planck-Institut for the Studie of Societies.

Schlee, Günther (Ed.) 2002: Imagined differences. Hatred and construction of identity, Münster, Hamburg, London, Lit.

Scott, James C. 2009: The art of not being governed: an anarchist history of upland Southeast Asia, New Haven [u.a.], Yale Univ. Press.

Siegelberg, Jens 1994: Kapitalismus und Krieg. Eine Theorie des Krieges in der Weltgesellschaft, Münster - Hamburg, Lit.

Simmel, Georg 1992 [1908]: Soziologie : Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung, Frankfurt a.M., Suhrkamp.

Tilly, Charles/Tarrow, Sidney 2007: Contentious politics, Boulder, Paradigm Publ.

Umland, Andreas 2009: Schlussbetrachtungen, in: Umland, Andreas/Bürgel, Matthias (Eds.): Geistes- und sozialwissenschaftliche Hochschullehre in Osteuropa IV: Chancen und Hindernisse internationaler Bildungskooperation, Frankfurt/M., Peter Lang, 292-300.

Voell, Stéphane/Khutsishvili, Ketevan (Eds.) 2013: Caucasus Conflict Culture : Anthropological Perspectives on Times of Crisis, Marburg/Lahn, Curupira.

Working Group Conflict 2012: Conflict Research on Crossroads Asia : A Conceptual Approach (Concept Paper, April 2012), Bonn, Crossroads Asia, at: http://crossroads-asia.de/fileadmin/user_upload/publications/Concept_papers/Concept_Paper_Conflict.pdf.

Zürcher, Christoph 2004: Einbettung und Entbettung: Empirische institutionenzentrierte Konfliktanalyse, in: Eckert, Julia (Ed.): Anthropologie der Konflikte; Georg Elwerts konflikttheoretische These in der Diskussion, Bielefeld, Transcript, 102-120.