Tatu Vanhanen
Stamford, Connecticut: JAI Press Inc., 1999
$82.50
xix + 370 pp.
Reviewed by Louis Andrews
Why are ethnic conflicts so common? Why do conflicts of interest in multiethnic societies almost invariably become ethnic conflicts? Why are such conflicts apparently universal and without regard to socioeconomic development level? Can a theory be developed that can answer these questions? Can this theory provide methods that can reduce or eliminate ethnic conflict?
These questions concerning ethnic conflicts are just some of those that Tatu Vanhanen, emeritus professor of political science at the University of Helsinki, takes up in a detailed study reported in his book, Ethnic Conflicts Explained by Ethnic Nepotism.
Vanhanen analyzes ethnic conflict in 148 nations and looks for “regularities,” or patterns, among them using the same set of indices he has adopted in previous studies. These indices are discussed below. When it comes to ethnic conflict, Vanhanen notes that research is extensive, but theory rare. For years scholars have churned out articles and books on race, ethnicity, and ethnic conflict. Yet unlike other areas of sociological research, theory concerning ethnic conflict has been almost entirely neglected. When theory has been proposed in this egalitarian era, it has almost invariably been cultural, and often applied to blame ethnic conflict on social inequities and discrimination, primarily by the majority group. Often such theories don’t pass muster, since the goal of the proponents is to transfer power and wealth from the haves to the have-nots to satisfy personal and group ideological ends.
Vanhanen explains how unlikely it is that cultural theories will prove to be valid, since ethnic conflicts are universal regardless of culture. Given this universal aspect, he derives his political theories from biology. First, he argues that there is a Darwinian struggle for resources that is at the heart of political conflicts everywhere. Since we live in a world of scarcity and at the same time desire offspring, we are biologically programmed to advance our own survival (actually the survival of our distinctive genes) over the genes of others. As a result, conflict exists in all human societies and is both necessary and universal. Second, he adopts Pierre L. van den Berghe’s concept of “ethnic nepotism,” or the desire to favor kin over nonkin, as the basis for ethnic and racial favoritism. Since members of a specific ethnicity are more closely related than nonmembers, the theory of inclusive fitness, or kin selection,1 dictates that kin will be favored over nonkin, which supports the idea of ethnic nepotism. Vanhanen does not limit the term “ethnic group” only to what we traditionally consider ethnic or racial groups, but includes all inbreeding groups, even religious and linguistic ones that can become “ethnic” in nature over time.
In addition to Darwin and van den Berghe, Vanhanen also draws on the work of several other scholars, including Jan and Brigitta S. Tullberg, from whom he adopts the idea that reciprocity may be key in reducing ethnic conflict. From J. Philippe Rushton he draws upon genetic similarity theory. Vanhanen writes:
It seems to me that these two theories complement each other. Ethnic nepotism explains why people tend to favor kin over nonkin; Rushton’s genetic similarity theory tries to explain how they recognize genetic similarity in non-relatives.
He notes:
Our behavioral predisposition to ethnic nepotism evolved in the struggle for existence because it was rational and useful. It is reasonable to assume that ethnic nepotism is equally shared by all human populations. Consequently, all human populations and ethnic groups have an approximately equal tendency to resort to ethnic nepotism in interest conflicts. It explains the otherwise strange fact that ethnic interest conflicts appear in so many countries where people belong to clearly different ethnic groups, and that ethnic interest conflicts have emerged within all cultural regions and at all levels of socioeconomic development. It would be difficult to imagine any cultural explanation of ethnic conflicts that could explain the appearance of these conflicts across all cultural boundaries.
Vanhanen develops three hypotheses that he tests in his worldwide study of 148 countries.
As the black legal scholar Lani Guinier once noted, “Talking about race for people of color. . . is the natural thing to do. . . for whites, talking about race is uncomfortable.” Blacks understand that they share many interests in common with other blacks as well as some with whites. Whites used to understand that they also shared many interests in common with other whites as well as some with blacks. They, like blacks, used to understand that sometimes group interests differ. But after fifty years of egalitarian propaganda in which everyone is merely an individual and race doesn’t matter, whites have become true believers, whereas blacks know better. Therein lies the problem.
As Vanhanen notes, ethnic conflict resolution in a free multiethnic society requires reciprocity between groups, but in our case whites recognize only one group: blacks. Building a viable community requires that whites think of themselves as a group, just as blacks do. Only then can reciprocity work, and conflicts be resolved.
Cries of racism by blacks are self-serving weapons, just as are cries by whites that we should ignore race. Such noise from both sides is natural, and successful resolution requires that they be ignored.
1. Though most people, including Vanhanen, treat inclusive fitness and kin selection as identical, the originator of the theory of inclusive fitness argued that it was a more general term than that of kin selection. See Hamilton (2001).
Brewer, Marilynn B. “The Social Self: On Being the Same and Different at the Same Time,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 17, no. 5 (October 1991), pp. 475-482.
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Irenäus. Human Ethology. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1984.
Hamilton, W. D. (ed.). Narrow Roads of Gene Land. Volume 2. Evolution of Sex. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 108-115.
MacDonald, K. B. Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998.
Salter, Frank. "Estimating Ethnic Genetic Interests: Is It Adaptive to Resist Replacement Migration," Population and Environment, 24, no. 2, November 2002, pp. 111-140.
Tullberg, Jan, and Tullberg, Brigitta S. “Separation or Unity: A Model for Solving Ethnic Conflicts,” Politics and the Life Sciences, September 1997, pp. 237-248.