Chenoweth's Synthesis Essay
In this chapter, Chenoweth suggests that states, nationalist movements and ethnic groups that engage in conflict with each other are faced with two options—violence and non-violence. She says that although major wars between states have become less common, today’s politics are filled with internal conflict, ethnic cleansing and violence against civilians. She asks the question as to why violent strategies are used instead of non-violent ones like protests and negotiation, even though they come at such a great cost.
She presents us with several ways in which to analyze the nature of conflict and explanations that can account for the prevalence of violence in specific moments in time. She cites all the authors and theories we have studied so far and lists reasons why they might not be so effective. She agrees with the theories of Collier and Heoffler as well as Fearon and Laitin but she says that they can only explain predictors for why violence occurs, not when it will begin. The collaborators in this book present us with several new concepts such as the idea of collective fear prompting violence. We can see this in almost all the cases we have read about, she explains that the state, rather …show more content…
She argues that violence is a function of uncertainty and that it is due to a threat from outside the state or within it. The arguments presented in this text focus on how changes in the balance of power between states and non state actors generate uncertainty and threats which in turn create an environment that is conducive to violence. Here, she looks back at Posen’s theories and says this is similar to his security dilemma, the major difference is that Posen thinks that the dilemma exists even in times of peace. However, in the balance of power case, I find it interesting that the demand for ethnic violence is not pre-existing, but it emerges internally from
She presents us with several ways in which to analyze the nature of conflict and explanations that can account for the prevalence of violence in specific moments in time. She cites all the authors and theories we have studied so far and lists reasons why they might not be so effective. She agrees with the theories of Collier and Heoffler as well as Fearon and Laitin but she says that they can only explain predictors for why violence occurs, not when it will begin. The collaborators in this book present us with several new concepts such as the idea of collective fear prompting violence. We can see this in almost all the cases we have read about, she explains that the state, rather …show more content…
She argues that violence is a function of uncertainty and that it is due to a threat from outside the state or within it. The arguments presented in this text focus on how changes in the balance of power between states and non state actors generate uncertainty and threats which in turn create an environment that is conducive to violence. Here, she looks back at Posen’s theories and says this is similar to his security dilemma, the major difference is that Posen thinks that the dilemma exists even in times of peace. However, in the balance of power case, I find it interesting that the demand for ethnic violence is not pre-existing, but it emerges internally from