“United in diversity” is the official motto of the European Union. Europe has always been diverse and has always had minorities; at no mythical point in Europe’s long history have states had completely homogeneous populations. Yet, during the 20th century, Europe’s rich diversity came under attack when millions of people belonging to minority groups were murdered or expelled from national borders.

Today, there are some 60 million people from ethnic and religious minorities living in the European Union, representing roughly 12% of the total EU population. Exact definitions of what constitutes a “minority” are difficult to agree (some countries, such as France, do not officially recognise the existence of minorities), however the scholars Christoph Pan and Beate Sibylle Pfeil have estimated there are 87 distinct “peoples of Europe”. Is this diversity a source of strength?

What do our readers think? We had a comment come in from Craig, who says: “All other things being equal, a lack of common ethno-national identity will lead to tensions and conflict… Human beings are hard-wired to identify along ethno-linguistic lines.” Is he right?

To get a response, we spoke to Professor Klaus Schlichte from the Institute of Political Science at the University of Bremen, an academic who has studied links between ethnicity and conflict. Does he think Craig’s comment is right?

No, I do not think so. I think the first sentence is not quite correct, that ‘a lack of common ethno-national identity will lead to tensions and conflict’. Because we know that it is a historically relatively recent phenomenon that people identify with such large national groups, or feel a sense of belonging to them. So, people’s collective identities have actually been very small-scale for millennia, and for many people they still are today.

It is not as if everyone in the world feels that they belong to large nations, and therefore I do not believe that the absence of a national affiliation automatically creates a tension or a problem. I also don’t believe in the second part of the question, that humans are ‘hard-wired to identify along ethno-linguistic lines’. So, beyond our metabolic physiology, humans are ‘hard-wired’ to do very little, at least when it comes to the aspects of life that we call ‘spiritual’ or ‘mental’.

We know, first and foremost from ethnology, but also from history, how diverse human beings can be – from the way you understand the world and how you think of yourself as an individual. So, I don’t think such hard-wiring exists. I just think that statement is empirically wrong. That there is tension about this question of ethnicity, or about the question of nationhood, or that there are conflicts between nations are all, of course, beyond doubt – but that is a historically recent phenomenon and it is not inevitable at all.

Next up, Gabriele thinks this is a bad question to ask, because, she says: “There is no such thing as mono-ethnicity left in the world except maybe in some extremely remote parts of Africa or the Amazon… so why even ask the question? Mono-ethnicity could only be achieved through massive deportation of people which would be completely illegal“.

What would Professor Klaus Schlichte say?

I like the critical impulse of the question, but I can’t really agree here either. I have done a lot of research in sub-Saharan Africa and there is no mono-ethnicity there either. So, this idea of ​​belonging to large groups, that one identifies oneself as ‘Juruba’ or ‘Buganda’, comes from a Western mindset partly as a result of the colonial administration, which started to introduce these notions, and they developed their own life, so to speak.

Africa is very interesting because we know from research that people identify very differently depending on the context. So, it is also not the case in Africa that people can only be classified under one label, but they describe themselves as very different depending on the situation. And that stands out, but when you reexamine Europe with that in mind, you find that it’s exactly the same with us.

When I’m in France, I’m German, but when I’m in the USA, I’m European. So, it also applies to us – we define our affiliations very differently depending on what the context is at the moment. That is why I think the criticism of this mono-ethnicity is quite correct, but I do not believe that it is such a novel thing.

There are, of course, ultra-nationalists; there are those, not only in Russia or Turkey, but also in Germany and France as well, who only define themselves through their nationality and, of course, have difficulties with how their perceptions mesh with reality… Most of us would say that their beliefs put them in an uncomfortable situation, but also that those beliefs are also politically dangerous, or at least not helpful when it comes to living together..

Finally, Javier thinks asking whether ethnicity causes conflict is a “stupid-ass” question, because anything can cause conflict. He thinks even asking the question itself implies the answer is that it does, and thinks it’s a dangerous question that we shouldn’t ask.

How would Professor Klaus Schlichte respond? Is this is a valid question to ask?

Yes, I think you can ask this question. In public debate, every question must be allowed – even if some find it stupid. Nor do I think that addressing this issue will automatically lead to politically dangerous consequences. To be honest, I would find it more dangerous to suppress the asking of questions, because then resentments against science or against the media would presumably continue to grow. You have to allow the questions to be asked, and you have to respond to them. There is no way around it, even if you think that it may be oversimplifying complex issues.

I also don’t think any factor can really be the ’cause’ of conflict. Scholars of conflict have moved away from this ‘factor’ thinking and rather think about conflicts as processes. And, if you think about conflict as a process, there is no longer one single factor or even seven factors that lead to conflict… And, of course, it is the case that such ethnic or national identification can become relevant during conflicts. But we all know that conflicts can arise without them. You don’t have to go far back in time to find wars and conflicts in which national identity never appeared.

Before the age of nationalism, around the 18th century, there were great wars in Europe. However, they weren’t fought over by nations, but were ultimately wars between different rulers. Rulers pushed people into armies, but that did not take place in a national context. The processes are important and they are very different historically. And there is not one factor, nor even seven, that lead to conflict through some combination.

It would be important to me to point out that we are not fundamentally opposed to conflict, above all because conflict cannot be avoided and because conflict can also be productive. What the discussion is really about is how these conflicts are resolved, and especially whether or not violence is used. The fact that people argue or disagree with one another, these are all situations of conflict that we would not find abhorrent in themselves, but it is always a question of whether these conflicts can be resolved in such a way that there is no greater damage and no greater injuries arising. For this purpose, we have invented institutions in which we mediate conflicts. The classic example of this is the parliament, where there is discussion and then a decision comes, but where the speech and counter-speech are, of course, conflict behaviour. And this question – how can we keep our conflicts mediated in an institutionalised way so that there are rules to the conflicts – in my opinion, this is actually the most important question.

Does ethnic diversity cause conflict? Or are multicultural societies more peaceful? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!

IMAGE CREDITS: Photo by Sharon McCutcheon on Unsplash

10 comments Post a commentcomment

What do YOU think?

  1. avatar
    EU Reform-Proactive

    EU political assumptions & reoccurring issues like:

    * “ethnic diversity- does not- cause conflict” &
    * “united in diversity”

    are necessary fundamentals to make the EU concept a workable one. Omitting such ingredients would make it a rough political ride over a series of dangerous socio-political rapids= EU adventurism! All welcome!

    Answering yes or no would both be untrue. What now? Despite the many reservations one went ahead and is testing this concept on ~470 Mio diverse people & good luck to all!

  2. avatar
    Massimo Cavalletti

    Ethnic diversity is what makes the EU such a powerful organisation. By respecting dozens of different cultures and ethnicities within its borders the EU has managed to make all europeans populations cooperate with one another, making us more tolerant and open minded. If the Union ever unifies one day (something that i’m looking forward to) all these differences will have to be taken in mind, as we have also seen how ethnic groups tend to be more hostile towards other groups in a hostile environment.

    • avatar
      Catherine Benning

      Massimo Cavalletti

      You are living in a dream world. It has created chaos and hostility the kind we have not seen for decades. The clash of extremely diverse cultures and behaviour has turned a once unified peoples into segments of mass hostility. With seriously violent no go areas. And the horrific realisation of this is, it was known before it began, without notifying the nations of their leaders intention to reduce us this way. No matter, they did it anyway. Look at the USA, or, South Africa and many others. They are a shambles of disunity.



  3. avatar

    Ethnic is something as long as human history. Ethnicity itself would not lead to conflict. It is human greed, pride and prejudice that have led to conflict. If we want peace, we need to solve conflict with peace. If we want war, we naturally make war a choice.

  4. avatar

    Ethnic diversity do not cause conflict, but political and economic interests does.

  5. avatar

    Ethnic diversity does not cause conflict. But it offers people and organizations who want to cause conflict an excellent tool.

  6. avatar

    Not necessarily. Any kind of diversity (whether ethnic, cultural, ideological, sexual) is a potential source of conflict. No society, however, can ever be truly homogeneous. Even a society of clones would have inevitably divergent opinions. It is thus imperative for societies to accept cohabitation and tolerance of diversity as the only realistic path towards stability.Nevertheless, tolerance in a society with rule of law does not mean tolerance of everything and anything. Tolerance means tolerance of differences within the bounds of the law. Neither should discrimination be tolerated, nor should culture and custom be accepted as a valid excuse for flouting our shared basic human rights.These two aims, diversity within a shared set of fundamental values, are not incompatible or mutually exclusive. They have only been made to appear so by the extremes of the left and right wings, to consolidate support around them as the ostensible bearers of the “only possible solutions”.We can have diverse, plural societies that are welcoming , inclusive and enabling of freedom of expression and opinion, and still very tough on criminals and bad actors, permanently expelling those who are violent or intent on violating the human rights of other citizens.Governments should indeed recognise that, contrary to what the Americans believe, freedom and security are in fact inseparable. That is why when we act out of fear for our security we do not call it freedom, but rather coercion.Therefore, effectively ensuring our freedoms and diversity is inseparable from ensuring our security. These are not mutually antagonistic aims, they are mutually reinforcing. This is the most vital thing for governments to understand.

Your email will not be published

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Notify me of new comments. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Privacy Policy unless you have disabled them. You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.