Role of Greed and Grievance in Civil War

Role of Greed and Grievance in Civil War The role that greed and grievance play in civil war is its emergence. Their role is a crucial and controversial one in the creation of civil wars. There have been various arguments concerning their role in its emergence, with most for greed as the key factor as the backbone of all conflict including civil war while a few others also consider grieves role. However, it is my opinion that both work hand in hand to create the violence that is civil war. Some could even see how one begets the other, legitimizing the creation of one through the existence of the other. Either way the role both greed and grieve play is one of an instigator. This paper will illustrates how both factors have intertwining roles in the occurrence of civil war; the aim is to show how one factors role influences the other and how one factors role can overlap and blur the other out. This will be done by looking at various explanations for civil war attributed to greed and grieve individually. To discuss these terms and their role in the emergence of civil war it is crucial to understand what they mean and why they are considered active role players in the creation of civil war. Civil War is conflict that arises when militant groups of people attack a government and or civilians persistently (Collier, 2003:54).What exactly is greed and how does it come into play in the occurrence of civil war? Greed according to the English dictionary (dictionary.com) is ‘excessive or rapacious desire especially for wealth or possessions. It is the need to acquire more than you need taking or having more of what you already have. So who is the greedy in civil war? Based on the definition, do the greedy exist in the sense of the word? If they do, then it is crucial to ‘investigate how the greed generates grievance and rebellion, legitimizing further greed (Keen,2000:32) as part of its role in the occurrence of civil war through, the actions of the greedy. Various economic and political factors contribute to the emergence and creation of civil war starting from inequality in terms of resource allocation to participation in the decision making process. There have been various arguments as to what really causes civil war; the prominent answer is economic inequality. The general idea is that people want more access to resources and because they cannot get it, they take it by force. In this sense, then yes the greedy exist and play a major role in the occurrence of civil war. On the other hand, those who do not have access to recourses at all and just want to enjoy the benefits and access to it in the first place (not more access) are not greedy but needy. The actual participants(people doing the actual fighting, and protesting) of civil war are not acting according to greed, for greed as earlier defined is wanting more of what you already have. They on the other hand just want access to resources denied of them, denoting previous lack. It is easy to link economic need and lack of resources to greed even more so as the focus is often on how the elite manipulate the situations to create civil unrest and strife, and how they and a few others benefit from it. The error is in considering these groups of people to be the only actors of civil war. The aim here is not to diminish the role of greed, for it plays just as important a role as grieve does as will be later discussed. The aim is to point out that it is important to consider those acting from greed and those from grieve, and the role of grievance in causing civil war before giving all the credit to greeds role as the dominant player in the creation of civil conflict. It is impossible for one factor (grieve or greed) to stir up conflict without the presence of the other factor. The greedy, often times are some entrepreneurs, rebel lords and their gangs, and a few elites (including some governments) that have something to gain from civil unrest are motivated by their greed, their desire to hoard more resources, their access to it, and the benefits gained from said resources (in form of employment, education, wealth etc). Their interest is vested in the continuation of war and so they manipulate the grieve that exists in the society which more often than not is a result of their greed. These are the few Collier talks about when he says, ‘civil war creates economic opportunities for a minority of actors even as they destroy it for the majority (Collier, 2000:91). This brings me to the point that the greedy are few but their impact and influence on the occurrence of civil war is big. Greed plays a minor yet visible role in civil war. The greedy few use the genuine grieve of the majority to advance their own economic agenda. According to Collier (2000), gr ieve is used to recruit actors in civil war. To understand the role of grieve; it is important to define it and consider what constitutes the sentiment. Grieve refers to pain over injustice or unfortunate circumstances as used in the English dictionary ‘grieve is to feel great sorrow, be mentally distressed or oppressed and wronged (Dictionary.com). This attribute is evident when considering factors that contribute to civil war. Looking at the case of Rwanda (Caplan, 2007) where the Tutsi had previously oppressed the Hutus during colonialism. The Hutu ethnic group embarked on an ethnic cleansing mission of the Tutsi ethnic group when they gained political power. This example illustrates how grieve came into play for Rwandas civil war. Ethnic differences, which resulted in oppression of one group by the other, created tension and grieve that erupted into violence. The role of Grieve and greed as creators of civil war is evident in that they are the foundations for each explanatory factor given for the occurrence of civil war. They are the driving forces behind factors contributing to civil war like ethnic differences, manipulative leaders and so forth. For each factor attributed to greed, there is grieve working with it making it possible for greed to be pursued, and for each grieve backed reason for civil war, greed is presently active. Both factors work together, greed creates grieve and it is also possible for greed to emerge from that grieve (Cramer, 2002) without one, the other really does not exist in civil war. Thus far, the contribution and role of greed and grieve as individual factors in the occurrence of civil war in a country has been show, now focus is directed to illustrate how their individual roles intertwine and work hand in hand. This aspect of the essay is going to examine the roles both grieve and greed play in different gr eed or grieve specific explanations offered for the cause of civil war. The most prominent explanation or contributing factor to civil war in literature and media seems to be economic agenda (Collier 2003) (greed explanation) and inequality (grieve explanation) between groups and people in the society as previously noted. The idea behind this is that people engage in conflict in order to advance their own economic agenda, be it access to previously denied resources or to gain more access to said resources. Collier (2000:93-95) uses a number of proxies to explain how greed motivates conflict. For instance, the availability of primary loot-able resources(also discussed in Collier, 2008) in a country creates an avenue for conflict to develop out of greed because of what is to be gained from looting (be it profit from actual sale of good or use of it). Another proxy used was the number of young men without job prospects whose income earning potentials and educational levels are low (Collier, 2000:95). According to this analogy jobless young men with no prospects living in a country with an abundance or somewhat large number of â€Å"primary resources† is a recipe for conflict in said society because of idleness and availability of loot-able resources and of course greed. These young jobless men without prospects do not have jobs or proper paying jobs because they have been denied access to proper and good or any form of education(also a factor that contributes to grieve). They may even have one but cannot get any or good employment because of inequality in the society. A country with large â€Å"commodity exports† obviously has the resources to make things better for these people or at least the means (sale of said commodity resources) to make things better. The availability of young men and primary export commodities shows how greeds role as a generator of civil war works. The explanation also illustrates how grieve (also an instigator of civil war) plays its role i n this dominantly greed backed explanation. Grieve experienced over the unfavorable conditions and employment status or lack thereof of these â€Å"young men† led them to resort to conflict to acquire some of the economic resources not made accessible to them. Colliers argument is that countries with â€Å"large primary resources† are prone to more civil war. The logic of his argument is that ‘resource-rich countries have a higher probability for conflict than resource-poor ones (Soya, 2000:120). Well certainly, there is some credit to this logic because resource poor countries have little or no resources. The difference between these two types of countries is that resource rich countries have resources. The scarcity of said resources within the country where the benefits of such resources are not visible or made equally available to its citizens are bound to experience rebellion from the majority of the population considering how only a minority benefits. The sense of injustice and feeling of unfairness likely to arise from the knowledge that certain resources are available but to only a few elite is enough to bring about grieve. This is also likely to motivate rebels and cause an uprising, and not only the idea that there is excess to acquire and more to be made from black market so let us loot and make our own profits like Collier and Soya would have us believe. The greed proxies (available young men, primary resource and education level) and explanations show greeds role at work, and shows that of grieve in civil war, illustrating how one cannot work without the other. The grievance factors of civil war and some of the grieve backed explanations for civil war like differences and animosity existing between groups in the society, and how they contribute to the emergence of civil war also illustrate the role of greed. The first of many is ‘raw ethnic or religious hatred (Collier, 2000:95). The logic behind this is that people are afraid of what they do not know or understand. Therefore, a society that is deeply separated based on different ethnicities and religious views will experience civil unrest at some point or the other because the society is invested in the differences that exist. Take for instance the Biafra war of Nigeria. The Biafra civil war broke out because of the three major ethnic groups (Hausa, Yoruba, and Igbo) in the country, out of which the Igbo were not represented in government. They no longer were actively included in politics after years of being at the forefront of Nigerian politics, and running the country with the las t president (removed through a coup dà ©tat) being from the Igbo ethnic group (Ralph, 2004). Their lack of representation meant their access to certain resources were limited. The ethnic groups in power based on solidarity-favored members of their own ethnic group, their regions had better systems of education, and employment opportunity was regularly based on whom you knew and what ethnic group you belonged to. They only cared about and helped â€Å"their own people† while members of other ethnic groups were being slaughtered and maltreated. This goes to show how deeply rooted the society was in ethnic identities and differences. So much so, that the Igbo felt oppressed and resentment grew. The situation escalated because of problems surrounding the presence of crude oil in the region of the country occupied by the Igbo. The profits made from the resources found in their regions or â€Å"their lands† was not distributed equally around the regions of the nation and es pecially not in the regions, they were found in. In addition, the Igbo leaders decided to keep the profits to themselves to improve the standard of living of maltreated ethnic group members (Global Security.org). Out of grieve over the extent of inequality in the nation the Igbo felt the need to secede. The Nigeria Biafra war illustration of ethnic identities and differences creating civil strife supports the idea that ‘societies that are highly fractionalized by both ethnicity and religion (Collier, 2000:95) will have more incidence of civil war. Furthermore, the illustration not only shows grieve playing its role as a creator of civil war by supporting the grieve backed explanation for causes of civil, in this case ethnic differences and inequality, it also shows greeds role in the occurrence of the Nigerian Biafra civil war. The Igbo were oppressed, agreed but they did not threaten to secede up until they lost their position of power in government (an Igbo was in the presidential office) and found an excuse (Using the proceeds to help the oppressed) to keep the benefits and profits from the valuable natural resource found in the southeast region of Nigeria, where the Igbo reside to themselves. The presence of such a valuable resource like crude oil turned the Igbo greedy an d their state of oppression created an avenue for that greed to show. They wanted to keep the benefits from crude oil to themselves and break from the country. With the already existing situation of the ruling ethnic groups (Hausa and Yoruba), isolating resources based on ethnicity, and their greed in taking and keeping the benefits of the resources without any of it trickling down to the Igbo added to the existing rage and grieve over inequalities that abound in the society and oppression. More importantly, it legitimized the greed of the Igbo group; if it was all right for the ruling groups to hoard resources, it was all right for them to take their resource and keep it for themselves. The ruling groups out of greed kept resources for themselves, this resulted in the neglected groups (Igbo) grieve. Because of their greed, the ruling ethnic groups (Hausa and Yoruba) desired to keep the resource within their grasps and power so they can benefit more from it. This greed possibly led them to resist the secession of the Igbo group away from the nation. The Igbo on the other hand out of grieve over limited access to resources grew greedy and wanted to break from the country at the discovery of a valuable resource (crude oil) they wanted to keep to for themselves. This just goes to show how greed causes grieve and how both factors work together to manipulate situations in a way that results into violence. Another grieve backed factor for civil war that shows the role of both grieve and greed as creators of civil war is the idea of economic inequality again. This factor shows the perfect relationship between the roles of greed and grieve. The latter stemming from the unavailability of certain things like land for instance which Collier (2000) uses as proxy for inequality to others because the elite of the society have access to it. The greed of some in accumulation of resources for themselves and in the process causing grieve for those who do not have access to or are unable enjoy certain benefits derived from it. Ultimately greed from one side coupled with grieve from another equals civil war or at least leads to some form of conflict and even more so in a country with weak governance. A weak government implies ‘government economic incompetence (Collier, 2000:96) and an inability to control or prevent an outbreak of conflict in case one arises from said incompetence. Where there is an incompetent government, greed and grieve have an avenue to breed and reinforce each other in the creation of civil war. An incompetent government is to some extent responsible for economic inequality. The government is tasked with the duty of making resources available to its citizens equally or at the very least provides social safety nets when and where needed. If the government fails to provide these resources in an equal manner and create an equal atmosphere, inequalities are bound to be more apparent in the society and grieve from such inequalities as explained earlier may erupt into civil war. In addition, having a government that supports greed and is itself greedy and corrupt is another aspect in which a weak governance can and often adds to the incidence of civil war an d reinforce the role of greed and grieve as its creators. Through its greedy activities like accepting bribes from elites to maybe get more electricity in certain parts of the country or a government that fails to maintain public amenities such as the public school system because funds for such maintenance out of greed are diverted into their personal accounts creates grieve. Those that cannot afford private school for their kids or those that cannot afford to bribe them are ultimately denied the use of and access to basic resources. This type of behavior creates the foundation for inequality starting from basic education, which would later reflect in other areas of life like employment and income amongst other things. Government incompetence enhances the role of grieve and greed and creates a breeding ground for them to fester. A government with no desire to end conflict because of how they benefit from it be it through bribes from those that want to keep the situation the way it i s or based on their own interest legitimizes greed which goes on to create grieve which may or may not turn into greed and the cycle continues. Ultimately the role of greed and grieve in civil war is the creation of civil war. Factors that explain why civil wars occur are based on greed or grieve and are generally categorized as grieve based or greed based showing how important their role is in civil war. Without the presence of these factors (Greed and Grieve) civil war does not exist, it does not escalate and it does not continue. They are the fuel to the fire that is civil war. In conclusion, greed and grieve as creators of civil war reinforce each. One does not exist without the other and so to ignore the role of one in causing civil war is to leave the glass half-empty. To understand how various explanations of civil war factors work, it is important to recognize that both grieve and greed work together to effectively create the situation. For without greed, grieve cannot effectively play its role and create civil war, and neither can greed without grieve. Bibliography Amartya Sen. (2008). Violence, Identity, and Poverty. Journal of Peace Research. 45 (1), p Caplan, Gerald. (2007). Rwanda:Walking the Road to Genocide. In: Allan Thompson The media and the Rwanda genocide. London: Pluto Press. p20-40. Collier, Paul. (2008). The Conflict Trap. In: Collier The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can Be Done About It. New York: Oxford University Press. p17-37. Collier, Hoeffler, and Sambanis. (2005). The Collier-Hoeffler Model of Civil War Onset and the Case Study Project Research Design. In: Paul Collier, and Nicholas Smbanis Understandying Civil War. 2nd ed. Washington DC: World Bank. p1-35. Collier, Paul. (2003). What makes a country Prone to Civil War. In: Paul Collier,World Bank Breaking the conflict trap: civil war and development policy. Washington, DC: Oxford university press and World Bank. p53-91. Collier, Paul. (2000). Doing Well out of War: An economic Perspective. In: Mats Berdal and David M. Malone Greed and Grievance: Economic Agendas in Civil Wars. London: Lynne Rienner. p91-112. Cramer, C. (2002). Homo Economicus Goes to War: Methodological Individualism, Rational Choice and the Political Economy of War. World Development. 30 (11), p1845-1860. David Keen. (2008). Greed: Economic Agendas. In: Keen Complex emergencies. Cambridge: Polity Press. p25-50. David Keen. (2008). Combatants and their Grievances. In: Keen Complex emergencies. Cambridge: Polity Press. p50-62. David Keen. (2000). Incentives and Disincentives for Violence. In: Mats Berdal and David M. Malone Greed and Grievance: Economic Agendas in Civil Wars. London: Lynne Rienner. p19-42. Global Security. (nd). Biafra War. Available: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/biafra.htm. Last accessed 5 January 2010. Indra de Soya. (2000). The Resource Curse: Are Civil Wars Driven by Rapacity or Paucity. In: Mats Berdal and David M. Malone Greed and Grievance: Economic Agendas in Civil Wars. London: Lynne Rienner. p113-136. Jacoby, Tim. (2008). Grievance. In: Jacoby Understanding Conflict and Violence: Theoretical and Interdisciplinary Approaches. London: Routledge. 103-123. Raph Uwechue. (2004). The Revolution of January 1966- Mismanaged and Misunderstood. In: Reflections on the Nigerian Civil War: Facing the Future. Victoria: Trafford. p23-33.

Bourdieu and social class within the educational system

The subject of social class within the educational system seems to be the elephant in the room. Issues of race, gender, discrimination and making safe places are addressed constantly within the pedagogy yet we ignore the realities of social stratification, especially when it comes to the classroom and the curriculum we are expected to teach. According to Bourdieu, the education systems of western societies function in such a way as to legitimatize class inequalities (Bourdieu, 1977).Success in the education system is enhanced by the possession of cultural capital (which is etermined the dominate culture) and Lower-class pupils do not, in general, possess these traits. Bourdieu then supposes that the failure of the majority of these pupils is inevitable. This, he postulates, explains class inequalities in educational attainment. , For Bourdieu, educational credentials help to reproduce and legitimatize social inequalities, as higher-class individuals are seen to deserve their place in the social structure.Place in the social structure is not pre determined and education often is a factor in the upward mobility in SES. Muller and his team describe cross-national imilarities and differences in the two steps in which education intervenes in the process of intergenerational class mobility: the link between class of origin and educational credentials attained, and between these credentials and class position allocated to (Muller et al. , 1989).They conclude that the patterns of association between class origin and education, and between education and class destinations are similar across the nine nations. However, the strength of these associations demonstrates cross-national variations. This paper is one of the first comparative tudies of social mobility, which used the data sets collected in the early 1970s from nine European countries investigated in Comparative Analysis of Social Mobility in Industrial Nations (CASMIN) project.Nevertheless, this article supports FJG hypothesis which argues that class origin inequalities in relative mobility chances will be roughly constant across nations . Social mobility, class and education is further explored through a longitudinal study conducted by Johnson, Brett & Deary (2009). They proposed that social class of origin acts as ballast, restraining otherwise eritocratic social class movement, and that education is the primary means through which social class movement is both restrained and facilitated, thereby giving weight to Bourdieu's theory of Cultural Reproduction.They conclude that parental social class attainment contributes to educational attainment, which in turn contributes to participant social class attainment, suggesting that educational attainment contributed to social class stability. Education is important to social mobility and, thus, appears to play a pivotal role in the association between ability and social class attainment. When looking at the relationship between ability and socia l class attainment, it is useful to also look at the different types of culture capital.Andersen and Hansen (201 1), for example, distinguish between two interpretations of cultural capital: â€Å"narrow' and â€Å"broad. † The narrow interpretation refers a child's exposure to ‘high cultural' products or activities (Bourdieu's concept ot objectified capital): tor example, having objects of art at home, or a tastefully furnished home, visits to the theatre or art museums, or playing the piano (p. 608). These signs of high culture may not mprove a student's work in any objective way, but they are rewarded through subjectivity involved in assessing academic performance.The same is true of the broad interpretation of cultural capital, which is â€Å"general linguistic skills, habits, and knowledge, including cognitive skills,† which are â€Å"used in a strategic manner by individuals, who thereby may receive advantages or profits† (p. 608). This kind of cult ural capital is passed from parents to children through school work (p. 608). Bourdieu's description of educational capital encompasses this outlook. One ofAndersen and Hansen (2011) implications in schools which supports Bourdieu's theory of cultural capital is that: â€Å"Students from classes with highest cultural capital will perform the best academically, on each horizontal level† (of social class) (p 611) This is often seen played out when looking at the Socio Economic Status schools. Bankston and Caldas (2009) examine how legal desegregation of American schools starting in the 1950s and 1960s was countered by de facto segregation due to â€Å"social class, residential patterns† and other forms of social marginalization.Since the verage socioeconomic status of a student population affects a school's educational achievement levels, upper and middle class families eluded and hindered desegregation by moving to different school districts, suburban communities, by ch oosing private schools etc. Bourdieu's concept of education through institutional capital sees education as a place where one acquires the skills to enter different positions within the labour force -and those positions in turn determines one's socioeconomic status..Bankstone and Caldas state that policy assumes that differences in educational achievements are caused by the concrete schools and in articular by its teaching staff. Schools are believed to determine socioeconomic conditions instead of the other way around. As educators, not only must we be aware that class differences are present in the classroom, but, perhaps, look for ways to minimize the gulf between classes and increase capital culture in those who do not possess as much as others. Technology may be one way to do this. There seems to be a push towards using new technologies in the classroom.Considering class inequality and cultural capital, an educational model that aims to bridge the divide by bringing students to gether to the ame level of technological proficiency would be desirable. Kapttzke (2000), following a case-study in an Australian school, concludes that integrating student- based projects using information technology is a way to bring students with tech sa'. n. y back from the brink of alienation. Kapitzke states that â€Å"teachers who ignore the texts, identities, skills and interests of the young do so at their own peril. † (p. 0) Faced with a growing techno-cultural capital gap, educators need to â€Å"view students as fellow explorers and co-workers† (p. 60) and possibly working on innovative rojects like revamping a school's computer network. The student who led the project ended up teaching not only students but teachers too. Not only would cultural capital be affected, it is most likely that a student's social capital Conversely, a study done in Californian schools shows a different side of the story. Cuban (2001) and fellow researchers explored the paradox of high access to technology with low real use.This was explained by traditional constraints on teachers such as time and structure, as well as annoying deficiencies in the technologies, such as computer crashes, that limited teachers' initiatives. The teachers stressed â€Å"that using computers in their classes made demands upon them that made their Job harder. † (p. 828) In the end, â€Å"inadequate time in the daily schedule to plan work together goes to the heart of teacher use of new technologies and their preferred teaching practices† (p. 28) and resulted in the teachers preferring traditional teacher-based discussions, lectures and activities supplemented with some time for technologies. Cuban and his colleagues believe that technology will never revolutionize the classroom; instead, â€Å"historical legacies of high schools in their chool structures and technological flaws will trump the slow revolution in teaching In conclusion, the Kapitzke article highlights an innovative practices† (p. 830). way of maximizing tech-sawy students' cultural capital and thereby pushing for equality and integration.However, as the Cuban article points out, technology will likely be relegated to special projects when deemed appropriate by a teacher relying on various methodologies. While dynamic technologically innovative teaching methods have their place they are not the magic answer to solving cultural capital and class inequalities.

The Natural State Of Man - 2222 Words

Christine de Pizan, Niccolo Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes all formulated their foundation of understanding of human nature based on their personal experiences. Each applied their theories of human nature to political arrangements and how it ought to be reflected. Hobbes argues that it would be rational to contract with one another to create a government run by a sovereign holding absolute power, because only absolute power is sufficient to resolve disputes. Machiavelli argues that man has both moral and immoral qualities, but will lean towards his own self-interests when all things are equal—This leads to man being unpredictable. Pizan argues that as humans we are vulnerable within a society, and that there needs to be justice and the†¦show more content†¦Examining Pizan’s works proves to be interesting since she is the first western female to write about these particular issues. Her view of vulnerability of all was hardened further upon marrying her then husb and, Étienne du Castel as he encouraged her to continue on her educational path as opposed to stifling her progress. Lastly her choice to want to remain an independent woman after her husband death led to her being a pioneer for feminism. According to Kate Langdon Forhan, she believes that Pizan’s awareness of human nature, view of prudence as self-interest, and functional view of the state are the main issues that brought Christine de Pizan to understand human nature as she does. By doing the things that men in her era were believed to be doing, she was able to come to conclusion of the understanding of vulnerability of all. She was aware of the vulnerability of every person within the political order and therefore takes that up as a theme she addresses in her works. Her response is that we need more justice within the society and the rule of law. Niccolo Machiavelli was also a revolutionary of his era who had a different view from other humanists in his time, because his view on the nature of man contradicts what most humanists believed. Humanists of that time