Although the entire study revolves around „coexistence‟, it would be appropriate to introduce some ideas and debates on this concept. Review of literature reveals that by and large, coexistence is a terminology whose meaning is taken for granted or assumed to be self explanatory and therefore unnecessary to concretise. However, Weiner gives an elementary definition: “To exist together, in conjunction with, at the same time, in the same place with another” (1998: 14).33 As a concept, coexistence has evidently not found wide application in ethnological studies. Weiner partly explains this: That both as a concept and as a policy, coexistence was not born in the West. But this applies only if we limit ourselves to peace studies, for coexistence has been used widely in the natural sciences, particularly in the fields of mathematics, physics, ecology and agro-biology. In his book, Competition and Coexistence of Species, Pontin (1982) provides an elaborate analysis of „coexistence‟ in relation to plants and animal species in their competition for survival within their niches. I find some of his ideas (e.g. “conditions for coexistence”) quite relevant in making sense of how human groups compete for resources. I will revisit this in chapter six and seven.
It has been observed that coexistence per se, that is, when unqualified, is ambiguous. Louis Kriesberg (1998) notes that for clarity, an adjective is usually added to the concept. Such adjectives include „conflictual‟, „competitive‟, „peaceful‟, „harmonious‟, „stable‟ etc. Besides, the concept is used in many disciplines and therefore, it is equally important to clarify the context in which it is used and the subject of study. With regard to ethnic groups, some scholars use „coexistence‟ in a restricted sense; to refer mainly to harmonious relationships.
Kriesberg, for instance, argues that coexistence means a “wide range of relationships,
33 Definition lifted from the Oxford English Dictionary.
27
excluding ones characterised by overt struggle or relations between persons or groups in which none of the parties is trying to “destroy the other” (1998: 182).34 To him, interethnic coexistence excludes violent conflict, but may be “restored” after conflict. This is also the approach adopted my Weiner and many of the contributors to the Handbook of Interethnic Coexistence (1998). The bone of contention therefore is whether antagonism and conflict should be considered as part of the „coexistence‟ process. The “overt struggle” Kriesberg is talking about usually does not assume permanence among groups. In any case, these struggles can also take place alongside sustained systems of mutual exchange. I adopt a more inclusive approach in which conflictual situations are considered as part of interethnic coexistence.
Besides, I do not take coexistence as a relationship that is initiated after conflict but rather as an ongoing everyday relationship in which groups compete for resources and supremacy while at the same time maintain cross-ethnic transactions. Actually, many studies show that groups of different ethnicities, religions or otherwise, but share physical space, there is always a thin line between harmony and conflict. In her study in Lebanon, Peleikis (2001) shows that potentially hostile Shiite Muslims and Greek Catholics often live together in harmony. More examples on the incompatibilities in coexistence relationships are provided below.
It is important to underscore here that coexistence was a very popular concept during the cold war. The concept was used by political scientists/economists to illustrate the juxtaposition of communism with capitalism or socialism with a free market economy (see Aubey, 1961).
Aubey, who wrote his book within the auspices of the so-called “economics of competitive coexistence”, notes that the term “coexistence” was apparently coined by the former Soviet leader, Lenin, as he strategised to handle the Western threat against the Soviet Union. Lenin reasoned that the West and the Communist Bloc could “coexist” peacefully without recourse to war or open conflict. At worst, he suggested, the two blocs could engage in “competitive coexistence” where each pursued its interests without necessarily endangering the survival of the other. Aubey shows that there could be cases of economic, cultural and intellectual supremacy in coexistence; that it is not a „conflict free‟ process. Galbraith and Menshikov (1988) bring in the dimension of concessions and compromises in coexistence by arguing that countries that relate closely but compete enhance relations by not getting into “each other‟s way”. On his part, Griffith (1971), demonstrates the diversity that coexistence represents; that it neither involves equal transactions between groups nor is equality a prerequisite. In other words, coexistence may be possible in cases where a group dominates another. Kriesberg notes that this domination may be so severe that the subordinated party may not consider it
34 Italics my emphasis.
28
feasible to raise any challenge. Whereas this applies among the Kamba and the Maasai, there is however a tendency to demystify dominance, albeit metaphorically. Besides, the subordinated group also wins concessions from the more privileged group by yielding to it. I provide more details in chapter six.
Apart from political scientists and economists, historians have also done studies on coexistence. In his book Conquest, Coexistence and Change, Davies (1987) examines the strained relations between the Welsh and the English over a long period of time. He demonstrates that coexistence is a function of intimate as well as potentially explosive interethnic relations. He argues that it involves struggles and negotiations to accommodate differences among potentially antagonistic groups like the “conqueror and conquered, settler and native, English and Welsh”. Appearing to share Kriesberg‟s view, he avers that
“coexistence” could also “fail”. Indeed, Josef Korbel examined what he called the “failure of coexistence” in the former Czechoslovakia, arguing that communism could not “coexist” with the democratic forces (free world). But, he concedes that “coexistence” is a process of blending “two antagonistic ways of life”. However, he argues that as a practice, it can be used as a deception to obscure extremely unpleasant situations (1959: vii). He is suggesting that using „coexistence‟ in situations of antagonism and conflict can be misleading since the concept is often taken to be synonymous with harmony. This seems to be the reason why he cautions that coexistence can fail. Horowitz (1985: 136) indicates that coexistence is a process that may juxtapose “incompatible” groups or ideas. Further evidence on incompatibility is provided by Rajasingham-Senanayake, who notes that for a long time, the peaceful coexistence of “diverse and hybrid cultures” in Sri Lanka astounded ethnologists (1999: 99).
She argues that quite often, ethnic groups are presented as mutually exclusive entities ignoring their fluidity and overlapping forms. This supports Galtung‟s (1994) idea that “coexistence” is possible “in spite of borders”. In other words, groups that may appear to be quite different and antagonistic in various ways, may equally engage in mutual transactions to enhance their survival. Indeed, Davies concedes that even in situations where there are glaring power disparities, “peaceful coexistence” is possible.35
Davies brings in the idea of “the arts of coexistence”, suggesting that coexistence is a social practice which groups may have to learn (1987: 415-21). Besides, he also talks about the
„external factor‟ and shows how the state could create ethnic divisions and disharmony by
35 A distinction could be drawn between „harmonious‟ and „peaceful‟ coexistence. In my view, to live in „peace‟
means merely devoid of conflict, overt hatred and war, while „harmony‟ appears to suggest a deeper notion of not just living in peace but complementing exchanges, reciprocal relationships, shared practices and
understanding, and perhaps destiny. In other words, „harmony‟ implies a sense of mutual acceptance and social intercourse.
29
treating groups differently, granting separate charter of liberties, regulating interethnic marriages and assigning different status and privileges (see also Roosens, 1989: 23-40).
Indeed, many of Africa‟s ethnic conflicts have been blamed on the state (Wimmer, 1997b). In chapter seven, I will examine how interethnic coexistence is influenced by the state and other groups.
Some authors have even taken the debate further to look at the global dimension in the coexistence processes. According to Galbraith and Menshikov, „coexistence‟ is shaped by a world that has become “immutably and perilously interdependent and small” (1988: 2). In this sense, coexistence is seen as a juxtaposition of the global with the local. They insist that coexistence is shaped and made necessary not only by the „local‟ milieu but also by the surrounding external environment. Writing earlier, Ramundo (1967: 161) talked about the
“law of coexistence” stressing the interdependence of states, opposed social systems and more importantly, the interplay between the “local” and “global”, necessitated by “a fact of international life”. Although I am not looking at how countries coexist, Galbraith, Menshikov and Ramundo highlight the external aspects of coexistence, which are useful in making sense of how ethnic groups are shaped by governments and other groups (see chapter seven).
Description and analysis of the field experiences below will clarify further the concepts of ethnicity, difference and interethnic coexistence.
2.3 Methodological Reflections