FROM GRAFFITI TO GENOCIDE: WHY ARE THERE DIFFERENT FORMS OF ETHNIC VIOLENCE? DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Richard Arnold, B.A., M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 2009 Dissertation Committee: Professor Theodore Hopf, Advisor Approved by: Professor Marcus Kurtz ______ ____________ Professor Gregory Jusdanis Advisor Graduate Program in Political Science Copyright by Richard Alan Arnold 2009 ii Abstract In the past, scholars have sought to explain why ethnic violence occurs, who it benefits, or whether “ethnic” conflict is really “ethnic” at all. Others use studies of ethnic conflict as a way of generating insights into the nature of ethnicity as a phenomenon itself- a way of testing the claims to venerable antiquity of members of an ethnos against the facts on the ground. It is not surprising, then, that few ask why violence takes different forms in different circumstances- from graffiti to genocide. Yet this question stands to generate insights into many of those listed above, by indicating not just whether “ethnicity” can mobilize but the manner in which it does as well and so bearing on the question of how “ethnic” such violence actually is. Why are there different forms of ethnic violence? This is the question which motivates this research, seeking to explain why participants in ethnic violence sometimes choose to use one form and sometimes another. In answering this question, I elaborate a typology of forms of ethnic violence that sees such acts as essentially communicative. Whatever else it does, violence sends a “message” to those on the receiving end. This typology juxtaposes two axes to give four types or forms of ethnic violence: Symbolic Violence, Lynching, Pogrom, and Genocide. iii I argue for using the contemporary situation in the Russian Federation- where Neo-Nazi skinheads are visiting horrific violence on ethnic minorities almost every day- as a testing ground for theories. While the results of tests conducted in this environment will necessarily be limited in their application, positive findings will allow us to transport the theory to different settings. The literature review confirmed that this question had not been asked in the past, and identified the gap in our theoretical knowledge that it would fulfill: how linguistic practices may mobilize people for violence. Although no existing work has focused on this question, those that do exist nevertheless imply answers. Therefore, the literature review concludes by extracting hypotheses from the literature which I test against my own theory. My theory was formed from two sources. First, I extend the theory of Donald Horowitz (2001) concerning the deadly ethnic riot. Second, ethnographic fieldwork with skinhead gangs in Moscow, and St. Petersburg. In particular, I obtained videos of the movement‟s activities which they use to propagandize their struggle and attract new recruits. The theory that comes from this, I call the Theory of Ethnic Criminality. It claims that perpetrators of ethnic violence conceive of themselves as defenders of an indigenous community who punish ethnic minorities for alleged “criminal” acts. The form of the “punishment” dished out to various ethnic groups thus corresponds to the nature of the alleged crime: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. The dissertation provides four tests of this theory: cluster analysis of a database of skinhead attacks; content analysis of skinhead media; interviews with skinhead iv participants in violence; and through case studies. The database of skinhead attacks was constructed from a Human Rights publication “Bigotry Monitor” and contains details of every reported skinhead attack from 2001 to 2008, over 800 cases in all. In line with the theory, I find that the ethnicity of the target group is the best indicator of the form of violence perpetrators will use. In order to further test the theory, I performed a content analysis of Far-Right materials taken from the internet and bought in Russian nationalist-fascist bookstores. This showed that the stereotype of ethnic minorities being involved in crime appeared far more frequently than any of the competitor explanations, a finding which again supported the Theory of Ethnic Criminality. Similarly, the responses of the interview subjects also provided support for the Theory of Ethnic Criminality, often using the language of proportionality when discussing violence. I then extend the analysis to the mass media in order to see how far down into Russian society these stereotypes stretch. The final test looks at how well the theory travels beyond the instances of skinhead violence originally used to test it. I evaluate the competing theories in the cases of violence against Meskhetian Turks in Krasnodar Krai, Southern Russia, and the “anti- Georgian campaign” of 2006, where political authorities used the Moscow police to deport to Georgia not just Georgian citizens but ethnic Georgians as well. I find that the theory works well in explaining particular forms of violence in both, promising greater external application to other instances of ethnic violence. These combination of tests allow me to assert with confidence that ethnic violence is a proportionate response to the perceived “crime” of an ethnic minority. v Dedicated to my mother and father and to my fiancé. vi Acknowledgements Completing the doctoral degree has been the second-hardest thing I have ever had to do in my life. I imagine this to be similar for all aspiring doctoral candidates. I have given four years of my life to the study of ethnic violence in general and Russian skinheads in particular because I believe them to be and remain important topics not just for observers in the West and in Russia but for the whole world. Sustaining me on this endeavor have been my parents and my fiancé, Kerry Hodak. I would not have been able to finish this at times dangerous and depressing work without the love and kindness that these people have shown to me throughout my graduate career- supporting me emotionally when I wondered whether I was doing the right thing by pursuing a doctorate and helping me out financially at times. I also could not write the acknowledgments without at least some recognition of those individuals who are in the field and face the threat of violence every day. These are the people for whom ethnic violence is a reality, both “victims” and “perpetrators.” People who I would like to thank for helping me produce this work are Galina Kozhevnikova, Alexander Verkhovsky, Vladimir Pribolovksy, Vadim Karastelev, Igor Kuznetsov, Alexander Ossipov, Peter Ivanov, Polina Zemstova, Leokhadia Drobizheva, vii the Moscow Bureau for Human Rights, the Panorama institute, Amnesty International, the Moscow Protestant Chaplaincy, Human Rights Watch, and Memorial. These individuals work under the threat of violence every day and do an incredible job. I also would like to thank all my (skinhead) interview participants who helped me in this research and hope that this project may be a way of bringing some of their concerns to light. Possibly the most important professional associate I ever made in my life was Professor Theodore Hopf. When I registered for Ted‟s class on my study abroad year, I had no idea that it would determine so many years of my life! Ted has been an inspiration, friend, and great advocate of my work. Ted‟s constant willingness to read (and criticize!) my work made him a great advisor and I stand in awe of his own academic research. I would also like to thank professors Gregory Jusdanis and Marcus Kurtz for their assistance on the committee and especially Marcus for his constant criticism which pushed me to defend every decision I made. I would also like to mention Mikhail Alexseev, Mike Neblo, Alex Wendt, Tim Frye, Sonja Amadae, Richard Mole and many others for their assistance over the years. Although all of my colleagues here at The Ohio State University deserve to be mentioned, I should like to mention the following people as particularly salient in the completion of this work: Caleb Gallemore (for reading so many chapters), Christina viii Xydias, Sarah and Anand Sokhey, Amanda Rosen, Srjdan Vucetic, Danielle Langfield, Seth Goldstein, Dane Imerman, Michael Reese, Todd Makse, Alberto Pereda, Autumn Lockwood-Payton, Michael Cohen, Lyvia Chriki, and James McPherson. The intellectual stimulation and sense of community I found amongst these individuals will be one of my abiding memories of graduate school. This community helped me realize the importance of my work and bolster my resolution to see it through. However, the biggest plaudits remain with my family and fiancé: therefore it is fitting that this work be dedicated to them. ix Vita October 6th, 1981………………………… Born Rochford, Essex, U.K. 2000……………………………………….Southend High School For Boys Sixth Form College, 4 A-Levels 2003……………………………………… BA Politics (Hons) First Class, York University, U.K. 2005……………………………………… MA Political Science, The Ohio State University 2004-2006………………………………..Graduate Teaching and Research Assistant, The Ohio State University 2006-Present………………………………Graduate Teaching Associate, Department of Political Science, The Ohio State University 2003……………………………………… University Fellowship Recipient 2005……………………………………… Winner, Sonkin-Bergman-Wasserman Families Scholarship x PUBLICATIONS “Thugs With Guns. Disaggregating The Concept Of „Ethnic Violence‟” in Nationalities Papers (Forthcoming)