SELF, GROUP, AND SOCIETY: EMERGENCE OF NEW POLITICAL IDENTITIES IN THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA by Philip James Murphy BS, Appalachian State University, 1991 MA, East Tennessee State University, 2000 Submitted to the Faculty of The Graduate School of Public and International Affairs in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2008 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS This dissertation was presented by Philip James Murphy It was defended on March 28, 2008 and approved by Louise Comfort, PhD, Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh David Y. Miller, PhD, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh Kevin Kearns, PhD, Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh David Barker, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Pittsburgh Dissertation Director: William N. Dunn, PhD, Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh ii Copyright © by Philip J. Murphy 2008 iii SELF, GROUP, AND SOCIETY: EMERGENCE OF NEW POLITICAL IDENTITIES IN THE REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA Philip James Murphy, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2008 The Republic of Macedonia provides an illustration of how a society’s identities reciprocally affect government and politics. This research investigates the extent to which Macedonia is developing a stable and cohesive society and contrasts more traditional investigations that treat identity as coextensive with fixed ethnic boundaries. This study employs an inductive approach to identity formation by investigating how individual beliefs and values function within a society. To accomplish this, a method for discerning and characterizing identity groups was employed, generating a rich mixture of qualitative and quantitative data. Fieldwork took place in two stages in 2005-2006. In stage one, university students across Macedonia (n=109) were interviewed using an adaptation of George Kelly’s repertory grid technique, a semi-structured interview procedure. In stage two, a national follow-up survey (n=496) based on those findings was administered to a random sample of Macedonia’s general population, allowing for an evaluation of initial results. Multidimensional scaling, factor analysis, generalized procrustes analysis, and a measure of cognitive homophily were employed to identify and assess similarities and differences among identity groups. This multitier approach iv made it possible to discern unifying themes that contribute to the previously unrecognized growth in civic identity that is beginning to span ethnic divisions in Macedonia. Although ethnic designations remain important to the assessment of identity, research findings support the contention that emergent identities in this new state are not categorically deterministic. This implies that some members of society are developing identities more strongly associated with Macedonia’s viability as a state than with ethnic and other designations. The methodology employed in this study offers an emic perspective that permits inductively derived comparisons, rather than etic comparisons that limit investigations to easily identifiable fixed categories. The emic methodology, operationalized through the repertory grid technique and Kelly’s theory of constructivist alternativism, elicits culturally relevant frames of reference in a manner that preserves the meanings attached by members of society while minimizing the effects of the researcher’s own cultural and intellectual biases. This is a promising methodology for investigating potentially emergent identities in other regions and communities where cultural misconceptions pose potential barriers to societal stability. v TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE..................................................................................................................................... xii 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. INITIAL IMPRESSIONS............................................................................................... 2 1.2. ADDRESSING THE QUESTIONS ............................................................................... 6 1.3. DISSERTATION STRUCTURE.................................................................................... 8 2. PROBLEM STATEMENT AND HYPOTHESES................................................................. 9 2.1. PRIMORDIALISM AND THE TWO IDENTITIES HYPOTHESIS............................ 9 2.2. MODERNIZATION AND THE THREE IDENTITIES HYPOTHESIS .................... 13 2.3. POSTMODERNIZATION: COGNITIVE COMMUNITIES AND AGE ................... 16 2.4. DEFINITIONS, HYPOTHESES, AND METHODS ................................................... 19 2.4.1. Methods and Hypothesis Testing: Stage One ....................................................... 24 2.4.2. Methods and Hypothesis Testing: Stage Two ...................................................... 24 2.5. CONCLUSION – IDENTITY ...................................................................................... 25 3. IDENTITY RESEARCH AND MACEDONIA................................................................... 26 3.1. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY .............................................................................. 27 3.1.1. Neighboring States and International Recognition............................................... 28 3.1.2. Yugoslav Deterioration and Conflict.................................................................... 30 3.1.3. Macedonia’s Identity Politics ............................................................................... 34 3.2. BOUNDARY SETTING AND CREATION OF IDENTITY GROUPS..................... 39 3.3. FOCUS ON ELITES..................................................................................................... 42 3.3.1. Internal Elites........................................................................................................ 42 3.3.2. External Elites....................................................................................................... 43 3.4. CLASSIC MODELS AND STEREOTYPES............................................................... 44 3.5. KNOWLEDGE CREATION........................................................................................ 46 3.6. DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION FOR RESEARCH ................................................ 48 4. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS OF OBSERVATION......................................... 50 4.1. IDENTITY AND INQUIRY: REPERTORY GRID AND ALLIED METHODS....... 51 4.1.1. Repertory Grid Interviews .................................................................................... 53 4.1.2. Assessing and Extracting Cognitive Subpopulations ........................................... 56 4.1.3. Assessing for Shared Constructs: Variable Homophily........................................ 58 4.1.4. Assessing for Perceptual Consensus: Generalized Procrustes Analysis............... 60 4.2. SURVEY DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ............................................................. 63 4.2.1. Survey: Format and Development ........................................................................ 64 4.2.1.1. Section 2: Bipolar Ratings of Macedonia’s Politicians ................................ 64 4.2.1.2. Section 3: Selection Characteristics.............................................................. 65 4.2.2. Testing and Further Development of the Survey Tool ......................................... 66 vi 4.2.3. Survey Analyses.................................................................................................... 68 5. FIELD SETTING.................................................................................................................. 69 5.1. STUDY POPULATIONS............................................................................................. 69 5.1.1. Repertory Grid Population.................................................................................... 69 5.1.2. Survey Population................................................................................................. 70 5.2. INTERVIEW/SURVEY ADMINISTRATION............................................................ 71 5.2.1. Repertory Grid Elicitation Procedure ................................................................... 71 5.2.2. Survey Administration.......................................................................................... 73 6. FINDINGS............................................................................................................................ 74 6.1. GRID ANALYSES AND RESULTS........................................................................... 74 6.1.1. Hypotheses for Stage 1: Repertory Grid Interviews............................................. 75 6.1.2. Phase I: Ethnicity and Rural vs. Urban................................................................ 79 6.1.2.1. Baseline Consensus Proportion..................................................................... 79 6.1.2.2. The “Two Identities” Hypothesis: Ethnicity ................................................. 80 6.1.2.3. The “Three Identities” Hypothesis: Rural vs. Urban.................................... 82 6.1.2.4. The University Groups Hypothesis..............................................................