PhD Proposal University for Humanistics Graduate School in cooperation with the Promoting Pluralism Knowledge Program 1. Doctoral Research Supervision Team: Names and email addresses i) Promoter (UvH professor) ………………………………………………………………….............. ii) Second or Co – promoter (External: Pluralism Knowledge Program partner) Prof. Peter Kanyandago ([email protected]) iii) Co-promoter(UvH) Dr. Caroline Suransky 2. Introduction This research is entitled Ethnicity and Socio-Economic Exclusion in Uganda: Perceptions, Indicators and Spaces for Pluralism with Specific Reference to Cosmopolitan Kampala. The purpose of the research is to explore the relationship between ethninicity and exclusion (socio-economic, cultural and political) in Uganda through the case of Kampala, a cosmopolitan city accomodating people from most of the ethnic groups in Uganda (Mwakikagile 2009). According to Mwakikagile (2009), the Baganda constitute the largest ethnic group in Kampala, followed by the Banyankole. Other large ethnic groups in the city include the Basoga, the Bakiga, Batoro, Bafumbira, Banyoro, Iteso, Acholi, Alur, Bagisu and some other small groups. In the exploration, key focus will be put on the perceptions of the people on: the above relationship through their own experiences and feelings; the indicators of ethnically motivated exclusion; and the possibilities for pluralism amidst the ethnic diversity/heterogeneity. The possibilities for pluralism will mainly be ascertained through critical identification and analysis of good practices. 3. Research summary in Key Words The key words in this study are: ethnicity, socio-economic inclusion, pluralism, and cosmopolitan (urban) setting. Ethnicity will be here understood as the subjective, symbolic or emblematic use by a group of people of any aspect of culture, in order to differentiate themselves from other groups (and create internal cohesion). It goes with subjective criteria for exclusion and inclusion. It carries with it a contingent status that may or may not be articulated in particular contexts or at particular times (De Vos cited in Bras 1991). Socio-economic exclusion is a multi-dimensional concept used here in reference to the dynamic process of being shut out, fully or partially, from any of the social, economic, political or cultural systems which determine the social integration of a person in society (Walker and Walker cited in Aasland and Flotten 2001). Pluralism connotes the active engagement with differences/diversity for social harmony stretching beyond people’s perceived and real differences. The concept cosmopolitan is used here in the sense of an urban setting with people of various diversities on lines of ethnicity, religion, political affiliation/views and race. But our major focus in these diversities is ethnicity. 4. Details PhD Candidate Family name and first name(s) Ssentongo Jimmy Spire Date of birth : 14th August 1979 Nationality Ugandan Full Address: Uganda Martyrs University P. O. Box 5498 Kampala - Uganda Phone number and e-mail-address: +256 -772870391 Highest earned degree/Institution: MA in Ethics and Public Management – Makerere University Date of Graduation: 27th September 2007 Academic Discipline/Department: Ethics and Public Management – Department of Philosophy 5. A Focused Introduction of the Research Understanding Ethnicity The subject of ethnicity has been a preoccupation of disciplines ranging from Anthropology, to Philosophy, Sociology, Psychology, and Political Science. This is precisely due to its multi-faceted nature and the fact these disciplines actually overlap and rely on each other both conceptually and operationally (Chukwu 2002). While Philosophy approaches ethnicity in light of its ultimate causes/reasons, Sociology puts more emphasis on ethnicity’s social groundings, Psychology views it in terms of the nature and operation of the human mind, and political science puts more emphasis its political roots, implications and significance. Critically looked at, there is neither mutual exclusivity nor lack of porosity between the above areas of focus. As such, exploring ethnicity from a multi-disciplinary perspective enriches our conceptualization and understanding of the concept. It is thus envisaged that this study takes the approach of synthetic interdisciplinarity whereby relevant material from different disciplines is brought together where necessary but with the disciplinary origins of the material remaining clear (Innes 2005). However, though the study will base on an interdisciplinary approach, it will be mainly centered on Philosophy and Anthropology. As a concept, ethnicity eludes precise definition. It is relative, and has been used as a metaphor for a variety of things which could be understood differently (Muhereza and Otim 1998). There have been a number of definitions put forward at different points in time from a couple of vantage points. As indicated above and shall be seen in the review below, some of these vantage points/ contexts have been disciplinary; some socio-political; and others localized to given contexts. We shall here review some of these definitions before identifying the definition within which the study will operate. Bates (2005) offers a definition grounded in Sociology, Anthropology and Psychology. He takes ethnicity to connote group identification based on common name, descent and culture, common language and territory. To him, it is mainly perceived as a psychological aspect and an attitude of mind and practice. On top of its socio-anthropological leaning, it can thus be understood better through studies in group psychology. Chazan et al. (1992) think that it has its foundations in combined remembrances of past experience and in common inspirations, values, norms, and expectations. In line with Bates’ view, they contend that in ethnicity’s capacity to stimulate awareness and a sense of belonging among the potential membership of a group, the psychological dimension of ethnicity complements and buttresses the political dimension of interest-oriented social action. Bates also notes that ethnicity is often used to mean collectivities that share a myth of origin. His definition is close to an earlier one by Weber (1968) of ethnicity as an emphasis of the importance of ancestry, the importance of history, and, most often, migration and settlement or political passage, be it escape from oppression or the colonization of new territory. Barth (1969) on the other hand sociologically views ethnicity as a form of social organization in which the participants themselves play a primary role in determining and maintaining their identity. The sense of attachment to an ethnic group is normally voluntary. But Barth’s definition falls short of clarifying forms of social organization that can be considered ethnic and those that are not. Not every social organization where the participants themselves play a primary role in determining and maintaining their identity is ethnic. Nevertheless, though insufficient in explanation, his relationship of ethnicity with identity maintenance is an important dimension. Brink (cited in Okuku 2002, p.8) summarises the conceptualization of ethnicity as “a sense of ethnic identity consisting of the subjective, symbolic or emblematic use by a group of people of any aspect of culture in order to create internal cohesion and differentiate themselves from other groups”. This definition subtly suggests that ethnic groups are only concerned about internal cohesion and not external cohesion. But in a society growing more cosmopolitan and globalised by the day, ethnic groups are taking on a dynamic path where cohesion with others outside the group is sometimes strategically put into the picture, especially in the context of the rational choice theory to be explained later. Moreover, in certain instances internal cohesion may necessitate external cohesion. For example, internal cohesion would be affected if an ethnic group was not at peace with surrounding ethnic groups or those with whom they live. It would thus suggest external cohesion. The spaces for pluralism in ethnic consciousness thus still need to be explored. Theoretical perspectives on Ethnicity One of the theoretical attempts to explain ethnic conflict/intolerance is Primordialism. Some of the key proponents of this theory are Shils (1957) and Geertz (1963). Primordial conceptions of ethnicity focus on qualities such as: a common language, a collective name, a common myth of descent, a shared history and allegedly inherited characteristics common to members of the group (Narrol cited in Poluha 1998). As such, primordialism seeks to explain the persistence of tradition which is one of the constituent elements of ethnicity (Kaplan 1994). Smith (1997) distinguishes between a ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ primordialism. In this dichotomy, strong primordialism views ethnic ties as universal, natural and given in all human association. Weak primordialism on the other hand holds that ethnic ties and sentiments are deep-seated and non-rational so far as the participants are concerned. As such, members of ethnic communities feel that their community has existed ‘from time immemorial’. Primordialists often interpret contemporary ethnic conflicts as the renewal of age old antagonisms – ones that antedate the formation of a nation state. This theory could partially serve to explain ethnic conflict and exclusion in Uganda especially by allegiance to common ancestry since such myths exist in most ethnic groups in Uganda. However, primordialism falls