Negotiating Identity: Politics of Identification among the Borana, Gabra and Garri around the Oromo-Somali boundary in Southern Ethiopia (Synopsis of a PhD Dissertation)
{"title":"Negotiating Identity: Politics of Identification among the Borana, Gabra and Garri around the Oromo-Somali boundary in Southern Ethiopia (Synopsis of a PhD Dissertation)","authors":"F. Adugna","doi":"10.4314/EJOSSAH.V6I1-2.72259","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Identity negotiation has a limited scope constrained by pre-existing memories of identification and political and economic circumstances. It is often motivated by the contexts in which the individuals and the collectivities find themselves in, especially under the condition of rapid socio-political change. Presumed common ancestry, history, language, religion and custom can be considered the raw materials of identity construction (Nagel 1994; Cornell 1996; Schlee 2007). They either inform or constrain the processes of identification of an individual or collectivity. However, since the publication of Barth’s (1969) seminal book, Ethnic groups and boundaries, the focus of investigation of the scholars of ethnicity and identity has changed from the totality of the ‘objective’ features of a group or groups to a selection of the actors’ most significant features in a given situation. In the same line of argument, in this thesis, I attempted to show how the ethnic actors negotiate and (re)construct their identity by selectively emphasizing and de-emphasizing the raw materials of identification in different contexts within the given options. Actors use the most relevant identity markers at a certain moment, which could be inversed in another situation. They strategically and inventively ‘remember’ or ‘forget’ the markers of identification. However, not all the groups and individuals have equal raw materials of identifications, nor can they all be used strategically and selectively in the construction of identity. Even though a lot of calculations, negotiations and selection of raw-materials of identification – and even (re)construction and invention – have been taken into account in the choice making processes, the construction of identity is not arbitrary. Identity constructions ‘never occur in a vacuum’ (Cornell and Hartmann 1998: 197). The research on which the thesis is based was designed as a response to the","PeriodicalId":129334,"journal":{"name":"Ethiopian journal of the social sciences and humanities","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethiopian journal of the social sciences and humanities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4314/EJOSSAH.V6I1-2.72259","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
Abstract
Background Identity negotiation has a limited scope constrained by pre-existing memories of identification and political and economic circumstances. It is often motivated by the contexts in which the individuals and the collectivities find themselves in, especially under the condition of rapid socio-political change. Presumed common ancestry, history, language, religion and custom can be considered the raw materials of identity construction (Nagel 1994; Cornell 1996; Schlee 2007). They either inform or constrain the processes of identification of an individual or collectivity. However, since the publication of Barth’s (1969) seminal book, Ethnic groups and boundaries, the focus of investigation of the scholars of ethnicity and identity has changed from the totality of the ‘objective’ features of a group or groups to a selection of the actors’ most significant features in a given situation. In the same line of argument, in this thesis, I attempted to show how the ethnic actors negotiate and (re)construct their identity by selectively emphasizing and de-emphasizing the raw materials of identification in different contexts within the given options. Actors use the most relevant identity markers at a certain moment, which could be inversed in another situation. They strategically and inventively ‘remember’ or ‘forget’ the markers of identification. However, not all the groups and individuals have equal raw materials of identifications, nor can they all be used strategically and selectively in the construction of identity. Even though a lot of calculations, negotiations and selection of raw-materials of identification – and even (re)construction and invention – have been taken into account in the choice making processes, the construction of identity is not arbitrary. Identity constructions ‘never occur in a vacuum’ (Cornell and Hartmann 1998: 197). The research on which the thesis is based was designed as a response to the
身份谈判的范围是有限的,受到先前存在的身份记忆以及政治和经济环境的限制。它的动机往往是个人和集体所处的环境,特别是在社会政治迅速变化的条件下。假定的共同祖先、历史、语言、宗教和习俗可以被视为身份建构的原材料(Nagel 1994;康奈尔大学1996分;Schlee 2007)。它们告知或限制个人或集体的识别过程。然而,自从Barth(1969)的影响深远的著作《族群与边界》(Ethnic groups and boundaries)出版以来,研究族群和身份的学者的研究重点已经从一个或多个群体的“客观”特征的总体转变为对特定情况下参与者最重要特征的选择。在这篇论文中,我试图通过在给定选项的不同背景下选择性地强调和不强调身份的原材料,来展示种族行动者如何协商和(重新)构建他们的身份。演员在某个时刻使用最相关的身份标记,在另一种情况下可能会相反。他们策略性地、创造性地“记住”或“忘记”身份标识。然而,并不是所有的群体和个人都具有相同的认同原料,也不可能都在认同的建构中被策略性地、选择性地使用。尽管在选择过程中考虑了大量的计算、协商和身份原材料的选择,甚至(重新)建构和发明,但身份的建构并不是任意的。身份建构“从来不会在真空中发生”(Cornell and Hartmann 1998: 197)。本论文所依据的研究是为了回应