Finally, “blurring” refers to putting emphasis on shared or crosscutting, nonethnic social cleavages to decrease the significance of ethnicity as the foundation of categorization and social organization (see also Jackson 2015b, 209–210). Actors attempt to decrease the salience of ethnic categories by promoting nonethnic principles, ideas, values, and symbols.8 For instance, many conservative or Islamic circles in Turkey emphasize the notion of the “Islamic brotherhood” between ethnic Turks and Kurds in response to Kurdish ethnonationalist claims. By stressing Islam as a shared value between these two groups, Islamist circles attempt to deemphasize ethnic attachments and so blur ethnic boundaries (more on this in the conclusion).
Wimmer (2013) also lists several tools employed by boundary makers as they follow the foregoing boundary-making strategies: discursive and symbolic means (e.g., categorization and identification practices such as public ceremonies, rituals, and speeches; usage of visible cues such as somatic diacritics and dress patterns inscribing ethnic boundaries); discrimination against out-group members (formal discrimination through legal and institutional mechanisms and informal / de facto discrimination); peaceful or violent political mobilization (increasing the salience and relevance of ethnic divisions or reproducing and reinforcing group boundaries); and finally coercive and violent policies (e.g., assimilation, ethnic cleansing, resettlement laws). The case of the Islamic opening of the Kurdish movement, discussed in detail in the following chapters, displays that Kurdish ethnopolitical elites particularly utilize discursive and symbolic means (e.g., employing Islam-friendly discourse and increasing references to Islamic ideas, principles, and practices such as certain verses of the Koran and the Charter of Medina) and mobilization tools (e.g., organizing civilian Friday prayers, the Democratic Islam Congress, and commemoration ceremonies) as they try to reconcile with Islam and Islamic actors.
The Bounded Nature of Boundary Making
Do ethnopolitical elites make, remake, or unmake ethnic boundaries ad libitum? Definitely not. Agents are not that free in their boundary-making efforts, simply because boundary-making processes are nested within existing social, political, economic, and historical structures and conditions. Wimmer (2013) also acknowledges the constraining impact of structural factors on agency and pays particular attention to the influence of institutional structures (e.g., nation-state, legal structure), power hierarchies (i.e., distribution of political, economic, and symbolic power), and networks of alliances on boundary-making efforts and processes (e.g., the choice of boundary-making strategies and the kind of emerging boundaries). Wimmer (2013, 89) notes that “actors are constrained, enabled, and enticed, first, by the institutional environment that makes it appear more plausible and attractive to draw certain types of boundaries—ethnic, class, regional, gender, tribal, or others. Second, the distribution of power defines an individual’s interests and thus which level of ethnic differentiation will be considered most meaningful. Third, the network of political alliances will influence who will and who will not be counted as ‘one of us’” (see also Cornell 1996). Similarly, Lecours (2000, 121) warns against methodological individualism and states, “Social and economic structures provide the larger context for the behaviour of political actors.… The cultural make-up of a society presents specific options, and limitations, to political elites.” Likewise, Conversi (1995, 81) emphasizes structural constraints and draws attention to internal constraints on boundary-making efforts: “It is highly unlikely that nationalist leaders can manipulate their constituencies at their own discretion, as extreme instrumentalists insist.”
Drawing attention to the situational nature of boundary-making processes, Jackson (2015b, 193) also asserts that actors’ boundary work is “dependent on the social context in which it takes place, limited by the cultural repertoires and available categories that have been institutionalized as social boundaries over time.” In a similar vein, Lamont (2000, 7) suggests that boundary work is shaped by “the cultural resources that people have access to and the structural conditions in which they are placed.” Additionally, she remarks that “some patterns of self-identification and boundaries are more likely in one context than in another. This is not to deny the importance of individual agency but to stress the fact that it is bounded by the differentially structured context in which people live” (2000, 244). Cornell and Hartmann (2007, 208) also draw attention to the role of contextual factors in boundary processes by introducing the notion of “construction sites,” which refer to “arenas in which processes of identity construction occur.” They suggest that politics, labor markets, residential space, social institutions, culture, and daily experience constitute some critical construction sites, molding boundary processes.
Thus, since ethnopolitical actors are embedded in social and political systems, both historical contexts (legacies, traditions) and the larger social, political, and economic environments of ethnic categories and movements encircle boundary-making processes such as boundary-making strategies and styles. In addition, as the Kurdish case also indicates, the internal structures and dynamics of ethnic groups also fashion ethnopolitical leaders’ boundary-making efforts. Briefly, boundary-making processes are conditioned or bound by both internal (e.g., the structures of ethnic categories and movements) and external factors and dynamics.
External and Internal Boundary Contestations
Another important aspect of boundary-making processes is boundary contestation. Since boundary processes involve actors with different levels of power and authority and divergent views, interests, and strategies, boundary making is an inherently political process. As a result, as some of the existing studies also acknowledge, boundary-making processes might be highly contentious or conflictual (e.g., see Fuller 2003; Wimmer 2008a, 2008b, and 2013; R. Jenkins 2015, 14). For instance, Fuller (2003, 4) notes the following: “Because particular boundaries suit some purposes more than others, their meaning, placement, and structure may be highly contested, and boundaries are often a key site for struggles over social relations generally. Even the most institutionalized cultural boundaries can be (and are) plausibly redrawn as people struggle to enact, change, or dissolve distinctions in ways consonant with their wider purposes.”
Wimmer (2013, 25) concurs, stating that “ethnic categories might be contested rather than universally agreed upon. Such contestation is part of a broader politico-symbolic struggle over power and prestige, the legitimacy of certain forms of exclusion over others, and the merits of discriminating for or against certain types of people.”
Boundary contestations or struggles, however, remain undertheorized in the existing literature.9 Further in-depth analysis of boundary contestation would be invaluable for boundary approaches. In particular, we need to spend more time thinking about questions such as, how, when, and under what conditions do boundary contestations take place? And when are boundary contestations more likely to succeed? In this section, we attempt to provide some preliminary answers to such questions.
Boundary-making processes might involve external and/or internal struggles over ethnic boundaries. External boundary contestation simply refers to struggles and competition between insiders and outsiders over where symbolic and social boundaries should be drawn. Boundary workers’ efforts (e.g., expansion or contraction of symbolic and social boundaries of an ethnic group or movement) might threaten the ideational and/or material interests of out-group members. Being challenged by such efforts, outsiders (e.g., ruling state elites, political opponents, or members of other ethnic groups or movements) might try to prevent or delegitimize boundary workers’ efforts or initiatives. To achieve such goals, outsiders might employ various strategies such as expanding and/or contracting ethnic, religious, and ideological boundaries. Under the presence of ethnic competition and conflict (e.g., interethnic rivalry over scarce political, economic, and symbolic resources), such boundary struggles between insiders and outsiders might get quite intense.
External contestation might in turn have substantial impact on the boundaries