The idea that there is the conflict between ethnic groups will happen might be inevitable. Therefore, we need to prepare for this to happen by guarding against it. Many people think that this is a very different way to approach conflict. This paper will integrate the theories of primordialism, instrumentalism and constructivism to determine how conflict happens or if it will happen between people who have different ideas. This may help us to guard against conflict because we all live as social agents in this world.
We need to inform and understand how conflict arises. Also, the definition of the theories and conflict will be identified and discussed to provide a foundation of the question. Is conflict inevitable? Both sides of the issue will be analyzed to determine if one of the theories offers a base for the answer.

You're lucky! Use promo "samples20"
and get a custom paper on
"A Discussion on the Inevitability of Ethnic Conflict"
with 20% discount!
Order Now

The citizens of the world have the responsibility to learn to live on this planet in common. All people behave in a certain way, good bad or the same. The three schools of thought deal with the fact that as general agents of change we need to understand and accept each others differences.1 Primordialism is the newest school of thought and it states that we have the condition which means that behavior of any kind probably existed at the beginning of creation.2 If someone acts in a particular manner, then they have always acted in that way. The opposite of this theory is the same; we will not change our behavior. Instrumentalism is a pragmatic theory that states that ideas are instruments which function as guides to action and that the validity of this action determines the success of this work.3 In other words, we do not necessarily act because of our ethnicity, but because of our environment. The last approach is constructivism, in which human generate knowledge and meaning from an interaction between their experience and their ideas.4 The foundation of all of these schools of thought makes it apparent that each of us have a different idea of what causes conflict, how to resolve it and if it can be resolved. Although most of these theories are positive, if you choose to look at it in that manner. Two out of three of these theories can be looked at in a positive or negative viewpoint; it depends on your outlook.

The study of ethnic conflict is not the study of nationalism. Patriotism means that the person represents their country in a positive manner. As long as the person is a citizen of that country, they are welcome e in their lives. Ethnic conflict includes a group of individuals from the same ethnic group regardless of where they live. Individuals may share the same the ethnicity, but they may not share much of anything else. Thereby, ethnic conflict often occurs between people who live in the same physical location and are of the same ethnic origin based on the news. Instrumentalism believes that they are part of the same community.5 It would follow along the theory of instrumentalism that people who live in the same city would have the same ideas of living, right and wrong, and similar ideas. Since this is truly based on the theory of instrumentalism than when something happens one or the other disagrees, who are members of different ethnicity, then these two people will more likely get into the argument which will escalate into a fight. However, this theory could also follow along another line of thought. Although that these people are members of the different ethnicity than because they are part of the same community than they would agree with similar ideas. In other words, persons of the same ethnicity may agree because they have the similar background, but people who are living in the same community may also agree with one another despite their ethnic origin. Conflict isn’t always present, and it was always going to be present just because they are the different ethnicity. People who believe that conflict is present in the world always will be present in the world and has been present in the world, probably believe that nothing changes. These people are individuals who believe in the theory of primordialism. One ethnicity group has always fought with another ethnicity group, and it will always stay the same. Something like this has no other side, they see a person of one ethnicity and assume this is the case. No, if and or buts, they will always argue. The flip side is that these are the same people who will believe that certain ethnicity groups are always right. In their world, everything is an absolute the same, and it will not change.

Finally, people who believe in the theory of constructivism, whether they know this is their belief or not, feel that human base what they think about their experiences. They do not have any preconceived notion of another person, or they are willing to change their perception of other individuals based on their experiences.5 Ethnic groups who have fought with each other just because they have always fought with one another could decide that not everyone will believe the same thing. They may be willing to believe that the group that they fight against will change because the fighting has just gone on too long. It is time to change. However, this same group may not be so willing to change because they have had the experience that these people do not want to change; they want to punish them.6 Which in their mind is jus another way to fight against them, but because they have put themselves out for a change, they now have been slapped down, and the change will not happen. Next time these people will not be so willing to end the conflict because nothing in their experience says it will work.

An optimist and one observes the growth and development of society the possibility of a civilization wherein differences become blurred, and violence’s between people become eradicated. According to Wolff history support that theory depending on which event one choose to focus on, “a history of ethnic conflict in the twentieth century illustrates that there are only very few cases of such conflict that permanently elude any, even temporary, resolution. But this does not mean that solution is always self-evident, readily embraced by the conflict parties and easily implemented, even with significant international aid and assistance.”7 People are willing to change because history also supports the fact that people will make the change.

    References
  • Rachels, Stuart On three Allegs Theory of rational behavior.
  • Пreen, Elliott D. “Redefining Ethnicity.” Development Studies Institute, London School of
    Economics Working Paper (2006).
  • Wolff, Stefan. Ethnic conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006,
  • Mueller, John. “The banality of “ethnic war”.” International Security 25, no. 1 (2000): 42-70, 1.
  • Wolff, Stefan. Ethnic conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006, 2.Anderson, 4
  • Gurr, Ted Robert. “Peoples against states: Ethnopolitical conflict and the changing world
    system: 1994 presidential address.” International Studies Quarterly (1994): 347-377, 47.
  • Cordell, Karl, and Stefan Wolff, eds. Routledge handbook of ethnic conflict. Routledge, 2010,
  • Mikkelson, Gregory M. Realism versus Instrumentalism in a New Statistical Framework.
    Philosophy of Science 2002