Q&A with Melani Cammett

What does researching identity politics mean to you?

I have long been fascinated by identity and what it means for people and politics. Belonging in a community is a fundamental human need and social scientists have long observed that people tend to categorize themselves and others into social groups, with consequences for relations between people from different communities. At the macro-level, social identities are critical to understanding politics, or struggles over the control and allocation of resources, although the precise manifestations differ from place to place. We see this today across the world, whether in the form of nationalism, ethnicity, religion, or other types. The Middle East, my primary region of expertise, is often regarded as a hotbed of identity politics with the broad appeal of Islamist parties and movements in some countries, tribalism, sectarianism, and the rise of extremist groups that perpetrate violence in the name of religion. Yet the Middle East is hardly unique in this regard. In the United States, for example, religion is deeply intertwined in politics, and white nationalist movements are increasingly assertive, vocal, and violent. In parts of Africa, Asia, Europe, and Latin America, religious and nationalist organizations are also central actors in politics and society. Throughout history, many wars have been waged ostensibly along identity lines, particularly in the post-Cold War era. Even if the “true” origins of these conflicts do not boil down to religion or ethnicity, these identities become politicized as a result of violence and become meaningful to people on the ground. Political and social elites are well aware of the potential resonance of communal identities and manipulate them to their advantage. In short, if we want to understand politics around many questions and in many contexts, we ignore identity to our peril. 

Why did you create the Cluster?

Social scientists already know a lot about identity politics based on decades and decades of research. Our knowledge about how religion, ethnicity and nationalism become politicized is particularly developed, although these questions are by no means settled. However, I think we have a long way to go in understanding the de-politicization of identity politics. To be sure, there are some good ideas out there. Some leading theories focus on micro-level contact between people from different communal groups, while others point to deep structural factors such as long-term patterns of state- and nation-building. One of the analytical goals of the cluster, then, is to advance our understanding of the activation and, especially, the de-activation of identity-based conflict through more collaborative exchanges. I am especially keen to facilitate conversations among scholars with different disciplinary training and regional expertise.

What do you hope will come from the Cluster?

With the launch of the cluster, I hope to build a scholarly community and catalyze new ideas about a broad range of questions related to identity politics—and not just around my own particular interests in this area of research. More concretely, I would like to build a community of scholars drawn from Harvard, other institutions in the Boston area and elsewhere in the US, and across the world. I think we learn better together, and I am firmly convinced that bringing together researchers and practitioners from far-flung places will lead to better work through the exchange of ideas and new collaborations. As anyone at or visiting Harvard can attest, there is a lot—too much!—going on across the University on any given day. For that reason, I don’t want to pack the cluster with lectures, workshops, and meetings. Rather, the goal is to hold a relatively small number of high-quality events, including an annual conference on a relevant theme, a couple of workshops per semester where graduate students and post-doctoral affiliates can present work in progress in a constructive environment, a couple of lectures by prominent scholars in the field, and a handful of social events per year. I also hope to engage and forge partnership with scholars and institutions across the world with like-minded expertise and interests who can participate in our events either remotely or, wherever possible, in person. Finally, the cluster will deliberately reach out to practitioners and policy-makers, who will participate in some of our events and will be in dialogue with our researchers to capitalize on our distinct backgrounds as we advance scholarship and policy-making in a synergistic way. 

If you had to choose, what is one piece of research everyone interested in identity politics should read? Why?

I find it impossible to suggest one piece of research on identity politics, especially since the phenomenon has implications for so many different political, social, and economic outcomes. I’ll name a few pieces that have influenced my thinking around the book I’m currently working on, which looks at how people live together after “ethnic” violence and focuses on Bosnia-Herzegovina, Lebanon, and Northern Ireland. First, I find it valuable to look back in history when thinking about this question, such as to the decades and centuries following the Protestant Reformation in the 16^th century. On this topic, I have learned the work of historians such as Benjamin Kaplan, whose Divided by Faith: Religious Conflict and the Practice of Toleration in Early Modern Europe (Harvard University Press, 2007) traces how ordinary people developed practical arrangements to navigate a world in which coexistence among communities with deeply opposed beliefs was necessary. In the contemporary period, the Everyday Peace Indicators project of Pamina Firchow and Roger Mac Ginty showcases how local communities conceptualize and practice peace, often at the micro-level and in homegrown ways that are often more effective than those generated by external peacebuilding programs. Also at the micro-level, Elizabeth Levy Paluck’s solo and co-authored work both highlights what types of interventions work (and don’t work) to reduce intergroup prejudice after violent ethnic conflict. In my view, to understand when and why people can overcome mistrust across identity group lines, we need to complement micro-level approaches with more macro-level perspectives. We simply cannot understand how identity becomes activated (and, by extension, de-activated) without looking at the local and national social, political, and economic contexts in which people from different ethnic communities interact. Andreas Wimmer’s work—especially his book Nation Building: Why Some Countries Come Together While Others Fall Apart (Princeton University Press 2018)—highlights how the history of state- and nation-building either makes cultural differences more or less politically salient. While this long-term perspective may seem frustrating to those who seek more immediate “solutions” to intergroup conflict, we cannot ignore these types of historical legacies, and their institutional effects, as we try to understand why different patterns of identity politics emerge and shape contemporary economic and political outcomes. 

Is there any piece of advice you have for fellow researchers?

Having just completed months and months of in-depth, qualitative research in Bosnia, Lebanon, and Northern Ireland, I am reminded of the importance of old-fashioned research on the ground. Scholars (and practitioners) need to listen to people—whether elite or non-elites—living in places with politicized ethnic and religious divisions.  Understanding their concerns, perceptions, and behaviors, to the extent possible, helps us to develop a more contextually resonant account of how identity facilitates or hinders cooperation across communal groups, which is so essential to many social and economic outcomes. Field research also generates fresh ideas, encouraging us to push beyond established frameworks and to dream up new approaches. It is important for scholars to be immersed in scholarly literature and to master the tools of their disciplines, but we also need to know about real places. This will often entail rigorous qualitative research, an approach that does not always get its due in some of the social sciences.