goes on at the boundary” rather than “what is inside the boundary” (R. Jenkins 2015, 15). In other words, for the boundary approach, we should study the boundaries of ethnic groups from “the outside in” rather than “from the inside out” (Conforti 2015, 142). It was believed that developments and social interactions at and across boundaries have determining impacts on internal structures and dynamics (i.e., the cultural content of ethnic identity). Thus, in such an account, the “cultural stuff” becomes “an effect and not a cause of boundaries” (Eriksen 2010, 46). As R. Jenkins (2008, 13) observes, “Shared culture is, in this model, best understood as generated in and by processes of ethnic boundary maintenance, rather than the other way round: the production and reproduction of difference vis-à-vis external others is what creates the image of similarity internally, vis-à-vis each other” (see also Wallman 1978).
This orientation (i.e., focusing on social boundaries rather than ethnic substance or cultural contents), however, constitutes a major limitation. It makes sense to treat social boundaries and cultural content as analytically distinct dimensions of ethnic categories or movements; however, it is problematic to assume and focus on only a one-way relationship between them. Since shifts in symbolic boundaries (i.e., the substance and content of ethnicity) also directly affect social boundaries (see also Conversi 1995; R. Jenkins 2008), it is more realistic to assume a constant, mutual interplay between the symbolic and social boundaries. In other words, what goes on within the boundary also affects what goes on at and outside the boundary. As Jackson (2015b, 193) also notes, “The cultural content demarcated by different boundaries is manipulated and politicized in diverse ways and across contexts, in order to maximize, or in some cases reduce, the distinctiveness between different population categories.”
Given such a limitation of the earlier versions of the boundary approach (i.e., the tendency to disregard or neglect what exists or happens inside the boundary), more recent studies of ethnic boundary making pay greater attention to the contents of ethnic categories, or the “cultural stuff,” and so symbolic boundaries (e.g., see Nagel 1994; Conversi 1995, 1999; Cornell 1996; Cornell and Hartmann 2007; R. Jenkins 2008; Wimmer 2013; Jackson and Molokotos-Liederman 2015). As Jackson (2015a, 3) warns, “Studying ethnicity and nationalism through a boundary approach, while also accepting that the content of social categories informs how boundaries are drawn and vice versa, is vital.” Similarly, Conforti (2015, 142) cautions that “we must not downplay the value of the cultural elements as a central factor in defining the boundaries of ethnic groups.” The in-depth analysis of the Islamic opening of the secular Kurdish movement confirms that the cultural content of an ethnic identity or category does matter. For instance, empirical analyses show that the degree of ethnic-group heterogeneity and intragroup divisions and cleavages do shape boundary-making processes, such as ethnopolitical leaders’ boundary-making strategies and the processes of boundary contestation, particularly internal boundary contestation.
Like social boundaries, the symbolic boundaries of an ethnic category and of an ethnonationalist movement are mutable as well. Regarding shifts in the symbolic boundaries (or the “cultural stuff”), Nagel (1994, 162–163) identifies two types or forms of boundary work: “construction” (i.e., revisions of current culture and innovations such as the creation of new cultural forms) and “reconstruction” (i.e., revivals and restorations of historical cultural practices and institutions). The former occurs “when current cultural elements are changed or when new cultural forms or practices are created”; the latter takes place “when lost or forgotten cultural forms or practices are excavated and reintroduced, or when lapsed or occasional cultural forms or practices are refurbished and reintegrated into contemporary culture” (Nagel 1994, 162–163). Thus, with reconstruction, ethnopolitical actors might incorporate previously ignored or suppressed ideational elements (e.g., religion) into the ethnic category or movement and shift its symbolic boundaries.
The Kurdish case analyzed in this study constitutes a good example of the reconstruction of symbolic boundaries. With the Islamic opening in the post-1990 period, the Kurdish ethnopolitical leaders quit their anti-Islamic attitudes and instead developed an Islam-friendly approach. As a result, they have incorporated previously excluded Islamic ideas, values, and principles into their ethnonationalist discourses, strategies, and programs. By adopting a more religion-friendly notion of Kurdishness, Kurdish ethnopolitical leaders have remade the symbolic boundaries of the Kurdish ethnic category in their ethnonationalist outlook.
The shifts in the symbolic boundaries of an ethnic category or movement might have substantial impact on social boundaries and interactions across ethnic-group boundaries. Again the Kurdish case illustrates this point well. By developing an Islam-friendly attitude in the past decades, Kurdish ethnopolitical leaders have reconciled with Islam, expanding the symbolic boundaries of the movement. We see that such boundary work at the symbolic level resulted in rapprochements with certain groups but tensions with others. For instance, the empirical chapters of this study display that the Islamic opening of the secular Kurdish movement reduced the distance between itself and the conservative Kurdish masses, while it increased the tension with rival political actors with conservative or Islamic leanings, such as the AKP. Thus, this particular case confirms that there is a constant and mutual interaction between the symbolic and social boundaries of an ethnic category or movement.
Boundary-Making Strategies
As Terrier (2015, 47) succinctly states, “boundaries do not operate without human action.” Human agents consciously or unconsciously make and remake ethnonational boundaries. Both subjective (e.g., sense of belonging, myths, symbols) and objective (e.g., ancestry, ethnicity, language, territory) elements and features of ethnic and national identities or categories are subject to interpretation and reinterpretation by human agents. As Calhoun (1993, 223) notes, “ethnic identity is constituted, maintained, and invoked in social processes that involve diverse intentions, constructions of meaning, and conflicts. Not only are there claims from competing possible collective allegiances, there are competing claims as to just what any particular ethnic or other identity means.” Similarly, Segal and Handler (2006, 59) observe that “even when the existence of a nation is least contested, neither outside observers nor the nation’s most patriotic proponents are ever able to reach closure in their attempts to identify what trait, or trait-bundle, defines the shared national identity, or character, of the nation. Nationalist movements are instead engaged in a ceaseless politics of culture—an ongoing effort to identify, create, and maintain the purported common denominator of their national identity.” Such efforts to identify the constitutive elements of an ethnic or national identity should be interpreted as boundary making or boundary construction because determining what a particular ethnic category entails also means setting or demarcating its boundaries. As Conversi (1995, 77) also notes, all processes of identity construction (including nationalism) are simultaneously boundary generating and boundary deriving. Similarly, Jackson (2015a, 1) asserts that distinguishing the national or ethnic self from the nonnational or nonethnic other should be understood as a form of boundary making.
Cultural, intellectual, and political elites are the key actors in boundary-making processes. Operating like political entrepreneurs, ethnopolitical leaders not only identify what symbols, beliefs, ideas, values, principles, and traditions are associated with a particular ethnicity or nationhood but also play a substantial role in determining who belongs to an ethnic category and/or movement and who does not (see also Kasfir 1979; Conversi 1999, 564; Lecours 2000; Cederman 2002; Wolff 2006; Terrier 2015). In other words, beyond identifying group members and policing social boundaries, ethnic entrepreneurs define, maintain, or transform the symbolic boundaries of an ethnic category or movement as well. Such boundary works might involve tacit, unconscious and/ or deliberate, strategic processes (Fuller 2003).
In boundary-making processes (e.g., demarcating, maintaining, or demolishing symbolic and social boundaries of an ethnic category or movement), boundary makers might be motivated by diverse interests such as material (e.g., political or economic power and resources) and ideational (e.g., honor, prestige, recognition, dignity, belonging, legitimacy) expectations. In order to achieve those interests, ethnopolitical elites utilize a variety of strategies (see Fuller 2003; Wimmer 2013).
