of boundary shift, refers to moving an existing boundary to incorporate certain other ethnic categories or groups. The second form of boundary shifting, “contraction,” means shrinking or narrowing ethnic boundaries, excluding certain groups.7 These definitions suggest that ‘boundary expansion’ and ‘contraction’ are more related to changing the topography or location of existing boundaries (Wimmer 2013, 49–56). And these two common strategies can take place at both social and symbolic levels. In other words, both symbolic and social boundaries might be expanded or contracted. As noted earlier, ethnopolitical elites and leaders might modify the “cultural stuff” of ethnic categories or movements (i.e., remaking symbolic boundaries) as well as redefining insiders and outsiders (i.e., remaking social boundaries). This study interprets the Islamic opening of the secular Kurdish movement in the past decades as a typical case of boundary expansion, taking place at both symbolic and social levels.
“Transvaluation” involves changing the meaning of an existing ethnic boundary to challenge the hierarchical ordering of ethnic categories. Wimmer identifies two subtypes of transvaluation: “normative inversion,” in which the members of an excluded or despised ethnic category challenge the symbolic ethnic category and claim moral and cultural superiority vis-à-vis the dominant group; and “equalization,” which refers to establishing moral and political equality (rather than superiority) with respect to the dominant ethnic category (see also Fuller 2003). Another strategy is “positional move” (boundary crossing and repositioning in the ethnic hierarchy), which might take place at either the individual or group level. Wimmer (2013, 58) states, “When transvaluation does not represent a valuable option, moving one’s own position within a hierarchical system of ethnic categories might represent a more appropriate strategy. One can either change one’s individual ethnic membership or reposition one’s entire ethnic category. As in transvaluation, the boundaries of ethnic categories are not contested. Unlike [in] transvaluation … the hierarchy is accepted, but not one’s own position in that system” (see also Zolberg and Woon 1999; Eriksen 2010). As noted earlier, boundary shifting (in the form of either contraction or expansion) involves changes in the topography of ethnic or national boundaries (i.e., boundary relocation). However, in the case of boundary crossing, actors move from one side of a boundary to another, without any major alteration in the definition of the boundary itself. As Loveman and Muniz (2007, 923) also state, “boundary crossing implies that categorical membership changes with the acquisition of new traits; the symbolic boundary presumably remains fixed, and reclassification reflects individual or intergenerational mobility across it.”
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.,
