project 4.9 done like alot!

Contents

Introduction..........................................................................................................................................2Problem Formulation:.......................................................................................................................2

Methodology:.......................................................................................................................................3Project Outline:.................................................................................................................................3Case Design:.....................................................................................................................................4Choice of Theories...........................................................................................................................4Definitions........................................................................................................................................5

Indigenous People..............................................................................................................6Globalization, Neo–liberalism and Accumulation of Capital:...........................................7Nation States and Their Ideology:.....................................................................................9Culture.............................................................................................................................10

Literature:.......................................................................................................................................11Theory:...............................................................................................................................................13

Modernization Theory....................................................................................................................13Political Approach:..........................................................................................................15Cultural Approach:...........................................................................................................16

Social Constructivism:...................................................................................................................18Case: Zapatista...................................................................................................................................19

History of the Zapatista..................................................................................................................19Zapatista Ideology:.........................................................................................................................22

Case: Sami..........................................................................................................................................24Old History:....................................................................................................................................25New History:..................................................................................................................................25

Analysis..............................................................................................................................................27General Introduction........................................................................................................27

Modernization Theory....................................................................................................................28Analysis with Modernization Theory.............................................................................................28Modernization Theory- Political Approach on Zapatistas..............................................................29Modernization Theory- Political Approach on Sami......................................................................31Modernization theory- Cultural Approach on Zapatistas...............................................................33Modernization Theory- Cultural Approach on Sami......................................................................34

Summarization of Modernization Analysis.....................................................................36Social Constructivism Analysis..........................................................................................................37

Social Constructivism on Zapatista:...............................................................................................38Social Constructivism on Sami......................................................................................................41Summarization of Social Constructivism Analysis........................................................................44

Conclusion..........................................................................................................................................46

1

Aalborg University-Development and International Relations7th Semester Group 18 December 2010

IntroductionIn this project we are going to examine how indigenous people are perceived by the states they live

in and furthermore investigate if they are able to preserve their indigenous identity. The reason

behind the choice of the topic is rooted in the potential problems the ever expanding neo-liberal

agenda is causing. We are inspired by some of aspects of the World System Theory1 and several

articles relating this world view to indigenous groups and their place in the world2. The idea of a

world system assumes that the capitalist economy is expanding into the last untouched places of

earth3. We consider the neoliberal agenda4 as a way of spreading capitalism. This spread of

capitalism we consider to be one of the main aspects or results of globalization. Globalization

brings indigenous people who were previously unaffected by neo-liberal thoughts into contact with

modern ideas manifested in neo-liberalism5. Indigenous people are often seen as being outside of

the capitalist mode of production6. One of the things that make us wonder is if it is possible to

accumulate capital or use modern media and still be able to retain an indigenous identity.

This is relevant for the world today because we believe that globalization leads to some general

ideas about how the nation-states7 should develop its country and their populations thus also the

indigenous population living inside states. This again leads to certain ideas about indigenous people

and their role in or against the states attempt of development along a predetermined evolutionary

road to modernization. We are therefore going to examine what these ideas about indigenous people

in relation to development are and if these ideas are constant or if they are able to change. In this we

also have to find out how the indigenous groups’ self-perception changes over time and what its

situation is today. This enables us to analyze if it makes sense to use indigenousness as an identity

in a global world. With all of the above standing in mind the following question will be examined in

this project:

Problem Formulation:How are indigenous groups seen in relation to development in a globalised world, and are they able

to retain their cultural identity?

1 (Wallerstein, 2004)2 (Wallerstein, 2010) (Lauderdale 2009) (Fenelon & Hall, 2008) (Web1)3 (Wallerstein, 2004)4 As seen by the Washington Consensus, (Williamson 2004)5 For examples of systemic problems for indigenous people see (Lauderdale, 2009:371), (Khasnabish, 2010), (Fafner

2010)6 (Lauderdale, 2009:371), (Eriksen, 2002:125)7 We use nation-states, states and nations interchangeably in this project as both the cases that we investigate can be

classified as nation-states. Cf. Nation states and their ideology p. 102


This problem formulation has been chosen to shed light on the inherent problems indigenous groups

face in relation to development. We see globalization as a mechanism that forces cultural identities

to adhere to certain norms, these norms contradict indigenous groups’ cultural identity. This will be

the main focus of the project.

Due to the immense amount of indigenous groups situated around the globe, it is not possible within

the project frame to investigate all cases. Therefore we have chosen to focus on two cases only,

allowing us to provide an in depth analysis of these. The cases have been selected from both a

developing county and a developed country to represent a broad constellation of the indigenous

people’s situation. The cases this project deals with are the Sami in Norway and the Zapatista in

Mexico. The Sami are an indigenous group who live in Norway, Sweden, Finland and parts of

northern Russia; however we will only focus on the Sami in relation to the Norwegian government.

The Zapatista, on the other hand, are an umbrella organization that represents indians in various

parts of Mexico. They are chosen because they fight for the indigenous peoples rights to preserve

their indigenous identity while at the same time wanting inclusion in the Mexican society.8

Methodology:

Project Outline:The interesting aspect for this project to focus on is the manner in which indigenous people are

challenged by globalization and development. Due to this focus, we will use descriptive theory to

sketch out the main historical aspects of the spread of ideas about how societies are managed and

how they function.

In order to answer the first part of the problem formulation we are using approaches from

modernization theory, in which there are core assumptions on development and how people should

live in order to modernize. This will be used to show how the two groups, which we are focusing

on, are seen in the globalized world. This is relevant because globalization, apart from being a

spread of information technology, also implies modernization and development have increased

influence on the indigenous groups that we are focusing on. With the results from our descriptive

analysis built on the modernization theory, we will be able to discuss how indigenous people are

viewed in relation to development and globalization. While the theory will be used as a descriptive

theory it can still be used to interpret the indigenous peoples’ position in their given societies.

8 For a discussion of the importance of the host states developmental position and its effect on the indigenous peoples see (Paine, 1985)

3


To answer the second part of the problem formulation critical theory is needed. This is necessary to

analyze whether or not indigenous people are able to retain their indigenous identity in the global

world. To compose this critical analysis we will use aspects of social constructivism to explain the

indigenous peoples’ possibility to retain their identity. Social constructivism allows for an analysis

and discussion of how and why identities are constructed, interpreted and recreated.

Case Design:We have chosen a, two case design for our project; this means that our project will be managed in a

way which allows for some degree of comparative perspectives. Due to a lack of time and resources

we are only able to take a look at two different groups, we are therefore not able to conclude on all

indigenous people in the world. As our theory can be used on similar cases and because of the focus

on two very different indigenous groups it is possible to generalise to some extend on the perception

of indigenous cultures and their ability to retain their cultural identity in the face of globalization.

As already mentioned we have chosen to focus on the Sami in Norway9 and the Zapatista in

Mexico. The reason why we have chosen the Sami and the Zapatista is that they have some similar

goals of retaining their identity in a globalized world while at the same time operating in two

radically different places in the world. We think this will be possible because the two cases have

many similarities in the way they are seen, and this is what is important in relation to our project.

The differences will primarily be in terms of how the groups are viewed inside the two different

states and in the way in which they adapt their own culture to changes.

We are fully aware of the fact that there are major differences between our two cases, first of all the

Zapatista movement is an umbrella organisation for a number of indigenous groups10, whereas the

Sami are usually viewed as a more homogenous indigenous group. We are also aware of the fact

that the Samis are living in a developed country while the Zapatistas are functioning in a developing

country. Instead of seeing this as a disadvantage we see this as an opportunity to examine some of

the similarities and differences of indigenous groups in a more general sense.

As the cases of the Sami and the Zapatista have vastly different points of departure, their

presentation cannot be built up in the same way. The Zapatista have an overall ideology, while the

Sami do not. This is because the Zapatista are an organised group with a set ideology, while the

Sami are a concrete people and not merely a political group. However their similar goals and the

way the groups are perceived by the state allows for a similar analysis of their situation.

9 We are aware that Samis are not only living in Norway, but because of the historically much higher degree of ethnically based action and organization we have chosen to have a sole focus on Norwegian Samis (Asp-Poulsen, 2004).

10 (Barmeyer, 2009)4


Choice of TheoriesWe have chosen to use modernization theory as our descriptive theory because it allows for the

classification of societies and various groups position. The key aspect of the theory is that it permits

us to describe how indigenous people are seen from the perspective of the state in which they

reside. One aspect of the theory is that it explains the motivations behind states, their reactions in

the global world and can therefore be used to analyze some of the consequences for indigenous

people.

The project could have used other descriptive theories such as dependency theory, however this has

been deselected as this theory would not be able to answer the problem formulation as fully as

modernization theory. The reason for this is that dependency theory focuses on the interaction of

states and their economy. As the projects focus is indigenous groups that operate within a nation

state, modernization theory is better able to explain the view on the two groups in relation to

development. To nuance the use of the modernization theory a political and a cultural approach will

be used in the analysis.

One problem with modernization theory is that it sees the western societies as the most developed in

political, cultural and economic terms. To reduce problems related to this Eurocentrisme we will use

the critical theory of social constructivism to clarify why and how indigenous people are able to

cope with the views of modernization theory.

Social constructivism allows us to explain the second part of the problem formulation that deals

with the identity of indigenous groups. As identity questions are relative, a critical theory is needed

to analyze their ability to retain a certain identity. Social constructivism allows the project to focus

on various ways of adapting cultural identity to different situations, because social constructivism

does not see culture as a static and fixed characteristic, but more as a fluent concept.

The focus of the project is cultural and not economic, on this basis other critical theories, such as

Marxism would be unable to answer the second part of the problem formulation because this theory

puts great a focus on material aspects.

Another theory that has been deselected in that of post-colonialism, the theory might be able to

explain aspects of the problem formulation, however one of the cases, which the project focuses on,

is Norway, rendering the theory irrelevant as Norway is situates in the Western world and thus

outside the theories area of influence.

DefinitionsIn order to answer the problem formulation we need to define some key terms that the project will

5


use throughout.

We need to find out if it is possible to speak about somebody being indigenous, and if yes, what is

meant with the concept. Also we will define what we consider globalization to be, and how neo-

liberalism is a part of this. We will also take a look at the idea of nation-states, their ideology, and

the way they function according to the problem formulation.

Indigenous People.

First of all we need to clarify if it is at all possible to speak about something such as indigenous

people at all and especially when seen in relation to a globalized world. The most basic definition

used by the UN is the following:

Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a

historical continuity with preinvasion and precolonial societies that

developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other

sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories, or parts of

them. They form at present nondominant sectors of society and are

determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their

ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their

continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural

patterns, social institutions and legal systems. 11

The UN does not exclusively use one single definition of indigenous people thought; instead they

handle all matters connected to indigenous people in an adhoc manner. As can be seen in the above

standing quotation there is a good reason to argue for the using the term indigenous in relation to

our problem as it narrows down our focus. By this it is meant that by using the term indigenous it

becomes clear that the focus will be on people who are having a unique identity linked to certain

kind of culture. We are aware of the fact that not only is there no definite UN definition on what it

means to be indigenous but that the whole term has certain inherent problems. We have therefore

chosen to mainly focus on basic ideas about the implications of being indigenous. What we find

relevant with the term indigenous is especially the aspect that an indigenous person is a member of

a non dominant group in society, and that indigenous people are connected to a non-modern way of

life. We are aware that indigenous people of course are also able to participate in modern aspects of

11 Cobo quoted in (Fenelon & Hall, 2008 p.1869)6


society but this is not their primary identity. Which the following quotation specifies:

Indigenous groups are defined as non-state people, and they are always

linked with a non-industrial mode of production. This does not mean that

members of indigenous peoples never take part in governments or work in

factories, but rather that they represent a way of life which renders them

particularly vulnerable in relation to modernization and the state.” 12

Our choice of focus on these aspects in our definition of ‘indigenous’ is that these aspects in

connection to our focus of globalization and the neoliberal economical world order exposes

indigenous groups to different problems than other societies.

Again we are aware that that the term indigenous is complicated and therefore we will also apply

some more critical views from social constructivism. In general when speaking about indigenous

people we are referring to a people who originate from the area where they are currently living, who

are at least partially living in a non-modern way and who do not constitute the dominant group in a

state. This definition allows us to make some generalizations about our two cases. Furthermore

these traits allow us to look at how globalization is both used by indigenous people to overcome

some of their problems by using modern means of communication and to show how globalization

threatens these people.

Globalization, Neo–liberalism and Accumulation of Capital:

Globalization could generally be defined as:

By globalization we simply mean the process of increasing

interconnectedness between societies such that events in one part of the

world more and more have effects on peoples and societies far away.13

This is how we see globalization in relation to the way it allows indigenous peoples voices to be

heard, all across the world, allowing for new ways of alliances and struggles. On the other hand we

also consider globalization to be linked with neo–liberalism, and therefore as a problem for

indigenous people and their culture, this will be explained later in the project. The changing of

12 (Eriksen, 2002, p. 125)13 (Baylis et. al. 2008, p. 8)

7


power relations is seen by the following quote:

A historical process involving a fundamental shift or transformation in the

spatial scale of human social organisation that links distant communities

and expands the reach of power relations across regions and continents. 14

This way of seeing globalization is a more useful way of seeing globalization, in relation to our

problem formulation, this definition focuses on power relations on an international scale. That way

decisions made in for example Washington, might have consequences all over the world.

In this project we therefore consider Globalization to have two aspects, one that makes technology

and communication more accessible for everyone, and one that internationalizes power relations to

every part of the world. For example the Washington Consensus is relevant for a lot of people all

over the world; also this will be explained later. Therefore neo-liberalism is also important to

define.

Neo -liberalism builds on assumptions about free trade from classical liberalism15. Neo- liberalism

is a new form of international liberalism that has to do with international firms, and not just how the

economy should be organised.

During the Cold War the developing world was seen as having other conditions for economic

growth than the developed world. This changed with the end of the cold war, and the Washington -

consensus in 1989. With the Washington Consensus the entire world was now expected to apply

liberal economic ideas if they wanted to develop. Furthermore the state was now seen as an

important actor in applying these economic, political and cultural ideas16.

This tells us that neo-liberals focus a lot on the economic system in an international perspective, and

not on the means of production or the salary of the workers. The difference between liberalism and

neo-liberalism is among others that neo-liberalism still focuses on the central role of the market, but

the problem is no longer how it is possible to create the marked free from the state. Rather it is how

to create a state that is legitimate in the economic international system, and who see the state as a

means to ensure continued access to marked expansion17.

According to the theory states in the world need to adapt to the multinational firms needs, states are

in a competitive situation like firms in an international, game. An example of this is that states

compete in being the best country to invest in. Therefore privatisation is seen as necessary step 14 (Baylis et. al., 2008, p. 19)15 (Lauderdale, 2009 p. 375)16 (Williamson, 2004, p. 3)17(Williamson, 2004, p. 2)

8


towards economic growth due to international competition. An important idea in neo-liberal

thinking is that competition is good, and trough “supply and demand” the buyers of goods get the

best prise and the seller either triumph on the marked and is able to compete, or gets out

competed18. In our analysis we will discuss how these ideas of competition conflicts with

indigenous ideas about ownership.19

One of the important aspects of our project is how we see accumulation of capital, we use the term

according to the neo–liberal thought. We see it as an unlimited accumulation of goods, services,

money and labour. In the capitalist market there is an assumption that it is possible to keep this

accumulation going. Capital also exists in indigenous societies, but capital is only possible to

accumulate in a limited way20.

The state is seen as an important actor in all this, because the state is a good institution to spread

and maintain neoliberal politics. This is done trough a range of different tactics; political, military,

economic and cultural.

Nation States and Their Ideology:

In relation to our main focus we find it necessary to find out how nation-states work, and how they

organise their citizens and resources, and how this is put into a set of ideas. Nationalism is a type of

ideology that exists almost all around the globe. Nationalism is an ideology that implies that the

borders of a culture and the borders of a state are the same21. Even though most people do not

declare themselves nationalists they might still be very much influenced by nationalism as an

ideology that considers nation-state, as a sovereign entity22.

We consider nationalism to be important for the world today, and for the nation state. Nationalism

emerged around the time of the French revolution23. In the French revolution two terms emerged

that are very important for the nationalist ideology; citizenship and sovereignty24. These two terms

are also very important for the creation of the nation state. Especially the citizenship idea has

historically been very important because it has both been used to include a lot of people into the

state, thereby bestowing equal rights, but at the same time excluding a lot of others thereby refusing

them these same rights. We see this dualism as a result of the state’s aim of cultural homogenization

of the population in the case states. What is relevant for these two terms and the evolution of 18 (Jespersen, 2008, p. 1639-1645)19 (Kramvig, 2005) & (Lauderdale, 2009)20 For an example of this among Sami see (Kramvig 2008, p. 51) furthermore the way of accumulating capital is

explained in Cf. Case: Sami p. 2521(Gellner 1983, p.1)22 (Eriksen, 200,4 p.385)23 (Anderson, 2001) & (Wallerstein 2004 p. 51-53)24 (Wallerstein 2004 p. 51)

9


nationalism is the contradiction that is between the idea of citizenship, national identity, such as

being a Mexican, and the right to retain alternative identities, such as being Maya indian.

An important historical factor of the world today was the triumph of nationalism and ideas about

homogene national cultures.

The reason is that in a world-economy the first point of political

pressure available to groups is the local (national) state structure.

Cultural homogenization tends to serve the interests of key groups and

the pressures build up to create cultural-national identities.25

As can be seen from the quotation one of the most basic things in a world economy is a push for

cultural national homogenization, to strengthen the economic system. Furthermore liberalism has

become an incorporated part of Western nation-states and the way they interact at least on the

economic level. The ideas mentioned above have become globalised in the wake of the Washington

Consensus26.

Culture

To better understand the concept of culture, we will consider the definition provided

by the sociologist Max Weber:

The concept of culture is a value-concept. Empirical reality becomes

“culture” to us because and insofar as we relate it to value ideas. It

includes those segments and only those segments of reality which have

become significant to us because of this value-relevance.27

To determine what culture is, Weber affirms that there is a strong link between the empirical reality

and the concept of culture because the reality makes sense for the value established by a culture.

Thus, he argues that culture is replete with values born from the necessity of man to interpret

empirical reality.28

Through this concept we can exclude that culture is the set of skills that are learned through

schools, it is not the level of knowledge possessed only by a section of society. In

25 (Wallerstein, 1976, p. 230)26 (Williamson, 2004, p. 2) & (Lauderdale, 2009)27 (Weber, 1994, p. 253)28 (Weber, 1994)

10


fact, culture cannot be measured using the amount of knowledge that men acquire in the

course of their existence.29 The term culture is intended to indicate all the values, beliefs and

knowledge that are produced, transmitted and accepted within a society. This means

that one acquires the culture of the society one is born into, in order to navigate correctly through

the society. Consequently, every society, whether large or small, more or less modern, has its own

culture that affects its structures.30 That is why every society is differentiated by its own culture.

According to Weber:

The ‘culture’ is a finite segment of the meaningless infinity of the world

process, a segment on which human beings confer meaning and

significance31.

By this he wants to indicate that social reality becomes a construction made by men according to

the values and meanings they have established for that reality. A social phenomenon exists because

those values make it real real according to a particular prospect, namely for the vision that one

builds around it. In other words, the empirical reality is constructed by the interpretation of human

beings.

Weber considers cultural conception as a valuable mean for understanding the social structures, he

stresses the importance of analyzing the capitalist world by this perspective.32

Indeed, he argues that culture has had a strong influence on the success or failure of societies as

explained later33

This makes it clear how the culture can drive people toward a particular direction and in which way

the culture contributes to build the structure of a society. This is how culture will be used in the

descriptive analysis of the project. In the social constructive analysis the concept of culture will be

further discussed34

Literature:

For the project we have had certain criteria when looking for information to build the foundation of

the project on. The main issues with regards to finding, including and excluding information from

29 (Palmeri, 2000, p 13)30 (Palmeri, 2000, p 13)31 (Weber, 1994, p 81)32 (Swedberg, 2005, p 55-56)33 Weber explains how the Protestant culture has encouraged the accumulation of capital, business development and

commercial activities. Source: (Weber, 1904/5)34 Cf. Social Constructivism on Zapatista p. 39

11


the project has been whether or not the material is reliable and whether or not it is biased,

furthermore there has been a focus on diversifying our sources.

When searching and selecting information it has been important to find information that is

trustworthy. For that reason we have down prioritized using open sourced encyclopedias and

prioritized using published material like books or reports. This sorts most of the unreliable,

unsubstantiated and outright wrong information out. That is not to say that we have abstained from

using sources from the internet, but when we have used internet sources they have been extensively

researched to insure their reliability and validity, and then only used as secondary sources of

information. Of course just because material is published, it does not totally ensure that the

information is correct and thus information has been gathered with a critical mindset. At the same

time the project has aimed at diversifying the usage of sources to further underpin the projects

foundation. Finding trustworthy material has not been too difficult a task as the subject dealt with is

comprehensively covered and several authors refer to each other35, this further ensures the basis of

information the project is built on.

The subject covered by the project incites a lot of feelings in the participants and even the authors

writing about the problems. For this reason there has been an extra focus on being aware of when

we have been using biased material, for example when Subcomandante Marcos claims to be the

voice of the indigenous Mexicans we are aware that it is only from his point of view and that he

does not speak on behalf of all ten million indigenous Mexicans36. In order to get a balanced view of

the situation we have read articles, books and other published material from both sides of the

conflict. We have tried to see the problem from as many points of view as possible during the

research phase and when writing the project we have explained our points of view on central issues

so as the reader can be aware of our basis for analysis.

In our approach to the cases, we have chosen to use qualitative empirical data, which we as a result

of economical resources and a lack of time are unable to gather ourselves. Furthermore we use

theory in a deductive way so that we use theory to gain a conclusion out of our empirical material.

Due to time, economic and practical constraints we have not gathered primary information, this has

meant that the project is vulnerable to criticisms regarding the secondary information we base this

project on. In order to minimize this basis for criticism we have, as mentioned, diversified our

sources to get a balanced view of the conflict. The strengths in the material are in the secondary

material itself, we feel confident that we have found the most relevant and central material to the 35 For example when Barmeyer referes to Anderson in a discussion on nationalism and its influence on the Zapatistas

(Barmeyer, 2009 p.5); and when Khasnabish refers to Ramonet when explaining the importance of the march on Mexico City (Khasnabish, 2010, p. 150)

36 (Ramonet, 2001 p. 17 & 45)12


issues that the project deals with. This confidence stems both from the inter-reference between the

authors and from reviews of material from databases like Jstor37. As much of the material we are

using for the cases is very current, there are as yet no reviews of them. This does little to diminish

our confidence in the books as much of the information used has been cross referenced in other

sources and has been found to be consistent.

Regarding how up-to-date the information we have used is, it has been very important to attain the

newest material in the case of the Zapatistas as this is still an ongoing conflict38. However with

regards to the Sami case the date of the books has not had as high a priority, of course they should

be current but seeing as the heyday of the Sami cultural conflict has passed39 it naturally is not as

crucial to have as up-to-date information as is the case for the Zapatistas. In the theory section we

have used lecture notes and slides from the semester’s classes, giving us up-to-date information on

the theories as well.

Overall with regards to the information and the sources the project is built on, we feel confident that

they are reliable, balanced and current.

Theory:In the following section we will explain the theories that our analysis is utilized to answer our

problem formulation. Modernization theory will first be introduced as it will be used to answer the

first part of the problem formulation.

Modernization TheoryThere are several ways of viewing development between countries; modernization theory adopts a

view that some countries are more developed than others40. Within the theory there are several

approaches that describe the different ways of achieving modernity, these will be explained below.

The term underdeveloped was coined by American president Harry Truman in 1949, with this he

inadvertently established the western world as more developed than the rest of the world41 The

assumption that the west was more developed than the rest of the world, established the western

nations at the top of the hierarchy over other nations. However this also establishes it as a

37 For example the positive review of John Rapley’s book Understanding development- Theory and practice in the third world. the review praises the book for being balanced and critical (de Sayosa, 2004 p. 645)

38 (Khasnabish, 2010), (Barmeyer, 2009)39 Cf. Case: Sami p. 26 40(Peet & Hartwick, 2009)41 (Lecture note 1, 2010).

13


Eurocentric model that reduces other nation’s development to delayed evolution42, with the

assumption that all societies must move through the stages the western, developed, world has

moved though in order to become developed.

The developed countries have highly specialized social and political structures, like kindergartens,

national banks, ombudsmen, etc, to deal with various aspects of society. The less developed- or

underdeveloped countries structures are more of a fluent nature that have several tasks, for example

the church could take care of both religious aspects and education of the young.

The criterion for a country’s consideration as a developed or underdeveloped nation is based, to a

high extent, on economic43 and technological factors44. However some scholars45 have tried to

describe a difference between development and growth; growth is a purely economic term that

describes the state of countries’ economy. Development, on the other hand, is seen as economic

growth, but also as continuous improvements in society’s social aspects and a streamlining of the

societies institutions.46 This differentiation between the two concepts of development and growth

allows for an important observation in relation to the project, which is described below:

Throughout the 20th century Mexico was going through a modernization process, where there was a

focus on economic growth. The local indigenous people in the Chiapas area of Mexico were

gradually transformed from being subsistence farmers into parts of a wider capital accumulating

process. This created economic growth but it didn't lead to the creation of more specialized social

structures. It can therefore be claimed it was growth without development, which was beneficial for

the few who had power but not for the indigenous majority47.

In the theory of modernization there are certain core assumptions that can be summed up in two

points; the firsts point assumes that human societies develop towards the same higher stage,

societies stand on the shoulders of giants so to speak. In this view on development, societies draw

on previous experiences from their society and develop areas that have been successful48. The

second point is concerned with the human conduct and whether or not there is a driving mechanism

in society or in human nature that continues progress and advancement of civilization.

Modernization theory believes that development or change is inevitable, that societies in their

42 ( Alsted, 2001, p. 125)43 Examples GDP, GNP44 If raw material, agriculture or service labor is high in the country, (Lecture note 1, 2010)45 Karl Gunnar Myrdal (1898-1987) described this difference and emphasized that economic growth in a countries

economy did not necessarily lead to improvements for the populations of the countries. Myrdal made the distinction between growth and development to explain that the development term was more than just economic growth it also entailed a development of a countries social structures and organization of the state. (Sachs, 2010, p. 280-283 ) & (Lecture note 1, 2010 p. 1)

46 (Lecture note 1, 2010 p. 1)47(Khasnabish, 2010)48 (Alsted, 2001)

14


nature are driven to improve and develop their societies49. The theorists do however find it difficult

to specify and isolate the phenomenon, making this claim difficult to prove50. An evolutionary point

of view on development is if one accepts both of these points; that societies develop to a more

advanced stage and that this development is driven by society or human nature. Modernization

theory concludes that underdeveloped countries should look at more advance countries to see how

they have reached their level of advancement and then copy them. This creates legitimacy for

western countries, which have established themselves at the top of the hierarchy, to dictate and

impose doctrines on less developed or underdeveloped countries51. An example of this is the signing

of the NAFTA treaty by Mexico which shows how Mexico is influenced to follow the example of

USA. This also follows in the steps of the modernization theory as the treaty is a symbolic step for

Mexico’s attempt to enter the modern developed world.

A well known linear evolutionary development model is Walt Rostow’s take-off model. Rostow was

a modernization theorist who strongly believed in the free market idea. The theory focuses on

economic development and its effects on societies. For this reason, only Rostow’s core assumption

that all societies move through five essential phases, will be used. The first of these stages being the

traditional stage and the final stage being a society of high mass consumption52. We can use

Rostow’s view on linear evolutionary development because we argue that that the neoliberal agenda

is imposing itself on the last untouched places on earth, namely the indigenous people’s territory.

This is interesting for the project because indigenous people are pockets of the traditional stage in

states that either try to reach or are in the final stage, the stage of high mass consumption.

The classification legitimizes the western society in interfering with the internal economy of a

society in order to help them along the path to modernity. Said in another way; modernization

theory establishes one true or right way for countries to develop, it legitimizes and justifies cross-

border interference from developed to underdeveloped countries53.

As shown there are several ways in which to view development of societies, there is however also

several ways of viewing development in societies, the first model described below ascribes

organization a central place in development, whereas the last one is focused on cultural differences

that allows, or even causes, development54.

49 (Alsted, 2001) & (Peet & Hartwick, 2009, p. 139)50 (Alsted, 2001, p. 124-131)51 (Lecture note 1, 2010). 52 (Rapley, 2007, p. 25 ) AND (WEB 2)53 (Lecture note 1, 2010 p. 9-10)54 (Lecture note 1, 2010)

15


Political Approach:

The political approach deals with the leadership of society. In tribal and pre-modern societies

leadership was very centralized and power passed on within the family or clan. However as

societies develop, they get increasingly more complex, this allows for the development,

specialization and differentiation of structures. These structures develop around parts of society, for

instance unions at places of work, parties in politics and bureaucracies in government and so on55.

In this model, the level of societies’ development can be deduced from the level of specialization of

the structures within. However this model also uses the Western societies as a benchmark for

development of societies, reducing other alternative structures to inferior to Western. Societies have

always adapted their structures to fit their society’s needs; however the society’s environment does

limit the structures in certain aspects. The compression of time/space allows for various types of

organization and societal structures.56 For example in the days before modern communication, like

in tribal society, it would not be practical to have a democratic structure where everyone could vote

due to the constraints in time/space of the society. On that background it can now make sense to

classify societies according to their specialization of structures but as long as it is seen in the light of

the societies’ circumstances.

The political approach to modernization theory describes stages of crises which is a list of problems

that a society has to overcome in order to become a modern developed state.57 The first is the crisis

of State Building; here there is a need to establish bureaucracies and structures that engulf the entire

society. The second crisis is that of Cultural integration, the central element in this stage is to

change the loyalty structure of a society, instead of the individual’s loyalty being to the clan or tribe,

it should be to the state and its agencies. Participation is the third crisis and describes the

importance of the population as active participants in the political system. The final stage is that of

Distribution and deals with the allocation of goods, services and funds from the government to the

local level, this includes the call for welfare in some states. Concurrently with these systems the

legitimacy of the state should also increase, thus reinforcing the state’s ability to control its territory

and develop in the way it sees fit. 58 In order for a state like Norway or Mexico to modernize and

homogenize its indigenous populations it must, from a political approach to modernization theory,

build up the state, culturally integrate the population, activate the population in the system and

distribute the products of the state. It is possible for a state to go through several or all of the stages

at once, however this makes it harder for the state to overcome the crises.55 (Lecture note 1, 2010)56 ( Alsted, 2001 p. 110)57 (Lecture note 1, 2010) 58 (Lecture note 1, 2010

16


Cultural Approach:

In this view of modernization there is a focus on which cultural aspects that allow or even

encourage development. The cultural approach describes how for example it was the protestant

ethics that allowed for the development of the capitalist system. It was argued by clerics that it was

God’s will to make money and accumulate capital. This made it a moral task to accumulate wealth

and Weber59 described how this protestant ethics was the driving force behind capitalism.60

Making accumulation a moral and ethical task greatly encouraged the development of these

societies61. The important thing with this argument is that culture influences economic and other

parts of development in societies. Although mentality or culture can’t be ascribed for the whole

development, the model explains that abundance of resources in itself isn’t enough to assure

development, and that drive in the form of culture, must be present as well.

This theory would argue that the Chiapas area is a good example of this, the area is rich with natural

resources but the area is economically poor.62

Mentality, or what Weber calls culture, is an essential part of development. It can be culture, with its

established norms, that can encourage development. However, culture can also be seen as a

hindrance for development, culture can breed a conservative attitude toward modernization which

hinders development.63

If modernization theory is seen from a cultural point of view then development is inherent and

structural, it is the structures and the system that are the mechanisms that drive development

forward. Seeing as the structure is inhabited by the people of the society, the people have an effect

on the system too; this creates dynamics within the system and results in ever changing dynamic

structures64.

The approaches explained above have in common that they see societies as evolving towards the

same end point. As explained modernization theory assumes that societies are linear evolutionary,

we can use modernization theory in this project because globalization and neo - liberalism force

societies to develop in a certain direction or after a certain logic, in this case the neoliberal logic.

We will use modernization theory to explain the choices and consequences the indigenous groups of

our cases are facing in light of an increasingly globalised world, furthermore we will use the theory

to show how these indigenous groups came to be in the situation they are in. These choices and

59 (WEB 3)60 (Lecture note 1, 2010, p. 6)61 (Lecture note 1, 2010)62 (Khasnabish, 2010)63 (Lecture note 1, 2010)64 (Lecture note 1, 2010 p. 5-6)

17


consequences can be analyzed from several approaches namely the political and the cultural. Our

aim from the political approach is to explain how the various agents, in the form of the state, are

acting in order to integrate and engulf indigenous groups. As will be shown later the important part

is for the state to shift the loyalties of the indigenous groups from their own society to the state65.

From a cultural perspective we will document the problems the indigenous culture in itself can

cause for this integration process. We will use this part to document that the insisting on retaining

cultural aspects can affect the integration process. The modernization theory allows us to analyze

the problems the indigenous groups face from a position with an overview. This will allow us to

reduce the problems the indigenous peoples face to general points of struggle, which can then be

compared between the case groups.

So to summarize on the modernization theory we will use the two approaches to analyze how the

two cases are seen from a cultural and political point of view. There are other aspects in the

modernization theory that could be used; however as the project focus is on cultural and political

aspects the political and cultural approach is reasonable to use.

Social Constructivism:Social constructivism is a theoretical assumption that hails from the wider international relations

school of constructivism. Constructivism is a theory used in the schools of international relations, to

show how ideas define the international structures and to show how these international structures

shape identities, interests and forge politics and how the state and nonstate66 actors help reproduce

and reshape these structures.

Social constructivism is a more widely applied theory found in social sciences, it originates from

Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, its focus lies more at a micro level and it gets inspiration

from various schools67. It is a social theory which means that the main focus of constructivism has

its focus on actors vs. structures. All social constructivist agree on the fact that many things are

socially created, but for example rocks, flowers, gravity and oceans, exist whether we agree on it or

not, while other things like money, terrorism, human rights, sovereignty and religion are social

facts68. These are social facts because they only exist if the majority of humans in a society agree

that they exist and the conception of their existence will change if we get another categorisation of

65 Cf. Political approach analysis of the Sami and the Zapatista p. 29-3266 For example civil society67(Jensen et all, 2008, p. 2268)68(Jensen et all, 2008, p.2268)

18


them. To exemplify; an example a plot of rainforest might be considered sacred by some Indians

while the state only sees it as a source of value. The forest is thereby different in the perception of

different actors but the purely physical forest is the same all along.

Social constructivism emphasises that actors are not born outside and prior to society, however they

are produced and created by their cultural environment. To be a Norwegian or a Sami also changes

and is socially constructed.

The focus on human consciousness suggest a commitment to idealism and

holism, which, according to Wendt (1999) represent the core of

constructivism.(...) Our mental maps are shaped by collectively held ideas

such as knowledge, symbols, language and rules. Idealism does not reject

material reality but instead observes that the meaning and construction of

that material reality is dependent on ideas and interpretation69.

Whether or not an action is legitimate to carry out or not, is also socially constructed. So what is

legitimate to do in a Norwegian society is not necessarily legitimate in a Sami society70.

The aim of a constructivist is to understand how individuals give significance and meaning to their

actions, therefore the role of ideas are taken seriously in world politics71.

One of the important aspects of social constructivism that is relevant for our project is to be found

in the questioning of the creation of a natural identity, be it national or indigenous. Understood in

the way that ethnicity is created as an imagined collective understanding, to have a common

interest. Another interesting aspect that social constructivism can help shed light on is the way in

which traditions are being used, made and remade for political purposes72. It is necessary to be

aware about the fact that a lot of the traditions or customs that are brought up as political tools are

almost always a result of the resistance to modernization and cultural homogenization and therefore

they are not pure traditions but rather reconfigured traditions73

This theory can be used to highlight some of the problems the indigenous people are

confronting, as well as explain why they are acting as they are, for example how they are

changing their political and cultural definitions of things. Furthermore it helps us grasp how

69(Baylis et all; 2008, p.163) 70(Eidheim, 1969 )71 (Baylis et all, 2008) 72 (Hobsbawm, 1983)73 (Eriksen, 2004, p. 395)

19


the nation-states are trying to create ideas about national cultures, and how globalization

works in ways of constructing shared imaginations.

Case: Zapatista

History of the Zapatista

To understand the Zapatista movement and their motives we must look to their history, this will show

that what the Zapatistas are fighting for is not a new idea and that it is one that the indigenous peoples

of Mexico have fought for, for a long time.

Many revolutionary groups came into existence in the post war economic boom in the 1950’s and 60’s.

At that time there was growth in all primary sectors of the Chiapas area74 but this growth was unequal.

The growth and wealth accumulation was centered around those who had land. Small land owners or

subsistence farmers made up about 50 percent of the population in the area however they only owned

about one percent of the nations land. On the other hand 60 percent of the land was owned by the

wealthy landowners who consisted of only 2.4 percent of the population75. This inequality helped

spark the rise in leftist revolutionary groups up though the 60’s, that opposed the corporatism policies

that the PRI76 party was following77. The many movements grew in power up though the 70’s and their

primary focus was not long term strategic goals but rather short termed goals where they wanted to

expand their own faction’s power in a given area78. In general these groups worked on securing safety

for they own supporters they fought for social justice, direct democracy and autonomy for their areas.

As we will see this is also what the Zapatistas are fighting for, however they have combined these ideals

with a larger, broader struggle that places them in a global conflict against the oppression that the

neoliberal agenda causes to the indigenous peoples of the world79.

These ideals that the Zapatista fight for were not first formulated in the post war economic boom. The

cries for justice and land reform go back to the Mexican revolution of 1910 where Emiliano Zapata

stood up against the Dictator Porfirio Díaz and united the poor peasant population of Mexico against

the elitist rulers for the country. 60 years prior to the revolution, facing a French invasion in the 1860’s,

the Mexican government introduced land reform laws to among other things finance the war and

modernizing the lives of Mexicans. Confiscating land and expropriating land was especially easy for the

Mexican government to do to the indigenous peoples because they had difficulty providing evidence

that they actually owned the land they lived on80. With regards to the improving the lives of Mexicans

74 Specifically cattle ranching, sugar cane, coffee and so75 (Khasnabish, 2010, p. 48)76 Institutional Revolutionary Party77 (Khasnabish, 2010, p. 49)78 (Khasnabish, 2010, p. 50)79 (Khasnabish, 2010, p. 50-51)80 (Khasnabish, 2010, p. 28)

20


the reforms had other consequences;

While the reform laws were intended to ‘free the individual from traditional

fetters’, they succeeded only in introducing new forms of bondage to the lives of

people who already faced multiple forms of domination and exploitation”81.

These laws resulted in a massive injustice being done to especially the indigenous peoples of Mexico.

The land laws made it almost impossible for Mexican indians to support themselves by agriculture

because the government decreased land lot sizes and outlawed the community farms. Not being able to

live off the land peasants began selling their land and labor, increasing the land of the wealthy land

owners and creating an army of debt workers to fuel the Mexican modernization82. The central part of

the grievances was the land reforms, because they in effect forced the indigenous peoples to become

workers in the secondary sector rather than farmers in the primary sector which resulted in them

having to change their whole way of life.

One of the main reasons behind the Mexican revolution in 1910 was the call for land reforms and one

of the loudest voices was that of Emiliano Zapata. In the years leading up to the revolution wealthy

land owners had confiscated increasingly larger land areas from the Mexican indians including that of

Zapata’s village, any objections by the population resulted in the burning down of their villages.83

Zapata predicted that it was just a matter of time before the rest of his village’s lands were seized. After

hearing Francisco Madero, a challenger to the current dictator, Díaz, encourage to rebellion, Zapata

gathered up 80 men and reclaimed the village’s stolen lands.84 Along with other rebel leaders around

the country Mexico was thrown into a civil war resulting in the inauguration of Zapata’s allied, Madero,

as president. Madero had promised Zapata extensive land reforms during the war, but when first in

power Madero proved less willing to deliver85. Zapata, who had been ready to lay down his weapons

and return to his farming, was furious and declared war on Madero announcing that he would march

on Mexico City. The rebels were at war once again, this time resulting in the execution of Madero who

was replaced by the leader of a competing rebel army, General Huerta. However Huerta alienated large

parts of the population in Mexico because he accused them of sympathizing with Zapata inadvertently

pushing them into the arms of Zapata, whose army grew.86 Still without land reforms Zapata went to

war against Huerta and won yet another war but he was not interested in taking power himself so

there followed a turbulent period of weak leaders ultimately ending up with Venustiano Carranza as

the new president. Again Zapata was disappointed by the empty rhetoric of the leaders, there would be 81 (Khasnabish, 2010, p. 28)82 (Khasnabish, 2010)83 (Fafner, 2010. p. 52-57)84 (Fafner, 2010. p. 52-57) 85 (Khasnabish, 2010)86 (Khasnabish, 2010) and (Fafner, 2010. p. 52-57)

21


no real land reforms for the indigenous under the leadership of Carranza so Zapata yet again declared

war. In 1919 he was lured into an ambush by Carranza and killed, without their leader the rebel

movement disbanded and soon after the revolution was over87. Zapata can be compared to a Mexican

Robin Hood who fought for the Mexicans in an unreasonable position; this may be the reason why he

was so fiercely protected by his supporters in the countryside88.

The Zapatista movement has its ideological roots in the previous Mexican revolutions and draws on the

symbolism of these historical events in their way of getting support. However the Zapatista are only

symbolically connected to these revolutions and is a movement that was started in the 1980’s and was

largely unknown to the majority of the Mexican population89. The Zapatista movement, as we know it

today, first came into the public light on first January 1994, as a revolt against the signing of the North

American Free Trade Agreement90. This was as such the first active revolt against globalization and

thus placed the Zapatistas on the global as well as the national scene.91 The Zapatista army seized

several towns and many big farms92, symbolically copying Emiliano Zapata’s revolt in 1910. The

Mexican government sent in the army to retake the areas seized resulting in the Zapatista army being

beaten and fleeing into the jungle. Here the Zapatista movement’s leader, Subcomandante Marcos,

became a voice for the Mexican indians in Mexico, he attracted increasingly more attention from the

international civil society through his netwar, in essence an information war where he portrayed the

Zapatista situation as a reasonable struggle for justice and freedom for the poor indigenous farmers in

the area. He also tried to embarrass the Mexican government by bringing international attention to the

appalling injustices against the indigenous peoples of Mexico.93 In 1996 there was an agreement

between the Mexican government and the Zapatistas resulting in government concessions on land

ownership rights, autonomy and legal recognition of indigenous people94. These would be known as

the San Andrés Accords. However the concessions were never carried out, so the indigenous army once

again prepared for a fight this time with another tactic.

In 2001 the Zapatistas again blasted out of the jungle and into the limelight. A march on Mexico City

had been arranged much like Zapata had done during the revolution. The key difference being that the

march was a peace march, a nonviolent rebellion against the unfairness the Mexican indians were

experiencing. It was a demonstration for the introduction of the San Andrés Accords.95 The motorized

march was headed by 24 rebel leaders and thousands of international and local followers. Once in

Mexico City they were allowed to address the Mexican congress, they did however have to wait three

87 (Fafner, 2010. p. 52-57) 88 (Fafner, 2010. p. 52-57) 89 (Khasnabish 2010)90 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)91 (Khasnabish, 2010) & (Barmeyer, 2009, p. 1)92 (Rubin 2004 p. 108)93 (Ronfeldt, et al. 1998, p. 2-3.)94 (WEB 4 ) 95 (Barmeyer, 2009, p. 51-52)

22


weeks before being given that right. Here the Zapatista army tried to revive the San Andrés Accords but

without success to this day.96 They continue to gather support from large parts of the civil society, both

nationally and worldwide.

Zapatista Ideology:

The uprising of the Zapatista Army was as mentioned born in the remote Chiapas region, this isolated

area reflects the conditions of exclusion in which the natives are living and which they are opposing97.

The Zapatista army was created with the intention to awaken world conscience on the degrading

situation that indigenous people were undergoing due the negligence of the state.98

For many years the indigenous peoples of Mexico have, according to Subcomnandante Marcos, felt

overlooked, exploited and under pressure to change by the Mexican society99. This they feel is a great

injustice and it is here that the Zapatismo ideology has its roots. So the Zapatistas are a reaction

towards this pressure and has established itself as a resistance movement, in the simplest terms the

whole movement can be boiled down to a resistance towards injustice100.

They affirm that indigenous people do not receive any recognition from the Mexican constitution and it

does not provide basic social services and rights for the indigenous needed to satisfy their basic needs

as “Land, feeding, housing, health, education and those ones that presents a profound social, legal and

political change: autonomy and democracy.”101

The Zapatista are not a typical rebel movement that want their own state or that want to take over the

government, they want to be an integrated part of the Mexican nation, a part of Mexico that has the

responsibility and trust that they can solve their own problems without the interference of the state102.

In this process there is a desire to acquire autonomy that can help them to be seen, by the rest of the

Mexican population, as more than just a ‘problem child’. They are fighting for recognition from the

Mexican state which would allow them to enter the Mexican society on equal terms as non-indigenous

Mexicans103. The Zapatistas struggle to achieve autonomy which would allow them to organize and

manage their own resources with which it would be possible to recognize and respect the fundamental

rights of indigenous people. Autonomy would not only create respect around the indigenous, it would

also entail that the indigenous could introduce the direct democracy they want and introduce the

economic system of their choice. This is possible by redefining that the function of democracy is not

limited to only recognize a universal suffrage, but becomes a means to promote and enable the active

96 (Barmeyer, 2009, p. 51-52)97 (Ramonet, 2001, p. 19)98 (Ramonet, 2001, p. 19 and p. 58)99 (Ramonet, 2001)100 (Ramonet, 2001)101 Own translation from (Aragones, 1998, p. 55)102 (Ramonet, 2001)103 Own translation from, (Aragones, 1998, p. 68)

23


participation of all citizens in political, social and economic life104. They promote a flourishing

democracy that allows the formation of institutions such as the popular action, termination of the

mandate and plebiscite which will enable the state to consider the respecting of the will of the people

as a primary concern105. Through their collective participation it could be possible to construct a

Mexico based on respect and coexistence of different ethnic and cultural identities.

The Zapatista fear that Mexican indians will bargain away their culture and heritage in exchange for

integration into the Mexican society106. One of the guiding principles of the Zapatista is the struggle for

defense of their culture against the imposing neo-liberal system107. The Zapatistas consider neo-

liberalism a cause of further underdevelopment of poor countries and globalization and as an

instrument to homogenize the countries in the world108. Thus the Zapatista army, considering

globalization as a threat to the various minority cultures in Latin America, inaugurated an anti-

globalist policy for the defense and the maintenance of multi-ethnic and multicultural diversity109.

Paradoxically, globalization has a decisive influence on the size and position of the indigenous struggle

that has become global. Subcomandante Marcos, is aware of the importance of the media, and can be

described as a prototype of an information-age social activist using netwar to further his agenda110. In

the Zapatista’s soft war111 they utilize netwar as a weapon to pressure the Mexican government to

concessions.112 Through the networks and other media such as newspapers, radio, television, and the

internet, the Zapatista movement has been able to promote its objectives and attract the attention of

many international organizations, human-rights activists and journalists through non-violent means

that have become a governing principle113. This type of information war was started by the Zapatista

but cannot be controlled by them, this way of struggling involves so many actors on a battlefield and

they are not all under the control of the Zapatistas meaning that the war cannot be controlled from the

top and the structure of the war is therefore fluent.

This led to the construction of a social network that brought together indigenous peoples from around

the world under the same objective, namely to fight for the assertion of their rights and not to

disappear from the earth. The social netwar allowed the extension of a regional phenomenon to a

global phenomenon through a soft war, a war without violence.

104 (Aragones, 1998, p. 67-68)105 (Aragones, 1998, p. 67)106 (Ramonet, 2001)107 (Aragones, 1998, p. 57)108 (Ramonet, 2001, p. 30-34) 109 (Ramonet, 2001)110 ”The term netwar refers to an emerging mode of conflict (and crime) at societal levels, involving measures short of

traditional war, in which the protagonists use network forms of organization and related doctrines strategies and technologies attuned to the information age.” (Ronfeldt, et al., 1998. p. 9) (Ronfeldt, et al., 1998. p. 1)

111 A war without violence112 (Ronfeldt, et al., 1998. p. 7-10)113 (Barmeyer, 2009) & (Khasnabish, 2010) & (Ramonet, 2001)

24


Case: SamiThe Sami are a people, who live in parts of the northern Norway, Sweden, Finland and

Russia. There are some different opinions about where the Sami people originated from,

but they speak a language that is somewhat linguistically close to Finnish. They are

generally considered as the first people to settle in northern of Scandinavian, and are

therefore considered to be indigenous. Throughout history, the way that the Sami have

lived has been changed by contact with non-Sami cultures. The Sami have because of this

contact, moved further and further north in Scandinavia114, into what today is known as

Sapmi, in Sami language115. One interesting thing all the Sami people have in common, is

their belief in the fact that one should not fight against the natural forces, or try to get in

command of them, one should not harm the natural resources unnecessarily, but on the

contrary try to keep the natural balance. This put them in contrast to the neo-liberal idea of

endless accumulation of capital116. They have never had the urge to expand geographically,

because they were sparsely populated, nor has their religion, or economy forced them to do

so117.

Old History:In the first century, the Norwegian118 people began to colonize the Sami lands. This was the

first time the Sami people, saw a stratified society form, they did not adopt this form, but

they did adopt animal keeping, farming and their semi- nomadic way of life. For a long

period hereafter robbing from the Sami people was very normal119.

In the middle ages the colonization of Sami lands became more complex, from the 12th-17th century

the four states with a sovereignty over Sami area, started building churches and the Sami people

was either robbed or demanded tax from on unequal terms of trade. The borders that exist now in

Sapmi were created by Denmark-Norway and Sweden-Finland 1751 and Norway-Russia in 1826120.

This led to the fact that the semi-nomadic culture of the Sami was changed by the state powers to

permanent settlements, with a compensation of labour within fishing, hunting, gathering and some

farming combined with animal holdings arranged internally between the Sami. This had the effect

that the Sami- people did not hunt the reindeers, but instead began having them as domesticated

114 (Asp-Poulsen, 2004)115 The Sami word for the area that was formerly known as Lappland. (Pietikäinen; 2008, p. 23)116 (Kramvig, 2005, s.47)117 (WEB 5)118 We differentiate between Norwegian and Sami119 (Asp-Poulsen. 2004)120 (WEB 5) &, (Asp-Poulsen. 2004)

25


animals121.

New History:There is an ongoing assimilation of the Sami culture in the society even after World War Two;

trough the media’s encouragement to mass consumption there is left little room for a self powered

economy.

Historically there have been three main reactions from the Sami people. The first is a passive stance

of acceptance of cultural homogenisation; the second is a stance of supporting assimilation of the

Sami into the Norwegian society as modern Norwegians, the last reaction, which is the most

relevant for the project, is the refusal to relinquish central parts of Sami culture.122

Recent political Sami history from the 1950’s onward can be divided into three major phases

according to how Sami people view themselves in relation to integration into the Norwegian state;

from a stigmatized Sami identity, to an ethnic conscious identity, and into a still ethnic but more

institutionalized identity.

The way that Sami people were feeling stigmatized and tried to hide their identity in the face of the

growing modernization of northern Norway was documented by Harald Eidheims groundbreaking

fieldwork during the 1950’s123. The modernization of the area occurred quite rapidly as northern

Norway had been completely devastated by the Nazis during Second World War. Furthermore the

growing Norwegian welfare state felt it as an imminent task to modernize all the country at one

time so a division between a developed urban centre along the south coast and an underdeveloped

rural north Norway, was avoided. What Eidheim discovered was that Sami people were usually

hiding their Sami cultural affiliation, at least when around Norwegians. Instead they were usually

trying to show off their knowledge about Norwegian culture and their integration in the wider

nation state of Norway124.

In any case, I was a person towards whom people in the community

considered it appropriate to show off their Norwegiannes. They made efforts

to underline this quality of theirs by communicating their competence in

modern fishing and agriculture, and by telling about local public events

which they thought meritorious with reference to this quality. Many people

121 (WEB 5)122 (WEB 5)123 (Eidheim 1969)124 (Eidheim 1969)

26


liked to stress that they were well travelled and pretended to have a good

knowledge of other parts of Norway, and they did not forget to mention that

people from this fjord were settled as far away as Oslo, Germany, Alaska,

and Australia. In addition, they liked to dwell on their good standard of

housing, and the quality of their stables compared to what they had seen

during their evacuation period 1944/45 farther south.125

What is obvious from the above standing quotation is that Sami people at this time did not use their

ethnic identity as an identity, at least not publicly. During his field work Eidheim also discovered

that Sami language was being used as a kind of secret code between Samis but often it was being

kept secret even from one’s own children, as people wanted their children to become Norwegian

and not Sami126. It can thus be claimed that even the Sami’s themselves were accepting the nation-

states agenda of cultural homogeneity and modernization in the 1950’s127. The normal Sami strategy

of fighting for less discrimination was to actively try to be good Norwegians.128

In 1947 the The Norwegian Reindeer National Union129 was created. It tried to develop and secure

Sami culture, and it tried to secure Sami rightful usage of land. Today there are 19 of such unions.

In the late 1960’s a major shift occurred in both the cultural and political ideas among Samis. From

a self-perception as stigmatized, because of the faults of Sami culture, the understanding was now

that stigmatization was a result of outside discrimination. As early as 1969 the first ethno political

Sami organization was formed: NSR130. NSR declared from the start that their aim was to represent

Sami interests from a Sami perspective. During the 1970’s the NSR and their followers were

radicalized and thus became more anti-Norwegian. In 1973 NSR were successful in getting a Sami

research institute established, which was to conduct research on Sami subjects from a Sami point of

view. Furthermore the NSR refused to participate in king Olav the fifth’s 75th birthday in 1978131.

The culmination of radical Sami political action against the Norwegian state occurred during the

construction of the Alta-dam in northern Norway. The Sami thought that the consequences of the

dam being built would mean that it would affect massive areas of traditional Sami pasture grounds

and thereby forcefully changing the way of life of some of the remaining pastoralists. In a protest

125 (Eidheim, 1969:42)126 (Eidheim, 1969:43)127 This of course was not the case of all Samis. Robert Paine has thus described how a lot of pastoral Sami identity

was based on being members of the protestant Laistadian religion. However identity was not ethnic as such though (Paine, 1991, p. 25)

128 (Paine, 1991, p.26)129 Norges Rendriftsamers Landsforening (WEB 5)130 Norske Samers Riksforbund/Norga Samiid Riikasaer’vi (Paine, 1991)131 (Paine, 1991:26)

27


against the dam construction a group of seven young Sami men, who called themselves the Sami

Action Group, declared a hunger strike outside of the Norwegian parliament in Oslo. To further

stress their claim they were dressed in traditional Sami costumes and they were camping in a Sami

tent, a laavo, during the strike132. The protests were unsuccessful and the dam was completed in the

80’s. The struggle against the Alta dam project lead to two major changes in the Sami situation;

firstly it lead to the acknowledgment that there was no one set definition of Sami culture133.

Secondly the attention achieved through the protests lead to a softening of the Norwegianisation by

the state. This is evident in the construction of a separate Sami parliament in 1989 that deals with

issues related to the Sami.134

Analysis

General Introduction

We will use our analysis to find out how indigenous political movements are seen in a globalised

world and how they are struggeling to retain their cultural identity and way of life or at least the

right to choose their own path.

By including the modernization theory we can analyzes the motivations of the states in their attempt

to homogenize their populations and by this we can analyze and explain the two cases and their

history and situation in a global perspective. From this we will explain how the two cases react

towards globalization. This requires the use of historical evidence which we have included in the

case presentations135. Social constructivism will be used to show how shifting indigenous identities

are dynamically constructed and re-interpreted to fit into the changing global and national

circumstances. One interesting question about the differences and similarities between nationalism

and ethnic ideologies is how the ethno political movement changes as it navigates inside the

political arena of the nation state. Is it possible to keep the native perspective and alternative

approaches if and when a certain amount of integration into the nation-state becomes a reality?136

This is documented through our analysis of the cases with the use of social constructivism.

132 (Paine, 1991:26)133 (Stordahl 1991)134 (WEB 6) 135 Cf. Case presentations p. 19-27136 (Eriksen 1991 p. 274)

28


Modernization Theory

Analysis with Modernization TheoryIn the following section we will use the modernization theory to analyze the cases of the Zapatista

and the Sami; this will show that the theory can be applied in praxis and that it can help explain the

development of these case’s history and situation. As described in the modernization theory the

model has some assumption about a society’s development, that some societies are developed and

some are underdeveloped. As an example we can see that Mexico is not as developed as Norway

because Mexico has a high level primary sector employment and have a lower GDP, for this reason

Mexico is in a modernization perspective, considered less modern than Norway.

Growth in both Norway and Mexico has not led to significant development of the areas with large

indigenous populations, and in the social sectors considered important by the indigenous people.

This happened because the indigenous populations were not considered modern and were not

integrated in the society and thus not included in the process of development. Indigenous people are

in Mexico and Norway therefore seen as less modern people than the surrounding population. The

Zapatista revolt in 1994 could be a result of the fact that indigenous groups in the Chiapas, did not

feel they were getting their share of development.137 There was growth, but not development for the

indigenous people138.

There is an assumption in the modernization theory that societies move towards a continually higher

stage of development. This is seen in the way that the Mexican state tries to assimilate itself more

and more to Western norms, creating problems for the indigenous population in Mexico. A Sami

example of this is the Alta dam project, here the Norwegian state valued development over the

rights of the Sami culture and values which threatened the Sami indigenous way of life139.

The assumption that there is an inherent driving force in all people and societies can be used to

show that the states with whom we are dealing with, try to modernize the indigenous people

because it is the inherent logic of the state, that people want to become modern. The modernization

theory implies that development is linear and this idea is further strengthened by neo-liberalism as

shown by the Washington Consensus; which implies that development should be implemented in

the same manner to all societies across the globe140. This idea highly affects the indigenous

populations in Mexico and Norway because it negates the possibility of developing social and

economic alternatives.

137 (Ramonet, 2001, p 19)138 Cf. As explained earlier in Modernization Theory p.15139 (Paine, 1991, p. 28)140 (Williamson 2004, p. 3)

29


Modernization Theory- Political Approach on ZapatistasThe modernisation theory has several approaches that we will use to describe how the two groups

are seen from a developmental point of view and how this has come to be.

First we will look at the history of the Zapatistas, and try to analyze what has happened from a

modernisation point of view, following this we will do the same with the Samis.

When analysing the stages of crises we will only focus on the stages that are relevant for the groups

in question, we are using the indigenous groups as our cases and not as such the case nation’s

history. It would for example be irrelevant to analyze the first stage of crisis, the ‘stage of state

building’ as the main institutions for governing the Mexican country were established before the

Mexican revolution. However with the Sami all the stages are relevant resulting in all of them being

analyzed.

The first important factor that we mentioned in the Mexican history was when the economic boom

happened in the 1950's and 60's. What happened was that the growth was unequally distributed,

towards the already wealthy landlords of the country. The political approach in the modernisation

theory has a clear understanding of how a society goes trough different phases in order to adapt

structures to societies needs. Here the modernisation theory would argue that capital was centralized

in order to fit the country’s needs, in order to compete on a global scale. It also happened in order to

try and transform Mexico into a modern society from the top-down point of view141.

The rise of the revolutionary groups in Mexico can be explained by the political approaches stages

of crises. The groups were able to rise because of the crisis, so it was necessary for the state to

overcome the crisis and guarantee participation from its citizens. For example the key land reforms

that are still being fought against today are the ones established in the 1860’s. The revolts that have

emerged from these land reforms can be interpreted as a crisis of ‘cultural integration’, the second

stage of crises and this as well should be seen as one of the 'stages of crises' that arise when the state

tries to modernise its country. The state did not overcome this crisis because they did not succeed in

receiving the loyalty from the people. This prevented Mexico from further modernising, which can

help explain why Mexico is not a fully industrialized country.

The Zapatistas only represent a small part of the Mexican population, but gather sympathy

worldwide142. This shows that overall Mexico actually has gone though the cultural integration stage

and is now in the participation stage where the general trend is that more people vote at elections

141 For examples of this point of view see (Alsted, 2001, p. 125) (Fukuyama, 1989) (Rapley, 2007)

142 For a view on how widespread support is for the Zapatistas see: (Barmeyer, 2009)30


year for year143. This can be interpreted to show that alongside the solving of the stages of crises,

there is an increase in the people’s acceptance and recognition of the Mexican state.The majority of

the Mexican population supports the institution of the Mexican state even though they still have

sympathy for the Zapatista cause. If Mexico was still primarily in the crisis stage of cultural

integration the Mexican state would not be able to gather increasingly larger numbers of people to

vote and thus acknowledge the state as the reigning institution. This means that Mexico primarily is

in the ‘participation stage’and now is in the process of moving on to the ‘stage of distribution’. A

symbolic attempt at this was the signing of the NAFTA Treaty which invoked the stage of

distribution. The indigenous people, at least the ones represented by the Zapatistas, pose a problem

to the Mexican states attempts to move forwards through the stages of crisis. This is a result of the

already mentioned fact that the indigenous groups are not moving forward at the same speed as the

rest of the Mexican population, which in the perspective of the state is slowing the whole

modernization process.

The Mexican governments entry into the ‘stage of distribution’, the final stage of crises, would

allow them to allocate goods, services and funds to the indigenous areas, in turn creating legitimacy

for the state in the last areas of Mexico still struggling with the crisis of cultural integration and

demand participation from this area’s population. A clear sign of the state’s failure in this can be

seen in the success in the Zapatista revolt. The reason that the state did not succeed was that it had

not sufficiently overcome the second stage of crisis in the area of the Zapatista, it is not impossible

to move on to a higher stage without fully completing the prior stage, but it does make it more

difficult144.

Modernization Theory- Political Approach on SamiAs we have done with the Zapatista we will now analyze the Sami from a political perspective.

The stages of crises will be include to explain help explain the problems that the Sami people

have faced in a more general sense, which will allow us to analyze how the Sami are seen in a

globalised world, as a minority in a developed country.

In comparison to our other case the historical material on the Sami is both more extensive in

historical scope, therefore also more general145. There is a fine line between being historically

accurate and being able to generalize about societies. If we do not simplify the cases, there will

143 (WEB 7)144 (Lecture notes 1, 2010)145 Cf. Sami case p. 21

31


be too much detail to be able to compare the two cultures.

The first stage of crises, the stage of state building was experienced between the 12th and 17th

century. After being forced, by the encroaching southerners, as far north as was possible the

Sami found themselves geographically caged146. Due to the geography and the encroachment

from all sides and not just the south, they had nowhere else to migrate; this forced the Sami

into contact with the southerners who proceeded in building churches on Sami land and

demanding taxes from them as explained in the historical section above147. The establishment

of churches and tax collection in Sami land can be interpreted as the stage of state building in

the Sami lands because the institutions acted as the states extended arm. The Sami’s nomadic

and semi-nomadic ways of life also changed, so that more and more Samis settled down in

permanent settlements. Seen from the perspective of modernization theory, this change from

a nomadic lifestyle to permanent Sami settlements would in all likelihood also increase the

ease of tax collection by officials as they would know where to find people to tax.

The establishment of churches can also, in the light of the second stage of crisis, the stage of

cultural integration; be seen as the first attempts to culturally homogenize the Sami into

Norwegian society. This stage of crisis can be traced right up to the 20th century where the

attempts to overcome the stage was partly handled by the modern media, who though

especially the radio encouraged the Sami to live the way the rest of the Norwegian society

lived by adapting to their culture of high mass consumption148. This created desire for more

than the Sami system could offer and could be the driving force behind the different Sami

movements mentioned above. The lures of high mass consumption might have been perceived

as a threat towards Sami culture and in combination with the state’s intervention to

Norwegianize the Samis could thus have sparked the anti-Norwegian Sami groups. As

mentioned the state was after World War Two very active in rebuilding the nation as a whole,

and especially the underdeveloped north, so as to avoid a gap in development between the

north and the south149. This would have meant that the pressures on Sami people to adapt to

the Norwegian style of life would have been enormous. Showing that the cultural integration

146 Caging is a phenomenon where a group of people are ‘trapped’ in various ways; this could be economically geographically or militarily. Using various forms of coercion agents could force people to submit to a power. These people are not able to exit the system and must face integration. The type of caging the Sami were exposed to, was a geographical caging, their land was encroached on from two sides, south and east. Seeing as there was sea to the north and west there was no alternative for the Sami society but to accept dominance by the Norwegians, Swedish, Finish and Russian. (Alsted, 2001, p. 111-134 )

147 Cf. Case Sami p. 21148 (Pietikäinen, 2008, p. 173)149 Cf. Case: Sami p. 21

32


phase in Norway was to a very high degree initiated and controlled by the state. This makes it

clear that it was a central goal of the state to overcome the crisis of cultural integration. To

some extent it also worked. There was a rejection, by some, of Sami culture. Norwegian culture

encroached on Sami culture much in the same way that the people had done geographically

several hundred years before. The stage of cultural integration was internally splitting the

Sami society, and increasingly so as more Sami came into contact with mainstream Norwegian

society. The hunger strike against the Alta Dam is a prime example of the cultural integration

crisis in praxis; the action became a symbol of the lack of integration of the Samis and the lack

of acknowledgement of the Norwegian government as representing Sami issues. However it

can also be seen as the tail end of the cultural integration crisis and the introduction of the

participatory crisis. The Samis that were part of the strike did not feel represented in the

Norwegian political system, this lead to the demonstration against the structure and

ultimately resulted in the establishment of the Sami parliament. By accepting the Sami

parliament established by the Norwegian state, the Sami thereby also acknowledged the

Norwegian state, finally closing the cultural integration crisis.

With the establishment of the Sami parliament the final stage of crises was also overcome. The

Norwegian government was now able to distribute goods and services to all corners of its land

through the Sami local government. This is not to say that the Norwegian state could not

distribute before the establishment of the parliament, but here the crisis of distribution was

overcome by cooperating with the Sami and allowing them their culture rather than trying to

homogenize them and Norwegianize their culture. The Sami were so to speak modernized on

their own terms in a way that matched the states idea about a modern Norwegian society, as a

result of the establishment of modern institutions.

Our analysis shows that the Sami experienced the stages of crises gradually and, in the big

picture, consecutively, this made the integration process for the Sami people easier. The Sami

and the Norwegian population as a whole have surpassed the distribution phase of the stages

of crises. The political approach to modernization theory does not fully answer our question

of whether or not the Sami have been able to retain their own identity as Sami, while at the

same time being an integrated part of the Norwegian society. Modernization theory has

troubles explaining this aspect; therefore the subject will be analyzed using social

constructivism. Later on this theory will be utilized to discuss whether or not Mexican indians

or Sami are able to integrate without compromising central parts of their indigenous culture.

33


To summarize what we have found out, using the political approach to modernization theory,

it is relevant for the indigenous people in Mexico that the Mexican state has not successfully

overcome the cultural integration crises in the Zapatistas areas. This resulting in the fact that

these areas are not seen as equally developed as the rest of the country. They are therefore

still seen as a problem for the modern Mexican state150.

In Norway it is important to note that the Sami have gone through a long history of continuous

struggle resulting in a compromise where the Sami society has the option of participating in a

modern society while still retaining their cultural uniqueness. Therefore the Sami people

were not seen as a problem for the Norwegian state anymore.

Modernization theory- Cultural Approach on ZapatistasA cultural approach within modernization theory puts less focus on political reasons for

underdevelopment. Instead it looks at how cultures in a wider sense either limit or encourage

modernization.

This approach can help us examine how the state views the culture of indigenous people.

Furthermore it can explain some further points of how indigenous people are seen in a globalised

world.

The cultural approach explains that indigenous peoples status of isolation and extreme discomfort is

due to their opposition to convert to modernity. The state is able to put forward a picture of the

indigenous people as living in self inflicted poverty because their culture is irreconcilable with

modern global ways of living. Modernity theory can therefore be used to legitimize the actions of

the state.

The Zapatista movement wants to regain lost lands and autonomy151 with which to gain control over

their resources. By this they do not wish to be separated from the rest of the country, instead they

want to get integrated by building their own structures that are in accordance with what the local

Mexican indian culture dictates.

A separated development is not expected from the modernity theory which considers that if all of

the society should be developed to the same level, this would require a homogene culture.

As the indigenous people are outside the mainstream Mexican system, logic and culture, they are

not as developed as the rest of the Mexican society. This could explain one of the causes that brings

150 As evident when Barmeyer explains how the Mexican military carry out patrols in the Chiapas area to show dominance of the area (Barmeyer, 2009)

151 The Zapatista do not their own country as such, their aim is an increased control over local political institutions like distribution of resources. Cf. Zapatista Ideology p. 22

34


poverty to the indigenous people, because culture influences development.

The Zapatista movement wants to resist the homogenization that globalization forces the Mexican

state to imposes on the society. They want to preserve the indigenous indians status as indigenous,

their cultures and traditions. The theory of modernization considers this resistance as a hindrance

for development of the Mexican state, it represents a clash between two cultures: one that facilitates

national development based on a policy of accumulation and the other that focuses on individual

pluralism and the right to alternative development in their areas.152

This explains another reason for lack of integration and poverty in the Mexican state: strong

opposition to the capitalistic system and resistance to the ideal of endless accumulation153. This they

oppose because they have a limited accumulation of capital, as evident in subsistent farming.

Another important point is that the Zapatista want to live in a world where diversity is respected,

protected as a cultural richness, where that is invigorated by the emergence of institutions. Again

this is against what the Mexican state wants in order to become modern, and the indigenous culture

can be viewed as a backward culture.

Following this theory we can denote that the indigenous backwardness, and their inability to follow

up with the modern world, creates an obstacle for the integration of the indigenous. Consequently,

the Mexican state cannot overcome the participatory stage due to the fact that culture has a big

influence on societies.

Modernization Theory- Cultural Approach on SamiIn the cultural approach to modernization, culture is placed as central for development of societies;

according to this approach, culture can either make or break a society with regards to development

of it.

The cultural approach in the theory of modernization states that an abundance of resources is not

enough to guarantee development, the right mentality must also be present. The Sami culture is thus

seen as a hindrance for development. As our historical empirical material has shown there has

generally, in Sami society been a strong belief that there should be a balance between society and

nature154. By deduction the Sami economy is governed by this; Sami economy is governed by the

Sami mentality, the mentality is governed by the culture and the culture proclaims balance between

nature and society. This mentality hinders the full exploitation of natural recourses155 and thereby

152 (Ramonet, 2001 p. 47)153 Cf. Definition of Neo-liberalism p. 7-9154 Cf. Case: Sami p. 23-24155 Cf. Case: Sami p. 26

35


not encouraging endless accumulation of capital. From this it can be deducted that the Sami culture

hinders the development towards modernization for Sami society.

The global neoliberal logic dictates that all societies should follow the same road to development, a

road that leads to a fixed end point of continuous capital accumulation. This is because, as

mentioned, neo -liberalism focuses on the accumulation of capital, thereby the view of the state on

the indigenous Sami has in general been that their culture is irreconcilable with modern society,

furthermore it is seen as backward. This shows that from a cultural perspective on modernization,

culture would be a hindrance for Sami integration into the Norwegian society and thereby for

development of the Sami society.

As mentioned there are a number of Sami who actively fight for integration into the Norwegian

culture because they see their own culture as backward and a hindrance for the development of the

Norwegian society as a whole. This shows that it is not only on a theoretical level that the Sami

culture is an obstacle for development, some Sami feel it in their daily life, so much so that they

actively try and minimize its effects on the people of that very same culture. It can thus be claimed

that some indigenous people even see their own indigenousness as a hindrance to their own

personal life, which implies that they agree with the global ideas about development.

Where the cultural differences become most apparent is when the contact between Sami and

Norwegian culture is increased. The more intense and direct contact there is between the two

cultures, the stronger the reaction it causes. This is evident by the response that came from the

urbanized Sami, who described, a romanticized picture of Sami life. This was done by idealizing

certain aspect of Sami culture, at the expense of other important aspects. This had the consequence

that the idealized aspects where not reconcilable by other Sami living in Sami territory. The borders

between what is Sami and what is Norwegian culture was much more sharply defined by the

urbanized Sami than the rural Sami, here the culture was naturally more fluent as there were many

more people defining what Sami culture was, whereas the urban Sami population was dominated by

a few Sami explaining Sami culture from their point of view.

The cultural modernization still views the indigenous cultures this project deals with as being

underdeveloped, because it is not encouraging development, but in more modern history.

The Sami case highlights that culture is only a hindrance when trying to apply it too fast, such as the

urban Sami, introduced gradually over time culture is not necessarily a hindrance as can be seen by

the fact that the Sami did adapt and assimilate parts of their own culture with the Norwegian. The

rapid modernization of the northern part of Norway can be interpreted as an attempt to culturally

revolutionize the Sami rather than letting them evolve or assimilate with Norwegian society

36


gradually.

In general it can be said that the culture of the Sami has not encouraged development of the Sami

society, however it has allowed for the development of the Sami society when neoliberal ideas have

been introduced gradually. The development of the Samis and their integration into Norwegian

society was largely due to the perseverance of the Norwegian state in its desire to modernize the

entire country and include their indigenous population.

Summarization of Modernization Analysis

In the course of our analysis with modernization theory we have found several common points be-

tween the two big cultural group examined, Sami people in Norway and indigenous people in the

Chiapas area.

Both groups are characterized by a cultural identity that has brought them into an internal conflict

with the state in which they are living. To maintain their culture, they have had to go through vari-

ous states of agitation in which they proclaimed their cultural identity, showed their needs and

through which they demanded recognition of their condition.

The indigenous groups emphasize their diversity and their need to express their lifestyle through

their position. Despite the fact that they do not want a separation from the state to which they

belong, they require the possibility to apply for building society according to their cultural

perspective. These battles have resulted in different outcomes. Although both groups described

require integration and cultural recognition, only the Sami have achieved a fusion with the

Norwegian state.

Our analysis shows that the Sami experienced the stages of crises gradually and, in the big

picture, consecutively. This made the integration process for the Sami people easier. The Sami

and the Norwegian population as a whole have surpassed the distribution phase of the stages

of crises and with the establishment of the Sami parliament the final stage of crises was also

overcome. The Norwegian government was now able to distribute goods and services to all

corners of its land through the Sami local government. This is not to say that the Norwegian

state could not distribute before the establishment of the parliament, but here the crisis of

distribution was overcome by cooperating with the Sami and allowing them their culture

rather than trying to integrate them and Norwegianizing their culture. The Sami have been

able to retain their own identity as Sami while at the same time being an integrated part of the

Norwegian society. The Sami were so to speak modernized on their own terms in a way that

37


matched the states idea about a modern Norwegian society, as a result of the establishment of

modern institutions.

This shows, according to the political approach of modernity theory, that Norway has passed all the

stages it needs to reach the final level of modernity.

According to the cultural approach, we can say that Norway typically has a homogeneous culture

which leaves room for different cultural expressions. It can also be argued that the integration and

coexistence of Sami and Norwegian cultures has taken place without preventing or slowing down

the path to modernity. The indigenous in Chiapas who are still fighting for integration in Mexican

society as a Mexican-indigenous, are finding themselves in a different situation. In fact the

Mexican state, despite its pressure, did not get a cultural conversion of the natives that would lead

to cultural unity. This means that the indigenous culture is still an obstacle for the development

towards the final stage of modernity. The cultural approach, is a nationalist or Eurocentric one,

therefore it is in contrast to the Zapatista ideology. For example the theory would argue that the

reason why the area of Chiapas is poor, even though they have a lot of natural resources, is because

the area is not in possession of the right culture.

The above standing static view of culture can be problematized. To do this we will use social

constructivism to analyze if Mexican indians and Sami in Norway are able to keep their cultural

identity in the global world.

Social Constructivism AnalysisAs already mentioned social constructivism gives the possibility to look at our cases in a more

cultural critical perspective, this allows us to analyze some elements that a pure modernisation

approach does not allow for. Furthermore it offers more of a micro level point of view. As we see it

the social constructivist theory can be used to find out why the indigenous peoples’ situation is as it

is, how the situation and indigenous identities are dynamic and not a static size. Thus to be

indigenous is, according to social constructivism, a socially constructed identity, so to be Sami or

indian is ever changing. Social constructivist theory tells us that actors are not born outside and

prior to society, however they are a product of, and created by their cultural environment. This is

important in analysing how the Sami society and identity is changing according to external changes.

It is with a social constructivist perspective interesting to look at the way that indigenous people are

using traditions as a weapon against the state, by turning the traditions of the state upside down. The

British historian Eric Hobsbawm claims that a powerful driving force behind nationalism as an

38


ideology is the constant creation and recreation of traditions156. What should be understood by this

is everything from traditional clothing to traditional food to anthems, military parades and the way

we celebrate national holidays. The interesting part about these traditions is that even though they

are often claimed to be hundreds and hundreds of years old it is in fact often quite easy to prove that

these traditions arose as a part of the creation of the nation state157 Instead of focusing on national

days or national symbols indigenous cultural representation focuses on traditions that are perceived

to be even older than civilization and therefore logically older than the state.

Social Constructivism on Zapatista:In the 1910's Emilio Zapata opposed the dictator Díaz, at that time the uprising led by

Zapata was about indigenous people being treated unfairly by the state. So this identity of

being unfairly treated by the state was the beginning of the indian movement that Emilio

Zapata was a key figure of. Vast numbers of indigenous people found it easy to gather

around this because they where some of the most marginalised in Mexico. This was mainly

because of the fact that they had trouble, showing their right to land, because of their lack

of agreements on paper and their lack of formal education.

Today the Zapatista movement builds on some of the same aspects, but also on wider

longer termed goals due to the unfair distribution of capital. Again the unjust treatment

affected the indigenous people in a huge number of cases.

The way that Zapata succeeded in creating a movement against the state, from a social

constructivist approach, might have been possible because there were a lot of people

experiencing the same problems and therefore interpreted their problems in the same way.

Zapata would therefore be able to create a common goal for a lot of different indigenous

groups who all felt that they were being treated unfairly158.

With the signing of the NAFTA agreement in 1994 the Zapatista movement arose. By

using Zapata’s name they attempted to make a symbolic statement partially copying the

uprising lead by Zapata earlier in the century.

They made Emilio Zapata a key symbol in their fight; we find that the reason for this from

a social constructivist perspective is that they tried to create the impression that their

struggle is a continuation of the fight almost a hundred years earlier. Again this allowed the

Zapatista movement to try to integrate a lot of different Mexican indian groups into the

156(Hobsbawm, 1983)157Trevor-Roper gives a saying example of this by looking at how a British businessman invented the Scottish kilt and how this dress was then seen to have been a part of Scottish culture long before it’s invention. (Trevor-Roper, 1983) 158 (Ramonet, 2001, p. 17)

39


same movement.

Thereby the symbolism links a lot of different individuals into a kind of shared identity.

The reason for wanting to make such a shared identity is that this allows for a unified

understanding of problems, goals and solutions. This is similar to nationalism and ethno-

politics in the way that it creates a unified identity through the use of symbols.

In the Zapatistas fight for fairness they want themselves to be able to define their own

indigenous identity. This is in contrast to the Mexican state’s attempt, with the signing of

NAFTA, to make a more modern and homogenous Mexican national-state.159

A major difference between the Zapatista movement, their struggle and the uprising in the

early 20th century by Zapata is to a high degree that it tries to link their current struggle

with more modern and global issues. On the changes that globalization means for

indigenous movements Marcos notes:

What is happening is that the indigenous movements, under globalization,

are taking on a new nature. Now the local struggles will inevitably become

international. At least the effects of them will become international. 160

Instead of just fighting against local landlords the Zapatista movement is now fighting

against abstract global forces such as neo-liberal policies. This can be explained by the fact

that they want to have more global support by creating images all over the world of the

righteousness of indigenous people against being mistreated, which again plays upon

certain imaginations of the western opinion. The change of focus from Zapata to Zapatista

is also a result of changing problems which the indigenous people are facing. It is no

longer simply the local landlord but in a high degree also state level decisions that are

affects their lives.

Our empirical material also suggests that the Zapatista movement is able to utilize modern

means of communication as a weapon in their struggle against cultural homogenisation and

economic exploitation161. This shows that the indigenous people of the early 20th century

and the current Mexicans indians represented by the Zapatista movement are definitely not

living under the same conditions. Therefore it can be argued that their identity is also

changing, so that it now means something else to be indigenous, as can similarly be seen

159 Cf. Case: Zapatista p. 19160 Own translation from an interview with Marcos (Ramonet, 2001 p. 40)161 Cf. Case: Zapatista p. 21

40


by the Sami case. Social constructivism would argue that this does not pose a problem

because as long as huge numbers of individuals accept the idea that they are members of a

indigenous identity they are able to transform the essence of the identity. This is

furthermore reinforced by the fact that a lot of non-indigenous international supporters of

the Zapatista struggle also consider the Zapatistas to be a symbol of indigenous struggle.162

The Zapatista also fight for indigenous autonomy, which is a result of how they see

globalization and the state as a homogenising force that refuses indigenous people the right

to construct and reconstruct their identity along lines they themselves decide. Put with

Subcomandante Marcos words, the aim of the Zapatista movement is not to generalize:

The Zapatista movement is not a set of rules that tell natives in other countries

what they should do. We sooner share the same feeling of marginalization. Like the

will of resistance that drives us to say: we don’t want the world to continue without

us, we don’t want to disappear just like that. And we don’t want to stop being the

people we are either. It is a process that affirms our otherness. The indigenous peo-

ples in Latin America fight a struggle that is an expression of a will to confirm: we

want to be a part of the new world history; we have something on our minds, and

we don’t want to be as you want us to be. We do not want to be transformed into in-

dividuals whose value on the social ladder is connected to their purchasing power

and ability to produce.163

The zapatista have furthermore transformed the struggle into for general social problems in

Mexico and thus not only indigenous issues, as explained below.

Even though the indigenous are the most forgotten, the poorest of the poor,

EZLN [Zapatista Army ed.] have called to arms to demand democracy,

freedom and justice for all Mexicans, not just us indigenous. We do not want

independence, we want to become an integrated part of Mexico, we want to be

Mexican Indians.164

This way of broadening the fight also helps bring the fight into direct opposition with the

162 (Barmeyer 2009)163 Own translation from an interview with Marcos (Ramonet, 2001 p. 39-40)164 Own translation from an interview with Marcos (Ramonet, 2001 p. 45)

41


state of Mexico. This results in more support from various non-indigenous actors who are

maybe not directly involved in the fight but who are sympathetic towards the ideas of the

Zapatistas. The Zapatista movement and their ideological frame furthermore gives the

ordinary indigenous people a set of ideas that they can use in their interpretation of their

own personal grievances. This allows Mexican indians to change an identity of self-

stigmatization into a identity of politicised opposition to the state and its ideas of

democracy and global economic forces.

Social Constructivism on Sami

As can be seen from our empirical material Sami culture has undergone massive changes through

the centuries as a result of cultural interaction with non-Sami cultures. This has lead to both a

territorial retreat from the areas the Samis inhabited but also a change in the culture and way of life

of the Samis. This change, as seen from a social constructive perspective, is not something that

implies that there becomes less Sami culture. It is instead completely in line with the way that all

cultural aspects change as a result of both internal interpretation of changing surroundings and new

external innovations and possibilities165. Social constructivism argues in contrast to Weber that

culture is a relative size. This view can be seen in the following quote by Eriksen:

“The number of Sami in Norway in 1940 was not significantly lower than the number in 2000, but

they were far less visible and lacked shared organization and shared collective identity… In other

words there was less Sami-Norwegian ethnicity, although it would be absurd to claim that there was

‘less Sami culture’.166

The quote shows a social constructive perspective and argues against a quantitative way of seeing

culture; instead Saminess is a more self-declaratory identity167. It is not possible to put some

objective values as the criteria for Sami culture. This is also evident in the way that indigenous are

able to use modern media as communication, they are also able to use modern infrastructure, such

as snow scooters, public transport, cars and helicopters without losing their Sami identity.

The changing of culture is not something that occurs overnight but is instead a slow and constant

change of the Sami way of life. One example is the change from a nomadic hunter way of life to a

165 (Barth, 1969)166 (Eriksen 2002, p 127)167 Cf. Definitions: Indigenous p. 6

42


pastoral lifestyle with enormous herds of semi domesticated reindeer.

As mentioned in our empirical chapter168 the Norwegians have been culturally homogenising their

people by constructing stately institutions, like churches, in Sami lands169. We also see how Sami

people initially withdrew from violent homogenisation, and later adapted to neglecting their own

Saminess. In more recent history, some have been fighting for the right to develop a distinct Sami

culture within the Norwegian state170.

As we have shown in our empirical description of more recent Sami history, it is also problematic to

see Sami as a unified homogeneous group171. We have found out that it is reasonable to divide the

Samis into three main groups, the group that fights for the preservation of Sami culture, the group

that wants to minimize Sami cultural influence and the group that is indifferent to the question on

the role of Sami culture in society172. Social constructivism would explain these groups as a result of

individuals owning different interpretations of their own reality. Sometimes and especially seen in

relation to ethnic political activity it becomes possible for some individuals to make a symbolic

representation that becomes the ruling image that outsiders have of being Sami.

As briefly described in the empirical historical overview of Sami history173, the culmination of

radical Sami political action against the Norwegian state occurred during the construction of the

Alta-dam in northern Norway. In a protest against the dam construction a group of seven young

Sami men who called themselves the Sami Action Group declared a hunger strike outside of the

Norwegian parliament in Oslo. To further stress their claim they were dressed in traditional Sami

costumes and they were camping in a Sami tent, a laavo, during the strike174.”Those seven

momentarily became the Saami and their lavvo the summarizing symbol of Saami culture”175. By

making such a symbolic representation of their grievance the activists were able to become the

manifest of Sami identity. Furthermore the protest in Oslo triggered mass protests at the dam

construction site where a huge number of people chained themselves to the dam176. The dam was

however completed, which probably resulted in a calming down of Sami ethno politics in the years

after. The quotation below describes the reactions in the Sami societies themselves.

(…)Others asked whose ”Saami premises” are being activated? NSR

168 Cf. Case: Sami p. 23169 Cf. Case: Sami p. 24170 Cf. Case: Sami p. 23171 Cf. Case: Sami p. 27172 This division is generalizing but we still find it necessary to use.173 Cf. Case: Sami p. 26174 Cf. Case: Sami p. 26175 (Paine, 1991, p.28)176 (WEB 8)

43


[Norwegian Sami political organization ed.], for example, was seen as

romanticizing the reindeer pastoral minority among the Saami population,

as presenting them as the standart bearer for the true Saami culture.

Whereas – the contrary view was – these nomads are really an anachronism

in the modern world. If they represent Saami culture, some would say, we

can no longer regard ourselves as Saami. Little wonder, then, that the

hunger-strikers – in Oslo of all places, with their lavvo of all things! –

provoked a strident backlash in some Saami circles in the north.177

As can be seen by the quote the hunger strike lead to protests and internal reflections from Sami’s

against the NSR image of Sami culture178. The last quotation shows that the representation is

primarily relevant in relation to non-Samis. The symbolic protest action changed the image that

Norwegians had of Sami culture but it did not necessarily mean that the view Sami people had on

their own culture changed. It is furthermore often among well educated Sami, located far away from

the areas where Sami culture originates, that Sami culture is reinterpreted and rearranged. Also it is

possible for Samis to communicate their beliefs and values via modern media, mostly through the

radio, but also internet websites and newspapers. Some see the Sami media as a threat to their

integration, but in this view lies a logic that, only trough a homogenous culture can one integrate.

For the Sami the media is seen as a potential force for maintaining culture, through developing and

changing conditions.179

This whole process of ever-changing aspects of identity shares a lot of similarities to the way that

nationalism works and creates alliances and national cultural identities. State nationalist Norwegian

culture for example created a romanticizing ideal of rural Norwegian life as it was seen from the

urban center of Oslo as the quote below shows:

Early Norwegian nationalism mainly derived its support from the urban

middle classes. Members of the city bourgeoisie travelled to remote valleys

in search of ‘authentic Norwegian culture’, brought elements from it back to

the city and presented them as the authentic expression of Norwegianness.180

The quote above depicts the Norwegian nationalism as a socially constructed identity in 177 (Paine, 1991, p. 28)178 Cf. Case: Sami p. 25179 (Pietikäinen, 2008180 (Eriksen, 2002 p.100)

44


the same manner as the Sami culture.

One of the main aspects of the Sami political struggle was how to avoid the cultural

homogenization of the Norwegian state181. This process has furthermore been strengthened

by the fact that a lot of Samis nowadays are well educated and are therefore able to see the

identity processes from more abstract perspectives:

”At the universities and colleges in the South, however, not only did young

Sami learn a profession, they also came in contact with new ideas about

what it meant to be a Sami in the modern world.”182

While Samis are reinterpreting their identity along new lines, the state is on its part trying

to create a more homogenous modern national identity. This process is, according to social

constructivism, a major part of the state’s attempt to maintain legitimacy by connecting

culture and territory. The Norwegian state requires a Norwegian people to continue its

existence183. The state tries to create a unified Norwegian culture, while especially the Sami

elite try to retain an idea of a separate Sami culture. This homogenization is not so obvious

today, as can be seen by the political and cultural concessions given to the Sami in recent

years184

Summarization of Social Constructivism Analysis

As we have shown social constructivism can be used to analyze if it is possible to retain an

indigenous identity even when faced with huge changes to lifestyle, as a result of globalization.

Social constructivism allows for a more critical and interpretive analysis. We have therefore been

able to use social constructivism to analyze some of the identity changes that have occurred from an

indigenous point of view. We have also been able to use social constructivism to analyze some

quotations from the spokesman of the Zapatistas, in a critical way. That means we are able to

connect his statements with underlying attempts to gather support and to try to create a unified

indian identity.

As mentioned Sami culture is fluent and has changed over time, for example the contact with the

181 Cf. Case: Sami p.25182 (Stordahl, 1991 p. 27)183 (Anderson, 2001).184 Cf. Case: Sami p. 27

45


Norwegians in the 12th-17 century lead to Sami adopting a semi-nomadic way of life and keeping

animals rather than hunting them, this did not mean that the Sami stopped being indigenous, just

that the concept of being Sami changed. Therefore they have been able to retain their cultural

identity by reinterpreting what it means to be Sami.

Indigenous Mexican identity in for example Chiapas has also changed as a result of the politization

of both Zapatista supporters and the state. Even though the Zapatistas are trying to give an

impression of continuity of indian identity, it is fluent.

It is necessary though to be aware about the fact that a lot of the traditions or customs that are

brought up as political tools are almost always a result of the resistance to modernization and

cultural homogenization and therefore they are not pure traditions but rather reconfigured

traditions185.

This way of using traditions is evident in both the way the Zapatistas and the Sami have been

invoking symbols of the past in attempts to unite members of their own indigenous groups, to gain

outside support, to make a more holistic identity and to be able to gain justification to struggle

against state attempts of homogenization. Also the indigenous people often identify themselves as

an opposition to the state in order to strengthen their general position, also to make their fight less

abstract.

One of the main points indigenous political movements usually are fighting against is cultural

assimilation and homogenization. Neither the Mexican indians nor the Sami movements that this

project deals with want to simply become Mexicans or Norwegians; instead they want to retain their

indigenous identity. A kind of indigenous cultural revitalization will therefore often be a

consequence of an indigenous struggle against the state they are living in.

It is not possible to put some objective values as the criteria for indigenous culture, we have

described how both the Zapatistas and the Sami are able to use modern media as a way of

communication, and still identify with indigenous identities.

It should be noted that those who fight for the right to be indigenous, are not always the people who

are living in a way that can be identified as indigenous. In this process indigenous identity is often

romanticized and reinterpreted, a sign of the fact that indigenous is not a static identity.

The fact that indigenous identity is not a static thing does that it shares a lot of similarities to how

nationalism works. For example nationalist identity is an ever changing identity too and nationalism

is also used to created alliances and support to the state.

We have found out that it is possible for the Samis to keep their indigenous identity in spite of being

185 (Eriksen, 1998 p.395)46


institutionalized by the Norwegian state. This fits well with the conclusion in modernity theory in

the political approach where we concluded that it was possible to combine indigenous identity with

modernity, because cultural identity can be adaptable to changes over time.

Therefore we can see that in the face of globalization, modernization and the technological changes

in indigenous people’s lives, they are able to keep their indigenous identity, as a cultural identity

because it can be is a fluent phenomenon.

ConclusionTo conclude we have documented that indigenous people in Mexico and Norway are perceived as

being less modern and therefore a hindrance for development seen from a states perspective. This

we have shown by analyzing our cases from a modernization perspective. The approaches to

modernization theory utilized in this project have a static view of indigenous people as an

unchanging culture, which implies that they are always seen as non-modern. Even though

indigenous people are seen as non-modern it is possible for them to overcome this role as being a

hindrance for development, while still retaining their cultural identity, this is shown in the case with

the Sami in Norway, if they are integrated in the state. The Zapatista case showed that the Mexican

state still views indigenous culture as a hindrance for their ambition for a fully developed state. The

two cases show that even though indigenous groups are viewed as non-modern it is possible for the

state to fully develop and integrate the indigenous groups without the indigenous people losing their

separate identity. Our analysis of the perceptions of indigenous people shows that the reason for this

might be that Norway is more developed than Mexico and furthermore that the two countries have

developed at different times and under different circumstances.

To analyze if indigenous groups can retain their identity, a social constructive analysis has been

used to explain that it is possible to reconcile indigenous culture with globalization. Unlike

modernization theory, social constructivism shows that cultural identity of indigenous people is

dynamic. The conclusion of this analysis is that cultural identity is fluent and for that reason it can

be used to create a unity and shared identity and interpretation of various situations. Seeing as

indigenous identity is in contrast to the state, reinterpretation of cultural identity is usually

situational, depending on one’s position. A huge part of the reinterpretation requires an active

acceptance of a changed self-interpretation by an indigenous group. Furthermore a reinterpreted

identity requires acceptance by external actors, such as non-indigenous sympathizers or the state. It

47


thus makes sense to speak about indigenous people in a globalized world, even though the cultural

identity fluctuates.

The result of the project is that, the Sami in Norway and the Zapatistas in Mexico are seen as non-

modern but it is possible for them to keep being indigenous in a globalized world. This requires

acceptances of the norms of the global society such as the underlying ideas of modernization such

as mass consumption, and a reinterpretation of some of the core aspects of indigenous identity.

Literature:

Anderson, Benedict. (2001), Forestillede Fællesskaber, Roskilde Universitetsforlag

Alsted, Jacob, (2001), De Menneskelige Samfunds Udvikling- En kritisk introduktion til historisk

sociologi. Roskilde universitetsforlag. p. 125

Aragonés, Ana Marìa . (1998), El Zapatismo y la Politica, una Historia Migratoria. Plaza y valdes

editores.

Asp-Poulsen, H. (2004), Samerne, et Urfolk i Nord, Forlaget Bellis, Aalborg

Baylis John, & Smith, Steve & Owens, Patricia, (2008), The Globalazation of World Politics,

Oxford University Press

Barmeyer, Niels. (2009), Developing Zapatista Autonomy- conflict and NGO involvement in rebel

Chiapas. University of New Mexico Press

Barth, Fredrik. Eds. (1969) Introduction, IN: Etnic Groups and Boundaries : The Social

Organization of Culture, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, pp. 19-38

Eidheim, Harald. (1969) When Ethnic Identity is a Social Stigma, IN: Ethnic Groups and

Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, pp. 39-58

Eriksen, Thomas. H., (1991), Ethnicity versus Nationalism, Journal of Peace Studies vol. 28 nr. 3

Eriksen, Thomas. H. (1998), Små Steder – Store Spørgsmål, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo

Eriksen, Thomas. H. (2002), Ethnicity and Nationalism, second edition, Pluto Press

Jespersen, Jesper, (2008), Den Ideale Markedsøkonomi, IN: Tankens Magt, Edited by Jensen,

Hans, S. Lindhardt og Ringhof forlag A/S, p. 1659-1645

Fafner, Hans Henrik. (2010), Zapata- Mexicos Robin Hood. IN: Illustreret Videnskab Historie

Edited by Relster, S. no. 17.

Fenelon, James V. & Hall, Thomas D. (2008), Revitalization and Indigenous Resistance to

Globalization, IN: American Behavioral Scientist, vol.51 Nr.12 pp.1867-1901

48


Fukuyama, Francis. (1989),The End of History. In The National Interest,

Gellner, Ernest, (1983), Nations and Nationalism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press

Hobsbawm, Erik. Eds. (1983), Introduction: The Invention of Tradition, IN: The Invention of

Tradition, Cambridge University Press

Khasnabish, Alex. (2010), Zapatistas- Rebellion from the grassroots to the global. Fernwood

Publishing

Kramvig, Britt, (2005), The silent language of ethnicity, IN: European Journal of Cultural Studies,

Vol. 8 Nr. 1, pp.45-64

Lauderdale, Pat, (2009), Collective Indigenous Rights and Global Social Movements in the Face

of Global Development: From Resistance to Social Change, IN: Journal of Developing Societies,

vol. 25, nr.3 pp. 371-391

Paine, Robert, (1985), The Claim of the Fourth World, IN: Native Power, The Quest for Autonomy

and Nationhood of Indigenous Peoples, Bergen, Oslo, Stavanger, and Tromsø,

Universitetforlaget AS, pp 49-66

Paine, R. (1991) Trails of Saami Self-Conscoiusness. North Atlantic Studies 1(2), pp. 22-31

Palmeri, Paolo. (2000), Introduzione all’antropologia culturale.

Peet, Richard & Hartwick, Elaine. (2009), Theories of Development: Contentions, Arguments,

Alternatives. Guilford Press

Pietikäinen, Sari (2008), Broadcasting Indigenous Voices: Sami Minority Media Production IN:

European Journal of Communication; vol:23 Nr. 2 pp 173-191, Sage Publications

Ramonet, Ignacio (2001), Marcos- Samtale med Subcommandante Marcos. Informations Forlag

Rapley, John. (2007), Understanding Development- Theory and practice in the third world. Lynne

Rienner Publishers

Ronfeldt, David; & Aquilla, John & Fuller, Graham E. & Fuller, Melissa. (1998), Zapatista

Social Netwar in Mexico. Rand Publication.

Rubin, Jeffrey, W. (2004), Meanings and Mobilizations: A Cultural Politics Approach to Social

Movements and States, IN: Latin American Research Review, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 106-142

Sachs, Wolfgang. (2010), The Development Dictionary- a guide to knowledge as power. Zed

books, p. 280-283

de Soysa, Indra, (2004), unnamed review, IN: Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 41, No. Sage

Publications, p. 645

Stordahl, Vigdis. (1991), Ethnic Integration and Identity Management, Discourses of Sami Self-

awareness, IN: North Atlantic Studies Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 25-3049


Swedberg, Richard (2005), The Max Weber Dictionary: key word and central concepts. Stanford

university press

Trevor-Roper, Hugh (1982), The Invention of Tradition: The highland tradition of Scotland In: The

Invention of Tradition, edited by Hobsbawm, Eric, pp.15-23 Cambridge University Press

Wallerstein, Imannuel, (2004), World System Analysis. Duke University Press

Wallerstein, Imannuel, eds. (1976), The Modern World- System IN: The modern world system:

Capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European world- economy in the sixteenth century.

New York, Academic Press pp 229-233.

Williamson, John. (2004), A Short History of the Washington Consensus. Fundación CIDOB

Weber, Max (1904/05). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Penguin Classics

Weber, Max (1994). Sociological Writings. Edited by Heydebrand, Wolf. Continuum.

Lecture notes:

Lecture notes 1: Xing, Li. Development theories (modernization) - Lecture notes modernization

theory. Held 7th September 2010

Webpages:

WEB 1: Wallerstein, Immanuel, Contradictions in the Latin American Left. Commentary 287 6th

December 2010. http://www.iwallerstein.com/contradictions-in-the-latin-american-left

WEB 2: Stevens, Owen M. Rostow's Stages of Growth Model (For College Students). 1st

December, 2010 http://ezinearticles.com/?Rostows-Stages-of-Growth-Model-(For-College-

Students)&id=3168103

WEB 3 Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010. Max Weber. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. 8th

December 2010 http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/638565/Max-Weber

WEB 4: Susana Cruickshank; Mary Purcell. More poor than 15 years ago. Socialwatch.org

(1998) http://www.socialwatch.org/node/10630

WEB 5: Leksikon.org. Samer. 20th November, 2010 http://leksikon.org/art.php?n=2220

WEB 6: Official homepage of the Sami parliament. 15th November 2010

http://www.samediggi.no/artikkel.aspx?AId=884&MId1=270

WEB 7: http://www.idea.int/vt/country_view.cfm?CountryCode=MX

WEB 8: Ville bruke soldater i Alta-aksjon, 17.04.06 IN: Aftenposten,

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article1280217.ece

50

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article1280217.ece

http://www.idea.int/vt/country_view.cfm?CountryCode=MX

http://www.samediggi.no/artikkel.aspx?AId=884&MId1=270

http://leksikon.org/art.php?n=2220

http://www.socialwatch.org/node/10630

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/638565/Max-Weber

http://ezinearticles.com/?Rostows-Stages-of-Growth-Model-(For-College-Students)&id=3168103

http://ezinearticles.com/?Rostows-Stages-of-Growth-Model-(For-College-Students)&id=3168103

http://www.iwallerstein.com/contradictions-in-the-latin-american-left


51

project 4.9 done like alot!

Documents