Mac Ginty (2006:72): “The context and manipulation of ethnicity, rather than any intrinsic power associated with the ethnic group and its worldview can explain the escalation (rather than origins) of conflict.” [Again, absolutely true — but again this points to ideology, as a tool through which ethnicity (and also religion) can be manipulated, which makes ideology once more important to the process rather than the causation of political violence]. Seeks to differentiate between “ethnicity as a mobilising factor on the one hand and as a conflict-priming factor on the other.” It cannot create conflict, but it can exploit it; it is not primordially important, but it does have considerable instrumental potential as the basis of a claim for collective identity; and people are not fully rational.
Mac Ginty (2006:75): Peace processes often seek to build ties across groups to reduce the antagonism between these identity boundaries. “In the long-term, it is hoped, the strength of the functional bonds between the groups, perhaps cooperation for mutual economic benefit, would overshadow the salience of the inter-group competition. But opportunities for a fundamental revision of the inter-group comparative framework come along rarely, are easily derailed by spoilers, and only operate in the long term.”
Tilly (2003:75-76): The activation and reinforcement of boundaries contributes a significant share of collective violence. Boundaries can vary by regime type, with high-capacity undemocratic regimes significantly reducing the number of available boundaries. Three processes are involved in the activation of boundaries: political entrepreneurs seek to activate and exploit them; the space between claimants becomes broader and polarised; and uncertainty increases as the reliability of information decreases.
Mundy (2015:66): “Identity replaced ideology as the ultimate source of conflict after the Cold War. And like ideology, the putative contrasts between identities were viewed as sufficient conditions for generating mass violence.”
Mundy (2015): Notes it was often unclear who was perpetrating violence, making identity-based explanations suspect.
Mundy (2015:83): “In the relationship between identity and violence, it is identity — an abstract, trans-subjective force — that is frequently given agency as the cause of violence. Violence is effect, a product of identity’s power.”