Research Portfolio Post #6: Article Comparison
Both articles examine the increase in violence in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein, but both approach the topic from different theoretical frameworks. Green and Ward focus their article, “The Transformation of Violence in Iraq,”[1] on how Saddam’s removal has increased violence throughout the country. Conversely, Inglehart, Moaddel, and Tessler focus their article, “Xenophobia and In-Group Solidarity In Iraq,”[2] on group tensions between Iraq’s multi-ethnic and religious groups. While the former focuses on a top-down approach of violence, the latter looks at the grassroots level.
Green and Ward focus their article on how the removal of Saddam’s “iron rule”[3] has led to an increase in violence as violence has become more decentralized because it is no longer the state who holds the monopoly on violence.[4] As Yannar Mohammad said, “[Iraq] had one dictator. Now we have almost 60 dictators.”[5]
Inglehart, Moaddel, and Tessler researched how rampant terrorism in Iraq had led to insecurity and xenophobia in Iraqi society,[6] thus many Iraqis show strong feelings of in-group solidarity manifested by national pride and solidarity with one’s ethnic group.[7]
Although these articles differ in their approaches to explaining violence in Iraq, they have quite a bit in common. Green and Ward acknowledge how political insecurity has led to a sharper boundary between “them” and “us”[8] and how it is now the ethnic, religious, and tribal identities who are competing for control of territory and resources.[9] Perhaps, as the other article mentions, these feelings of xenophobia and intense religiosity have always characterized Iraq,[10] but in their research, they find no evidence for this and find the sharp internal ethnic divisions to be attributed to political instability.[11]
Thus, both articles acknowledge the other side and acknowledge that both theories can explain the violence in Iraq against minority groups.
[1] P. Green, “The Transformation of Violence in Iraq,” British journal of criminology 49, no. 5 (September 2009): 609–627.
[2] R. Inglehart, “Xenophobia and In-Group Solidarity in Iraq: A Natural Experiment on the Impact of Insecurity,” Perspectives on politics 4, no. 3 (2006): 495–505.
[3] Green, “The Transformation of Violence in Iraq.” 609.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid., 621.
[6] Inglehart, “Xenophobia and In-Group Solidarity in Iraq: A Natural Experiment on the Impact of Insecurity.” 496.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Green, “The Transformation of Violence in Iraq.” 611.
[9] Ibid., 619.
[10] Inglehart, “Xenophobia and In-Group Solidarity in Iraq: A Natural Experiment on the Impact of Insecurity.” 501.
[11] Ibid., 496.
Green, P. “The Transformation of Violence in Iraq.” British journal of criminology 49, no. 5 (September 2009): 609–627.
Inglehart, R. “Xenophobia and In-Group Solidarity in Iraq: A Natural Experiment on the Impact of Insecurity.” Perspectives on politics 4, no. 3 (2006): 495–505.
Rachel — both of these articles are pertinent to your research, and you’ve done a good job of identifying the main line of explanation that each offers (a focus on leadership/leadership change vs. a focus on group dynamics). How would you locate these articles in terms of more general schools of thought? Remember, as well, that the literature review should focus, at least in part, on scholarship that addresses you *general* phenomenon (so not just/only scholarship about the current situation in Iraq!). What more general types of explanations are you working with to help you eventually explain the particular case of Iraq?
Formatting notes:
– No need to include full names or full article titles in the text body (this information is in your citations and bibliography). Referring to works by author last name is standard/sufficient.
– Make sure that your paragraphs are at least 3 sentences in length.