A Cultural Explanation of Collapse into Civil War: Escalation of Tension in Nigeria

Abstract

Culture has a central role in explaining Nigeria's collapse into civil war, and Mary Douglas' cultural theory can facilitate cultural analysis. Culture theory posits a limited number of viable ways of life, consisting of patterns of social relations undergirded by value systems. It explains preferences and can show why events or ideas may be acceptable to one way of life and unacceptable to another. In Nigeria, fundamental, salient cultural differences existed between the dominant groups, reinforced by pervasive social cleavages, in terms of ethnicity, region, religion, class, and levels of access to power and wealth.Intense competition for resources led to continual cultural interpretation of ethnic antagonisms based on different values, ways of life and institutions. While these struggles involved many issues, they were defined in terms of cultural principles, and made cultural differences more important. Culturally focused rhetoric was developed by political leaders and was interpreted within highly charged and competitive cultural contexts, contributing to a cycle of attack, defense and counterattack, escalating inter-ethnic tension and sense of threat. The long history of articulating and defending fundamental and incompatible cultural values produced rhetoric and behaviors which were irrational and fundamentally self-destructive for Nigeria, though rational with respect to the cultural logic of the groups, independent of ideology and pursuit of personal power.Members of different groups reasonably came to fear cultural destruction, and as violence and rhetorical intensity escalated, distrust of other groups and fear of domination and cultural obliteration became a slippery slope of hostility, increasing the momentum for civil war.

Cultural Theory's Contributions to Risk Analysis: A Thematic Review with Directions and Resources for Further Research

“…Notably, CT studies of risk perception are not limited to survey research. CT case studies of risk perception include examples covering hospitals (Rayner, 1986), AIDS (Douglas & Calvez, 1990), abortion (Stenvoll, 2002), livestock (Duckett et al., 2015), transportation (Adams, 1995), climate (Lazrus, 2015; McNeeley & Lazrus, 2014), water (Gyawali, 1999; Harrison & Burgess, 1994; Koehlera, Rayner, Katuva, Thomson, & Hope, 2018; Verweij, 2000a, 2000b), the environment (Iwaki, 2011), oil and gas exploration (McEvoy, Gilbertz, Anderson, Ormerod, & Bergmann, 2017), crime (Mars, 1982, 1997), war (Archibald & Richards, 2002; Fithen & Richards, 2005; Richards, 1999; Spalding, 2000), gender (Reardon & Govender, 2013), interethnic romance (Hakak, 2015a, 2015b), and finance (Abdelrehim, Linsley, & Verma, 2017; Linsley & Kewell, 2015; Linsley & Linsley, 2014; Linsley, Linsley, Beck, & Mollan, 2016; Linsley, McMurray, & Shrives, 2016; Linsley & Shrives, 2014; Linsley, Shrives, & Douglas, 2009).…”

The First Six Years: Culture’s Adventures in Psychology

“…Thus, on the pages of the journal one can find efforts to explain complex political events (e.g. the Nigerian Civil War) through anthropological theories (Spalding, 2000) with a sociological critique (Díaz Martinez, 2000) that brings the efforts of understanding back to cultural-psychological discourse. Díaz's productive use of the 'schoolmaster' representation (in his analysis of the war coverage on the Balkans) relates well to the themes of social representations that have been prominent in the journal.…”

Rejecting Continuity and Rupture

“…The Yoruba -an ethnicity composed of linguistically and culturally simi lar groups in south-western Nigeria who were nonetheless treated as one group by the British -operated a political system in which there were strong kings, states and empires, bu t also com m oner chiefs who could select and, if necessary, depose the king (Spalding 2000). Access to economic resources was related to social status (ibid.…”

“…Political leadership was hereditary (King 2001). Status, opportu nities and acceptable behaviour were all conditioned by family relations and society was based around lineage groups (Spalding, 2000), while the Emirs ran their domains as 'extensionjs] of the household' (Kohli, 2004:298). Society was arranged in a rigidly hierarchical manner and one's position in the hierarchy was dependent on birth, not achievement (Miles 1994:151).…”