CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 51Political Conflict and GovernancePhilippine History and CultureTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence

Symbols, Frames, and Violence: Studying Ethnic War in the Philippines1

Kaufman, Stuart J.·2011·International Studies Quarterly
DOI 10.1111/j.1468-2478.2011.00689.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article examines the utility of opportunity theory, framing analysis, and symbolic politics theory in explaining the causes of ethnic war, focusing on the 1970s Mindanao case. Opportunity variables are present as expected, but process-tracing shows they do not operate according to the hypothesized mechanisms. The framing approach identifies several important dynamics. The resonance of frames was influenced by the salience of the issue highlighted, the narrative fidelity of the frame to preexisting cultural beliefs, the credibility of leaders proposing them, and processes of frame bridging. Symbolic politics theory offers the most complete explanation, embracing most of the alternative explanations’ insights while filling in their logical gaps. The symbolist analysis begins with group myths justifying hostility on both sides, the result of past Christian–Muslim warfare. Combined with fears of group extinction, opportunity factors, and hostile popular attitudes, these myths enabled group elites to manipulate emotive symbols to justify mobilization against the other group, creating a security dilemma spiral that resulted in the outbreak of war.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1468-2478.2011.00689.x

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kaufman, S. J.
Affiliations
University of Delaware (US)
Corresponding author
Kaufman, Stuart J.
ORCID
Kaufman, Stuart J.
Venue
International Studies Quarterly
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2011-09-27
Volume
55
Issue
4
Pages
937-958
ISSN
0020-8833 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1111/j.1468-2478.2011.00689.x
OpenAlex
W2162108846
Cited by
51
References
48
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
4.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1 (tdm, 1435 d)
Locations
International Studies Quarterly (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Philippine History and Culture
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
Keywords
ethnic war, Mindanao conflict, opportunity theory, frame analysis, Christian-Muslim conflict, security dilemma, political violence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review