Pulled Together or Torn Asunder? Community Cohesion After Symmetric and Asymmetric Civil War

• Author: Krzysztof Krakowski
• Published date: 01 August 2020
• Date: 01 August 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/0022002719897121
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Pulled Together or Torn

Asunder? Community

Cohesion After

Symmetric and

Asymmetric Civil War

Krzysztof Krakowski

1

Abstract

Evidence on the consequences of war for community cohesion is mixed, pointing to

both positive and negative effects of conflict. This study examines symmetry of force

between warring actors as an explanation of heterogeneous conflict effects. Using

survey data from 224 Colombian villages, I compare cohesion in communities

exposed to asymmetric and symmetric conflicts, a guerrilla war between rebels and

the state and a more conventional war between rebels and paramilitary groups,

respectively. I find that symmetric war increases participation in community orga-

nizations, while asymmetric war decreases trust. Evidence suggests three mechan-

isms that explain these findings. Symmetric war increases cohesion (i) by spurring

individuals to band together to cope with significant disruption of services and (ii) by

strengthening group identities that map onto fairly clear wartime cleavages. Asym-

metric war reduces cohesion (iii) by instilling fear and suspicion linked to wartime

experiences of civilian collaboration and denunciations.

Keywords

civil war, violence, community cohesion, cooperation, Colombia

1

Collegio Carlo Alberto, Turin, Italy

Corresponding Author:

Krzysztof Krakowski, Collegio Carlo Alberto, Piazza Vincenzo Arbarello 8, 10122 Turin, Italy.

Email: krzysztof.krakowski@carloalberto.org

Journal of Conflict Resolution

2020, Vol. 64(7-8) 1470-1498

ªThe Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0022002719897121

journals.sagepub.com/home/jcr

In the mid-1990s, rebels from the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia

(FARC) attacked three neighboring towns of Quipile, Vian´ı, and Bituima. This

attack marked the beginning of over ten years of war—involving rebel, government,

and paramilitary forces—in these small Colombian towns. In 2009, Kaplan (2017)

visited these towns to study civilian collective action in response to armed conflict.

He discovered considerable differences between the towns. Quipile had very few

community organizations and was characte rized by low attendance at meetings.

Residents failed to create producers’ cooperatives and solved their disputes in

machete fights. Theft of cattle, agricultural tools, and coffee were also frequent.

By contrast, Vian´ı and Bituima hosted numerous community organizations, includ-

ing a local nongovernmental organization (NGO). Residents frequently participated

in the meetings. They managed to build a common crop warehouse and established

local watch committees to prevent cattle theft. Machete fights were unheard of.

1

What explains such striking differences between the “brother towns” studied by

Kaplan (2017)? Why do towns like Vian´ı and Bituima exhibit high levels of cohe-

sion after the war, while towns like Quipile fail in this respect? Although some of

these differences could predate the conflict, the evidence on the ground is not fully

consistent with this account (Kaplan 2017, 229-31). Findings from the literature on

war and cooperation suggest another explanation. Consistently with Vian´ı and Bitui-

ma’s examples, most of this literature shows that exposure to conflict fosters coop-

eration within communities (see review by Bauer et al. 2016). Other studies,

however, challenge these findings and—consistent with Quipile’s example—show

that community cohesion declines in localities affected by conflict (Kijewski and

Freitag 2018; Barclay Child and Nikolova 2017). What explains these contradictory

findings?

In this study, I revisit the relationship between war and community cohesion by

examining the role of symmetry of force in military competition as a potential source

of heterogeneous conflict effects. I focus on two types of conflict. First is asym-

metric conflict fought as guerrilla war and characterized by undefined lines of

control, selective violence, and civilian collaboration with a dominant actor (Bal-

cells and Kalyvas 2014; Kalyvas 2009). Second is symmetric conflict fought with

more conventional means and characterized by the presence of combat and indis-

criminate violence across clearly defined frontlines (Balcells 2017; Lyall 2009).

I hypothesize that symmetric and asymmetric wars have opposite effects on

community cohesion because they activate different mechanisms linking conflict

to cooperative behavior. The literature has identified three such mechanisms. They

posit that conflict affects cohesion by (i) increasing demand for “collective coping”

(Gilligan, Pasquale, and Samii 2014), (ii) strengthening group identities mapping

onto wartime cleavages (Lupu and Peisakhin 2017), and (iii) heightening fear and

suspicion toward fellow community members (Hager, Krakowski, and Schaub

2019). While the first two mechanisms explain increases in post-conflict cohesion,

the third mechanism accounts for its reduction.

Krakowski 1471