Introduction

Abstract

We are all hybrids. Our polities, societies, and economies are the result of long processes of hybridisation. Our cultures are intertwined. The story of human development contains much mixing of norms and practices. Individuals, societies, and institutions engage in everyday conflict management or the quiet recognition of the legitimacy and rights of others, and in the process recognise the hybridity of society. The evidence of our mixing is in our DNA. Yet, despite this evidence, many accounts of human social and political behaviour emphasise particularism, or the uniqueness of groups. Whether through national stereotypes, essentialist descriptions of particular groups, or the use of lazy catch-all categories, there is a widespread tendency in the academic, media, and policy worlds to over-homogenise groups. Conflicts are often presented as though they are between homogeneous dyads: the international community versus the Taliban, the government of Yemen versus Islamists, Basque separatists versus the Spanish government. Consider the first of these examples. The term ‘international community’ is used with promiscuity, yet few stop to ask questions about the membership of this ‘community’. Whom does it actually represent? Similarly, many Afghans are confused by the western use of the term ‘Taliban’, which conflates a heterogeneous range of groups into a single category.