A legitimation theory of indivisibility
I argue indivisibility is constructed through the legitimation process. Actors’ legitimation
strategies can either expand the bargaining space among actors by convincing others of their
legitimacy, or diminish room for compromise by appearing illegitimate to adversaries.
17
Under
some conditions, legitimation strategies leave no room for compromise: actors come to the table
with completely incompatible claims to the issue, eliminating the bargaining space among actors,
and creating indivisible conflict.
By legitimation strategies, I mean the use of public and recognized reasons in order to
justify a claim to an issue.
18
Concretely, legitimation strategies are often identified with actors’
rhetoric: while bargaining, actors attempt to legitimate their claims with reasons that should be
“objectively” accepted. For instance, democratic leaders use “popular legitimacy” and “majority
rule” to justify some policies and not others. In bargaining over territory, adversaries may try to
establish legitimacy by arguing who inhabited the land first, who cultivated the soil, or who built
the greatest civilization.
19
Although legitimacy may seem intuitively important, what makes any particular claim
legitimate is difficult to conceptualize. Empirically what is considered legitimate varies widely
across time and space. Throughout history several violent acts have been legitimated in the name
of God, for instance, and we cannot tell which was considered legitimate simply by noting the
invocation of a divine being. It is not the substance of the claim but rather context that
determines legitimacy: whether or not an actor’s claim is legitimate depends upon that actor’s
position within a set of social and cultural institutions. First, whether or not a strategy—such as
17
Legitimation strategies are path-dependent: the use of legitimations at one point in time influence those used later
on. See Tilly 1998a; Cruz 2000; and Elster 1989, 128.
18
See Elster 1995; and Jackson 2003.
19
Toft 2002 also argues legitimacy is integral to territorial bargaining, but treats legitimacy as objective and
constant.
Convention