NationalismandModernismbyAnthonyD.Smith

2003RoutledgeLondon­­­Introduction‐Nationisthepeople‐StateisthegovernmentIntheintrohefirstpresentsnationalismassomethingthathasrisenandfallen.Itperhapshaditsapogeeinthe1960snationalism;duringthesetimeswespokeofnationbuilding.Bythelate1980sthiswasseenasnaïve.Hesays“tidsofimmigrationandmassiveincreaseincommunication”putintoquestionwhetherornotnationalismisa“healthymodel.”(HereinweseeaconfusionoftheWestandtheworld.Andthisisanargumentagainstimmigrationasmuchasanargumentagainstnationalism).“ClassicModernism”heldthatnationsandnationalismareintrinsictothenatureofthemodernworld.Again,thispeakedinthe1960s.Sincethenthey’vebeenunderminedbythesethoughts:

1. Theshapeofnationsareunpredictable.(Thisisadefinitionalproblem,notarealityproblem).

2. Butsociologistsstillnotedtheirpower.3. Theideathatnationsareonlyahistoricaleventinaparticulartimeof

history.4. Agrowingemphasisonallbeingsociallycreated;aconstructengineeredby

elites.5. Andsotheideawastolookatnationsastheyarenow,associologists.

Part1:Looksattheclassicalparadigmanditsvarietiesanditsearlycritics.Part2:Looksatcritiquesofclassicalmodernism(primordial,sociobiological,andhistoricalbackingsofthenationidea).Part3:Recentdevelopmentsinthefield.­­­Chapter1–TheRiseofClassicalModernismThreemainissuesinthetheoryofnationalismare:

1) Ethicalandphilosophical.Whatdoesthenationmeanforindividualsandtheiridentity?

2) Anthropologicalandpolitical:Howdowedefineanationnow?3) Historicalandsociological:Arenationsancientorrecentconstructs?

Earlyforerunners:HerderandJohnStuartMillarguedfortherightofnationalselfdetermination.In1882ErnestRenanthoughtoftheactivepoliticalcommitmentthatmadeanation(donetocounterthemilitantnatureofothernationalisms).Hespokeofthecollectivepastandfutureasdefininganation.Atthispoint,nationandracewereusedinterchangeablyandsotheywereseenasprimordial.Marximbibedthisromanticcurrentanddenigratedunhistorical,backwardnations.Intellectualfoundations:Marx,CrowdPsychology,WeberandDurkheim.Foreach,nationalismisperipheral.12‐Marxlookatnationsarereal.Buttheimpetuswas(surprise)economic.Theculturalpartwasrelegatedorepiphenomenal.Thenationwasalsoepiphenomenaltoeconomics.13–Crowdpsychology–GeorgesSimmel,Mead,Adorno,forexample“Whattheseapproacheshaveincommonisabeliefinthedislocatingnatureofmodernity,itsdisorientationoftheindividualanditscapacityfordisruptingthestabilityoftraditionalsourcesofsupport.”Weberlooksatpoliticalactionbeingresponsiblefortheformationofnations.In1948hedescribedanationasacommunityofsentimentthatwouldadequatelymanifestastateofitsown.Hesaidthisquestforstatehoodiswhatdifferentiatesnationsfromothercommunities.Forhimistheapogeeofoccidentalrationalismandmodernism.Andthenationandstateneedeachotherforlegitimizationandprotection.15‐Durkheimmakesthemoralcommunityanditsconsciencecollectiveaguidingthreadofhiswork.Famously,hedescribes“mechanical”solidarity,suchasinthebloodoftribes,andorganicsolidarity.Modernismmakesusmoreorganic,buttheprimalmechanisticstillremains.HistoriansandSocialScientistsThesehadtwostrains,sociologicalandhistorical.HansKohndevelopedEasternv.Westernsortsofnationalism.Thisisasociologicalmove.Strongbourgeoisiesleadtovoluntarynationalisms;theopposite,authoritarian.Carrcameupwiththehistoryofnationalismthatissociological.Wealsogethistoriesofnationalism.Theyfightoverthestartingdate.MostdatedthebirthfromtheFrenchRevolution.

Itwasonlyinthe1950sthathistoriansproperstartedtodominatethestudyofNationalism.Nowitisseveralfieldscombined.18­TheclassicalmodernistparadigmofnationalismClassicalmodernismfoughttheideaofnationsasnearlyperennial.Classicalmodernistsasserted:

1. Nationswerenotancientorimmemorial.2. Nationsareinnowayagiven.3. Manynationsarerelativelyrecentinorigin.4. Weshouldn’treadtheideaofnationalismbackwards.5. Nationswerenotnaturallyoccurringbytheresultofplansdeployed.

Classicalmodernismdenouncedtheideathatnationshaveroots.Ithadanactivistauto‐emancipatoryspirit:nothingisagiven,sowecanremakeall.19­Nation–BuildingTheactivistnatureofnationbuilding,supportednationbuilding.Theproponentsthought:

1) Nationswerepoliticalcommunities.2) Politicalbondisstrongerthanalothers.3) Theyarethemaininternationalactors:sogoodfortheirpeople.4) Elitesbuildthem.5) Theyarethemainvehiclefordevelopment.

Theyheldthatmasseducationandindustrialismmadethenationpossible.Self‐governmentcouldn’thavecomeearlier.Asreligionfell,nationstooktheirplace.And,theyare,again,necessaryfordevelopment.ModernismandPerennialismBehindtheimmediatemodelwasthelargercomponentofclassicalmodernism’sparadigm.

1) Nationsaremodern.2) Theyaretheproductofmodernity.3) Theyarenotdeeplyrootedinhistory4) Itispartoftheprocessofmodernization5) Theyaresocialconstructs.

PerennialismandModernismarepolaropposites.Perennialism ModernismCulturalcommunity Politicalcommunity

Immemorial ModernOrganic MechanicalSeamless DividedQualitiesmakeyoubelong ResourcemakeyoubelongPopular Elite‐constructedAncestrally‐based Communication‐basedAnti‐colonialnationalistswantthingsbothways;thenationisrootedinhistoryandaconstructofnationalelites.Nationalismisanactivist,autoemancipatoryprogrammefortheoppressed.Pg24‐Themainvarietiesofmodernismexaminedinthenextchapteraresocio‐cultural,economic,politicalandideological.Theyweredevelopedinthe1970sand80s.

PART1–VARIETIESOFMODERNISM

Chapter2–TheCultureofIndustrialismEnestGellner’s1964workisamilestone.Whenvillagersgetsweptintometropolises,languageandculturebecometheironlywaytocementtheirtiestosociety.Thustheintelligenciabecameimportant.Theyalsotaughtnumeracyinschools.Thebiggerthenation,thebiggertheschoolsystem.27–28Thisalsobroughtthefirstcultureclashes.Oftenthisresultedinethnicjobreservation.Thusbothsidesbecamemorenationalist.AsGellner’stheoryhadproblems,hereformulateditinNationsandNationalism.“Nation”and“Nationalism”Gellner’srevisionfeaturedhighcultureandschools.GellnerwasattackedbyRenanbecausecultureitselfcannotbethedefinitionofnation.Othergroups,suchastheboyscouts,haveasharedculture.SofinallyforGellnerthenationisapoliticalprinciple,‘whichholdsthatthepoliticalandnationalunitshouldbecongruent.’Nationalistmovementsarethosewhichexpressthesentimentthatapeopleandtheirstateshouldbecongruent.AgroliterateandindustrialsocietiesTribescan’thavenationalism,agriculturalstatescouldbutdon’t,industrialnationsdo.Intheagriculturetheelitestratauseculturetoseparatethemselvesfromtherestofsocietybelow.Eachsectorbelowhasitsownculture.

Thesesocietieshaveneitherthepossibilitynortheinclinationtocreateasinglehomogeneousculture.Industrialsocietiesdorequireahomogeneouscultureforcontextfreecommunication:thisfacilitatesbusinessacrossthenationandmobility.Pubiceducationgivesbasicskillsandaloyaltytoculture.From‘low’to‘high’culturesPg32‐Inthetransitiontoindustrialism,wegofromlowtohighculture.Anationisasocietywithhighculture.33–soforGellner,nationalismcannotbetornasunderfrommodernism.Itisafeatureoftheindustrialage.Theformofnationalismitselfispatchedtogetheranywhichway.(WhatofJamesMadisonstudyingWesternconstitutionstodeviseours?WereGreeceandRomenotmodelsonhismind?)NationalismandIndustrialismInGellner’searlierversion,languagewastheglue;inthelaterformulation,masseducationinthecreationofcitizensinsustaininghighculture.Intheearlier,theintelligensiaisimportant;later,theState.Thisisamovefromtheagentsofmodernization,tostructuresofmodernity.Buttheideaofnationsasagentsofhomogeneitytomeetindustrialneedsstaysthesame.36‐Peoplehaveaskediftherereally,though,isa,“nationalismingeneral.”Canonetheorycoverall?Also,moreproblematic,manynationspredatedindustrialism.Histheoryalsoraisesquestionsaboutonlyindustrialnationsbeingreallynationsandtherelationshipoftraditionalculturetomodernity.Nationalismand‘HighCultures’38‐Highcultureisacultivatedurbanpersonnel.Butisthesacrificeforthefatherlandreallyadefenseofaneducationallysustainedhighculture?Educationdoesnotreallyexplainpeople’spassionfortheirnation.Nationalismandpubliceducation39‐Peoplehaveworkedtoinstillnationalismviapubliceducation.Butmasseducationistheproduct,notthecauseofnationalism.Priortoastate,thenationalistsfightforacountry.Sothisispre‐publicschool.

OftennationalistsgetcreatedincolonialschoolsorwhenstudyingabroadinEurope.But,onceinpower,yes,theywillcompeteviasettingupeducationsystemswithnationalistthemes.But,fromthesovietbloctoLA,masseducationoftendoesnotsucceedininstillingloyalty.Furthermore,moststatesarepluralistic.And,theattempttoinculcateincreasesthistension.Wethenhaveacivicratherthanethnicnationalism.Soitisnottohomogenizethepopulationbuttounifythemundercertainvalues,symbols,myths,andmemories.Andtheminorityvaluesareallowedtocontinue,butaremelded.And,wehave,inthisveinadoptedmulticulturalism.NationalismandhistoricalcontinuityEthnicscometoappreciatetheirculturemorewhentheyrealizeitisnotthatofthemainstreamofsociety.Andoftenthelowcultureinspiresmorethanthehighculture.42‐History,and“ourancestors,”inspire.Theyalsomakehardpoliciespalpable.Butwhileelitesmightusehistoryfortheirpurposes,itthencontrolsthem.Youcannotjustwarphistoryeither.Revolutionariessoongraftthestandardhistorytotheirnarrative.Nationalismunitesdifferentgenerations.Cosmopolitanismdoestheopposite.Nationalismandtheethnicpast45–Ethnicityissometimesseenasthesameasnationalism.Sometimes,itisseenasthatwhichdividesnations.Intermsoftheoriginofnations,theswitchto“culture”doesn’thelp.Oftenthesegroupsdonotbecomenations.Whydosomeandnotothers?And,Smithsays,cultureisnotaplaceforethnonationaliststopickandchoosefromvariouscultures.Theycannotbedismemberedandservedupalacarte,hesays.Theintelligentsiarediscoveraheritageandwayofliving.Therediscoveryprovidesmemories,values,symbols,andmyths.Butthesepastshaveapopularresonancebecausetheyarefoundedonlivingtraditionsofthepeople(orsegmentsofthepeople).Tosucceedtherememberedpastmustsustaininthefaceofhistoricalenquiryandcriticism.Thismakestheextendedsocietylikeafamily.BroadtheorieslikeGellner’signoreparticularhistoriesandsocannottelluswhysomeemergeandothersdonot.

Chapter3CapitalismandNationalismManytheorieslinkcapitalismandnationalism.Thesearesocioeconomicvariantsofclassicalmodernism.Herewe’llconsidersomerecentattempts.47‐Marxisthebackgroundtothesemodels.MarxandEngelsdefinedmodernnationsas“communitiesoflanguageandnaturalsympathies.Sotheyweresomewhatnatural.But,‘nationalism’wereoutgrowthsofindustrialcapitalism.Youneed,asGellnersaid,ahomogeneouslanguagegrouptofacilitatecapitalism.Theoverthrowofthebourgeoisiebytheproletariatwouldnotmeantheendofnationalism.Theproletariat’sabilitytounifywasaidedbytheirsenseofbeinganation.Theydistinguishedbetweenhistory‐lessfolkswithnohistoryofastatewhichwereregressiveandthosewithahistorythatwereprogressive.Butcapitalismoftensqueezedouttheintelligentsiaandnervousbourgeoisieoftenusednationalistideologiestoinducefalseconsciousness.Theylikedanti‐colonialliberationmovementsandthoughtallgenuinenationshadarighttosecede.Imperialismandunevendevelopment49–NairnrevisesMarxismwithatheoryconcerningdependencyandimperialism.Thekeyisnotcapitalism,butunevendevelopmentofcapitalism.After1800wehavethecapitalistcentersintheWestandtheperipheries.IntheWestwehaveanidealmodelwhereinnationsdevelopeconomically–onehelpingtheother.But,intheoutside,theyarebesiegedbyus.Theelitesoftheperipheryhavenoweaponsorpower,buttheycanrallythepeoplevianationalisms.Todothistheelitemustextolthecommoncultureandadoptaformofromanticism.Theymustinvitethemassesintohistory.Nationalismthenisfacingforwardandbackwardatthesametime.Populismandromanticism51‐AswithGellner’swemustaskifthetheoryencompassesallcases.WhileNairnrecognizesthatethnictensionspredatedcapitalismanddependency,theyonlyproviderawmaterialsinhisscheme.Andthemassesplaynopartexceptplaythingsoftheintelligentsia.

Asacounterexample,Smithprovidesthemore‘soberbourgeois’nationalismofAmerica’srevolution.Wedidn’trelyona‘people’somuch.Notallnationalistsareromantics.‘Nationalism­producingdevelopment?AlsoagainstNairn,hisformulaexplainsperipherynationalisms.Buttheearliestnationalismswereinthecenter.Nationalismshavealsodevelopedindevelopednations,suchasrecentlyinEasternEurope.Theexistenceorlackofexistenceofethnichistorydoesnotseemtodeterminetheriseofnationalism.Nairncombineseconomicreductionismwithromanticnationalism.Ethno‐historyandethnicity–aswithotherMarxists–getdiminishedasimportantfactors.Theyaresimplydependentvariables.Inrealitynationalismhasan“explosiveunpredictability.”55‐And,inusingtheJapanese,IthinkSmithismakingaculturistargument:Namely,thatculturecancauseorthwartdevelopment.ThesocialbaseofnationalismFormanytheintelligentsiaisthemaininstigatorofnationalism(SmithcountshimselfinthiscategoryalongsideAnderson,Kedourie,andGellner).Whatislessclearistherelationshipbetweentheintelligentsiaandthepeople.And,arethe‘people’alwaysinvolved?TheEasternEuropeanmodelhasastrongpresenceofintellectuals.Itisnotsurethatthismodelcanbegeneralized.But,theymustbepresenttoexplainthebenefitsofsolidarityandindependencetofolks.Iftheydisagree,andrivalnationalismsemerge,themovementisjeopardized.InternalcolonialismMichaelHechterhasmovedusawayfromtheMarxistbasisofsocioeconomicmodernism.58‐WhenpoliticalincorporationwasaddedtoeconomicexploitationWales,IrelandandScotlandbecameinternalcolonies.Histatusjobs,inHechter’smodel,gotothoseincities.Atsomepointperhapsthein‐groupdidnotletthe“disadvantaged”groupin.Laterintegrationmaybehinderedbytheoutgroup’sseparatistmovement.

60–Inadditiontoaculturalidentityandinequalitiescommunicationsamongsttheoppressedgroupareneeded.Thuswecanhaveculturalratherthaneconomicseparatismasthebaseofstruggle.HeappliesthistotheCelticsituation.Ethno­RegionalismButHechter’smodeldoesnotexplainnationalisminadvancedareaslikeCatalonia,theBasquecountryandCroatia.AndwhynotSouthernItaly?But,mostly,itagaintreatscultureasepiphenomenal.Hesaysthatculturecausedtheexclusionbutgivesitnoroleintherevival.63‐Separatistgroupsareinterestedintheirhistoryandculture.Itisnottheland,butthelandwheretheirheroeswalkedthatmatters.WalkerConnorhasarguedthateconomicsplayonlyacontributoryorcatalyticroleinfomentingethnicseparatism.Ethnicnationalismhappensinadvancedanddevelopingcultures.Economicsprovidenoclearpattern;ontheotherside,thereis“clearevidence”ofethnicsentiment.Elitestrategiesof‘rationalchoice’Whydofolksjointheseeliteledmovementswhentheydon’thaveto?Hechtersaysitisjustlikeothergroups:Youjoinforindividualbenefits(afteracost/benefitanalysis).Hedoesadmitthatgreatsacrificemaybeexhibitedonthepartofparticipants.Thisisafter,hesays,repressionbytheState.InterestandpassionAgain,hiscost/benefitanalysisleavesnoroomforbeliefsorideologies.SmithasksifHitler’skillingJewstothelastmoment,whenresourceswereneededforwar,hadnoideologicalcomponent.‘WithinrationalchoiceHechterpayattentiontostructuralfeasibility.Thismakeshimlikeothers.DonaldHorowitzusesgroupesteem.Heanalysesstereotypesofthegroupbythecolonialpowers,ortheirethnicneighbors.Thenhecategorizestheeconomyasadvancedorbackwards.Thoseinthelattergrouphavenothingtolose.Advancedgroupsinbackwardsareas,bywayofcontrast,arelateseceders.Backwardsgroupsinadvancedareasdon’tsecedeeitherastheynormallyhavefewnumbers.Insum,Horowitz’sstructuralanalysisisbetterthanHechter’s.Overall,thetwodopointtotheimportofstructureinsuchromanticmovements.

Chapter4–StateandNation

IntheWesttheStateandthenationemergedtogether.SourcesofpoliticalmodernismTheoristshavesometimesseentheStateastheprogenitorofnations.Politicalandmilitaryforcesthenbecomekey.Thisthirdvariantofmodernismiswhatwillbediscussedhere.Pg70‐Theoriginsofthisviewarefourfold.

1) Weber,withhisbureaucracyandStatemonopolizationofpower.Theadministrationgivesalegal‐rationalkindoflegitimizationforthemodernstate.

2) MarxistanalysissaysthenationappearswhentheStateleavestheindividualnakedinfrontofit.

3) Simmel,nationalcompetitionandwarfaremakethestate.4) Therevolutionincommunicationsmodel.

ThereflexivestateAnthonyGiddensmostclearlyrepresentsthisPOV.Forhimthenationonlyreinforcesterritorialcohesionofthestate.TheStateisoneofmanyintheUNanditissupportedbylaws.73‐Theriseofastableadministrationfromfixedcapitalcitiesiswhatfacilitatesnations.Giddensdoesn’tlookatorthinksociologicallysignificant,thosenationswithoutstates.Nationalismistheculturalsensibilityofsovereignty.Therelationbetweenstateandnationisrarelyfrictionless.UsuallytheStatecontainsoppositionnationalisms.Andnationscomefromthedisruptionsoftraditionsbymodernity(noteconomicdisparities).Therefore,allnationalistmovementsarepolitical.ThenationbeyondthestateTheStatecangiverisetonations;especiallyinthestate–nationsofAfrica.ButthereisaproblemwithState‐basedexplanationsofnationalism.Forone,notallnationalismshaveoptedforStates.Perhapsmoreimportantlyistheproblemofculturalnationalism.AsJohnHutchinsonhasshown,thisisaforceinitsownright.Wherepolticalnationalismisadeadend,culturalnationalismcoordinatesenergies.GaelicidealsexistwithnoIrishhomerule.

TheState‐centeredvisionalsosuffersfromawesternbias.Giddensseesnationsascomingoutofabsolutism.EvenintheWestthough,AmericaandDutch,Irish,andFrenchnationalismwereoppositionalmovementsaimedattheState.ButinEasternEuropeandundertheOttoman,thenationsthatemergedwerenotjustoppositional.These‘nations’existedsolidlypriortotheaggrievedState.WhereastheWestwentStatetonation,EasternEuropeandAsiawentnationtoState.75‐Hissayingthenationonlyhassignificanceinastatewouldleavenationalismhighlyunder‐theorized.WecouldnotspeakofPolishnationbetweenitsfirstdisappearanceinthelate18thcenturyanditsbeingreconstitutedin1918.ThatwouldmeantherewasnoScotlandtilltheScottishNationalParty.Giddensmostlyseesnationsasprimordialandbasedonexclusionofothers.Itfailstorecognizedynamicswithin.AsapropforStates,hedoesn’tilluminatethechasmbetweentheStatestructureandsubjectivenationalisms.Nationsandtheinter­stateorderCharlesTillyalsolooksattheStateandholdsthenationasanafterthought.ForTillywaristhecreatorofstatemaking.Soagain,nationdisappears.RogerBrubakerdoesavariationofthesameState–to–nationexplanation.77‐Ethniccommunitiesexist.Andtheyarenotjustabstractions.Ifanything,theStateismoreabstractasitisnotlived.EthnicgroupsexistedinTsaristRussia.Marxhadtotheorizeaboutnations.IftheyarejustplaythingsofStates,whydotheyexistwhennotequalwiththestate?JamesMayalllooksatnationswithintheglobalcontext.Westphaliain1648createdaworldofprincelystatesandsoanewinternationalorder.But,wenowhave200plusstateswithnations.And,theyaretheplayersandattemptingtofreezetheinternationalmap.TheNewWorldOrderisfoundingonnationalism.Newstatessince1945haveonlybeenallowedifexcolonials,notseceding.Thatwastheidea.ThebreakupoftheUSSRandEthiopiabroughtsome20newstatessince1991.ButthentherewasBosnia.Areinternationalorganizationsdedicatedtominorityrightsunderminingsovereignty?TheStateandWarWarhaslongledtoafeelingofsolidarity.Inmoderntimesithasalsoaidedincreatingadministrativestates.

MichaelMannclaimsthatreal,cross‐classnationsemergedonlyintheendofthe18thcentury,underpressuresoffiscalcrisisandstatemiltarism.Thiscreatedgreaterconscriptionanddebtwhichhelpedtoconsolidatethenation.Itwasthepressures0fwar,notcapitalistcrystallisationsthatmadethem.81–PostBonaparte,westarttogetnations.InGermanyandAustriathelackoffitbetweenlanguageandpoliticalboundariesmadethefirstromanticstirringsofscholarlynationalismcuriously‘cultural’anda‐political.ButFrenchmilitarismmadetherestofthe‘people’aproductofwarmobilization.Thelastphaseofnationcreatingcamefromtheexpandedstateundercapitalisminthelate19thcentury.Theapparatusofeducation,healthcare,taxation,communicationhomogenized.Butthisbuiltonthepeasantnationalismsformedinwar.Apoliticaltheoryofnationalism?MichaelMannsayswhentheStateconscripted,thepeopledemandedrights.Thatishowwegotcitizensandnations.IntheHapsburgbreakup,thosethatgotstatesispredictedbythepresenceorabsenceofregionaladministration.But,asksSmith,howcanthisbesupportedinCentralEuropeinGermanyandItaly:WhynotPrussiaorPiedmontese?WhywerethesebattlesforGermanandItaliannations?Whataretheseentities,accidents?83‐Mannisrighttosaythatnationalismcamewithacryfordemocratization.But,whydidthiscomeintheformofnationalism?Ifthenationrosefightingaforeignauthoritarianroyalty,howdiditgetforeign?Andagain,nationalistsdon’tonlyfightforsovereigntyforpoliticalreasons,theyfightforahomelandwheretheirpeoplecanexistintheirways.Itisn’tjusttheshape,butthecontentthatisfoughtfor.Stateandsociety:Bridgingthegulf?84‐JohnBreuillyworkstocometogripswiththeideaofthestateasthefocusandgoalofnationalism.Hisis,asperthischapter,apoliticaltheoryofnationalism.Manynon‐Westernnations’birthwasdoneundertherighttoasserttheirnon‐westernculture.ButBreuillyisonlyinterestedinthepoliticallysignificantnationalisms.

Broadly,hesaysnationalismisabletoseizepowerinthestatebecauseitcangeneratemasssupport,bringdifferentsocialgroupstogetherandprovidearationalefortheirseparatesocialinterestsbeingjoined.Thesub‐elitehavebeenparticularlyimportantinnationsformedviaoppositiontoastate.TradeunionsmobilizedgreatlyinWW1and2.Itwasn’tjustintellectuals.Thisdoesn’tmeanthatideologyisnotimportant.Thefundamentalsituationwasmodernity.Itbroughtachasmbetweenadministrationandcivilsociety.Nationalismenteredthis‘yawning’chasm.Thenationaliststrytorejointhecivilsocietyandthestate.88‐Thismovementusestherestorationofthegreatpastverywell.Thustheriseofnationalismhappenedinrelationtothestate,notbecauseofitandnotwithoutreferencetoit.IdentityandpoliticsBreuillyexcludestheneedforidentityfromhisanalysisbecauseitishardtomeasure.But,hestillrecognizesitspower.Healsoisreluctanttogointorealmsofirrationality.(Hashenotstudiedbiologyorseenpeopleforminggroupseverywhere?)Heis,afterall,ahistorian,notapsychologist.89‐“Precisionandrigorshouldnotbeboughtatthecostofexcludingaconcept’skeyelementsanditsdifferentiatingcharacteristics.”90‐Butweshouldincludeculture,saysSmith,asitisamaincomponentofnationalismanditallowsustostudydifferentkindsofnationalism–religious,racial,linguistic,andcultural.Indeed,thereare‘pure’culturalnationalistswhohaveremainedsilentaboutthestate.YeatsandAurobindoandtheIrishGaelicrevivalforexample.Furthermore,manynationalismsdonotwantindependence,justrecognitionwithinafederation(CatalansandScotsforexample).Andifnationalismisaformofpolitics,itisevenmoresoaformofcultureandsociety–alookforauthenticityaimedatregeneratingsociety.IntellectualsandnationalistideologyBreuilly’sfocusonpoliticsdoesaserviceandheisnotunawareoftheroleofculture.Butcanwesafelyseparatethepoliticalmovementofnationalismfromthegrowthofasenseofnationalidentity.Arethesenotjoined,notjustinsome,butinallcases?Butcannationalmovementsemergewithoutsomesenseofnationalidentityamongtheelites?Breuillysaysthereisaspecificsenseinwhichintellectuals,notably

educators,arecrucialtonationalism:Theyproposethecategoryofthenationinthefirstplaceandendowitwithsymbolicsignificance.Theyprovideimagesandsymbols.Withoutthesenationalismwouldbebereftofthatself‐reflexivequalitywhichBreuillyandGiddensgivethemsomuchoftheirpower.Hence,suchsymbolismshouldbetakenasseriouslyaspoliticalmanifestations.92‐Thelandthenationalistsseekisnotjustthatofterritory,butofsymbolic/historicsignificance,tyingpeopletotheirancestors.Andersontellsus,thisturnsterritoryintoahomeland.PoliticalmodernismandethnichistoryThisreturnsustothemodernistclaimthatnationsareonlymodernandformviamodernity.Breuillysaysnationsforminalienation.(Wellthestatehasbecometooobjective).Itfillsthechasmwhereinthegovernmenttreatspeoplesolelyasindividualsinacapitalistsociety.Intellectuals,BreuilyandKedouriestate,mostfeelthebruntofthisalienationfromthemechanicalsociety.93–Butwhyshouldthisalienationturntonationalism?Whyisthe‘nation’theanswertotheirdiscontent?Andcivicnationalismsdon’tdotheculturalsomuch.(Acitizenisonewhoinatimeofcrisis,ifatnoothertime,instinctivelyrisestothedefenseoftheirnation).Solatentnationalismdoesexist.ThishappensevenincivicnationalismcountrieslikeUSA,USA,USA.InthetimesoftheformationofEnglandandFrance,thecultureswererelativelyunitedculturalgroups.(Smith1986).SoevenintheWestwhereBreuilly’spoliticaldefinitionisbestfit,culturerearsitshead.Theyusedacommonadministrativelanguagefromthelatemedievaltimesaswellasreligiousunity.Breuillyandothersseethecultureasaninstrumentaltoolusedbyelites.Whythenweretheysopopular?ConclusionAbenefitofpoliticalanalysisisthattheyhighlighttheactivecitizenmassesinthecreationofstates.Alongwithcitizenshipgoesborders.(kingdomsoftenhadfluctuatingfrontiers).AndpoliticalanalysisbringsinthevariableoftheState.Thisisneeded.Butthestatecouldonlyariseasanationalistgoal.And,thislookatthepoliticalleadersneedstobesupplementedwitha“bottomup”perspective.

96‐Finally,thismodernistapproachprecludesaroleforethnicoriginsandhistory.

Chapter5–PoliticalMessianism‘Politicalreligion’97‐Inthe1960sand1970s,theoristssawnationalismasthereligionofmodernization.Itwasapuritanideologyofself‐sacrifice.InthisDurkheimianmodel,nationalismbecomesaformofreflexivecollectiveself‐worship.JustasIslamissometimespolitical.Thiswasacivilreligion.ForLucianPyeandothertheorist,thiscivicreligionisastageonthewaytorealmodernity,withoutreligion.DavidAptersaidituses‘mobilisationsystems,’andinventsasymbolicmythologytopersuadethemassestomakenecessarysacrifices.MarginalyouthElieKedourie’sfirstbook,Nationalism(1960),arguedthatnationssprangfromKant’sdoctrineofthegoodwillcomingfromtheautonomouswill.FichtemarriedthistoHerder’sculturalpopulismtoargueforlinguisticcommunitiesthatrealizetheirfreedomcollectively.Unfortunately,Kedourienoted,theseyoungrevolutionarymessianicmovementsendedinethnichatred.Inhissecondbook,NationalisminAsiaandAfrica(1971),notedthateconomicexportwasnotthegoalofcolonies.ItwasaplaceforEuropeanstohireadministratorsandworkouttheirinter‐nationalcompetitions.100‐Unforeseenconsequences,traditionalsocietieswereuprootedinthenameofbureaucraticadministration.Traditionalhandicraftssuffered.Masseducationunderminedtraditionalbeliefs.Thiscreatedmarginalmenwhodidnotbelongintheirsocieties,viawesterneducation,andtheyglobbedontonationalism.NationalismwasutterlyalientopoliticaltraditionsofAsiaandAfricawiththeirempiresandtribalkingdoms,respectively.ButfromTheodosiusin379AD,theCrusades,warsofreligionandRousseau’sCivilReligion,theWesthasstrivenforhomogeneity.Thecultof‘darkgods’

102‐Thisimportofnationalismdrewonapast.But,Confucius,Buddha,MuhammadandIsaiahwereprophetsandteachers,notinvestedinprovingnationalgreatness.Buttheneedtoenlistthesepastsshowsthatnationalismwasaprogramofspiritualmobilization.ColonialadministratorswerefrustratedbytheirultimatelackofaccesstoEuropeaninstitutions.AmillennialopiateThatnationshavenotonlyausableheroicpast,butasharedgloriousfuture,isaveryoldideaintheWest.In1254,JoachimofFiorespokeofthecominggreatmillenniumof1,000years.Inthistimeprivateandpublicwillbeunitedunderthebannerofloveandbrotherhood.SofraternityisnotanewEuropeangoal.ThismillennialviewcouldrequiredestructionasinBakuninandRobespierre.SotherevolutionaryviolentcultofnationalismbasedinKali,camefromus.Thenationalistleaderfeelswiththepeopleandsometimesmustuseterrortobringthepeoplebacktothemselves–tobringabouttheageofuniversallove.ColonialismandtheintellectualsKedouriemakesthreenewclaims:

1) ThedisconnectbetweenEuropeanidealsandpracticescreatesalienatedmen.

2) Thisgetsfilledbymillennialdoctrinesofprogress.3) Theviolencecomesfromtheresultingtranvaluationofvalues.

Hedoesnotdothisforalltimesandplaces,alaGellner,hedoesitinCentralEuropefirstandthen20thcenturyAsiaandAfrica.Inallcasestraditionalvaluessuffer.AnotherstrainisKedourie’shatredofnationalism.Itisterriblebecauseitbelievesinunattainableprogressandgoldentimes,whichbreedsfrustrationandviolence.And,itinvolvesthesinofpride.SmithquestionsthediffusionmodelofimposedWesternnationalismonthegroundsthatithadtobeacceptedandembracedtowork.Canwechalktheacceptanceuptotheadoptionbyafewindigenousintellectuals?Furthermore,colonialismvaried.TheFrenchusedanelitetoimposetheirrule.TheBritishdidmore“indirectrule,”whereinlocalstookownership.Also,variationsofmissionariesandtheireducationsystemsshouldbetakenintotheaccount.108‐Localculturalgroupsusednationalismtofurthertheirtraditionalaims.ThuswecannotunderstandthespecificnatureofIndian,Kenyan,orNigeriannationalismswithoutunderstandingthesepre‐existingsocialandculturalgroups.

Kedourie’sclaimthatnationalismfillsthevoidleftbytheWest’sdestructionoftraditionalcommunitiesassumesthatpeopleneedstablecommunities(ratherthanenjoychange)andthatnationalismisatotallynewsocialgroupingwithoutanyindigenousprecedent.Evenifso,whynotbelongtoclass,city,religionorcontinent,ortheState,why“nationalism”?109‐Kedourie’svisionpainttheindigenousasinnocentsforcedoutofEdentoeattheideaofprogress,nevertoreturntothewarmthoftraditionandfamilyagain.BOOM!MillennialismandprogressKedourietracesthisnarrativebacktomedievalheresies.Smithdoesn’tbuytheconnectiontoGermannationalists.Andsometimesnationalismdon’tseekmillennialrevolution,onlyautonomyfromalienrulers.And,notallwishtocollapse,asinthemillennialvision,thedistinctionbetweentheprivateandpublic.Hechoosesextremeexamples,butmostnationalistareordinarybourgeois,lower‐middleclassfolktryingtoescapeoppression.AndKedouriemightsaytheelitesofthemovementarefanatical.Thisagainraisesthequestionofthegulfbetweenthemandthepassivefollowingmasses.And,asSmithhaswritten,millennialismappealstothepoorestandmostuneducated.Theeliteleadersareusuallywelleducated.Thereligionofhistory113‐Nationalismseekstorefashionthefutureintheimageofthepast,thegenuinepastofapeopleintheirhomeland.Religionandhistorymustbetakenseriouslyandbemadepoliticalviaemotionstowork.Thusforhim,thehistoryandreligionaretoolswithnopreviouslegitimacy.IslamandOrthodoxybecomehardtoexplaininthisview.But,thenhowdotheelitepersuadethemasses?Theattemptstoremakethemassesviaeducationhaveonlyworkedtemporarily.Sohetakessecularmillennialismveryseriously,butseesreligionasatrickfoistedonthemassesbyelites,inadistortedway.Juergensmeyersaysnationalismisnotrebelledagainst,itisthesecularizedversion.Thereligiousversionofnationalism,bringsitbacktopurity.KapfereranalyzesanAustralianWarMemorialforGalipoliandseesreligiousartstyleusedtocelebrateasecularcrusade.Thuswehavea‘religionofhistory.’

Thepresent,doesnothavetheabilitytocompletelyremakethepastinitsimage.116‐Kedourieseesnationalismasanevilleadingtoviolence.Butnationalismhasengulfedmanypeopleforwhomthenationanditsrhetoricarejust‘icingonthecake.’Theculturalcakedoesnotgetremovedforthisicing.

Chapter6–InventionandImagination1983sawHabsbawm’sTheInventionofTraditionandBenedictAnderson’sImaginedCommunitiespublished.BothstemmedfromaMarxisttradition,butsupplementeditwith‘postmodern’deconstructionism.Thustheysoughttodeconstruct.InventingNationsNationsas‘inventedtraditions’IntheintrodoTheInventionofTraditions,Hobsbawmarguedthatwecanbestunderstandnationsbyunderstandingnationaltraditions.118‐Thesetraditionsinculcatecertainvalueswhichautomaticallyimplyalinkwiththepast.TheGothicstyleofthepostWWIIrebuiltparliamentisanexample.Inventedtraditionsrenotcustomorconventionorroutine.Theyareflexiblewhereastraditionsarenot.Customiswhatjudgesdo.Traditionistherobe,wigandritual.Inchangingtime,societiescreatetraditionsusingoldsymbolisminnewways.Flags,anthemsandhistoriccontinuitieshadtobecreatedwithnations.Evenoldtraditions,likeEnglishChristmascarolsareputinnewsettingsandfunctions.Thereare3typesofinventedtraditions,thosethat:

1) Establishorsymbolizesocialcohesion.2) Legitimizeinstitutions,orstatusrelationswithauthority.3) Inculcatevaluesystemsorconventionsofbehavior.

Theoldpracticeswerespecificandstronglybinding.Thenewonesarevagueinthecontentofvaluesandobligations:theydealin‘patriotism,’‘loyalty,’andsuch.And,theyarecompulsory.Hobsbawmfocusesonemotionallyandsymbolicallychargedsigns,suchasfalgsandanthems.Wehave,inmodernnationsandtimes,veryfewremainingtraditions.Thosethatremainareprominent.

EvenIsraeliandPalestiniannationsarenewasterritorialstateswereonlycreatedrecentlyandwereonlytakenseriouslyafterWWI.Thesetraditionsare,hetellsusinthechapterhewrote,inventedbyeliteswhothoughtchangeandimmigrationrequiredthem.Twostagesofnationalism121‐NationalismisonlyinterestingtoHobsbawmtotheextentthatitmanifestsinastate.Nationsaremadebynationalists:Itispuresocialengineering.Therearetwotypesofnationalism.

1) Thosethataremassmovementbased,alatheFrenchRevolution.Itcreated,underthethresholdprinciple,areaslargeenoughtosupportacapitalistmarketeconomy.Theseflourishedfrom1830‐1870.

2) Thesecondsortisthatof‘ethno‐linguistic’nationalism.ThisisanEasternEurope1870–1914modelandresurfacedinthe1970sand1980s.

Onesortistopdown,theotherthereverse.But,mostlytheyaretopdown.Buttheymustbeanalyzedfrombelowwithattentiontofears,hopes,longings,ofordinaryfolk.122‐Thecrucialperiodwas1870to1914,whenthemassmovementcivic‐democratictypegottransformedintotheeliteethniclinguistictype.Inthisperiodweseeashiftwhereinanygroupcanbeanation,thethresholdideaisabandoned.Thusunhistoricalnationsemergedonanycriteria.Andtherewasasharpmovetotheright.Theconflationofrace,languageandnationalityhappenedinthislate19thcenturyperiod.Duringthisperiod,foreignersbecameaboogeyboo,especiallyJews.ThedemiseofnationalismThelate20thhasseenarevisionofthisethno‐linguistictype.Itisdoneinthenameofmodernity,butleansheavilybackwards.Itisaprotestagainsttheother.Globalisationandtheinternationaldivisionoflaborhasremovedthesefunctions.Andcommunicationsandinternationaltravelhaveendedtheideaofanethnicallyhomogeneousnationstate.Nationalismisnowirrelevant.Nationalismisasubstituteforlostdreams.Ethnicandcivicnationalisms?125‐Hobsbawm’svisionmakesnationsreallyaproductoflatecapitalism,aperiodofindustrialization,urbanization,anddemocratization.And,onlyinEurope.

Hebacksthisassertionbyshowingtheirrecentgeniture.Whilebothhatenationalism,Kedouriesawmanipulationviaalienatedintellectuals,Hobsbawm,morecapitalists.BothdiminishtheimportoftheFrenchRevolution.But,Smithargues,Francewasclearlyanationalist,notjustaBourgeois,revolution.Thisexample,notjustreactionstoNapoleonunleashednationalisms.Nationalismaroseaplentyduringthistime,thoughfewresultedinstates.ForHobsbawmthesedon’tcountastheydon’tfulfillthemarketgoal.Thus,likeBeuilly,heemploysanoverlystrictdefinition.Nor,Smithargues,doesthisrifedistinctionbetween“ethnic‐linguistic”and“civic‐political”kindsofnationalismhold.Ifyoulookclosely,themostcivicandpoliticalnationalismshadethnicandlinguisticbases.ThiswascertainlythecasewiththeFrenchRevolution.Theuseofthisdivisionrevealsnopattern.And,hecannotseeanyculturalheritageasitmessesuphisargument.‘Proto­national’bondsWhatHobsbawmpresentsusistheoldHegelianideaofa‘historylesspeoples.’Thesepeopleareinertandpawnsofelitemanipulation.His‘proto‐national’bondsareinertandneedelitestomakethemnationalist.128‐Whycouldn’ttheseproto‐nationalismshavebeenthebasisofstates?Hobsbawm’sassertionthattherecouldbenoconnectionbetweenmedievalGermanethno‐linguisticandpoliticaltiesintheHolyRomanEmpireandmodernNationalismortheJewsintheirpastfliesinthefaceofmuchevidence.TheWelshandSwissweretiedtotheirland,withoutanyhistoryofaState(theWelshonlyfleetingly).Again,thisviewgivesnoroletothemasses.And,itassumesthattheeliteshavenotraditions,butonlyfindthemandpromotethemartificially.Thenationasaconstruct?129‐Whatdoesitmeantosaythenationisasocialconstruct?Whydotheeliteschoosethisparticularconstruct?Whydoesthisdiscourse(ofnationalism)resonatewiththemasses?Withhiscapitalist‘threshold’modelhecannotexplainsmallerstates.Tocondemnthelatterashistoricallyirrelevant,doesnotfurthertheexplanation.OnlyPrysMorgan,inHobsbawm’seditedcollection,givesananswer.IndiscussingtherevivalofWelshculture,whenheconnectstheittopoetrycontestsin18thcenturytaverns.Thisishow18thcenturyWelshculturalnationalistsinLondonlearnedofthem.

Thetraditionsarenotinventedexnihilo,theymustjivewiththehistoricalimagination.Certainlytheyarereworked.Buttheyarenotinvented.TheproblemofemergingStatesinAfricaandAsia,forexample,pointstothefailurewhentheartificeisnotrealenoughtoresonatewiththepeople.Whenanattemptathomogenizingismade,itisdone–asinBurma–onthebasisofthemajorityethnicity’spast.Yes,thenamePakistan,wasinventedbyaCambridgestudent.ButtheconcentrationofMuslimsmadethispossible.Smithdoesnotarguethatnoinventiontookplace.Rather,theinventionispartialandmustjivewithapre‐existingrealityofsomesorttospeaktothemasses.Ifanything,thepoliticalpartisinvention,butnotthecultural.ImaginingtheNationTwofatalities131‐Anderson,aMarxist,dealswiththeinadequacyofMarxisttheorizingabout‘thenationalquestion.”Astheendofthenation,longprophesized,isnotremotelynear,thiscontinuinganomalyneedsexplanation.Hedefinesnationalismasanimaginedpoliticalcommunitybasedondeathandbabel.Inasecularage,weneedposterityandthenationkeepusfromthethreatofoblivion.Likereligion,nationalismtakesdeathandsufferingseriously,inawaythatprogressiveandevolutionaryMarxismandliberalismdonot.Babelistheotherkey.Capitalismrequiresauniformlanguage.HistoricalpreconditionsThethreeelementsthathadtodietomakemodernnationalismnecessarywere1)Sacredscriptcommunities;2)sacredmonarchicalhighcenters;3)cosmologicaltime.ThegreatreligiouscommunitiesofIslam,ChristianityandMiddleChinasawthemselvesasoverarchingand‘cosmicallycentral,throughthemediumofsacredlanguage,linkedtoasuperterrestrialorderofpower.”Theirwritingswereseenassacredlanguages,notarbitrarysigns.134‐Bookscreateimaginedcommunitiesofreaders.Newspapersdothiswhenwereadourpaperssimultaneouslyeveryday.

Print­communitiesWhat,inapositivesense,madethenewcommunitiesimaginablewasahalf‐fortuitous,butexplosive,interactionbetweenasystemofproductionandproductiverelations(capitalism),atechnologyofcommunications(print),andthefatalityofhumanlinguisticdiversity.HeclaimsthatLatinAmericaandNorthAmericaweretheearliestcasesofnationalism!Animaginedcommunity?Anderson’sisapostmodernreading.Itisnotthatthecommunityisimaginedthatisproblematic.Andersonnotesthatcommunitieslargerthansmallvillagesmustbe.Itistheirlinkwithrepresentationinplays,novels,scores,andnewspapers,thatisnew.Aproblemis,saysSmith,theword“imagined.”Itiseasytoslipfromthisto“created’or‘imaginary’or‘illusory,’or‘fabricated.’Itclaimsthatthenationisnomorethanthesumofitsfabricatedculturalrepresentations.Thisignoresthetraditionsthatundergirdsomanynations.Secondly,hisemphasisontheindividualimaginationdeflectsattentionawayfromthecolletiveattachmentandsentiment.Imaginationcanspreadtheideaofnation,butwhydoesit?Whyhasitsouniversally?Lastly,thethrustofAnderson’sdefinitionisindividualisticandvolunteeristic.Languageisthemaincriterion.Ethnicity,religion,colourdon’tcount.Soanygroupwithasharedlanguageisanation.138‐Thereisalottobegainedbyseeinghowcommunitiesarerepresentedinliterature.But,todescribeanationsolelyinthesetermsisistomissotherelements.Symbols,myths,values,memories,attachments,customs,andtraditions,laws,institutions,routines,andhabits,getleftout.Print­capitalismandre­presentationPrintisoveremphasized.InmanyAfricanandAsiannationalformations,fewwereliterate.EveninEuropethiswastrue.Symbols,songs,images,reportsandritualsalsogotpeopletofightinwars.Itwasthenationalistswho,onceinpower,createdmasseducation.Landscapes,monuments,buildings,tombstyles,werealsopartofthehistoricenvironment.Radio,television,filmandreligionarealsolargelyoverlooked.Inthe2ndedition,Andersonpointsouttheimportanceofcolonialstate,anditscensustakers,andcartographers,andethnographers,indefiningthenationsofSoutheastAsia.Yetherevertstohiscentralthesisofprintlanguage.

Massself­sacrificeTherelianceontheendofsacredmonarchies,sacredscriptandhomogeneoustime,presentsanotherproblemforAnderson.Allelementsmust,heclaims,bethere.Intermsofself‐sacrifice,howdowegetfromknowingaboutthenationtolovingitandfeelingit?Andersonsaysitisinthewayitislikenedtoafamily.Andthatthefamilygetslovebecauseitgivesdisinterestedlove.Butfamiliesandnationshaveinterests.Itisbecauseweknowourinterestsareboundwithit,Smithcorrects,thatweidentifywiththem.Webondwiththedeadviathenation.Thustheconceptofnationisnotmerelyintellectual,itisfeltpassionatelyasarealcommunity.141–anditisnotthecasethatallsacredscriptcommunitiesdeclinedandtherebymadethespaceforthenation.Islam.Judaism.OrthodoxreligioninGreeceisthelynchpinofnationalidentity.Juergensmeyerpointsoutthatreligionandnationalismareoftenco‐joined.Andthelineartime,markedbyclockandcalendar,werewellknowninantiquity.Isthereaconnection?Howwouldyouestablishit?LiahGreenfeldandMichaelWalzerandothershavetiedthenationtoProtestantismandthespreadofvernacularlanguage.Butthisisnotmodernistinthatithappenedwellbeforecapitalismandthedeclineofreligion.142–Anderson’smainimpacthasbeen,notthedetails,buttheideaofimaginationandrepresentationasthecreatorsofnation.Thisisinteresting.Ithastakenustopsychologyandculture.But,ithasbypassedtheneedtogiveanoverallstructuralexplanationofhistoricalgroups.Imaginedcommunityandinventedtraditionhavesignaledthedissolutionofclassicalmodernismanditsreplacementbythemanysmaller‘postmodern’analysesofthenation.We’lllookatthatintheend.Nowweturntotheattemptstoreplacemodernismwithmoreviableparadigmsandanalyses.

PARTII–CRITICSandALTERNATIVESChapter7–PrimordialismandperennialismThecreationofmodernistgrandnarrativeofrecentnationalcreationisgivingwaytolimitedmodelsthatlookatparticularaspectsofthestudyofnationalismandnations.Butthemodernistparadigmstillrules.Andthosewhochallengedonotput

forwardalternativegrandnarratives.Sowehaveuntenableparadigmsorlimitedaccountsofspecificproblems.145‐Inthischapterwewillseewhyprimordialandperennialalternativesareinadequate.Primordialism1:InclusivefitnessTheoldestparadigmisthenationalistone.Thisistheoneagainstwhichmodernistshavefought.In1944HansKohndividedtheoriesintothevoluntaristonesandtheorganiconeswherenationalidentityisstampedupontheindividual.KohnthoughtthefirsttypewasAnglo‐Saxon.ThesecondEastoftheRhine.Theorganicmodelis,ofcourse,thetargetofmodernists.Theymightaskifnationshavenoexistenceapartfromtheideasandgoalsofnationalism.Perhapstheywakeapopulationthatneverentertainedtheideaofanation.Aproblemcomesfortheprimordialistswhentheyintroducetheideaofbiologyandthe‘primordial’tieofnationality.147‐TheleadsociobiologistisPierrevandenBerghe.Heseesthenationasanextensionofkinselection.Thelargerasocietythemorereciprocityandcoercionaddtoasociety;butkinisalwaysafactor(albeitdiminished).Thecommonancestormadetribesabletogrowtotensofthousandsandkeepthekinmythgoing.Ethnocentrismdevelopedalongkin.Thatiswhyethnocentrismisthenorm.Geneticrelatednessincreasescooperationandsoinclusivefitness.Buthowdowerecognizekin?Anyculturalmarkerwilldo:language,religion,customs,dress,hairstyles,manners,mythsofcommonancestry,whathaveyou.Theproblemisthatmythsofcommonancestryisnotcommonancestry.Hesaysiffolkslookalikeandintermarry,themythisbelievedandthatisenough.Butwehavemanymultipleancestrymythbasedsocieties.TheFrencharetheFranksandtheGauls.TheAnglo‐Saxon.Someonesaysitbreaksdownbecauseitexplainsnon‐genetictransmissiononagenetic–basedmodel.Andhowcanitbeexpandedtomillionswhowedon’tknow?Smithsaysitcanonlybeexplainedifwegointosocialpsychologyandthatisnotgenetic.Sowegototheculturalversionofprimordialism.PrimordialismII:culturalgivens

EdwardShilsdistinguishedbetweenpublicciviltiesandprimordialtiesoffamily,religiousandethnicgroups.Hesaidprimordialtiesofkinshipandreligionwerestillaliveinmodernsocieties.ThiswastakenupbyCliffordGeertz.Hestudiednewnationsandtheirpopulationswereboundtogetherlessbytheciviltiesofarationalsocietythanbytheprimordialtieswhicharoseontheculturalbasisoflanguagecustom,race,religionandother.Weneed,Geertzclaimed,tohaveourworthpublicallyvalidated(thisiskinbased)andtheothertobuildanefficient,dynamic,modernstate.TheoppositionofthesetwohauntsAfricanandAsiawiththeirnepotism.153‐WehavetiesingroupsbasedonAssumedbloodties,race,language,region,religion,andcustom.TheinstrumentalistcritiquePaulBrass(1979)foughtthisbynotingsomeprimordialattachmentsarevariable.Manyarebilingual,religionsaresubjecttochangebyreformers.Placeofbirthmayloseitsemotionalsignificanceduetomigration.Primordialgroupsdonotpredictnations,isanotherdig.Also,ethnictiesarenon‐rationalandoftenthreatencivilsociety.Brassdistinguishesbetweengroupswithalonghistorytounitethem,IslamandJews,andnewerethnicgroups.But,hesaysitisimpossibletosquaretheprimordialists,withtheinstrumentalists(whosaygroupsarefunctional)simplybysayingsometiesarestrongerthanothers.Stillhedistanceshimselffromextremeinstrumentalistswhosaythatcultureisinfinitelymalleableandpeoplechosewhicheverservestheirpoliticalinterestsormobilizesthemassesbest.EllerandCoughlan,sayprimordialattachmentsareoutsidetherealmofsociallyconstructedemotionsandsoareintelligibleandunsociological.Theyuseempiricalstudiestoshowethnicteisarecontinuallybeingrenewedandreinterpreted.Theyespeciallydisagreewiththeideathatsuchprimordialtiesarejustthereandnotconstruedsocially.156‐StevenGrosbysaysonlycertainobjectsareinthecategoryofprimordial.Humansparticipateinhistoricallyevolvingpatternsofbelief.Wehavealwaysbeenattachedtoprimordialgroupsbecausetheyprotectlife.

Theinstrumentalistcritiqueismisguidedanditssociologyshallow.Bothinstrumentalistsandprimordialists,saysSmith,arereductionist.Theypitinterestagainstaffect.Danielbellsawacombinationofinterestandaffectinethnicties.Geertzinfactsaidthe‘untraceablebutyetsociologicallyrealkinship’ofethnicitywasoneofseveralofsourcesofbeliefs,actions,attachments,andsentiments.AndGeertztalksofstatesplayingwithprimordialattachments(hedidn’tusetheword).Andheisn’tsayingtheattachmentsareobjective,butratherfeltbecausefolksbelieveinthem.Atheoryofethnicityandnationalism,Smithsays,thatfailstoaddressthepowerofresultingtiesandpropensityforself‐sacrifice,isdeficient.Sometimesitseemsthatinstrumentalistandsocialconstructfolksmadetheirtheoriesinaffluent,stable,westernsocietiesandcannotexplainhotnationalisms.InBosnia,India,andtheMiddleEasta“blood‐and‐homeland”primordialismseemsmoreapposite.But,theprimordialexplanationisjustatautology.Itredescribeswhatitobserves.Itdoesnotexplaintheformation,course,anddeclineofinstancesofthesephenomena.Alsoitdoesawaywiththeneedforhistoricalsociology,itcannotexplaindifferentformsofattachment.Thisisapowerful,however,pointofdepartureformoreconvincingexplanations.PerennialismI:ethniccontinuity159‐Theprimordial/instrumentalistdebateislargelyconcernedwithethnicityandnotnationalism.Buttheyhavegreatlyinfluencedthediscussionofnationalism.Inthepastonecouldbesurethatmodernistswerealsoinstrumentalistsandvice‐versa.Notnow.Also,notallperennialiststurnouttobeprimordialists.Here,we’lllookatsomecombinations.Perennialistsreferstoabeliefinthehistoricalantiquityofthetypeofsocialandpoliticalorganizationknownasthe‘nation.’Perennialistsviewnationsasupdatedversionsofoldethniccommunitiesorcollectiveculturalidentity.It’sthesamephenomena.Ontheotherhand,perennialistsrefusetoseeeithernationsoretnicgroupsas‘givens’innature;theyarestrictlyhistoricalandsocial,ratherthannatural,phenomena.Societyisahumanconstructandaconstant.

Forexample,JoshuaFishman’sanalysisofethnicityandlanguageinEasternEurope.JewsandGreekshaveanimmemorialubiquityandsubjectivityofunmobilizedethnicity.Ithasabiologicalcomponent,butitalsoinvolves‘doing.’Thatissongs,chants,rituals,etc.Itisn’tabeingthing,butadoingthing.Ethnicdoingscanreinterpret.Thesegroupscanundergochange,butmustbetruetotheircoreways.Smithasks,whofeelsthesedoings?Elites?Whoauthenticatesthedoingsandknowings?Isthereonlyonestandardofauthenticity?Whatofgroupsthatmoveandtakenewidentitiesorintermarriage?Canyouhavedual‐ethnicbelongings?Whatofgroupswithlesswelldocumentedpasts?Itmaynotworkwellinmobilewesternsocieties.And,hedoesn’tbridgethegapfromethnicitytonationforus.Whatofconquest,colonization,etc?PerennialismII:perennialethnicity,modernnationsWalkerConnoralsodoesethnicperennialism.Hesaysanationisagroupthatsharesanon‐rationalbond.Nationalistsleadersknowthisevenifscholarsareconfused.CheckMao,MussoliniandHitler.Butthiswillnot,aswithprimordialists,haveanybasisinreality.Thisirrationalitymeansthatrationalchoicemodelsandclassconflicttheoriesmissthepoint.Peopledonotvoluntarilydieforthingsthatarerational.NationalismismoretiedtoethnicityandpatriotismtiedtotheState.Whileanethnicgroupmaybeother‐defined,anationmustbeself‐defined.163‐Heis,though,exceedinglymoderninthathethinksnationsexistwhenmostofthepopulationbecomesawareofthemselvesasone.So,hetreatswithextremecautiontheideaofnationspriortothelate19thcentury.Afterall,nationalismisamass,notanelitething.Wecannotknowwhatpercentageofanationfeelsitselfpartofanation.WhatofimmigrantstoAmerica?MostpeasantsinFrancedidn’tbecomeFrenchmenuntilWWI.Enfranchisementisagoodmeasure.Bythatmeasure,didn’tbecomenationsuntiltheearly20thcentury.Theideathatalienruleisillegitimateexisted.Anditgrew.Nationalismhasspreadonlyinthe20thwithmasscommunicationandstatesponsorededucationspreadingtheideathatnationalismistiedtoethnicity.And,thepublicityofsuccessfulethnic–nationalrevolutionsinspiredfolks.

Smithsayshisexclusivelysocialpsychologyanalysisomitsrichculturalelementsofmemoryandsymbolism.Itbettershowshowmassesaremobilizedthanoriginate.And,wehavenocensusofsentimentforpre‐moderntimes.Arewereallytoacceptthatnationsonlyexistwhenfolkscanvote?Arethenonlydemocraciesnations?Sayingonlymassnationsarenationsisatautology.Couldwenothavemoremiddleclassorelitenations?Canwenotbeawareofournationevenifwedonotmakethedecisions?ThatiswhatSmithsayshappenedintheearlymodernperiod.ThepsychologyofethnicaffiliationAsimilarcombinationofperennialethnicitywithpoliticalmodernismisinDonaldHorwitz’s,EthnicGroupsinConflict.165‐Ethnictiesarepyramidedonfamilyties,andmeetthewidespreadneedforfamiliarityandcommunity.Itcarriesfamilialemotion,evenifwe’reonlytalkingaboutculturaltraitsincommon.Groupsareuniversal.HecitesHenriTajfel’sexerimentsingroupformationonminimalinfoandthesubsequentwillingnesstosacrificeeconomicgainforpositivesocialidentityinagroup.Butethnicityisascriptiveandsohardtochange.Thegroupscompareeachotherandwanthighself‐esteem.Thisresultsinstereotypes.Nowstates,suchastheWestandAfrica,aremulti‐ethnicsocomparisonsaremoreintense.Andsogroupscompetefortheprizeofpoweroverthestate.Hefocusesoncolonialism.Hissociologicalorientation,saysSmith,meansheunderestimatesreligionandculturaltraditionsasresourcesfornationalism.Atthesametimehedoesgreatmulti‐ethnicstateanalysis.Buthedoesn’tshowwhysomeriseandsomefallandsomeformnationswhileothersdon’t.Theimmemorialnation?If,asConnorandHorowitzclaim,nationalcommunitiesgrewoutofethniccommunities,arenationsnotperennial?JohnArmstrongsaysthenationissimplyamodernequivalentofpre‐modernethnicidentity.Theyformanddissolvethroughouthistory,butareaconstantfeature.167‐Inpre‐moderntimesthesegroupingsdidnotlegitimizepolityformation–itwasn’tagoal.Buthealsospeaksofnationsemergingslowlyinthepre‐modernworld.After1800thoughtheyexplicitlyusethelanguageofnationalism.

Butheseestheseethnicidentitiesasrelyingonsocialboundariesratherthanprimordialattachmentsorkinshipties.Sodoesheseenationsasgrowingoutofolderkinshipties?Ordothechangingsocialtiesinthepre‐moderntimehavenothingtodowithkinship?Smithseesbothinhiswriting,butbelievesheadherestoarecurrentratherthanacontinuousversionofperennialism.IncontasttoArmstrong,manyhistorianshavebeenconcernedtotraceacontinuitybetweenparticularmodernnationsandpre‐modernethniccommunities.Theirsismorea‘continuousperennialism.’Pre‐modernhistorians,forexample,sawgermsofnationseverywhereinthemiddleages.ForStevenGrosbyandothers,wecanusetheterm‘nation’withancientIsraelinthe7thcenturybc.Moab,EdomandEgypttoowerenations.GreeceandMesopotamiawerecitystatesorempiresbecausetheydidn’tbelieveinasinglelandinhabitedbyasinglepeople.Whereasnowwehavelegalcitizenshipasabond,theyhadareligiousbond.169‐Grosbyhasculturalprimordialism.But,ishisuseof‘nation’similartootherscholars?Aren’tcitizenship,masseducation,masscultureandvotingpartofthemoderndefinition?Grosbywouldsaythey’retoonarrow.Mighttherebetwokinds?Modernandpre‐modern?But,wedon’twanttodoretroactivenationalism.Ifwesaynowissodifferentthatthedefinitiondoesn’ttravelbackintime,whatisthevariablethatmakesthedifference?Chapter8–Ethno‐symbolismThreeopposedantinomies:

1) The“essence”ofanationasopposedtoitsconstructedqualities.2) Theantiquityofthenationversusitspurelymodernappearance.3) Theculturalbasisofnationalismcontrastedwithitspoliticalaspirationsand

goals.Historianshavedebated#2and#3especially.

‐ Objectivistsstresstheroleofcultureandmoreespeciallylanguage.‐ Thesubjectivistsforwhomnationsareformedbypopularwillandpolitical

action.Forobjectivists,nationsandnationalsentimentcouldbefoundasfarbackasthe10thcentury.Whereasforsubjectivists,botharetheproductofthe18thcentury.

Old,‘continuous’nations

John K. Press, Ph.D.� 3/20/13 7:41 PMFormatted: Bullets and Numbering

John K. Press, Ph.D.� 3/20/13 7:44 PMFormatted: Bullets and Numbering

John K. Press, Ph.D.� 3/20/13 7:45 PMFormatted: Superscript

John K. Press, Ph.D.� 3/20/13 7:46 PMFormatted: Superscript

John K. Press, Ph.D.� 3/20/13 7:46 PMFormatted: Font:Italic, Underline

Whilehistorianswouldacceptnationalism,asnew,nationsarelesssure.171‐LiahGreenfeld’smassivestudyfindsnationalsentimentinEnglandintheearly16thcentury.Forher‘nationalism’signifies‘Nationalsentiment’ratherthan‘nationalistideology.’Bytheearly17th,withtheriseofProtestantism,ithadturnedtooutrightnationalistideology,albeitinreligiouslanguage.Butherearly16thcenturydefinitiondoesincludethemajorityofpeopleidentifyingwiththenation.ThereformationofHenryisanimportantnationalistmomentinEngland.ButhistorianssuchasAdrianHastingsdonotknowwhyitisn’tearlierlikethe14thcentury,whenEnglishbecameprevalentinadministrationandlaw,orevenlateAnglo‐SaxonEnglandwhenanearlynation‐statewithacommonreligion,vernacularlanguage,administrationandcompactterritorycameintobeing.Thusitistakenbacktothe11thcentury.ThenamesEnglandandBritainwereinuse.ThisgoesbacktotheVulgateBible,inwhichtheideaoftheIsraelinationinspiredEnglishnationalism.Bythelate16thweeklychurchservicebroughtandEnglishProtestantismtoneareveryone.FightingagainstCatholicsfortheiridentity.Bytheearly18thcentury,wehaveScotlandandsoBritishnessemerges;especiallyagainstFrance.173–HughSeton‐Watsoncameupwith“old,continuous”nationsversusdeliberatelycreatedones.WhatCharlesTillycallednationsbydesign.Oldcontinuousarethosepriorto1789.OldonesaretheEnglish,Scots,French,Dutch,CastiliansandPortugeseinthewestandtheDanesandSwedenintheNorthandtheHungarians,PolesandRussiansintheEast.Otherswereformedbywellknownleaderswiththewrittenwordandmoderncommunications.Pre­Modernnations?Seton‐Watsonconcedessomeanachronisms.Andthatthedefinitionofnationalismisvague.Hesays,“Anationexistswhenasignificantnumberofpeopleinacommunityconsiderthemselvestoformanation,orbehaveasiftheyformedone.”174‐ButSusanReynoldssaysthisreadingbackwardstemptsustothinkofnationsasinevitable.Toavoidconfusion,shesuggeststheword“regnal”inplaceof“national.Byabout900theideaofpeoplesascommunitiesofcustom,descent,andgovernmentwaswellentrenched.Thesewere,inturn,tracedbacktothe7thcentury.

TherewasinthemedievalWesta“regnal”consciousness,thatmarriedkinship,customandaroyalgovernment.LikeConnorandGrosby,Reynoldsfocusesonpopularbeliefsandideas.LesleyJohnson,saystheevidenceisn’tcontinuousenough(peoplewhofightagainstthiswellknowthepoliticalimplicationsoftheirwork).Butthecontinuityisveryclearinpeopleshapedandcarriedbyscripturalreligion.TheArmeniansandJewsareoutstandingexamples,butnottheonlyonesbyanymeans.176‐JohnHutchinsonneedsmoreevidence.But,itisdifficultifitisstipulatedthatbothethnicityandnationhoodmustbeproventobeamassphenomena.AdrianHastingssays,weneedtoonlyshowsomebeyondgovernmentcircles,notall.Andagainst,Connor,Gellner,andHobsbawmcitesFrancesasanationcenteredonParislongbeforemostpeasantscouldspeakFrenchorthoughtofthemselvesassuch.Let’snowlookattheantinomybetweenthepoliticalbasisandtheculturalone.Culturalandpoliticalnationalism177‐ForReynolds,regnumwaspoliticalandculturalincontent.TheMiddleAgeswerefullofthese“peoples”withtheirrulers.AccordingtoMendels,cultureandpoliticswerenotseparateaspartsoftheRegnalintheMiddleAges.Butinmoderntimeswemakethesplit.Hobsbawmonlylooksatpolitics.Breuillyseesnationalismasapoliticalmovementmeanttofillthespiritualvoid.Buttheirthinkingdismissesculture,identity,andhomeland.JohnHutchinsonmakesthispointasheexaminesculturalnationalism.Politicalnationalismisimportant,headmits.Butculturalformsofnationalismcounttoo.Eventhoughtheiroftensmallerandtransient.Helooksfor“aculturalnationalismthatseeksamoralregenerationofthecommunity.”Oftentheyswitch.Asculturefallspoliticalself‐definitionrises,andviceversa.Theculturalseesthestateasaccidental.Thedistinctivecivilization,withauniquehistory,culture,andgeographicprofilemeanmore.Thesefolksareculturiststhatrecognizetheculture,eveniftheStatefalls.ThissortofnationalismespeciallytookrootinEasternEuropeinthelate19thcentury.Theculturistleadersare“moralinnovatorswhoseekby‘reviving’anethnichistoricistvisionofthenatiotoredirecttraditionalissandmodernists.”

HelooksattheRoyalIrishAcademyin1785.TheGaelicLeagueinthe1890s.TheseleaderswereunabletomoveinEnglishadministrationsotooktothisprojectforesteem.Myth­symbolcomplexesJohnArmstrong’sNationsbeforeNationalism,thekeyispersistence,notgenesisofethnicnotions.HefindsKingspriortoNationalismveryconcernedwithethnichomogeneity.Thetalkoftheoutsiderisfrequent.Barthfindsevidenceofsameinhissociallyboundeddefinitionwhereinheseesidentityinthediscussionsoftheother.182–Ethnicityisnotpurelyinner,butapartofaquiltofgroups,definedagainsteachother.Thesymbolsof“us”usuallypersistthattelloftheircommonfate.AframeworkofnationalemergenceArmstrongseesnotmaterialdifferences,butdifferentmentalattitudes.Differentnostalgia’sfora“goldenage”areimportant.2kinds:Islam’sgoldenageofnomadicways.And,Christiantranquilplotsofearth.AndtheMuslimsandChristiansdefinedthemselvesasagainsteachother.Languageandmyth,memoryandvaluesarekeyforhim.CultureandtheborderArmstrong’sworkissovariedsocannotbesummarizedinSmith’swork.But,hehasnotgivenusanalternativegrandnarrative.Aproblemisthathisshiftingboundariesdoesn’tjivewithhisthemeofpersistence.Barthsaystransactionsstrengthen,notweaken,identities.Hisidentitiesemergeinrelationsofpeoplesandintergenerationally.Symbolshavevalues,andmythsexplainthem.187‐Culture,saysSmith,“isbothaninter‐generationalrepositoryandheritage,orsetoftraditions,andanactiveshapingrepertoireofmeaningsandimages,embodiedinvalues,mythsandsymbolsthatservetouniteagroupofpeople.”Thisinternalviewtellsusmorethantheborderdoesalone.‘Duallegitimation’Smithnowintroduceshiswork.RatherthanArmstrong,hestartedwiththenationandworkedbackwards.HeisastudentofGellner’s.Hechangedhismindatsomepointsohemaynotbelievethefollowinganymore.

1st,hedefinednationalismas:

1) Doctrinesofideology2) Movements3) Sentiments,and4) Processesof‘nation–building’,towhichhewouldlateradd5) Symbolsandlangauges(ofnationalism)

Theideologyofnationalismitselfcouldbereducedtoitsessentialpropositionsanditsmaintenetssummarized:

1) Theworldisnaturallydividedintonations,eachhasitspeculiarcharacteranddestiny;

2) Thenationisthesourceofallpoliticalpower,andloyaltytoitoverridesallotherloyalties

3) Iftheywishtobefree,andtorealizethemselves,menmustidentifyandbelongtoanation;

4) Globalfreedomandpeacearefunctionsoftheliberationandsecurityofnations

5) Nationscanonlybeliberatedandfulfilledintheirownsovereignstates.Hisdefinitionofnationalismin1983:“Anideologicalmovementforattainmentandmaintenanceofself‐governmentandindependenceonbehalfofagroup,someofwhosemembersconceiveittoconstituteanactualorpotentialnation.”Andhedecidedthatevenwithinorganicandvolunteeristicvariations,therehadtobe:theidealsofnationalautonomy,nationalunity,andnationalidentity.Withallthis,heagreedwithmodernism.Buthelookedmoreatreligiousorganizations.Nexttothescientificstate,thisledto‘duallegitimizations.’TheStatechallengesreligion’splace.Therejectedintellectualsbecomeinstigatorsofethnicrevivals.189–Thiswasthepictureinhis1981book,TheEthnicRevival.Butbytheearly1990s,Smithsawholesinit.Thealienatedintelligentsiatheorydidn’texplainpopularacceptance.Anditusedthesameterm,nationalism,fortheeliteversionandpopularversion.Ethniesandethno­symbolismNationalismcouldbedatedbacktothelate18thcentury(evengivenearlierreligiousnationalismsinEnglandandHolland).But,nationalstructures,sentiments,andsymbolismwentbackfurther,atleasttothelatemedievalperiodforEngland,

France,Poland,andRussia.And,itseemedthatJews,Armenians,JapaneseandKoreanshadhadactualnationsofsomesort.ThesecastdoubtonGellner’sclaimthatnationswereimpossibleinthepre‐modernperiod.Worseyet,onseveralcontinents,therewerenotjustobjectiveculturaldifferences,butsubjectiveethnicidentitiesandethniccommunities.WHOKNEW???Onecouldpointtobothethniccontinuityandethnicrecurrence.Greeks,Armenians,Jews,Persians,ChineseandJapanese,forexample.Name,language,customs,religiouscommunityandterritorialassociationsweremaintainedformillenniawithcontinuity.PeoplesofEthiopia,theFertileCrescent,northernIndiaandtheBalkanshadrecurrentnationalisms.SoSmithstartedswitchingfromnationalismstudiestoethnies(theFrenchtermfor‘ethniccommunities’)andbeganlookingatmyths,memories,values,traditions,andsymbols.By1986hewrote“TheEthnicOriginsofNations”whichdefinedethniccommunitiesasnamedhumanpopulationswithsharedancestrymyths,histories,andculture,havinganassociationwithaspecificterritory,andasenseofsolidarity.191‐Inthemedievalworlds,ethnicityplayedamuchlargerrolethanmodernists,whorightlyrejectconflatingthiswithmodernnationalism,werewillingtoconcede.And,thisrichandwelldocumented‘ethno‐history’wasamajorculturalresourcefornationalists.(somehowacademicshadoverlookedthisdata!)Hiswasnotprimordialism.Culture,notkinship,wastheroot.193‐Theseculturalaffinitieswereoftenstrenghtned,thuschanged,byoutsideinvaders(seeGreeksatSalamis).And,economic,administrativechangesinthelate17th,early18thcenturybroughtethnicitytothedoorofpolityformation.ButtherootsoftheculturesgobackevenfurtherthanGutenberg.TheScotidentitywasstrengthenedinwarswiththeEnglishinthe14thand15thcentury.OriginsandtypesofnationHowarenationsformed?ItdependsonwhichofthetwotypesofEthniesthey’rebasedon:Oneislateralandextensive(Elite),andherethesepeoplemustdrawincreasingnumbersofmiddlingandevenlowerfolkintotheculturetocreateanation.Thisleadstoamorecivictypeofidenity.Twoisvernacular,heretheintelligensiarediscoveranddeployculturalidentitytomakeanation.

ThirdisthatofimmigrantnationslikeAmerica,Canada,andAustralia,wehavea“frontiernationalism,”Andthisacceptsplurality.Noneoftheseisguaranteedtobecomesuccessfulmodernstates.Thisdependsonmarketcapitalism,thebureaucraticstateandsecular,masseducation,eitherdirectly,orviacolonialeducation.Andpoliticalarchaeologistshaveprovidedmemoriesofheroes,artsandsacredgeography.Butinmanycasesthisisonlyhalfthestory.Therearewidelyknownhistoricalprecedentsthatthenationisbuiltupon.195‐And,globalcultureandtheEUhavefailedtogeneratelove;timeless,placeless,technical,andaffectivelyneutral,theyprovidenoidentity.Thenationhasnorivalforaffectionsandloyaltyofmosthumanbeings(1990).Ethno­symbolismreconsideredOnecriticismofhisworkhasbeenthatitmightreadnationalismbackwards.But,heandArmstrongandHutchinsondistinguishbetweenthenewerandolderformsofnationalism.JohnBreuillyhascriticizeditforignoringinstitutionsashistoricalcarriersofnationalorethnicidentities.Onlydynastiesorchurcheswouldhavemythsymbolscodifiedandreproduced:Neitherwerenationalist.Hesaysthediscontinuitiesaremorestrikingthanthecontinuitiesbetweenpre‐modernandmodern.Allinstitutions:parliaments,popularliterature,courts,schools,labourmarkets,etaremodern.197–Institutions,Smithreplies,areimportant.Armstrong’sworkdemonstratestheirimportanceinthepre‐modernepoch.And,manywerenotincludedthatwerenotincludedthen.ButBreuilly’sunderstandingoftheseinstitutionsistoonarrowlymodernist.Manywereincludedintheinstitutionsoftransmission.LookatEgyptandSumer.Lookatmonasteries.Theirinclusion,moreimportantly,wasinlanguageandpopularliterature,inritualsandcelebrations,intradefairsandmarkets,inethnichomelands,nottomentionarmyservice.And,someoftheseethnicitiesdidhavepoliticalsignificance.SeetheHellenes.Thedivisionbetweenthenandnowsometimescomesfromtheoverlymoderndefinitionofanation.

Chapter9–BeyondModernism?InPolyethnicityandNationalUnityinWorldHistory,WilliamH.McNeillarguedthatnationalismandnationsonlybelongedtoaparticularperiodoftheworld,thatofWesternmodernity.Nationswereunknowninthepre‐modernera.Beforeandafternations,we’llgobacktothenormof“polyethnichierarchy.”Polyethnicity,pastandfutureForMcNeill,onlybarbarismismonoethnic.Themomentcivilizationhappens,polyethnicitybecomesthenorm.Civilizationislargelymetropolitain.Tradeandconquestfuelthis.Onlythosefarfromcentersofcivlizations,likeEngland,JapanandSwedenretaintheirhomogeneity.Itwasonlyafterabout1700thattheidealofindependenceforethnicallyhomogeneouspopulationsemergedasanideal.Amongcauses:Readingpublics,populationriseallowingethnicallyhomogenousfolkstocrowdthecities(andfuelrevolutionarydiscontent),and–mostimportantly–moderninfantrydrills.Thelastbeingimportantaswarsmadenationalidentityimportantforsurvival.Allthiscameapartafter1945.ThentheneedforlaborbroughtinGastarbeiterfromalienculturesandlandwhoperpetuatedthemselvesonwesternsoil.Smithsays,thisassumesthatthenationstateandpolyethnichierarchyareopposites(thoughhedemonstratestheyarecoextensive,ofnotsymbiotic).Italsoforgetstheonioncharacterofethnicity,withconcentriccirclesofloyalty.Thiscongruityisjustasplausibleasthebreakdownofthesemulticulturalstatesintomanysmallnationaliststates.Thepost­nationalagendaRecentthemesarehighlightedinMcNeill’swork:

1) Theimpactofpopulationmovement/multiculturalism2) Theimpactoffeministanalysisonthenationalproject3) Impactofglobalizationtrendsandthepostmodernsupranationalprojectson

nationalityWhileostensibly,thesedebatesturntheirbackonmodernismandalllarge‐scalenarrativesandhigh‐leveltheorizing.202‐Thispostmodernturndoesnotundermine,butextendsthemodernistparadigm.Fragmentationandhybrididentities

HomiBhabhaseesthenarrativesofthepeoplesplitbetweenpastandpresent,theselfandother,betweenpedagogicalandperformativenarratives.203‐LikeSimmel,hehighlightstheimpactoftheotheronidentity.Thegreatinfluxofforeignershasunderminedidentity.Nowallcollectiveidentitieshavebecomepluralandarehousedin“anxiousstates.”ParthaChatterjeeshowedhowdiscourseinAsiaandAfricaderivedfromwesternmodels;andwereusedtofightcolonialism.IndiannationalismoutofBengaluseswesternandindigenousmaterials.Itappealstofragmentsofthenation,women,minorities,outcastes.Soitisnotjusttheotherthatformsidentities,Smitheditorializes.ForStuartHallandothers,ethnicityisashifting,permeableandsituational,concept.Itderivesitsmeaningfromitsarticulationwithotherkindsofidentity,notablyclassandgender.Ethnicityisnotnatural,wearetoldbyacademics,itiscreatedvialanguagecommunityandrace.Hallsaysethnicitycomesfromhegemonicnationalidentity.Buthelikesthenewwaythatengagesratherthansuppressesdifference.Smithcelebratesthis,howeverunderhandedly,ashavingilluminatedthatournationalidentitiesarefrayedattheedges.(Iwouldaddthatithascontributedtofrayingusattheedges).Smithsaysweshouldnotunderestimatehowmuchimmigrantswishtobepartsofournationsevenwithethnicity(symbolicethnicity).Nationalunityinthepastshould,also,notbeoverestimated.Butasweintermarry,etc,ethnicitydoesnotbecomea‘pickandmix’option.WecaneatTurkishandChinese,butwecannotbethat.Formostfolks,‘voluntaryethnicity’isnotanoption.GenderandnationFromthe1980stherehasbeenagrowingliteratureongenderandnationalism;toseewomeninnationalprojects.Thisespeciallylooksatthegenderstereotypesofwomeninconstructingethnicity.Theroleofwomeninnationalism206‐Women’smovementswereactiveinmanynon‐Westernnationalisms,SylviaWalbynotesinhersurveyofthefield‐to‐date.

Innewnon‐Westernnations,womenweregivencitizenshipimmediately.Thiswasawaythataspirantscouldpopularizetheirclaimstonationality.ZiyaGokalpsaysthatcomesfromindigenousTurkishmores.FemalesymbolismofthenationNiraYuval‐Davisshowswomentobevitalcomponentsofculturalreproductionusedselectivelybydifferentsocialagents.TheMotherlandanditspurity.Menmustsacrificethemselvesforwomenandchildren,inthemoldofPlutarch’sSpartanwomen,whomRouseausoadmired.Thewomenarefiguresofhonor.NationalismasamalephenomenonForCynthiaEnloe,nationalismcomesfrommasculinizedmemory,humiliation,andhope.Women,Walbynotes,oftenplaymoreofaroleinGreenandanti‐nuclearinternationalcommitments.Againstthis,weseewomentakingmilitaryrolesinnationalliberationstruggles.Thismeansattimeclassandgendergetsubsumed.GeorgeMosseshowshowthechoreographyofmassnationalismwasconditionedbytheWesternrespectablemoralcharacterandGreekbeauty.GermanssawtheFrenchas‘loose‐living,’asopposedtomasculineGermanmorality.TheFrenchRevolutiontoo,GlandaSlugatellsus,reliedonimagesofmasculinecitizenry.Thisisbasedonthedivisionoftheprivateandpublicselves.Thewomannurturestheheroicmasculinemale.FeminismandidentitypoliticsForYuval–Davis,identityproblemshardenethnicandgenderboundaries.Samewithmulticulturalism.Thiscanharmwomenintermsofencouragingminoritymalecontroloverwomen.210‐Smithsaysthisanalysisisfruitful.Howfarweneedtodeconstructintermsof‘narratives’and‘discourses’anddescribethemas‘hegemonic’‘constructs’isopentodebate.Fewofthesetheoriestouchontheformationofnationsortheirubiquity.LiberalismandcivicorethnicnationalismYuval‐Davis’espousalof‘transversalpolitics’makessenseonlyinliberaldemocracies;in‘civic’democraciesasopposedto‘ethnic’ones.DavidMillerdefendscivicnationalism.Hesaysthereare5characteristicsofanationasacommunity:

1) sharedbeliefandmutualcommitment;2) Extendedhistory;3) activeincharacter;4) connectedtoaparticularterritory5) markedoffromothercommunitiesbyitsdistinctpublicculture.

211‐Nationsaresourcesofidentity,ethicalandhaveavalidclaimtoself‐determination,saysMiller.Despiteourcommitmenttointernationalism,inpracticeweareethicalparticularists.Thenationisalsothebestvehiclefor‘socialjustice.’And,itachievesliberalandsocialdemocraticgoalsbetterthanradicalmulticulturalism(whichcannotrestraintherichandstrongandfragmentsus).Nationalismisbetterthan“citizenship”asitconnectsuswithhistoryandgivesusasenseofplaceandtime.BrendaO’Learycriticizeshiminthathismodelfavorsthepowers‐that‐be.Anditmarginalizedethnics.Ultimately,Millerfavorscivicnationalism.Politicalsciencehasbeenkeentofindawaytomanagemulti‐ethnicity.Partition,populationtransfer,genocide,assimilation,federationaredifferentmethods.Butthisisonlytangentiallyrelatedtoissuesofnationalidentityandnationalism.So...Canadahasgonefromethnicitytocivicnationalism.Thoughdiversityisreal,wecanusefullydistinguishbetweenEthnic,Civic,andPluraltypesofnationalism.Theyleadtoimmigrationpolicies.Residencelengthandbloodbeingbasesforcitizenship.Usuallystates,though,haveethnicandcivicparts.Habermaswouldreplacenationalismwith‘constitutionalpatriotism’thatwouldfocuscollectiveloyalties.Viroliwantsaformofrepublicanism.But,neithernoticesthestrengthofnationalismaroundtheworld.Andrepublicswerejustasrestrictiveethnically.213‐Itisgoodthatpeoplecandiscussthisethnicnationalismnow.Forsolongitwasassociatedpurelywithfascismandsoverboten.Butaslongasthemostinternationallypopulartypehasapariahstatus,itwillremainexplosiveandunderanalysed.NationalismandGlobalisationWillwegoglobal?Peoplearguethatethnicityandnationsarebeingsuperseded.Mostmodernistsdon’tgothere.Butpostmodernistsdo!StephenCastlesisaglobalist.Nowtradeisinternational.Butwasthereatimewhennationswerereallysolitary?Andstatesnowhavemoredomesticpowerthanever.Willtheygiveitup?

Whatofelectronicculture?IsitAmericanculturalimperialism?Theyalsoincreasetheintransigenceofdispersedethniccommunities.And,statesarebeingcreated,soincreasing,despitethenewglobalorder.Nationalidentityandsupra­nationalismYaceinSoysalnotesthatgettingrights,ifnotcitizenship,inGermanyshowsapost‐nationalstate.WhatofaEuropeanculturalidentity?Thisisabattle.Bordersstillmatterfordefense,trade,andimmigration.Beyondmodernism?Thepostmodernliteraturesuggestingglobalismrarelydiscusseshistory.Thisiswrongasnationsare,ifnothingelse,historicallyembedded.Theyalsogenerallyoffernotgeneralexplanationofnationsornationalismandhowtheycametobeing.Evenastheydeconstructethnicitiesandpointtothemulticulturalnatureofmodernity,theyelidethepersistenceofthesegroupsassignificant.219‐Thelackoftheorizingmaybefromdownrighthostilitytothenationonthepartofmostoftheanalyists.Theylikemulticulturalcivicnationalismandhatethealignmentofethnicityandnations.Butsinceitisthetypethatissocommonandroutinised,itrequiredexplanation.Toreachmulticulturalcivicnationalismtheymustavoidlotsofevidence.Thatcannotmakeforgoodpolicy.Justasethnicidentitiesandnationalismsaresurging,theyturnawayfrom‘grandnarratives.’Sotheirargumentslackvalidity.Andthe‘littlenarratives’don’thelp.(anyway,thosearenarrativestoo;thereisnoplacewithoutstory;itsnarrativesallthewaydown).ThepostmodernistsareworsethanclassicalmodernistslikeHobsbawminthattheytotallyelidehistoricalanalysis.Heexcludes,tosomeextent,genderstudiesfromthisgeneralization.ConclusionProblems,Paradigms,andprospectsProblemsBasedonWeber:

1) Howtotreattheintersectionofnationalityandethnicity2) Definitions;ex.Isnationonlywhenpolitical?3) Theoretical:Doweseekacausalordescriptivefield?4) Usingdifferenttermsandframeworks,wehavenofieldcoordination5) Differentvaluespromotedifferentprojects

Finally,whataretherelevantquestionsforthefield?222–Theymightinclude:Questionsabouttheoriginsandformationsofethnies,conditionsofethnocentrism,thesignificanceofethnicidentity;theoriginsandformationofnations,thenatureandsignificanceofnationalidentity,thesocial,cultural,andpoliticalbasisofnations;thegender,class,culturalcharacterofnationalistideologiesandmovements,theirroleinforgingnationsandnationalidentities,theplaceofintellectuals,theconsequencesforsocietyandcultureofaworldofnationalstates.ParadigmsHestillwantsageneraltheory.Itwouldhelpusunderstandtheimpactonethnicities,nations,andinternationalrelations.Butisitpossible?Notlikely,butweknowmorenowthanwhentheearlytheorieswereintroduced.Forexample,:

‐ Primordialistshavesensitizedustotheintimatelinksbetweenkinship,ethnicityandterritoryandthepowerfulsentimentsofcollectivebelonging.

‐ Pernnialismviewsnationsoverthelongueduree.Itraisesthecontinuousandreoccurringpatterns.Ethnictiesnotmodernizationmakenations.Theyserveasacountertoextrememodernism.

‐ Ethno‐symbolismshowshowwereinterpretsymbols,myths,memories,values,andtraditions.Thesubjectivehistoricalistherebyhighlighted.

‐ Modernistsshowhowpopulationsaremobilized.AndersonandBreuillyshowusnetworksofcommunication.And,BreuillyandGiddenshavedonemuchtohighlighttheimportantroleofthestate.

‐ Postmodernistsshowfragmentationandsuggestthepost‐nationalorder.Feminismhasbeenaddedbythisgroup.TheyhelpusunderstandpluralWesternsocieties.

225‐Theseperspectivesgiveacertaincoherencetothefield.ProspectsOntheonehand,nograndtheory.Ontheother,learningmoredaily.Hopefully,thelatterwillonedaycontributetotheformer.Canthemodernistsandperrenialistsconverge?Wecoulddosoontheleveloftheory.We’dhavetoagreeontermsandallowexceptionstoeachother’srules.Secondly,wecouldaccommodateonthelevelofresearch.Wecouldresearchandcomparemodernandpre‐modernonthese6axis:

‐ TheState:Hereinwecouldlookatdiffusionofloyaltyandmobilization.‐ Territory:Bordersandhowtheideaofhomelandcontributes.

‐ Language:Howdoesitcontributetonationformation,when,whospeaksit?

‐ Religion:Howwasitpropagatedinvarioustimesandwhatrolenowandwhatrolewithethnicity?

‐ History:Wecancomparehistoricalconsciousnessindifferenttimes,lookingespeciallyatethnicmythsandgoldenages.

‐ RitesandCeremonies:How’dtheydoit?Wewon’tbythismagicallytranscenddivisions.But,scholarsoverlapmorethantheythink.Asnationalismrisesweneedtoknowmore.Wecannot,therefore,evadethetaskoftheoryconstruction.