The concept of nationalism in itself seems as if it could be very simple to define in that it is all about the attitudes and sense of belonging of a collective group of people of the same nationality. However, it is far more complex a subject encompassing numerous different theories, often conflicting, also encouraging debate as to whether it is a modern phenomenon. There are examples of early chroniclers such as Regino of Prum, whereby he considered it was possible to “differentiate between different peoples on the basis of descent, manners, language and laws” Bedes Ecclesiastical History of the English people reflects the belief that the English were a single nation with a single language and a “single church” as referred to in Lawrence’s “Nationalism: History and Theory”.
In such early times there probably wouldn’t have been such awareness of other racial groups, other nations and cultures, so it could be somewhat naive to use these as examples enforcing the theory that nationalism is a modern phenomenon.
One has to consider what exactly is meant by nationalism, by looking at the way it has been debated by different researchers, other nations and at what period in time. As quoted earlier, Bede and Regino’s commentaries were written centuries ago and it is evident how much times have changed. Nationalism could be referring to a more abstract convention whereby people from different countries are considered separate entities known as nations or it could be more politically contrived regarding how nations are governed and the actions members take to achieve self-determination.
127 our experts are availableright now
It could also be defined as the attitudes of members of a nation when they care about their national identity. It can also be concerned with the perceived superiority of a nation or patriotic pride in one’s country.
Anthony D Smith was a former student of Ernest Gellner, a British Czech 20th century philosopher who conducted much research on nations and nationalism with the main theme focusing on his theory of modernism.
Smith’s book “The origins of Nations 1986” showed a different belief on nationalism, developing a theory of ethnosymbolism. He stated that nationalism is simply “An ideological movement for attaining and maintaining autonomy, unity and identity for a population which some of it’s members deem to constitute an actual or potential nation.”
He believed there were three main goals of unity, autonomy and identity, thus nationalism was a recent development, referencing the civic and ethnic influences. Also, that citizenship was a crucial feature, associating national identity with membership of the state though not all nations have their own state.
Ethnic nationalism refers to a population that share a similar culture and language and live in the same place, whereas civic nationalism is more based on communal civic expectations and willingness to abide by the laws for the good of all. He acknowledged that these two types of nationalism have blurred boundaries believing that “Many modern nations are formed round pre-existing and often pre-modern ethnic cores.”
Hans Kohn was a very influential philosopher who also worked on nationalism theories in the 20th century and based some of his studies on the loyalty of individuals being due to the nation-state. He refers to the differences of Eastern and Western Europe, believing that the Eastern nations were bound by their language, culture and background compared to those in Western European countries being more united through political and civic norms. He has been criticised for being too Eurocentric in his work, therefore oversimplifying the issues.
Primordialism as an approach to nationalism is a common argument based on the deep cultural and historical roots of a nation, though hard to quantify and not accepted by many leading researchers and philosophers. However, German idealist Johann Fichte who followed Kant, was a proponent of this cultural nationalism theory, believing that “the cultural bonds which linked members of a nation into a relational whole, were not things or artefacts from above, but living energies, emanating from within, shared meanings and sentiments, which in time form a people’s collective souls.”
The population of a nation will pass down a shared set of values, beliefs, ideologies, writings and even folklore which unite the individuals, helping to establish a national identity of traditions, memories and ancestral history. This practice has been passed down over the centuries and so not considered to be a valid argument as an explanation of modern nationalism.
Fichte referred to the relationship of a common language and German nationalism, believing this played a part in inculcating a German identity.
“Those who speak the same language are linked together, before human intervention takes a hand, by mere nature with a host of invisible ties.”
Johann Herder, another German cultural nationalist, believed that “the most natural state is one nation with one national character” and that Germany needed to be culturally united through the speaking of the same language and a cultural homogeneity.
However, each nation having a unique character due to their different languages, practices and traditions and expressions of creativity can create ethnic tensions, even internally in individual countries. Herder refers to the French dominating some German states with their mother tongue and urged the Germans to not forget their historic traditions and myths:
“And you Germans alone, returning from abroad
Wouldst thou greet thy mother in French?
O, spew it out before your door
Spew out the ugly slime of the Seine
Speak German, O you German!”
John Hutchinson who studied under Anthony D Smith in the ethnosymbolist school, focused much research on Ireland and the theory of cultural nationalism which is very evident in the separate identities of the Gaelic and Catholic Irish which eventually resulted in the island being split.
In contrast, Emmanuel Sieyes who played a part in the French Revolution and wrote a pamphlet What is the Third Estate ” defined a nation as “a body of associates living under a common law and represented in the same legislature”. This supports the second definition of nationalism in that nations exist and they should govern themselves.
This interpretation is closely intertwined with the 19th century primarily because of the founding of several independent national states for example Italy 1861 and Germany in 1871. these developments would certainly have been influenced by nationalist doctrine. the German and Italian cases can be seen as similar; both were at war with a more powerful Austria Hungary they both were at the time groups of sovereign states and they were led by one state. Piedmont and Prussia both succeeded in unification. nation building has often happened at times of national crisis and in this case both Italy and Germany were a collection of states instead of national powers unlike Austria-Hungary. Italy and Germany being occupied and at war with the austro-hungarian empire created an environment for nationalism. however Breuilly stated “nationalism had little popular appeal. these severe limitations upon Italian and German nationalism up to the period of unification have been obscured by the success of unification. success itself seems to point to the central importance of nationalism”.xii This shows how nationalism seems to have spurred Italy and Germany towards unification and thus into a national power, yet perhaps it simply seems this way as in fact the impact the idea of nationalism had was greatly exaggerated. It is possible to suggest that unification was achieved through political aims playing on nationalism, and in truth with a jingoistic focus.
Historian John Breuilly author of Nationalism and the State also believed in the theory of modernism, similarly to Ernest Gellner, Benedict Anderson and Eric Hobsbawm. Breuilly’s principles are that nationalism is more closely linked with politics than ethnicity. He stated that “nationalism was more important as a product than as a cause for national unification…Nationalism had little popular appeal. What nationalism there was of political significance was rather different from the romantic, linguistic and ethnic ideas which intellectual historians have emphasised”. Breuilly and Gellner both support the idea that its primarily political factors that have influenced nationalism. He also claimed: “Nationalists are seen to create their own ideology out of their own subjective sense of national culture”. Thus there are similarities between Breuilly and Benedict Andersons theory of “imagined political community”. Anderson alike to Breuilly does not support the ‘Pre-modern ethnic cores’ hypothesis unlike several of the other major historians on the subject, for example Anthony Smith. Breuilly also goes on to suggest that there is no such thing as national culture and explains that it has become necessary: “the rise of the modern state system provides the institutional context within which an ideology of nationalism is necessary”. By this he meant that due to politics and how the modern world has evolved nationalism has in fact become more necessary to each nation to ensure its survival for example Prussia and Piedmont. this quote is supported by Gellner as although the majority of scholars on this subject would claim that nationalism came about after the French revolution, yet Gellner supports the idea that it became a ‘sociological necessity’ in the modern era.
