The concept of Nationalism is something that cannot simply be defined. There are various definitions and forms of what nationalism is, and many of these definitions even overlap. However, there is no one definition that is more suitable than another. There is a vast range of different explanatory theories that are often contradictory. These key theories and perspectives of nationalism include: primordialism, modernism, ethnosymbolism, ethnic- and civic-nationalism. The fact that there are so many conflicting theories underlines the extent to which theories of nations and nationalism is such a heavily debated and intangible subject.
Lawrence in ‘Nationalism: History and Theory’ uses Bedes Ecclesiastical history of the English people in AD 730 to point out how it reflects a belief that the English were at that stage ‘a single nation with a single language and a single church’. Regino of Prum (900 AD) also felt able to differentiate between ‘different peoples on the basis of descent, manners, language and laws’. This shows how one could suggest that nations are in fact not simply a modern phenomenon. However, whether these comments refer to what we would now regard as a nation is debatable. This can be supported by contradicting factors, for example some populations were simply unaware that they belonged to a distinct social grouping.
An accurate example of this during ‘the Polish question’ in the 1830s is when an inhabitant who lived to see an independent Poland in 1918 said ‘as for national consciousness the older peasants lived their own life, forming a wholly separate group, and caring nothing for the nation. I myself did not know I was a Pole until I began to read books and papers’. This shows how some groups could have remained unconscious and therefore supports that nations were a modern phenomenon.
127 our experts are availableright now
The term ‘nationalism’ can be seen as problematic due to there being several possible vague meanings. Firstly, nationalism could be referring to an abstract ideology that has historically divided humanity into ‘nations’. Secondly ‘Nationalism’ could also mean a political doctrine: the belief that identifiable nations do exist and that they should govern themselves. Finally, nationalism can be used more broadly to represent the thought felt by many people of belonging to a particular nation or nationality.
Although a former student of Ernest Gellner, one of the leading researchers in the field of nations and nationalism is Anthony D. Smith, he wrote his book on the origin of nations (1986). Ernest Gellner represents the theory of modernism yet his former student Anthony Smiths perspective on nationalism is known as ethnosymbolism. He states that nationalism is simply ‘an ideological movement for attaining and maintaining autonomy, unity and identity for a population which some of its members deem to constitute an actual or potential “nation”’. In this definition, Smith reveals what he thinks the three main goals of nationalism are: national unity, autonomy, and national identity. Although there is much argument on the definition of nationalism, Smith agrees that there is one main point of agreement and that is that the term nationalism is a modern idea.
Civic nationalism can be defined as a group of people which have a certain loyalty to civic rights or laws and pledge to abide by these laws. Ethnic nationalism is basically a group that possess a common culture, language, land, etc. Smith writes that “every nationalism contains civic and ethnic elements in varying degrees and different forms. Sometimes civic and territorial elements predominate; at other times it is the ethnic and vernacular components that are emphasized”. Smith’s main argument features civic and ethnic types of nationalism as opposed to eastern and western types.
Even more specifically, Smith makes the distinction between both civic and ethnic nationalisms. He also believes that “Many modern nations are formed around pre-existing, and often pre-modern, ethnic cores”. Smith is asserting that nations had pre-existing-origins prior to their ‘new origins’ of their new nation. One of the most popular arguments by critics is that the civic and ethnic viewpoint of nationalism collapses too much on the ethnic basis. The civic- west/ethnic- East when true really is only partially true and according to several measures is false and there are several explanations for strong cultural national identities in the west and strong civic national identities in Eastern Europe. Smith’s definition seems to be the foundation for nationalism. Other scholars go in to more detail on certain elements of the definition, but most relate back to Smith’s original definition.
On the other hand to Anthony Smith’s definition of nationalism referring to the civic and ethnic type, Hans Kohn has argued that the two main types of nationalism are eastern and western by stating: “Nationalism is a state of mind, in which the supreme loyalty of the individual is felt to be due to the nation-state.” His argument does include both eastern and western types of nationalism which refer to eastern and western Europe. Eastern nationalism saw the nation as an organic community, united by culture, language and descent. This could possibly be related to Smith’s ethnic type of nationalism. On the other hand, Western nationalism saw the nation as a political and civic community, held together by voluntary adherence to democratic norms. Again, western nationalism could be perceived as a civic type of nationalism. Kohn believes that nationalism relates directly with the eastern and western Europe and that it is also where the ‘state of mind’ of nationalism originally came from. The primary criticism of Kohn’s classification of nationalism is that he has been over simplistic. He certainly does not go into as much detail as Smith on the definition and relates only to Europe which is probably why he is being identified as over simplistic.
Primordialism or perennialism is the argument which contends that nations are ancient, natural phenomena. Primordialism can be traced back to the ideas of German Romanticism, particularly in the works of Johann Gottlieb Fichte and Johann Gottfried Herder. Herder has often been credited for the notion of cultural nationalism. Herder believed 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 peoples collective soul.” He also went on to suggest “nature brings forth families; the most natural state is therefore one people, with a national character of its own”.
Nationalism was hence inborn and self-nourishing’. In Herder’s thinking, language was compatible with thought, and as each language was learnt within community, then each community must therefore think differently. Primordialism did in fact encounter enormous criticism after the Second World War, with some academics of nationalism coming to treat the nation as a community constructed by the technologies and politics of modernity. Though primordialism is largely rejected by most theorists of nationalism, some of its ideas have found parallels in Anthony Smiths studies in ethnosymbolism. Ficthe didn’t just argue for a cultural definition of nations based on primordial ties of language, claiming that “those who speak the same language are linked together, before human intervention takes a hand, by mere nature with a host of invisible ties” but he also believed that this also led to the primacy of German collective identity above all others. Furthermore, Emmanuel Sieyes defined a nation as “a body of associates living under a common law and represented in the same legislature”. These quotations support the second definition of nationalism in a sense that nations exist and that 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 Austro Hungary.
Italy and Germany being occupied and at war with the Austro-Hungarian empire created an environment for nationalism. However, Brueilly 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.” This shows how nationalism seems to have saved Italy and Germany through unification into a national power yet perhaps it simply seems this way as in fact the impact the idea of nationalism had was greatly exaggerated.
John Brueilly was a supporter of Modernism like Ernest Gellner. Brueilly argues that nationalism does not really have much to do with ethnicity or ethnic background, instead more to do with politics. This is not the first academic in the subject who believed that ethnic background had nothing to do with nationalism. In fact, Brueilly’s definition relates well to Gellner in the sense that they both argue that its primarily political factors that have influenced nationalism. “Nationalists are seen to create their own ideology out of their own subjective sense of national culture.”
This quote is fairly similar to Benedict Anderson’s “imagined political community” theory. Breuilly does not support the ethnic side of nationalism nearly as much as others and, much like Benedict Anderson portrays nationalism as just a political force. Breuilly criticizes most scholars due to the fact that they believe in national culture because he believes there is no such thing. He believes that the political component of nationalism is by far the most important. He stated: “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 the modern state system nationalism has in fact become more necessary to each nation to ensure its survival. This quote is supported by Gellner as although most scholars would agree that nationalism appeared after the French Revolution, Gellner argues that nationalism became a “sociological necessity in the modern world.”
To conclude, after examining the numerous subjective explanations of the meaning of nationalism both from an ideological point of view and with reference to nations, it is possible to suggest that nationalism is a multilateral and powerful political ideology. To state that nationalism has not been affected by the past and is simply a modern phenomenon would to plainly put it be naive. As mentioned earlier there was a belief that in AD 730 the English were at that stage ‘a single nation with a single language and a single church’. However, what we now define as a nation may not correlate to what would then be considered a nation. This can be supported by the fact that some people were simply unaware that they belonged to a distinct social grouping: “as for national consciousness the older peasants lived their own life, forming a wholly separate group, and caring nothing for the nation”.
Therefore, one can argue the idea of nationalism and nations is a modern phenomenon yet some aspects of a modern nation have been around for years. For example; when Regino of Prum said he was able to differentiate between ‘different peoples on the basis of descent, manners, language and laws’. Anthony Smith did agree that there is one main point of agreement between the different theories and that is that the term nationalism is a modern idea.
Bibliography
- Anthony Smith, Nationalism: Theory, Ideology, History, 2001
- John Breuilly, Nationalism and the State (Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1993)
- P, Lawrence ‘introduction’ in Nationalism: History and theory, (Abingdon: Routledge.2014)
- Adrian hastings, The construction of Nationhood, ethnicity, religion and Nationalism (Cambridge Uni press 1997)
- F.M Barnard, ‘National culture political legitimacy: Herder and Rousseau’ (1983)
- (http://cps.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/35/5/554)
- (http://www.cjsonline.ca/reviews/nationalism.html)
- Hechter, Containing Nationalism, 2000
- Johann Gotlieb Ficthe, ‘Thirteenth Address to the German Nation’ in H.S Reiss (oxford 1955)
