Nations and nationalism – revision notes
Key debates
1. Is the nation in decline? Globalisation v Ethnosymbolism (globalization is a 90s debate). Why has it
persisted in light of globalisation?
a. Increased exchange
b. Organisation of the nation becoming obsolete
c. This debate is now in decline.
2. Anti-globalisation → global sceptics + americanisation
3. There has always been globalisation.
a. Role of the nation is reshaped.
4. Where does the nation come from? Primordialists v Modernists
5. What is the relationship between the state and the nation? Individualist v Superstructure
6. Is the nation + nationalism a colonial construct?
7. Why has there been a rise of populism? → COVID-19 – alignment with Zarakol + semi-periphery
a. Link to a POL2 argument.
8. The role of women in nationalism → body reproduces it; pro-natalist sphere; passing on values; symbols
of the nation; motherland
Definitions:
Populism
• . Populism encompasses a 2-dimensional space: space of inequality + space of difference. 1. Vertical, to those on top
+ 2. Horizontal, to those outside. Brubaker 2020
• “a thin-centred ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogenous and antagonistic camps,
‘the pure people’ versus ‘the corrupt elite’ and which argues that politics should be an expression of the general will of the
people” Mudde & Kaltwasser 2017
Nation:
• “It is an imagined community – and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign” → limited because not ‘conterminous’
with mankind; sovereign because enlightenment + revolution destroyed divinely ordained hierarchical dynastic realms;
community because conceived as ‘deep, horizontal comradeship’ Anderson 1990
• JS Mill also defines the nation he argues members of a nationality ‘desire to be under the same government, and desire that
it should be government by themselves of a portion of themselves exclusively’ he is attaching the idea of the nation with
representative democracy (Hobsbawm 1992)
• Stalin 1912 → ‘A nation is a historically evolved, stable community of language, territory, economic life and psychological
make-up manifested in a community of culture.’
• nation = ‘groups with ideas about nationhood’ Appadurai 1990
Nationalism
• Billig 1995 “the ideological means by which nation-states reproduce”. A political movement which is tied the nation and the
state, and advocates self-determination. Potent force since late 18thC. Connected to liberation movements + enlightenment.
Supported independence of America and Latin America. Belligerent in early 20thC, central to anti-colonial movements (India,
Algeria)
• Hobsbawm 1992 = Nationalism is a ‘body of citizens in a territorial state’ which combines nation-state + national economy
“past its peak” + in disarray by end of 20thC → state creates nationalism + nation. Globalisation breaking down nation state.
Nation + Nationalism
• Nations + nationalism → nationalist thought is the ‘ideology and movement’ that sustains and recreates the nation, protecting
it through a ‘political shell’ (Dar 2022)
Nation-state:
• an independent country, especially when thought of as consisting of single large group of people all sharing the
same language, traditions, and history (Cambridge Dictionary)
Modernity
Industrialisation
Globalisation
, • Colantone & Stanig 2017 → globalisation = ‘key’ determinant of nationalism in western democracies
• Is the ‘crystallisation of the entire world as a single place’ (Robertson, 1987)
Politics
• He defines politics very broadly, including ‘every kind of independent leadership activity’ but Weber is particularly
interested in leadership of a political organisation, the state Weber, Speirs, Lassman 1994
State
• “Nowadays … we must say that the state is the form of human community that (successfully) lays claim to the monopoly
of legitimate physical violence within a particular territory — and this idea of “territory” is an essential defining feature.”
Weber, Speirs, Lassman 1994
Politics of belonging – ‘the dirty work of boundary maintenance’ (Favell 1999). The politics of belonging is ‘very wide and
heterogeneous’ Yuval-Davis 2011
Belonging – mode of relational state of emotion and mind which is critical to emotional balance and wellbeing (Yuval-Davis 2011)
Key theories
Primordialism – nation is spontaneous process that stems from a naturally given sense of nationhood (Clifford Geertz) → Brubaker
1996 critiques as a ‘long-dead horse’. Natural disposition. Partially discredited theory: lacks historical accuracy + is essentialist.
Ethno-symbolism – Anthony smith: continuity of pre-modern ‘ethnies’ into modern nations. Modern state cannot be understood
without taking pre-existing ethnic components into account. Importance of symbols, myths etc
Modernists – nation is a product of modernity.
• Gellner – transition from agrarian to industrial society leads to nation. Consequence of industrialisation
• Anderson – print capitalism + Protestantism. Needed new ‘ways of thinking’: latin, dynasties + viewing world
• Hobsbawm – constructed by political actors + product of industrial and French revolution.
Instrumentalists = how nationalism + national identity is used by political elites to secure mass support.
The relationship between the nation + nationalism
• Nation = contested notion; shopping list
• Nationalism = desire for more autonomy → ‘ideology and movement’ that sustains and recreates the nation, protecting it
through a ‘political shell’ (Dar 2022)
*Anderson 1991 “Imagined Communities” - Modernist + Romantic. Liberal + Weberian.
A product of enlightenment + rejection of: monarchic dynasties, rejection of latin as superior + rejection of idea
origins of world + mankind are the same → lost their ‘axiomatic grip’ on mankind = “transformed
consciousness”.
Nation is not becoming obsolete. Intrinsically linked to communication which created national consciousness.
• Imagined communities formed through participating in shared print culture → reading common texts which enabled
people to imagine themselves as part of a collective community (nation) through common culture.
• This became a vehicle for settler populations to imagine + bring new communities into being.
• Power of nationalism has never fully been appreciated “unlike most other isms, nationalism never produced its own
great thinkers” → every successful revolution has defined self in ‘national terms’
o “Nation-ness is the most universally legitimate value in the political life of our time”
Definition of the nation:
• “It is an imagined community – and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign” → imagines because
people don’t know eachother; limited because not ‘conterminous’ with mankind; sovereign because enlightenment +
revolution destroyed divinely ordained hierarchical dynastic realms; community because conceived as ‘deep, horizontal
comradeship’ → it is not a ‘falsity’ (Gellner)
• People changed how they think.
• 3 paradoxes: objective modernity to historians + antiquity to nationalists; Universality as a sociocultural concept; their
‘political power’ of nationalism
• Nationalism should be treated ‘more like a religion’
Cultural roots
• Argues nationalism replaced religion ‘dawn’ of nationalism + ‘dusk’ of religious modes of thought. Not grown out of
religion but change in thinking.
• Origins of national consciousness → print capitalism. This enabled revolutions + coalition developed between
Protestantism + print capitalism to create ‘reading publics’. Church + crown no longer controlled text.
• Origins in Americas → had a common language + nation-ness developed before Europe. He argues caused by:
tightened control (collection of taxes) + enlightenment ideas + shared language helped spread western doctrine.
, o South America hindered by geographical size + developed into separate economic zones. Saw selves as
‘oppressed’ by Spanish + enlightenment provided racial categorisation.
o North America print didn’t develop until 18thC → protestants sought to create a nation of ‘America’.
Populations close together + linked by print.
Patriotism + racism
• Contests notion that nation is rooted in ‘fear and hatred’ → instead ‘self-sacrificing love’ – language describes kinship
(motherland) + home. Natural ties. Dying for one’s country = ‘moral grandeur’
• Power of language → primordial, suggests a ‘contemporaneous community’ (same time); incite shared memories;
• Nationalism + racism different → nationalism = historic destinies; racism = eternal contaminations. He argues racism
is rooted in class. Rooted in European domination. Arguing nationalism is not racist. To share the ‘mother-tongue’
is to be consider a patriot.
Epistemology
• Modernist. Nationalism is Universal (everyone belongs to a nation distinct from others) + it is hugely powerful:
people will die for their nation → led to ‘colossal sacrifices’
• Nationalism enabled by the following conditions: Rejection of Latin as superior (people could understand
each other); rejection of divine right to rule + rejection of idea that origins of world + humankind were the same →
Enlightenment + scientific revolution necessary: created printing press “print capitalism” → novels + newspapers:
o Replaced local dialects
o Novels + newspapers came first → places you “in a world of plurals”; calendar dates = ‘essential
connection’ + onward moving of time; related to the market – first modern-style mass-produced industrial
commodity; ‘substitute for morning prayer’
o People could understand eachother + create common values
o 3 things declined because” economic change, discoveries (social + scientific) + development of rapid
communication.
• Nationalism rooted in end of 18thC.
• Nation is imagined + then nationalism is self-consciously constructed once nation-state became a legitimate
entity → employment of ‘official nationalism’
Difference to other thinkers:
• Gellner = nationalism connection with industrialisation in western Europe; Kedourie = a European phenomenon.
• Anderson sees nation-state as a response to rise of nationalism in European diaspora in Americas, then transmitted
to colonies.
Critique from Chatterjee (1986)
• Nationalism has not replaced religion, but incorporated it. Not a substitute for ‘sacred’ but combination.
• Weak definition of the nation – we ‘think’ it but cannot measure it. (Hobsbawm 1992 ‘useless’)
• Coalition of Protestantism + print-capitalism. Production and productive relations + tech of communications. Three types
of nationalism emerge: 1. creole (elite metropole interests + enlightenment ideas which aided criticisms of imperialism).
2. Linguistic nationalisms of Europe, of the independent national state + 3. Official nationalism (Russia, imposition of
cultural homogeneity from above via state action) – this was Russification. (Chatterjee)
• Assumption nationalism has universal impact on members – what about gendered roles?
• Argues there was a fundamental change in ways of perceiving the world necessary before nationalism can emerge. A
product of print capitalism. Process of cultural homogenisation enabled through formation of ‘print-language’ + shared
experience undertaken by colonised intelligentsia. He notes that nationalism is mobilised for ‘chancellery wars’ where
popular nationalism is used for self-defence. Thus the state uses nationalism for its ‘Machiavellian’ purposes. It is an
anthropological fact according to Chaterjee’s critique.
*Chatterjee 1986 “Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World” Post-colonial critique.
Must decolonise theories of nationalism. Coloniality of knowledge. Disagrees with
Anderson, cannot come from the state if it was an anticolonial force!
“Nationalism as a problem in the history of political ideas” → Critiquing Gellner + Smith and Primordialists. It is a product of
enlightenment thinking + a dangerous export from the west. Critiques the ‘bourgeois-rational’ conception of universal history.
Critiques nationalism as forming a discourse of coloniality of knowledge. Nationalism demands a ‘before’ of the nation
(primordialism).
Anderson erroneously assumes political imagination happened in non-western states would resemble west.
The issue of nationalism: nationalist text both is addressed to ‘the people’ and the colonial masters who were being
challenged. It denies the inferiority of colonised people + asserts the backward nation could ‘modernise’ whilst keeping its
cultural identity. It both challenged political domination + accepted the intellectual premise of modernity, the rational basis
of colonial domination. “remains a prisoner of the prevalent European intellectual fashions”
, • Focuses on difference between west + rest, and reinforces this difference.
• Nationalism is a product of orientalism:
o 1. Cultural consciousness produced by enlightenment but depicted as ‘Eastern’
o 2. Nationalism’s power of mobilisation rooted in ‘passive’ Oriental
o 3. Hegemonic – necessity of postcolonial state’s entry to Western modernity
“Nationalism as an ideology is irrational, narrow, hateful and destructive.” + Kedourie “Nationalism is a doctrine invented in
Europe at the beginning of the nineteenth century”
• Contests the notion that there is an eastern + western form of nationalism. The community of western nations is
interlinked with the idea of being ‘ahead’ of others + “culturally equipped”. Linked to a “universal standard of progress”.
o Kohn suggests there is western + non-western, good and evil nationalism
• Eastern nationalism has sough to ‘re-equip’ the national culturally + transform it. It both imitates + is hostile. Seen as
integral to liberty.
• Nationalism attempts to ‘actualise in political terms’ the ‘universal urge for liberty and progress’
• Notes that nationalism can give rise to ‘mindless chauvinism and xenophobia” → Chatterjee therefore argues
nationalism can be defined as a ‘rational ideological framework for the realisation of rational, and highly laudable,
political ends” → justified Nazism, Fascism, ideology of racial hatred in the colonies → liberal rationalists argue this is
‘bad’ nationalism, suggesting it is ‘good’ nationalism gone wrong.
• Nationalists of the ‘eastern type’ still value liberty + progress. Anything which doesn’t fit their form is a deviation.
• Cultural homogeneity is essential for industrial society. It does not investigate the ‘general logic’ of the kind of society
it is seeking to build ‘that logic was given to it objectively’; it is the ‘general imposition of a high culture on society’ →
establishes an impersonal society; atomised individuals → he argues this ‘high culture’ comes from ‘alien imposition’.
He argues that Gellner notes an issue here, but not one that needs to be addressed. Nationalism is not seen as
value-laden, but addressing the sociological problem of industrial society.
• Nationalism is not an ‘authentic product’ of non-European civilisation. It is ‘wholly’ an export; a symbol of ‘political
messianism’ → Smith argues that the negative elements of nationalism are not ‘core’ to the doctrine.
• Smith argues that nationalism respects unique histories of the people. Its core doctrine rests on 3 assertions: self-
determination, expression of national character + each nation contributing to the ‘common fund of humanity’. For nations
to exist, they must have a past + a future→ this is coloniality of knowledge, it is a form of power posing that there is
universal knowledge.
• The enlightenment assumes rational knowledge which takes a very ‘definite form’ – science of society becomes the
knowledge of self + other, construed as ‘rationality’ – knowledge enables domination. Rationality is more than just asking
whether something is ‘scientifically true’ – if this was the case, the western world would not meet this standard.
o Rationality instead becomes a normative principle of a certain way of life, which promotes particular thinking
(scientific) – this is what Weber would say! → scientific truth is therefore encompassed in an ‘ethic of rationality’.
This divides the west into pre + post scientific – providing an ethnic privilege of the ‘superiority of the European
people’ → after this is moral privilege, post-enlightenment theories of progress with: positivism, utilitarianism +
Weberian sociology.
o Chatterjee argues the scientist is ‘a Western anthropologist’ – speaking in terms of ‘us’ – objects of study are
‘other’ cultures.
• Nationalism is irrational because it seeks to represent itself ‘in the image of Enlightenment’ and ‘fails’ to do so →
the enlightenment needs an ‘other’ to assert itself as a universal ideal. If it ever actualised its universal ideal, it would
be destroyed.
• Marx never directly addressed nationalism. Nationalism is the ‘national and colonial question’ in the non-european
world. Lenin constructed his proposal for nations to have the right to self-determination. We return then to two types of
nationalism proposed by Horace Davis → nationalism of enlightenment (rational, not emotional) and rationalism based
on culture + tradition → viewed as sacred, eternal + organic. Idea of the nation proceeding the state is distinctly
European.
• Nationalism in the non-European world is then ‘historically fused’ with colonialism. National identity used in struggle
against oppression. Horace Davis sees nationalism as an instrument.
• Gellner + Anderson both see nationalism in the third-world as modular – ‘objective, inescapable imperative’ –
Marxism is guilty of the same, seeing nationalism as an inescapable fact.
• Marxism + India → liberal history of nationalism is seen as episodic. Marx saw the evolution of India as a conflict
between westernist/modernist and traditionalist thus he ‘wholeheartedly plumped for westernism as the historically
progressive trend’ – liberalism stood on highly fragile foundations; Indian bourgeoisie were ‘ambiguous’ over their
opposition to imperial rule. The Indian intelligentsia did not question legitimacy of British rule over India, instead attitude
of collaboration
o Sociological determinists argue the conditions for the emergence of a nationalist ideology for transformation
of agrarian society into an industrial one are ‘present universally’ – the only interesting bit is what cultural
stamps they choose to incorporate to determine their national identity.
o Does nationalism have social consequences when projected onto other socio-cultural contexts?
• Chatterjee is thus questioning the empiric fact of nationalism that nationalist leaders simply transcend the
problem of cross-cultural relativism within colonies – Indian ‘renaissance’ was instead partial, fragmented + alienated
from the mass of the people
