Free Web Hosting Provider - Web Hosting - E-commerce - High Speed Internet - Free Web Page
Search the Web

Forms of Nationalism

Ideally, the analysis of nation/state phenomena should include assessing the various political philosophers throughout history and analyzing how their philosophies have been applied during specific epochs and historical events. This would allow us to discover how the two discernible phases of (1) thought and (2) action redefine the starting point of further inquiry undertaken by subsequent generations. This redefinition can represent a new phase of thought and can be evolutionary (and hence more valuable), but only if grounded in comprehensive historical study.

The notion that historical study can be a valued enterprise rather than a mere hobby ultimately rests in the premise that the study of history, and indeed the aim of history itself, is unmistakably a dialectical process. Experience leads to interpretation, which creates a fresh starting point incorporating lessons learned and branching out into a newly-adjusted direction -- ideally at least. To label this perspective Marxist would be a misnomer which disregards prior philosophy, for the ideology of "shaping the perfect society" has influenced every significant sociopolitical doctrine since the Enlightenment -- whether liberalism, socialism, communism or fascism. America's sense of historical mission, for example, is as inherently dialectic as the Soviet Union's ever was. Hence one cannot begin to study the various forms of nationalism adequately without first appreciating the simple truth that the exercise of study itself, and the inevitable categorizations which it spawns, will impact the subject of inquiry. One theorist's analysis of the past provides a blueprint for the future, which, once acted upon, becomes the starting point for future analysis -- and either acceptance, rejection, or adjustment -- perhaps generations later.

What appears to be a statement of the obvious is nevertheless crucially important here, for it enables us to understand more fully the proliferation of allegedly "divergent" theories today. Current analysis of nationhood, state structure and citizenship includes seemingly incompatible points of departure, ranging from the primordial identities of early man, to the forces of European modernization, to the various centralizing qualities of the bureaucratic state, and the list goes on. The trouble is that these perspectives are seldom synthesized, their complementarity virtually ignored, despite the fact that aspects of both primordialism (as historical analysis) and modernization theory (as blueprint for the future) were presented as unified theory by such past thinkers as Hobbes, Bodin and Rousseau.

Antiquity's attempts to offer a total picture have succumbed to the phenomenon of over-specialization among today's academia. Grasping for the "perfect" theory is the dominant motivation now, and the exercise is tragically anti-intellectual. So while current analysts debate the "either/or" of primordialism vs. modernization theory, we ignore or under-appreciate the role of Enlightenment thinkers as living proof of the compatibility of both, for their vantage point provided far greater insight into primordial social groupings (which they took seriously) and their theories were simultaneously "action". They were modernization!

Without ever specifically declaring that nations originate with the primordial savage, or that states gather distinct groups and then stamp them with homogeneity, Enlightenment thinkers successfully conveyed the notion that the evolution of identity is the first principle here. Without our species' prior instinct for grouping categories, the nation would not have been conceived. Yet at the same time, the existence of such prior categories as family, kin-group, or village is not interpreted deterministically as the inevitable road to "national identities" as a naturally ordained human fate. Primordial origins of nationhood are considered a valid point of inquiry, yes, but merely the doorstep for entering the vast edifice of the nation/state system. Similarly, the emergence of state-formed national identities is not construed as merely artifice, but rather as a reasonable, though not inevitable, direction for the species, given our defining instincts. The concepts were integrated. When faced with the chicken or egg question, Enlightenment theorists answered, "Who cares?! You can't have one without the other anyway."

Today's varied schools of thought range from anthropological studies of primordial man to modernization theories to "extremism" to economic determinism to psychosocial structures to ghettoization, etc. Nearly all can be traced to some aspect outlined in treatises ranging from 200 to 600 years old. While semantics and jargonism abound today, few ideas are new. Nevertheless, our contemporary historians, political scientists and anthropologists do hold an important advantage over past thinkers -- we have witnessed the application of past ideas and theories, and hence hold the cards in assessing the two phases of thought and action and determining the new starting point of inquiry. If in frustration we note that the questions have changed very little over the centuries, we have that much more historical data to sift through for answers:

• Is the concept of "nationhood" innate within the human psyche, reflecting an instinct for distinguishing between insiders and outsiders as a means for securing "identity"?
  
  
• Is nationhood simply a contrivance, the result of power elites manipulating tangible and intangible forces to their advantage, instilling a "consciousness" among the masses merely to maintain order and exact privilege through a kind of "manufactured consent"?
  
  
• Is national identity neither instinct nor subtle coercion, but rather a societal contract (which perhaps becomes instinctive?) among myriad interests and players, most of whom benefit in a variety of important ways from such a grand-scale organization of human affairs?
  
  
• At what point is it reasonable or necessary for the less advantaged, or perhaps the marginalized, to stand apart and declare their autonomy? When is separation constructive and progressive? When is it destructive and backward?

Below you will find outlines of useful analytical concepts and structures proposed by various scholars for assessing the phenomena of nationhood, nationalism, state, civic nationalism, and the origins of the nation/state system:

Michael Hechter (Containing Nationalism, 2000)

1. STATE-BUILDING NATIONALISM: The active incorporation of diverse regions and culturally distinct peoples into a single, larger identity governed by a single, larger state, with the goal of creating a homogenous whole from the heterogenous parts.
   
   
2. PERIPHERAL NATIONALISM: A distinct region's active resistance to inclusion within an expanding state, typically with the goal of autonomous status or secession.
   
   
3. IRREDENTIST NATIONALISM: The intent or attempt to extend state boundaries to include territories populated by one's co-nationals, though administered by an adjacent state.
   
   
4. UNIFICATION NATIONALISM: The movement to merge politically divided, but culturally homogenous, regions and territories under one state.

Rogers Brubaker (Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood and the National Question in Europe, 1996)

1. NATIONALIST DIASPORIC MINORITY: A minority originating historically from a foreign homeland, expressing nationalism within the adopted host state.
   
   
2. NATIONALIST STATE: A state with its own nationalist agenda which conflicts with the nationalist minority's agenda.
   
   
3. NATIONALIST HOMELAND: The ethnic/cultural homeland of the nationalist minority, which views itself as protector of its diasporic ethnic/cultural cousins, and hence expresses opposition to the policies pursued by the nationalist state within which the nationalist minority resides.

Michael Billig (Banal Nationalism, 1995)

1. BANAL NATIONALISM:the often understated nationalism of the "established nations", particularly of a Western liberal democratic persuasion, where the implicit message is that nationalism plays only a small part in their political culture. In reality, claims Billig, there is an active, if banal, nationalism at work through the daily exposure of citizens to subtle reminders of the presence, authority, and meaning of both the state and citizenship within it. Rituals, symbols, values -- aspects of national culture which are seldom noticed in a spectacular sense but which would be instantly conspicuous by their absence.

John Breuilly (Nationalism and the State, 1985)

1. GOVERNMENT NATIONALISM: A nationalist vision or direction of nation and/or state pursued by those commanding the power of state and by their constituency.
   
   
2. OPPOSITION NATIONALISM: An alternative nationalist vision of nation and/or state pursued by those opposed to the government's vision or direction. This alternative nationalism can take several forms:
   
   
   • Separation Nationalism: Opposition nationalists seek to hold and maintain power within one region of the state, with the goal of autonomy or sovereignty.
     
     
   • Reform Nationalism: Opposition nationalists seek to overthrow or succeed the governing party or rulers, in order to "purify" or "rebuild" according to their own vision.
     
     
   • Unification Nationalism: Opposition nationalists within one or more states seek to unify a common nation, the population of which straddles the boundaries of separate (usually adjacent) states. This goal may often run counter to the vision or interests of government nationalists and hence the oppositional dynamic.

Back to the Top

Home Page

This site is owned, designed, scripted, and maintained by Dee Sparling.

Copyright © 2000

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.