Historiography is the study of how history is written. One pervasive influence upon the writing of history has been nationalism, a set of beliefs about political legitimacy and cultural identity.
Nationalism has provided a significant framework for historical writing
in Europe and in those former colonies influenced by Europe since the
nineteenth century. Typically official school textbooks are based on the
nationalist model and focus on the emergence, trials and successes of
the forces of nationalism.
Origins
Although
the emergence of the nation into political consciousness is typically
traced to the nineteenth century, attempts by political leaders to craft
new identities, with their dynasty at the center, have been identified
in earlier periods. Patrick Geary, for example, notes how Barbarian rulers of the Roman successor states
crafted these identities on the basis of descent of the ruler from
ancient noble families, a shared descent of a single people with common
language, custom, and religious identity, and a definition in law of the
rights and responsibilities of members of the new polity.
The eighteenth and nineteenth century saw the emergence of nationalist ideologies. During the French revolution a national identity was crafted, identifying the common people with the Gauls. In Germany historians and humanists, such as Johann Gottfried Herder and Johann Gottlieb Fichte,
identified a linguistic and cultural identity of the German nation,
which became the basis of a political movement to unite the fragmented
states of this German nation.
A significant historiographical
outcome of this movement of German nationalism was the formation of a
"Society for Older German Historical Knowledge", which sponsored the
editing of a massive collection of documents of German history, the Monumenta Germaniae Historica. The sponsors of the MGH,
as it is commonly known, defined German history very broadly; they
edited documents concerning all territories where German-speaking people
had once lived or ruled. Thus, documents from Italy to France to the
Baltic were grist for the mill of the MGH's editors.
This model of scholarship focusing on detailed historical and
linguistic investigations of the origins of a nation, set by the
founders of the MGH, was imitated throughout Europe. In this
framework, historical phenomena were interpreted as they related to the
development of the nation-state; the state was projected into the past.
National histories are thus expanded to cover everything that has ever
happened within the largest extent of the expansion of a nation, turning
Mousterian hunter-gatherers into incipient Frenchmen. Conversely,
historical developments spanning many current countries may be ignored,
or analysed from narrow parochial viewpoints.
The difficulty faced by any national history is the changeable nature of ethnicity. That one nation may turn into another nation over time, both by splitting (colonization) and by merging (syncretism, acculturation) is implicitly acknowledged by ancient writers; Herodotus describes the Armenians as "colonists of the Phrygians",
implying that at the time of writing clearly separate groups originated
as a single group. Similarly, Herodotus refers to a time when the "Athenians were just beginning to be counted as Hellenes", implying that a formerly Pelasgian group over time acquired "Greekness". The Alamanni are described by Asinius Quadratus
as originally a conglomerate of various tribes which acquired a common
identity over time. All these processes are summarized under the term ethnogenesis.
In ancient times, ethnicities often derived their or their
rulers' origin from divine or semi-divine founders of a mythical past
(for example, the Anglo-Saxons deriving their dynasties from Woden; see also Euhemerism). In modern times, such mythical aetiologies
in nationalist constructions of history were replaced by the frequent
attempt to link one's own ethnic group to a source as ancient as
possible, often known not from tradition but only from archaeology or
philology, such as Armenians claiming as their origin the Urartians, the Albanians claiming as their origin the Illyrians, the Georgians claiming as their origin the Mushki—all of the mentioned groups being known only from either ancient historiographers or archaeology.
Nationalist ideologies frequently employ results of archaeology and ancient history as propaganda, often significantly distorting them to fit their aims, cultivating national mythologies and national mysticism. Frequently this involves the uncritical identification of one's own ethnic group with some ancient or even prehistoric (known only archaeologically) group, whether mainstream scholarship accepts as plausible or reject as pseudoarchaeology
the historical derivation of the contemporary group from the ancient
one. The decisive point, often assumed implicitly, that it is possible
to derive nationalist or ethnic pride from a population that lived
millennia ago and, being known only archaeologically or epigraphically,
is not remembered in living tradition.
Examples include Kurds claiming identity with the Medes, Albanians claiming as their origin the Illyrians, Bulgarians claiming identity with the Thracians, Iraqi propaganda invoking Sumer or Babylonia, Georgians claiming as their origin the Mushki,
—all of the mentioned groups being known only from either ancient
historiographers or archaeology. In extreme cases, nationalists will
ignore the process of ethnogenesis
altogether and claim ethnic identity of their own group with some
scarcely attested ancient ethnicity known to scholarship by the chances
of textual transmission or archaeological excavation.
Historically, various hypotheses regarding the Urheimat of the Proto-Indo-Europeans has been a popular object of patriotic pride, quite regardless of their respective scholarly values:
Nationalism was so much taken for granted as the "proper" way to organize states and view history that nationalization of history was essentially invisible to historians until fairly recently.Then scholars such as Ernest Gellner, Benedict Anderson, and Anthony D. Smith
made attempts to step back from nationalism and view it critically.
Historians began to ask themselves how this ideology had affected the
writing of history.
Speaking to an audience of anthropologists, the historian E. J. Hobsbawm pointed out the central role of the historical profession in the development of nationalism:
Historians are to nationalism what
poppy-growers in Pakistan are to the heroin-addicts: we supply the
essential raw material for the market. Nations without a past are
contradictions in terms. What makes a nation is the past, what justifies
one nation against others is the past, and historians are the people
who produce it. So my profession, which has always been mixed up in
politics, becomes an essential component of nationalism.
Martin Bernal's much debated book Black Athena (1987) argues that the historiography on ancient Greece has been in part influenced by nationalism and ethnocentrism. He also claimed that influences by non-Greek or non-Indo-European cultures on Ancient Greek were marginalized.
[The]
modern [study of] history was born in the nineteenth century, conceived
and developed as an instrument of European nationalism. As a tool of
nationalist ideology, the history of Europe's nations was a great
success, but it has turned our understanding of the past into a toxic
waste dump, filled with the poison of ethnic nationalism, and the poison has seeped deep into popular consciousness.
By country
Nationalist historiographies have emerged in a number of countries and some have been subject to in-depth scholarly analysis.
Cuba
In 2007, Kate Quinn presented an analysis of the Cuban nationalist historiography.
Indonesia
In 2003, Rommel Curaming analyzed the Indonesian nationalistic historiography.
South Korea
Nationalist historiography in South Korea has been the subject of 2001 study by Kenneth M. Wells.
Thailand
In 2003, Patrick Jory analyzed the Thai nationalistic historiography.
Zimbabwe
In 2004, Terence Ranger noted that "Over the past two or three years there has emerged in Zimbabwe a sustained attempt by the Mugabe regime to propagate what is called ‘patriotic history’."
Nationalism is an idea and movement that holds that the nation should be congruent with the state. As a movement, it tends to promote the interests of a particular nation (as in a group of people), especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its perceived homeland to create a nation-state. It holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity, and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power. It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity, based on a combination of shared social characteristics such as culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics (or the government), religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history, and to promote national unity or solidarity. Nationalism, therefore, seeks to preserve and foster a nation's traditional culture. There are various definitions of a "nation", which leads to different types of nationalism. The two main divergent forms identified by scholars are ethnic nationalism and civic nationalism.
Beginning in the late 18th century, particularly with the French Revolution and the spread of the principle of popular sovereignty or self determination, the idea that "the people" should rule is developed by political theorists. Three main theories have been used to explain the emergence of nationalism:
Primordialism (perennialism) developed alongside nationalism during the romantic era and held that there have always been nations. This view has since been rejected by most scholars, and nations are now viewed as socially constructed and historically contingent.
Modernization theory, currently the most commonly accepted theory of nationalism, adopts a constructivist approach and proposes that nationalism emerged due to processes of modernization, such as industrialization, urbanization, and mass education, which made national consciousness possible. Proponents of this theory describe nations as "imagined communities" and nationalism as an "invented tradition" in which shared sentiment provides a form of collective identity and binds individuals together in political solidarity.
A third theory, ethnosymbolism explains nationalism as a product of symbols, myths, and traditions, and is associated with the work of Anthony D. Smith.
The moral value of nationalism, the relationship between nationalism and patriotism, and the compatibility of nationalism and cosmopolitanism are all subjects of philosophical debate. Nationalism can be combined with diverse political goals and ideologies such as conservatism (national conservatism and right-wing populism) or socialism (left-wing nationalism).
In practice, nationalism is seen as positive or negative depending on
its ideology and outcomes. Nationalism has been a feature of movements
for freedom and justice, has been associated with cultural revivals, and encourages pride in national achievements.
It has also been used to legitimize racial, ethnic, and religious
divisions, suppress or attack minorities, and undermine human rights and
democratic traditions.
Terminology
Title page from the second edition (Amsterdam 1631) of De jure belli ac pacis
The terminological use of "nations", "sovereignty" and associated concepts were significantly refined with the writing by Hugo Grotius of De jure belli ac pacis in the early 17th century. Living in the times of the Eighty Years' War between Spain and the Netherlands and the Thirty Years' War
between Catholic and Protestant European nations (Catholic France being
in the otherwise Protestant camp), it is not surprising that Grotius
was deeply concerned with matters of conflicts between nations in the
context of oppositions stemming from religious differences. The word nation
was also usefully applied before 1800 in Europe to refer to the
inhabitants of a country as well as to collective identities that could
include shared history, law, language, political rights, religion and
traditions, in a sense more akin to the modern conception.
Nationalism as derived from the noun designating 'nations' is a newer word; in the English language, the term dates back from 1798. The term first became important in the 19th century. The term increasingly became negative in its connotations after 1914. Glenda Sluga notes that "The twentieth century, a time of profound disillusionment with nationalism, was also the great age of globalism."
Academics define nationalism as a political principle that holds that the nation and state should be congruent.According to Lisa Weeden, nationalist ideology presumes that "the people" and the state are congruent.
Scholars frequently place the beginning of nationalism in the late 18th century or early 19th century with the American Declaration of Independence or with the French Revolution. The consensus is that nationalism as a concept was firmly established by the 19th century. In histories of nationalism, the French Revolution (1789) is seen as an important starting point, not only for its impact on French nationalism but even more for its impact on Germans and Italians and on European intellectuals.
The template of nationalism, as a method for mobilizing public opinion
around a new state based on popular sovereignty, went back further than
1789: philosophers such as Rousseau and Voltaire,
whose ideas influenced the French Revolution, had themselves been
influenced or encouraged by the example of earlier constitutionalist
liberation movements, notably the Corsican Republic (1755–1768) and American Revolution (1775–1783).
Due to the Industrial Revolution, there was an emergence of an integrated, nation-encompassing economy and a national public sphere,
where British people began to mobilize on a state-wide scale, rather
than just in the smaller units of their province, town or family.
The early emergence of a popular patriotic nationalism took place in
the mid-18th century and was actively promoted by the British government
and by the writers and intellectuals of the time. National symbols, anthems, myths, flags and narratives were assiduously constructed by nationalists and widely adopted. The Union Jack was adopted in 1801 as the national one. Thomas Arne composed the patriotic song "Rule, Britannia!" in 1740, and the cartoonist John Arbuthnot invented the character of John Bull as the personification of the English national spirit in 1712.
The political convulsions of the late 18th century associated with the American and French revolutions massively augmented the widespread appeal of patriotic nationalism.
Napoleon Bonaparte's rise to power further established nationalism when
he invaded much of Europe. Napoleon used this opportunity to spread
revolutionary ideas, resulting in much of the 19th-century European
Nationalism.
The Prussian scholar Johann Gottfried Herder (1744–1803) originated the term in 1772 in his "Treatise on the Origin of Language" stressing the role of a common language.
He attached exceptional importance to the concepts of nationality and
of patriotism – "he that has lost his patriotic spirit has lost
himself and the whole world about himself", whilst teaching that "in a
certain sense every human perfection is national".
Some scholars argue that variants of nationalism emerged prior to the 18th century. American philosopher and historian Hans Kohn wrote in 1944 that nationalism emerged in the 17th century. In Britons, Forging the Nation 1707–1837 (Yale University Press, 1992), Linda Colley
explores how the role of nationalism emerged about 1700 and developed
in Britain reaching full form in the 1830s. Writing shortly after World War I, the popular British author H.G. Wells traced the origin of European nationalism to the aftermath of the Reformation, when it filled the moral void left by the decline of Christian faith:
[A]s
the idea of Christianity as a world brotherhood of men sank into
discredit because of its fatal entanglement with priestcraft and the
Papacy on the one hand and with the authority of princes on the other,
and the age of faith passed into our present age of doubt and disbelief,
men shifted the reference of their lives from the kingdom of God and
the brotherhood of mankind to these apparently more living realities,
France and England, Holy Russia, Spain, Prussia.... **** In the
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries the general population of Europe was
religious and only vaguely patriotic; by the nineteenth it had become
wholly patriotic.
The political development of nationalism and the push for popular sovereignty
culminated with the ethnic/national revolutions of Europe. During the
19th century nationalism became one of the most significant political
and social forces in history; it is typically listed among the top
causes of World War I.
Napoleon's conquests of the German and Italian states around
1800–1806 played a major role in stimulating nationalism and the demands
for national unity.
English historian J. P. T. Bury argues:
Between 1830 and 1870 nationalism had thus made great
strides. It inspired great literature, quickened scholarship, and
nurtured heroes. It had shown its power both to unify and to divide. It
had led to great achievements of political construction and
consolidation in Germany and Italy; but it was more clear than ever a
threat to the Ottoman and Habsburg empires, which were essentially
multi-national. European culture had been enriched by the new vernacular
contributions of little-known or forgotten peoples, but at the same
time such unity as it had was imperiled by fragmentation. Moreover, the
antagonisms fostered by nationalism had made not only for wars,
insurrections, and local hatreds—they had accentuated or created new
spiritual divisions in a nominally Christian Europe.
Nationalism in France gained early expressions in France's
revolutionary government. In 1793, that government declared a mass
conscription (levée en masse) with a call to service:
Henceforth, until the enemies have been driven from the
territory of the Republic, all the French are in permanent requisition
for army service. The young men shall go to battle; the married men
shall forge arms in the hospitals; the children shall turn old linen to
lint; the old men shall repair to the public places, to stimulate the
courage of the warriors and preach the unity of the Republic and the
hatred of kings.
This nationalism gained pace after the French Revolution came to a
close. Defeat in war, with a loss in territory, was a powerful force in
nationalism. In France, revenge and return of Alsace-Lorraine
was a powerful motivating force for a quarter century after their
defeat by Germany in 1871. After 1895, French nationalists focused on
Dreyfus and internal subversion, and the Alsace issue petered out.
The French reaction was a famous case of Revanchism ("revenge")
which demands the return of lost territory that "belongs" to the
national homeland. Revanchism draws its strength from patriotic and
retributionist thought and it is often motivated by economic or
geo-political factors. Extreme revanchist ideologues often represent a
hawkish stance, suggesting that their desired objectives can be achieved
through the positive outcome of another war. It is linked with
irredentism, the conception that a part of the cultural and ethnic
nation remains "unredeemed" outside the borders of its appropriate
nation state. Revanchist politics often rely on the identification of a
nation with a nation state, often mobilizing deep-rooted sentiments of
ethnic nationalism, claiming territories outside the state where members
of the ethnic group live, while using heavy-handed nationalism to
mobilize support for these aims. Revanchist justifications are often
presented as based on ancient or even autochthonous occupation of a
territory since "time immemorial", an assertion that is usually
inextricably involved in revanchism and irredentism, justifying them in
the eyes of their proponents.
The Dreyfus Affair
in France 1894–1906 made the battle against treason and disloyalty a
central theme for conservative Catholic French nationalists. Dreyfus, a
Jew, was an outsider, that is in the views of intense nationalists, not a
true Frenchman, not one to be trusted, not one to be given the benefit
of the doubt. True loyalty to the nation, from the conservative
viewpoint, was threatened by liberal and republican principles of
liberty and equality that were leading the country to disaster.
Before 1815, the sense of Russian nationalism was weak—what sense there was focused on loyalty and obedience to the tsar. The Russian motto "Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality" was coined by Count Sergey Uvarov and it was adopted by Emperor Nicholas I as the official ideology of the Russian Empire. Three components of Uvarov's triad were:
Nationality (Narodnost, has been also translated as national spirit) – recognition of the state-founding role on Russian nationality.
By the 1860s, as a result of educational indoctrination, and due to
conservative resistance to ideas and ideologies which were transmitted
from Western Europe, a pan-Slavic movement
had emerged and it produced both a sense of Russian nationalism and a
nationalistic mission to support and protect pan-Slavism. This Slavophile movement became popular in 19th-century Russia. Pan-Slavism was fueled by, and it was also the fuel for Russia's numerous wars against the Ottoman Empire which were waged in order to achieve the alleged goal of liberating Orthodox nationalities, such as Bulgarians, Romanians, Serbs and Greeks, from Ottoman rule.
Slavophiles opposed the Western European influences which had been
transmitted to Russia and they were also determined to protect Russian culture and traditions. Aleksey Khomyakov, Ivan Kireyevsky, and Konstantin Aksakov are credited with co-founding the movement.
An upsurge in nationalism in Latin America in the 1810s and 1820s sparked revolutions that cost Spain nearly all of its colonies which were located there.
Spain was at war with Britain from 1798 to 1808, and the British Royal
Navy cut off its contacts with its colonies, so nationalism flourished
and trade with Spain was suspended. The colonies set up temporary
governments or juntas which were effectively independent from Spain.
These juntas were established as a result of Napoleon's resistance
failure in Spain. They served to determine new leadership and, in
colonies like Caracas, abolished the slave trade as well as the Indian
tribute. The division exploded between Spaniards who were born in Spain (called "peninsulares") versus those of Spanish descent born in New Spain (called "criollos" in Spanish or "creoles"
in English). The two groups wrestled for power, with the criollos
leading the call for independence. Spain tried to use its armies to
fight back but had no help from European powers. Indeed, Britain and the
United States worked against Spain, enforcing the Monroe Doctrine. Spain lost all of its American colonies, except Cuba and Puerto Rico, in a complex series of revolts from 1808 to 1826.
In the German states west of Prussia, Napoleon abolished many of the old or medieval relics, such as dissolving the Holy Roman Empire in 1806. He imposed rational legal systems and demonstrated how dramatic changes were possible. His organization of the Confederation of the Rhine in 1806 promoted a feeling of nationalism.
Nationalists sought to encompass masculinity in their quest for strength and unity. It was Prussian chancellor Otto von Bismarck
who achieved German unification through a series of highly successful
short wars against Denmark, Austria and France which thrilled the
pan-German nationalists in the smaller German states. They fought in his
wars and eagerly joined the new German Empire, which Bismarck ran as a
force for balance and peace in Europe after 1871.
In the 19th century, German nationalism was promoted by
Hegelian-oriented academic historians who saw Prussia as the true
carrier of the German spirit, and the power of the state as the ultimate
goal of nationalism. The three main historians were Johann Gustav Droysen (1808–1884), Heinrich von Sybel (1817–1895) and Heinrich von Treitschke
(1834–1896). Droysen moved from liberalism to an intense nationalism
that celebrated Prussian Protestantism, efficiency, progress, and
reform, in striking contrast to Austrian Catholicism, impotency and
backwardness. He idealized the Hohenzollern kings of Prussia. His
large-scale History of Prussian Politics (14 vol 1855–1886) was
foundational for nationalistic students and scholars. Von Sybel founded
and edited the leading academic history journal, Historische Zeitschrift
and as the director of the Prussian state archives published massive
compilations that were devoured by scholars of nationalism.
The most influential of the German nationalist historians, was
Treitschke who had an enormous influence on elite students at Heidelberg
and Berlin universities.
Treitschke vehemently attacked parliamentarianism, socialism, pacifism,
the English, the French, the Jews, and the internationalists. The core
of his message was the need for a strong, unified state—a unified
Germany under Prussian supervision. "It is the highest duty of the State
to increase its power," he stated. Although he was a descendant of a
Czech family, he considered himself not Slavic but German: "I am 1000
times more the patriot than a professor."
German nationalism, expressed through the ideology of Nazism, may also be understood as trans-national in nature. This aspect was primarily advocated by Adolf Hitler, who later became the leader of the Nazi Party. This party was devoted to what they identified as an Aryan race, residing in various European countries, but sometime mixed with alien elements such as Jews.
Meanwhile, the Nazis rejected many of the well-established citizens within those same countries, such as the Romani
(Gypsies) and of course Jews, whom they did not identify as Aryan. A
key Nazi doctrine was "Living Space" (for Aryans only) or "Lebensraum," which was a vast undertaking to transplant Aryans throughout Poland, much of Eastern Europe and the Baltic nations, and all of Western Russia and Ukraine.
Lebensraum was thus a vast project for advancing the Aryan race far
outside of any particular nation or national borders. The Nazi's goals
were racist focused on advancing the Aryan race as they perceived it, eugenics
modification of the human race, and the eradication of human beings
that they deemed inferior. But their goals were trans-national and
intended to spread across as much of the world as they could achieve.
Although Nazism glorified German history, it also embraced the supposed
virtues and achievements of the Aryan race in other countries, including India.
The Nazis' Aryanism longed for now-extinct species of superior bulls
once used as livestock by Aryans and other features of Aryan history
that never resided within the borders of Germany as a nation.
Italian nationalism emerged in the 19th century and was the driving force for Italian unification or the Risorgimento
(meaning the "Resurgence" or "Revival"). It was the political and
intellectual movement that consolidated the different states of the Italian peninsula into the single state of the Kingdom of Italy in 1861. The memory of the Risorgimento is central to Italian nationalism but it was based in the liberal middle classes and ultimately proved a bit weak.
The new government treated the newly annexed South as a kind of
underdeveloped province due to its "backward" and poverty-stricken
society, its poor grasp of standard Italian (as Italo-Dalmatian dialects of Neapolitan and Sicilian were prevalent in the common use) and its local traditions. The liberals had always been strong opponents of the pope and the very well organized Catholic Church. The liberal government under the Sicilian Francesco Crispi sought to enlarge his political base by emulating Otto von Bismarck and firing up Italian nationalism
with an aggressive foreign policy. It partially crashed and his cause
was set back. Of his nationalistic foreign policy, historian R. J. B. Bosworth says:
[Crispi] pursued policies whose openly aggressive
character would not be equaled until the days of the Fascist regime.
Crispi increased military expenditure, talked cheerfully of a European
conflagration, and alarmed his German or British friends with these
suggestions of preventative attacks on his enemies. His policies were
ruinous, both for Italy's trade with France, and, more humiliatingly,
for colonial ambitions in East Africa. Crispi's lust for territory there
was thwarted when on 1 March 1896, the armies of Ethiopian Emperor
Menelik routed Italian forces at Adowa
[...] in what has been defined as an unparalleled disaster for a modern
army. Crispi, whose private life and personal finances [...] were
objects of perennial scandal, went into dishonorable retirement.
Italy joined the Allies in the First World War
after getting promises of territory, but its war effort was not honored
after the war and this fact discredited liberalism paving the way for Benito Mussolini and a political doctrine of his own creation, Fascism.
Mussolini's 20-year dictatorship involved a highly aggressive
nationalism that led to a series of wars with the creation of the Italian Empire,
an alliance with Hitler's Germany, and humiliation and hardship in the
Second World War. After 1945, the Catholics returned to government and
tensions eased somewhat, but the former two Sicilies remained poor and
partially underdeveloped (by industrial country standards). In the 1950s
and early 1960s, Italy had an economic boom that pushed its economy to the fifth place in the world.
The working class in those decades voted mostly for the Communist Party,
and it looked to Moscow rather than Rome for inspiration and was kept
out of the national government even as it controlled some industrial
cities across the North. In the 21st century, the Communists have become
marginal but political tensions remained high as shown by Umberto Bossi's Padanism in the 1980s (whose party Lega Nord
has come to partially embrace a moderate version of Italian nationalism
over the years) and other separatist movements spread across the
country.
Beginning in 1821, the Greek War of Independence began as a rebellion by Greek revolutionaries against the ruling Ottoman Empire.
Greece
During the early 19th century, inspired by romanticism, classicism, former movements of Greek nationalism
and failed Greek revolts against the Ottoman Empire (such as the
Orlofika revolt in southern Greece in 1770, and the Epirus-Macedonian
revolt of Northern Greece in 1575), Greek nationalism led to the Greek war of independence. The Greek drive for independence from the Ottoman Empire in the 1820s and 1830s inspired supporters across Christian Europe, especially in Britain, which was the result of western idealization of Classical Greece and romanticism. France, Russia and Britain critically intervened to ensure the success of this nationalist endeavor.
The cause of Polish nationalism was repeatedly frustrated before 1918. In the 1790s, the Habsburg monarchy, Prussia and Russia
invaded, annexed, and subsequently partitioned Poland. Napoleon set up the Duchy of Warsaw, a new Polish state that ignited a spirit of nationalism. Russia took it over in 1815 as Congress Poland with the tsar proclaimed as "King of Poland". Large-scale nationalist revolts erupted in 1830 and 1863–64 but were harshly crushed by Russia, which tried to make the Polish language, culture and religion
more like Russia's. The collapse of the Russian Empire in the First
World War enabled the major powers to re-establish an independent
Poland, which survived until 1939. Meanwhile, Poles in areas controlled
by Germany moved into heavy industry but their religion came under
attack by Bismarck in the Kulturkampf of the 1870s. The Poles joined German Catholics in a well-organized new Centre Party, and defeated Bismarck politically. He responded by stopping the harassment and cooperating with the Centre Party.
In the late 19th and early 20th century, many Polish nationalist leaders endorsed the Piast Concept. It held there was a Polish utopia during the Piast Dynasty
a thousand years before, and modern Polish nationalists should restore
its central values of Poland for the Poles. Jan Poplawski had developed
the "Piast Concept" in the 1890s, and it formed the centerpiece of
Polish nationalist ideology, especially as presented by the National Democracy Party, known as the "Endecja," which was led by Roman Dmowski. In contrast with the Jagiellon concept, there was no concept for a multi-ethnic Poland.
General Simón Bolívar (1783–1830), a leader of independence in Latin America
The Piast concept stood in opposition to the "Jagiellon Concept,"
which allowed for multi-ethnicism and Polish rule over numerous minority
groups such as those in the Kresy. The Jagiellon Concept was the official policy of the government in the 1920s and 1930s. Soviet dictator Josef Stalin at Tehran in 1943 rejected the Jagiellon Concept because it involved Polish rule over Ukrainians and Belarusians. He instead endorsed the Piast Concept, which justified a massive shift of Poland's frontiers to the west.
After 1945 the Soviet-back puppet communist regime wholeheartedly
adopted the Piast Concept, making it the centerpiece of their claim to
be the "true inheritors of Polish nationalism". After all the killings,
including Nazi German occupation, terror in Poland and population
transfers during and after the war, the nation was officially declared
as 99% ethnically Polish.
In current Polish politics, Polish nationalism is most openly represented by parties linked in the Liberty and Independence Confederation coalition. As of 2020 the Confederation, composed of several smaller parties, had 11 deputies (under 7%) in the Sejm.
Bulgarian modern nationalism emerged under Ottoman rule
in the late 18th and early 19th century, under the influence of western
ideas such as liberalism and nationalism, which trickled into the
country after the French Revolution.
The Bulgarian national revival started with the work of Saint Paisius of Hilendar, who opposed Greek domination of Bulgaria's culture and religion. His work Istoriya Slavyanobolgarskaya
("History of the Slav-Bulgarians"), which appeared in 1762, was the
first work of Bulgarian historiography. It is considered Paisius'
greatest work and one of the greatest pieces of Bulgarian literature. In
it, Paisius interpreted Bulgarian medieval history with the goal of
reviving the spirit of his nation.
His successor was Saint Sophronius of Vratsa, who started the struggle for an independent Bulgarian church. An autonomous Bulgarian Exarchate
was established in 1870/1872 for the Bulgarian diocese wherein at least
two-thirds of Orthodox Christians were willing to join it.
Jewish nationalism arose in the latter half of the 19th century and its rise was largely correlated with the rise of the Zionist movement. The term "Zionism" was derived from the word Zion, which was one of the Torah's names of the city of Jerusalem. The end goal of Jewish nationalists and Zionists was the founding of a Jewish state, preferably in the land of Israel.
A tumultuous history of living in oppressive, foreign, and uncertain
circumstances led the supporters of the movement to draft a declaration
of independence, claiming that Israel was a homeland. The first and
second destructions of the temple and ancient Torah prophecies largely
shaped the incentives of the Jewish nationalists. Many prominent
theories in Jewish theology and eschatology were formed by supporters
and opponents of the movement in this era.
It was the French Revolution
of 1789 which sparked new waves of thinking across Europe regarding
governance and sovereignty. A shift from the traditional hierarchy-based
system towards political individualism and citizen-states posed a
dilemma for the Jews. Citizenship was now essential when it came to
ensuring basic legal and residential rights. This resulted in more and
more Jews choosing to identify with certain nationalities in order to
maintain these rights. Logic said that a nation-based system of states
would require the Jews themselves to claim their own right to be
considered a nation due to a distinguishable language and history.
According to historian David Engel, Zionism was more about fear that
Jews would end up dispersed and unprotected, rather than fulfilling old
prophecies of historical texts.
The awakening of nationalism across Asia helped shape the history of the continent. The key episode was the decisive defeat of Russia
by Japan in 1905, demonstrating the military advancement of
non-Europeans in a modern war. The defeat quickly led to manifestations
of a new interest in nationalism in China, as well as Turkey and Persia. In China Sun Yat-sen (1866–1925) launched his new party the Kuomintang (National People's Party) in defiance of the decrepit Empire, which was run by outsiders. The Kuomintang recruits pledged:
[F]rom this moment I will destroy the old and build the
new, and fight for the self-determination of the people, and will apply
all my strength to the support of the Chinese Republic and the
realization of democracy through the Three Principles, ... for the
progress of good government, the happiness and perpetual peace of the
people, and for the strengthening of the foundations of the state in the
name of peace throughout the world.
The Kuomintang largely ran China until the Communists took over in
1949. But the latter had also been strongly influenced by Sun's
nationalism as well as by the May Fourth Movement
in 1919. It was a nationwide protest movement about the domestic
backwardness of China and has often been depicted as the intellectual
foundation for Chinese Communism. The New Culture Movement stimulated by the May Fourth Movement waxed strong throughout the 1920s and 1930s. Historian Patricia Ebrey says:
Nationalism, patriotism, progress, science, democracy, and freedom were the goals; imperialism, feudalism, warlordism, autocracy, patriarchy,
and blind adherence to tradition were the enemies. Intellectuals
struggled with how to be strong and modern and yet Chinese, how to
preserve China as a political entity in the world of competing nations.
Nationalist irredentist movements Greek advocating for Enosis (unity of ethnically Greek states with the Hellenic Republic to create a unified Greek state), used today in the case of Cyprus, as well as the Megali Idea, the Greek movement that advocated for the reconquering of Greek ancestral lands from the Ottoman Empire (such as Crete, Ionia, Pontus, Northern Epirus, Cappadocia, Thrace
among others) that were popular in the late 19th and early to 20th
centuries, led to many Greek states and regions that were ethnically
Greek to eventually unite with Greece and the Greco-Turkish war of 1919.
In the 1880s the European powers divided up almost all of Africa (only Ethiopia and Liberia
were independent). They ruled until after World War II when forces of
nationalism grew much stronger. In the 1950s and the 1960s, colonial
holdings became independent states. The process was usually peaceful but
there were several long bitter bloody civil wars, as in Algeria, Kenya and elsewhere.
Across Africa, nationalism drew upon the organizational skills
that natives had learned in the British and French, and other armies
during the world wars. It led to organizations that were not controlled
by or endorsed by either the colonial powers or the traditional local
power structures that had been collaborating with the colonial powers.
Nationalistic organizations began to challenge both the traditional and
the new colonial structures and finally displaced them. Leaders of
nationalist movements took control when the European authorities exited;
many ruled for decades or until they died off. These structures
included political, educational, religious, and other social
organizations. In recent decades, many African countries have undergone
the triumph and defeat of nationalistic fervor, changing in the process
the loci of the centralizing state power and patrimonial state.
South Africa, a British colony, was exceptional in that it became virtually independent by 1931. From 1948, it was controlled by white Afrikaner nationalists, who focused on racial segregation and white minority rule, known as apartheid. It lasted until 1994, when multiracial elections were held. The international anti-apartheid movement supported black nationalists until success was achieved, and Nelson Mandela was elected president.
Arab nationalism,
a movement toward liberating and empowering the Arab peoples of the
Middle East, emerged during the late 19th century, inspired by other
independence movements of the 18th and 19th centuries. As the Ottoman Empire
declined and the Middle East was carved up by the Great Powers of
Europe, Arabs sought to establish their own independent nations ruled by
Arabs, rather than foreigners. Syria was established in 1920; Transjordan (later Jordan) gradually gained independence between 1921 and 1946; Saudi Arabia was established in 1932; and Egypt achieved gradually gained independence between 1922 and 1952. The Arab League was established in 1945 to promote Arab interests and cooperation between the new Arab states.
The Zionist movement, emerged among European Jews in the 19th century. In 1882, Jews, from Europe, began to emigrate to Ottoman Palestine with the goal of establishing a new Jewish homeland. The majority and local population in Palestine, Palestinian Arabs were demanding independence from the British Mandate.
There was a rise in extreme nationalism after the Revolutions of 1989 had triggered the collapse of communism
in the 1990s. That left many people with no identity. The people under
communist rule had to integrate, but they now found themselves free to
choose. That made long-dormant conflicts rise and create sources of
serious conflict. When communism fell in Yugoslavia, serious conflict arose, which led to a rise in extreme nationalism.
In his 1992 article Jihad vs. McWorld,Benjamin Barber
proposed that the fall of communism would cause large numbers of people
to search for unity and that small-scale wars would become common, as
groups will attempt to redraw boundaries, identities, cultures and
ideologies. The fall of communism also allowed for an "us vs. them" mentality to return.
Governments would become vehicles for social interests, and the country
would attempt to form national policies based on the majority culture,
religion or ethnicity.
Some newly sprouted democracies had large differences in policies on
matters, which ranged from immigration and human rights to trade and
commerce.
The academic Steven Berg felt that the root of nationalist conflicts was the demand for autonomy and a separate existence.
That nationalism can give rise to strong emotions, which may lead to a
group fighting to survive, especially as after the fall of communism,
political boundaries did not match ethnic boundaries.
Serious conflicts often arose and escalated very easily, as individuals
and groups acted upon their beliefs and caused death and destruction. When that happens, states unable to contain the conflict run the risk of slowing their progress at democratization.
Yugoslavia was established after the First World War and joined three acknowledged ethnic groups: Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.
The national census numbers from 1971 to 1981 measured an increase from
1.3% to 5.4% in the population that ethnically identified itself as Yugoslavs.
That meant that the country, almost as a whole, was divided by
distinctive religious, ethnic and national loyalties after nearly 50
years.
Nationalist separatism of Croatia and Slovenia from the rest of
Yugoslavia has basis in historical imperialist conquests of the region (Austria-Hungary and Ottoman Empire) and existence within separate spheres of religious, cultural and industrial influence – Catholicism, Protenstantism, Central European cultural orientation in the northwest, versus Orthodoxy, Islam and Orientalism
in the southeast. Croatia and Slovenia were subsequently more
economically and industrially advanced and remained as such throughout
existence of both forms of Yugoslavia.
In the 1970s, the leadership of the separate territories in
Yugoslavia protected only territorial interests, at the expense of other
territories. In Croatia, there was almost a split within the territory
between Serbs and Croats so that any political decision would kindle
unrest, and tensions could cross adjacent territories: Bosnia and
Herzegovina.
Bosnia had no group with a majority; Muslim, Serb, Croat, and Yugoslavs
stopped leadership from advancing here either. Political organizations
were not able to deal successfully with such diverse nationalisms.
Within the territories, leaderships would not compromise. To do so would
create a winner in one ethnic group and a loser in another and raise
the possibility of a serious conflict. That strengthened the political
stance promoting ethnic identities and caused intense and divided
political leadership within Yugoslavia.
In the 1980s, Yugoslavia began to break into fragments.
Economic conditions within Yugoslavia were deteriorating. Conflict in
the disputed territories was stimulated by the rise in mass nationalism
and ethnic hostilities.
The per capita income of people in the northwestern territory,
encompassing Croatia and Slovenia, was several times higher than that of
the southern territory. That, combined with escalating violence from
ethnic Albanians and Serbs in Kosovo, intensified economic conditions.
The violence greatly contributed to the rise of extreme nationalism of
Serbs in Serbia and the rest of Yugoslavia. The ongoing conflict in
Kosovo was propagandized by a communist Serb, Slobodan Milošević,
to increase Serb nationalism further. As mentioned, that nationalism
gave rise to powerful emotions which grew the force of Serbian
nationalism by highly nationalist demonstrations in Vojvodina, Serbia,
Montenegro, and Kosovo. Serbian nationalism was so high that Slobodan
Milošević ousted leaders in Vojvodina and Montenegro, repressed
Albanians within Kosovo and eventually controlled four of the eight
regions/territories. Slovenia, one of the four regions not under communist control, favoured a democratic state.
In Slovenia, fear was mounting because Milošević would use the militia to suppress the country, as had occurred in Kosovo.
Half of Yugoslavia wanted to be democratic, the other wanted a new
nationalist authoritarian regime. In fall of 1989, tensions came to a
head, and Slovenia asserted its political and economic independence from
Yugoslavia and seceded. In January 1990, there was a total break with
Serbia at the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, an institution that
had been conceived by Milošević to strengthen unity and later became the
backdrop for the fall of communism in Yugoslavia.
In August 1990, a warning to the region was issued when
ethnically divided groups attempted to alter the government structure.
The republic borders established by the Communist regime in the postwar
period were extremely vulnerable to challenges from ethnic communities.
Ethnic communities arose because they did not share the identity with
everyone within the new post-communist borders,
which threatened the new governments. The same disputes were erupting
that were in place prior to Milošević and were compounded by actions
from his regime.
Also, within the territory, the Croats and the Serbs were in
direct competition for control of government. Elections were held and
increased potential conflicts between Serbian and Croat nationalism.
Serbia wanted to be separate and to decide its own future based on its
own ethnic composition, but that would then give Kosovo encouragement to
become independent from Serbia. Albanians in Kosovo were already
practically independent from Kosovo, but Serbia did not want to let
Kosovo become independent. Albanian nationalists wanted their own
territory, but that would require a redrawing of the map and threaten
neighboring territories. When communism fell in Yugoslavia, serious
conflict arose, which led to the rise in extreme nationalism.
Nationalism again gave rise to powerful emotions, which evoked,
in some extreme cases, a willingness to die for what one believed, a
fight for the survival of the group.
The end of communism began a long period of conflict and war for the
region. For six years, 200,000–500,000 people died in the Bosnian War. All three major ethnicities in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Bosnian Muslims, Croats, Serbs) suffered at the hands of each other.
The war garnered assistance from groups, Muslim, Orthodox, and Western
Christian, and from state actors, which supplied all sides; Saudi Arabia
and Iran supported Bosnia; Russia supported Serbia; Central European
and the West, including the US, supported Croatia; and the Pope
supported Slovenia and Croatia.
In Russia, exploitation of nationalist sentiments allowed Vladimir Putin to consolidate power. This nationalist sentiment was used in Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and other actions in Ukraine.
Nationalist movements gradually began to rise in Central Europe as
well, particularly Poland, under the influence of the ruling party, Law and Justice (led by Jarosław Kaczyński). In Hungary, the anti-immigration rhetoric and stance against foreign influence is a powerful national glue promoted the ruling Fidesz party (led by Viktor Orbán). Nationalist parties have also joined governing coalitions in Bulgaria, Slovakia, Latvia and Ukraine.
In India, Hindu nationalism has grown in popularity with the rise of the Bharatiya Janata Party, a right-wing party which has been ruling India at the national level since 2014. The rise in religious nationalism comes with the rise of right-wing populism
in India, with the election and re-election of populist leader Narendra
Modi as Prime Minister, who promised economic prosperity for all and an
end to corruption. Militant Buddhist nationalism is also on the rise in Myanmar, Thailand and Sri Lanka.
In Japan, nationalist influences in the government developed over the course of the early 21st century, largely from the far rightultra-conservativeNippon Kaigi organization.
The new movement has advocated re-establishing Japan as a military
power and pushed revisionist historical narratives denying events such
as the Nanking Massacre.
Brazilian Former President Jair Bolsonaro, sometimes called the "Tropical Trump", with United States President Donald Trump
The 2016 United States presidential campaign saw the unprecedented rise of Donald Trump,
a businessman with no political experience who ran on a
populist/nationalist platform and struggled to gain endorsements from
mainstream political figures, even within his own party. Trump's slogans
"Make America Great Again" and "America First"
exemplified his campaign's repudiation of globalism and its staunchly
nationalistic outlook. His unexpected victory in the election was seen
as part of the same trend that had brought about the Brexit vote.
On 22 October 2018, two weeks before the mid-term elections President
Trump openly proclaimed that he was a nationalist to a cheering crowd at
a rally in Texas in support of re-electing Senator Ted Cruz who was once an adversary. On 29 October 2018 Trump equated nationalism to patriotism, saying "I'm proud of this country and I call that ''nationalism.''
In 2016, Rodrigo Duterte became president of the Philippines
running a distinctly nationalist campaign. Contrary to the policies of
his recent predecessors, he distanced the country from the Philippines'
former ruler, the United States, and sought closer ties with China (as
well as Russia).
In 2017, Turkish nationalism propelled President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to gain unprecedented power in a national referendum. Reactions from world leaders were mixed, with Western European leaders generally expressing concern while the leaders of many of the more authoritarian regimes as well as President Trump offered their congratulations.
Political science
Many political scientists
have theorized about the foundations of the modern nation-state and the
concept of sovereignty. The concept of nationalism in political science
draws from these theoretical foundations. Philosophers like Machiavelli, Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau conceptualized the state as the result of a "social contract" between rulers and individuals. Max Weber
provides the most commonly used definition of the state, "that human
community which successfully lays claim to the monopoly of legitimate
physical violence within a certain territory". According to Benedict Anderson, nations are "Imagined Communities", or socially constructed institutions.
Many scholars have noted the relationship between state-building, war,
and nationalism. Many scholars believe that the development of
nationalism in Europe and subsequently the modern nation-state was due
to the threat of war. "External threats have such a powerful effect on
nationalism because people realize in a profound manner that they are
under threat because of who they are as a nation; they are forced to
recognize that it is only as a nation that they can successfully defeat
the threat". With increased external threats, the state's extractive capacities increase. Jeffrey Herbst
argues that the lack of external threats to countries in Sub-Saharan
Africa, post-independence, is linked to weak state nationalism and state capacity. Barry Posen
argues that nationalism increases the intensity of war, and that states
deliberately promote nationalism with the aim of improving their
military capabilities. Most new nation-states since 1815 have emerged through decolonization.
Adria Lawrence has argued that nationalism in the colonial world
was spurred by failures of colonial powers to extend equal political
rights to the subjects in the colonies, thus prompting them to pursue
independence.
Michael Hechter has argued similarly that "peripheral nationalisms"
formed when empires prevented peripheral regions from having autonomy
and local rule.
Sociology
The
sociological or modernist interpretation of nationalism and
nation-building argues that nationalism arises and flourishes in modern
societies that have an industrial economy capable of
self-sustainability, a central supreme authority capable of maintaining
authority and unity, and a centralized language understood by a
community of people.
Modernist theorists note that this is only possible in modern
societies, while traditional societies typically lack the prerequisites
for nationalism. They lack a modern self-sustainable economy, have
divided authorities, and use multiple languages resulting in many groups
being unable to communicate with each other.
In his analysis of the historical changes and development of human societies, Henry Maine
noted that the key distinction between traditional societies defined as
"status" societies based on family association and functionally diffuse
roles for individuals and modern societies defined as "contract"
societies where social relations are determined by rational contracts
pursued by individuals to advance their interests. Maine saw the
development of societies as moving away from traditional status
societies to modern contract societies.
In his book Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft (1887), Ferdinand Tönnies defined a Gemeinschaft ("community") as being based on emotional attachments as attributed with traditional societies while defining a Gesellschaft
("society") as an impersonal society that is modern. Although he
recognized the advantages of modern societies, he also criticized them
for their cold and impersonal nature that caused alienation while praising the intimacy of traditional communities.
Émile Durkheim
expanded upon Tönnies' recognition of alienation and defined the
differences between traditional and modern societies as being between
societies based upon "mechanical solidarity" versus societies based on
"organic solidarity".
Durkheim identified mechanical solidarity as involving custom, habit,
and repression that was necessary to maintain shared views. Durkheim
identified organic solidarity-based societies as modern societies where
there exists a division of labour based on social differentiation that
causes alienation. Durkheim claimed that social integration in
traditional society required authoritarian culture involving acceptance
of a social order. Durkheim claimed that modern society bases
integration on the mutual benefits of the division of labour, but noted
that the impersonal character of modern urban life caused alienation and
feelings of anomie.
Max Weber
claimed the change that developed modern society and nations is the
result of the rise of a charismatic leader to power in a society who
creates a new tradition or a rational-legal system that establishes the
supreme authority of the state. Weber's conception of charismatic
authority has been noted as the basis of many nationalist governments.
Primordialist evolutionary interpretation
The primordialist perspective is based upon evolutionary theory.This approach has been popular with the general public but is typically
rejected by experts. Laland and Brown report that "the vast majority of
professional academics in the social sciences not only ... ignore
evolutionary methods but in many cases [are] extremely hostile to the
arguments" that draw vast generalizations from rather limited evidence.
The evolutionary theory of nationalism perceives nationalism to
be the result of the evolution of human beings into identifying with
groups, such as ethnic groups, or other groups that form the foundation
of a nation. Roger Masters in The Nature of Politics
describes the primordial explanation of the origin of ethnic and
national groups as recognizing group attachments that are thought to be
unique, emotional, intense, and durable because they are based upon kinship and promoted along lines of common ancestry.
The primordialist evolutionary views of nationalism often reference the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin as well as Social Darwinist views of the late nineteenth century. Thinkers like Herbert Spencer and Walter Bagehot
reinterpreted Darwin's theory of natural selection "often in ways
inconsistent with Charles Darwin's theory of evolution" by making
unsupported claims of biological difference among groups, ethnicities,
races, and nations.
Modern evolutionary sciences have distanced themselves from such views,
but notions of long-term evolutionary change remain foundational to the
work of evolutionary psychologists like John Tooby and Leda Cosmides.
Approached through the primordialist perspective, the example of
seeing the mobilization of a foreign military force on the nation's
borders may provoke members of a national group to unify and mobilize
themselves in response.
There are proximate environments where individuals identify
nonimmediate real or imagined situations in combination with immediate
situations that make individuals confront a common situation of both
subjective and objective components that affect their decisions. As such proximate environments cause people to make decisions based on existing situations and anticipated situations.
Critics argue that primordial models relying on evolutionary
psychology are based not on historical evidence but on assumptions of
unobserved changes over thousands of years and assume stable genetic
composition of the population living in a specific area and are
incapable of handling the contingencies that characterize every known
historical process. Robert Hislope argues:
[T]he articulation of cultural evolutionary theory
represents theoretical progress over sociobiology, but its explanatory
payoff remains limited due to the role of contingency in human affairs
and the significance of non-evolutionary, proximate causal factors.
While evolutionary theory undoubtedly elucidates the development of all
organic life, it would seem to operate best at macro-levels of analysis,
"distal" points of explanation, and from the perspective of the
long-term. Hence, it is bound to display shortcomings at micro-level
events that are highly contingent in nature.
In 1920, English historian G. P. Gooch
argued that "[while patriotism is as old as human association and has
gradually widened its sphere from the clan and the tribe to the city and
the state, nationalism as an operative principle and an articulate
creed only made its appearance among the more complicated intellectual
processes of the modern world."
Marxist interpretations
In The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels declared that "the working men have no country". Vladimir Lenin supported the concept of self-determination. Joseph Stalin's Marxism and the National Question (1913) declares that "a nation is not a racial or tribal, but a historically constituted community of people;" "a nation is not a casual or ephemeral conglomeration, but a stable community of people"; "a nation is formed only as a result of lengthy and systematic intercourse,
as a result of people living together generation after generation";
and, in its entirety: "a nation is a historically constituted, stable
community of people, formed on the basis of a common language,
territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a
common culture."
Historians, sociologists and anthropologists have debated different types of nationalism since at least the 1930s.
Generally, the most common way of classifying nationalism has been to
describe movements as having either "civic" or "ethnic" nationalist
characteristics. This distinction was popularized in the 1950s by Hans Kohn
who described "civic" nationalism as "Western" and more democratic
while depicting "ethnic" nationalism as "Eastern" and undemocratic.
Since the 1980s, scholars of nationalism have pointed out numerous
flaws in this rigid division and proposed more specific classifications
and numerous varieties.
Anti-colonial
Crowd demonstrates against Britain in Cairo on 23 October 1951 as tension continued to mount in the dispute between Egypt and Britain over control of the Suez Canal and Anglo-Egyptian Sudan.
Anti-colonial nationalism is an intellectual framework that preceded, accompanied and followed the process of decolonization in the mid-1900s. Benedict Anderson
defined a nation as a socially constructed community that is co-created
by individuals who imagine themselves as part of this group. He points to the New World
as the site that originally conceived of nationalism as a concept,
which is defined by its imagination of an ahistorical identity that
negates colonialism by definition. This concept of nationalism was
exemplified by the transformation of settler colonies into nations,
while anti-colonial nationalism is exemplified by movements against
colonial powers in the 1900s.
Nationalist mobilization in French colonial Africa and British
colonial India developed "when colonial regimes refused to cede rights
to their increasingly well-educated colonial subjects", who formed
indigenous elites and strategically adopted and adapted nationalist
tactics. New national identities may cross pre-existing ethnic or linguistic divisions.
Anti-colonial independence movements in Africa and Asia in the 1900s
were led by individuals who had a set of shared identities and imagined a
homeland without external rule. Anderson argues that the racism often
experienced as a result of colonial rule and attributed to nationalism
is rather due to theories of class.
Gellner's
theory of nationalism argues that nationalism works for combining one
culture or ethnicity in one state, which leads to that state's success.
For Gellner, nationalism is ethnic, and state political parties should
reflect the ethnic majority in the state. This definition of nationalism
also contributes to anti-colonial nationalism, if one conceives of
anti-colonial movements to be movements consisting of one specific
ethnic group against an outside ruling party.
Edward Said also saw nationalism as ethnic, at least in part, and
argued that nationalist narratives often go hand in hand with racism, as
communities define themselves in relation to the other.
Anti-colonial nationalism is not static and is defined by
different forms of nationalism depending on location. In the
anti-colonial movement that took place in the Indian subcontinent, Mahatma Gandhi and his allies in the Indian independence movement argued for a composite nationalism, not believing that an independent Indian nation should be defined by its religious identity. Despite large-scale opposition, the Indian subcontinent was partitioned into two states in 1947: the Muslim-majority Pakistan and the Hindu-majority Dominion of India.
Because of colonialism's creation of state and country lines
across ethnic, religious, linguistic and other historical boundaries,
anti-colonial nationalism is largely related to land first. After
independence, especially in countries with particularly diverse
populations with historic enmity, there have been a series of smaller
independence movements that are also defined by anti-colonialism.
Philosopher and scholar Achille Mbembe argues that
post-colonialism is a contradictory term, because colonialism is ever
present.
Those that participate in this intellectual practice envision a
post-colonialism despite its being the defining frame for the world.
This is the case with anti-colonialism as well. Anti-colonial
nationalism as an intellectual framework persisted into the late 20th
century with the resistance movements in Soviet satellite states and continues with independence movements in the Arab world in the 21st century.
Civic nationalism defines the nation as an association of people who
identify themselves as belonging to the nation, who have equal and
shared political rights, and allegiance to similar political procedures.
According to the principles of civic nationalism, the nation is not
based on common ethnic ancestry, but is a political entity whose core
identity is not ethnicity. This civic concept of nationalism is
exemplified by Ernest Renan in his lecture in 1882 "What is a Nation?", where he defined the nation as a "daily referendum" (frequently translated "daily plebiscite") dependent on the will of its people to continue living together.
Civic nationalism is normally associated with liberal nationalism,
although the two are distinct, and did not always coincide. On the one
hand, until the late 19th and early 20th century adherents to
anti-Enlightenment movements such as French Legitimism or Spanish Carlism
often rejected the liberal, national unitary state, yet identified
themselves not with an ethnic nation but with a non-national dynasty and
regional feudal privileges. Xenophobic movements in long-established
Western European states indeed often took a 'civic national' form,
rejecting a given group's ability to assimilate with the nation due to
its belonging to a cross-border community (Irish Catholics in Britain,
Ashkenazic Jews in France). On the other hand, while subnational
separatist movements were commonly associated with ethnic nationalism,
this was not always so, and such nationalists as the Corsican Republic, United Irishmen, Breton Federalist League or Catalan Republican Party could combine a rejection of the unitary civic-national state with a belief in liberal universalism.
Liberal nationalism is kind of non-xenophobic nationalism that is claimed to be compatible with liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights. Ernest Renan and John Stuart Mill
are often thought to be early liberal nationalists. Liberal
nationalists often defend the value of national identity by saying that
individuals need a national identity to lead meaningful, autonomous
lives, and that liberal democratic polities need national identity to function properly.
Civic nationalism lies within the traditions of rationalism and liberalism, but as a form of nationalism it is usually contrasted with ethnic nationalism.
Civic nationalism is correlated with long-established states whose
dynastic rulers had gradually acquired multiple distinct territories,
with little change to boundaries, but which contained historical
populations of multiple linguistic and/or confessional backgrounds.
Since individual's resident within different parts of the state
territory might have little obvious common ground, civic nationalism
developed as a way for rulers to both explain a contemporary reason for
such heterogeneity and to provide a common purpose (Ernest Renan's classic description in What is a Nation?
(1882) as a voluntary partnership for a common endeavor). Renan argued
that factors such as ethnicity, language, religion, economics,
geography, ruling dynasty and historic military deeds were important but
not sufficient. Needed was a spiritual soul that allowed as a "daily
referendum" among the people. Civic-national ideals influenced the development of representative democracy
in multiethnic countries such as the United States and France, as well
as in constitutional monarchies such as Great Britain, Belgium and
Spain.
Creole nationalism is the ideology that emerged in independence
movements among the creoles (descendants of the colonizers), especially
in Latin America in the early 19th century. It was facilitated when
French Emperor Napoleon seized control of Spain and Portugal, breaking
the chain of control from the Spanish and Portuguese kings to the local
governors. Allegiance to the Napoleonic states was rejected, and
increasingly the creoles demanded independence. They achieved it after
civil wars 1808–1826.
Ethnic nationalism, also known as ethno-nationalism, is a form of nationalism wherein the "nation" is defined in terms of ethnicity. The central theme of ethnic nationalists is that "nations are defined by a shared heritage, which usually includes a common language, a common faith, and a common ethnic ancestry". It also includes ideas of a culture
shared between members of the group, and with their ancestors. It is
different from a purely cultural definition of "the nation," which
allows people to become members of a nation by cultural assimilation; and from a purely linguistic definition, according to which "the nation" consists of all speakers of a specific language.
Whereas nationalism in and of itself does not imply a belief in
the superiority of one ethnicity or country over others, some
nationalists support ethnocentric supremacy or protectionism.
The humiliation of being a second-class citizen led regional
minorities in multiethnic states, such as Great Britain, Spain, France,
Germany, Russia and the Ottoman Empire, to define nationalism in terms
of loyalty to their minority culture, especially language and religion.
Forced assimilation was anathema.
For the politically dominant cultural group, assimilation was
necessary to minimize disloyalty and treason and therefore became a
major component of nationalism. A second factor for the politically
dominant group was competition with neighboring states—nationalism
involved a rivalry, especially in terms of military prowess and economic
strength.
Economic nationalism, or economic patriotism, is an ideology that favors state interventionism in the economy, with policies that emphasize domestic control of the economy, labor, and capital formation, even if this requires the imposition of tariffs and other restrictions on the movement of labor, goods and capital.
Feminist critique interprets nationalism as a mechanism through which
sexual control and repression are justified and legitimized, often by a
dominant masculine power. The gendering of nationalism through socially constructed notions of masculinity and femininity
not only shapes what masculine and feminine participation in the
building of that nation will look like, but also how the nation will be
imagined by nationalists. A nation having its own identity is viewed as necessary, and often inevitable, and these identities are gendered.
The physical land itself is often gendered as female (i.e.
"Motherland"), with a body in constant danger of violation by foreign
males, while national pride and protectiveness of "her" borders is
gendered as masculine.
World War II United States Patriotic Army Recruiting Poster
History, political ideologies, and religions place most nations along a continuum of muscular nationalism.
Muscular nationalism conceptualizes a nation's identity as being
derived from muscular or masculine attributes that are unique to a
particular country.
If definitions of nationalism and gender are understood as socially and
culturally constructed, the two may be constructed in conjunction by
invoking an "us" versus "them" dichotomy for the purpose of the exclusion of the so-called "other," who is used to reinforce the unifying ties of the nation.
The empowerment of one gender, nation or sexuality tends to occur at
the expense and disempowerment of another; in this way, nationalism can
be used as an instrument to perpetuate heteronormative structures of power.
The gendered manner in which dominant nationalism has been imagined in
most states in the world has had important implications on not only
individual's lived experience, but on international relations.Colonialism has historically been heavily intertwined with muscular nationalism, from research linking hegemonic masculinity and empire-building, to intersectional oppression being justified by colonialist images of the "other", a practice integral in the formation of Western identity. This "othering" may come in the form of orientalism, whereby the East is feminized and sexualized by the West. The imagined feminine East, or "other," exists in contrast to the masculine West.
The status of conquered nations can become a causality dilemma:
the nation was "conquered because they were effeminate and seen as
effeminate because they were conquered."
In defeat they are considered militaristically unskilled, not
aggressive, and thus not muscular. In order for a nation to be
considered "proper", it must possess the male-gendered characteristics
of virility, as opposed to the stereotypically female characteristics of
subservience and dependency. Muscular nationalism is often inseparable from the concept of a warrior, which shares ideological
commonalities across many nations; they are defined by the masculine
notions of aggression, willingness to engage in war, decisiveness, and
muscular strength, as opposed to the feminine notions of peacefulness,
weakness, non-violence, and compassion.
This masculinized image of a warrior has been theorized to be "the
culmination of a series of gendered historical and social processes"
played out in a national and international context. Ideas of cultural dualism—of a martial man and chaste woman—which are implicit in muscular nationalism, underline the raced, classed, gendered, and heteronormative nature of dominant national identity.
Nations and gender systems are mutually supportive constructions: the nation fulfils the masculine ideals of comradeship and brotherhood. Masculinity has been cited as a notable factor in producing political militancy. A common feature of national crisis is a drastic shift in the socially acceptable ways of being a man, which then helps to shape the gendered perception of the nation as a whole.
There are different types of nationalism including Risorgimento nationalism and Integral nationalism. Whereas risorgimento nationalism applies to a nation seeking to establish a liberal state (for example the Risorgimento in Italy and similar movements in Greece, Germany, Poland during the 19th century or the civicAmerican nationalism), integral nationalism results after a nation has achieved independence and has established a state. Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, according to Alter and Brown, were examples of integral nationalism.
Some of the qualities that characterize integral nationalism are anti-individualism, statism,
radical extremism, and aggressive-expansionist militarism. The term
Integral Nationalism often overlaps with fascism, although many natural
points of disagreement exist. Integral nationalism arises in countries
where a strong military ethos has become entrenched through the
independence struggle, when, once independence is achieved, it is
believed that a strong military is required to ensure the security and
viability of the new state. Also, the success of such a liberation
struggle results in feelings of national superiority that may lead to
extreme nationalism.
Pan-nationalism is unique in that it covers a large area span. Pan-nationalism focuses more on "clusters" of ethnic groups. Pan-Slavism is one example of Pan-nationalism. The goal is to unite all Slavic people into one country. They did succeed by uniting several south Slavic people into Yugoslavia in 1918.
A political mural in Caracas featuring an anti-American and anti-imperialist message
Left-wing nationalism, occasionally known as socialist nationalism, not to be confused with the German fascist "National Socialism", is a political movement that combines left-wing politics with nationalism.
Many nationalist movements are dedicated to national liberation, in the view that their nations are being persecuted by other nations and thus need to exercise self-determination by liberating themselves from the accused persecutors. Anti-revisionistMarxism–Leninism is closely tied with this ideology, and practical examples include Stalin's early work Marxism and the National Question and his socialism in one country
edict, which declares that nationalism can be used in an
internationalist context, fighting for national liberation without
racial or religious divisions.
Although the term national-anarchism dates back as far as
the 1920s, the contemporary national-anarchist movement has been put
forward since the late 1990s by British political activist Troy Southgate, who positions it as being "beyond left and right".
The few scholars who have studied national-anarchism conclude that it
represents a further evolution in the thinking of the radical right
rather than an entirely new dimension on the political spectrum. National-anarchism is considered by anarchists as being a rebranding of totalitarianfascism and an oxymoron due to the inherent contradiction of anarchist philosophy of anti-fascism, abolition of unjustified hierarchy, dismantling of national borders and universalequality between different nationalities as being incompatible with the idea of a synthesis between anarchism and fascism.
National-anarchism has elicited scepticism and outright hostility from both left-wing and far-right critics.Critics, including scholars, accuse national-anarchists of being nothing more than white nationalists who promote a communitarian and racialist form of ethnic and racial separatism while wanting the militant chic of calling themselves anarchists without the historical and philosophical baggage that accompanies such a claim, including the anti-racistegalitarian anarchist philosophy and the contributions of Jewish anarchists.Some scholars are sceptical that implementing national-anarchism would result in an expansion of freedom and describe it as an authoritariananti-statism that would result in authoritarianism and oppression, only on a smaller scale.
Nativist nationalism is a type of nationalism similar to creole or
territorial types of nationalism, but which defines belonging to a
nation solely by being born on its territory. In countries where strong
nativist nationalism exists, people who were not born in the country are
seen as lesser nationals than those who were born there and are called immigrants
even if they became naturalized. It is cultural as people will never
see a foreign-born person as one of them and is legal as such people are
banned for life from holding certain jobs, especially government jobs.
In scholarly studies, nativism is a standard technical term, although those who hold this political view do not typically accept the label. "[N]ativists . . . do not consider themselves nativists. For them it is a negative term and they rather consider themselves as 'Patriots'."
Racial nationalism is an ideology that advocates a racial definition
of national identity. Racial nationalism seeks to preserve a given race
through policies such as banning race mixing and the immigration of other races. Its ideas tend to be in direct conflict with those of anti-racism and multiculturalism. Specific examples are black nationalism and white nationalism.
Religious nationalism is the relationship of nationalism to a
particular religious belief, dogma, or affiliation where a shared
religion can be seen to contribute to a sense of national unity, a
common bond among the citizens of the nation. Saudi Arabian, Iranian, Egyptian, Iraqi, American, Indian and the Pakistani-Islamic nationalism (Two-Nation Theory) are some examples.
Some nationalists exclude certain groups. Some nationalists, defining
the national community in ethnic, linguistic, cultural, historic, or
religious terms (or a combination of these), may then seek to deem
certain minorities as not truly being a part of the 'national community'
as they define it. Sometimes a mythic homeland is more important for
the national identity than the actual territory occupied by the nation.
Territorial nationalists assume that all inhabitants of a particular
nation owe allegiance to their country of birth or adoption.
A sacred quality is sought in the nation and in the popular memories it
evokes. Citizenship is idealized by territorial nationalists. A
criterion of a territorial nationalism is the establishment of a mass,
public culture based on common values, codes and traditions of the
population.
Sport spectacles like football's World Cup command worldwide
audiences as nations battle for supremacy and the fans invest intense
support for their national team. Increasingly people have tied their
loyalties and even their cultural identity to national teams.
The globalization of audiences through television and other media has
generated revenues from advertisers and subscribers in the billions of
dollars, as the FIFA Scandals of 2015 revealed.
Jeff Kingston looks at football, the Commonwealth Games, baseball,
cricket, and the Olympics and finds that, "The capacity of sports to
ignite and amplify nationalist passions and prejudices is as
extraordinary as is their power to console, unify, uplift and generate
goodwill." The phenomenon is evident across most of the world. The British Empire strongly emphasized sports among its soldiers and agents across the world, and often the locals joined in enthusiastically.
It established a high prestige competition in 1930, named the British
Empire Games from 1930 to 1950, the British Empire and Commonwealth
Games from 1954 to 1966, British Commonwealth Games from 1970 to 1974
and since then the Commonwealth Games.
The French Empire was not far behind the British in the use of
sports to strengthen colonial solidarity with France. Colonial officials
promoted and subsidized gymnastics, table games, and dance and helped
football spread to French colonies.
Pandemic
Harris Mylonas and Ned Whalley co-edited a special issue on "pandemic nationalism" exploring the relationship between nationalism and the COVID-19 pandemic.
While nationalism unquestionably helped overcome collective action
problems within state borders during the pandemic, it has undermined
them at the global scale. The most clear example being been the abject
failure of international organizations to coordinate an appropriate
response. As they put it, "During the pandemic, a nationalist human
calculus has prevailed. Solidarity has been extended to co-nationals but
has been less forthcoming beyond that point. All states have responded
by turning inward. Border closures have been at the heart of mitigation
efforts from the very beginning, and lockdowns legitimated and often
enforced through national and patriotic discourses."
Critics of nationalism have argued that it is often unclear what
constitutes a nation, or whether a nation is a legitimate unit of
political rule. Nationalists hold that the boundaries of a nation and a
state should coincide with one another, thus nationalism tends to oppose
multiculturalism and anti-racism.
It can also lead to conflict when more than one national group finds
itself claiming rights to a particular territory or seeking to take
control of the state.
Philosopher A. C. Grayling
describes nations as artificial constructs, "their boundaries drawn in
the blood of past wars". He argues that "there is no country on earth
which is not home to more than one different but usually coexisting
culture. Cultural heritage is not the same thing as national identity".
Nationalism is considered by its critics to be inherently
divisive, as adherents may draw upon and highlight perceived differences
between people, emphasizing an individual's identification with their
own nation. They also consider the idea to be potentially oppressive,
because it can submerge individual identity within a national whole and
give elites or political leaders potential opportunities to manipulate
or control the masses.
Much of the early opposition to nationalism was related to its
geopolitical ideal of a separate state for every nation. The classic
nationalist movements of the 19th century rejected the very existence of
the multi-ethnic empires in Europe, contrary to an ideological critique
of nationalism which developed into several forms of internationalism and anti-nationalism. The Islamic revival of the 20th century also produced an Islamist critique of the nation-state. (see Pan-Islamism)
At the end of the 19th century, Marxists and other socialists and communists (such as Rosa Luxemburg)
produced political analyses that were critical of the nationalist
movements then active in Central and Eastern Europe, although a variety
of other contemporary socialists and communists, from Vladimir Lenin (a communist) to Józef Piłsudski (a socialist), were more sympathetic to national self-determination.
In his classic essay on the topic, George Orwell
distinguishes nationalism from patriotism which he defines as devotion
to a particular place. More abstractly, nationalism is "power-hunger
tempered by self-deception". For Orwell, the nationalist is more likely than not dominated by irrational negative impulses:
A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in
terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative
nationalist—that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or
in denigrating—but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories,
defeats, triumphs and humiliations. He sees history, especially
contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power
units and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his
own side is on the upgrade and some hated rival is on the downgrade.
But finally, it is important not to confuse nationalism with mere
worship of success. The nationalist does not go on the principle of
simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having
picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest and is
able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly
against him.
In the liberal
political tradition there was mostly a negative attitude toward
nationalism as a dangerous force and a cause of conflict and war between
nation-states. The historian Lord Acton
put the case for "nationalism as insanity" in 1862. He argued that
nationalism suppresses minorities, places country above moral principles
and creates a dangerous individual attachment to the state. He opposed
democracy and tried to defend the pope from Italian nationalism. Since the late 20th century, liberals have been increasingly divided, with some philosophers such as Michael Walzer, Isaiah Berlin, Charles Taylor and David Miller emphasizing that a liberal society needs to be based in a stable nation state.
The pacifist critique of nationalism also concentrates on the violence of some nationalist movements, the associated militarism, and on conflicts between nations inspired by jingoism or chauvinism.
National symbols and patriotic assertiveness are in some countries
discredited by their historical link with past wars, especially in
Germany. British pacifist Bertrand Russell criticized nationalism for diminishing the individual's capacity to judge his or her fatherland's foreign policy. Albert Einstein stated that "Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind". Jiddu Krishnamurti stated that "Nationalism is merely the glorification of tribalism".
Transhumanists
have also expressed their opposition to nationalism, to the extent that
some transhumanists believe national identities should be dissolved
entirely. The influential transhumanist FM-2030 refused to identify with any nationality, referring to himself as 'universal'. Furthermore, in The Transhumanist Handbook, Kate Levchuk stated that a transhumanist "doesn't believe in nationality".
