1) Introduction

 I concluded my last lecture with a quotation from the book of Genesis.  The story it tells of the building of the tower of Babel, I argued, was an attempt to offer an explanation for the apparently ‘cultural’ division of humanity according to language.  Genesis also offers an explanation of the division of humanity according to descent.  In specific, it appears to explain the division of humanity into ‘nations’, however defined. Genesis does this by providing a detailed genealogy of the descendants of the sons of Noah, such as Ham, whose descendants are said to be Ethiopia, Egypt, Put, and Canaan.  The account concludes:
 quote Genesis X:20,23
Such were the descendants of Ham according to their national clans, languages, and lands.  […]  Such were the national clans descended from Noah, according to their origin, from whom the nations on earth spread after the deluge.

 My concern in this lecture is partly with this apparently ancient notion of the division of humanity into nations.
 Primarily, though, I am concerned with providing a general overview over the issues involved in the analysis of what are commonly described as the phenomena of ‘nations’ and ‘nationalism’.
 Throughout this discussion, it must be remembered that the concept of ‘nation’ refers to an entity, while the term ‘nationalism’ denotes solely a set of ideas.
 

2) Nations and Other Groups

 The two issues I would like to outline initially are as follows:  Firstly, are nations and nationalism modern or ancient phenomena?  Secondly, are nations fundamentally different from other forms of social association, such as ethnic groups?

Are nations modern or ancient phenomena?

 Given the mention of ‘nations’ in Genesis, there may seem little point in asking whether nations were of ancient rather than of recent origin.  Likewise, taking another example from antiquity, the Roman world was familiar with the Latin term ‘nationem’, from which our term ‘nation’ is derived.  ‘Nationem’, however, was used primarily to refer to units now more likely to be labelled tribes, clans or families.  In any case, the root meaning of an ancient term like ‘nationem’ is found in the notion of ‘birth’ and this, surely, is still an integral part of contemporary conceptualisations of the nation.  Nevertheless, while there may have been ‘nations’ of sorts, even if they were defined by a principle of descent, they may not have had the structural characteristics which associate with nations today.
 Therefore, despite the existence of the term ‘nation’ in antiquity, there is an ongoing academic debate between those who believe that the idea of the nation has a long history, the so-called primordialists, and those who believe that nations are a recent phenomenon the so-called modernists.

 While accepting many of the arguments of the modernists, primordialists argue that both in the pre-modern period and in antiquity one can find social phenomena exhibiting striking parallels with the seemingly modern phenomena of nations.  Primordialists consequently consider descent based associations not only as an integral element of human experience, but also as natural units in human history.
 That is, while some would merely assert that language, religion, ethnicity and territory are the universal and basic organising principles throughout human history, others would go so far as to considering nations as an extension of kinship and thus as socio-biological.  The claim of the primordialists, therefore, is not only that descent base associations akin to nations have always existed in human history, but also that they are integral to humanity as such, that is, natural.
 Closely related to this position are the so-called perennialists.  While they would accept that nations and nationalism had always existed in the historical record, they would not claim them to be natural, that is, as an unavoidable aspect of human social organisation.  Instead, perennialists merely assert that units now called ‘nations’ and sentiments and ideas now known as ‘nationalism’, can be found in all documented historic periods.

 Modernists, on the other hand, hold that the nation is a purely modern phenomenon, namely the product of strictly modern developments like capitalism, bureaucracy and secular utilitarianism.  The roots of the nation and nationalism are neither in human nature, nor in history; rather, they generally date the origin of nations and nationalism to the latter half of the 18th century.
 Therefore, the point of departure for a study of nations and nationalism are the processes and conditions of modernity. Modernists strongly assert the absence of nations in pre-modern, agrarian civilisation, compared to the recent prevalence of nations in modern industrial civilisation.

Are nations fundamentally different from other forms of social association, such as ethnic groups?

 Implicated in the question whether nations are ancient or modern, there is the issue of whether nations are based on different principles than other forms of social association?
 Overall, I believe that the range of social phenomena described by the terms ‘nation’ and ‘nationalism’ may too diverse to allow a systematic explanation.  Max Weber, one of the founders of sociology, who wrote as early as 1920 that the concept of the ‘nation’ like that of the ‘ethnic group’ could not survive detailed definition.  The term ‘nation’, he thought, simply dissolved upon closer examination.
 A systematic explanation, however, may become possible if one were to open up the area of investigation to a wider range of social processes, rather than restricting the investigation to a limited range of terms, such as ‘nation’ and ‘ethnic group’, claiming to describe a myriad of very different historical and social phenomena.
 It would appear that concepts such as ‘state’, ‘nation’, ‘ethnic group’ and ‘race’ are far too involved in the substantive issues under investigation, and thus fail to be useful as analytical tools.  In other words, ‘state’ and ‘nation’ are folk notions, terms used by people themselves, and consequently they form part of the discourses and processes being studied.
 Because of the highly varied social ideas and processes described as ‘nations’ and ‘nationalism’ by the protagonists, it is extremely difficult to create a clear divide between folk definition of these terms and academic definitions.  As analytical concepts, therefore, ‘state’, ‘nation’, and ‘ethnicity’ have little to contribute to our understanding of social association based on notions of descent.

 I propose instead that the existing analytical focus on the concept of the ‘nation’, along with such related concepts as ‘ethnicity’, should be replaced solely with a wider focus on the conceptualisation of collective identity.  The concept of ‘identity’ is, of course, not new.  In fact, it can frequently be found in combination with the very terms whose analytical usefulness I have just placed in doubt.
 Most will be familiar with the notions of ‘racial identity’, ‘ethnic identity’, ‘national identity’, and with the more general notions of ‘collective identity’ and ‘self-identity’.  This in itself indicates, I believe, that identity should be a preferred focus for academic study.

 It is worth pointing out in this context that the notion of ‘identity’ is nowadays usually associated with distinctiveness.  However, when seen in relation to the adjective ‘identical’, the notion of ‘identity’ can be seen to denote ‘sameness’ and ‘identification’, rather than ‘distinctiveness’.  This is most obviously so in the case of collective identity.  Identity is about what all the members have in common.
 The study of identity, hence, is best defined as the study of the processes involved in the perception and ascription of sameness to individuals and collectivities.  Even if identity is constructed in terms of differences between groups, it is nevertheless based on the perception of a common difference.

 The historical continuity between forms of association based on collective identity could be better understood if one’s analysis was not based on folk notions, such as ‘nations’ or ‘nationalism’.
 A terminological focus on collective identity would allow for a greater variety of phenomena to be included in one and the same discussion, such as polity, class, social movement, sub-culture, ethnic group, interest group, and, of course, nation.

 If there is a lack of continuity between pre-modern and modern systems of association, it is more likely to be found in the area of the organisation of power; that is, in the nature of the modern state as compared to previous forms of the political organisation.  Defining the state, therefore, is primarily a question of organisational structure, not one of collective identity.
 Only insofar as the notion of the state is one of the elements involved in the construction of identity, such as in the idea of the ‘nation-state’, should it be included any discussions of collective identity.  Then, however, the concern is not with the organisational nature of the state, but with the idea of the state as a focus for notions of collective identity.  I shall return to the relationship between nationalism and the state in the remainder of this lecture, which is meant to provide a general overview over common issues involved in the analysis of ‘nations’ and ‘nationalism’.
 

3) Nationalism

3.1) A general and historical overview

 Nationalism is generally defined as an ideology or movement in which the nation-state is regarded as paramount for the realisation of social, economic, and cultural aspirations of a people.  As such, nationalism locates the political legitimacy of the state in self-government by co-nationals.  Before the 18th century, when nationalism emerged as a distinctive movement, states were usually based on religious or dynastic ties; citizens owed loyalty to their church or ruling family.  As their concern was with their clan, tribe, village, or province, people rarely extended their interests to larger entities.
 Nationalism, therefore, is commonly defined as based on the belief that a large entity of people with common characteristics, such as language, religion or ethnicity, should constitute a separate and distinctive political community.  Nationalists attempt to preserve and foster this social distinctiveness to protect the social benefits which follow from national identity and membership.

 The beginnings of modern nationalism are often traced back to the disintegration, at the end of the Middle Ages, of the social order in Europe and the disintegration of the cultural unity of the various European states.  The cultural life of European elites was based on a common inheritance of ideas and attitudes transmitted in the West through Latin, the language of the educated classes.  Officially, most of Western Europeans adhered to a common religion, Catholic Christianity.
 The break-up of the prevailing social and economic system, feudalism, was accompanied by the development of larger communities, wider social interrelations, and dynasties that fostered feelings of nationality in order to win support for their rule.  National feeling was strengthened in various countries during the Reformation, when the adoption of either Catholicism or Protestantism as a national religion became an added force for national cohesion.
 A key moment in the history of nationalism in Europe was the French Revolution between in 1789.  Feelings of loyalty in France until then had centred in the king.  As a result of the revolution, loyalty to the king was replaced by loyalty to the “fatherland”.  When in 1789 a National Assembly was formed out of the medieval and separate bodies which represented the clergy, the aristocracy, and the common people, France achieved a truly representative system of government.  Regional divisions, with their separate traditions and rights, were abolished, and France became a uniform and united territory, with common laws and institutions.
 The  rise of nationalism coincided generally with the spread of the industrial revolution, which promoted national economic development, the growth of a middle class, and popular demand for representative government.  The growth of trade and industry laid the basis for economic units larger than the traditional cities or provinces.  Ernest Gellner’s understanding of the nation, for instance, hinges on the needs of a growth oriented society for a mobile and technically apt population and work force. The modern state, here, is seen as the only entity capable to provide the standardised mass education system necessary to produce such a workforce.
 At the same time the introduction of national constitutions and the struggle for political rights gave peoples the sense of helping to determine their fate as a nation and of sharing responsibility for the future well-being of that nation.
 Historically, the tendency toward nationalism is said to have been fostered by various technological, cultural, political, and economic advances.  Improvement in communications extended the knowledge of people beyond their village or province.  This is the basis of Benedict Anderson’s theory of nationalism.  Anderson argues that new modes of communication, including technologies such as mass printing, made it possible to imagine communities with which individuals could otherwise not identify.  Print could bind together individuals who did not know each other, but who could imagine themselves as occupying a homogeneous and identifiable space.  The spread of education in the vernacular to the lower-income groups gave them the feeling of participation in a common cultural heritage.  Through education, people learned of their common background and tradition and began to identify themselves with the apparent historical continuity of the nation.  National literatures arose to express common traditions and the common spirit of each people, while new emphasis was given to nationalist symbols of all kinds, such as new holidays, which were introduced to commemorate various events in national history.  These imagined communities fulfilled both a psychological and an economic need peculiar to modern capitalism. Modern industrial society required cultural homogeneity and had the capacity to produce the ideology required to bring about this homogeneity.
 The Revolution of 1848, in particular, marked the awakening of various peoples to national consciousness.  In that year both the Germans and the Italians originated their movements for unification and for the creation of nation-states.  Although the attempts at revolution failed in 1848, the movements gathered strength in subsequent years.  After much political agitation and several wars, an Italian kingdom was created in 1861 and a German empire in 1871.  Overall, the events in Europe between 1878 and 1918, including the First World War, are seen to have been shaped largely by the nationalist aspirations of European peoples and their desire to form nation-states independent of the empires, such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire, of which they had been part.  When the United States of America entered the First World War, its President, Woodrow Wilson, proclaimed the principle of national self-determination as one of the major issues of the conflict.

3.2) Late 19th century interpretations

 Nevertheless, already by the end of the 19th century, however, it was assumed by many social theorists that nationalism would tend to decline and would be replaced by internationalism and cosmopolitanism.
 These 19th century interpretations of industrial society suggested that, firstly, the growth of trade would undermine particularistic differences between societies; secondly, that conflicts would be expressed through class ideologies rather than national ideologies; and thirdly, that the working class would develop a commitment to international solidarity and hence international socialism.
 These assumptions were shattered by the experience of the First World War when there was little class based opposition to a war fought on nationalist principles.  Nationalism subsequently came to be closely associated with movements for self-determination against imperial rule.

3.2) Marxist approaches

 Although nationalism was not a prominent concern in the writings of Karl Marx, over time there did develop a distinctively Marxist approach to nationalism.  The there most common arguments of this approach were as follows:
 Firstly, nationalism was said to be an ideology which it served the class interest of the rising bourgeoisie in its opposition to the traditional aristocracy which claimed to rule, for example, by divine right.
 Secondly, the rise of the nation-state was closely associated with the economic requirements of early capitalism, but Marxists expected that nationalism would decline as late capitalism became more international in character.
 Thirdly, national struggle was considered to be a special form of class struggle, often referred to as ‘external class struggle’, which is conducted on the international rather than the national level.
 These three arguments have not been supported by political developments in the 20th century.  Instead, nationalism has often been associated with working class radicalism, because nationalist politics tend to imply social equality for all members of the nation.  Nationalism has also been part of a revolutionary socialist struggle for national autonomy against foreign domination or internal exploitation.
 Some Marxists would now argue that nationalism can not be treated as a special form of class struggle, but must instead be treated as an altogether separate force in political struggles.

 Despite the failure of Marxist approaches to nationalism, notion of ideology and conflict are still the focus of major contemporary interpretation of nationalism.
 Firstly, nationalism is regarded as an artificial ideology, because it is often impossible to identify a single characteristic common to all members of a society who claim to belong to a common nation.  In this view, nationalism is a myth created by intellectuals, who are the exponents of romantic notions of national language, folk heritage and national identity.  Nationalism is thus often associated with political extremism and xenophobia.
 Secondly, nationalism is considered to be a form of reactive politics against colonialism in societies where traditional modes of social organisation have collapsed as a result introduced by external colonialism.
 Lastly, it is claimed that as the uneven development of capitalism creates profound regional imbalances, peripheral regions embrace nationalist politics to secure a more equal distribution of wealth.  In this respect, nationalism is seen as a response to internal colonialism.

3.4) A definitional consensus

 Since nationalism can take many different political directions, such as democracy, fascism or communism, and can be associated with different classes, it has been argued that there can hence be no general theory of nationalism.  As such, nationalism has been described as an ideologically empty bottle  -  with strength and shape, but no content.  There is no theory of nationalism that identifies a particular social process, such as industrialisation, which can explain the emergence of all forms of nationalism.  Nor is there a theory which can define the universal and essential features of nationalist movements.  This negative conclusion, however, is not shared by all.

 The consensus among historians and social scientists is that all forms of nationalism, despite their complexities, can be identified as displaying the following features:
 Firstly, nationalism is based on the demand that governments should share the same cultural identity as those whom they govern.  The economic dimension of this position is that the ownership and control of important resources should be maintained firmly within the nation itself.  The political dimension is the principle of self-determination, which seeks to base political life on the nation-state as a sovereign entity dominated by a single nation.
 Secondly, cultural nationalism is seen as preparing the basis for political nationalism, which self-determination and political supremacy.  Cultural nationalism is defined as the movement to preserve, recreate or create a national heritage.  As such, nationalism is an assertion of the primacy of national identity over the claims of class, religion or humanity in general.
 Thirdly, the development of modern systems of mass communication is seen to facilitate the dissemination of unifying nationalist ideologies.
 Fourthly, nationalist ideologies are seen to have a strong appeal to subordinate classes by promising economic protection against non-national.  Nationalist ideologies, however, tend to be typically developed by marginalised intellectuals.
 Lastly, nationalism in the 20th century is associated with de-colonisation and with the struggle for regional autonomy in existing capitalist societies.
 

4) The Nation-State and Nationality

4.1) The nation-state

 In the final part of this lecture I would like to look briefly at the nation-state, a concept which is central to the history of nationalism, where it has proved to be an intellectual construct with a highly persuasive and powerful political force.
 Literally, a nation-state is defined as a sovereign entity dominated by a single nation.  Although the term does, as such, have a specific meaning, it is also a highly abused political term, especially when it is too readily applied to the real world.  The meaning of the term is found in the coincidence of its two parent terms, ‘state’ and ‘nation’.
 The term ‘state’ commonly refers to a political organisation which displays sovereignty both within a specific territory and geographic borders and displays sovereignty in relation to other sovereign entities.  A world of nation-states implies an international system of pure sovereign entities, relating to each other legally as equals.  Furthermore, a state is generally considered to consist of a group of people subject to a common legal and political authority, that is, a body politic.
 The term ‘nation’, as discussed, commonly refers to a population sharing a common culture, language, and ethnicity with a strong historical continuity.  This manifests itself in most members in a sentiment of collective, communal identity.
 When the two concepts are combined, this creates an enormously compelling mixture of legitimacy and efficiency for governing elites.  The perceived advantage of nation-states is that their authority embodies the identity and will of a people with a common identity and heritage, thereby creating a firm base of legitimate government.  The idea of the nation-state thus commands a strong following as governments have endeavoured to attain the legitimacy and political stability the nation-state  is thought to confer.
 In fact, there does not exist and never has existed, a nation-state in the perfect sense.  The populations of the world are simply not distributed on clear-cut national territories.

 In this context, it is worthwhile looking in a little more detailed at a recent definition of the nation-state, proposed in 1994 by T.K. Oommen, Professor of Sociology at New Delhi.
 Oommen advocates a set of definitions which capture not just conditions but also a progression and process, that is, the transformation of one social entity into another.  Such a linkage, he believes, establishes a substantial correspondence between conceptual tools and empirical facts, a problem I addressed at the beginning of this lecture.
 The reformulation of ‘ethnicity’, ‘nation’, and ‘nation-state’ offered by Oommen are as follows:
 An ethnic group or ethnie, as Oommen also calls it, is a collectivity which shares a common life-style and language, that is, a culture, but which does not live in its homeland.  If, over time, an ethnic group identifies the territory to which they have migrated as their homeland, and thus establish a moral claim over it, that group should be defined as a nation.
 The notion of a ‘nation’, therefore, is based on a fusion of culture and territory, whereas an ethnic group is based on a dissociation of culture and territory.
 If a nation successfully establishes a legal claim over their territory, that is, if they become a sovereign state, they can be spoken of as a nation-state.  The nation-state, therefore, is based on a fusion of culture, territory and sovereignty.
 This linkage, however, is neither natural nor necessary.  A nation need not be a nation-state, nor does a state need not be composed of just one nation.

 It is worth noting that the later part of the 20th century has seen a decline in the power of so-called nation-states, as other bodies gain power in international relations.  Such bodies are, for instance, large multinational corporations and international organisations.  The rise of so-called supra-nationalism could well make obsolete the simple model of single level sovereignty at the level of and between nation-states.

4.2) Nationality and citizenship

 A empirical and analytical problem related to the nation-state is posed by the notions of ‘nationality’ and ‘citizenship’.  The question of what constitutes the common characteristics of nationality, and thereby the criteria of membership of a nation, has diverse and confusing answers.
 Nationality as such, in law, usually connotes the condition or status of belonging to, or having legal identity with, a nation or state.  In various political systems a distinction is made between nationality and citizenship; the latter represents a higher political status, usually involving rights to full participation in governmental affairs.  Not everyone having British nationality, for instance, is also a British citizen.  Neither do all British nationals have the right of abode in the United Kingdom.  On the other hand, all Commonwealth citizens, even if they are not British nationals, have the right to vote in United Kingdom elections.  There is, notably, no notion of Commonwealth nationality.
 Even if individuals are not originally nationals or citizens of a particular political entity, they can become legally incorporated by a so-called process of ‘naturalisation’.  By this process, a state confers its citizenship or nationality on an outsider or foreigner.  Despite this obvious admission that the membership of nations and states is not actually based on descent, the very term ‘naturalisation’ underlines the overriding conceptualisation of the nation as natural.  As such, the term ‘naturalisation’ maintains and reinforces the descent based notion of the nation-state, however inappropriate to the modern world.