Nationalism: causes, manifestations, and historical contexts

Nationalism

We live in a world that is constantly searching for its identity, one which is made up of state actors, non-state actors, organizations, corporations and leaders. They all have a strong voice and opinion concerning the new direction of the world and they all represent important pieces in the way in which world politics is conducted. However, the traditional aspect of the international law contends that the state remains the most important and most legitimate actor in the international system. This assessment is viewed as modern and as dissolute at the same time. Around this subject and the theoretical aspects it entangles, there are a wide variety of debates and scholarly discussions some of which use the most interesting yet specific aspects of the definition of a state and of a nation. These perspectives have led to a series of theories which analyses the role as well as the actual birth of the nation and that of nationalism which in the end defines the nation state.

The thesis the present paper will discuss focuses on several important premises. Firstly, it will be argued that nations as well as nationalism are two essential elements of today's world which have developed since the French Revolution onward. In this sense, it is considered that nations have emerged as a continuous process in the sense that the notion itself as well as the meaning evolved in time and remain an area of study to this day. There are several theories which discuss these aspects and deal with the evolution of nations and nationalism both to underline it as well as to explain it. These include Ernest Gellner's who contends that nations and nationalism are outgrowths of a modern industrial society and Anthony Smith's who argues that although we can not discount the influence of human creativity in their formation, nations and nationalism are also the products of preexisting traditions and heritages.

Principles

The theory of international relations tends to consider the aspects which are related to its field of analysis through the use of various definitions of terms and paradigms. Therefore, in order to have a better understanding of the terms of "state," "nation" and "nationalism" it is important to properly define them.

The definition of the state from a legal point-of-view is present in all the documents of international law which deal with this matter. In this sense, the term of "state" as it results from the constitutions of the countries of the world implies a human collectivity settled on a permanent term on a specific territory having a well established structure of government which enjoys an unlimited amount of sovereignty. These general characteristics were particularly emphasized in the Montevideo Treaty of 1933 signed between the U.S. And Latin American countries which underline the rights and obligations of the states. More precisely, according to the provisions of the Convention, "the state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states." (the Avalon Project, 2008) Despite the fact that the Convention referred to the American states, its provisions are important because they underline the fact that a "state" demands for a coherent form of government which is endowed with the power of its population. Most importantly however, it benefits from its sovereignty as a sign or independence. This is nowadays one of the most discussed matters concerning the right to intervene in a certain state, precisely due to its right to sovereignty that is defended by the international law as well as the Charter of the United Nations.

The "nation" was poetically described at the end of the 19th century by one of the most important and representative personalities of the French theoretical view as being "a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things, which in truth are but one, constitute this soul or spiritual principle. One lies in the past, one in the present. One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories; the other is present- day consent, the desire to live together, the will to perpetuate the value of the heritage that one has received in an undivided form. Man, Gentlemen, does not improvise. The nation, like the individual, is the culmination of a long past of endeavors, sacrifice, and devotion" (Renan, 1996). From the perspective of this definition it is rather clear that the nation is the representation of the past as well as the future in the sense that it may be considered to be the cradle of the past civilization and culture and the spring of the future of that civilization and culture.

Another definition of the term was given by Joseph Stalin who concluded that 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" thus underlining the basic elements of what even today constitutes a nation (Schwartz, n.d.). In any situation, a general definition of the term is based on the agreed assumption that a nation is based on a common culture, language, and history.

The debate however takes into consideration the notion of nationalism and the birth of this term as it is presented in history. In this sense, the term is often associated with the French Revolution whereas the idea of the nation most of the times is assumed to be related to earlier periods. Historian Eric Hobsbawn talks about the rise of nationalism as a result of the French Revolution and in response to the different views which appeared after the end of the French Revolution, during the early decades of the 1800. More precisely, "after 1830 the general movement in favor of the revolution broke apart. A product of this breakup was the nationalistic movements" (Hobsbawm, 1962). From this point-of-view the connection can be made between the French Revolution and the rise of nationalism.

Another worthy example of the idea of nationalism is that of Louis Wirth who considers that nationalism is "the social movements of nationalities striving to acquire, maintain, and enhance their status in a world where they are confronted by opposition or conflict" (Wirth, 1936). This definition comes to point out an essential element. It proves the wide negative belief in the power of nations to fight conflict. More precisely, there is today a comprehensive belief in the way in which nations and nationalist forces try to impose their will on governments or other nations. This represents the precise set in motion of Wirth's definition of nationalism and of its contribution to historical wars especially those from the second part of the 19th century onward.

Finally a very comprehensive definition of nationalism is offered by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It argues that "the term "nationalism" is generally used to describe two phenomena: (1) the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their national identity and (2) the actions that the members of a nation take when seeking to achieve (or sustain) self-determination. (1) raises questions about the concept of nation (or national identity), which is often defined in terms of common origin, ethnicity, or cultural ties, and while an individual's membership in a nation is often regarded as involuntary, it is sometimes regarded as voluntary" (2001)

Taking into account these definitions, it can be stated that to a certain degree they represent the general assumptions related to the understanding of the notion of nation and nationalism. These definition were used to determine several theories and enabled them a starting point for their debates.

Theories and their discussion

The main theories concerning nations and nationalism argue on the different perspectives in terms of origins and the role of nations and nationalisms. More precisely, the debates focus on the actual origin of nations and nationalism because while some consider nations to be an intrinsic element of our society, others view it as being a proof of development. Even more, "Nationalists argue that nations are timeless phenomena. When man climbed out of the primordial slime, he immediately set about creating nations. The next major school of thought is that of the perennialists who argue that nations have been around for a very long time, though they take different shapes at different points in history. While postmodernists and Marxists also play in the larger debates surrounding this topic, the modernization school is perhaps the most prevalent scholarly argument at the moment. These scholars see nations as entirely modern and constructed." (Nationalism Studies information Clearinghouse, 2007) We tend to see the world in a constant desire to move and expand and from this point-of-view it may seem natural that the general perception on states and especially on modern ones is that of a modern state created through development and revolution.

Some of the most important theorists in this respect are Ernest Gellner and Anthony Smith. Their theories can both be agreed upon and rejected at the same time. They offer a very insightful and at the same time entertaining view on nations and nationalisms as each of them tend to argue a different point-of-view.

Ernest Gellner is considered to be a theorist of the modern comprehension of the idea of nationalism. In this sense, one of the most important aspects of his theory revolves around the discussion of several time periods. More precisely, he advocated the belief that the society was in its history split in three major eras: "The hunter-gatherer; the agro-literate, and the industrial" (Revision Notes, n.d.). This is a consideration of the history of our civilization from an economic point-of-view which has an echo at the political level as well. Before moving any further it must be said from the beginning that Gellner takes on a different approach which includes this differentiation from an economic point-of-view and consider that in fact nations were born at the end of the agro-literate era and during the industrial period.

This line of thought can be considered to include economic theory as well. In this sense, during the first period of evolution, the hunter-gatherers society there was no need for people to unite under a single common language or culture. Moreover, the limited means of communication as well as the differentiated resources did not allow the interaction of people at a very profound level. In most situations this was reduced to tribes and local communities.

The agro-literate period is considered by Gellner to be an evolution from the previous stage. The theorist points out the need to evolve in order to achieve a sense of development at all the levels of the society, both economically and politically. In this sense, "in the second stage, there is no incentive for the ruling classes to impose cultural homogeneity on the masses - indeed, they benefit from diversity as it means that there will be no challenge to their power" (Revision Notes, n.d.). However, at this moment there are historical events which determine the change in power, from the ruling classes to the masses. The French Revolution allowed this change to take place and enabled the masses to determine their desires and aspirations under a common belief in a common language, history, and culture. At this point, the first signs of nationalism appeared.

The industrial period however is considered to be the actual cradle of nationalism. The development which took place immediately after the major inventions of science and technology became universal was determinant for the evolution of the idea of nations and nationalisms. Moreover, it was considered by the ruling classes that homogeneity was essential for the development of the economy and for economic success. Thus, "in industrial societies, "a high culture pervades the whole of society, defines it, and needs to be sustained by the polity." In industrial society, the changing nature of work demands cultural homogeneity. There is a need for impersonal, context-free communication" (Revision Notes, n.d.).

Nations and nationalism are seen by Gellner as a means of achieving economic development. It was imperative that a diversification of the working strategies be achieved and at the same time that in a definite realm the respective community could develop on its own and be able to face other challenges coming from the neighboring ones. Therefore, it can be considered that Gellner's approach is not determined by a consideration of the inevitable result of history in the sense that the creation of nations and the emergence of nationalism is not the inherent development of the historical context, but rather that in fact the creation of nations was a calculated and well established process thought of in terms of economic prospects and development.

As a result of this belief, Gellner goes further on his theory and considers the world to be differentiated according to geographical lines as well which is determined by the way in which nations emerged in those respective areas. More precisely, "Ernest Gellner, has characterized the time-zones of Europe, from the westernmost zone I where dynastic realms created states which were by and large culturally uniform; to zone II (such as in Italy and Germany) which, though politically fragmented, were well-equipped with pre-existing and codified high cultures; through zone III (Central/Eastern Europe) in which the mix of diverse cultures in social and geographical terms failed to map on to cultural and religious boundaries; and finally to zone IV, the territories of the old Tsarist empire in which the old religious order was peremptorily replaced by the new secular communism." (Mccrone, 1998, 9) Therefore, in terms of nations and nationalism there is a clear distinction between different parts of Europe and consequently of the world. A lack of homogeneity in terms of cultural aspects attracts a limited economic capacity as well.

According to Gellner's geographical determination, it can be said that the states from Zones I and II are the most viable states in terms of economic conditions as history has pointed out. There is a cultural unity which offers consistency in terms of development and a common belief in economic ideals; moreover, the fact that a united political force is exercising its power over a uniform population is all the more relevant for the existence of a strong economic environment. This could be one of the explanations for the way in which countries from Western Europe emerged as economic forces whereas states from Eastern Europe and Eurasia struggled to find its economic tempo.

Gellner is part of the modernist theory on nations and states. He is the strong proponent of the idea that nations were a necessity for the evolution of the world, a prerequisite for its development. In general terms the idea of modernity concerning the state focuses on the fact that "nationalism is a cultural and political ideology of 'modernity', a crucial vehicle in the Great Transformation from traditionalism to industrialism, and in particular the making of the modern state" (Mccrone, 1998, 10). However, they do not exclude the existence of nationalism in the pre-modern era; they just consider it to be of limited importance for the discussion of nationalism in its current form. In this sense, nationalism in its traditional sense implied the allegiance to different other connecting elements such as religion and God, whereas modern nationalism as supported by Gellner and others, derives its legitimate power from the will of the people and from democracy. Moreover, whereas nations were often associated with countries in the past, in the modern times they imply unified structural forms organized according to a political principle which allows for economic development to take place.

A different perspective on the way in which nations were creation and the actual meaning of nationalism is offered by theorists who argue an ethno-symbolist approach. More precisely, it is considered that in fact the history of nations and that of nationalism is not a creation but rather an obvious consequence of the way in which history evolved. Even more, Anthony Smith one of the strongest proponents of the idea of nationalism as an ethnic symbol points out that in fact nations were an inherent thing and an obvious consequence of history.

One of the major arguments presented by Smith takes into account the passion nationalism arises which cannot be stirred by an artificial establishment of a nation. Thus, nations fight for their right to self-determination out of a desire and passion which is embedded in a common culture, in the idea of belonging to a well defined set of values and norms that have been created since the middle ages and the dawn of a common conscience. In this sense, Smith considers that "to belong to a "community of history and destiny" has become for many people a surrogate for religious faith, over and above any individual worldly ends that the collective action it inspires may serve'. Above all, it is the sense of a common past and a shared destiny which is the ideological motor driving the modern state forward" (Mccrone, 1998, 12). Therefore, his argument relies on the perpetuation of certain traits which are common to a particular group that in the end forms the nation. Despite the fact that there is a need for a sparkle to light the fire of nationalism, this sparkle takes advantage of an environment which is the result of centuries of history and common suffering.

Critique of the theories

There have been several critics concerning the idea of modernity and the extent to which this theory is valid for the explanation of the rise of nations and nationalism. The theoretical aspects have been constructed according to the major elements presented by the modernists as opposed to the ethno-symbolist approach.

On the one hand, there is a wide discussion concerning the actual birth of nations and nationalism. In this sense, while the modernists believe that indeed they represent a creation of modern times and that of the industrial world, those arguing for an ethno-symbolist approach consider that these two elements are the result of the natural evolution of history. More precisely, Smith argues that 'although we can often discern elements of deliberate planning and human creativity in their formation, nations and nationalisms are also the products of preexisting traditions and heritages which have coalesced over the generations" (the Warwick Debates, n.d). However, he does point out there can be both real and unreal aspects when considering a nation or the nationalism it gives rise to. He compares this aspect with the creation of famous works of art which have both a tangible and intangible meaning. In this sense, "there is nothing contradictory about saying that something is both imagined and real: the Parthenon, Chartres and the Sistine ceiling are no less real and tangible for all the imagination of their creators and spectators down the ages" (the Warwick Debates, n.d.). Still, he notes that the spirit of the nation is the element which holds the eventual state together.

In response to this assumption, Anthony Smith views the economic sphere as the main element which gives unity to the nation. In his argumentation he points out that there needs to be a focal point for the nation to remain united and in modern times this is achieved through economic means. He associates the nation with Adam in the sense that Adam as the first human being had to be created by a superior force. More precisely, "if Adam was created by God at a certain date, let's say 4003 BC, obviously I mean it's a prima-facie first reaction that he didn't have a navel, so to say, because Adam did not go through the process by which people acquire navels. Therefore, we do know what will decide whether the world is very old and mankind evolved or whether the world was created about 6,000 years ago" (the Warwick Debates, n.d.). Therefore, Gellner contends that at one point in history the beginning had to be created from nothing. In a similar manner, he considers that nations and nationalism had to be created as there is no possibility for the nation to be created out of nothing. Following the line of judgment, it can be considered that nations were created for an economic purpose and as a result of the processes of modernity.

On the other hand, Smith points out the fact that nationalism is not a matter of economic development as "nationalism can emerge in all kinds of socioeconomic milieu - in rich Quebec and poor Eritrea, in areas of decline as well as improvement, in pre-industrial as well as industrial conditions. Nor is it easy to explain the content and intensity of particular nationalisms through the workings of global capitalism or the dynamics of relative deprivation" (the Warwick Debates, n.d.). In reply, Gellner considers that even the cultures with an important historical heritage are not able to become nations because they lack the incentives to do so. In this sense, although there are some examples of nations who despite their deprivation did form countries and are today on the political map, they do not represent the rule. More precisely, he raises the question on the fact that in the agrarian society there was no vivid manifestation of nationalism. Thus, "given the fact that the agrarian world was enormously rich in cultural nuances whereas the modern world has only space for something of the order of 200 or 300 national states, not all the potential nations become real ones and many of them don't even try to" (the Warwick Debates, n.d). Finally he considers that the agrarian societies were not able to form nations precisely because they were not motivated by the eventual economic gains and the industrial revolution.