This paper offers a comparative critical reading of two influential works on nationalism and ethnic identity: Umut Ozkirimli's Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction and Stuart J. Kaufman's Modern Hatreds: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War. The paper examines Ozkirimli's concept of "ethno-symbolism," arguing that ethnic identity is socially constructed rather than historically fixed. It then contrasts Kaufman's more prescriptive, policy-oriented approach, which emphasizes the role of ethnic myths, fears, and mobilization opportunities in producing violent conflict. Together, both authors are shown to treat ethnicity as a myth of varying degrees, yet one whose symbolic power can drive the formation — and destruction — of nation states.
The paper models comparative textual analysis: it introduces a central concept (ethno-symbolism) through one source, tests its limits with real-world examples, and then uses a second source to extend and complicate the argument. The transition between authors is smooth and purposeful, using contrast as an analytical tool rather than mere summary.
The paper opens by establishing Ozkirimli's theoretical framework, then interrogates its limits through the Palestinian case study. It pivots to Kaufman, noting tonal and methodological contrasts before synthesizing both authors around their shared treatment of ethnicity as symbolic construction. The conclusion ties this synthesis to a concrete historical case (the former Yugoslavia), showing how myth and symbol generate real political violence.
In Umut Ozkirimli's work Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction, the author attempts to come to grips with how ethnicity functions in the construction of modern nation states. In early, primordial history, nationality and nationhood could be taken as virtually synonymous. However, with an increasingly complex global and geopolitical reality, ethnicity has become one of the most complex yet central claims in any new nation's defense of its right to exist. Ozkirimli discusses the importance of "ethno-symbolism," suggesting that ethnicity is often of equal symbolic importance as it is of practical importance in creating a functional nation (167).
In his chapter on the subject, Ozkirimli quotes the theorist John Armstrong, who suggests that the idea of a particular group of people inherently forming an ethnic unit should not necessarily be taken as a historical fact. Modern racial and ethnic categories are often socially constructed at a particular moment in history. A group of people that can be traced back to a "perfect past" — for instance, the idea of "the Slavs," "the Arabs," "the Serbs," or "the British" — encompasses, within an ideological framework, many national and religious groups that were once just as contentious as they may now seem harmonious in their desire to constitute a uniform ethnicity (170).
Even the British were once torn apart by divisions between Angles and Saxons a thousand years ago. Although, because of geography, existing nations may indeed appear to have ethnic "origins" or contain similarities within their borders relating to ethnic customs and concerns, this does not mean that ethnicity can be easily equated with a pre-existing national identity.
The concept of ethno-symbolism in creating a nation is particularly vexed in recent times, given that an individual — such as a political militant — may identify as part of a particular ethnic movement to construct a nation, such as a Palestinian state, yet in fact hold the national passport of another country, or identify with a broader cause that extends far beyond establishing any particular nation's borders. Even the notion of a Palestinian as a Muslim or a Christian makes competing claims to a theological framework that extends to the entire Arab world, or, one might argue, to issues pertaining to the Judeo-Christian world as a whole.
What does a Christian Palestinian reared in Europe have in common, ethnically, with a Palestinian on the West Bank? This pairing of polar existences challenges the notion of ethnicity, yet clearly these individuals may lay claim to sharing a common historical plight. Both are stateless, yet a commonality of culture and religion is not self-evident — nor, one might argue, more so than between two potential United States citizens born in that nation.
The overview present in Ozkirimli's analysis is a warning not to dismiss the importance of nationalism, and also a caution not to accept certain groups' claims to nationhood wholesale and at face value, since the concept of what constitutes ethnicity shifts and changes depending on an individual's particular political alliances in a given historical context. Ozkirimli's work maintains a far more dispassionate tone in contrast to Stuart J. Kaufman's Modern Hatreds: The Symbolic Politics of Ethnic War.
For Kaufman and Ozkirimli both, ethnicity is a myth to varying degrees, but the ability to construct such a myth, however tenuously, can become the foundation of a national struggle, and even an entire nation. In the former Yugoslavia, for example, the myth of the wronged Serb was fueled by the allegiance of some Croatians during World War II to the invading Nazi powers — itself another myth of national allegiance — and was used to justify the subsequent brutality that Serbian leader Slobodan Milošević inflicted upon that region. Symbols are thus fueled by history and create history in turn, even when these historical and symbolic readings of the present are imperfect or false.
You’re 65% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.