Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T22:52:36.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Undeveloped Theory of Nationalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

Gale Stokes
Gale Stokes
Affiliation:
Rice University
Get access

Abstract

Despite a vast literature on nationalism, theoretical investigations on the subject are rare. Historians generally are not interested in theory, although they use typologies. The most thoroughgoing typology has been produced by the sociologist Anthony D. Smith, who has constructed a matrix with 55 locations that allows categorization of both ancient and modern types of nationalism. Smith divides nationalist ideology into a core doctrine and its accretions, but he may underestimate the importance of language. Kedourie has produced a theory of the intellectual development of nationalism, but only Gellner has a theory of modernity in which nationalism plays a key role. Interest in ethnicity has given a new direction to studies of nationalism by stressing the function of group allegiance in achieving political ends. Finally, despite the sharpness of Smith's definitional insights, his theory itself is too narrow to establish the link he seeks between modernization and nationalism.

Type
Review Articles
Information
World Politics , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , October 1978 , pp. 150 - 160
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Shafer, , Faces of Nationalism (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich 1972), 228Google Scholar.

2 , Hayes, Essays on Nationalism (New York: Macmillan 1928), 94Google Scholar. Hayes's last book (1960) bore the title Nationalism: a religion.

3 E.g., Snyder, , The New Nationalism (Ithaca: Cornell University Press 1968)Google Scholar; Symmons-Symonolewicz, , Modern Nationalism (New York: Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences 1968), 50Google Scholar.

4 Kedourie, , Nationalism (3rd ed., London: Hutchinson 1966)Google Scholar. The sentence reads, “Nationalism is a doctrine invented in Europe at the beginning of the nineteenth century.” Despite the truth of this statement (if broadly construed), its baldness has brought criticism; e.g., “There is also danger in refusing to see that sentiments such as nationalism have roots in Asian and African experience, that nationalism, for example, is not just a ‘European invention' imitated by other peoples” (Shafer [fn. 1], 267). Of course, it is unlikely that Kedourie would deny this.

5 For a brief but penetrating analysis of Kohn's views, see Wolf's, Kenneth H.“Hans Kohn's Liberal Nationalism: The Historian as Prophet,” Journal of the History of Ideas, xxxvii (October-December 1976), 651–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Others have made similar criticisms of Kedourie; e.g., Hah, Chong-do and Martin, Jeffrey, “Toward a Synthesis of Conflict and Integration Theories of Nationalism,” World Politics, xxvii (April 1975), 362 nGoogle Scholar. Hah and Martin's misquoting of Rotberg does not strengthen their point.

7 Gellner, , Thought and Change (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1963)Google Scholar.

8 Fishman, , Language and Nationalism: Two Integrative Essays (Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers 1972), 124Google Scholar, 43–44.

9 ibid., 72.

10 Stokes, , “Cognition and the Function of Nationalism,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, iv (Spring 1974), 511–25Google Scholar.

11 For a brilliant but controversial effort to bring much work in this area together, see Wilson, Edward Osborne, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1975)Google Scholar. A powerful work stressing man's social nature is Pres, Terrence des, The Survivor (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1976)Google Scholar.

12 Deutsch, , Nationalism and Social Communication (2d. ed.; Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press 1966), 288Google Scholar. One of the few historians who have followed through on Deutsch's ideas is Hroch, Miroslav, Die Vorkdtnpjer der nationalen Bewegung bei den kleinen Völkern Europas (Prague: Charles University 1968)Google Scholar. Hroch shows that the leaders of early nationalist movements in small countries emerged from different social classes in each country, but could all be classified as intellectuals.

13 See Walker Connor's excellent analysis of this, “Nation-Building or Nation-Destroying?” World Politics, xxiv (April 1972), 319–55Google Scholar.

14 See, for instance, Shafer (fn. 1), 3–22; Isajiw, Wsevolod W., “Definitions of Eth-nicity,” Ethnicity, 1 (July 1974), 111–24Google Scholar.

15 Deutsch (fn. 12), 288.

16 Isajiw (fn. 14), 118.

17 Deutsch (fn. 12), 288.

18 Brass, Paul R., “Ethnicity and Nationality Formation,” Ethnicity, 111 (September 1976), 225–41Google Scholar, suggests three levels in the development of an ethnic group into a nation, beginning with the identification of an ethnic category. When challenges and competition strengthen internal relations in this group so that an ethnic community is achieved, entry into the arena as a nationality is possible if the political situation permits.

19 Hah and Martin (fn. 6), 361–86.