Modernity and Nationalism

E-Internatinal Relations, 2022

2008

By way of concluding this book, I want to recapitulate the multiple accounts of nationalism that crisscross through the preceding chapters. At one level, the chapters describe nationalism, its rise, its different manifestations, and its important facets. Clearly, as the chapters reflect, there are disagreements about what various scholars have to say about nationalism and its patterns. At another level, then, are the questions of how to approach nationalism and what broader themes are encoded within its idiom, such as race, gender, sexuality, and ethnicity. A culturalist approach to nationalism is shaped by, but also critical of, what are loosely described as modernist theories of nationalism. Partly shaped by Anderson and Hobsbawm's insights, the culturalist approach sees nationalisms as modern phenomena that are conceived, but are not unreal. I also want to emphasize that this is not to simply acknowledge that nationalisms are culturally constructed but to push the argument further: that nationalisms need to be continually imagined, reproduced, and reiterated in order for them to appear normal and natural. Therefore, a second point is that both the banal as well as the spectacular moments of nationalisms can provide important insights. The persisting influence of nations and nationalisms is not merely a factor in moments of crisis or spectacles such as independence-day celebrations in former colonies and the USA, for that matter. If anything, nations and nationalisms are woven through the fabric of everyday life. Third, a culturalist approach departs from modernist theories in two related ways: it argues against a single theory of nationalism and its origins; and it challenges Euro-Americancentered perspectives on nationalism that either disregard non-western

2010

It is rather difficult to pin down the meaning when one considers the veritable plethora of problems that the concept of nationalism presents. The foremost difficulty is the lack of a common understanding among scholars and academics about the problems that emanate from the definitions of nationalism. In order to rethink and analyse the hazy concept of nationalism, the evolution of the concept of nationalism from being a natural phase in the evolution of human society to the argument of it being a constructed complex mythology, as held by will be the general focus of this article. This article will however concentrate on analysing the rationalisation of the "mythical construct" argument by examining the most important three precepts-ethnicity, culture and language-posited and then reach to a conclusion by manifesting how these have served and are continuing to serve as ethical and moral problems for international relations. MİLLİYETÇİLİĞİ YENİDEN DÜŞÜNMEK: ULUSLARARASI İLİ...

alter the arrangement.) (1) This Westphalian Peace, as is widely believed, heralded the system of nation-states in Europe. However, this peace should be understood in the sense of Orwellian doublespeak. The Westphalian system ushered in a new series of national wars for hegemony in Europe and in colonies -and through a number of local wars, Napoleonic campaign, Franco-Prussian war , this process went on upto the two world wars in the twentieth century, and even beyond that up to the present time.

Atsuko Ichijo, Nationalism and Multiple Modernities: Europe and Beyond. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013, 143pp. £55 (hbk).

1996

The reemergence of nationalism in Europe is characterized by its strong appeal to values outside modernist spheres of reference. Its success is a symptom of profound dissatisfaction with modernist ideals, resulting in, in the words of William McBride, a sort of global malaise. 1 Juergen Habermas' analysis of the changes in Europe is, as I shall show, inadequate, especially for Eastern Europe. The new nationalism defies an analysis like his that is too rationalistic and couched in Enlightenment ideals such as morality for morality's sake, a rather conceited conception of reason, and an abhorrence (or at least a commitment to uncompromising domination) of nature. I will try to explain how the history of nationhood in Europe is influencing the current resurgence of nationalism as the new direction of society. It will be interesting to note the difference between unified Germany and Eastern Europe. The Germany's tradition included a very strong appeal to mythology which did not translate well into the reasonableness of enlightenment but did translate well into postmodernism. The case study of Yugoslavia as a victim of nationalist forces, which gained the upper hand as a consequence of the lack of any other forces, will serve to demonstrate the "newness" of the nationalism there. Habermas 1 " Rethinking Democracy in Light of the East European Experience," in The Social Power of Ideas, pg. 125

International Journal of Middle East Studies, 2005

Social Science and Humanities Journal, 2024

The paper embarked on a scholarly exploration, seeking to unravel the intricate dimensions of nationalism and enhance our collective understanding. Through qualitative methodology—specifically contextual analysis—the study vividly examined the interpretations of influential thinkers regarding this complex concept. Topics spanned from “Nationalism and Its Relationship to a Nation” to “Theoretical Perspectives on Nationalism” and “Filipino Nationalism: Historical Context, Critical Issues, and Developments.” The analysis revealed that nationalism, as a subject, underwent extensive scholarly debate and analysis, reflecting its multifaceted nature and profound impact on nation-building and identity formation. In retrospect, the discourse surrounding nationalism encompassed diverse perspectives, ranging from its role in political and social transformation to its enduring influence on human history.

Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 2020

Australian Journal of Politics & History, 2008

The bipolar world is gone. The world's states are careening toward some new equilibriumor so we imagine, for no one can foretell what the new order will be. All that we know for sure is that it won't resemble what went beforeand that nationalism will count much more than before, both within states and in relations among them. James B. Rule.1

Nationalities Papers, 2023

Siniša Malešević's Grounded Nationalisms asks: "Why has nationalism proved to be such a potent, protean, and durable force in the modern age? Why has the nation-state established itself as the central organizing mode of social and political life in the last two hundred years? Why is nationalism still the dominant form of collective subjectivity?" (8) The author draws from several disciplines to tackle these questions, including sociology, political science, history, psychology, demography, and anthropology. In a nutshell, he finds the answer rests in the historical origins and organizational, ideological, and micro-interactional dynamics of nationalist ideologies that evolve and adapt over time. This book is an instant classic of historical sociology arguing that nationalism is the dominant form of modern subjectivity and unlikely to be replaced or shaken by globalization or neoliberalism. Malešević is a modernist, with a twist. The first three chapters of the book situate his argument in the existing debates: perennialists versus modernists; banal and everyday nationalism versus hot nationalism; civic versus ethnic nationalism. Ethno-symbolists wrongly assert a continuity between premodern proto-nations or ethnies and modern nations. Historically, national identification extended only to small, literate urban minority, while populations were mostly composed of peasant communitieswhich had no conception of, nor interest in, widescale social identification at the level of the nation-state. But modernists are also wrong in viewing national identity as epiphenomenal and neglect that nationalisms build on ideas and structures that preceded the age of nationalism. While Malešević recognizes the importance of the everyday and banal nationalism perspectives especially their attempt to go beyond the focus on manifestations of nationalism in the form of war and violence he suggests that grounding national identity in everyday, face-to-face relationships presupposes the existence of a strong organizational background. The civic versus ethnic distinction is also held to be suspect, as even civic understandings of nationhood have strong cultural prerequisites. Moreover, Malešević challenges the analytical distinction between imperialism and nationalism. According to the author "empires and nation states have a great deal in common," especially when it comes to "the cumulative bureaucratization of coercion, centrifugal ideologization and the envelopment of micro-solidarity" (88-89). He points to several cases where nationalism at home coexisted with or fueled imperialism abroad. However, there is no doubt for Malešević that the legitimation of authority happens differently in empires than nation-states, which is of vital importance. And he admits that, practically, the nation-state is the only legitimate form of political organization globally today.

Review Essay: David D. Laitin. Nations, States, and Violence. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007, 162 pp. Henry E. Hale. The Foundations of Ethnic Politics: separatism of states and nations in Eurasia and the world. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008, 304 pp. Marc H. Ross. Cultural Contestation in Ethnic Conflict. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007, 384 pp.

Open Journal of Political Science, 2012

Socio-territorial psychic constructs, such as national identities, are perhaps the most important psychic phenomena for political science, with their strength so consequential for wars and inter-ethnic conflicts. The construction of the EU has faced scholars and practitioners with two identity-related problems: (i) whether the socio-territorial identities can be conceptualized as being multi-layered (nested, hyphenated, with non-conflictual relationships among the components), and (ii) whether the higher levels of these identity constructs can be confined to civic aspects (e.g. to a Habermasian constitutional patriotism), as opposed to traditional nationalisms relying on assumptions of common origin, and shared culture. The most entrenched classification of nationalisms relies on an obvious difference between the kinds of nationalisms endorsed by the Irish and Germans, on one hand, and the French and white immigrant countries like the US, on the other hand. These versions are generally labeled "ethnocultural," involving the consciousness of a shared ancestry and history, and "civic", relying on the idea of belonging to the same state. My argument is that a schism within the "civic" approach to nationalism can theoretically be expected and empirically supported on the basis of the ISSP 2003, Eurobarometer 57.2 and 73.3 surveys. These datasets confirm the existence of three principal components of nationalism, which can be labeled "ethnocultural", "great-power-civic" and "welfare-civic". While the great-power-civic approach is concerned with and takes pride in the country's military strength, international influence, sovereignty, and national character, the welfare-civic approach takes a more civilian stance and it is concerned with common rights, fair treatment of groups, social security, and welfare within the country. In addition, support has been found for the assumption that people tend to construct their supra-national identity layer according to the molds for their national identity.