Stl-ucture

23.1 Introd~~ction

23.2 What is Nationalisrii?

23.2.1 National Identity

23.3 Tlieol-ies of Nationalism

23.3.1 Perenniai Theories

23.3.1.1 F'simordialist and Socio-Biological 'I'heories

23.3.2 Modernization Theories

23.3.2.1 Social Co~n~nunication l'heories (Deutsch, Rustow, Roklcan and Anderson)

23 .? .2.2 Economistic Theories

23.3.2.3 Gellner's Theory of Nationalism

23.3.2.4 Political Ideological Theories

23.4 Rise arid Growth of IVationalism

23.4.1 Nation-state in Ellrope

23.4.2 Nation-state in America

23.4.3 Anti-Colonial Nationalism

23.5 Contemporary Developments: Nationalisin vis-A-vis Ethnic Resurgence and Globalizatiori

23.7 Exercises

Nationalisni is an i~nportant social and political plienomenon diat involves the ~nalting of nations and nation-states into a definable identity. i t is a normative doctrine that enibodies a particular set o f assumptions and beliefs about politics. The essence of tiationalis~n is a belief about tlie social bases of political a~ltllosity. As a way ofthinlting about the world, it emphasizes the in~postance of nations i n explaining historical develop~iients and analyzirig conteniporary politics and also claims that 'national character' is a pervasive factor differentiating l~urnan beings.' It assures that all lit~man beings should have one and oilly one nationality whicli should be their prime factor o f identity and loyalty. Nationalism claims to represent the will of the people to be able to decide their own destiny, their will to be respected as people to develop their cult~.~re and personality. Di11.ing the last two hundred years, nationalisni has combined with rlie ideologies o f liberalism, socialisni and comniunism and elnerged a winner. Ilie national i i~ove~nents in the ex-colonial countries in the first half of the 20th century and tlie disintegration ofthe Soviet Union.at its fag end revealed the powerful force of 11ationalis111. Today, we live in a world where instead o f peacefill multiculturalism, nations feel a constant threatofbeinganniliilated. Tliis is a11 tlie more important wlien in the context ofglobalization, there is all attempt to homogenize all comniunities. In this unit, we sliall raise and answer these issues.

'There are SOLIT main debates wliicli have do~i~inatecl tlie study of nationalism. They are:

i) I-low to define national ism?

ii) When did tlie nation appear? The different tlieories of nationalism try to answer this question, though we do nor find any final answers.

i i i ) Mow did the nations and nation-states historically evolve and developed and whether there is any marlted difference between the developmelit of nationalislli in the western and tlic nun-western world?

iv) Recent challenges to nationalism in the forni of ethnic resurgence and globalization,

23.2 ,WHAT IS NATIONALISM?

Nationalisni is a co~i ip~und OF many factors, sollie of which have their roots in Iiuman nature arid many ol'which Iiave a long history. Yet it is a nod ern plienonieno~i. To discover it is a difficult undertalcing and to define it in s~lccinct phrases is ever1 more diflicult. 111 one sense, it is the extensioli of'a group to wliicli one belongs. In this sense, it is a fortn of collective egoisill. In a negative sense, it is a lnanifestation of that fear of the 'stranger' with its roots deep in hun~an nature. In the ~iiodern sense, it is born of that love of tlie i'alniliar land and people wliich is otien regarded as the core of patriotis~ii. According to Hayes, nationalisln has been ilscd in many different ways and it is commonly ~ ~ s c d "to denote a conditioli of mind among li~clnbers oi'n nationality, perhaps already possessed of a national state, a condilion of mind in which loyalty to tlie ideal or to the ract of' a national state is superior to a11 other loyalties, and of wliicli pride in one. A nationality and belief in its intrinsic excellcrice and its 'mission' are integral parts". Similarly, I-lans I<ohn defines nationalism as "state of mind ... striving to correspond to a political fact." On tlie otlier hand, Gellner writes, "Nationalism is primarily a political principle wliicli liolds that the political unit ilnd the national ittiit shoi~ld be congruent ... nationalist sentiment is a feeling of anger aroused by the violation of the principle, or tlie reel of satisfaction aroused by its f~tllilment". Giddens points to the psychological cliriracter oi' nationalism "the affiliation of the individual to a set of sy~iibols and beliefs, emplinsizing co~ii~iionality anlong the ~ i i en ibe~ .~ of a partictllar community".

In short, nationalisni has two aspects: i) tlie political character of nationalisln as an ideology defeiicling t l ~ c nrition that tlie*state and the nation slio~~ld be congruent, and ii) its capacity to be a provider oi'4dentity For individuals co~~scious of forming a g la i~p based upon :1 conilnon past and culture and attaclitiient to a concrete territory. 'l'lie power of nationnlis~n emanates i'ro~ii its abi lily 1.0 engender sentiments of belo~iging 10 a particular community. Symbols and rituals play a major role il l the ct~ltivation o f a sense of solidarity ariiong tlie people.

'Thus, in order to understand tlie concept of nationalisrri, we must keep in liiind that:

s nationalism is 21 sentiment that has to do wit11 attachment to a common honieland, iz

corntiion language, ideals, values atid traditions, identifying :t pal-titular group with symbols such as a flag, songs whicli define it as 'different' from others,

how a sentiment ol'at~achment to a homeland and a colilmon culti~re call be transfornied into tlie political demand for the creatio~i of 21 state; IIOW is it possible to n~alce this transition?

A theory of nationalism has to deal with questions such as: how does nationalism use and legitimize the use of violence in its quest for the creation of a state; what is the role o f national ideology; what is tlie role of the leaders in the national movement and how far can they contribute to the propagation of sy~nbols and ideals.

an important feature of nationalisln is its capacity to bring together people from different social and cultural levels. Nationalism is not merely an invention of the ruling classes t o maintain the unconditional loyalty of the masses, but also a tool to make them believe that they have much in common. This is one of the basic factors for understanding the persistence of nationalism.

23.2.1 . National. Identity

Apart from the definitions, another inlportant aspect in the study of nationalis111 is what constiti~tes national identity, i.e. how an individual is able to attach himself with a particular colnlnunity and thinks himself different from others. Hayes attributes seven factors for the rise ofthis national consciousness and identity: Iinguistics and literacy, political, commercial, ecosornic, eccelesiastical, religious and cultural. Historically, kinship represented the first sign of identification and loyalty. The Middle Ages allowed the formation of a larger group attaclled to a concrete territory. Through the creation of markets, the intensification of trade, the waging of wars and tlie slow but progressive alnplification of the state's scope, there emerged tlie formation of a community conscious of itself as different from others. It is at this stage that one can start talking of the emergence of nations and different national identities. According to Guibernau, broadly speaking, there are three factors which helped in the creation of a national identity: i) development of printing and creation of vernacular languages, ii) relationship between nation and culture, and ii i) common sy~nbols and rituals.

Tlie development of vernacular 1 anguages after the invention of the printing-press in Europe played a decisive role in creating a sense of belonging to a co~nlnunity. National conscioirsness is derived from shared values, traditions and melnories within a particular culture and which are thought of and spoken in a particular language. Though the vernacular is not an indispensable basis for the creation of national consciousness, yet it does facilitate that creation. Where nation and state were co-extensive, education and the generalization of literacy not only reinforced the possibility of commu~.rication among the people, but also helped in the development of a strong sense of com~nu~~ity. The developlnent of English, French and German languages and education based upon the school system led to the creation ofa strong national consciousness. When tlie state manages to impose a culturc and language, it is 'nationalism which engenders naiions'. If tlie state is successful, it manages to develop, apart from the political, a corn bination of several relationships such as economic, territorial, religious, linguistic and cultural. It is this state which creates a nation.

Secondly, the key question will1 regard to ntitional identity is - who am I? Identity is an interpretation of the self that establislies what and where a person is, both socially and psychologically. Identity exists in societies which define and organize them. In the current era, the nation represents one of these communities. National identity is its product. The defining criteria of identity are: continuity over time and differentiation. While continuity lies in historical roots, differentiation stems from the conscioilsness of forming a community with a shared culture, attached to a concrete territory wl~ich distinguishes between members and 'strangers'. This iden~ity fillfils three fi~nctions: i) it helps in making choices such as the right

I

110

I

I A

to decide abo~lt their col~~mon political identity, ii) it makes the relationship possible with others beca~lse nation is a cotnlnon pool in which individuals with a common culture live and work together, and iii) national identity gives strength and resilience to individuals to identify with an entity which transcends them. Now this identity is created through the development of a cornmon culture i.e. values, beliefs, customs, conventions, habits and practices that are transmitted to the new members wlio receive the culture of a particular conimunity. The process of identification with the elements of a specific culture implies a strong emotional investment. From the point of view of nationalism, a common culture favours the creation of a bond of solidarity anlong the members of a given community and allows them to image the colnlnunity they belong to as separate and distinct from others.

Thirdly, in the creation of national identity, a powerfill role is also played by symbols and rituals. The conscioilsness of forming a comlnilnity is created through the use of symbols and repetition of rituals that give strength to the individual members ofthe community. By favouring occasions in which they feel ~111ited and by displaying symbols that represent this unity, a nation establishes its distinction fro111 others. For example, a soldier does so for his flag because he identifies the flag with his country. Also, syti~bols like the flag have the power to evoke particular men~ories or feelings. This helps in the ability of nationalism to bind together people fiom different cultural levels and social background. Sy~iibols mask differences and highlight comn~onaliiy, creating a sense of group. And last but not the least, individuals who share the same culture, feel attached to a concrete land, have the experience of a ~ommrhn-~ast and a project for the future, need to create occasions in which all that unites them is emphasized. In these moments, the individual forgets about himself atid the sentiment of belonging to a group occupies the prime position. Througli rituals, individuals are able to feel an emotion of unusual intensity that springs from their identification with the entity - the nation - which is above them and of which they are a part.

Thus, the force of nationalism springs not only fi'oni rational thought alone, but also from irrational power of emotions that stems from the feeling of belonging to a particular group. This do~lble face of nationalism results from the way in which these emotions are either transformed into a peaceful and democratic move~~~ent seeking the recognition and development of one's nation or turned into xenophobia; i.e., tile will to pill one's nation above others and eradicate the differences.

23.3 THEORIES OF NATlONALlSM

The most hotly debated question in the context of nationalism is when and how did the nation appear. In other words, whether national conscio~lsness and sentiment is an evolutionary historical c o n t i n ~ ~ i ~ r n or it is the result of modernisln such as commercialization, industrialization, urbanization, mass participation in political culture etc. Different theories of nationalis~n try to answer this question, tl~o~lgh we do not find as final answer. For the sake of study, these theories can be divided into two broad categories: 'Perennialism' and 'Modernism'. Perennialism concentrates on the history of nations which are described as ancient and immen~orial. They see the nation as a culti~ral community, immemorial, rooted, '

organic (natural based on languages) seamless (i.e. they see society as a whole), and as a popular coln~n~lnity that reflects the needs and ideals of the people. Ancestral ties and culture are of great importance to the advocates of this theory. On the other hand, modernists see the nation as a political con~munity - modern, social construct and social creation, designed for an

age of revolution and niass ~iiobilization. The nation is seen as a creation of the elite in order to control and influence the tlio~ight and actions of the masses. They see the nation as divided, different social groups representing religion, gender and class, having different needs and therefore, split into separate groupings. Let 11s have a look at tliese theories in detail:

A) Perennial Theories

Sociobiological

(B) Modernization Theories

e Social Comtn~~nication Theories

Ecoliomistic Tlieories - Marxist and Non-Marxist

e Political-Ideological Theories

23.3.1 Perennial Theories

23.3.1 . I Primordlalist and Socio-Biological Theories

Alllong tlie perennial theories, we can refer to the pri~nordial and the socio-biological perspectives. PI-imordialism assumes that group identity is given; that there exist in all societies certain primordial, irrational attachments based on blood, race, language, religion, region etc. Tliey are, as Clifford Geertz writes, "inel%able atid yet coercive ties, which are the result of a long process of crystallization". Modern states partici~larly but not exclusively, in the third world, are superitnposed on the prin~osdial realities which are the ethnic groups or communities. Prin~ordialists believe tliat ethnic identity is deeply rooted in the historical experience OF I hi~man beings to the point of being practically given. Tliey believe that ethnic bonds are 'natural', fixed by tlie basic experiences tliat human beings undergo within tlieir family ties' and other primary groups. In short, according to Geertz, i) primordial identities are given or natural, ii) pri~nordial identities are ineffable, that is, cannot be explained or analysed by referring to social interaction but are coercive, and iii) primordial identities deal essentially wit11 the sentiments or affections.

The social biologists go a step Li~rther. 'Tliis approach starts with the assumption that nationalisrn is the result of the extension of kin selection to a wider sphere of individuals who are defined it1 terlns of putative or common descent. It insists that nationalism combines both rational and irrational elements; that is, a 'primitive mind' with modern tecliniclues. The word nationalism expresses different realities: a love of country, the assertion of national identity and national dignity as well as the xenopl~obic obsession to obtain tliese things throilgh violence and sacrifices, Nationalisn~ bui Ids on etlino-cc~~t~.ism towards the in-groups and xenophobia towards the out-groups. According to Shaw and Tuba, nationalis111 rosters pride, dignity and related sentiments arnong merlibers of the in-group, thereby constituting a moral and pliilosophical basis on which to demand the political. It lias its roots in the past, but it is a contemporary vehicle to vent out human propensities to war. It is important in this context to emphasize the psycliological dimensions of nationalism. A bond is established between the individual and the nation based on the idea that the latter is a family writ large, tlie individual identifies with the nation and hcnce, prefers it to other nations. 'The extensive use of kin terms to refer to tile nation reflects this psycho-affective reality that is called 'rnatr$~atriotic7 with an associated fraternal component.

23.3.2 Modernization Theories -

Modernizatioli theories of nationalism broadly assert that nationalis~n is a modern phenomenon and is the result of the process of transition from traditional to modern society. Some of these theories focus Inore specit?cally on the spread of industrialization and the socio-economic, political and cultural conditions fi~nctionally associated with it as the nlain cause for the development of nationalism. The ideological roots of n~odernization are found in Renaissance, Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment. At the econolnic level, modernization was brought about by the development of comlnerce and then, the process of industrialization. At the political level, it implied the appearance ofthe modern nation-state - a centralized, bureaucratic, territorial sovereign polity. When applied to lion-western societies, some features of modernity such a s commercialization, bureaucratization, secularization, urbanization, Inass con~n~unication, literacy may be present while industrialization is often absent.

Modernization theories ofnationalism come under different l'orms. Let 11s study them in detail.

23.3.2.1 Social Communication Theories (Deutsch, Rustow, Rokkan and Anderson)

A pioneering study on the effects of ~uodernizatior~ on nationalism was Karl De~ltsch's hfcltior7alisn1 and Social C'on~mz~nicrrtion. I-lere, he deals with the growth of nations and nationalism in tlie context of transition fro111 traditional to modern societies. Deutsch emphasized the centrality ofco~i~municatiol~ in the making of national communities. I-le defines nation as a 'group of people who communicate Inore effectively and intensely with one another than with people o~~ts ide tlie group'. I-Ie focuses on the developn~ent of internal comm~lnications within the state as leading to tlie creation o f a co~nmori sense of moral and political identity. As he says, 'in thc political and social slrilggles ofmodern age, nationality riieans an alignment of largc ~i~ilnber of individuals from the middle and lower classes l i ~ ~ k e d to regional centres and leading social g r o ~ ~ p s by channels of social c o ~ i i ~ n ~ ~ t ~ i c a t i o ~ ~ and economic it~terco~~rse, both indirectly from link to link and directly with the centre'. By using a variety of data from economics, history and delnography, Deutsch pointed out that massive social mobilization which went along witli the process of conimercialization, industrialization and urbanization as well as witli tlie growtli ofgeneral literacy and mass communication were responsible for the growth of nation, '1 I ' ISIU.

Another writer wlio has established a link bctwcen modernization and nationalisln is tlie American political scientist Dankwart Rustow. In his book.4 Worl~lc!f'N~~iion.s, he writes that 'the essential linlc between niodernization and nationalism consists of course in~tlie nced for an intensive division oi' labour'. Other key features sucll as equality and loyalty have also been essential to the nation that emerged S~OIII the ~nodernization process. Modernization and nationhood are closely related and the most appropriate political str~ictitre to achieve advanced modernization is the nation-state.

Another scliolar Stcin Rokltan has proposed a long~te ct'~lrcc wllicll places some important variables in the ~nedteval and early modern periods. In the modern situation, he accounls ibr tlie accelerated nation building in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by reference to six factors: i) con~binarion ol' rill-al and i~rbali vesources, ii) spread ancl localization of industrialization, iii) pressure towards centralization and ~~~iificntion of the state, iv) piill 01' imperialist tendencies. v) tension between centre and periphery during the course of etl~nicl linguistic mobilization, and vi) the conflict between the state and tlie churcli.

Yet another important writer Belledict Anderson in his book I i?~rgi~~ed Con~mztnities emphasizes the issue of social com~~iunication in tlie early period of the developnient of nationality. According to him, national co~~sciousness was made possible with the breakdown of three defining cliaracteristics of pre-modern period: sacred scripts, divine kingship, and conflation of history witli cosn~ology. Andersoil defines nation as an 'imagined political conimunity' (imagined as both limited and soveseig~l). His argument about the origin of nationalism leads to the focus on the tre~nendous iixi:ait ol'print capitalism. The book was the first corntnodity produced i n a massive way. I nis \,?as one area in which early cnpit,llisrn using the new technology of production was ul~Ic tc1 n?:~l.e great profits. The el'f'ec~ vfpr-;l!t liui~uage was felt on national conscio~~s~icss by t l i ~ mc:lris of creation ol'a ~lnified 1:tnguakc which allowed a sizeable part oftlte popi~lnlic~n to re,! r ~l;e sariie test and identify witli eacl~ other. Further, by giving fixity to langut~ge, i t poss ib !~ to develop the idea of the antirlaity of one's nation. According to Anderson, \vli;il 111:lde ~ l i ~ new con~m~~nities i~naginable was a half-conscious, but explosive interaction bet\\ic;.li a sysrcrn of prod~~ction and productive relations (capitalism), a teclinology of comrl~unication and !Iic type of fatality of 11~11nan linguistic diversity. At a later stage in history, btate consolidation both at home and in the culo~~ics created groups ol' people who felt potitically 2nd c~~ltural!)~excluded and by imagining tiie~nselves as communities were able to shake of':~licn wle.

23.3.2.2 Economistic Theories

Economism is an extreniely popillas fort11 of expla~wtion and as such is f'ltvourod by both the Marxists and the non-[\/l;~rsists alike. In modern I itesature, this explalintory 11: liework appears in different Sorms. but in the fi l~al analysis tlic common deno~i~inator is I!: !t both deny the specificity ol'the natiot~ state. 'l'he starting point ofthe eco~lomic conceptiorz of n a t i o ~ ~ is that nationat conscio~~stiess is li~ndamentally a false consciousness and il can b: used to justif)/ or hide econoriiic exploitatioli as wzll as political power and cultural supremacy.

Marxist theories envisage nationalism as ;I tnoder11 phenomenon aid posit a more or less explicit causal connection between tlie development of capitalism and t63c appearance of nationalism. For Karl Wlnrx, nations and states need to be studied and evali~ated within the context and froni the perspective of their place in class relations and in thc class strirggle occurring on ilie global scale. For him nationalism was an expression of bourgeois interest. But tlie boirrgeois 'fhthcsl;ind' did not refer to the country's potentialities for progress or to tlie nation regarded dcmocrntically, but to tlie aggregate of institutions, customs and laws and ideas whicli sanctify tlie riglil to property on a considerable scale. For Marx and Engles, the nation was not a central category ofsocial existence, bi~t a transitory institutior, created by the bourgeoisie; hence, tlie Sa~iious sentence, 'T'he proletariat has no fatherland'.

However, Marx and Engles were well aware of tlie nationalist phenomenon. As politically cotllmitted inte[lectuals, thcy lived throi~gli the rroublesome 1840s, 'a period in which nationalist stri~ggles ravaged the Eu 1.opea1i arena'. In their ~OL-native years, they therefore Iiad to confront tlie nationalist den~ands of a variety of European people. To understand their attitude towards nationalism, it is essential to kliow that they subordinated the survival of nations to the progressive march of history: some people were f'cssils from a long gone past and were, therefore. objectively co~~titer-revolutionary. Tliese reactionary nations liad to be sacrificed at the altar of the ~iiighlier national states. T110i1gli in sonle articles, they presentecl ttie national question as a part of tlie pol iiical sceliario, there was no attempt to explain tlie plienomenon except perhaps in terms of csucle stereotypes of national character.

tvlarx did not present a theory ofnationalis~u for tliree main reasons. First, according to him, tlie prevailing ideas of sociely in nny epoch are tlie ideas of the ruling classes. Hence, the spread of ideas (such as tliat of~iation;iIis~-ii) tlcpended heavily irpon tlie distribution of economic power in society. Secondly, Mars":; undcsstandi~ig of history as a history of class strirggle implied tliat a proletarian r e v o l ~ ~ t i o : ~ slio~ilcl follow a bo~~rgeois one and i~iipose a Jictatorsliip of the proletariat on the road to~vi~rcls a communist society. Tlie stateless society of Marx had no roo111 for nationalism since nationalisnl's m:~in aim was the establistiment of a state and not its abolition. Tliirdly. Marx did not givc uttcl- tio on to nationalisni because he felt tliat neither capitalist relations of production, I I ~ J F 11:1lion3!ity, religion, etc. should obstri~ct tlic liberation of people qs I iu~iia~i beings. 7'lie ;~l.oletiirial sliould transcelid n a t i o ~ ~ a l identities and be able to recog~~ize itscll'as a part of the big illmily oI~nanIiind.

tloivever, by the turn oStlic centiIs!.i. tlic vi~idication OF tlie rights o f tlie nations cliariged tlie Marxist view on the national questit~n. 111 tlic Seco~id Inter~iational, the national qnesrion was ceritral in tlie political agcncla. U'itl~in tlic Austro- Marxist tridition, a serious atte~iipt was ~iiade to conw to ter~rls with tlie tlirorctical problems posed by the category o f nation. Otto [ J B L I C ~ presentcd a theory oi'nation:!!is~ii bascd on tlie idea of ~iational character and national culture, tliougli lie also used rlie clul>iuus idc:~ tliat 1.1rttions have a historical destiliy to firlfil. A more i~ifluential delinition of nnlii!nalism was given by Stalin. In hiurx-isna anti /he N~rtionrrl ()l~c,sliot~, lie emphasized the siniult;lncoi~s coalescence of four e l e ~ i ~ e n t s (Ir~ngttagc, territory, economic life a1.d psychic l'or~na!;iui) ill n l i historicnl ly constituted commu~iity of culture. Lenin adopted n niorc I'lcsiblc dc!ir,::!ion ol'tlic nation? and nltllougli 11c was lilte most Marxists i n favour ol'tlie cre:ltion ol" la:.!;.: pt!!i[li,al units, yet lie endolased the princil~le of self- dc.termination oiopg~.cssed n;lti#_:!;::. ;!! !c::al in l:licor)l.

In 1.11~" 1970s, ;I 11~11iiber o!';itle!i~pis \'.i:ic I ~ ) ; I L I C 10 C V O I V U a tlieory of'nntion aloiig rnoditied Marxist lines. Most prominent umorig ~ i~cr i i :lrc ~ l i c filllowing tl~rcc: i ) It71c1-11rrl C ' o l o ~ i ~ ~ i i , s ~ ~ ~ ii) Uj7~11~17 L~e\vIopt7~1/ i a11d i i i ) If'oiYci , ~ \ ~ . > ~ ~ , 1 ! t ,

Tlie tlieory of intcrnal colonialism Ii:~s bccll i l c ~ e , . l o l ~ ~ l by kIicli;~eI 1 lecllter in his book hrler,xd C'oloni~rli.sn~. In a ~ i~~ t s l i e l l , it is basccl on the i d u Lli:~t rhc moclern st:\tes exhibit strong internal inequalities based 011 etli~iic lines ( s ~ ~ c l i ;\I,; tlic I~iClia~is ir! 1,iltin /l,nlcric:l. the Ulaclcs iu the USA and amollg tlie Scots. i:he '~1.~~1~11 ; L I I ~ lilt. Irish). Ind~istri~!liziit.ic~~:~ :~g;;r:~vatcCf ~111 alrectdy cxisting situation ol'economic drl;endcnc:, a:;d i~lcqua li1.y witlli!~ ~l ic :;t;~~cts, which ~ilatiifests itself first in different political bt.lin\liour : l i : ~ i Inicr i l l ~~tl~iii.~-~.~atio~!:il i~.:;)\:cmcnts. Iie believes that in each co i~~ i t ry there is a region \\;liicl.r is t:,l\roured 17) c:lpi:ali.ir L I : : ~ c ! o p ~ ~ ~ i ~ . n t \vIiile others are subordinated. Also, f-Iecliter pointed O L : ~ that instc:icl o f ' n u ~ i o n ~ i l ~ ~ i l t i ~ ! . e , what wi: have is a core c u l t ~ ~ r e which do111il.iatc. )ver otlicrs l,)i c:;tablislii~~g ethnic Ix)u~>il;irics. 111 otlier words, a cultural division 01' labour also exists bcl\vcen tlie core ;111d ~ l ~ e pcril~liwy; that is, there developed a system of stratilication by meul.is ol'whicli thc clomiriant group at tlie core is in a position to monopolize social positiolis which I i ax a lligli prestige in society, while the members of tlie peripheral cult~rres are nssigried social soles which wcre considered inl'erior. The more industrializatioli advaticed ill its Llneven Lva;:., thc ilitcrnal di~l'f'e~.enccs bec:11iir: mi,rc accentuated, and ethno-nationalism emerged as a r.cspo~lsc to n situation of perceivcii dependence and exploit:~tion.

An illuniinilting account o r nntio~lulism Iictrlll :/!e M~I-xI:,I .( .b l i iL ( i l ' i i cw 113s been given by 'l'o11-1 Nnirn in his boulc The Ui.cak rq] of Ut.rruitt. i4ui1.n undcrs :*ads ~tationnlisrn ss a product of illleven developn~cnt of rcgions ~billlin r l~c \vorl~l capitalis1 econoriiy. I-I(- *.f:fers to nationalism

as an effect of tlie expa~isio~i of capitalisni. Tliougli agreeing that Marxism lias little to offer on nationalisni, Nairn insists tliat only by focusing on the ravages and contradictory effects of uneven developtnent could we Iiope to understand nationalism. Capitalism ha! unified manlcind but at a price of great diseq~~ilibrium and tremendous alitagonisln which has triggered a process of socio-political fragliientation, affecting even the old continent. Nationalism was the result of certain aspects ofthe global political econoniy in tlie ~iiodern era; it was a way tliat peripheral countries found to defend themse!ves against the core. This was done by inter-class lnobilization on the basis of an identity different from tliat of the donlinating state. Nationalisrn had of necessity to express itself through tlie c ~ ~ l l ~ ~ r a l peci~liaritics of eacli area. In conclusion, for Nairn, nationalis111 was tlie socio-liistorical cost of tlie accelerated iniplantation of capitalis~n at tlie world level.

In tlie wealth of writings tliat Emmanuel Wallerstein has dedicated to the world systcm, he has occasionally toi~clied upon the national question. Wallerstein insists on the invented or constructed character of the nation. According to him, 'tlie nation hinges around one of tlie basic structural features of tlie world economy', tliat is 'the politic superstructure of this historical systeni, the sovcreig~i states that for111 and derive froni the 'inter-state system'. A nation derives from tlie political structuring of tlie world systelii. In otlier words, statehood preceded nationhood. Tlie nation is 'in no sense a primordial stable social reality, but a complex clay like liistorical production of tlie capitalist world economy'.

Anothcr original Marxist approach to nationalism has been expounded by Miroslav I-irocli. In his boolc Socinl Preconditions ofNntionrr2 Revivul of Ez~ropc., he lias proposed a class analysis of the 111odet.n nation as well as the role of cultural development. I-le distinguishes tliree mail1 states in tlie develop~iieiit of modern society: i) an early period in which the transition fro111 feudalislii to capitalis~n took place. Tliis stage con~prised of the figlit against absolute monarchies and tlie starting of boiirgeois revolt~tions; ii) tlie second stage coincided witli tlie victory and consolidation of capitalism as well as the appearance of an organized worl<irig class ~novelnent; and i i i ) di~ring the 20th century, there is a process of world wide inlegration and unprecedented developme~it of mass co~iimunication. At a cultural level, eacli nationalist movement runs through tliree phases: i) the period of scliolarly interest, ii) period of patriotic agitation and iii) period of niass movement.

However, tlie Marxist tradition generally Iias been extremely suspicious ofnationalisni, tliougli for tactical reslsotis they have often made Llse of national senti~iients to achieve socialist objectives. In co~iclusion, one can agree witli Toni Nairn that 'the theory of nationalism represents Mal-xistn's great historical failure'. Tlie develop~iients in tlie 1960s in whicli socialist countries foi~glit bitteriy against each otlier alorig nationalist lines opened 111e eyes of some Marxists to tlie reality of national interest. With tlie collapse of tlie Soviet Block ill 1989 and the disintegration oi'tlie USSR i ~ i 1991, this issue lias collie to the forefront again. At prcsent, few really believe tliat Marxisni can provide a genuine tlieory of nationalism.

23.3.2.3 Gellner's Theory of Nationalism

Though Gellner's theol-y is not an economic one and A.D. Smith Iias labelled it as c ~ ~ l t ~ r r a l and ling~listic, still he niaintains that nationalisni is the ~~navoidable outconie of an industrial society which requires a specially ductile laboui. force. Gellner does not use the wol-cl 'capitalism' and uses instead 'industrial society'. According to Iiim, nationalism can be ~~nderstood in tlie context oftlle inipact of industrialization, oftlie co~npetition between classes

in the newly created industrial stratification and of the integrating effects of language and education. The process of industrialization undermined the traditional social structures and gave primacy to ci~ltilral eletiients such as communication. The identity of an individual was no longer defined in terms of his social relations, but in terms of his culture. And culture and nationality are closely related. Only the state could provide through an educational system and the official language the kind ofculti~red person required by the process of industrialization. The fact that inditstrialization and modernization spread in an uneven fashion created a new systetn of social stratif'lcation; a class system which was felt to be unacceptable because of its illegitimacy. If this overlaps with ci~ltural differences, an uneasy alliance between a culturally displaced intelligentsia and an overexploited proletariat may lead to a nation's secession. According to him, it was the social chasms (doubled with cult~lral differences) created by early industrialisln and by the unevenness of its diffusion which made tlie nationalist conflicts acute. Thus, i.he specific roots of nationalism are found in the distinctive structural requirements of industrial society.

The Gellnerian model of nationalist developtnent strongly emphasized that nationalism has its roots in the new industrial order and that nothing before this period - i.e. agrarian society - can be equated to nationalism, because political units were not defined in tertils of cultural boundaries. Since for Gellner nations can only be defined in terlns of the age of nationalism, he cannot conceive of the nation as an imaginative vision created by intellectuals in order to legitimize tlie medieval (agrarian) state (monarcliy) in Western Europe. His other emphasis is on modernization in the form of popitlation explosion, rapid urbanization, labour migration, penetration of local econoniies by global economy etc. He also admits that the Protestant Reformation nii~st have had an impact on nationalism as did colonialisn~ and imperialism.

23.3.2.4 Political-Ideological Thearies

Apart fioin the ecotio~nistic theories, there are a number of politico-ideological theories of nationalism. The common feature of all these theories is that they give a prominent role to the state in tlie developnient of nationalisln in moder.nity. Under these theories, we shall dwell upon the views of four authors; namely, John Breililly, Anthony Giddens, Paul Brass and Michael Mann.

John Breuilly in his book Nalionalism cmdStcrtc accepts the existence of nations and nationalist sentinielits in medieval Europe, but he restricts nationalisn~ to the modern period and associates it with the development of modern state and of the international state system. ~ationalism is understood as a form of politics that arises in close association with the development of the state. In other words, in all its history, tlie modern state has shaped nationalist politics. Giddens defines nationalism as 'the existence of sylnbols and beliefs which are either propagated by elite groups or held by many of tlie members of regional, ethnic or ling~tistic categories of a population and which imply a con~milnity between them'. Nationalism for Giddens is a modern phenomenon sternrning from the aftermath of the French revolution. He also insists that the European nationalism is a category of it own and that it sliould not be generalized to other areas without reference to what he calls '\vorld tin~e'. Natio~lalism was a response to certain 'needs and dispositions' whicli would appear at a time when as a result of the mass commoditification of time and space, the individual lost his ontological security. Sirnultaneously, he also agrees that nationalism is connected with class do~nination and that the uneven develop~nent of capitalis~n strongly influenced the origin of oppositional national ism.

Another writer Paul Brass insists that ethnicity ant1 nntionalism are the product of modcrnity and emphasizes its constructed character. According to hini, cultures are fabricated by elite groups who use raw materials fro111 different groups to create ethnics and nations. By using these representations, the elite airn at ensuring their cconomic or political advantages for themselves. Brass's theory states that ethnic identity and modern nationalism arise out of specific types of iliteraction between the leadership of centralizing states and the elites from non-dominant ethnic groups, especially but not exclusively on the peripheries of those states.

Michael Mann sees himself as a modernist, although he accepts the existence of more or less conscious ethnicity and proto-nations before modern times. To account for the development of nationalism, it is necessary to refer to a11 the four sources of social powers; namely, economic, political, ideological and milita~y. In the first phase which began in the 16th century, ideological power dominated. It was in the shape of religion and it gave form to proto-nations like Protestant England. The second phase corntnenced in 1700 and it can be defined as a 'commercial statist' phase; it was characterized by a further diffusiori of' proto-national identities, It roughly corresponded to Anderson's idea of 'print capitalism'. In tlie tliird phase, military power dominated and propelled nationhood. By tlie beginning of the 19th century, most of the western nations were already in full sight. Finally, the industrialist phase of the nation encouraged three types of nations: state reinforcing, state creating and state subverting. According to Mann, nationalisl~~ appeared heavily mediated by the role of the state. Industrialization was not the principal cause of nationalism; in fact it arrived too late. According to Mann, there were two principal causes: on the one hand, tile emergerlce of conimercial capitalism and its universal social classes, and on tlie other, the cmcr;;t:?icc of modern state and its professional arliied forces and administrators. Con.joincc1 by !hc fiscal-military pressure exerted by geopolitical rivalry, they produced tlie po1itii:s oi' popular representation and tliese formed several varieties of ~nodeni nationalism.

In slioi-t, nationalism is a modem plienomenon tl~ougli its rise has been ridden with a con~plexity of factors.

23.4 RISE AND GROWTH OF NATIONALISM

Historically, nationalis111 lias been the product of the rise of nation-states in Europe. During its earlier pliase, it was identified with the absolute tilonarchies of Europe. I n the 18th and the 19th centuries, it acquired an imperialist form in the struggle for colonies i n Asia and Africa; in tlie 19th century it associated itself wit11 liberalis~i~, democracy, constitutio~ialist aiid civil liberties. It played an important part in the rcol-ganization of Europe, unificatiot-i ol' Ttaly and Germany and tlie liqr~idation of Hapsburg and Ottoman Empires. After the First IVorld War, it acquired an aggressive and racial shape in thc f~r i i i of fascism. During the 20th century, it bi-ougl~t a iiew awaltening in the Asian and African countries, through national liberation ~ilovements. After the cold wal; tlie disi~ltegration of the Soviet Union and thc rise of a number of tzew states lias once again sllown tlie do~nination of nationalisn-t as a political force.

Nationalisrii lias fo~llid expression through the medium of modern nation-states which were the product of inally f'orces and struggles. The principle factors responsible for the rise of nationalist states liave been as follows:

i) tlie individualistic cli~nate ofopinion that characterized Renaissa~~ce and Refonnation

ii) the collapse of i~niversal authority of the Clii~rcli

iii) tlie desire of tlie rising co~iimercial classes for i~iiihri!i trade regulations, abolition of feudal obstacles to trade for creating conditions under which trade coilld be carried on peacefi~lly and profitably

iv) the desire for peace, order iind security in an age marked by bloodslied and violence

v) personal ambitions of monarchs who allied the~nselves with rising commercial cfasses in opposition to the Inore powerfill feudal lords

vi) the doctrine ofterritorial sovereiglity which provided tlie I<ings tlie most convenient weapon to combat tlie clni~ns of rivals or religious authorities. The idea ofone unified legal system affording order, consistcncy and certainty in tlie governing of all social relations within a given ~lational area rilacle a very strong appeal.

Based LIPOII the above factors, the growth of states on nationalistic lines started from England and Western E ~ ~ r o p e and spread to different continents and region. To have a clear iinderstanding of tlie phenomenon, we can sti~dy it under tlie following headings:

i) Gro\vth of'tlie nation-state in Wcstcrn, Soutlicln and Eastern Europe

ii) lvation-state in America

iii) Anti-colonial nationalism in Asia and Africa

23.4.1 Nation-state in Europe

As stated above, the nation-state was the product of colnbined influence of Reformation, Renaissance and commercial revolution. The decline in the authority ofthe church raised the question of' loyalty 0.1' the individual and by withdrawing this loyalty from the Holy Roman Enipire, gave it to the monarcli wlio was e~i~erging as the sylnbol and sole reprcsentati\lc of the nation itself. Tlicse ~iionarcliies tended to consolidate tlieir power in areas united by n coininon vernacular, religion, culture etc. Tlius, nationality began to hn11 into a state wliich represented them. As a result, a new principle was introduced in the concept of tlie nation- state. 'This co~icept rqjcctcd the I-loly Romari Empire and suppol-ted the formation of states on tlie basis of nationality.

Loyalty to a nation represcntecl by a king began to C I I K ~ ~ , ( : ;111i1 exert powerful influence. 'l'lic English, French, Spanish atid G e r r n : ~ ~ ~ nationalities \vcLl.c criclt even before, but the bond 11ncl been religion. The breiiking ol' cliurcli power and thc cil:tblisIime~it of tlie national churcli wider the authority oF tt~c king paved thc way for the 11nrron-state. Tlie task wits initiated by England and was followccl by Francc. kicnry V i l and I'liiiips 11 were absoltltc monarciis who destroyed Feudalisnl and the riiultiplicity of authority in society and establislicd strong centralinxi states. 'Thus, tlicre enierged a separatc and independent iiational identity represented by a powcrf'i~l king. 'I'liis statc freed the individual from tile dual loyalty ofthe church and the state. During this phasc, nation-state meant the si~blnission of tlie individual to the king ~.eprcsenting the nationality ol' the ruled.

This period was also characterized by a new developnlent i.e. colonialism. It spread both in eastern and western directions, i.e. Asia and A~nericfi. The great:discoveries were the acl~ievements of advent~~rous individuals, supported by kings who in turn expected financial gains. The increasing co~npetition anlong the nation-states to n~aximize colonies led to further centralization and solidarity within the nation and intensification of the spirit of nationalism. T11e new colonies were not intended to be territorially s~~bjugated or ruled from abroad, but were to serve as centres of conimerce in tlie initial phase and as a source ofraw materials and marlcet in the era of industrial revolution. The industrial revolution gave birth to a new economy and a new class-the capitalist class, whose interests clashed with those ofabsolute monarchy. The struggle between the kings and the capitalist class was resolved through democracy. This gave a new meaning to the nation-state. Now, nation-state tileant not loyalty to the king, but to tlie government whicli gave f i e e d o ~ ~ ~ , which consulted the people and placed real authority in their hands. National ism was tneatiingless, u~~ les s it embodied liberty for the people. The establisli~ment of representative institutions gave a new solid base to the ideology of nationalism.

The FI-encli revolution in the fag end of tlie 18th century was a turning point in the rise and growth of the nation-state. Here, tlie stage shifted to central Europe. The declaration of the national assembly, rights of III~II, location of sovereignty in the nation, abolition of feudal legacies, confiscation of church property to meet the national debt, formation of the national education policy, the-national f lag, the national anthem, and the war fought for the glory c tlie nation -all these thing led natiot-ialism in France to its pinna~Ie. I n 1792 when Napoleor! Bonaparte begati the national revolutionary striiggles, national consciousness was almost absent in Europe. But as the national wars increased and a large popion of Belgium, Netherlandsa '

Germany and Italy came under French occupation, it led to a t'eaction w1iicl.l found expression in 11ationalism. There was an upsurge in German nationalism. The defeat of Germany in 1806 made Fichte and Hegel staunch enemies of France and ardent supporters of German nationalism. It led to the belief that politics cannot be ignored at the cost of philosophy:The Nepoleonic wars helped imn~ensely in awakening the ~iatiotial conscioirs~iess of tlie German State. Tlie Ger~nnn State wanted to stand at an equal level with France and England. Fichte held the view that economic progress was 111e basis of political unity and this could be achieved only through state socialism. 'The concept of nation as propounded by Hegel, the state socialism of Lassale and Bismarlc had its roots in Fichte. In Germany, the nation-state was not only a political theory, but etnerged as a philosophy of life. Hegel combined the state with the will of the nation. He called the state as the march of God on earth and by giving a mystical base to tlie nation, justified an absolute state which was ~ t ~ i s ~ i s e d by Nazism in the 20th century in t l ~ e nanle of ~iational socialism.

The formation of nation-state in Eastern E~~rope did not take place under a centralized authority. Right fionl tlie beginning, due to the lack of any political organization to spread national consciousness, these states were under three empires - Hapsburg. Ottoman and Asian. All the e e~npires were unable to inculcate any national sentiment among the population. In tlie

t71 19 century, socio-economic changes in tlie rest of Europe had their repercussions on tlie eastern parts as well. Varioits segments of the population begin to feel that from the point of view ~Tnationality, they were not only different from the king, but that the oppressive nature of r~tle was also not tolerable. The theory of self-determination of nationalities was welcomed by these people because this coi~ld help them rid tliemselves of autocratic regimes. Hence, the struggle to get rid of oppressive rule started in the 19th century and continued in the 20th century. Dut-ing tlie First World War, a rnajor question was of the new nationalities which

wanted to f-br~n new states of their own. The war decided in favour of the nation-states. The map 0.f Europe was redrawn. Tlie Austro-Hungarian empires and the Ottolnan empires were broken. Five new states we,?e carved out: Poland, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, Estonia and Finland. Six new states were extended: Yugoslavia, Ron~ania, Greece, Italy Denmark and France. 'TIle Austrian, tlungarian and 'Turkish empires were pruned to form states based upon nationalities. The Treaty of Paris accepted tlie principle of nationalities as a part of ~tniversal law in Europe. T l~e First World War reco~nmended the idea of self-determination of nationalities to be extended to Asia and Africa.

23.4.2 Nation-state in America

While in Europe, the nation state meant a unified state on the basis of mutual freedom and its defence, it meant something different in America. The Alnericall colonies felt that all their en'o~-ts and conqLlests had led to the riches ofthe home countries. When they became conscious that they were not worlting for tl~emselves, but for the benefit of those who had never left their colilfortable homes, they revolted. Their first slogan was 'no taxation without representation' whicll subsecli~ently changed into full war of independence. This resulted in the formation of new states and national identities. Out ofthe contradiction between national feeling and liberty, and self-interest, tl~ey were forced to severe old bonds and create new ones. Hence, the nation- state meant severing old national bonds and creating new ones. This ended the colonial rule and the creation of inany nation-states in the Amcrican continent.

23.4.3 Anti-Colonial Nationalism

In the 20th ccntury, the period between the two world wars, the Russian Revolution and the rise o f Fascism were important landmarks in tlie spread of nationalist ideas from Europe to the non-european lands of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Collectively, they set in [notion the process of national liberation movements in Asia and Africa, as a result of which many countries got independence from the imperialist powers of Europe. Such revolutionary changes played a vital role in developitig a new form of nationalism. New nations like China, India, Pakistan, Egypt, Vietnam grew on tpe world scene which gave a new meaning to the concept of nationalism. The circunislances which gave birth to these nations were quite different from those of the West. These were the co$ wcre subjugated by imperialist countries like England, France. Spain, Nolland had been exploited. Imperialist countries considered them their and pilfered. They destroyed their independence and too weak to do any harm to imperid' r ism.

A new fort11 of nationalism and a new meaning otthe concept was born in countries like India, China and the Arab lands. Tllougl~ the new concept o f nationalism which became tlie basis of new states derived much of its ideology and political theory from the West, yet it adapted the theory to its own historical experiences, its particular circumstances and to its own revolt against imperialism. The basis of the new nationalisn~ was that i t began with an instinctive and xenophobic hatred for imperialism, a hatred of its representatives, its nationals and anyone affiliated with them. It was a simple Iiatred against those wl~o had occupied their lands by force, exploited their riches by force, crushed their governments, enslaved their people and who had not hesitated to destroy, plullder and steal. This hatred was expressed violently in

killings, destructiol~ and assassinations sucli as the Boxer liebellion in South Africa as well as in peacefill, non-violent forms in India under Gandhi. Thesc states were conscious of irnpel.ialisn~, aimed at its destruction and the destruction of accompanyit~g evils such as conquests, oppression, enslavement, stifling of liberty, exploitation of riches and sowing of racial, regional, commtinal and class distinctions. At the same time, nationalis111 liere was also a creative force wl~ich aimed at building a nation based upon the principles of liberty, independence, economic justice and national unity. It viewed national unity as a creative force which ico~~ld stim~ilate the people to colitrib~lte their share in national reconstruction. This unity meant two things: i) illiity of geographical parts, and ii) unity in the diversity of religion, class, caste, and comli~unal elelnents. These states pledged to work for the welfare of all classes, castes and groups because all of them participated and contributed their lot in the struggle for fi-eedom. From tlie international point of view, these nation-states opposed ri~ilitary bases, ilndile alien interference into the affair ot'other states, apartheid and believed in non- alignment and international cooperation.

A peculiar feature of anti-colo~~ial nationalis111 has been that in most cases, tliere is no sense in which a nation precedcs the elnergetice of the state. Here, a difference can be made between the initial form of nationalism as a move~nent directed against the colonial rulers and engaged in the struggle for independence and nationalism's subsequent transformation into a political discourse e~nployed by new leaders in the* attempt to construct a nation capable of sustaining the legitimacy of tlie state they inherited from the colonial era. After gaining independence, these colonial states established new (constituent) states, drew their borders, built up their capital cities and established a central administration and political institutions to suit tlieir ecoriolnic needs. As a result, each cololly was I? 'collection of peoples and old states, or fragnients of these, brougl~t together witliin the same boundaries'. All these states were n mosaic of different ellinic comniunities and tribes. Thus, the artificial and imposed character of the states in sucl~ territories accounted for most ofthe troubles after obtaining independence. Tlie major problern faced by lhese states has been their fragility. The newly created nation- states initiated a struggle to replace tlie pre-national ties with a feeling of national identity and loyalty. But in many cases, tlie euphoria accompanying the celebration of freedom soon turned sour. The reasons for this stem fsoni the incapacity of the new states to eliminate ecoliomic backwardness a11d the difficulty of creating a coherent civil society out of a population as heterogeneous in itself as in relation to the stale. Many of them imable to sustain the claims of tlie people turned towards the USA or the erstwhile USSR. But this meant becoming dependent.

Also, independence liberated ethnic nationalisln witliin the emergent slate nationalisni and in some cases - like India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Nigeria etc - tlireatened anti- colonialism nationalism whose objective was the conservation ofthe state and the replacetnent of the colo~iial n~lers. While MLIS~~IIIS cal led for a separate nation-state chal lengilig die integrity oT the Indian state, caste, class, ethnic origin, religion, language formed separate layers of identity that added to the co~i~plexity ofcreating a single nation within an inherited arbitrarily designed state. After independence, enorrnous problems were faced in preserving the nation- state. Tlie socio-political environment elevated some leaders like Gandhi, Nehru, Sukarno, Nasscr to t l ~ e category of prophet liberators. Yet, the vast gap between tlie Western educated

I

elites and the bulk of a I I I O S ~ ~ ~ illiterate popillation increased after independence. Most of them did not cliange the struciurc of the states and retained colonizers' privileges. The fragility of theit-govern~nents led to an increasing hostility as well as ~nove~nents seeking independence of ethnic n~inorities within establislied states. Independence brought civil war in Sudan, Zail-e, I

Chad. Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana, Ceylon and a silt between Eastern and Western wings of Paltistan ultimately resulting in tlie creation of Bangladesli - a new nation-state.

'The major task confronted by the nationalist intellectuals has been to create a nation to I legitin7ize the slate. But given the lieterogeneous character of their societies, conflict is ilnavoidable which stems from two sources: i) tlie differences arising among tlie etlinic groups included in tlie most arbitrarily'created states inherited from the colonial rulers, and ii) the wide gap between a small aftluent elite and a large number of people living in conditions of poverty. 111 tlie first case, nationalism is employed as a weapon to ignite old antagonisms and disputes, and in the second case, it could be used to promote an alternative image ofthe nation or channelled to blame the Wcst for all the troubles.

-

23.5 CONTEMPORARY DEVELOPMENTS: NATIONALISM VIS-A- VIS ETHNIC RESURGENCE AND GLOBALIZATION

Since tlie Second World War, three developments have affected 1:lie concept of nationalism which has been pointing to different directions. The first was a corisolidation trend wl~icli made tlie nation-state the niain source of political authority. Tlie domination of the nation- state, the most powerfill fonn of political organisation, lias been extended by the virtual end of tlie colonial en~pires. 'l''1ie1.e were 5 1 states in 1945 whereas by 1992, this number had gone up to 185. Moreover, the power of the national governments in many new states, though shaky in the beginning, has been consolidated in the 1970s mid 198Os, particularly in third world countries lilie Zaire, Nigeria, Malaysia and Pakistan. Tlie coming tip of India illustrates one of tlie great virtues of tlie nation-state as a fort11 of organization wliicli can secure Inass cornpliancc of policies with only a minim~in> of coercion.

'Tlte second development relates to ethnic resurgence. Alongwith the consolidation of the -

tiation state, there has been a revival of lninority nationalist movemel~ts claiming nieasures of autonomy within the state or even indepuidence fiom it. Sucl~ conflicting trends have increased since the 1970s when the U K saw tlie growth ol'nalionalist parties in Scotland and Wales, France ex~serienccd demands for ~iieasuros ol'cultural autonomy from groups in Britain and Corsica. Quebecois tiationalists wanted independence fro111 Canada, More recently, India and Sri Lanka are also facing problems ol'KasI11niri~and Tamil nationalists respectively, leading to a certain aniount of bloodslied. Ahcr the disintegration of tlie USSR and the East Europe Commilnist bloc, ethnic resurgence lias spread like un inFection. The rise of separatist and ethnic agitations is partly due to the loss of group idclitity ofcertain riiinorities and partly, due to the fact that the principle of state creation since thc Second World War had notliing to do with sel F-detern~ination. The creation of new nation-states was more because of the forces of decolonization, revolution or intervention of outside powers. The result was that soon afler independence, tensions developed betcvcen the component parts ofthe independence movement in coilntries like India, Algeria. Again thc intervention of outside powers had been obviously non-nationalistic. The split of Soviet Union into its constituents' parts and the disintegration of Yi~goslavia hnve sliow~i that these states were i~nperfectly integrated. The third develop~nent relates to the process of globalization. During tlie last two decades, the world has become liiglily inter-depetident, Today, tlie nation-state lias to operate in an inter-dependent world. Information, money, weapons, technology, pollution, values, radiation, food, computers, drugs, disease, data - all flow rapidly around the globe giving the individual nation-states more

opportunities, but also posing more threat to-their identity. Siniultaneously, the role of international and supranational organizations like the UNO, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, GATT and Non-governmental Organizations is increasing by leaps and bounds. In this connection, tlie past two decades have seen tlie emergence ofa good deal of spec~llation about tlie possible transniutalion of the nation-state system into sonle kind of a new world order. Tke cn~cial qi~estion is whether wc are moving towards a colnmon culture or whether globalization will strengthen a particular culture. I-iobsbawm predicts that the future is not going to be contaitied within the litnits of 'nation-states' either politically, economically, culti~rally or linguistically. It will be supranational. It will see nation-states or nations in the being resisting, adapting or being absorbed or dislocated by tlie new siipranatio~lal restr~lcturing of tlie globe. On the other hand, according to Birth, ruucl~ of sucli speculation is based upon wishfill tl~inlting. Inspite of globalization and tlie quest for global culture, the current proliferation of struggles for self-deten~iination in several parts of the world indicate that even the democratic nature of the nation-states and granting s~~fficient autonomy to the minorities within a nation-state lias not solved the probleln and the use of force still remains the key feature in the definition of nationalis111. Tlie role of nationalism as a Inass ~novenlent lias played a crucial role in the conscription oi'large arn~ies and in tlie waging ofwar. Currently, nationalist11 appeals to a wide ranging sector of popillation and stands as a dynamic agent that relies on violence as well as proniotes peacefill Inass mobilization.

In the context of globalization, Rlie reluctance to give away sovereignty and loss of control over doinestic matters will increase tlie presence of nationalism in the nation-states' political discourse. Here, a growth of colitradictory forces can be seen: on the one hand, to participate in international forums and instit~~tions and the search for tlie establishment of conimon policies with other members of the \vorld community, and on the other, to protect tlie interests of the nation-state. For example. the Ellropean Union has not reduced the preservation of the integrity and identity of tlie individual nation-states.

Contemporary nationalistn uses tradition in the services of n~odernity. According to Touraine, the nation is a 'non-modern actor that creates modernity.' Doubts and fragmentation are e~nine~lt in modernity because they are unexpected. Tlle absence ofa single officially sanctioned metllod of knowledge retlected a certain kind of fragmentation that differs fi-om the one present in our time. Tlie return to tradition empliasizes tlie value of contin~tity in a context where constant change and adaptation to new social, political and technological erivironments determines the day-to-day life of tlie individuals. The concept of nation is rooted in pre- ~noder~i times and the perception of culture and language as products of the evolve~nent of a community over a period of time will retain their strong power to attract the individuals. Tradition will continue to be involved as a legitimizing principle only in so far as it is constantly actualized. The new elements brought about by modernity will be incorporated into and niixed cvitll tlie traditional fonns 01' life.

Globalization unleashes a pressing demand or identity among those individuals who regard the totality of inherited ideas, values, beliefs and knowledge that constiti~te tlie shared basis of their lives its threatened by the expansion of alien cultures endowed with greater resources. In Inany cases, nationalis111 elnergks as a response to progressive homogenizatiol~ and represents a struggle to defend identity politics. Thus, thoiigh the process of globalization is intensifying, there-is no global identity wliic11 would suit to f~tlfil tlie needs of an otherwise diverse population. TIILIS, natior;alisln will survive the wave of glob a I ' ~zation.

The above disci~ssion on nationalism can be suninied up as follows:

Nationalism is a sentiment that llas to do with the attachment to a Iiomeland, a co~nmon language, ideas, values and traditions, identification of a group with symbols such as flags, songs etc. which make it 'different' fiom others. The attacliment creates an identity and the appeal to that identity lias a past and tlie power to ~iiobilize the peo le. ;1 One of the no st distinctive features of nationalism is its capacity to bring people together fro111 different 'social and cult~lral levels', It is tlie invention of tlie ruling classes to maintain the i~nconditional loyalty of the masses and ~iiake them believe that they have much in coln~non witli tlie ruled. Tliis is one oftlie basic factors in ~lnderstanding the persistence of national is~ii.

A thcory ofnationalisni has to deal with q~~estions such as the concept of nationalisni and the factors responsible for tlie evolvement of national conscio~rsness and national identity; the genesis and evolution of the idea of nation in Western Europe, its diffusion world-wide; and tlie contemporary challenges to nationalis~ii.

The different theories oi'~iationalisln discitssed in this unit try to solve tlie ~iiystery as to wlicn the nation first appeared. The perennial theories concentrate on the history of natio~is whicli are described as ancient and immemorial. They see tlie nation as a c~~ltilral coni~nunity, rooted, organic, natural and as a single whole. The ~nodcrnist tlieorics, whether social, comm~~nicntion based, economistic or politico-ideological, see the nation as a political community, a modern and social conslr~~ct designed for an age of revolution. They associate nationalis~n witli n~oveme~its like Renaissance, lielbrniation, comn~ercialization, industrialization, urbanization as well as coloni~l is~n arid inipcrialism.

I-listorically, tlie iden of nation-state began in England, followed by Western Europe such as France, Germany a~id Italy. Tlic formation ol' nation-state in Eastern Europe lctl to the dissolution of'tl~ree enipires: 1-lapsburg, Ottoman arid Asian which resulted in the creation of a number of states sucli as Poland, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania etc. Tlic American Kevol~ltion cretlted a new kind ~Tnationalis~n wliicli meant severing old bonds arid creating new ones. During tlie 20th century, anti-colonial nationalism in Asia and Africa began will1 all instinctive ar~d xt.nopliobic hatred ofilnperialism, colonialism, racism, apartheid etc. The post Second World War period saw tlie tri~~~iipli of tiationalism and the right of sel f- deterniination of nationalism. This gave rise to a number of new nation-states in Asia and M i c a .

Since tlie Second World War, three developments liave affccted nationalism: consoliclation, li.ag~ncntation and globalization. Up to 1970, riiany states which had gained fieedolii after the Second World War had been able to consolidate tlicir position. But along witli that, tliere had becn a revival OF minority national movements and ethnic resurgence, both in tlie advanced countries like the UK, Canada, France and also in ~~nderdevelopcd countries like India and Sri L,anka. And last b ~ ~ t not tlie least, the process of globalization I~as becn posing a serious threat to the national identity of tlie states, 1-lowever, nationalism lias been able lo meet all tliese cliallenges and still remslilns tlie dominant rorce in tlie world.

23.7 EXERCISES

1 ) Explain il l your ow11 words what do you understand by nationalism. I

2) Discuss the factors responsible for giving rise to 3 national identity.

3) Which are the two broad categories of theories of natiolialism? Explain.

4) Enumerate the various theories of nationalis~ii.

5 ) Explain any two natio~ialism theories of your clioice.

6 ) Explain the factors behind the rise and growth of nationalism.

7) Write a short essay on anti-colonial nationalism.

8) D i s c ~ ~ s s conteliiporary developtnerits in the arena of nationalis~n.