Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Nationalism and Modernism
Nationalism and Modernism
This paper deals with the view that culture and ethnicity did not play an important role in the
INTRODUCTION.
“Nationalism is the yearning for, and acceptance of, the norm of the nation which can be defined
as a large, co-cultural, unmediated, anonymous society .Men become nationalists, out of genuine,
objective practical necessity”1 Hans Kohn, on the other hand, regarded the nation “as a free
association of rational human beings entered into voluntarily into an individual basis” .Kohn
termed this as a voluntarist type of nation. An organic type viewed the nation as “an organization
of fixed and inedible character which was stamped on its members at birth and free from which
embedded in the thought processes of human beings. Edward Shils had first used this term to
drfine relationships within the family.3 Ethnic groups and nations are a product of extended kin
groups. Pierre Van den Berghe argues that nations can be seen as an outcome of kin-selection.
1
Anthony D.Smith.. Nationalism and Modernism (New York:Routledge,1998),p.28.
2
Smith, Nationalism and Modernism. p.146.
3
Umut Ozkirmlp. Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction( New York:Palgrave Macmillan, 2010),p.49.
For Berghe, human sociality depends on selection, reciprocity and selection. However, he points
out that ethnicity, caste and race are defined by common descent and hence are based on kin
selection exclusively. The evolution of this can be seen from small tribes. Edward Shils, on the
other hand argued that primodial ties of kinship and religion played an important part within
modern socities which could be witnessed by public ceremonies. Glifford Geertz points out that
the emergence of the populations Asia and Africa were bound together by primodial ties such as
language, custom, race and religion. These explained the importance of ethnicity. However, Shils
and Geertz both see primordialism as a sentiment although to Geertz biological kinship units are
rather small and hence to him they are not of political significance. According to Joshua
Fishman, “Ethnicity has always been experienced as a kinship phenomenon, a continuity within
the self and within those who share an intergenerational link to common ancestors. Ethnicity is
partly experienced as being ‘bone of their bone, flesh of their flesh and blood of their blood’. The
human body itself is viewed as an expression of ethnicity and ethnicity is commonly felt to be in
the blood, bones and flesh”4 Fishman traces the roots of ethnicity in history and the human
psyche and sees its continuity from generation to generation. Walker Connon argues that a nation
is formed when the people feel that they are ancestrally related and hence has to right to
command a person’s loyalty because of the kinship ties which is why it can be seen as a fully
extended family. Connon brings up examples of Ho Chi Minh and Hitler who have appealed to
blood and kinship to mobilize nationalism, although he clearly differentiates between patriotism
and nationalism. To him patriotism is the love for one’s country and its institutions where as
nationalism is the love for one’s nation, an emotional feeling and the manifestation of the ethnic
group. Connor terms this phenomena as ‘ ethno-nationalism’ and brings out the fact that popular
sovereignty is intimately connected to ethnicity. However, he argues that ethnic groups when
4
Smith, Nationalism and Modernism,pp.145-160.
confronted with a foreign element may feel a low level of solidarity.5Geertz has distinguished
between ethos and world view as two important components in a culture. Ethos is to be seen as
the moral aspect where as world view can be defined as the cognitive aspect, or in other words, it
Nations have been seen as essentially political communities, which were sovereign and consisted
of legally equal citizens. Gender, religion, family ,region and class were subordinated to the
allegiance owed by its citizens to his or her nation-state and hence formed the base of democratic
civic participation. According to Ernest Gellner, nationalism had recognized the crucial
Adding to that, religion is secondary and hence is unimportant in a legitimate political order.
However, Gellner points out that these modernizing forces which generated nationalism had
been operating in Europe since Reformation, although he agrees that nationalism is an important
component in an industrial society and is embedded in its mode of production.7 There have been
three main stages in history, as stated by Gellner which are pre-agranian ,agranian and the
industrial. In the hunter-gatherer stage, the concept of a state had not existed. Gellner had clearly
,literate culture. To Benedict Anderson, on the other hand, a nation is an imagined community
5
Smith, Nationalism and Modernism,pp161-164
6
Clifford Geertz. The Interpretation of Cultures. (New York:Basic Books, 1973.)p.126
7
Ernest Gellner. The State of the Nation (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998),pp.40-45
which is opposed to the dynastic realm and the religious community. Hence, Anderson believes
Tom Nairn, a follower of Marxism has also contributed to this interpretation of nationalism.
Nairn believes that nationalism is a product of an ideological phenomena and hence, nationalism
can be seen as the result of the class consequences of the ‘uneven diffusion of capitalism’. He
brings out the function of the intellegensia in mobilsing the masses and helping in the
development towards nationalism. Modern leaders with their skills of oratory and propaganda
can lead a movement. The proponents of this theory are Tom Nairn, Benedict Anderson,
Anthony D.Smith, Ernest Gellner, Elie Kedourie, J.H Kautsky and Peter Worsley.
8
David W.Cavers, ‘Nationalism, Ethnicity and the Cultural Politics of Identity’, Totem: The University of Western Ontario Journal of
Anthroplogy Vol 1, Issue 1(1994):p.23