Nationalism+and+Modernism

__Chapter 1: The Rise of Classical Modernism__ The main purpose of this article is to explain the modernist paradigm of nationalism. The most important part of this chapter can be found on pp. 18-24. Central Questions: Is the nation a means to an end, or an end in itself? What is the nature of the nation? Do nations endure, or are they ephemeral social constructions that will pass away? 1. Historical context a. Early scholars of nationalism ran the gamut in terms of how they answered the above questions. b. Intellectual foundations of the classical modernist paradigm of nationalism (early 20th c.) i. Marxism: Nationalism was assessed according to whether it aided or complicated class struggle in various countries. While there was no formal model of nationalism, there was an assumption that nations were the form, while class formation and ideologies were the content. They also had a global, historic, and Euro-centric vision of the world. These have persisted. ii. Crowd psychology: Introduced concepts of the role of the Other to identity formation, inclusion in versus exclusion from social groups, and modernity’s disorienting effects on individuals and disruption of traditional ties. iii. Weber: Wrote a lot on ethnic identity and nationalism. Introduced concepts of political memories, national cultural values, nation-states, political action, formation of ethnic groups, and the evolution of modern European nations. Defined the nation as a community seeking a state. The state needs a nation for legitimacy; the nation needs a state for protection. iv. Durkheim: Emphasized community. Defined the nation as a moral community with a collective conscousness. Assumed a certain timeless, eternal character to this community. Contrasted mechanical to organic solidarity, and said that ethnic revivals could renew society and give us a sense of belonging. c. Later historians and sociologists began studying rise of European nationalisms in the 1920s. They examined sociological factors such as the role of the bourgeoisie (Kohn), political and economic influences (Carr), starting points (generally, the French Revolution). d. In 1950s, people from many disciplines began studying anti-colonial nationalisms in Africa and Asia. 2. The classical modernist paradigm of nationalism a. This paradigm began with a reaction to perennialism. i. “Perennialism” refers to the sense that nations are ancient and immortal, and that national consciousness is a fundamental aspect of human history. ii. Anti-perennialism claims that nations are not primordial or natural, but are recent social constructions of the modern period. iii. Anti-perennialism lends itself better to nation-building, a major concern of activitists in the post-WW2 era in post-colonial Africa. b. 5 main tenets of modernist paradigm (p. 20 – worth reading in its entirety) i. Nations are concieved of as nation-states. ii. Citizens’ primary loyalty is to the nation. iii. Nations are the main international actors. iv. Citizens and political elites build nations. v. Nations are the only means of ensuring people’s needs are met and ensuring development. c. Summary comparing and contrasting perennial and modernist views of the nation (p. 23) __Perennialism vs. Modernism__ The nation as Cultural community political community Immemorial modern Rooted created Organic mechanical Seamless divided Quality resource Popular elite-construct Ancestrally-based communication-based **Chapter 9: Beyond Modernity** This chapter is basically a literature review of various postmodernist approaches to ethnicity and nationalism. Smith asks: have we moved beyond the nationalist epoch in tandem with the shift away from modernism? Is a ‘postmodern’ epoch also a ‘post-national’ one, and are both reflected in ‘postmodernist’ styles of analysis? Smith suggests that much of this analysis is colored by its postmodern approach – “the evidence of ‘fragmentation’ may be as much a product of the deconstructive modes of analysis employed as of any empirical trends (219).” Although he does believe that the themes of fragmentation and globalization derived from ‘postmodern/post-national’ approaches offer beneficial insights into //contemporary// problems of ethnicity and nationalism, the problem is in their lack of historical depth – they propose no general explanation of nations and nationalism, and make no attempt to uncover the mechanisms by which nations were formed, developed, and spread. He also states that without an explicit theory of the character, formation and diffusion of nations and nationalism, such arguments will lack depth and validity. These new postmodern accounts don’t have a ‘grand narrative’ from which to base their claims. Therefore, “all the partial ‘little narratives’ will have to lean on, and tacitly take their meaning from one or other version of the existing grand narratives. That can be good neither for systematic social understanding nor for political and social policy (220).” In Smith’s view, all of the analyses he reviews in this chapter (despite what they may claim about themselves) actually assume one or other version of the modernist paradigm, which they then seek to ‘go beyond’. Finally, the one approach he believes has made significant contributions to the field is the gender/feminist approach. **Main themes of postmodern/’post-national’ research on nations and nationalism:** 1. The impact of current population movements – particularly the fragmentation of national identity and the rise of multiculturalism; 2. The impact of feminist analysis and issues of gender on the nature of nationalism, identities, and communities; 3. The normative and political debate on how civic and ethnic types of nationalism affect citizenship and liberty, particularly in a liberal democracy; 4. The impact of globalization and ‘post-modern’ supranational projects on national sovereignty and identity. **Fragmentation and hybrid identities:** Homi Bhabha: · The influx of various types of people immigrating to a country necessarily has “eroded the bases of traditional narratives and images of a homogeneous national identity, revealing their fragmented and hybrid character” (203). Michael Billig: · “One can eat Chinese tomorrow and Turkish the day after; one can even dress in Chinese and Turkish styles. But //being// Chinese or Turkish are not commercially available options” (205). [i.e., voluntary ethnicity is not an option] **Gender and nation:** · Gender theorists complain that theories of nationalism do not address either the role of women in national projects or the impact of gender cleavages on our understanding of nations and nationalism. · Many feminists claim that the very nature of nations and nationalism is gendered. · Four different levels of analysis have been pursued by various academics: o Empirical o Ideological and symbolic uses of women in the creation and reproduction of nationalist projects (ie, women are the symbolic bearers of a group’s identity and honor). o Nationalism as male phenomenon o Normative approach to ‘identity politics’ and multiculturalism **Liberalism and civic or ethnic nationalism:** Smith distinguishes three types of nationalism: “ethnic,” “civic,” (Rogers Brubaker) and “plural.” In reality, few modern national states possess only one form of nationalism. Problems with these approaches: · Ethnic-genealogical model tends towards exclusivity · Civic-territorial model (based on French Revolution) is often impatient of ethnic difference, instead tending towards radical assimilation of cultural differences and minorities · Plural model (like Canada, US, Australia) risks a loss of political cohesion and tends towards a national instability, which could provoke reactive nationalisms. **Nationalism and globalization: will cosmopolitanism replace the nation-state and move us beyond modernism?** The general belief in supercession has three major components: The imminent demise of the ‘nation-state;’ the supercession of nationalism; and the transcendence of ethnicity. Postmodernists usually take up this argument and see nation-states as increasingly irrelevant because of global economic interdependence and cultural homogenization. According to Smith, the post-1945 political and economic dependence of most states has been accompanied by a huge expansion of internal state power and penetration in the social and cultural spheres, notably in such fields as mass education, the cultural media, health and social welfare. This expansion has been legitimated by nationalist ideologies and has done much to offset and ‘compensate’ the ‘nation-state’ for its external dependence. Some argue that electronic cultural media and information technology are “at once timeless, placeless, and memory-less, contradicting all our ideas of cultures which embody the distinctive historical roots, myths and memories, and the specific lifestyles, of ethnic communities and nations” (215). Yet, Smith points out that the opposite is also true: technology has served to reinforce old ethnic identities or encourage the recreation of new ones. Alberto Melucci also argues that there will be a revitalization of ethnic ties by the very processes of globalization that are presumed to be rendering them obsolete. Smith notes that events from the end of the Cold War seem to bear this out, yet the international system of sovereign states has remained basically the same: he says that the recent creation of some twenty new ethnic states is largely the consequence of exceptional events (the break-up of the Soviet and Ethiopian empires). Other literature that is slightly less extreme (not fully cosmopolitan) claims that there is a shift of loyalties from nation and nationalism to ‘supra-national’ continental regionalisms that can accommodate sub-national ethnic identities and cultural differences (ie, the EU).
 * Anthony D. Smith, Nationalism and Modernism: A Critical Survey of Recent Theories of Nations and Nationalism (London: Routledge, 1998)**