Gellner's theory of nationalism

Last updated August 24, 2022

Gellner's theory of nationalism was developed by Ernest Gellner over a number of publications from around the early 1960s to his 1995 death.^[1]^[2] Gellner discussed nationalism in a number of works, starting with Thought and Change (1964), and he most notably developed it in Nations and Nationalism (1983).^[2] His theory is modernist.

Characteristics

Gellner defined nationalism as "primarily a political principle which holds that the political and the national unit should be congruent"^[3] and as

the general imposition of a high culture on society, where previously low cultures had taken up the lives of the majority, and in some cases the totality, of the population. It means the general diffusion of a school-mediated, academy supervised idiom, codified for the requirements of a reasonably precise bureaucratic and technological communication. It is the establishment of an anonymous impersonal society, with mutually sustainable atomised individuals, held together above all by a shared culture of this kind, in place of the previous complex structure of local groups, sustained by folk cultures reproduced locally and idiosyncratically by the micro-groups themselves.^[4]

Gellner analyzed nationalism by a historical perspective.^[5] He saw the history of humanity culminating in the discovery of modernity, nationalism being a key functional element.^[5] Modernity, by changes in political and economic system, is tied to the popularization of education, which, in turn, is tied to the unification of language.^[5] However, as modernization spread around the world, it did so slowly, and in numerous places, cultural elites were able to resist cultural assimilation and defend their own culture and language successfully.^[5]

For Gellner, nationalism was a sociological condition^[5] and a likely but not guaranteed (he noted exceptions in multilingual states like Switzerland, Belgium and Canada ^[2]) result of modernisation, the transition from agrarian to industrial society.^[1]^[2] His theory focused on the political and cultural aspects of that transition.^[1] In particular, he focused on the unifying and culturally homogenising roles of the educational systems, national labour markets and improved communication and mobility in the context of urbanisation.^[1] He thus argued that nationalism was highly compatible with industrialisation and served the purpose of replacing the ideological void left by both the disappearance of the prior agrarian society culture and the political and economical system of feudalism, which it legitimised.^[1]^[2]

Thomas Hylland Eriksen lists these as "some of the central features of nationalism" in Gellner's theory:^[1]

Shared, formal educational system
Cultural homogenisation and "social entropy"
Central monitoring of polity, with extensive bureaucratic control
Linguistic standardisation
National identification as abstract community
Cultural similarity as a basis for political legitimacy
Anonymity, single-stranded social relationships

Gellner also provided a typology of "nationalism-inducing and nationalism-thwarting situations".^[2]

Gellner criticised a number of other theoretical explanations of nationalism, including the "naturality theory", which states that it is "natural, self-evident and self-generating" and a basic quality of human being, and a neutral or a positive quality; its dark version, the "Dark Gods theory", which sees nationalism as an inevitable expression of basic human atavistic, irrational passions; and Elie Kedourie's idealist argument that it was an accidental development, an intellectual error of disseminating unhelpful ideas, and not related to industrialisation and the Marxist theory in which nations appropriated the leading role of social classes.^[2] On October 24th, 1995, at Warwick University, Gellner debated one of his former students, Anthony D. Smith in what became known as the Warwick Debates. Smith presented an ethnosymbolist view, Gellner a modernist one. The debate has been described as epitomizing their positions.^[6]^[7]^[8]

Influence

Gellner is considered one of the leading theoreticians on nationalism. Eriksen notes that "nobody contests Ernest Gellner's central place in the research on nationalism over the last few decades".^[1] O'Leary refers to the theory as "the best-known modernist explanatory theory of nationalism".^[2]

Criticisms

Gellner's theory has been subject to various criticisms:^[2]

It is too functionalist, as it explains the phenomenon with reference to the eventual historical outcome that industrial society could not 'function' without nationalism.^[9]
It misreads the relationship between nationalism and industrialisation.^[10]
It accounts poorly for national movements of Ancient Rome and Greece since it insists that nationalism is tied to modernity and so cannot exist without a clearly defined modern industrialisation.^[5]^[11]
It fails to account for either nationalism in non-industrial society and resurgences of nationalism in post-industrial society.^[10]
It fails to account for nationalism in 16th-century Europe.^[12]
It cannot explain the passions generated by nationalism and why anyone should fight and die for a country.^[13]
It fails to take into account either the role of war and the military in fostering both cultural homogenisation and nationalism or the relationship between militarism and compulsory education.^[14]
It has been compared to technological determinism, as it disregards the views of individuals.^[5]

Philip Gorski has argued that modernization theorists, such as Gellner, have gotten the timing of nationalism wrong: nationalism existed prior to modernity, and even had medieval roots.^[15]

Related Research Articles

Nationalism is an idea and movement that holds that the nation should be congruent with the state. As a movement, nationalism tends to promote the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland to create a nation state. Nationalism holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity, and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power. It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity, based on shared social characteristics of culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics, religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history, and to promote national unity or solidarity. Nationalism, therefore, seeks to preserve and foster a nation's traditional culture. There are various definitions of a "nation", which leads to different types of nationalism. The two main divergent forms are ethnic nationalism and civic nationalism.

A nation is a community of people formed on the basis of a combination of shared features such as language, history, ethnicity, culture and/or territory. A nation is thus the collective identity of a group of people understood as defined by those features. Some nations are equated with ethnic groups and some are equated with affiliation to a social and political constitution. A nation is generally more overtly political than an ethnic group. A nation has also been defined as a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its autonomy, unity and particular interests.

An ethnic group or an ethnicity is a grouping of people who identify with each other on the basis of shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Those attributes can include common sets of traditions, ancestry, language, history, society, culture, nation, religion, or social treatment within their residing area. Ethnicity is sometimes used interchangeably with the term nation, particularly in cases of ethnic nationalism, and is separate from the related concept of races.

Modernity, a topic in the humanities and social sciences, is both a historical period and the ensemble of particular socio-cultural norms, attitudes and practices that arose in the wake of the Renaissance—in the "Age of Reason" of 17th-century thought and the 18th-century "Enlightenment". Some commentators consider the era of modernity to have ended by 1930, with World War II in 1945, or the 1980s or 1990s; the following era is called postmodernity. The term "contemporary history" is also used to refer to the post-1945 timeframe, without assigning it to either the modern or postmodern era.

Postmodernity is the economic or cultural state or condition of society which is said to exist after modernity. Some schools of thought hold that modernity ended in the late 20th century – in the 1980s or early 1990s – and that it was replaced by postmodernity, and still others would extend modernity to cover the developments denoted by postmodernity. The idea of the postmodern condition is sometimes characterized as a culture stripped of its capacity to function in any linear or autonomous state like regressive isolationism, as opposed to the progressive mind state of modernism.

Ernest André Gellner FRAI was a British-Czech philosopher and social anthropologist described by The Daily Telegraph, when he died, as one of the world's most vigorous intellectuals, and by The Independent as a "one-man crusader for critical rationalism".

An imagined community is a concept developed by Benedict Anderson in his 1983 book Imagined Communities to analyze nationalism. Anderson depicts a nation as a socially-constructed community, imagined by the people who perceive themselves as part of a group.

Modernization theory is used to explain the process of modernization within societies. The "classical" theories of modernization of the 1950s and 1960s drew on sociological analyses of Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim and a partial reading of Max Weber, and were strongly influenced by the writings of Harvard sociologist Talcott Parsons. Modernization theory was a dominant paradigm in the social sciences in the 1950s and 1960s, then went into a deep eclipse. It made a comeback after 1991, when Francis Fukuyama wrote about the end of the Cold War as confirmation on modernization theory and more generally of universal history. But the theory remains a controversial model.

The concept of reflexive modernization or reflexive modernity was launched by a joint effort of three of the leading European sociologists: Anthony Giddens, Ulrich Beck and Scott Lash. The introduction of this concept served a double purpose: to reassess sociology as a science of the present, and to provide a counterbalance to the postmodernist paradigm offering a re-constructive view alongside deconstruction.

National identity is a person's identity or sense of belonging to one or more states or to one or more nations. It is the sense of "a nation as a cohesive whole, as represented by distinctive traditions, culture, and language". National identity may refer to the subjective feeling one shares with a group of people about a nation, regardless of one's legal citizenship status. National identity is viewed in psychological terms as "an awareness of difference", a "feeling and recognition of 'we' and 'they'". National identity also includes the general population and diaspora of multi-ethnic states and societies that have a shared sense of common identity identical to that of a nation while being made up of several component ethnic groups. Hyphenated ethnicities are an example of the confluence of multiple ethnic and national identities within a single person or entity.

Anthony David Stephen Smith was a British historical sociologist who, at the time of his death, was Professor Emeritus of Nationalism and Ethnicity at the London School of Economics. He is considered one of the founders of the interdisciplinary field of nationalism studies.

Nationalism studies is an interdisciplinary academic field devoted to the study of nationalism and related issues. While nationalism has been the subject of scholarly discussion since at least the late eighteenth century, it is only since the early 1990s that it has received enough attention for a distinct field to emerge.

Thought and Change is a 1964 book by the philosopher Ernest Gellner, in which the author outlines his views on "modernity" and looks at the processes of social change and historical transformation and, perhaps most forcefully, the power of nationalism. Maleŝević and Haugaard argue that the method is the socio-historical method, and Gellner sets out a powerful sociology of specific philosophical doctrines and ideologies, from utilitarianism and Kantianism to nationalism. The chapter specifically dealing with nationalism was later expanded to form the basis of Gellner's most famous book, Nations and Nationalism (1983).

John Hutchinson is a British academic. He is a reader in nationalism at the London School of Economics (LSE), in the Department of Government.

John A. Hall is the James McGill Professor of Comparative Historical Sociology at McGill University, Montreal. He is the author or editor of over 20 books.

Ethnosymbolism is a school of thought in the study of nationalism that stresses the importance of symbols, myths, values and traditions in the formation and persistence of the modern nation state.

Ethnic nationalism, also known as ethnonationalism, is a form of nationalism wherein the nation and nationality are defined in terms of ethnicity, with emphasis on an ethnocentric approach to various political issues related to national affirmation of a particular ethnic group.

Nations and Nationalism is an influential 1983 book by the philosopher Ernest Gellner, in which the author expands on his theory of nationalism.

Theories on the existence of nationalism in the Middle Ages may belong to the general paradigms of ethnosymbolism and primordialism or perennialism. Several scholars of nationalism support the existence of nationalism in the Middle Ages. This school of thought differs from modernism, which suggests that nationalism developed after the late 18th century and the French Revolution.

Modernization theory is the predominant explanation for emergence of nationalism among scholars of nationalism. Prominent modernization scholars, such as Ernest Gellner, Benedict Anderson and Eric Hobsbawn, say nationalism arose with modernization during the late 18th century. Processes that lead to the emergence of nationalism include industrialization and democratic revolutions.

References

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Eriksen, Thomas Hylland (January 2007). "Nationalism and the Internet". Nations and Nationalism. 13 (1): 1–17. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8129.2007.00273.x.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 O'Leary, Brendan (April 1997). "On the Nature of Nationalism: An Appraisal of Ernest Gellner's Writings on Nationalism". British Journal of Political Science. 27 (2): 191–222. doi:10.1017/S0007123497000112.
↑ Gellner, Nationalism, 1983, p. 1.
↑ Gellner, Nations and Nationalism p. 57
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Minogue, Kenneth. "Gellner's Theory of Nationalism: A Critical Assessment". In Athena S. Leoussi (ed.). Encyclopaedia of Nationalism. Transaction Publishers. pp. 107–109. ISBN 978-1-4128-2255-8.
↑ Mylonas, Harris; Tudor, Maya (11 May 2021). "Nationalism: What We Know and What We Still Need to Know". Annual Review of Political Science. 24 (1): 109–132. doi: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-041719-101841 . Retrieved 27 September 2021.
↑ "The nation: real or imagined? The Warwick Debates On Nationalism". Nations and Nationalism. Association for the Study of Ethnicity and Nationalism (ASEN). 2 (3): 357–370. 1996. Retrieved 27 September 2021.
↑ Smith, Deanna (2007). Nationalism (2nd ed.). Cambridge: polity. ISBN 978-0-7456-5128-6.
↑ Tambini, Damian (March 1996). "Explaining monoculturalism: Beyond Gellner's theory of nationalism". Critical Review. 10 (2): 251–270. doi:10.1080/08913819608443420.
1 2 Smith, Anthony D. (1998). Nationalism and Modernism: A Critical Survey of Recent Theories of Nations and Nationalism. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-06341-8.^{[ page needed ]}
↑ Smith, Anthony D. (3 August 1995). Nations and Nationalism in a Global Era. Wiley. ISBN 978-0-7456-1019-1.^{[ page needed ]}
↑ Smith, Anthony D. (October 2005). "Nationalism in Early Modern Europe". History and Theory. 44 (3): 404–415. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2303.2005.00332.x.
↑ Connor, Walker (1994). Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-02563-6.^{[ page needed ]}
↑ Conversi, Daniele (July 2007). "Homogenisation, nationalism and war: Should we still read Ernest Gellner?". Nations and Nationalism. 13 (3): 371–394. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8129.2007.00292.x.
↑ Gorski, Philip S. (2000). "The Mosaic Moment: An Early Modernist Critique of Modernist Theories of Nationalism". American Journal of Sociology. 105 (5): 1428–1468. doi:10.1086/210435. ISSN 0002-9602.