Modernization theory (nationalism)

Last updated

Modernization theory is the predominant explanation for the emergence of nationalism among scholars of nationalism. [1] [2] [3] Prominent modernization scholars, such as Benedict Anderson, Ernest Gellner and Eric Hobsbawn, say nationalism arose with modernization during the late 18th century. [4] Processes that lead to the emergence of nationalism include industrialization and democratic revolutions. [1]

Contents

Modernization theory stands in contrast to primordialism, which hold that nations are biological, innate phenomena, and ethnosymbolism, which emphasizes their pre-modern roots.

Important theorists

Early antecedents

Scholar Carlton J. H. Hayes is considered a precursor to the later modernist theorists. Hayes wrote in 1931: "We can be sure that prior to the eighteenth century A.D. it was not the general rule for civilized nationalities to strive zealously and successfully for political unity and independence, whereas it has been the general rule in the last century and a half. Universal mass-nationalism of this kind, at any rate, has no counterpart in earlier eras; it is peculiar to modern times". [5]

Benedict Anderson

Anderson is best known for his 1983 book Imagined Communities, in which he argues nations are socially constructed. [6] For Anderson, the idea of the "nation" is relatively new and is a product of various socio-material forces, defined as "an imagined political community – and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign". [7]

However, imagining does not imply falsity. As he puts it, a nation is "imagined" because "the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion", they are "limited" in that they have "finite, if elastic boundaries, beyond which lie other nations", and they are "sovereign" since no dynastic monarchy can claim authority over them in the modern period. He notes:

Regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship. Ultimately it is this fraternity that makes it possible, over the past two centuries, for so many millions of people, not so much to kill, as willingly to die for such limited imaginings. [7]

Anderson argues nations and nationalism were born in an age in which Enlightenment and Revolution were destroying the legitimacy of the divinely-ordained, hierarchical dynastic realm. [8] Coming to maturity at a stage of human history when even the most devout adherents of any universal religion were inescapably confronted with the living pluralism of such religions, and the allomorphism [incongruence, divide] between each faith's ontological claims and territorial stretch, nations dream of being free, and, if under God, directly so. The gauge and emblem of this freedom is the sovereign state. [7]

Although members of an imagined community will never know most of their fellow-members, interaction between a system of production and productive relations, innovations in communications technology, and the fatality of human diversity enable the development of national consciousness. [7]

In contrast to modernists who trace the first nationalist movements to Europe, Anderson argues creole communities of the Americas developed national consciousnesses before most of Europe. Unlike in Europe, however, Anderson states language development did not play an important role in their formation, and these movements were led by creole elites and not by the intelligentsia. [9]

Ernest Gellner

Gellner defined nationalism as "primarily a political principle which holds that the political and the national unit should be congruent". [10] Like Anderson, Gellner argues nations and nationalism are distinctly modern phenomena, and links them to industrialization. He posits that, in the pre-modern world, power and culture did not "have much inclination to come together" and thus there was no incentive for rulers to impose cultural homogeneity on their subjects. [11]

Industrial societies, however, are characterized by high levels of social mobility and roles are no longer ascribed as in previous societies. As such, this entails:

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. [12]

In other words, industrialization creates a need for impersonal, context-free communication and a high level of cultural standardization. [13]

Thomas Hylland Eriksen identifies these central features of nationalism in Gellner's theory: [14]

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

Eric Hobsbawm

Hobsbawm agrees with Gellner's definition of nationalism, but focuses more explicitly on the role of politics in its diffusion. [15] He observes how "the modern nation, either as a state or as a body of people aspiring to form such a state, differs in size, scale and nature from the actual communities with which human beings have identified over most of history, and makes quite different demands on them". [16]

Hobsbawm sees nations and nationalism as 'invented traditions'. That is, they are "a set of practices, normally governed by overtly or tacitly accepted rules and of a ritual or symbolic nature, which seek to inculcate certain values and norms of behaviour by repetition, which automatically implies continuity with the past". [17]

Despite being modern inventions, Hobsbawm observes how nations claim continuity with history and use this as a legitimator of action and cement group cohesion. This continuity, however, is largely factitious and was a strategy adopted by the ruling elites to counter the threat posed by mass democracy. [18] He argues nationalism was "so unprecedented that even historic continuity had to be invented [...] by creating an ancient past beyond effective historical continuity". [19] Hobsbawm emphasizes the role of institutions in shaping these histories, noting how national history is not so much what has been preserved in popular memory, but what has been "selected, written, pictured, popularized and institutionalized by those whose function it is to do so". [20] According to Özkirimli, Hobsbawm argues nationalism became a new secular religion achieving social cohesion through the development of primary education, invention of public ceremonies and holidays, and the mass production of public monuments. [18]

In contrast to the ethnosymbolists, Hobsbawm believes nationalism precedes nations. [15]

Criticism

Ethnosymbolist critics such as Anthony D. Smith and Philip Gorski argue that, contrary to the assertions of the modernists, nationalism did exist prior to modernity, [1] [21] although this view has itself been criticized.

Critics like Adria Lawrence have argued that modernization theory's applicability to nationalism in European colonies is limited, as more modernized colonies did not undergo nationalist mobilization earlier. [22]

Likewise, Anderson's specific contention that national liberation movements in the Americas constitute the earliest examples of modern nationalism has also been challenged by Adrian Hastings, Liah Greenfeld and Elie Kedourie. [23] Anderson dismissed such criticisms as Eurocentric. In turn, Hastings responded that Anderson does not explain why the first wave of nation-making was the American nor why "the growth in books did not have in the sixteenth century the effect he postulates for the late eighteenth". [23]

Fellow modernist John Breuilly criticizes Anderson as well for underestimating the political dimension of nationalism, and exaggerating the importance of cultural nationalism in nineteenth century Europe. [24] For Breuilly, Anderson neglects the lack of congruence between ‘cultural’ and ‘political’ nationalism in certain contexts, citing the unification of Germany as one in which political unification was not accompanied by a ‘cultural’ unification.

According to Özkirimli, Breuilly accepts the "cultural dimension is important for understanding nationalism, but adds that this dimension can only explain why certain small groups might be disposed to imagine themselves as a nation and act politically on the basis of this assumption". [24] Further, to Breuilly, Anderson’s theory cannot answer why those groups are important or why anyone in power or in the society take these arguments seriously.

Gellner's theory has also been subject to various criticisms. [25] Tambini argues it is too functionalist, as it explains the phenomenon with reference to the outcome. That is, that industrial society could not 'function' without nationalism. [26] Anthony D Smith has argued Gellner's theory misreads the relationship between nationalism and industrialization [27] and fails to account for either nationalism in non-industrial society and resurgences of nationalism in post-industrial society. [27]

Similarly, Smith criticizes Gellner for tying nationalism to modernity, thus failing to account for nationalism in 16th-century Europe [28] and perceived "national" movements of Ancient Rome and Greece. [29]

Daniele Conversi believes Gellner ignores the role of war and the military in fostering cultural homogenization and nationalism, as well as the relationship between militarism and compulsory education. [30]

See also

Related Research Articles

Nationalism is an idea and movement that holds that the nation should be congruent with the state. As a movement, it presupposes the existence of nations and tends to promote the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining its sovereignty (self-governance) over its perceived homeland to create a nation-state. It 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 a combination of shared social characteristics such as 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 identified by scholars are ethnic nationalism and civic nationalism.

A nation is a large type of social organization where a collective identity has emerged from a combination of shared features across a given population, such as language, history, ethnicity, culture, territory or society. Some nations are constructed around ethnicity while others are bound by political constitutions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National myth</span> Inspiring narrative about a nations past

A national myth is an inspiring narrative or anecdote about a nation's past. Such myths often serve as important national symbols and affirm a set of national values. A national myth may sometimes take the form of a national epic or be incorporated into a civil religion. A group of related myths about a nation may be referred to as the national mythos, from μῦθος, the original Greek word for "myth".

An ethnicity or ethnic group is a grouping of people who identify with each other on the basis of perceived shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Those attributes can include a common nation of origin, or common sets of ancestry, traditions, language, history, society, religion, or social treatment. The term ethnicity is often used interchangeably with the term nation, particularly in cases of ethnic nationalism.

Monoculturalism is the policy or process of supporting, advocating, or allowing the expression of the culture of a single social or ethnic group. It generally stems from beliefs within the dominant group that their cultural practices are superior to those of minority groups and is often related to the concept of ethnocentrism, which involves judging another culture based on the values and standards of one's own culture, though this is usually untrue if cultural nationalism is dominant, as opposed to ethno-nationalism. It may also involve the process of assimilation whereby other ethnic groups are expected to adopt the culture and practices of the dominant ethnic group. Monoculturalism, in the context of cultural diversity, is the opposite of multiculturalism.

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 holds that as societies become more economically modernized, wealthier and more educated, their political institutions become increasingly liberal democratic. The "classical" theories of modernization of the 1950s and 1960s, most influentially articulated by Seymour Lipset, drew on sociological analyses of Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, and Talcott Parsons. Modernization theory was a dominant paradigm in the social sciences in the 1950s and 1960s, and saw a resurgence after 1991, when Francis Fukuyama wrote about the end of the Cold War as confirmation on modernization theory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National identity</span> Identity or sense of belonging to one state or one nation

National identity is a person's identity or sense of belonging to one or more states or 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 examples of the confluence of multiple ethnic and national identities within a single person or entity.

Historiography is the study of how history is written. One pervasive influence upon the writing of history has been nationalism, a set of beliefs about political legitimacy and cultural identity. Nationalism has provided a significant framework for historical writing in Europe and in those former colonies influenced by Europe since the nineteenth century. Typically official school textbooks are based on the nationalist model and focus on the emergence, trials and successes of the forces of nationalism.

Primordialism is the idea that nations or ethnic identities are fixed, natural, and ancient. Primordialists argue that each individual has a single inborn ethnic identity independent of historical processes. While implicit primordialist assumptions are common in society and much academic research, primordialism is widely rejected by scholars of nationalism and ethnicity, as individuals can have multiple ethnic identities which are changeable and socially constructed.

<i>Imagined Communities</i> Book by Benedict Anderson

Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism is a book by Benedict Anderson about the development of national feeling in different eras and throughout different geographies across the world. It introduced the term "imagined communities" as a descriptor of a social group—specifically nations—and the term has since entered standard usage in myriad political and social science fields. The book was first published in 1983 and was reissued with additional chapters in 1991 and a further revised version in 2006.

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.

Civic nationalism, also known as democratic nationalism and liberal nationalism, is a form of nationalism that adheres to traditional liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality, individual rights and is not based on ethnocentrism. Civic nationalists often defend the value of national identity by saying that individuals need it as a partial shared aspect of their identity in order to lead meaningful, autonomous lives and that democratic polities need a national identity to function properly.

Walker F. Connor was Distinguished Visiting Professor of Political Science at Middlebury College. Connor is best known for his work on nationalism, and is considered one of the founders of the interdisciplinary field of nationalism studies.

Cultural nationalism is a term used by scholars of nationalism to describe efforts among the intelligentsia to promote the formation of national communities through emphasis on a common culture. It is contrasted with "political" nationalism, which refers to specific movements for national self-determination through the establishment of a nation-state.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nationalism studies</span> Interdisciplinary academic field

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.

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.

According to some scholars, a national identity of the English as the people or ethnic group dominant in England can be traced to the Anglo-Saxon period.

Gellner's theory of nationalism was developed by Ernest Gellner over a number of publications from around the early 1960s to his 1995 death. 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). His theory is modernist.

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

References

  1. 1 2 3 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. S2CID   144002511.
  2. ↑ "Nations and Nationalism". obo. Retrieved 2020-09-14.
  3. ↑ "Nation-Building". obo. Retrieved 2020-09-14.
  4. ↑ Wimmer, Andreas; Feinstein, Yuval (2010). "The Rise of the Nation-State across the World, 1816 to 2001". American Sociological Review. 75 (5): 764–790. doi:10.1177/0003122410382639. ISSN   0003-1224. S2CID   10075481.
  5. ↑ Özkirimli, Umut (2010). Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction (2nd ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 31.
  6. ↑ "Benedict Anderson" (PDF).
  7. 1 2 3 4 Anderson, Benedict R. O'G. (1991). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (Revised and extended ed.). London: Verso. ISBN   978-0-86091-546-1.
  8. ↑ Özkirimli, Umut (2010). Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction (2nd ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 106.
  9. ↑ Özkirimli, p.111
  10. ↑ Gellner, Ernest (1983). Nations and Nationalism. Cornell University Press. p. 1.
  11. ↑ Özkirimli, p.100
  12. ↑ Gellner, Nations and Nationalism p. 57
  13. ↑ Özkirimli, p.101
  14. ↑ 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.
  15. 1 2 Özkirimli, p.96
  16. ↑ Hobsbawm, Eric (1992). Nations and nationalism since 1780 (2nd ed.). p. 46.
  17. ↑ Özkirimli, p.94
  18. 1 2 Özkirimli, p.95
  19. ↑ Hobsbawm, Eric (1983). The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 7.
  20. ↑ Hobsbawm, 1983, p.13
  21. ↑ Maxwell, Alexander (2020). "Primordialism for Scholars Who Ought to Know Better: Anthony D. Smith's Critique of Modernization Theory". Nationalities Papers. 48 (5): 826–842. doi:10.1017/nps.2019.93. ISSN   0090-5992. S2CID   216244981.
  22. ↑ Lawrence, Adria K. (2013). Imperial Rule and the Politics of Nationalism: Anti-Colonial Protest in the French Empire. Cambridge University Press. pp. 38–39. doi:10.1017/cbo9781139583732. ISBN   978-1-107-03709-0.
  23. 1 2 Özkirimli, p.131
  24. 1 2 Özkirimli, p.134
  25. ↑ 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. S2CID   37319474.
  26. ↑ Tambini, Damian (March 1996). "Explaining monoculturalism: Beyond Gellner's theory of nationalism". Critical Review. 10 (2): 251–270. doi:10.1080/08913819608443420.
  27. 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 ]
  28. ↑ 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.
  29. ↑ Smith, Anthony D. (3 August 1995). Nations and Nationalism in a Global Era. Wiley. ISBN   978-0-7456-1019-1.[ page needed ]
  30. ↑ 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.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.