Nationalism

Part of a series on
Nationalism
Political and cultural expressions of National identity
History Types
Core concepts Nation Nation-state National identity Self-determination Patriotism Sovereignty
Varieties Civic nationalism Ethnic nationalism Exclusionary nationalism Religious nationalism Cultural nationalism Pan-nationalism Anti-nationalism
Regional movements American nationalism Arab nationalism Chinese nationalism Hindu nationalism Japanese nationalism Russian nationalism Ukrainian nationalism
Related topics Populism Patriot Act National sovereignty Globalization Identity politics Diaspora
Category
v t e

Part of the Politics series
Politics
Outline Index Category
Primary topics Outline of political science Index of politics articles Politics by country Politics by subdivision Political economy Political history Political history of the world Political philosophy
Political systems Anarchy City-state Democracy Dictatorship Directory Federacy Feudalism Meritocracy Monarchy Parliamentary Presidential Republic Semi-parliamentary Semi-presidential Theocracy
Academic disciplines Political science (political scientists) International relations (theory) Comparative politics Political analysis Political theory Policy studies Political psychology Political sociology
Public administration Bureaucracy (street-level) Technocracy Adhocracy
Policy Public policy (doctrine) Domestic policy Foreign policy Civil society Public interest
Branches of government Separation of powers Legislature Executive Judiciary Election commission
Related topics Sovereignty Theories of political behavior Biology and political orientation Political organisations Critique of political economy
Subseries Electoral systems Elections voting Unitarism Federalism Government forms Ideology Political campaigning Political parties
v t e

Nationalism is a family of political ideas and movements asserting that a people constitute a distinct political community and possess the right to govern themselves. At its core, nationalism is concerned with sovereignty, collective self-determination, and the legitimacy of political authority derived from the nation rather than from dynastic rule or external empire.^[1]

In its earliest modern form, nationalism emerged as a civic and constitutional doctrine rather than an ethnic one. During the American Revolution, nationalism developed as a political movement grounded in Enlightenment principles of popular sovereignty, natural rights, constitutional government, and republicanism. Scholars commonly describe this framework as the American Creed, emphasizing allegiance to shared political values rather than ancestry, language, or religion.^[2] This civic conception of nationalism provided an influential model for later independence movements and constitutional states.

By contrast, many nationalist movements that arose in 19th-century Europe developed along ethnic and cultural lines, emphasizing common descent, language, religion, or historical tradition as the basis of political unity. These movements were shaped by the decline of empires, Romantic cultural theory, and efforts to consolidate heterogeneous populations into nation-states, often excluding those outside the dominant cultural group.^[3]

Throughout the modern era, nationalism has functioned both as a force for political liberation and as a tool of exclusion. While it has inspired democratic revolutions and anti-colonial independence movements, it has also been distorted into doctrines of racial hierarchy and imperial expansion. The Holocaust, sometimes inaccurately characterized as an extreme expression of nationalism, was instead the product of Nazi racial ideology and biological antisemitism, codified through policies such as the Nuremberg Laws, rather than a pursuit of civic or cultural self-determination.^[4][5]

Terminology[edit | edit source]

The use of the terms nation and sovereignty in political thought was refined in the early 17th century through the writings of Hugo Grotius, especially in De jure belli ac pacis (1625). Writing during the Eighty Years' War and the Thirty Years' War, Grotius addressed questions of legitimacy, conflict, and order among states in a Europe deeply divided along religious lines.^[6]

Before 1800, the word nation in European usage typically referred to the inhabitants of a country or to a collective identity shaped by shared law, customs, or traditions, rather than the modern conception of a sovereign nation-state.^[7] The term nationalism itself appeared later, entering English by the late 18th century and gaining wider importance during the 19th century as nationalist movements spread across Europe.^[8]

The connotations of the word shifted over time. While associated in the 19th century with popular sovereignty and national unification, after the First World War it increasingly carried negative associations, linked with militarism and conflict. Historian Glenda Sluga observes that “the twentieth century, a time of profound disillusionment with nationalism, was also the great age of globalism.”^[9]

Scholars generally define nationalism as the principle that the nation and the state should be congruent.^[1][10][11] Political scientist Lisa Wedeen similarly notes that nationalist ideology presumes that “the people” and the state should coincide.^[12]

History[edit | edit source]

Modern nationalism is generally traced to the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, emerging alongside the American Revolution and the French Revolution.^[13][14] These revolutions linked popular sovereignty with collective identity, giving political form to ideas of liberty, citizenship, and shared destiny. Philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Voltaire influenced this transition from dynastic rule to civic participation, while earlier movements like the Corsican Republic and the American Declaration of Independence provided practical models of self-determination.^[15]

During the 19th century, nationalism became a defining force in Europe’s political and cultural life. Industrialization, mass literacy, and the rise of public education fostered national consciousness through shared symbols, histories, and civic rituals.^[16] The French Revolution and the Napoleonic campaigns spread nationalist sentiment across the continent, influencing movements for unification in Germany and Italy and shaping the broader idea of the nation-state.^[17]

Some scholars trace earlier expressions of collective identity to premodern Europe. Johann Gottfried Herder emphasized the moral unity of language and culture in the 1770s, while others, such as Hans Kohn and Linda Colley, identified proto-nationalist sentiments in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.^[18][19] While interpretations differ, the consensus in modern scholarship holds that nationalism became a central political principle only in the modern era, as industrial economies, mass politics, and print culture reshaped the relationship between people and state.^[20]

19th century[edit | edit source]

During the 19th century, nationalism became one of the most influential political and social forces in world history. Rooted in the revolutionary ideas of popular sovereignty and collective identity, it reshaped the European state system, inspired movements for national unification, and contributed to the decline of multiethnic empires such as the Ottoman and Habsburg realms.^[22]

In Europe, the Napoleonic Wars accelerated nationalist sentiment by spreading revolutionary ideals and mobilizing people under shared languages and traditions. The 1830 and 1848 revolutions reflected these forces, linking liberal reform and patriotic identity. Across the continent, nationalism simultaneously unified and divided: it fostered the creation of Italy and Germany while fragmenting multinational empires and intensifying regional rivalries.^[23]

In France, the legacy of revolution and defeat shaped the character of national identity. The loss of Alsace-Lorraine to Germany in 1871 fueled decades of revanchist sentiment, while the Dreyfus affair exposed tensions between civic and ethnic conceptions of loyalty.^[24][25] Across Central and Eastern Europe, intellectuals such as Johan Vilhelm Snellman in Finland and František Palacký in Bohemia promoted national awakening through language, education, and cultural preservation.^[26]

By the century’s end, nationalism had become both a source of unity and a cause of conflict. It strengthened civic participation and national cohesion but also deepened geopolitical rivalries that would culminate in World War I.^[27]

France[edit | edit source]

Nationalism in France took shape during the revolutionary period, when the Republic mobilized the population under the principle of collective defense. The 1793 levée en masse declared that “all the French are in permanent requisition for army service,” symbolizing the fusion of civic duty and national identity.^[28]

Following France’s defeat in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–71, the loss of Alsace-Lorraine became a rallying point for a generation of revanchists who demanded restoration of national honor. This sentiment gradually subsided toward the end of the century as French political debate turned inward, most notably during the Dreyfus affair, which divided republicans and conservatives over questions of loyalty, religion, and citizenship.^[29][30]

The tension between civic and ethnic definitions of “Frenchness” remained central to French nationalism into the twentieth century, shaping debates over secularism, militarism, and identity in the Third Republic.^[30]

Russia[edit | edit source]

In early nineteenth-century Russia, national identity centered on loyalty to the tsar rather than on ethnic or civic unity. The doctrine of “Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality,” formulated by Count Sergey Uvarov and adopted by Emperor Nicholas I, defined the official ideology of the empire.^[31] It emphasized fidelity to the Orthodox Church, obedience to the Romanov dynasty, and veneration of Russian culture as the foundation of public life.^[32]

By the mid-nineteenth century, conservative intellectuals such as Aleksey Khomyakov, Ivan Kireyevsky, and Konstantin Aksakov advanced a Slavophile interpretation of national destiny that opposed Western European influence and called for spiritual unity among Slavic peoples. The related movement of pan-Slavism informed Russia’s wars against the Ottoman Empire and its claim to protect Orthodox populations in southeastern Europe.^[33]

Latin America[edit | edit source]

An upsurge of nationalism in the early nineteenth century transformed Latin America. Inspired by Enlightenment ideals and the example of the American and French revolutions, colonial elites sought political autonomy from Spain and Portugal. Between 1808 and 1826, a series of independence wars dissolved most of Spain’s American empire, leaving only Cuba and Puerto Rico under its control.^[34]

The revolts were driven by divisions between peninsulares—Spaniards born in Europe—and criollos, or American-born descendants of Spaniards, who resented imperial restrictions on trade and governance. British and American support, combined with Spain’s internal weakness during the Napoleonic era, further hastened independence across the continent.^[35]

Germany[edit | edit source]

In the early nineteenth century, Napoleon’s dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire and creation of the Confederation of the Rhine accelerated a new sense of German unity. His reforms modernized governance and weakened feudal divisions, inspiring intellectuals and reformers to imagine a unified German nation.^[36]

Nationalist ideas were further advanced by cultural and philosophical movements emphasizing language, masculinity, and civic virtue. Historians such as Johann Gustav Droysen, Heinrich von Sybel, and Heinrich von Treitschke portrayed Prussia as the legitimate core of German identity, linking patriotism to obedience and state power.^[37][38]

The unification of Germany under Otto von Bismarck in 1871 marked the triumph of political nationalism, but later movements transformed it into ethnic and expansionist forms. Under Adolf Hitler, German nationalism evolved into the racial ideology of National Socialism, asserting transnational claims for an “Aryan race” and justifying territorial conquest through the doctrine of Lebensraum.^[39][40]

Italy[edit | edit source]

Italian nationalism coalesced during the Risorgimento, the nineteenth-century movement to unify the fragmented Italian states into a single kingdom. Led by figures such as Giuseppe Garibaldi, Camillo Benso, Count of Cavour, and Giuseppe Mazzini, it combined liberal constitutionalism with patriotic fervor.^[41]

After unification in 1861, internal disparities persisted between industrial northern Italy and the agrarian south, complicating national integration. The liberal state’s anticlerical policies and colonial ambitions under leaders such as Francesco Crispi reflected efforts to consolidate legitimacy through nationalism and expansionism.^[42]

Following World War I, disillusionment over unfulfilled territorial promises fostered Italian Fascism under Benito Mussolini, whose regime fused ultranationalism with authoritarianism. Although Italy later democratized, nationalist and regional movements continued to shape its political life into the twenty-first century.^[43]

Greece[edit | edit source]

The rise of Greek nationalism was deeply influenced by Enlightenment ideals, Romanticism, and the rediscovery of classical heritage. Revolts against Ottoman rule, culminating in the Greek War of Independence (1821–1829), sought to restore Greek sovereignty after centuries of imperial domination.^[44]

European philhellenism—especially in Britain, France, and Russia—contributed to the cause, viewing the struggle as the rebirth of an ancient civilization. Allied intervention secured independence and established Greece as the first modern nation-state to emerge from Ottoman control, making it an early model of nationalist success in southeastern Europe.^[45]

Serbia[edit | edit source]

Modern Serbian nationalism developed during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries under Ottoman rule, influenced by the rise of European romantic nationalism and Orthodox Christian identity. The Serbian Revolution (1804–1817) established the Principality of Serbia, achieving international recognition at the Congress of Berlin in 1878.^[46]

Nineteenth-century Serbian intellectuals promoted the idea of unifying South Slavs based on shared linguistic and cultural traditions. This movement, known as Yugoslavism, gained support among Serbs and Croats within Austria-Hungary, who viewed Bosnia and Herzegovina as a common heritage region.^[47] The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by Young Bosnia members in 1914 triggered Austria-Hungary’s invasion of Serbia, escalating into the First World War.^[48]

After the war, Serbia became the core of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, later renamed Yugoslavia. The effort to forge a single Yugoslav identity under monarchy and then under socialist rule met persistent ethnic resistance. The socialist federation disintegrated violently in the 1990s, giving rise to renewed assertions of Serbian nationalism during the Yugoslav Wars.^[49]

Poland[edit | edit source]

Polish nationalism developed under repeated foreign domination following the Partitions of Poland (1772–1795) by Prussia, Russia, and Austria. The creation of the Duchy of Warsaw under Napoleon briefly restored autonomy and inspired later uprisings such as the November Uprising (1830) and January Uprising (1863–1864), both suppressed by Russia.^[50]

During the nineteenth century, Poles under Prussian rule resisted cultural assimilation, forming political alliances such as the Catholic-based Centre Party to defend their religious and linguistic rights against Bismarck’s Kulturkampf.^[51] Competing ideological visions shaped Polish identity: the Piast concept—emphasizing an ethnically Polish, territorially compact state—and the Jagiellon concept, which envisioned a multiethnic federation across Eastern Europe.^[52]

After 1945, Poland’s communist government, backed by the Soviet Union, promoted the Piast model to justify postwar borders and population transfers. The regime declared Poland ethnically homogeneous following wartime devastation and forced resettlements.^[53] In contemporary politics, nationalism remains represented by various right-leaning parties, including those aligned with the Confederation Liberty and Independence coalition.

Bulgaria[edit | edit source]

Modern Bulgarian nationalism arose during the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries under Ottoman rule. Influenced by Enlightenment thought and the French Revolution, it sought to revive national consciousness through education, language, and church autonomy.^[54]

The movement began with Saint Paisius of Hilendar’s 1762 work Istoriya Slavyanobolgarskaya, which urged Bulgarians to rediscover their medieval heritage. His successor Sophronius of Vratsa advanced the campaign for an independent Bulgarian church, culminating in the creation of the Bulgarian Exarchate in 1870. Revolutionary groups such as the Internal Revolutionary Organization and uprisings including the April Uprising (1876) galvanized international sympathy, leading to Bulgaria’s liberation and reestablishment in 1878.^[55]

Jewish nationalism[edit | edit source]

Jewish nationalism emerged in the late 19th century in response to European antisemitism and the disintegration of traditional communal structures. Known as Zionism, it sought the political restoration of a Jewish homeland in the historic Land of Israel.^[56]

The movement’s roots lay partly in the emancipation and secularization of European Jewry following the French Revolution, which transformed Jews from a religious community into citizens of nation-states. Fearing cultural dissolution and persecution, thinkers such as Theodor Herzl and Leon Pinsker argued that Jewish security required national sovereignty rather than assimilation.^[57]

Zionism’s ideological diversity ranged from religious and cultural revivalism to socialist and liberal variants, culminating in the 1948 establishment of the State of Israel. Its development represents one of the clearest cases of nationalism evolving from diaspora identity into territorial nationhood.

20th century[edit | edit source]

Nationalism defined much of the 20th century, shaping wars, revolutions, and the collapse of empires. It fueled both movements for self-determination and the rise of exclusionary ideologies that reshaped the political map.

China[edit | edit source]

Japan’s victory in the Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905) showed that a non-European power could defeat a European empire, inspiring reformist and nationalist movements across Asia.^[58] In China, Sun Yat-sen founded the Kuomintang and advanced the “Three Principles of the People”—nationalism, democracy, and social welfare—as a blueprint for a modern republic.^[59] Sun’s ideas and the May Fourth Movement of 1919 deeply influenced the Chinese Communist Party, linking national rejuvenation to cultural and intellectual reform.^[60][61]

Greece[edit | edit source]

Early 20th-century Greek nationalism centered on Enosis and the Megali Idea, culminating and then contracting after the Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922). The interwar 4th of August Regime under Ioannis Metaxas (1936–1941) adopted authoritarian and fascist-influenced themes while invoking a “Third Hellenic Civilization” that drew on classical and Byzantine legacies.^[62]

Africa[edit | edit source]

By the 1880s, nearly all of Africa had been colonized by European powers. After World War II, anti-colonial nationalism surged, mobilizing veterans and educated elites in campaigns for independence. The 1950s and 1960s brought decolonization across the continent—peaceful in some areas, violent in others, including Algeria and Kenya.^[63][64] Many new governments evolved into one-party systems, reflecting both the triumph and fragility of early nationalist ideals.^[65][66][67] In South Africa, white Afrikaner nationalism institutionalized apartheid until the 1994 transition to multiracial democracy under Nelson Mandela.^[68]

Middle East[edit | edit source]

As the Ottoman Empire declined, Arab nationalism promoted Arab self-rule and resistance to European mandates; interwar and postwar decades saw the emergence or consolidation of states such as Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, alongside the formation of the Arab League (1945).^[69] In parallel, Zionism—a Jewish nationalist movement—advanced immigration to Palestine and culminated in the establishment of the State of Israel (1948), setting Arab and Jewish national projects into direct conflict in subsequent wars.^[70]

Breakup of Yugoslavia[edit | edit source]

The collapse of communism in Eastern Europe revived nationalist politics across the Balkans. In Yugoslavia, economic disparity and ethnic competition fueled secessionist movements in Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, producing wars marked by atrocities and mass displacement (1991–1995).^[71][72] The conflicts underscored how nationalism, once mobilized for liberation, could also drive violent fragmentation and redraw borders.^[73]

21st century[edit | edit source]

Arab nationalism declined in the early 21st century, with localized movements and the Arab Spring (2010–2012) followed by renewed conflict and regional spillover. Leaders including Egypt’s Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Saudi Arabia’s Mohammad bin Salman, and the UAE’s Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan articulated state-centric models of Arab nationalism in the “Arab Winter” context.^[74]

Debates over globalism and sovereignty coincided with rising nationalist and populist politics in Europe and North America; factors included terrorist attacks such as the September 11 attacks, wars and instability in the Middle East, and refugee movements during the 2010s.^[75][76] Groups such as Germany’s Pegida, France’s National Front (now National Rally), and the UK Independence Party gained visibility with immigration-focused platforms.^[77]

Movements for territorial change persisted. Since 2010, Catalan nationalism has driven a renewed independence effort culminating in a 2017 unilateral declaration, not recognized by Madrid.^[78] In Greece, the debt crisis and migration pressures coincided with the rise of far-right actors and intensified nationalist rhetoric.^[79]

In Russia, appeals to national identity featured prominently around the 2014 annexation of Crimea and subsequent actions in Ukraine.^[80] National-conservative platforms advanced in Poland under the Law and Justice party,^[81] and in Hungary under Fidesz and Viktor Orbán, emphasizing sovereignty and resistance to supranational control.^[82] Nationalist parties also entered coalitions in Bulgaria and Slovakia.^[83][84]

In India, Hindu nationalism rose with the national victories of the Bharatiya Janata Party from 2014 onward, blending religious identity with promises of economic reform.^[85][86] Militant forms of Buddhist nationalism also appeared in Myanmar, Thailand, and Sri Lanka.^[87][88]

In Japan, right-leaning politicians and groups linked to Nippon Kaigi advocated a more assertive national identity and defense posture, prompting debate over wartime memory and the Nanjing Massacre.^[89][90]

A referendum on Scottish independence was defeated (55.3 percent), and the UK’s 2016 vote for Brexit reignited debates over sovereignty and identity.^[91]

In the 2016 United States presidential election, Donald Trump campaigned on themes of economic nationalism and border security, framing his “Make America Great Again” and “America First” slogans around sovereignty and national renewal.^[92] In October 2018, he described himself publicly as a “nationalist,” presenting the term as pride in country and prioritization of U.S. interests.^[93][94]

In the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte’s 2016 campaign emphasized national sovereignty through a pivot from the United States toward China and Russia.^[95]

In Turkey, a 2017 constitutional referendum expanded presidential powers under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, described by supporters as strengthening national stability and by Western observers as consolidating authoritarianism.^[96][97]

Political science[edit | edit source]

Many political scientists have theorized about the foundations of the modern nation-state and the concept of sovereignty. The concept of nationalism in political science draws from these theoretical foundations. Philosophers like Machiavelli, Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau conceptualized the state as the result of a "social contract" between rulers and individuals.^[98] Max Weber provides the most commonly used definition of the state, "that human community which successfully lays claim to the monopoly of legitimate physical violence within a certain territory".^[99] According to Benedict Anderson, nations are "Imagined Communities", or socially constructed institutions.^[100]

Many scholars have noted the relationship between state-building, war, and nationalism. Many scholars believe that the development of nationalism in Europe and subsequently the modern nation-state was due to the threat of war. "External threats have such a powerful effect on nationalism because people realize in a profound manner that they are under threat because of who they are as a nation; they are forced to recognize that it is only as a nation that they can successfully defeat the threat".^[101] With increased external threats, the state's extractive capacities increase. Jeffrey Herbst argues that the lack of external threats to countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, post-independence, is linked to weak state nationalism and state capacity.^[101] Barry Posen argues that nationalism increases the intensity of war, and that states deliberately promote nationalism with the aim of improving their military capabilities.^[102] Most new nation-states since 1815 have emerged through decolonization.^[103]

Adria Lawrence has argued that nationalism in the colonial world was spurred by failures of colonial powers to extend equal political rights to the subjects in the colonies, thus prompting them to pursue independence.^[104] Michael Hechter has argued similarly that "peripheral nationalisms" formed when empires prevented peripheral regions from having autonomy and local rule.^[105]

Sociology[edit | edit source]

The sociological or modernist interpretation of nationalism and nation-building argues that nationalism arises and flourishes in modern societies that have an industrial economy capable of self-sustainability, a central supreme authority capable of maintaining authority and unity, and a centralized language understood by a community of people.^[106] Modernist theorists note that this is only possible in modern societies, while traditional societies typically lack the prerequisites for nationalism. They lack a modern self-sustainable economy, have divided authorities, and use multiple languages resulting in many groups being unable to communicate with each other.^[106]

Prominent theorists who developed the modernist interpretation of nations and nationalism include: Carlton J. H. Hayes, Henry Maine, Ferdinand Tönnies, Rabindranath Tagore, Émile Durkheim, Max Weber, Arnold Joseph Toynbee and Talcott Parsons.^[106]

In his analysis of the historical changes and development of human societies, Henry Maine noted that the key distinction between traditional societies defined as "status" societies based on family association and functionally diffuse roles for individuals and modern societies defined as "contract" societies where social relations are determined by rational contracts pursued by individuals to advance their interests. Maine saw the development of societies as moving away from traditional status societies to modern contract societies.^[107]

In his book Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft (1887), Ferdinand Tönnies defined a Gemeinschaft ("community") as being based on emotional attachments as attributed with traditional societies while defining a Gesellschaft ("society") as an impersonal society that is modern. Although he recognized the advantages of modern societies, he also criticized them for their cold and impersonal nature that caused alienation while praising the intimacy of traditional communities.^[107]

Émile Durkheim expanded upon Tönnies' recognition of alienation, and defined the differences between traditional and modern societies as being between societies based upon "mechanical solidarity" versus societies based on "organic solidarity".^[107] Durkheim identified mechanical solidarity as involving custom, habit, and repression that was necessary to maintain shared views. Durkheim identified organic solidarity-based societies as modern societies where there exists a division of labour based on social differentiation that causes alienation. Durkheim claimed that social integration in traditional society required authoritarian culture involving acceptance of a social order. Durkheim claimed that modern society bases integration on the mutual benefits of the division of labour, but noted that the impersonal character of modern urban life caused alienation and feelings of anomie.^[107]

Max Weber claimed the change that developed modern society and nations is the result of the rise of a charismatic leader to power in a society who creates a new tradition or a rational-legal system that establishes the supreme authority of the state. Weber's conception of charismatic authority has been noted as the basis of many nationalist governments.^[107]

Primordialist evolutionary interpretation[edit | edit source]

The primordialist perspective is based upon evolutionary theory.^[108][109] This approach has been popular with the general public but is typically rejected by experts. Laland and Brown report that "the vast majority of professional academics in the social sciences not only ... ignore evolutionary methods but in many cases [are] extremely hostile to the arguments" that draw vast generalizations from rather limited evidence.^[110]

The evolutionary theory of nationalism perceives nationalism to be the result of the evolution of human beings into identifying with groups, such as ethnic groups, or other groups that form the foundation of a nation.^[108] Roger Masters in The Nature of Politics describes the primordial explanation of the origin of ethnic and national groups as recognizing group attachments that are thought to be unique, emotional, intense, and durable because they are based upon kinship and promoted along lines of common ancestry.^[111]

The primordialist evolutionary views of nationalism often reference the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin as well as Social Darwinist views of the late nineteenth century. Thinkers like Herbert Spencer and Walter Bagehot reinterpreted Darwin's theory of natural selection "often in ways inconsistent with Charles Darwin's theory of evolution" by making unsupported claims of biological difference among groups, ethnicities, races, and nations.^[112] Modern evolutionary sciences have distanced themselves from such views, but notions of long-term evolutionary change remain foundational to the work of evolutionary psychologists like John Tooby and Leda Cosmides.^[113]

Approached through the primordialist perspective, the example of seeing the mobilization of a foreign military force on the nation's borders may provoke members of a national group to unify and mobilize themselves in response.^[114] There are proximate environments where individuals identify nonimmediate real or imagined situations in combination with immediate situations that make individuals confront a common situation of both subjective and objective components that affect their decisions.^[115] As such proximate environments cause people to make decisions based on existing situations and anticipated situations.^[115]

Critics argue that primordial models relying on evolutionary psychology are based not on historical evidence but on assumptions of unobserved changes over thousands of years and assume stable genetic composition of the population living in a specific area, and are incapable of handling the contingencies that characterize every known historical process. Robert Hislope argues:

[T]he articulation of cultural evolutionary theory represents theoretical progress over sociobiology, but its explanatory payoff remains limited due to the role of contingency in human affairs and the significance of non-evolutionary, proximate causal factors. While evolutionary theory undoubtedly elucidates the development of all organic life, it would seem to operate best at macro-levels of analysis, "distal" points of explanation, and from the perspective of the long-term. Hence, it is bound to display shortcomings at micro-level events that are highly contingent in nature.^[116]

In 1920, English historian G. P. Gooch argued that "[w]hile patriotism is as old as human association and has gradually widened its sphere from the clan and the tribe to the city and the state, nationalism as an operative principle and an articulate creed only made its appearance among the more complicated intellectual processes of the modern world."^[117]

Marxist interpretations[edit | edit source]

In The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels declared that "the working men have no country".^[118] Vladimir Lenin supported the concept of self-determination.^[119] Joseph Stalin's Marxism and the National Question (1913) declares that "a nation is not a racial or tribal, but a historically constituted community of people;" "a nation is not a casual or ephemeral conglomeration, but a stable community of people"; "a nation is formed only as a result of lengthy and systematic intercourse, as a result of people living together generation after generation"; and, in its entirety: "a nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture."^[120]

Types[edit | edit source]

Historians, sociologists and anthropologists have debated different types of nationalism since at least the 1930s.^[121] Generally, the most common way of classifying nationalism has been to describe movements as having either "civic" or "ethnic" nationalist characteristics. This distinction was popularized in the 1950s by Hans Kohn who described "civic" nationalism as "Western" and more democratic while depicting "ethnic" nationalism as "Eastern" and undemocratic.^[122] Since the 1980s, however, scholars of nationalism have pointed out numerous flaws in this rigid division and proposed more specific classifications and numerous varieties.^[123][124]

Anti-colonial nationalism[edit | edit source]

Anti-colonial nationalism is an intellectual framework that preceded, accompanied and followed the process of decolonization in the mid-1900s. Benedict Anderson defined a nation as a socially constructed community that is co-created by individuals who imagine themselves as part of this group.^[125][126] He points to the New World as the site that originally conceived of nationalism as a concept, which is defined by its imagination of an ahistorical identity that negates colonialism by definition. This concept of nationalism was exemplified by the transformation of settler colonies into nations, while anti-colonial nationalism is exemplified by movements against colonial powers in the 1900s.

Nationalist mobilization in French colonial Africa and British colonial India developed "when colonial regimes refused to cede rights to their increasingly well-educated colonial subjects", who formed indigenous elites and strategically adopted and adapted nationalist tactics.^{[125][127][128]} New national identities may cross pre-existing ethnic or linguistic divisions.^[125] Anti-colonial independence movements in Africa and Asia in the 1900s were led by individuals who had a set of shared identities and imagined a homeland without external rule. Anderson argues that the racism often experienced as a result of colonial rule and attributed to nationalism is rather due to theories of class.^[100]

Gellner’s theory of nationalism argues that nationalism works for combining one culture or ethnicity in one state, which leads to that state’s success. For Gellner, nationalism is ethnic, and state political parties should reflect the ethnic majority in the state. This definition of nationalism also contributes to anti-colonial nationalism, if one conceives of anti-colonial movements to be movements consisting of one specific ethnic group against an outside ruling party.^[129] Edward Said also saw nationalism as ethnic, at least in part, and argued that nationalist narratives often go hand in hand with racism, as communities define themselves in relation to the other.^[130]

Anti-colonial nationalism is not static, and is defined by different forms of nationalism depending on location. In the anti-colonial movement that took place in the Indian subcontinent, Mahatma Gandhi and his allies in the Indian independence movement argued for a composite nationalism, not believing that an independent Indian nation should be defined by its religious identity.^[131][132] Despite large-scale opposition, the Indian subcontinent was partitioned into two states in 1947: the Muslim-majority Pakistan and the Hindu-majority Dominion of India.^[133]

Because of colonialism’s creation of state and country lines across ethnic, religious, linguistic and other historical boundaries, anti-colonial nationalism is largely related to land first. After independence, especially in countries with particularly diverse populations with historic enmity, there have been a series of smaller independence movements that are also defined by anti-colonialism.

Philosopher and scholar Achille Mbembe argues that post-colonialism is a contradictory term, because colonialism is ever present.^[134] Those that participate in this intellectual practice envision a post-colonialism despite its being the defining frame for the world. This is the case with anti-colonialism as well. Anti-colonial nationalism as an intellectual framework persisted into the late 20th century with the resistance movements in Soviet satellite states, and continues with independence movements in the Arab world in the 21st century.

Civic nationalism and liberal nationalism[edit | edit source]

Civic nationalism defines the nation as an association of people who identify themselves as belonging to the nation, who have equal and shared political rights, and allegiance to similar political procedures.^[135] According to the principles of civic nationalism, the nation is not based on common ethnic ancestry, but is a political entity whose core identity is not ethnicity. This civic concept of nationalism is exemplified by Ernest Renan in his lecture in 1882 "What is a Nation?", where he defined the nation as a "daily referendum" (frequently translated "daily plebiscite") dependent on the will of its people to continue living together.^[135]

Civic nationalism is normally associated with liberal nationalism, although the two are distinct, and did not always coincide. On the one hand, until the late 19th and early 20th century adherents to anti-Enlightenment movements such as French Legitimism or Spanish Carlism often rejected the liberal, national unitary state, yet identified themselves not with an ethnic nation but with a non-national dynasty and regional feudal privileges. Xenophobic movements in long-established Western European states indeed often took a 'civic national' form, rejecting a given group's ability to assimilate with the nation due to its belonging to a cross-border community (Irish Catholics in Britain, Ashkenazic Jews in France). On the other hand, while subnational separatist movements were commonly associated with ethnic nationalism, this was not always so, and such nationalists as the Corsican Republic, United Irishmen, Breton Federalist League or Catalan Republican Party could combine a rejection of the unitary civic-national state with a belief in liberal universalism.

Liberal nationalism is kind of non-xenophobic nationalism that is claimed to be compatible with liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights.^{[136][137][138]} Ernest Renan^[139] and John Stuart Mill^[140] are often thought to be early liberal nationalists. Liberal nationalists often defend the value of national identity by saying that individuals need a national identity to lead meaningful, autonomous lives,^[141][142] and that liberal democratic polities need national identity to function properly.^[143][144]

Civic nationalism lies within the traditions of rationalism and liberalism, but as a form of nationalism it is usually contrasted with ethnic nationalism. Civic nationalism is correlated with long-established states whose dynastic rulers had gradually acquired multiple distinct territories, with little change to boundaries, but which contained historical populations of multiple linguistic and/or confessional backgrounds. Since individuals resident within different parts of the state territory might have little obvious common ground, civic nationalism developed as a way for rulers to both explain a contemporary reason for such heterogeneity and to provide a common purpose (Ernest Renan's classic description in What is a Nation? (1882) as a voluntary partnership for a common endeavour). Renan argued that factors such as ethnicity, language, religion, economics, geography, ruling dynasty and historic military deeds were important but not sufficient. Needed was a spiritual soul that allowed as a "daily referendum" among the people.^[145] Civic-national ideals influenced the development of representative democracy in multiethnic countries such as the United States and France, as well as in constitutional monarchies such as Great Britain, Belgium and Spain.^[146]

German philosopher Monika Kirloskar-Steinbach does not think liberalism and nationalism are compatible, but she points out there are many liberals who think they are. Kirloskar-Steinbach states:

Justifications of nationalism seem to be making a headway in political philosophy. Its proponents contend that liberalism and nationalism are not necessarily mutually exclusive and that they can in fact be made compatible. Liberal nationalists urge one to consider nationalism not as the pathology of modernity but as an answer to its malaise. For them, nationalism is more than an infantile disease, more than "the measles of mankind" as Einstein once proclaimed it to be. They argue that nationalism is a legitimate way of understanding one's role and place in life. They strive for a normative justification of nationalism which lies within liberal limits. The main claim which seems to be involved here is that as long as a nationalism abhors violence and propagates liberal rights and equal citizenship for all citizens of its state, its philosophical credentials can be considered to be sound.^[147]

Creole nationalism[edit | edit source]

Creole nationalism is the ideology that emerged in independence movements among the creoles (descendants of the colonizers), especially in Latin America in the early 19th century. It was facilitated when French Emperor Napoleon seized control of Spain and Portugal, breaking the chain of control from the Spanish and Portuguese kings to the local governors. Allegiance to the Napoleonic states was rejected, and increasingly the creoles demanded independence. They achieved it after civil wars 1808–1826.^[148]

Ethnic nationalism[edit | edit source]

Ethnic nationalism, also known as ethno-nationalism, is a form of nationalism wherein the "nation" is defined in terms of ethnicity.^[149] The central theme of ethnic nationalists is that "nations are defined by a shared heritage, which usually includes a common language, a common faith, and a common ethnic ancestry".^[150] It also includes ideas of a culture shared between members of the group, and with their ancestors. However, it is different from a purely cultural definition of "the nation," which allows people to become members of a nation by cultural assimilation; and from a purely linguistic definition, according to which "the nation" consists of all speakers of a specific language.

Whereas nationalism in and of itself does not imply a belief in the superiority of one ethnicity or country over others, some nationalists support ethnocentric supremacy or protectionism.

The humiliation of being a second-class citizen led regional minorities in multiethnic states, such as Great Britain, Spain, France, Germany, Russia and the Ottoman Empire, to define nationalism in terms of loyalty to their minority culture, especially language and religion. Forced assimilation was anathema.^[151]

For the politically dominant cultural group, assimilation was necessary to minimize disloyalty and treason and therefore became a major component of nationalism. A second factor for the politically dominant group was competition with neighbouring states—nationalism involved a rivalry, especially in terms of military prowess and economic strength.^[152]

Economic nationalism[edit | edit source]

Economic nationalism, or economic patriotism, is an ideology that favours state interventionism in the economy, with policies that emphasize domestic control of the economy, labour, and capital formation, even if this requires the imposition of tariffs and other restrictions on the movement of labour, goods and capital.^[153]

Gendered and muscular nationalism[edit | edit source]

Feminist critique interprets nationalism as a mechanism through which sexual control and repression are justified and legitimized, often by a dominant masculine power. The gendering of nationalism through socially constructed notions of masculinity and femininity not only shapes what masculine and feminine participation in the building of that nation will look like, but also how the nation will be imagined by nationalists.^[154] A nation having its own identity is viewed as necessary, and often inevitable, and these identities are gendered.^[155] The physical land itself is often gendered as female (i.e. "Motherland"), with a body in constant danger of violation by foreign males, while national pride and protectiveness of "her" borders is gendered as masculine.^[156]

History, political ideologies, and religions place most nations along a continuum of muscular nationalism.^[155] Muscular nationalism conceptualizes a nation's identity as being derived from muscular or masculine attributes that are unique to a particular country.^[155] If definitions of nationalism and gender are understood as socially and culturally constructed, the two may be constructed in conjunction by invoking an "us" versus "them" dichotomy for the purpose of the exclusion of the so-called "other," who is used to reinforce the unifying ties of the nation.^[154] The empowerment of one gender, nation or sexuality tends to occur at the expense and disempowerment of another; in this way, nationalism can be used as an instrument to perpetuate heteronormative structures of power.^[157] The gendered manner in which dominant nationalism has been imagined in most states in the world has had important implications on not only individual's lived experience, but on international relations.^[158] Colonialism has historically been heavily intertwined with muscular nationalism, from research linking hegemonic masculinity and empire-building,^[154] to intersectional oppression being justified by colonialist images of the “other”, a practice integral in the formation of Western identity.^[159] This “othering” may come in the form of orientalism, whereby the East is feminized and sexualized by the West. The imagined feminine East, or “other,” exists in contrast to the masculine West.

The status of conquered nations can become a causality dilemma: the nation was “conquered because they were effeminate and seen as effeminate because they were conquered.”^[154] In defeat they are considered militaristically unskilled, not aggressive, and thus not muscular. In order for a nation to be considered “proper”, it must possess the male-gendered characteristics of virility, as opposed to the stereotypically female characteristics of subservience and dependency.^[155] Muscular nationalism is often inseparable from the concept of a warrior, which shares ideological commonalities across many nations; they are defined by the masculine notions of aggression, willingness to engage in war, decisiveness, and muscular strength, as opposed to the feminine notions of peacefulness, weakness, non-violence, and compassion.^[154] This masculinized image of a warrior has been theorized to be “the culmination of a series of gendered historical and social processes" played out in a national and international context.^[154] Ideas of cultural dualism—of a martial man and chaste woman—which are implicit in muscular nationalism, underline the raced, classed, gendered, and heteronormative nature of dominant national identity.^[155]

Nations and gender systems are mutually supportive constructions: the nation fulfils the masculine ideals of comradeship and brotherhood.^[160] Masculinity has been cited as a notable factor in producing political militancy.^[160] A common feature of national crisis is a drastic shift in the socially acceptable ways of being a man,^[161] which then helps to shape the gendered perception of the nation as a whole.

Integral nationalism, irredentism and pan-nationalism[edit | edit source]

There are different types of nationalism including Risorgimento nationalism and Integral nationalism.^[162][163] Whereas risorgimento nationalism applies to a nation seeking to establish a liberal state (for example the Risorgimento in Italy and similar movements in Greece, Germany, Poland during the 19th century or the civic American nationalism), integral nationalism results after a nation has achieved independence and has established a state. Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, according to Alter and Brown, were examples of integral nationalism.

Some of the qualities that characterize integral nationalism are anti-individualism, statism, radical extremism, and aggressive-expansionist militarism. The term Integral Nationalism often overlaps with fascism, although many natural points of disagreement exist. Integral nationalism arises in countries where a strong military ethos has become entrenched through the independence struggle, when, once independence is achieved, it is believed that a strong military is required to ensure the security and viability of the new state. Also, the success of such a liberation struggle results in feelings of national superiority that may lead to extreme nationalism.

Pan-nationalism is unique in that it covers a large area span. Pan-nationalism focuses more on "clusters" of ethnic groups. Pan-Slavism is one example of Pan-nationalism. The goal is to unite all Slavic people into one country. They did succeed by uniting several south Slavic people into Yugoslavia in 1918.^[164]

Left-wing nationalism[edit | edit source]

Left-wing nationalism, occasionally known as socialist nationalism, not to be confused with the German fascist National Socialism,^[165] is a political movement that combines left-wing politics with nationalism.

Many nationalist movements are dedicated to national liberation, in the view that their nations are being persecuted by other nations and thus need to exercise self-determination by liberating themselves from the accused persecutors. Anti-revisionist Marxism–Leninism is closely tied with this ideology, and practical examples include Stalin's early work Marxism and the National Question and his socialism in one country edict, which declares that nationalism can be used in an internationalist context, fighting for national liberation without racial or religious divisions.

Other examples of left-wing nationalism include Fidel Castro's 26th of July Movement that launched the Cuban Revolution in 1959, Cornwall's Mebyon Kernow, Ireland's Sinn Féin, Wales's Plaid Cymru, Galicia's Galician Nationalist Bloc the Awami League in Bangladesh, the African National Congress in South Africa and numerous movements in Eastern Europe.^[166][167]

National-anarchism[edit | edit source]

Among the first advocates of national-anarchism were Hans Cany, Peter Töpfer and former National Front activist Troy Southgate, founder of the National Revolutionary Faction, a since disbanded British-based organization which cultivated links to certain far-left and far-right circles in the United Kingdom and in post-Soviet states, not to be confused with the national-anarchism of the Black Ram Group.^{[168][169][170]} In the United Kingdom, national-anarchists worked with Albion Awake, Alternative Green (published by former Green Anarchist editor Richard Hunt) and Jonathan Boulter to develop the Anarchist Heretics Fair.^[169] Those national-anarchists cite their influences primarily from Mikhail Bakunin, William Godwin, Peter Kropotkin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Max Stirner and Leo Tolstoy.^[168]

A position developed in Europe during the 1990s, national-anarchist groups have seen arisen worldwide, most prominently in Australia (New Right Australia/New Zealand), Germany (International National Anarchism) and the United States (BANA).^[169][170] National-anarchism has been described as a radical right-wing^{[171][172][173]} nationalist ideology which advocates racial separatism and white racial purity.^{[168][169][170]} National-anarchists claim to syncretize neotribal ethnic nationalism with philosophical anarchism, mainly in their support for a stateless society whilst rejecting anarchist social philosophy.^{[168][169][170]} The main ideological innovation of national-anarchism is its anti-state palingenetic ultranationalism.^[171] National-anarchists advocate homogeneous communities in place of the nation state. National-anarchists claim that those of different ethnic or racial groups would be free to develop separately in their own tribal communes while striving to be politically meritocratic, economically non-capitalist, ecologically sustainable and socially and culturally traditional.^[168][170]

Although the term national-anarchism dates back as far as the 1920s, the contemporary national-anarchist movement has been put forward since the late 1990s by British political activist Troy Southgate, who positions it as being "beyond left and right".^[168] The few scholars who have studied national-anarchism conclude that it represents a further evolution in the thinking of the radical right rather than an entirely new dimension on the political spectrum.^{[171][172][173]} National-anarchism is considered by anarchists as being a rebranding of totalitarian fascism and an oxymoron due to the inherent contradiction of anarchist philosophy of anti-fascism, abolition of unjustified hierarchy, dismantling of national borders and universal equality between different nationalities as being incompatible with the idea of a synthesis between anarchism and fascism.^[170]

National-anarchism has elicited scepticism and outright hostility from both left-wing and far-right critics.^[169][170] Critics, including scholars, accuse national-anarchists of being nothing more than white nationalists who promote a communitarian and racialist form of ethnic and racial separatism while wanting the militant chic of calling themselves anarchists without the historical and philosophical baggage that accompanies such a claim, including the anti-racist egalitarian anarchist philosophy and the contributions of Jewish anarchists.^[169][170] Some scholars are sceptical that implementing national-anarchism would result in an expansion of freedom and describe it as an authoritarian anti-statism that would result in authoritarianism and oppression, only on a smaller scale.^[174]

Nativist nationalism[edit | edit source]

Nativist nationalism is a type of nationalism similar to creole or territorial types of nationalism, but which defines belonging to a nation solely by being born on its territory. In countries where strong nativist nationalism exists, people who were not born in the country are seen as lesser nationals than those who were born there and are called immigrants even if they became naturalized. It is cultural as people will never see a foreign-born person as one of them and is legal as such people are banned for life from holding certain jobs, especially government jobs. In scholarly studies, nativism is a standard technical term, although those who hold this political view do not typically accept the label. "[N]ativists . . . do not consider themselves nativists. For them it is a negative term and they rather consider themselves as 'Patriots'."^[175]

Racial nationalism[edit | edit source]

Racial nationalism is an ideology that advocates a racial definition of national identity. Racial nationalism seeks to preserve a given race through policies such as banning race mixing and the immigration of other races. Specific examples are black nationalism and white nationalism.

Religious nationalism[edit | edit source]

Religious nationalism is the relationship of nationalism to a particular religious belief, dogma, or affiliation where a shared religion can be seen to contribute to a sense of national unity, a common bond among the citizens of the nation. Saudi Arabian, Iranian, Egyptian, Iraqi, American, Indian and the Pakistani-Islamic nationalism (Two-Nation Theory) are some examples.

Territorial nationalism[edit | edit source]

Some nationalists exclude certain groups. Others define the national community in ethnic, linguistic, cultural, historic, or religious terms (or a combination of these), may then seek to deem certain minorities as not truly being a part of the 'national community' as they define it. Sometimes a mythic homeland is more important for the national identity than the actual territory occupied by the nation.^[176]

Territorial nationalists assume that all inhabitants of a particular nation owe allegiance to their country of birth or adoption.^[177] A sacred quality is sought in the nation and in the popular memories it evokes. Citizenship is idealized by territorial nationalists. A criterion of a territorial nationalism is the establishment of a mass, public culture based on common values, codes and traditions of the population.^[178]

Sports nationalism[edit | edit source]

Sport spectacles like football's World Cup command worldwide audiences as nations battle for supremacy and the fans invest intense support for their national team. Increasingly people have tied their loyalties and even their cultural identity to national teams.^[179] The globalization of audiences through television and other media has generated revenues from advertisers and subscribers in the billions of dollars, as the FIFA Scandals of 2015 revealed.^[180] Jeff Kingston looks at football, the Commonwealth Games, baseball, cricket, and the Olympics and finds that, "The capacity of sports to ignite and amplify nationalist passions and prejudices is as extraordinary as is their power to console, unify, uplift and generate goodwill."^[181] The phenomenon is evident across most of the world.^{[182][183][184]} The British Empire strongly emphasized sports among its soldiers and agents across the world, and often the locals joined in enthusiastically.^[185] It established a high prestige competition in 1930, named the British Empire Games from 1930–50, the British Empire and Commonwealth Games from 1954–66, British Commonwealth Games from 1970–74 and since then the Commonwealth Games.^[186]

The French Empire was not far behind the British in the use of sports to strengthen colonial solidarity with France. Colonial officials promoted and subsidized gymnastics, table games, and dance and helped football spread to French colonies.^[187]

Pandemic nationalism[edit | edit source]

Harris Mylonas and Ned Whalley co-edited a special issue on Pandemic Nationalism where they explore the relationship between nationalism and the pandemic. While nationalism unquestionably helped overcome collective action problems within state borders during the pandemic, it has undermined them at the global scale. The most clear example being been the abject failure of international organizations to coordinate an appropriate response. As they put it: "During the pandemic, a nationalist human calculus has prevailed. Solidarity has been extended to co-nationals but has been less forthcoming beyond that point. All states have responded by turning inward. Border closures have been at the heart of mitigation efforts from the very beginning, and lockdowns legitimated and often enforced through national and patriotic discourses."^[188]

Criticism[edit | edit source]

Critics of nationalism have argued that it is often unclear what constitutes a nation, or whether a nation is a legitimate unit of political rule. Nationalists hold that the boundaries of a nation and a state should coincide with one another, thus nationalism tends to oppose multiculturalism.^[189] It can also lead to conflict when more than one national group finds itself claiming rights to a particular territory or seeking to take control of the state.^[190]

Philosopher A. C. Grayling describes nations as artificial constructs, "their boundaries drawn in the blood of past wars". He argues that "there is no country on earth which is not home to more than one different but usually coexisting culture. Cultural heritage is not the same thing as national identity".^[191]

Nationalism is considered by its critics to be inherently divisive, as adherents may draw upon and highlight perceived differences between people, emphasizing an individual's identification with their own nation. They also consider the idea to be potentially oppressive, because it can submerge individual identity within a national whole and give elites or political leaders potential opportunities to manipulate or control the masses.^[192] Much of the early opposition to nationalism was related to its geopolitical ideal of a separate state for every nation. The classic nationalist movements of the 19th century rejected the very existence of the multi-ethnic empires in Europe. However, even in that early stage there was an ideological critique of nationalism which has developed into several forms of internationalism and anti-nationalism. The Islamic revival of the 20th century also produced an Islamist critique of the nation-state. (see Pan-Islamism)^[193]

At the end of the 19th century, Marxists and other socialists and communists (such as Rosa Luxemburg) produced political analyses that were critical of the nationalist movements then active in Central and Eastern Europe, although a variety of other contemporary socialists and communists, from Vladimir Lenin (a communist) to Józef Piłsudski (a socialist), were more sympathetic to national self-determination.^[194]

In his classic essay on the topic, George Orwell distinguishes nationalism from patriotism which he defines as devotion to a particular place. More abstractly, nationalism is "power-hunger tempered by self-deception".^[195] For Orwell, the nationalist is more likely than not dominated by irrational negative impulses:

There are, for example, Trotskyists who have become simply enemies of the U.S.S.R. without developing a corresponding loyalty to any other unit. When one grasps the implications of this, the nature of what I mean by nationalism becomes a good deal clearer. A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist—that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating—but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations. He sees history, especially contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the upgrade and some hated rival is on the downgrade. But finally, it is important not to confuse nationalism with mere worship of success. The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him.^[195]

In the liberal political tradition there was mostly a negative attitude toward nationalism as a dangerous force and a cause of conflict and war between nation-states. The historian Lord Acton put the case for "nationalism as insanity" in 1862. He argued that nationalism suppresses minorities, places country above moral principles and creates a dangerous individual attachment to the state. However, Acton opposed democracy and was trying to defend the pope from Italian nationalism.^[196] Since the late 20th century, liberals have been increasingly divided, with some philosophers such as Michael Walzer, Isaiah Berlin, Charles Taylor and David Miller emphasizing that a liberal society needs to be based in a stable nation state.^[197]

The pacifist critique of nationalism also concentrates on the violence of some nationalist movements, the associated militarism, and on conflicts between nations inspired by jingoism or chauvinism. National symbols and patriotic assertiveness are in some countries discredited by their historical link with past wars, especially in Germany. British pacifist Bertrand Russell criticized nationalism for diminishing the individual's capacity to judge his or her fatherland's foreign policy.^[198][199] Albert Einstein stated that "Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind".^[200] Jiddu Krishnamurti stated that "Nationalism is merely the glorification of tribalism".^[201]

See also[edit | edit source]

• American nationalism
• Civic nationalism
• Ethnic nationalism
• Religious nationalism
• European nationalism
• Gellner's theory of nationalism
• Nationalism studies
• Nationalist historiography
• National myth
• National memory
• Nation-state
• Self-determination
• Patriotism
• Nativism
• Zionism
• Notes on Nationalism, an essay by George Orwell.

References[edit | edit source]

Bibliography[edit | edit source]

Information about Nationalism

Resources in your library Resources in other libraries

• Anderson, Benedict (1983). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso. ISBN 978-0860910596.
• Billig, Michael (1995). Banal Nationalism. London: Sage. ISBN 978-0803975255.
• Delanty, Gerard; Kumar, Krishan, eds. (2006). The Sage Handbook of Nations and Nationalism. London: Sage Publications. ISBN 978-1412901017.
• Hayes, Carlton J. The Historical Evolution of Modern Nationalism (1928) the first major scholarly survey.
• Hobsbawm, Eric J. (1992). Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521439619.
• Hobsbawm, E.; Ranger, T. (1983). The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
• James, Paul (1996). Nation Formation: Towards a Theory of Abstract Community. London: Sage Publications. ISBN 978-0761950721.
• James, Paul (2006). Globalism, Nationalism, Tribalism: Bringing Theory Back In. London: Sage Publications.
• Kohn, Hans. The Idea of Nationalism: A Study in Its Origins and Background (1944; 2nd ed. 2005 with introduction by Craig Calhoun). 735 pp; an often-cited classic
• Kymlicka, Will (1995). Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0198279495.
• Leoussi, Athena S., ed. (2001). Encyclopedia of Nationalism. New Brunswick, N.J: Transaction Publishers. ISBN 978-0765800022.
• Miller, David (1995). On Nationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0198280477.
• Motyl, Alexander, ed. (2001). Encyclopedia of Nationalism. San Diego: Academic Press 2 vol. ISBN 978-0122272301.
• Mylonas, Harris; Tudor, Maya (2021). "Nationalism: What We Know and What We Still Need to Know". Annual Review of Political Science. 24 (1): 109–132.
• Snyder, Louis L. (1990). Encyclopedia of Nationalism. New York: Paragon House. ISBN 978-1557781673.

Further reading[edit | edit source]

External links[edit | edit source]

• "Encyclopedia of 1848 Revolutions", comprehensive collection of new articles by modern scholars
• Nationalism – entry at Encyclopædia Britannica
• "Nationalism". Internet Modern History Sourcebook. Fordham University.
• "The Nationalism Project". Association for Research on Ethnicity and Nationalism in the Americas. University of South Carolina. Archived from the original on 2 October 2019. Retrieved 14 April 2012.
• Nationalism : selected references