"Nation" and "Nationalism": The Misuse of Key Concepts in Political Science
Author(s): Lowell W. Barrington
Reviewed work(s):
Source: PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 30, No. 4 (Dec., 1997), pp. 712-716
Published by: American Political Science Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/420397 .
Accessed: 03/02/2013 11:32
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
American Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
PS: Political Science and Politics.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Feb 2013 11:32:57 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
"Nation" and "Nationalism":The Misuse of Key Concepts in
PoliticalScience*
Lowell W. Barrington,
MarquetteUniversity
O
ne of the essentialatartingpoints
of anybranchof science is a consistent,broadlyunderstoodterminology.Generallyaccepted definitions
of keytermswithina disciplineare
importantin orderto judge claims
by scholarsabout a giventopic. Fortunately,amongthosewho workon
the topic of nationalism,thereis a
growingconvergenceof definitions
of "nation"and "nationalism."Unboth termsare oftenstill
fortunately,
misused,used loosely,or used inconsistently,
especiallyamongthose in
who discussthese
science
political
termsin passing.Authorsof introductorytextbooks,who are carefulin
theirusage of otherterms,oftenuse
these twowordsin varying-and
in different
even contradictory-ways
partsof the same book. Because of
theirimportanceforthe discipline,
however,politicalscientistsshould
be verymindfulof theiruse of the
terms"nation"and "nationalism."']
In thisarticle,definitions
for"nation" and "nationalism"are profollowed
posed, witheach definition
by sectionson commonwaysthe
termsare misemployedin political
science.I provideexamplesof both
misusesand "loose uses." While the
line betweenmisuseand loose use is
somewhatfuzzy(a pointreinforced
below in the discussionof nationsvs.
ethnicgroups),I considera misuse
to be one in whichthe termis used
in a way thatis completelyoutside
how the termis used by nationalism
scholars.A loose use is one in which
the authorhas capturedonlypartof
the conceptor has stretchedthe
meaningof the termto an extreme
degree. Of the two,whatI label misuses in thisarticleare the more
problematic,especiallyforpolitical
to learn
science studentsstruggling
definitions
of importantconcepts.
I propose are no
The definitions
more authoritative
than anyothers
in the nationalismliterature,
but
theyare consciouslybased on generallyaccepted ideas in the literature
whose memtion is a "community
bers share feelingsof fraternity,
and exclusubstantialdistinctiveness,
sivity,as well as beliefsin a common
ancestryand continuousgenealogy"
(1995, 425). While a good definition
of an ethnicgroup,the lack of referselfence to the idea of territorial
in
and the difficulty
determination
on
nations
based
fitting
political
ratherthanethnicidentityinto this
conceptionof nationmake thisdefinitionunusable.6While an improvementover vague definitions
that
cannotdistinguish
betweennations
and classes, it is unclearhow a nafroman ethnicgroup
tion differs
this
definition.
using
The importanceof the beliefin
The Conceptof Nation
territorial
self-determination
forthe
Nation: A Definition
groupis a centralpart of most definitionsof "nation" in the nationalWhetherone believesthatnationism literatureand providesan imalismscreate the idea of nationsor
criterionfordifferentiating
portant
thatnationsdevelop the ideas rebetween
nationsand othersocial
one cannot
lated to nationalism,3
discussnationalismwithoutconsider- categories.As Nodia puts it,"a nation is a community
of people orgaingwhatone means by a nation.
the
idea
nized
around
of self-determiYet, even the nationalismliterature
nation"
italics
in original).
11,
(1994,
containsdifferent
approachesto deSome take thisidea of self-determiwith
the
One
term.
fining
problem
nationto mean controlof a state.In
definitions
of "nation"in thisliteratureis the combinationof definitions anotherreviewarticle,forexample,
Haas proposes thatthe nationis "a
and causal arguments.Smith'sdefisociallymobilizedbody of individunitionof nationas a "named human
als, believingthemselvesto be united
historic
terrian
populationsharing
that
by some set of characteristics
tory,commonmyths,and historical
them
their
own
differentiate
a
a
mass
(in
memories,
publicculture,
to
commoneconomyand commonleminds)fromoutsiders,striving
or
maintain
their
own
state"
create
for
all
memand
duties
gal rights
bers" (Smith1991, 14), forexample,
(1986, 726). While othersmightnot
is criticizedin a reviewarticleby
agree thatthe nationmustpursue its
own state,the idea of territory
is
Tamir (1995, 424) formixingtocrucialto understanding
national
gether"reasons forthe emergence
of a nation(a shared historicterriidentity.
Keeping in mindthese ideas, what
tory,a commoneconomy,and a
are some of the commonthreadsof
commonlegal system)withthe reof "nation" in the
the definitions
sults(sharingmythsand historical
nationalismliterature?Firstand
memories)."4But, Smith'semphasis
on culturalfeaturesis useful,and
foremost,a nationis a collectiveof
is
common
to
most
that
people. This is a necessarydetail,
something
but one thatdoes not help us distinWhile criticalof Smith,
definitions.5
Tamir puts forthan even more prob- guishbetweennationsand other
For Tamir,a nalematicdefinition.
groupsin society.What makes na-
and designedto fitwithcircumstancesthatmostpeople who study
the topicwould label nationalism.2
The examplesof misusesand loose
uses in thisarticleare, of course,
If one
dependenton the definitions.
the
does not accept the definitions,
criticismof misusesis unlikelyto be
persuasive.That said, the definitions
in thisarticleshould providea starting pointforbridgingdisciplinary
and subfielddividesand help scholars begin to addressthe general
problemof the varietyof uses of
these termsin politicalscience.
PS: PoliticalScience& Politics
712
This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Feb 2013 11:32:57 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The MisueofKeyConceptsin PoliticalScience
"Nation"and "Nationalism":
tionsunique is thattheyare collectivesunitedbysharedculturalfeatures
values,etc.) and thebeliefin
(myths,
therightto territorial
self-determination.Thus, nationsare groupsof
traitsand
people linkedby unifying
that
the desire to controla territory
is thoughtof as the group'snational
homeland.7The beliefin the rightto
territorial
controlis centralto distinguishingnationsfromothercollectives.Many groupshold common
values,and symbols(e.g., relimyths,
gious groups,ethnicgroups,or even
professionalassociations).But nationsare notjust unifiedby culture;
theyare unifiedby a sense of purthat
pose: controllingthe territory
the membersof the groupbelieve to
be theirs.
Nation: Misuses
The mostimportantand consistentmisuseof "nation"in political
science is to equate it with"state" or
"country."This misuseappears in a
large numberof politicalscience
worksincludingmanytextbooks.
Worksin the Americanpoliticssubfieldare mostsusceptibleto this
misuse,thoughbooks and articlesin
comparativepoliticsand internationalrelationsare certainlynot immune. Internationalrelationsscholars seem to do better,possibly
because of the importancethey
place on emphasizingthe natureof
statesin international
politics,but
the use of "nation"to mean "state"
use of "nation"
or the inconsistent
(sometimesmeaninga "people,"
sometimesmeaninga "state") remainsan especiallyseriousproblem
forscholarsin comparativepolitics.
Inconsistentusage is found,forexample,in Almondand Powell's poptextbookforthe
ular introductory
studyof comparativepolitics.At the
beginningof the book, the authors
write,"Justabout the entiresurface
of the worldtodayis coveredby independentcountries.We call them
statesor nationsor nation-states."
They thencontinue,"When we
speak of a 'nation,'we referto the
of a people based
self-identification
on the languagetheyspeak and the
values, allegiances,and historical
memoriestheyshare" (1996, 2, italics in original).Not onlydo these
statements(on the same page) contradictthemselves,but in the pages
thatfollowthe authorsgo back to
using"nation"and "state" interchangeably,as tables are presented
on the per capita GNP and portion
of the populationin agricultureof
"selected nations"such as Japan,
Russia, Nigeria,and India. Even in
the indexof the book, the entryfor
"Country"reads,"See Nation(s).'"8
As discussedabove, "nation"is a
termthatrefersto a collectiveof
people. This is one pointin which
definitions
of nationin the nationalism literaturehave been unanimous,
makingit all the more ironicthat
nationis used verydifferently
by so
manyin politicalscience.A state,on
the otherhand,is the principalpolitical unitin the international
political
systemcorrespondingto a territory,
a relativelypermanentpopulation,
A
and a set of rulinginstitutions.
the
is
territorial
component
country
of the state.Nigeriais state (and a
country);it is not a nation.
That nationis used interchangeablywith"country"in everyday English is partof the problem.Because
Americansare generallythoughtof
as a "civicnation"(one is an American by means of United States citizenship),it is easy to associate "nation"withthe politicalunititself.
Nevertheless,its use in commonlanforits
guage is not a justification
misuseby politicalscientists.Nothing is lost by using"state" or "country"if thatis what is meant.Much is
lost if "nation"is used instead.
Nation: Loose Uses
The mostbasic loose use of "naof the
tion" is the interchanging
termand "ethnicgroup"or "ethnicity."I considerthisa loose use because nationscan evolvefromethnic
groups,but it would not be a stretch
to call it a misuse.A nationis more
from
than an ethnicgroup,differing
such a groupbecause of a nation's
conbeliefin its rightto territorial
trol,or what Richmond(1987) calls
its "territorial
referent."Also, and
more important,
nationsneed not
even be based on a certainethnic
identity.Thus, the words"shared
culturalfeatures"in the definitionof
nationabove should not be read as
"shared ethnicidentity."What are
called "civic"or "political"nations
in the nationalismliteraturehave
sharedculturalfeaturesbut are genin theirmake-up.9
erallymultiethnic
Americansshare certainculturalfeatures(originmythsand symbols,as
well as-for mostpeople-language), but one of these featuresis
certainlynot ethnicheritage.The
factthatit is necessaryto discuss
subgroupsof the Americanpopulationwiththe help of hyphenated
Africanprefixes(Italian-Americans,
Americans,etc.) demonstratesthat
Americansas a nationare not unifiedin theirethnicidentity.
The Conceptof Nationalism
Nationalism:A Definition
One set of approachesto the definitionof nationalismconsidersit to
be an idea, belief,or principle.Ignatieff(1993), forexample,sees nationalismas a notionthatcombines
the politicalidea of territorial
selfthe culturalidea of
determination,
the nationas one's primaryidentity,
and a moralidea of justification
of
action to protectthe rightsof the
nation againstthe other.Gellner's
definitionof "a principlewhichholds
thatthe politicaland nationalunit
should be congruent"(1983, 1) is a
standardformanypeople who study
the topic.Haas's definitionis even
more basic: "a beliefheld by a group
of people thattheyoughtto constitute a nation,or thattheyalready
are one" (1986, 727).
Motyltakes perhapsthe strongest
stand in defendingnationalismas an
idea, or, as he puts it, an "ideal." He
arguesthatbecause nationalismis
based on ideas-such as the nationnational
state,self-determination,
and nationalsuperiorityidentity,
actionsbased on these ideas cannot
be the basis fora definitionof nationalism,"unlesswe make the absurd assumptionthatbeliefsinvariablytranslateautomaticallyinto
behavior"(1992, 311).1oYet, many
"isms" (capitalism,socialism,terrorism,etc.) are based on ideas, and
of these "isms" focus
the definitions
not on the necessaryideas but on
the activitiesthatstemfromthem.
While the idea of the marketis cen713
December
1997
This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Feb 2013 11:32:57 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Features
tralto capitalism,the existenceof
such an idea alone is not what
makes an economicsystemcapitalistic; rather,thatmarketprinciplesare
practicedis the crucialingredient.
Thus, one does not have to make an
"absurd assumption"to includeactivitiesin the definition
of a concept
thatalso has importantideas at its
core. The idea of nationalrights
should not be thoughtof as nationalism withoutat least the open articulationof thisidea to the general
population.
A second,more usefulapproach
to defining"nationalism"takes it to
be a process.It is thoughtof as the
creationof the unifying
featuresof
the nation,or the actionsthatresult
fromthe beliefsof the group.1"Nationalismdefinedas an organized
endeavorto controlthe national
homeland,forexample,is common
in the nationalismliterature.12
Some
stressthatthisstrugglemustturnthe
homelandinto an independentstate;
otherswould stop shortof the requirementthatthe groupeven seek
its own state,acceptingstrugglesfor
territorial
autonomywithinan existing state as nationalism.Nearlyall
would agree,however,thatthe controlover one's own nation-stateis a
goal formostnationalists.Less idealisticnationalistsmayrealize that
an independentstate is not practical
and seek somethingless thancombut they
plete territorial
sovereignty,
would nearlyalwayspreferto have
theirown state.Mellor's definition
of nationalism-"thepoliticalexpression of the nation'saspirations,"inthat
cludingcontrolover territory
membersof the nation"perceiveas
theirhomelandby right"(1989, 4-5,
myitalics)-is thereforean improvement over the labeling of nationalism as simply an idea. It combines
the ideas and the activities of nationalists.
While concern with territoryis a
necessary component of nationalism,
many nations lay claim to a territory
even when the members of the nation are not a majority in that area.
Gellner's "Potato Principle" (roughly
that groups will look back historically to periods when they were
mainly farmers to justifythe control
of land in an urban and industrial
age) shows how territoryitself is
imagined (see Gellner 1992). Just as
thereare no predetermined
nations,
thereare no predeterminedhomelands. An interesting
possible exception to thisstatementis federalsystemswhereterritorial
unitsare
named forethnicminorities.As the
break-upsof the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia,and Czechoslovakiaalong
the internallines createdby the
Communistsmake clear, the federal
natureof these Communistsystems
was more than an illusion.The residentsof these territories
oftenbelieved thatthe areas were homelands
within
thelargerstate(see Kaiser1994).
Bringingthesevisionsof nationalism together,"nationalism"is definedhere as thepursuit-through
or otheractivity-ofa set of
argument
membersof
rights
fortheself-defined
thenation,including,
at a minimum,
territorial
All
autonomyor sovereignty.
share two
nationalisms,therefore,
features:(1) theydefine,at least
boundaries
roughly,the territorial
thatthe nationhas a rightto control
and (2) theydefinethe membership
boundariesof the populationthat
makes up the nation-the groupthat
deservesthisterritorial
controland
thatis entitledto the supremeloyaltyof othermembersof the collective.13These membershipboundaries
are set by membersof the nation
themselves,generallyby an intellectual or politicalelite,thoughthey
maybe based on ideas of surrounding groupsas well. They establish
the we thatpossesses the rightto
controlthe homeland(and as a result the theythatdoes not share this
right).This does not mean, however,
thatthe boundariesare set easily.
The developmentof successful
claimsover boundariesmayinvolve
struggleswithanothergroup,serious
struggleswithinthe nationover comof the territorial
petingdefinitions
and membershipboundaries,and
in transmitting
the ideas of
difficulty
nationalmembershipboundariesto
the masses.
Nationalism:Misuses
The mostbasic misuseof "nationalism" is to equate it with"patriotism."Justas a nationis a groupof
people and not a state,nationalism
is firstand foremostabout the nation,not the state.Because national-
714
ism includesthe pursuitof territorial
control,and because the idea of the
"nation-state"stilldominatesthe
international
it is easy
state-system,
to fallintothe trapof associating
nationalismwithloyaltyto an existing state.The glossaryin Shively,for
example,says thatnations"oftenbut
not alwayscoincidewiththe political
boundariesof states."Yet "nationalism" is definedin thissame glossary
as "passionateidentification
witha
state on the partof its citizens"
(1993, 357). While pride in one's
state is not a bad definitionof patriotism,it is a bad definitionof nationalism.Likewise,pride in one's
nationis not patriotism,
and forthat
matteris, at best,onlya partof nationalism.
Nationalism:Loose Uses
A commonloose use of "nationalism" is to missone of its two sides.
Eitherit is thoughtof onlyas the
or it is
attemptto get territory
thoughtof onlyas the emphasison a
unifiednationalidentity.Textbooks
in comparativepoliticsand even internationalrelationsare especially
fondof the latter.Roskin and Berry,
forexample,discussnationalismas
"an exaggeratedsense of the greatness and unityof one's people"
and
(1997, 121). Unityis important,
a sense of greatnessmaybe partof
a particularnationalidentity.But it
is not a necessaryfeatureof nationalism.Again, everynationalisminvolves the settingof membership
and territorial
boundaries.
A second loose use of the term
"nationalism"is to equate it with
"ethnicpolitics."Rutland,forexample, definesnationalismas a "statementof claimson behalfof an ethnic group" (1994, 4). Like the
discussionof "nation"and "ethnic
group" above, ethnicpolitics(the
politicalmobilizationof people
based on ethnicity)can be a starting
pointforsomethingthatbecomes
nationalism,but it alone is not nationalism.Richmondmakes clear the
difference
betweennationalismand
the politicalmobilizationof ethnic
groups:
An ethnicgroupwhenpolitically
mobilizedcan havedifferent
goals.These
PS: PoliticalScience& Politics
This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Feb 2013 11:32:57 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
"Nation" and "Nationalism":The Misue of Key Conceptsin Political Science
the
mayincludetherightto franchise,
use oftheethnicvoteto swingresults
in marginal
constituencies.
The
achievement
ofspecialstatusforparticularlanguages
or religions
(espetheremovalof
ciallyin education),
andtheenforcement
ofhuinjustices
manrights
action
codes,affirmative
forpast
programmes,
compensation
therestitution
ofpropdeprivation,
or therecognition
ofspecial
erty,
from
treatment
suchas exemption
moveservice."Nationalist"
military
suchclaims
mentsmayalso establish
butgo further
in seekingto achieve
within
a givengeoself-government
of
graphicarea.... The politicization
is notthesamethingas ethethnicity
itmaylead
nicnationalism
although
claimto a parto itwherea historical
can be established
ticularterritory
(1987,4-5).
One can extendthispointto cover
the outbreakof conflict.Violent ethnic conflictsmayemergeover many
actionpolicies,
things(affirmative
laws,
language
etc.). Nationalconflicts,on the otherhand,mustinvolve disputesover territory
to be
"national."
truly
Anotherimportantloose use of
"nationalism"-because of its role in
furtherconfusingstudentsand the
casual observerof the nationalism
literature-is the seeminglyinfinite
numberof what I call "'something'
nationalisms."Were one to count
wordsatthe numberof different
tached to "nationalism"in scholarly
works(imperialnationalism,integral
nationalism,etc.), it would be a truly
impressivelist.14Again, keepingin
mindthatnationalismis about two
things-definingthe nationand definingits territory-helpsus make
sense of the myriad" 'something'
nationalisms"and also givesus a
tool to decide whetheror not a certainmovementactuallyis nationalism.
It is truethatone of these two
featuresmaybe emphasizedmore
thanthe other."Ethnicnationalism,"
forexample,is a legitimateterm
when the nationalistmovementis
mainlyemphasizingthe definitionof
the membershipboundariesof the
nationand is basingthisdefinition
Likeon an existingethnicidentity.'5
wise,"separatistnationalism"would
make sense ifthe nationalistsare
concernedmostof all withjustifying
the separationof a territory
thatis
partof an existingstate and the cre-
ation of a new state.The problem
comes whenone triesto fita circumstancethatis not nationalism
into the categoryby amendingthe
termwithan antecedentlabel. Thus,
it is acceptable to attacha tag to
nationalismifone has thought
throughhow thismodifierfitswith
the basic idea of nationalism.But
especiallywhenbothpartsof the
nationalismequation (definingthe
membershipboundariesof the nation and pursuingcontrolof the territorialboundariesof the homeland)
are emphasizedroughlyequally,it is
bettersimplyto referto the argumentor activityas "nationalism"and
avoid the use of the "something"
labels.
Conclusion
Given the importanceof nationalism as a topic in comparativepolirelations,and the
tics,international
disciplineas a whole,thisarticlehas
for"nation"
presenteddefinitions
and "nationalism"in the hope of
and conpromptingmore thoughtful
sistentusage of the termsin political
incorscienceworks.The definitions
areas
of
generalagreementin
porate
the nationalismliteratureand help
highlight
faultyor incompatibleusage of the termsin articlesand textbooks.
It is not expectedthatreaderswill
automaticallyaccept the definitions
providedabove. And thereis certainlyno expectationthatsuch unwill make an impacton
derstandings
the use of the termsin non-academic settingssuch as newspapers.
in the definitions
of key
Uniformity
in any discipline
conceptsis difficult
(and impossiblein less formalsettings),wherepeople have learned
and developed theirown ideas over
time.But politicalscientistsmust
stillconcernthemselveswithhow
thosewho specialize in the studyof
a topic like nationalismare using
these keyterms.Politicalscientists
mustalso look at whetherthey
themselvesare usingsuch termscon'1
sistently.
At a minimum,scholarsshould
make clear how theydefinekey
termssuch as these and thenuse
themin waysconsistentwiththeir
definitions.
Failure to do thisin in-
textbooksis inexcusable.
troductory
Even politicalscientistsreferring
in
and
to
"nation"
"nationalpassing
ism" in theirscholarlyworksshould
With
providetheirown definitions.
all of the different
often
contra(and
dictory)waysthatthese two terms
are used, perhapsthe biggestloose
use of "nation" and "nationalism"is
to discussthemwithoutgivingdefinitions,assuminginsteadthatothers
thinkabout themin a similarway.
Notes
*Special thanksto Mark Beissinger,Alexander Motyl,Ronald Suny,and Raju G. C.
Thomas fortheirhelpfulcommentson this
article.
1. It is outside the scope of thisarticle,
and the area of expertiseof the author,to
of otherterms,but there
propose definitions
is a definiteneed to addressthe problemof
defcompeting(and sometimescontradictory)
initionsfora varietyof basic conceptsin politicalscience.
2. As Haas (1986, 714) pointsout, even
scholarswho writea greatdeal about nationalism often"fail to make anyseriouseffort
to
acknowledgeor use, leave alone integrate,the
plethoraof existingworkson the subject."
Yet, the problemis greaterforpoliticalscientistswho use these termswithoutbeing aware
of the definitions
and argumentsin the major
workson nationalism.
3. Gellner(1983, 55), forexample,states
that"nationalismengendersnations,"while
Mellor (1989, 5) arguesthat"everynationhas
its nationalism.'
4. The emphasison thingssuch as a common economyin thisdefinitionalso excludes
membersof a diaspora community
frombeing
consideredpartof the nation.Given thatcmigres usuallyconsiderthemselvespartof the
largernationand thattheyare oftenthe most
"nationalistic"membersof thisnation,the
idea thata nationmustshare an economyis
Smith'sdefinitionis
problematic.Interestingly,
veryclose to thatof Stalin,who definedthe
stable
nationas "a historically
constituted,
of people, formedon the basis of
community
a commonlanguage,territory,
economiclife,
and psychologicalmake-up"(1994, 20).
5. Gellner (1983, 7), forexample,states
thattwo people belong to the same nation"if
and onlyiftheyshare the same culture."
6. Likewise,Connor's (1978) ideas about
the nationwould be bettersuitedas a definitionof ethnicgroup.In fact,he has little
problemusingthe termsalmostinterchangeis thata
ably,statingthatthe main difference
nationmustbe self-defined
while an ethnic
groupcan be "otherdefined."
7. Two pointsneed clarification.
First,
'culture"here includesa broad rangeof traits
and beliefs,and the particularones stressed
by one nationmaydifferfromthose stressed
by another.Second, not all membersof the
715
December1997
This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Feb 2013 11:32:57 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Features
nationneed live in the perceivedhomeland,
and the groupdoes not need to have actual
controlof its own state to be a nation.
8. Anotherintroductory
textbook-Mayer,
Burnett,and Ogden-discusses "nationsother
thanthe United States" and uses France,
ratherthantheFrench,to makethepointthat
nationsare unique.But theauthorsthendefine
"nation"threepages lateras "a largegroupof
a
people sharinga commonsense of belonging,
commonpeoplehood"(1996, 1, 7-8).
9. The idea of politicalversusethnicnationsis not accepted by all nationalismscholars. Clearly,these are ideal types,withmost
nationsfailingto meet eitherideal. But as
ideal typestheyare usefulwaysto distinguish
how one nationsees itselfand how its nationalism differs
fromanothernation's.A classic
workin thisregardis Brubaker(1992), where
the authorpointsout the effectsof different
ideas of nationhoodon the citizenshippolicies
of Germanyand France.
10. An explanationof how nationalism
spreads to the masses is one area wheremuch
workon nationalismstillneeds to be done.
For some interesting
ideas about the spread
of nationalism,see Beissinger(1996) and
Connor (1990).
11. The creationof nationalidentitycan
take place in different
ways.Brass pointsout
two possible routes:"Nationsmaybe created
of an ethnicgroupin a
by the transformation
multiethnic
state into a selfconsciouspolitical
entityor by the amalgamationof diverse
groupsand the formationof an inter-ethnic,
compositeor homogeneousnationalculture
throughthe agencyof the modernstate.Althoughthe two processesof nation-formation
have different
startingpointsand raise quite
different
kindsof analyticaland theoretical
has been
questions,the end resulthistorically
sometimesthe same, and the two processes
have muchin common"(1991, 20).
12. See, forexample,Brass (1991, 48), who
says thatnationalism"is a politicalmovement
There are a fewexamplesof
by definition."
people who eitherdo not see the territorial
componentas a necessarypartof nationalism
or who are loose in theirdiscussionof the
role of territory.
Suny'slabelingof Armenian
nationalismin the early1900's as "non-territorial nationalism"standsas an exampleof the
latter.By thisterm,he does not mean that
Armeniannationalismhad no sense of the
rightto a homeland,but ratherthatin reality
the Armeniannationhad "lost its hold on its
historichomeland"(Suny 1990, 14).
13. One mightbe concernedabout the simof
ilaritybetweenthe proposed definitions
"nation"and "nationalism."They are closely
related(as we would expectthemto be), but
theyare not the same thing.The factthata
nationhas a sense of homelandis not the
same thingas its pursuitof controlover that
In addition,by settingthe memberterritory.
ship boundaries,nationalismlaysout the
of the people considereda nacharacteristics
tion. It also sets the territorial
boundariesof
the homelandthat,as a nation,the group
should control.But unless the people themselves accept these ideas-unless theybelieve
theyare a nation-nationalismis doomed to
fail.Thus, I would argue thatnationalisms
(or, better,nationalists)tryto produce nations,but theyare in no way guaranteedsuccess.
14. 1 gave up afterfindingnearlythirty.
I
am sure thereare manymore.
15. A termsuch as "linguisticnationalism"
mayalso be acceptable iflanguage is used to
definemembershipin the nationand nationalistsare preoccupiedwiththe membership
boundboundariesmore than the territorial
aries.
16. As Motylputs it,"Internalconsistency
is the goal" (1992, 308).
References
Almond,Gabriel,and G. BinghamPowell.
1996. ComparativePoliticsToday:A World
View.6thed. New York: HarperCollins.
Beissinger,Mark. 1996. "How Nationalisms
Spread: EasternEurope Adriftand Tides
and Cyclesof NationalistContention."
Social Research63(1): 97-146.
and Nationalism.
Brass, Paul. 1991.Ethnicity
London: Sage.
and NaBrubaker,Rogers. 1992. Citizenship
tionhoodin Franceand Germany.CamPress.
bridge,MA: HarvardUniversity
Connor,Walker. 1978. "A Nation is a Nation,
is a State,is an EthnicGroup,is a ....
Ethnicand Racial Studies1(4): 379-88.
.1990. "When is a Nation?" Ethnic
and Racial Studies13(1): 92-103.
Gellner,Ernest.1983.Nationsand Nationalism. Ithica,NY: Cornell UniversityPress.
.1992. "Nationalismin the Vacuum."
In ThinkingTheoretically
about SovietNaed. AlexanderMotyl.New
tionalities,
York: Columbia University
Press.
Haas, Ernst.1986. "What is Nationalismand
WhyShould We StudyIt?" International
Organization40(3): 707-44.
Michael. 1993. Blood and Belonging:
Ignatieff,
intotheNew Nationalism.New
Journeys
York: Farrar,Straus,and Giroux.
Kaiser, Robert. 1994. The Geography
of Nationalismin Russia and the USSR. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity
Press.
Mayer,Lawrence,JohnBurnett,and Suzanne
Ogden. 1996.ComparativePolitics:Nations
716
and Theoriesin a ChangingWorld.2nd ed.
Upper Saddle River,NJ: PrenticeHall.
Mellor, Roy. 1989.Nation,State,and Territory:
A PoliticalGeography.
London: Routledge.
RationalMotyl,Alexander.1991. Sovietology,
ity,Nationality:
Comingto GripswithNationalismin theUSSR. New York: Columbia University
Press.
. 1992. "The Modernityof Nationalism:
Nations,States and Nation-Statesin the
World."Journalof InternaContemporary
tionalAffairs
45(2): 307-23.
Nodia, Ghia. 1994. "Nationalismand Democand
racy."In Nationalism,EthnicConflict,
Democracy,ed. LarryDiamond and Marc
F. Plattner.Baltimore:JohnsHopkins
UniversityPress.
Richmond,Anthony.1987. "EthnicNationalism: Social Science Paradigms."InternationalSocial ScienceJournal111:3-18.
Roskin,Michael, and Nicholas Berry.1997.
IR: The New Worldof International
Relations.3rd ed. Upper Saddle River,NJ:
PrenticeHall.
Rutland,Peter. 1994. "State Failure and State
Buildingin Post-SocialistEurope: ImplicationsforTheories of Nationalism."Presented at the Annual Meetingof the
AmericanPoliticalScience Association,
New York.
Shively,W. Phillips.1993. Powerand Choice:
An Introduction
to PoliticalScience.3rd ed.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
LonSmith,Anthony.1991. NationalIdentity.
don: PenguinPress.
Stalin,Joseph.1994. "The Nation." In Nationalism,ed. JohnHutchinsonand Anthony
D. Smith.Oxford:OxfordUniversity
Press.
Suny,Ronald. 1990. "Revenge of the Past:
Socialism and EthnicConflictin Transcaucasia." New LeftReview184:5-34.
Tamir,Yael. 1995. "The Enigma of Nationalism." WorldPolitics47(3): 418-40.
Aboutthe Author
Lowell W. Barringtonis assistantprofessorof
His
politicalscience at MarquetteUniversity.
specializationsincludepost-Communist
politics and comparativedemocratization,
witha
particularinterestin nationalismand ethnic
conflict.He is currently
workingon a book
titledNationalIdentity
and International
Organizations:The Makingof Citizenship
Policyin
theBalticStatesand Ukraine.Barringtonis
also editorofAnalysisof Current
Events.His
e-mail address is: barringtonl@vms.csd.
mu.edu.
PS: Political Science & Politics
This content downloaded on Sun, 3 Feb 2013 11:32:57 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions