Nationalism

Part of a series on
Nationalism
Development Anthem Language Music Symbol Treasure
Core values Identity Self-determination Solidarity
Types Alt-right Banal Civic Cultural Economic Ethnic Expansionist Left-wing New (Neo-) Pan- Post- Queer Religious Romantic Territorial Trans Ultra
Examples of nationalism Alt-right Black White Others
Organizations List of nationalist organizations
Politics portal

Legal status of persons
Concepts
Administrative detention Citizenship Immigration (illegal) Jus sanguinis Jus soli Nationality Naturalization Permanent residency Statelessness
Designations
Administrative detainee Alien enemy Citizen (dual / multiple naturalized) Illegal immigrant Migrant worker Political prisoner Refugee Stateless person
Social politics
Illegal immigration Immigration law Nationalism Nationality law Nativism

Nationalism is a range of political, social, and economic systems characterised by promoting the interests of a particular nation, particularly with the aim of gaining and maintaining self-governance, or full sovereignty, over the group's homeland. The political ideology therefore holds that a nation should govern itself, free from unwanted outside interference, and is linked to the concept of self-determination. Nationalism is further oriented towards developing and maintaining a national identity based on shared characteristics such as culture, language, race, religion, political goals or a belief in a common ancestry.^[1][2] Nationalism therefore seeks to preserve the nation's culture. It often also involves a sense of pride in the nation's achievements, and is closely linked to the concept of patriotism. In these terms, nationalism can be considered positive or negative. In some cases, nationalism referred to the belief that a nation should be able to control the government and all means of production.^[3]

From a political or sociological outlook, there are three main paradigms for understanding the origins and basis of nationalism. The first, known as primordialism or perennialism, sees nationalism as a natural phenomenon. It holds that, although the concept of nationhood may be recent, nations have always existed. The second paradigm is ethnosymbolism, which is a complex perspective seeking to explain nationalism by contextualizing it throughout history as a dynamic, evolutionary phenomenon and by further examining the strength of nationalism as a result of the nation's subjective ties to national symbols imbued with historical meaning. The third and most dominant paradigm is modernism, which sees nationalism as a recent phenomenon that needs the structural conditions of modern society in order to exist.^[4]

There are various definitions for what constitutes a nation, however, which leads to several different strands of nationalism. It can be a belief that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic, cultural, religious, or identity group, or that multinationality in a single state should necessarily comprise the right to express and exercise national identity even by minorities.^[5] The adoption of national identity in terms of historical development has commonly been the result of a response by influential groups unsatisfied with traditional identities due to inconsistency between their defined social order and the experience of that social order by its members, resulting in a situation of anomie that nationalists seek to resolve.^[6] This anomie results in a society or societies reinterpreting identity, retaining elements that are deemed acceptable and removing elements deemed unacceptable, in order to create a unified community.^[6] This development may be the result of internal structural issues or the result of resentment by an existing group or groups towards other communities, especially foreign powers that are or are deemed to be controlling them.^[6] Nationalism means devotion for the nation. It is a sentiment that binds the people together. National symbols and flags, national anthems, national languages, national myths and other symbols of national identity are highly important in nationalism.^{[7][8][9][10]}

Terminology

The word nation was used before 1800 in Europe to refer to the inhabitants of a country as well as to collective identities that could include shared history, law, language, political rights, religion and traditions, in a sense more akin to the modern conception.^[11]

Nationalism is a newer word; in English the term dates from 1844, although the concept is older.^[12] It became important in the 19th century.^[13] The term increasingly became negative in its connotations after 1914. Glenda Sluga notes that "The twentieth century, a time of profound disillusionment with nationalism, was also the great age of globalism."^[14]

History

"Nationalism" is the term historians used to characterize the modern sense of national political autonomy and self-determination from the late 18th century onwards.^[15] For example, German nationalism emerged as a reaction against Napoleonic control of Germany as the Confederation of the Rhine around 1805–14.^[16][17] Linda Colley in Britons, Forging the Nation 1707–1837 (Yale University Press, 1992) explores how the role of nationalism emerged about 1700 and developed in Britain reaching full form in the 1830s. Typically historians of nationalism in Europe begin with the French Revolution (1789), not only for its impact on French nationalism but even more for its impact on Germans and Italians and on European intellectuals.^[18]

With the emergence of a national public sphere and an integrated, country-wide economy in the 18th-century the British people began to identify with the country at large, rather than the smaller units of their family, town or province. The early emergence of a popular patriotic nationalism took place in the mid-18th century, and was actively promoted by the British government and by the writers and intellectuals of the time.^[19] National symbols, anthems, myths, flags and narratives were assiduously constructed by nationalists and widely adopted. The Union Jack was adopted in 1801 as the national one.^[20] Thomas Arne composed the patriotic song "Rule, Britannia!" in 1740,^[21] and the cartoonist John Arbuthnot invented the character of John Bull as the personification of the English national spirit in 1712.^[22]

The political convulsions of the late 18th century associated with the American and French revolutions massively augmented the widespread appeal of patriotic nationalism.^[23][24]

The Prussian scholar Johann Gottfried Herder (1744–1803) originated the term in 1772 in his "Treatise on the Origin of Language" stressing the role of a common language.^[25][26] He attached exceptional importance to the concepts of nationality and of patriotism  – "he that has lost his patriotic spirit has lost himself and the whole worlds about himself", whilst teaching that "in a certain sense every human perfection is national".^[27]

19th century

The political development of nationalism and the push for popular sovereignty culminated with the ethnic/national revolutions of Europe. During the 19th century nationalism became one of the most significant political and social forces in history; it is typically listed among the top causes of World War I.^[28][29]

Napoleon's conquests of the German and Italian states around 1800–06 played a major role in stimulating nationalism and the demands for national unity.^[30]

Germany

In the German states west of Prussia, Napoleon abolished many of the old or medieval relics, such as dissolving the Holy Roman Empire in 1806.^[31] He imposed rational legal systems and demonstrated how dramatic changes were possible. His organization of the Confederation of the Rhine in 1806 promoted a feeling of nationalism.

Nationalists sought to encompass masculinity in their quest for strength and unity.^[32] It was Prussian chancellor Otto von Bismarck who achieved German unification through a series of highly successful short wars against Denmark, Austria and France which thrilled the pan-German nationalists in the smaller German states. They fought in his wars and eagerly joined the new German Empire, which Bismarck ran as a force for balance and peace in Europe after 1871.^[33]

In the 19th century German nationalism was promoted by Hegelian-oriented academic historians who saw Prussia as the true carrier of the German spirit, and the power of the state as the ultimate goal of nationalism. The three main historians were Johann Gustav Droysen (1808–1884), Heinrich von Sybel (1817–1895) and Heinrich von Treitschke (1834–1896). Droysen moved from liberalism to an intense nationalism that celebrated Prussian Protestantism, efficiency, progress, and reform, in striking contrast to Austrian Catholicism, impotency and backwardness. He idealized the Hohenzollern kings of Prussia. His large-scale History of Prussian Politics (14 vol 1855–1886) was foundational for nationalistic students and scholars. Von Sybel founded and edited the leading academic history journal, Historische Zeitschrift and as the director of the Prussian state archives published massive compilations that were devoured by scholars of nationalism.^[34]

The most influential of the German nationalist historians, was Treitschke who had an enormous influence on elite students at Heidelberg and Berlin universities.^[35] Treitschke vehemently attacked parliamentarianism, socialism, pacifism, the English, the French, the Jews, and the internationalists. The core of his message was the need for a strong, unified state—a unified Germany under Prussian supervision. "It is the highest duty of the State to increase its power," he stated. Although he was a descendant of a Czech family he considered himself not Slavic but German: "I am 1000 times more the patriot than a professor."^[36]

Italy

Italian nationalism emerged in the 19th century and was the driving force for Italian unification or the "Risorgimento" (meaning the Resurgence or revival). It was the political and intellectual movement that consolidated different states of the Italian peninsula into the single state of the Kingdom of Italy in 1861. The memory of the Risorgimento is central to Italian nationalism but it was based in the liberal middle classes and proved weak.^[37] Two major groups remained opposed, the South (called the Mezzogiorno) and the devout Catholics. The new government treated the South as a conquered province with ridicule for its "backward" and poverty stricken society, its poor grasp of the Italian language, and its traditions. The liberals had always been strong opponents of the pope and the very well organized Catholic Church. The pope had been in political control of central Italy; he lost that in 1860 and lost Rome in 1870. He had long been the leader of opposition to modern liberalism and refused to accept the terms offered by the new government. He called himself a prisoner in the Vatican and forbade Catholics to vote or engage in politics. The Catholic alienation lasted until 1929. The liberal government under Francesco Crispi sought to enlarge his political base by emulating Bismarck and firing up Italian nationalism with a hyper-aggressive foreign policy. It crashed and his cause was set back. Historian R.J.B. Bosworth says of his nationalistic foreign policy that Crispi:

pursued policies whose openly aggressive character would not be equaled until the days of the Fascist regime. Crispi increased military expenditure, talked cheerfully of a European conflagration, and alarmed his German or British friends with this suggestions of preventative attacks on his enemies. His policies were ruinous, both for Italy's trade with France, and, more humiliatingly, for colonial ambitions in East Africa. Crispi's lust for territory there was thwarted when on 1 March 1896, the armies of Ethiopian Emperor Menelik routed Italian forces at Adowa ... in what has been defined as an unparalleled disaster for a modern army. Crispi, whose private life (he was perhaps a trigamist) and personal finances...were objects of perennial scandal, went into dishonorable retirement.^[38]

Meanwhile, a third major group emerged that was hostile to nationalism as radical socialist elements became a force in the industrial North, and they too rejected liberalism. Italy joined the Allies in the First World War after getting promises of territory, but its war effort was a fiasco that discredited liberalism and paved the way for Benito Mussolini and his fascism. That involved a highly aggressive nationalism that led to a series of wars, an alliance with Hitler's Germany, and humiliation and hardship in the Second World War. After 1945 the Catholics returned to government and tensions eased somewhat, but the Mezzogiorno remained poor and ridiculed. The working class now voted for the Communist Party, and it looked to Moscow not Rome for inspiration, and was kept out of the national government even as it controlled industrial cities across the North. In the 21st century the Communists are gone but political and cultural tensions remained high as shown by separatist Padanian nationalism in the North.^[39]

Greece

The Greek drive for independence from the Ottoman Empire in the 1820s and 1830s inspired supporters across Christian Europe, especially in Britain. France, Russia and Britain critically intervened to ensure the success of this nationalist endeavour.^[40]

Philippines

In the 19th century the Katipunan, a revolutionary society founded by anti-Spanish Filipinos in Manila in 1892, and its successor organizations, entered into armed revolt against Spanish colonizers. On June 12, 1898, during the Spanish-American War, a revolutionary Philippine Republic declared independence from Spain. On January 23, 1899, the insurgent First Philippine Republic was proclaimed. On December 10, 1898, Spain ceded the Philippines to the United States in the Treaty of Paris. On June 2, 1899, hostilities erupted between the United States and philippine nationalist revolutionaries. These hostilities developed into the Philippine–American War, which continued into the 20th century.

Serbia

For centuries the Orthodox Christian Serbs were ruled by the Muslim Ottoman Empire. The success of the Serbian Revolution against Ottoman rule in 1817 marked the birth of the Principality of Serbia. It achieved de facto independence in 1867 and finally gained international recognition in 1878. Serbia had sought to liberate and unite with Bosnia and Herzegovina to the west and Old Serbia (Kosovo and Macedonia) to the south. The Serbians developed a larger vision for nationalism in Pan-Slavism and with Russian support sought to pull the other South Slavs out of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.^[41][42] Yugoslavist revolutionaries assassinated Archduke Ferdinand. Austria-Hungary, with German backing, tried to crush Serbia in 1914 but Russia intervened, thus igniting the First World War in which Austria dissolved into nation states.^[43]

In 1918, the region of Vojvodina proclaimed its secession from Austria-Hungary to unite with Serbia; the Kingdom of Serbia joined the union with State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs on 1 December 1918, and the country was named Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. It was renamed Yugoslavia, and a Yugoslav identity was promoted, which ultimately failed, the country breaking up in the 1990s.^[44]

Poland

The cause of Polish nationalism was repeatedly frustrated before 1918. In the 1790s, Germany, Russia and Austria partitioned Poland. Napoleon set up the Duchy of Warsaw, a new Polish state that ignited a spirit of nationalism. Russia took it over in 1815 as Congress Poland with the tsar as King of Poland. Large-scale nationalist revolts erupted in 1830 and 1863–64 but were harshly crushed by Russia, which tried to Russify the Polish language, culture and religion. The collapse of the Russian Empire in the First World War enabled the major powers to reestablish an independent Poland, which survived until 1939. Meanwhile, Poles in areas controlled by Germany moved into heavy industry but their religion came under attack by Bismarck in the Kulturkampf of the 1870s. The Poles joined German Catholics in a well-organized new Centre Party, and defeated Bismarck politically. He responded by stopping the harassment and cooperating with the Centre Party.^[45][46]

In the late 19th and early 20th century, many Polish nationalist leaders endorsed the Piast Concept. It held there was a Polish utopia during the Piast Dynasty a thousand years before, and modern Polish nationalists should restore its central values of Poland for the Poles. Jan Poplawski had developed the "Piast Concept" in the 1890s, and it formed the centerpiece of Polish nationalist ideology, especially as presented by the National Democracy Party, known as the "Endecja," which was led by Roman Dmowski. There was no place in the Piast Concept for a multicultural Poland.^[47]

The Piast concept stood in opposition to the "Jagellon Concept," which allowed for multiculturalism and Polish rule over numerous minorities. The Jagellon Concept was the official policy of the government in the 1920s and 1930s. Soviet leader Josef Stalin at Tehran in 1943 rejected the Jagellon Concept because it involved Polish rule over Ukrainians and Belorussians. He instead endorsed the Piast Concept, which justified a massive shift of Poland's frontiers to the west.^[48] After 1945 the Communist regime wholeheartedly adopted the Piast Concept, making it the centerpiece of their claim to be the true inheritors of Polish nationalism. After all the killings, including Nazi German occupation, terror in Poland (especially the Nazi annihilation of the Jews), and population transfers during and after the war, the nation was officially claimed as 99% "Polish."^[49]

Latin America

An upsurge in nationalism in Latin America in 1810s and 1820s sparked revolutions that cost Spain nearly all its colonies there.^[50] Spain was at war with Britain from 1798 to 1808, and the British Royal Navy cut off its contacts with its colonies so nationalism flourished and trade with Spain was suspended. The colonies set up temporary governments or juntas which were effectively independent from Spain. The division exploded between Spaniards who were born in Spain (called "peninsulares") versus those of Spanish descent born in New Spain (called "criollos" in Spanish or "creoles" in English). The two groups wrestled for power, with the criollos leading the call for independence. Spain tried to use its armies to fight back but had no help from European powers. Indeed, Britain and the United States worked against Spain, enforcing the Monroe Doctrine. Spain lost all of its American colonies, except Cuba and Puerto Rico, in a complex series of revolts from 1808 to 1826.^[51]

20th century

China

The awakening of nationalism across Asia helped shape the history of the continent. The key episode was the decisive defeat of Russia by Japan in 1905, demonstrating the military superiority of non-Europeans in a modern war. The defeat which quickly led to manifestations of a new interest in nationalism in China, as well as Turkey, and Persia.^[52] In China Sun Yat-sen (1866–1925) launched his new party the Kuomintang (National People's Party) in defiance of the decrepit Empire, which was run by outsiders. Kuomintang recruits pledged:

from this moment I will destroy the old and build the new, and fight for the self-determination of the people, and will apply all my strength to the support of the Chinese Republic and the realization of democracy through the Three Principles, . . . for the progress of good government, the happiness and perpetual peace of the people, and for the strengthening of the foundations of the state in the name of peace throughout the world.^[53]

The Kuomintang largely ran China until the Communists took over in 1949. but the latter had also been strongly influence by Sun's nationalism as well as by the May Fourth Movement in 1919. It was a nationwide protest movement about the domestic backwardness of China and has often been depicted as the intellectual foundation for Chinese Communism.^[54] The New Culture Movement stimulated by the May Fourth Movement waxed strong throughout the 1920s and 1930s. According to historian Patricia Ebrey:

Nationalism, patriotism, progress, science, democracy, and freedom were the goals; imperialism, feudalism, warlordism, autocracy, patriarchy, and blind adherence to tradition were the enemies. Intellectuals struggled with how to be strong and modern and yet Chinese, how to preserve China as a political entity in the world of competing nations.^[55]

Africa

In the 1880s the European powers divided up almost all of Africa (only Ethiopia and Liberia were independent). They ruled until after World War II when forces of nationalism grew much stronger. In the 1950s and 1960s the colonial holdings became independent states. The process was usually peaceful but there were several long bitter bloody civil wars, as in Algeria,^[56] Kenya^[57] and elsewhere. Across Africa nationalism drew upon the organizational skills that natives learned in the British and French and other armies in the world wars. It led to organizations that were not controlled by or endorsed by either the colonial powers not the traditional local power structures that were collaborating with the colonial powers. Nationalistic organizations began to challenge both the traditional and the new colonial structures and finally displaced them. Leaders of nationalist movements took control when the European authorities exited; many ruled for decades or until they died off. These structures included political, educational, religious, and other social organizations. In recent decades, many African countries have undergone the triumph and defeat of nationalistic fervor, changing in the process the loci of the centralizing state power and patrimonial state.^[58][59][60]

South Africa, a British colony, was exceptional in that it became virtually independent by 1931. From 1948 to 1994, it was controlled by white Afrikaner nationalists focused on racial segregation and white minority rule known officially as apartheid. The black nationalist movement fought them until success was achieved by the African National Congress in 1994 and Nelson Mandela was elected President.^[61]

Middle East

Arab nationalism, a movement toward liberating and empowering the Arab people's of the Middle East, emerged during the latter 19th century, inspired by other independence movements of the 18th and 19th centuries. As the Ottoman Empire declined and the Middle East was carved up by the Great Powers of Europe, Arabs sought to establish their own independent nations ruled by Arabs rather than foreigners. Syria was established in 1920; Transjordan (later Jordan) gradually gained independence between 1921 and 1946; Saudi Arabia was established in 1932; and Egypt achieved gradually gained independence between 1922 and 1952. The Arab League was established in 1945 to promote Arab interests and cooperation between the new Arab states.

Parallel to these efforts was the Zionist movement which emerged among European Jews in the 19th century. Beginning in 1882 Jews, predominantly from Europe, began emigrating to Ottoman Palestine with the goal of establishing a new Jewish homeland. The effort culminated in the declaration of the State of Israel in 1948. As this move conflicted with the belief among Arab nationalists that Palestine was part of the Arab nation, the neighboring Arab nations launched an invasion to claim the region. The invasion was only partly successful and led to decades of clashes between the Arab and Jewish nationalist ideologies.

Philippines

Ongoing hostilities between Philippine revolutionaries and the United States developed into the Philippine–American War. General armed conflict drew to a close in 1902, with the Philippines going on the become a U.S. territory. On July 4, 1946, in the Treaty of Manila, the United States granted the Philippines full independence.

Post-Communism

There was a rise in extreme nationalism after the collapse of communism in the 1990’s. When communism fell, it left many people with no identity. The people under communist rule had to integrate, and found themselves free to choose. Given free choice, long dormant conflicts rose up and created sources of serious conflict.^[62] When communism fell in Yugoslavia, serious conflict arose, which led to the rise in extreme nationalism.

In his 1992 article Jihad vs. McWorld, Benjamin Barber proposed that the fall of communism will cause large numbers of people to search for unity and that small scale wars will become common; groups will attempt to redraw boundaries, identities, cultures and ideologies.^[63] Communism's fall also allowed for an "us vs. them" mentality to sprout up.^[64] Governments become vehicles for social interests and the country will attempt to form national policies based on the majority, for example culture, religion or ethnicity.^[62] Some newly sprouted democracies have large differences in policies on matters that ranged from immigration and human rights to trade and commerce.

Academic Steven Berg felt that at the root of nationalist conflicts is the demand for autonomy and a separate existence.^[62] This nationalism can give rise to strong emotions that may lead to a group fighting to survive, especially as after the fall of communism, political boundaries did not match ethnic boundaries.^[62] Serious conflicts often arose and escalated very easily as individuals and groups acted upon their beliefs, causing death and destruction.^[62] When this would happen, those states who were unable to contain the conflict ran the risk of slowing their democratization progress.

Yugoslavia was established after WWI and was a merger of three separate ethnic groups; Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. The national census numbers for a ten-year span 1971-1981 measured an increase from 1.3 to 5.4% in their population that ethnically identified as Yugoslav.^[65] This meant that the country, almost as a whole, was divided by distinctive religious, ethnic or national loyalties after nearly 50 years.

Within Yugoslavia, separating Croatia and Slovenia from the rest of Yugoslavia is an invisible line of previous conquers of the region. Croatia and Slovenia to the northwest were conquered by Catholics or Protestants, and benefited from European history; the Renaissance, French Revolution, Industrial Revolution and are more inclined towards democracy.^[64] The remaining Yugoslavian territory was conquered by the Ottoman or Tsarists empires; are Orthodox or Muslims, are less economically advanced and are less inclined toward democracy.

In the 1970’s the leadership of the separate territories within Yugoslavia protected only territorial interests at the expense of other territories. In Croatia, there was almost a split within the territory between Serbs and Croats so any political decision would kindle unrest, and tensions could cross the territories adjacent; Bosnia and Herzegovina.^[65] Within Bosnia there was no group who had a majority; Muslim, Serb, Croat, and Yugoslav were all there so the leadership could not advance here either. Political organizations were not able to deal successfully with such diverse nationalism. Within the territories the leadership could not compromise. To do so would create a winner in one ethnic group and a looser in another, raising the possibility of a serious conflict. This strengthened the political stance promoting ethnic identities. This caused intense and divided political leadership within Yugoslavia.

In the 1980’s Yugoslavia began to break into fragments.^[63] The economic conditions within Yugoslavia were deteriorating. Conflict in the disputed territories was stimulated by the rise in mass nationalism and inter-ethnic hostilities.^[65] The per-capita income of people in the northwest territory, encompassing Croatia and Slovenia, in contrast to the southern territory southern were several times higher. This combined with escalating violence from ethnic Albanians and Serbs within Kosovo intensified economic conditions.^[65] This violence greatly contributed to the rise of extreme nationalism of Serbs in Serbia and within Yugoslavia. The ongoing conflict in Kosovo was propagandized by Communist Serbian Slobodan Milosevic to further increase Serb nationalism. As mentioned, this nationalism did give rise to powerful emotions which grew the force of Serbian nationalism through highly nationalist demonstrations in Vojvodina, Serbia, Montenegro, and Kosovo. Serbian nationalism was so high, Slobodan Milosevic was able to oust leaders in Vojvodina and Montenegro, further repressed Albanians within Kosovo and eventually controlled four of the eight regions/territories.^[65] Slovenia, one of the four regions not under Communist control, favoring a democratic state.

Within Slovenia, fear was mounting because Milosevic was using the militia to suppress a in Kosovo, what would he do to Slovenia.^[65] Half of Yugoslavia wanted to be democratic, the other wanted a new nationalist authoritarian regime. In fall of 1989 tensions came to a head and Slovenia asserted its political and economic independence from Yugoslavia and seceded. In January 1990, there was a total break with Serbia at the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, an institution conceived by Milosevic to strengthen unity and became the backdrop for the fall of communism within Yugoslavia.

In August 1990, a warning to the region was issued when ethnically divided groups attempted to alter the government structure. The republic borders established by the Communist regime in the postwar period were extremely vulnerable to challenges from ethnic communities.Ethnic communities arose because they did not share the identity with everyone within the new post-Communist borders.^[65] This threatened the new governments. The same disputes were erupting that were in place prior to Milosevic and were compounded by actions from his regime.

Also within the territory the Croats and the Serbs were in direct competition for control of government. Elections were held and increased potential conflicts between Serb and Croat nationalism. Serbia wanted to be separate and decide its own future based on its own ethnic composition. But this would then give Kosovo encouragement to become independent from Serbia. Albanians in Kosovo were already independent from Kosovo. Serbia didn’t want to let Kosovo become independent. Muslims nationalists wanted their own territory but it would require a redrawing of the map, and would threaten neighboring territories. When communism fell in Yugoslavia, serious conflict arose, which led to the rise in extreme nationalism.

Nationalism again gave rise to powerful emotions which evoked in some extreme cases, a willingness to die for what you believe in, a fight for the survival of the group.^[62] The end of communism began a long period of conflict and war for the region. In the six years following the collapse 200,000-500-000 people died in the Bosnian war.^[66] Bosnian Muslims suffered at the hands of the Serbs and Croats.^[64] The war garnered assistance from groups; Muslim, Orthodox and Western Christian as well as state actors who supplied all sides; Saudi Arabia and Iran supported Bosnia, Russia supported Serbia, Central European and Western countries including the U.S. supported Croatia, and the Pope supported Slovenia and Croatia.

21st century

Arab nationalism began to decline in the 21st century leading to localized nationalism, culminating in a series of revolts against authoritarian regimes between 2010 and 2012, known as the Arab Spring. Following these revolts, which mostly failed to improve conditions in the affected nations, Arab nationalism and even most local nationalistic movements declined dramatically.^[67] An unfortunate consequence of Arab Spring as well as the U.S./U.K. invasion of Iraq was the civil wars in Iraq and Syria.

The rise of globalism in the late 20th century led to a rise in nationalism and populism in Europe and North America. This trend was further fueled by increased terrorism in the West (the September 11 attacks in the U.S. being a prime example), increasing unrest and civil wars in the Middle East, and waves of Muslim refugees flooding into Europe (as of 2016 the refugee crisis appears to have peaked).^[68][69] Nationalist groups like Germany's Pegida, France's National Front, and the UK Independence Party gained prominence in their respective nations advocating restrictions on immigration to protect the local populations.^[70][71]

In Russia, exploitation of nationalist sentiments allowed Vladimir Putin to consolidate power.^[72] This nationalist sentiment was used in Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and other actions in Ukraine.^[71] Nationalist movements gradually began to rise in other parts of Eastern Europe as well, Poland in particular.^[73]

In a 2016 referendum, the British populous voted to withdraw the United Kingdom from the European Union (the so-called Brexit). The result had been largely unexpected and was seen as a victory of populism. The 2016 U.S. presidential campaign saw the unprecedented rise of Donald Trump, a businessman with no political experience who ran on a populist/nationalist platform and struggled to gain endorsements from mainstream political figures, even within his own party. Trump's slogans "Make America Great Again" and "America First" exemplified his campaign's repudiation of globalism and its staunchly nationalistic outlook. His unexpected victory in the election was seen as part of the same trend that had brought about the Brexit vote.^[74]

In Japan, nationalist influences in the government developed over the course of the early 21 century, thanks in large part to the Nippon Kaigi organization. The new movement has advocated re-establishing Japan as a military power and revising historical narratives in order to support the notion of a moral and strong Japan.^[75][76]

In 2016, Rodrigo Duterte became president of the Philippines running a distinctly nationalist campaign. Contrary to the policies of his recent predecessors, he distanced the country from the Philippines' former ruler, the United States, and sought closer ties with China (as well as Russia).^[77] During 2017, Turkish nationalism propelled President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to gain unprecedented power in a national referendum.^[78] Reactions from world leaders were mixed, with Western European leaders generally expressing concern while the leaders of many of the more authoritarian regimes, as well as President Donald Trump, offered their congratulations.

Political science

Many political scientists have theorized about the foundations of the modern nation-state and the concept of sovereignty. The concept of nationalism in political scientist 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.^[79] 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".^[80] According to Benedict Anderson, nations are "imagined communities", or socially constructed institutions.^[81]

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".^[62] 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 .^[62] Barry Posen argues that nationalism increases the intensity of war, and that states deliberately promote nationalism with the aim of improving their military capabilities.^[82]

Sociology

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.^[83] 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.^[83]

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.^[83]

Henry Maine in his analysis of the historical changes and development of human societies noted 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.^[84]

Ferdinand Tönnies in his book Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft (1887) 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. While 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.^[84]

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".^[84] 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.^[84]

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.^[84]

Primordialist evolutionary interpretation

Another approach emerging from biology and psychology looks at long-term evolutionary forces that might lead to nationalism. The primordialist perspective is based upon evolutionary theory.^[85][86][87]

This approach has been popular with the general public but is typically rejected by experts. Laland and Brown report:

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."^[88]

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.^[85] 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.^[89]

The primordialist evolutionary view of nationalism has its origins in the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin that were later substantially elaborated by John Tooby and Leda Cosmides.^[90] Central to evolutionary theory is that all biological organisms undergo changes in their anatomical features and their characteristic behaviour patterns.^[90] Darwin's theory of natural selection as a mechanism of evolutionary change of organisms is used to describe the development of human societies and particularly the development of mental and physical traits of members of such societies.^[91]

In the case of a national group, 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.^[92] 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.^[93] As such proximate environments cause people to make decisions based on existing situations and anticipated situations.^[93]

This is evident in many cases such as the French and American revolutions. The fear of loss of identity, traditions and economic disparity led to the banding together of citizens to achieve what was once theirs. Whatever the nation-state may have done that it shouldn’t have, the citizens of the state still knew that it was theirs, or at least that they were its. They knew what the state could require of them, and they accepted their duties as a condition of the rights that came with them. They recognized. therefore, the principal grounds of rights and duties themselves. In short, there prevailed a sense of collective interest and purpose that gave substance to individual aspirations as well as to those of the group. The loss of this sense is a serious loss in a society such as ours that has found nothing to replace it.^[94]

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:

the 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.^[95]

English Historian G. P. Gooch in 1920 argued that:

While 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.^[96]

Marxist interpretations

Marx and Engels declared that 'the working men have no country'.^[97] They saw nationalism as a 'false consciousness', which prevented the working class from rising up and ending their oppression by the capitalist class.

Lenin supported the concept of self-determination.^[98]

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."^[99]

Varieties

Risorgimento and Integral nationalism

There are different types of nationalism including Risorgimento nationalism and Integral nationalism.^[100][101] 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 (plans by the few ideology), 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.

Civic nationalism and liberal nationalism

Civic nationalism (also known as liberal 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.^[102] 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.^[102]

Civic nationalism is a kind of non-xenophobic nationalism that is claimed to be compatible with liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights.^{[103][104][105]} Ernest Renan^[106] and John Stuart Mill^[107] 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 in order to lead meaningful, autonomous lives,^[108][109] and that liberal democratic polities need national identity in order to function properly.^[110][111]

Civic nationalism lies within the traditions of rationalism and liberalism, but as a form of nationalism it is contrasted with ethnic nationalism. Membership of the civic nation must be voluntary, as in Ernest Renan's classic definition of the nation in What is a Nation? (1882). 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.^[112] Civic-national ideals influenced the development of representative democracy in countries such as the United States and France.

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. She 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.^[113]

Ethnic nationalism

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

Religious nationalism

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. Hindutva, Pakistani nationalism (Two-Nation Theory), Religious Zionism are some examples.

National purity

Some nationalists exclude certain groups. Some nationalists, defining 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.^[115]

Left-wing nationalism

Left-wing nationalism (occasionally known as socialist nationalism, not to be confused with national socialism)^[116] refers to any 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 Marxist–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, the Awami League in Bangladesh, the African National Congress in South Africa and numerous movements in Eastern Europe.^[117][118]

Territorial nationalism

Territorial nationalists assume that all inhabitants of a particular nation owe allegiance to their country of birth or adoption .^[119] 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.^[120]

Pan-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.^[121]

Anti-colonial nationalism

This form of nationalism came about during the decolonization of the post war periods. It was a reaction mainly in Africa and Asia against being subdued by foreign powers. It also appeared in the non-Russian territories of the Tsarist empire and later, the USSR, where Ukrainianists and Islamic Marxists condemned Russian Bolshevik rule in their territories as a renewed Russian imperialism. This form of nationalism took many guises, including the peaceful passive resistance movement led by Mahatma Gandhi in the Indian subcontinent.^[122]

Benedict Anderson argued that anti-colonial nationalism is grounded in the experience of literate and bilingual indigenous intellectuals fluent in the language of the imperial power, schooled in its "national" history, and staffing the colonial administrative cadres up to but not including its highest levels. Post-colonial national governments have been essentially indigenous forms of the previous imperial administration.^[123][124]

Racial nationalism

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.

Sports nationalism

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.^[125] 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.^[126] 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."^[127] The phenomenon is evident across most of the world.^{[128][129][130]} The British Empire strongly emphasized sports among its soldiers and agents across the world, and often the locals joined in enthusiastically.^[131] 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.^[132]

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.^[133]

Gendered nationalism

Feminist critique interprets nationalism as a mechanism through which sexual control and repression are justified and legitimized, often by a dominant masculine power. 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." 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.^[134]

Criticisms

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.^[135] In doing so, nationalism serves to marginalize minorities who live within a nation-state but do not share the necessary characteristics to be considered part of the nation.^[136][137] 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.^[1]

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".^[138]

Nationalism is inherently divisive because it highlights perceived differences between people, emphasizing an individual's identification with their own nation. The idea is also potentially oppressive because it submerges individual identity within a national whole, and gives elites or political leaders potential opportunities to manipulate or control the masses.^[139] 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. Even in that early stage, however, there was an ideological critique of nationalism. That has developed into several forms of Internationalism and anti-nationalism in the western world. The Islamic revival of the 20th century also produced an Islamist critique of the nation-state. (see Pan-Islamism)

At the end of the 19th century, Marxists and other socialists and communists (such as Rosa Luxemburg) produced political analysis 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.^[140]

In his classic essay on the topic George Orwell distinguishes nationalism from patriotism, which he defines as devotion to a particular place. Nationalism, more abstractly, is "power-hunger tempered by self-deception."^[141]

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.^[141]

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 against "nationalism as insanity" in 1862. He argued that nationalism suppresses minorities, it places country above moral principles and especially it creates a dangerous individual attachment to the state. However Acton opposed democracy and was trying to defend the pope from Italian nationalism.^[142] 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 needed to be based in a stable nation state.^[143]

The pacifist critique of nationalism also concentrates on the violence of 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 criticizes nationalism for diminishing the individual's capacity to judge his or her fatherland's foreign policy.^[144] Albert Einstein stated that "Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."^[145]

See also

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Symbols of national identity.

• Nationalism studies, an interdisciplinary academic field devoted to the study of nationalism
• Historiography and nationalism
• List of nationalism in countries and regions
• List of figures in nationalism
• List of historical autonomist and secessionist movements
• List of nationalist conflicts
• List of nationalist organizations
• List of active nationalist parties in Europe
• Lists of active separatist movements
• Patriotism
• Gellner's theory of nationalism
• Global issue
• National memory

Notes

References

• Anderson, Benedict (1983). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso. ISBN 0-86091-059-8. 
• Billig, Michael (1995). Banal Nationalism. London: Sage. ISBN 0-8039-7525-2. 
• Delanty, Gerard; Kumar, Krishan, eds. (2006). The Sage Handbook of Nations and Nationalism. London: Sage Publications. ISBN 1-4129-0101-4. 
• 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 0-521-43961-2. 
• James, Paul (1996). Nation Formation: Towards a Theory of Abstract Community. London: Sage Publications. ISBN 0-7619-5072-9. 
• 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). 735pp; an often-cited classic
• Kymlicka, Will (1995). Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 0-19-827949-3. 
• Leoussi, Athena S., ed. (2001). Encyclopedia of Nationalism. New Brunswick, N.J: Transaction Publishers. ISBN 0-7658-0002-0. 
• Miller, David (1995). On Nationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-828047-5. 
• Motyl, Alexander, ed. (2001). Encyclopedia of Nationalism. San Diego: Academic Press 2 vol. ISBN 0-12-227230-7. 
• Snyder, Louis L. (1990). Encyclopedia of Nationalism. New York: Paragon House. ISBN 1-55778-167-2. 

Further reading

• Baycroft, Timothy. Nationalism in Europe 1789–1945 (1998), textbook; 104 pp.
• Breuilly, John (1994). Nationalism and the State (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-07414-5. 
• Breuilly, John, ed. The Oxford handbook of the history of nationalism (Oxford UP, 2013).
• Brubaker, Rogers (1996). Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood and the National Question in the New Europe. Cambridge UP. ISBN 0-521-57224-X. 
• De Benoist, Alain (Summer 2004). "On Identity". Telos. 2004 (128). 
• Gellner, Ernest. Nations and Nationalism (2nd ed. 2009).
• Gerrits, Nationalism in Europe since 1945 (2015).
• Greenfeld, Liah (1992). Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-60318-4. 
• Jusdanis, Gregory (2001). The Necessary Nation. Princeton UP. ISBN 0-691-07029-6. 
• Kingston, Jeff. Nationalism in Asia: A History Since 1945 (2016).
• Kohn, Hans. Nationalism: Its Meaning and History (1955) 192pp, with primary sources online
• Kramer, Lloyd. Nationalism in Europe and America: Politics, Cultures, and Identities since 1775 (2011). excerpt
• Malesevic, Sinisa (2006). Identity As Ideology: Understanding Ethnicity and Nationalism. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 1-4039-8786-6. 
• Malesevic, Sinisa (2013). Nation-States and Nationalisms:Organization, Ideology and Solidarity. Polity. ISBN 978-0-7456-5339-6. 
• Miscevic, Nenad (1 June 2010). "Nationalism". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. 
• "Nations and Nationalism". Harvard Asia Pacific Review. 11 (1). Spring 2010. ISSN 1522-1113. 
• Özkirimli, Umut (2010). Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0-230-57732-6. 
• Smith, Anthony D. Nationalism: Theory, Ideology, History (2nd ed. 2010) excerpt
• Smith, Anthony D. Nations and Nationalism in a Global Era (1995)
• Smith, Anthony D. The Nation in History: Historiographical Debates about Ethnicity and Nationalism (2000) excerpt
• Smith, Anthony D. The Nation Made Real: Art and National Identity in Western Europe, 1600–1850 (2013) excerpt
• Spira, Thomas, ed. (1999). Nationalism and Ethnicity Terminologies: An Encyclopedic Dictionary and Research Guide. Gulf Breeze, FL: Academic International Press. ISBN 0-87569-205-2. 
• White, Philip L.; White, Michael Lee (2008). "Nationality: The History of a Social Phenomenon". Nationality in World History. 

External links

• "Nationalism". Internet Modern History Sourcebook. Fordham University. 
• "The Nationalism Project". Association for Research on Ethnicity and Nationalism in the Americas. University of South Carolina. 
• Nationalism : selected references