Nationalism
Part of a series on |
Nationalism |
---|
Nationalism is a political ideology that involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a nation. There are two main perspectives on the origins and basis of nationalism, one is the primordialist perspective that describes nationalism as a reflection of the ancient and perceived evolutionary tendency of humans to organize into distinct grouping based on an affinity of birth; the other is the modernist perspective that describes nationalism as a recent phenomenon that requires the structural conditions of modern society, in order to exist.[1] 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.[2]
The adoption of national identity in terms of historical development, has commonly been the result of a response by an influential group or groups that is 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.[3] 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.[3] 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.[3]
National flags, national anthems, and other symbols of national identity are commonly considered highly important symbols of the national community.[4][5][6][7]
History
In Europe before the development of nationalism, people were generally loyal to a city or to a particular leader rather than to their nation. Encyclopædia Britannica identifies the movement's genesis with the late-18th century American Revolution and French Revolution; other historians point specifically to the ultra-nationalist party in France during the French Revolution.[8][9][10]
The term nationalism was coined by Johann Gottfried Herder (nationalismus) during the late 1770s.[11] Precisely where and when nationalism emerged is difficult to determine, but its development is closely related to that of the modern state and the push for popular sovereignty that surfaced with the French Revolution and the American Revolution in the late 18th century and culminated with the ethnic/national revolutions of Europe, for instance the Greek War of Independence.[8] Since that time, nationalism has become one of the most significant political and social forces in history, perhaps most notably as a major influence or postulate of World War I and especially World War II. Fascism is a form of authoritarian nationalism which stresses absolute loyalty and obedience to the state, whose purpose is to serve the interests of its nation alone.[12][13][14][15] Benedict Anderson argued that, "Print language is what invents nationalism, not a particular language per se".[16]
Causes
There are two major bodies of thought on the causes of nationalism, one is the modernist perspective that describes nationalism as a recent phenomenon that requires the structural conditions of modern society, in order to exist; the other is the primordialist perspective that describes nationalism as a reflection of the ancient and perceived evolutionary tendency of humans to organize into distinct grouping based on an affinity of birth.[1] Roger Masters in The Nature of Politics says that both the primordialist and modernist conception of nationalism both involve an acceptance of three levels of common interest of individuals or groups in national identity. The first level is that at an inter-group level, humans respond to competition or conflict by organizing into groups to either attack other groups or defend their group from hostile groups.[17] The second level is the intragroup level, individuals gain advantage through cooperation with others in securing collective goods that are not accessible through individual effort alone.[17] The third level is the individual level, where self-interested concerns over personal fitness by individuals either consciously or subconsciously motivate the creation of group formation as a means of security.[17] Leadership groups' or elites' behaviour that involves efforts to advance their own fitness when they are involved in the mobilization of an ethnic or national group is crucial in the development of the culture of that group.[17]
Primordialist interpretation
The primordialist perspective is based upon evolutionary theory.[18] 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.[18] 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.[19]
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.[20] Central to evolutionary theory is that all biological organisms under changes in their anatomical features and their characteristic behaviour patterns.[20] Darwin's theory of natural selection as a mechanism of evolutionary change of organisms is utilized to describe the development of human societies and particularly the development of mental and physical traits of members of such societies.[21]
In addition to evolutionary development of mental and physical traits, Darwin and other evolutionary theorists emphasize the influence of the types of environment upon behaviour.[22] First of all there are ancestral environments that are typically long-term and stable forms of situations that influence mental development of individuals or groups gained either biologically through birth or learned from family or relatives, that cause the emphasis of certain mental behaviours that are developed due to their necessity the ancestral environment .[22] In national group settings, these ancestral environments can result in psychological triggers in the minds of individuals within a group, such as responding positively to patriotic cues.[22] There are immediate environments that are those situations that confront an individual or group at a given point and activate certain mental responses.[22] 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.[22] 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.[23] As such proximate environments cause people make decisions based on existing situations and anticipated situations.[23] In the context of the politics of nations and nationalism, a political leader may adopt an international treaty not out of a benevolent stance but in the believe that such a treaty will either benefit their nation or will increase the prestige of their nation.[23] The proximate environment plays a role in the politics of nations that are angry with their circumstances, an individual or group that becomes angry in response to feelings that they are being exploited usually results in efforts to accommodate them, while being passive results in them being ignored.[23] Nations that are angry with circumstances imposed on them by others are affected by the proximate environment that shapes the nationalism of such nations.[23]
Pierre van der Berghe in The Ethnic Phenomenon (1981) emphasizes the role of ethnicity and kinship involving family biological ties to members of an ethnic group as being an important element of national identity.[24] Van der Berghe states the sense of family attachments among related people as creating durable, intense, emotional, and cooperative attachments, that he claims are utilized within ethnic groups..[24] Van der Berghe identifies genetic-relatedness as being a basis for the durable attachments of family groups, as genetic ties cannot be removed and they are passed on from generation to generation.[24] Van der Berge identifies common descent as the basis for the establishment of boundaries of ethnic groups, as most people to not join ethnic groups but are born into them.[24] Berghe notes that this kinship group affiliation and solidarity does not require actual relatedness but can include imagined relatedness that may not be biologically accurate.[19] Berghe notes that feelings of ethnic solidarity usually arise in small and compact groups whereas there is less solidarity in large and dispersed groups.[25]
There are functionalist interpretations of the primordialist evolutionary theory. The functionalists claim that ethnic and national groups are founded upon individuals' concerns over distribution of resources acquired through individual and collective action.[26] This is resolved by the formation of a clan group that defines who is accepted within the group and defines the boundaries within which the resources will be distributed.[26] This functionalist interpretation does not require genetic-relatedness, and identifies a variety of reasons for ethnic or national group formation.[26] The first reason is that such groups may extend group identity and cooperation beyond the limited of family and kinship out of reciprocal altruism, in the belief that helping other individuals will produce an advantageous situation for both the sender and receiver of that help, this tendency has been noted in studies by Robert Axelrod that are summarized in his book The Evolution of Cooperation (1984).[26] The second reason is that such groups may be formed as a means of defense to insure survival, fears by one group of a hostile group threatening them can increase solidarity amongst that group, R. Paul Shaw and Yuwa Wong in their book The Genetic Seeds of Warfare (1989) identify this as the foundation of xenophobia that they identify as originating in hunter gatherer societies.[27]
Modernist interpretation
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/Missolonghi.jpg/220px-Missolonghi.jpg)
The modernist interpretation of nationalism and nation-building perceives that nationalism arises and flourishes in modern societies described as being associated with having: an industrial economy capable of self-sustainability of the society, a central supreme authority capable of maintaining authority and unity, and a centralized language or small group of centralized languages understood by a community of people.[28] Modernist theorists note that this is only possible in modern societies, while traditional societies typically: lack a modern industrial self-sustainable economy, have divided authorities, have multiple languages resulting in many people being unable to communicate with each other.[28]
Karl Marx wrote about the creation of nations as requiring a bourgeois revolution and an industrial economy.[29] Marx applied the modern versus traditional parallel to British colonial rule in India that Marx saw in positive terms as he claimed that British colonial rule was developing India, bringing India out of its "rural idiocy" of its "feudalism".[28] However Marx's theories at the time of his writing had little impact on academic thinking on the development of nation states.[28]
Prominent theorists who developed the modernist interpretation of nations and nationalism include: Henry Maine, Ferdinand Tönnies, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, and Talcott Parsons.[28]
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.[30] Maine saw the development of societies as moving away from traditional status societies to modern contract societies.[30]
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 gessellschaft (society) as an impersonal societies that are modern.[30] 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.[30]
Emile 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".[30] Durkheim identified mechanical solidarity as involving custom, habit, and repression that was necessary to maintain shared views.[30] Durkheim identified organic solidarity-based societies as modern societies where there exists a division of labour based on social differentiation that causes alienation.[30] 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.[30]
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.[30] Weber's conception of charismatic authority has been noted as the basis of many nationalist governments.[30]
Varieties
Civic nationalism
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Eug%C3%A8ne_Delacroix_-_La_libert%C3%A9_guidant_le_peuple.jpg/300px-Eug%C3%A8ne_Delacroix_-_La_libert%C3%A9_guidant_le_peuple.jpg)
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.[31] 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".[31]
Civic Nationalism is a kind of non-xenophobic nationalism compatible with liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights.[32] Ernest Renan[33] and John Stuart Mill[34] 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[35] and that liberal democratic polities need national identity in order to function properly.[36]
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 is considered voluntary, as in Ernest Renan's "daily referendum" formulation in What is a Nation?. Civic-national ideals influenced the development of representative democracy in countries such as the United States and France (see the United States Declaration of Independence of 1776, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789).
Ethnocentrism
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/05/Paisos_catalans_belfast.jpg/250px-Paisos_catalans_belfast.jpg)
Whereas nationalism does not necessarily imply a belief in the superiority of one ethnicity over others, some nationalists support ethnocentric protectionism or ethnocentric supremacy. Studies have yielded evidence that such behaviour may be derived from innate preferences in humans from infancy.[37][need quotation to verify][verification needed]
The term ethnocentrism is a more accurate and meaningful term.[38]
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.[39]
Left-wing nationalism
Left-wing nationalism (occasionally known as socialist nationalism, not to be confused with Right-wing national socialism)[40] 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 ousting the American-backed Fulgencio Batista in 1959, Ireland's Sinn Féin, Wales's Plaid Cymru, Scotland's SNP, the Awami League in Bangladesh and the African National Congress in South Africa.[citation needed]
Territorial nationalism
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bf/Brasil_ame-o_ou_deixe-o.png/200px-Brasil_ame-o_ou_deixe-o.png)
Territorial nationalists assume that all inhabitants of a particular nation owe allegiance to their country of birth or adoption.[41] A sacred quality is sought in the nation and in the popular memories it evokes.[42] Citizenship is idealised by territorial nationalist[42] A criterion of a territorial nationalism is the establishment of a mass, public culture based on common values and traditions of the population.[42]
Pan-nationalism
Pan-nationalism is unique in that it covers a large area span. Pan-nationalism focuses more on "clusters" of ethnic groups.
Proto-nationalism
Proto-nationalism refers to the nationalism that people feel for a connection to a particular indigenous or ethnic identity which is unconnected from the national identity. It also refers to a "nationalism" that existed before the foundation of a nation-state. It thus describes a nation-less nationalism.[43]
Ultranationalism
Ultranationalism is a zealous nationalism that expresses extremist support for one's nationalist ideals. It is often characterized by authoritarianism, efforts toward reduction or stoppage of immigration, expulsion and or oppression of non-native populations within the nation or its territories, demagoguery of leadership, emotionalism, fomenting talk of presumed, real, or imagined enemies, predicating the existence of threats to the survival of the native, dominant or otherwise idealized national ethnicity or population group, instigation or extremist reaction to crack-down policies in law enforcement, efforts to limit international trade through tariffs, tight control over businesses and production, militarism, populism and propaganda. Prevalent ultranationalism typically leads to or is the result of conflict within a state, and or between states, and is identified as a condition of pre-war in national politics.[citation needed] In its extremist forms ultranationalism is characterized as a call to war against enemies of the nation/state, secession or, in the case of ethnocentrist ultranationalism, genocide.[44][45]
Fascism is a form of palingenetic ultranationalism[46] that promotes "class collaboration" (as opposed to class struggle), a totalitarian state, and irredentism or expansionism to unify and allow the growth of a nation. Fascists sometimes promote ethnic or cultural nationalism. Fascism stresses the subservience of the individual to the state, and the need to absolute and unquestioned loyalty to a strong ruler.[47]
Anti-colonial nationalism
This form of nationalism came about during the decolonialisation of the post war period. It was a reaction mainly in Africa and Asia against being subdued by foreign powers. This form of nationalism took many guises, including the peaceful passive resistance movement led by Gandhi in the Indian subcontinent [48] 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.[49]
Criticisms
Critics of nationalism have argued that it is often unclear what constitutes a "nation", or why a nation should be the only legitimate unit of political rule. A nation is a cultural entity, and not necessarily a political association, nor is it necessarily linked to a particular territorial area - although nationalists argue that the boundaries of a nation and a state should, as far as possible, coincide.[50] 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".[51]
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 anti-nationalism in the western world naming it a 'theoretical and political challenge for the foreseeable future' [52]. The Islamic revival of the 20th century also produced an Islamic critique of the nation-state.
At the end of the 19th century, Marxists and other socialists (such as Rosa Luxemburg) produced political analysis that were critical of the nationalist movements then active in central and eastern Europe (though a variety of other contemporary socialists and communists, from Lenin (a communist) to Józef Piłsudski (a socialist), were more sympathetic to national self-determination).[53]
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." [54]
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.[54]
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/Lipniki_massacre.jpg/220px-Lipniki_massacre.jpg)
In the liberal political tradition there is widespread criticism of ‘nationalism’ as a dangerous force and a cause of conflict and war between nation-states. Nationalism has often been exploited to encourage citizens to partake in the nations' conflicts. Such examples include The Two World Wars, where nationalism was a key component of propaganda material. Liberals do not generally dispute the existence of the nation-states. The liberal critique also emphasizes individual freedom as opposed to national identity, which is by definition collective.
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. Famous pacifist Bertrand Russell criticizes nationalism for diminishing the individual's capacity to judge his or her fatherland's foreign policy.[55] Albert Einstein stated that "Nationalism is an infantile disease... It is the measles of mankind." [56]
The anti-racist critique of nationalism concentrates on the attitudes to other nations, and especially on the doctrine that the nation-state exists for one national group to the exclusion of others. This view emphasizes the chauvinism and xenophobia that have often resulted from nationalist sentiment. Norman Naimark relates the rise of nationalism to ethnic cleansing and genocide.[citation needed]
Political movements of the left have often been suspicious of nationalism, again without necessarily seeking the disappearance of the existing nation-states. Marxism has been ambiguous towards the nation-state, and in the late 19th century some Marxist theorists rejected it completely. For some Marxists the world revolution implied a global state (or global absence of state); for others it meant that each nation-state had its own revolution. A significant event in this context was the failure of the social-democratic and socialist movements in Europe to mobilize a cross-border workers' opposition to World War I. At present most, but certainly not all, left-wing groups accept the nation-state, and see it as the political arena for their activities.[citation needed]
In the Western world, the most comprehensive current ideological alternative to nationalism is cosmopolitanism. Ethical cosmopolitanism rejects one of the basic ethical principles of nationalism: that humans owe more duties to a fellow member of the nation, than to a non-member. It rejects such important nationalist values as national identity and national loyalty. However, there is also a political cosmopolitanism, which has a geopolitical program to match that of nationalism: it seeks some form of world state, with a world government. Very few people openly and explicitly support the establishment of a global state, but political cosmopolitanism has influenced the development of international criminal law, and the erosion of the status of national sovereignty. In turn, nationalists are deeply suspicious of cosmopolitan attitudes, which they equate with eradication of diverse national cultures.[citation needed]
While internationalism in the cosmopolitan context by definition implies cooperation among nations and states, and therefore the existence of nations, proletarian internationalism is different, in that it calls for the international working class to follow its brethren in other countries irrespective of the activities or pressures of the national government of a particular sector of that class. Meanwhile, anarchists reject nation-states on the basis of self-determination of the majority social class, and thus reject nationalism. Instead of nations, anarchists usually advocate the creation of cooperative societies based on free association and mutual aid without regard to ethnicity or race.[citation needed]
See also
- Iranian nationalism
- Aryan race
- Aryan
- Zionism
- Anti-nationalism
- Nation state
- Historiography and nationalism
- Nationalism and sport
- Patriotism
- Jingoism
- Statism
- Neo-nationalism
- What is a Nation?
Lists:
- List of active autonomist and secessionist movements
- List of historical autonomist and secessionist movements
- List of nationalist conflicts
- List of nationalist organizations
- List of prominent figures in nationalism
- Musical nationalism
Further reading
General
|
Reference works
|
Notes
- ^ a b Motyl. Encyclopedia of Nationalism, Volume 1: Fundamental Themes. San Diego, California, USA; London, England, UK: Academic Press, 2001. Pp. 251.
- ^ Kymlicka, Will. (1995). Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 16. ISBN 0-19-829091-8.
- ^ a b c Motyl. Encyclopedia of Nationalism, Volume 1: Fundamental Themes. San Diego, California, USA; London, England, UK: Academic Press, 2001. Pp. 262.
- ^ Billig, Michael (1995). Banal Nationalism. London: Sage. ISBN 0-8039-7525-2.
- ^ Gellner, Ernest (2005). Nations and Nationalism (Second ed.). Blackwell. ISBN 1-4051-3442-9.
- ^ Canovan, Margaret (1996). Nationhood and Political Theory. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. ISBN 1-84064-011-1.
- ^ Miller, David (1995). On Nationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-829356-9.
- ^ a b "Nationalism". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2009-12-06.
- ^ Smith, Anthony D. (1998). Nationalism and Modernism: A Critical Survey of Recent Theories of Nations and Nationalism. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-06341-8.
- ^ Iain McLean, Alistair McMillan, Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, "French Revolution ... It produced the modern doctrine of nationalism, and spread it directly throughout Western Europe...", Oxford, 2009, ISBN 978-0-19-920516-5.
- ^ T. C. W. Blanning (2003). The Culture of Power and the Power of Culture: Old Regime Europe 1660-1789. Oxford University Press. pp. 259, 260. ISBN 978-0-19-926561-9.
- ^ Laqueuer, Walter." Comparative Study of Fascism" by Juan J. Linz. Fascism, A Reader's Guide: Analyses, interpretations, Bibliography. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1976. Pp. 15 "Fascism is above all a nationalist movement and therefore wherever the nation and the state are strongly identified."
- ^ Laqueur, Walter. Fascism: Past, Present, Future. Oxford University Press, 1997. Pp. 90. "the common belief in nationalism, hierarchical structures, and the leader principle."
- ^ "Goebbels on National-Socialism, Bolshevism and Democracy, Documents on International Affairs, vol. II, 1938, pp. 17-19. Accessed from the Jewish Virtual Library on February 5, 2009. [1] Joseph Goebbels describes the Nazis as being allied with countries which had "authoritarian nationalist" ideology and conception of the state "It enables us to see at once why democracy and Bolshevism, which in the eyes of the world are irrevocably opposed to one another, meet again and again on common ground in their joint hatred of and attacks on authoritarian nationalist concepts of State and State systems. For the authoritarian nationalist conception of the State represents something essentially new. In it the French Revolution is superseded.".
- ^ Koln, Hans; Calhoun, Craig. The Idea of Nationalism: A Study in its Origins and Background. Transaction Publishers. Pp 20.
University of California. 1942. Journal of Central European Affairs. Volume 2. - ^ Anderson, Benedict (1983). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. New York: Verso. p. 122. ISBN 978-0-86091-546-1.
- ^ a b c d Motyl. Encyclopedia of Nationalism, Volume 1: Fundamental Themes. San Diego, California, USA; London, England, UK: Academic Press, 2001. Pp. 253.
- ^ a b Motyl. Encyclopedia of Nationalism, Volume 1: Fundamental Themes. San Diego, California, USA; London, England, UK: Academic Press, 2001. Pp. 272-273.
- ^ a b Motyl. Encyclopedia of Nationalism, Volume 1: Fundamental Themes. San Diego, California, USA; London, England, UK: Academic Press, 2001. Pp. 273.
- ^ a b Motyl. Encyclopedia of Nationalism, Volume 1: Fundamental Themes. San Diego, California, USA; London, England, UK: Academic Press, 2001. Pp. 268.
- ^ Motyl. Encyclopedia of Nationalism, Volume 1: Fundamental Themes. San Diego, California, USA; London, England, UK: Academic Press, 2001. Pp. 269.
- ^ a b c d e Motyl. Encyclopedia of Nationalism, Volume 1: Fundamental Themes. San Diego, California, USA; London, England, UK: Academic Press, 2001. Pp. 271.
- ^ a b c d e Motyl. Encyclopedia of Nationalism, Volume 1: Fundamental Themes. San Diego, California, USA; London, England, UK: Academic Press, 2001. Pp. 272.
- ^ a b c d Motyl. Encyclopedia of Nationalism, Volume 1: Fundamental Themes. San Diego, California, USA; London, England, UK: Academic Press, 2001. Pp. 274.
- ^ Motyl. Encyclopedia of Nationalism, Volume 1: Fundamental Themes. San Diego, California, USA; London, England, UK: Academic Press, 2001. Pp. 275.
- ^ a b c d Motyl. Encyclopedia of Nationalism, Volume 1: Fundamental Themes. San Diego, California, USA; London, England, UK: Academic Press, 2001. Pp. 276.
- ^ Motyl. Encyclopedia of Nationalism, Volume 1: Fundamental Themes. San Diego, California, USA; London, England, UK: Academic Press, 2001. Pp. 277.
- ^ a b c d e Motyl. Encyclopedia of Nationalism, Volume 1: Fundamental Themes. San Diego, California, USA; London, England, UK: Academic Press, 2001. Pp. 508-509.
- ^ Motyl. Encyclopedia of Nationalism, Volume 1: Fundamental Themes. San Diego, California, USA; London, England, UK: Academic Press, 2001. Pp. 509.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j Motyl. Encyclopedia of Nationalism, Volume 1: Fundamental Themes. San Diego, California, USA; London, England, UK: Academic Press, 2001. Pp. 510.
- ^ a b Nash, Kate (2001). The Blackwell companion to political sociology. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 391. ISBN 0-631-21050-4.
- ^ Tamir, Yael. 1993. Liberal Nationalism. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-07893-9; Will Kymlicka. 1995. Multicultural Citizenship. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-827949-3; David Miller. 1995. On Nationality. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-828047-5.
- ^ Renan, Ernest. 1882. "Qu'est-ce qu'une nation?"
- ^ Mill, John Stuart. 1861. Considerations on Representative Government.
- ^ Kymlicka, Will. 1995. Multicultural Citizenship. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-827949-3. For criticism, see: Patten, Alan. 1999. "The Autonomy Argument for Liberal Nationalism." Nations and Nationalism. 5(1): 1-17.
- ^ Miller, David. 1995. On Nationality. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-828047-5. For criticism, see: Abizadeh, Arash. 2002. "Does Liberal Democracy Presuppose a Cultural Nation? Four Arguments." American Political Science Review 96 (3): 495-509; Abizadeh, Arash. 2004. "Liberal Nationalist versus Postnational Social Integration." Nations and Nationalism 10(3): 231-250.
- ^ Bar-Haim, Yair (2008). "Nature and Nurture in Own-Race Face Processing". Psychological Science. 17 (2): 159–163. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01679.x. PMID 16466424.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) - ^ Timothy G. Reagan (2005). Non-Western Educational Traditions: Indigenous Approaches to Educational Thought and Practice. Routledge. pp. 4–5. ISBN 978-0-8058-4857-1.
- ^ Smith, Anthony D. 1986. The Ethnic Origins of Nations London: Basil Blackwell. pp 6–18. ISBN 0-631-15205-9.
- ^ "Political Science, Volume 35, Issue 2; ''Class and Nation: Problems of Socialist Nationalism''". .interscience.wiley.com. 2006-12-22. Retrieved 2012-04-13.
- ^ Middle East and North Africa: Challenge to Western Security by Peter Duignan and L.H. Gann, Hoover Institution Press, 1981, ISBN 978-0-8179-7392-6 (page 22)
- ^ a b c Encyclopaedia of Nationalism by Athena S. Leoussi and Anthony D. Smith, Transaction Publishers, 2001, ISBN 978-0-7658-0002-2, (page 62)
- ^ http://books.google.com.au/books?id=WN9QWehYDKIC&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=proto-national&source=bl&ots=KI9Xozysbn&sig=uv6Oqxu3GhJ7GFyHxgOwXLoC85A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GySaT8PkG42PiAfxjImrDg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=proto-national&f=false
- ^ http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/savich/nationalism.pdf
- ^ Connor, Walker (1994). Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. p. 29. ISBN 978-0-691-02563-6.
- ^ Griffin, Roger (1994). "Staging The Nation's Rebirth: The Politics and Aesthetics of Performance in the Context of Fascist Studies" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-09-21.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help) - ^ Roger Griffin, Fascism, Oxford University Press, 1995, ISBN 978-0-19-289249-2.
- ^ Grant, Moyra. "Politics Review" (PDF). Moyra Grant is an experienced politics teacher, examiner and author. Politics Review. Retrieved 16 April 2011.
- ^ Anderson, Benedict (1983). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. New York: Verso. pp. 37–46. ISBN 978-0-86091-546-1.
- ^ Heywood, Andrew (1999). Political Theory: An Introduction (Second ed.). London: Macmillan Press. pp. 97–98. ISBN 0-333-76091-3.
- ^ Grayling, A.C. (2001). The Meaning of Things. Applying Philosophy to Life. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. pp. 78–79. ISBN 0-297-60758-8.
- ^ http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=2PmDfaEkZV8C&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=barbarian+invasions+europe&ots=AhAptKsDje&sig=3RzvHcT1HGwCrUEkVM-CQ_Zaw3E#v=onepage&q=barbarian%20invasions%20europe&f=false
- ^ Cliff, Tony (1959). "Rosa Luxemburg and the national question". Marxists Internet Archive. Retrieved 2008-08-02.
- ^ a b George Orwell, Notes on Nationalism, orwell.ru.
- ^ Russell Speaks His Mind, 1960. Fletcher and son Ltd., Norwich, United Kingdom
- ^ Einstein http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins107012.html
External links
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/Wikinews-logo.svg/40px-Wikinews-logo.svg.png)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/99/Wiktionary-logo-en-v2.svg/40px-Wiktionary-logo-en-v2.svg.png)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Wikiquote-logo.svg/34px-Wikiquote-logo.svg.png)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4a/Commons-logo.svg/30px-Commons-logo.svg.png)
- Internet Modern History Sourcebook: Nationalism
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Nationalism
- Nations & Nationalism: What is a Nation
- The History of a Social Phenomenon
- Nationalismwatch - tracking nationalism around the world
- Daily Plebiscite - a blog on nations and nationalism
- The Nationalism Project