Theories of Nationalism INTRODUCTION

Whatever their views about the relationship of nationalism to pre-modern ethnic sentiments, most scholars agree that nationalism, the global polit¬ical movement that we know today, is a peculiarly modern phenomenon. They differ, however, over such things as the causes of nationalism, its rela¬tionship to modernization and to political power, and whether it is a weak or strong agent of change.
Elie Kedourie's approach is that of a historian of ideas. Nationalism is a form of secular millenarianism that has arisen from Kantian conceptions of human beings as autonomous, which, in turn, has led to politics replacing religion as the key to salvation. When synthesized by Fichte with Herder's doctrines about the natural language differences within humanity, these ideas produced the 'mature' romantic doctrine of nationalism. This prescribes that individuals achieve an independent state animated by the unique culture of their natural community. Kedourie regards nationalism as an extremely powerful, if de¬structive, force. Its appeal is explained by social breakdown occasioned by a collapse in the transmission of traditional values, and the rise of a restless, secular, educated generation, ambitious for power but excluded from its proper estate.
Ernest Gellner turns Kedourie on his head. Whereas Kedourie places weight on the power of ideas which act as a homogenizing force, Gellner argues that it is the need of modern societies for cultural homogeneity that creates nation¬alism. Nationalism is thus sociologically rooted in modernity, but it itself is a relatively weak force, a product of the transition from 'agro-literate' societies, regulated by structure, to industrial societies, integrated by culture. Important components ofhis complex explanation include the unevenness of industrialization; the leading role of an excluded intelligentsia in the invention of the nation; mass, public education; and the discrepancy between the romantic aspirations of nationalists and the utilitarian outcomes.
Tom Nairn, a Marxian thinker, combines Gellner's modernization perspect¬ive with that of Gramsci in order to provide a 'materialist' explanation of the dynamism of 'romantic' nationalism; its appeal to an educated middle class; and its ability to mobilize large-scale inter-class support. Nationalism arises in threatened and underdeveloped 'peripheral' societies whose intelligentsias 'invite the people into history' and then use and modernize their vernacular cultures. In this way they are able to mobilize the masses around the develop mental goals of a local bourgeoisie. Nairn, unlike Gellner, regards the cultural project of nationalism as an important agent of social change. Nationalism is invariably populist, and its effect is to induct the masses into politics.
These theorists provide an 'instrumentalist' approach to nationalism. This is memorably articulated by the Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm, who argues that the nation was one of many traditions 'invented' by political elites in order to legitimize their power in a century of revolution and democratization. Paul Brass, a political scientist, takes a similar position in the debate with Francis Robinson (see section V) about the relative weight accorded to 'primordial' or 'instrumental' factors. The study of elite competition and manipulation is the key to an understanding of nationalism, but Brass admits that elites are con. strained by mass cultures and institutions.
Benedict Anderson also regards the modern as an artefact, 'an ima¬gined political community'. Rather than thinking of it as fabricated, one should understand national distinctiveness in terms of its style of imagination and the institutions that make that possible. Pre-eminent among the latter are 'print-capitalism' and the new genres of newspaper and novel which portray the nation as a sociological community moving along 'homogeneous, empty time'. In contrast, Pierre van den Berghe offers a socio-biological interpreta¬tion of ethnic and national ties. Nationalism, like racism, is seen as an extension of kinship selection and 'nepotism' which has become salient in the modem world because of large-scale population movements, colonialism, and con¬quest.
Several theorists identify the rise of the modem bureaucratic state as a central factor in the genesis of nationalism. John Breuilly argues that a conflict began to emerge between the claims of state and civil society in the seven¬teenth century to which nationalism seemed to offer a superior, historicist solution: the authentic state is an outgrowth of a historical community. Anthony Smith also accords a pivotal role to the modem 'scientific state', but the problem of legitimacy is more far-reaching. Nationalism arises out of a perva¬sive moral crisis of'dual legitimation', where divine authority is challenged by secular state power; from this situation, three solutions—neo-traditionalist, assimilationist, and reformist—emerge, all of which are conducive to different forms of nationalism.
Finally, John Hutchinson argues against the identification of nationalism with statist politics, and reveals the dynamics of cultural nationalism as a separate project focused on the moral regeneration of the community. Reject¬ing the sometimes negative connotations of cultural nationalism, he argues that the evocation of a golden age is used as a modernizing and integrative device which can offer an alternative political model when the statist type of political nationalism has failed.