Nationalism and the Modern State

Abstract

How does nationalism manifest itself and what shape will it take in the post-industrial 21st century? This paper takes an in-depth look at nationalism as both a theoretical ideal and a practical application.

Overview

The great composer, Giuseppe Verdi, was certainly worthy of great applause. Indeed, the creator of iconic operas as "Aida," "La Traviata" and "Rigoletto" was adept at generating great audiences who were mesmerized by the music as well as the spectacle of his works. Perhaps the most enthused crowds who greeted Verdi, however, were his own countrymen. While many greeted him with excitement out of regard for his music, many others cheered him with somewhat greater zeal, and with good reason—Verdi's name was spelled the same as a wildly popular acronym applied to the first king of a unified Italian nation—Vittorio Emmanuele, Re de'Italia: "V-E-R-D-I" ("Verdi! Verdie!," 2008).

Nation-states are borne from a collection of subgroups, a large number of which are diverse and, occasionally, competitive with one another. Unification is both an imperative and major challenge for the leading regime. In a general sense, there have been two types of systemic policy endeavors that have been employed toward this end. On the one hand, some governments have granted relative degrees of autonomy to such subgroups as concessions or, in the same vein, allowed greater degrees of political participation. On the other side of the spectrum, more heavy-handed regimes have repressed such subgroups or even committed violence against them to keep them at bay.

Then again, regimes do not always rely on policy implementation to unify their constituents. As was the case with Vittorio Emmanuele II, a regime (and a populace) will turn to rhetorical and symbolic ideals to which the citizenry can become attached. Slogans, pledges, oaths, and ceremonies are introduced to coincide with the comments and writers of the leaders themselves. Throughout human history, the activation of a country's nationalistic attitudes has been a consistent part of a burgeoning or rebuilding nation.

Nationalism remains an interesting concept concerning the modern nation-state just as it has in generations past. How does it become manifest, and what is its future use in the post-industrial 21st century? This paper takes an in-depth look at nationalism as both a theoretical ideal and a practical application.

Nationalism within a Theoretical Framework. Throughout history, nations have appeared and disappeared with relative frequency. After international war and hegemonic conflict (such as the Cold War), this trend has shown particular life, as empires and large countries have disintegrated, allowing smaller nations to emerge as independent states.

Nationalism has consistently served as an important resource for the congealment of these burgeoning states. Whether it is unifying a diverse population of sub-national states and social groups, as mentioned earlier in this paper, or underscoring a single sub-group's viability when declaring its own sovereignty, political leaders have looked to the rhetorical underpinnings created by the employment of nationalism.

Put simply, nationalism is emphasis on and stated commitment to the culture of one's nation. Stressing that the nation in question cannot function without its own autonomy, this concept also suggests that the state will only pursue its own goals, irrespective of the goals of other nations. Nationalism, in this context, emphasizes the paramount status of the nation-state in the international political arena.

Historical Framework. To some, this theoretical concept rests on one basic assumption. As stated above, nationalism gives viability to the nation-state as its primary source of energy. In 1994, political scientist Anthony Smith suggested that the issue at hand is historical. To nationalists, Smith argued, the nation was always present and important. In fact, the nation-state is part of the natural order—even when the nation was subjugated to a conquering power, it was always present. The task of the nationalist, he concluded, was to remind his or her fellow countrymen of the past and of the "glory" in which the nation-state at one time existed. Nationalists, he concluded, "have a vital role to play in the construction of nations, not as culinary artists or social engineers, but as political archaeologists rediscovering and reinterpreting the communal past in order to regenerate the community" (Smith, 1994, par. 7).

Sociological Framework. Shedding a much different light on the intriguing study of nationalism is anthropologist Ernest Gellner, who proposed researching nationalism within a sociological framework. Central to his conclusions is the introduction of modernity to human society. Gellner observes that nationalism saw a tremendous surge in the early 20th century, particularly with the rise of the Axis powers. The fact that societies were being transformed with the introduction of new technologies and, therefore, new industries and jobs, meant that the cultures were losing their identities to the new way of life. A homogenous culture that had absorbed these modern changes would find a way to assert its modernized identity, and that vocalization would come in the form of nationalistic fervor (Gellner, 1983).

Nationalism, as it relates to the modern nation-state, is a field of study that has largely gone underdeveloped. Gellner's seminal work on the subject, "Nations and Nationalism," was groundbreaking and ambitious. It was useful during the 1980s, when it was first published, and continues to assist in the study of Islamic fundamentalism (Dannreuther & Kennedy, 2007). To some, however, it answered some questions while forgoing the pursuit of other answers. In the mind of sociologist Emile Durkheim, for example, there is a link between religion and nationalistic fervor, one that warrants further examination among theorists of the field (Wellings, 2006). Still, Durkheim (like other contemporaries) found difficulty in putting into a theoretical context the nation-state itself as it pertained to the increase in modernity in the international community (Chernillo, 2008).

The issues surrounding nationalism are not necessarily borne of the rhetorical and symbolic projection of nationalistic fervor, but rather of the systems in which those manifestations appear. The nation-state itself has become a difficult entity to qualify, and how it will continue to evolve in the years to come remains an important if not variable element in this study.

This paper next provides a few historical examples of nationalism in burgeoning nation-states as well as the nationalistic ideals they have spawned within the context of the analyses of many of the theorists of the period.

Marxism & Nationalism. For many theorists, the key to understanding nationalism is the application of modern technology. Many students of nationalism believe that nationalism first became manifest at the beginning of the 19th century. Prior to the Enlightenment, most societies consisted of largely agrarian cultures, as people belonged to families, neighborhoods, and religious organizations. They did not live in nations—their identities were far more provincial, and the need for expression of those identities was largely unnecessary.

This situation changed considerably as economic development became a priority in the ever-modernizing world. The industrialization of Europe (and later the United States and East Asia) drew people away from their centralized, agrarian way of life and toward the cities, where the new economic engine had taken root. In doing so, they were leaving behind their identities as well. Then again, in their new environs, the people of the new industrial society found a new set of cultural values and, along with common languages, helped contribute to the creation of nations and, ultimately, the nation-states themselves. At the heart of these new nation-states (which were largely unheard-of in the latter 18th century) was common culture and language, an outward expression of which is what is known today as "nationalism" (Smith, 2005).

In the early 20th century, the modernization of the industrialized world created nations that were centered around such development. Such a focus on the urban centers churned the disdain of the likes of Karl Marx, who saw this development as uneven and inequitable, creating a system of classes by which the poorer, working classes are ultimately dependent on the higher-wage-earning upper classes (Lassman, 1989). The revolutions that were occurring in the United States, France, and Germany lent credence to his views, as aristocracies and monarchies were being challenged in each situation by the so-called "have-nots."

As stated earlier, despite the clear surge in nationalistic attitudes and the increasing prevalence of nations within political systems, Marx struggled with his interpretations of both concepts. His ideals surrounding class were the central element in his views of society—such concepts as organized religion (at the time a major force in the formation of nations) and the nation itself were superfluous to Marx. It is possible, however, that Marx saw the aforementioned revolutions as indicative of the role of the nation-state as it relates to the international community—that such struggles minimized the value of existing nation-states but remained thematically in line with the larger, super-national region (such as Europe or North America). Nevertheless, as capitalism and the modernization that accompanied it began to rise in the wake of such uprisings, Marx clearly underestimated the effect such industrialization would have on the international community. Specifically, this new system was creating the administrative infrastructures that would eventually lead to the formation of the modern nation-state that Marx originally dismissed as irrelevant in the face of the much larger international community (Szporluk, 1988).

From its advent through its twilight, the 19th century was a period marked with great political conflict and transformation that coincided with the technological advancement of the era. As nation-states emerged from the tumult, so did nationalistic fervor. The relative newness of these systems proved difficult for many political scientists and philosophers to place into a discernable framework. As the century came to an end and the world entered the 20th century, understanding the link between the nation-state and nationalism in a modernizing era proved even more of a challenge, particularly in the years following the First World War.

The Rise of Nazi Germany. In the early 20th century, the countless individual states of northern and central Europe had become unified under Kaiser Wilhelm II to form the German nation-state. The Kaiser, in addition to introducing a number of modernization and economic development programs to the German populace, also sought to unify the German people just as he had done the country's geographic subparts. Schools were given curricula that focused almost entirely on Germany's short history and social customs. Nationalistic sentiment was injected into almost every facet of German life.

When the Kaiser's forces were defeated at the end of the First World War, so too was the German society that resembled the remarks of Anthony Smith—a population whose nationalism had done little but jell the country behind "patriotic" rhetoric without generating long-term infrastructures and institutions.

Ingrained with a nationalism-induced sense of superiority, Germany's people were shocked to witness the fall of the military at the hands of the Western forces. It has been argued to great length that this defeat, cutting deep into the German nationalism that bolstered that country for several decades, led many to believe that the loss could only have come as the result of a failure of the German government itself and not from the actions of inferior international forces. This nationalism fostered great animosity among many younger Germans, presenting an unusual example of nationalism—whereas nationalism tends to coalesce a nation-state's population in the face of competing states, the "Hitler Youth" were leading the charge against their own government, putting stock into the rising Adolph Hitler's candidacy (Donson, 2006).

Ultimately, the Hitler Youth of the early 20th century would prove integral to the construction of Nazi Germany. Initially, the young people were infused with frustration with the Republican government. At camps, these young people were given educations on German social and political history in order to help them further appreciate what it meant to be part of that state. Later, fully versed in the perceived "greatness" of the German nationality, these young people would enter government institutions and infuse nationalism into the leadership. It is here where the theories of Gellner are modified—whereas his view of nationalism as it relates to the state suggests a flow of nationalism from the leadership to the local level, the Hitler Youth track follows the opposite course, from the grassroots level through the government (Cupers, 2008).

Hitler's Germany thrived on the frustrations of this group of citizens. Germany's defeat during World War I and the economically devastating impact of reparations imposed on that country after the war's end had left the German state prostrate and with little more cultural identity than that which exuded from the people who were both angry at the former leadership and seeking an explosive reemergence on the world stage. Before the German nation-state could re-form and take flight, however, the people needed to both embrace their heritage as Germans and, where possible, surgically remove those elements within society that were, in their opinions, not of the German experience.

The Nazi regime sought to ingrain in the citizenry's minds the fact that German ethnicity was a distinct sociological characteristic. To this end, the new regime employed the concepts of "folk nation" (emphasis on the ethnicity of a collective social group) and "cultural nation" (emphasis on the equality of citizens on the basis of culture). Such an effort, scholars argue, fosters a sense of homogeneity among German society and in an ideal sense, links together a myriad of formerly disparate and distinct ethnic and cultural groups under one German nation.

Of course, this endeavor necessitated definition from the Nazi regime seeking to create this homogeneity. The Nazi leadership therefore developed arbitrary parameters for the new Germany, including territorial boundaries that were previously nonexistent. The one collective quality on which it could lean was, of course, language. By embracing the German language (and its cultural roots), the Nazis were seeking to jell a singular, unified nation-state behind which the citizens could stand (Lepsius, 2004).

Naturally, the establishment of a homogenous nation-state with strong nationalistic tendencies means that those who are not of that culture or ethnicity will be isolated or disenfranchised. In Nazi Germany, however, "non-Germans" (such as Jews) would not be so fortunate to be simply treated as outsiders. In 1935, Adolph Hitler introduced the Nuremberg Laws, which stripped the Jews of their civil and legal rights as citizens. One law, "The Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor," defined Jews as a separate race altogether from Germans and forbade them from romantic relationships with one another. In fact, the Nuremberg Laws were creating the German nation as a racial haven, superior in status to other races (University of South Florida, 2005).

In the cast of the Germany of the early 20th century, nationalism and the nation-state were clearly connected. Furthermore, pursuant to the theory that modernization is a key element in facilitating that connection, the increased industrialization of an increasingly powerful Nazi Germany certainly lends evidence to the strength of this correlation.

Nationalism, the Modern State & the Future. A consistent theory of cultural evolution suggests that as a society develops in size and technological capability, so too does its preferred form of governance. This paper has discussed the most recent stage of this evolution: The transition from empires to the modern nation-state. Then again, as humanity continues along its technological evolution, the question must be asked—what is the future of the nation-state and the forces that created it?

The well-renowned economist Gunnar Myrdal once commented that nationalism welds together the masses, inspiring them to a common purpose and unified policy (Brinkman & Brinkman, 2008). Nationalism has helped solidify the institutions of the modern state. The social and cultural forces required to create and support an industrializing nation remain integral to the survival of the modern state.

An ongoing debate is whether the nation-state is approaching its twilight as commerce and technology extend beyond the traditional borders of the modern country. Indeed, businesses that move to an international level have seen extraordinary opportunities, particularly in states and environments that encourage free and unrestricted trade. Then again, nationalism remains a strong force behind many states' reluctance to allow for minimally or altogether unregulated commerce. Many nations are, as a result, raising barriers to free trade, limiting participation in the International Monetary Fund and World Bank as well as other tools of globalization (Davis, 2008).

The question of whether nationalism and the modern state will remain linked depends on how the nation-state evolves along with the globalizing world. Should modern states adapt to these changes, allowing for free trade and showing geographic flexibility in terms of border control (yet at the same time not compromising their cultures), it is likely that nationalism will remain a viable element in the ongoing development of human history.

With the election of Donald Trump as president in the United States in 2016, his rhetoric and policy promises indicated a greater stoking of white nationalism in the country than in previous decades as some argued that many of his views and the platform of his Republican administration aligned with white nationalist ideology (Maskovsky, 2017). In his first year as president, he remained adamant about his promise to put America first, including prioritizing his plan to build a wall along the US-Mexico border and repealing the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy put in place during Barack Obama's administration.

Conclusion

The link between nationalism and the modern state has remained an intriguing debate in both the academic and policymaking arenas. Indeed, the two concepts have remained tightly connected throughout modern history. The theoretical frameworks offered by Smith and Gellner, outlined earlier in this essay, suggest that the relationship between the two concepts help the people of a given nation or state look backward upon their heritage and then forward toward prosperity.

Arguably, one of the most vexing aspects of studying this relationship has been the definition of both the constitution of the modern state as well as the values and cultural heritage of those living within it. Marx, whose focus was on class and stratification, experienced considerable difficulty in clarifying the purpose of the nation-state. While he raises a very interesting point, that industrialization helped transform the political landscape of the 19th century by helping create the modern state; his writings indicate unfamiliarity with how that state would be defined. Furthermore, his perspectives on the inequities of income distribution and political representation among such strata rendered irrelevant, in his estimation, such social qualities as culture, race, ethnicity and religion.

The rise of Nazi Germany in the years following the First World War did little to assist Marx's understanding of nationalism and the modern state. While the example of Nazi Germany certainly verified that the two concepts are inextricably linked, the re-imagining of "the German way" (cast in the Aryan mold) was arbitrary in its development of the new German culture, piecing together some of the values and traditions of the pre-Kaiser era sub-nations and, most significantly, isolating and brutally persecuting others. Hitler's new Germany grew in strength and technological capability, but was built by nationalistic fervor that was based on the selective cultural development of the founders of this fascist regime rather than the true heritage of the German people.

The future of this nationalism-state relationship remains muddled. As humanity's technological, political, and economic evolution continues, many believe that the modern state in its current form will most likely need to evolve as well (or risk extinction). In the same vein, the nation-state's primary "political archeologist" may continue its look backward, but those who foster nationalistic attitudes will need to tailor their application within a dramatically different framework.

Terms & Concepts

Class: Social or economic standing within a society.

Cultural Nation: Emphasis on the equality of citizens on the basis of culture.

Folk Nation: Emphasis on the ethnicity of a collective social group.

Nationalism: Social and political focus on stated commitment to the culture of one's nation.

Nation-state: Political system identifiable by a centralized government within a geographically-defined border.

Stratification: Hierarchical separation of classes within a political, social or economic system.

Bibliography

Brinkman, R.L. & Brinkman, J.E. (2008). Globalization and the nation-state. Journal of Economic Issues, 42, 425–433. Retrieved July 23, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=32534695&site=ehost-live

Chernillo, D. (2008). Classical sociology and the nation-state. Journal of Classical Sociology, 8, 27–43. Retrieved July 21, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=32867010&site=ehost-live

Cupers, K. (2008). Governing through nature. Cultural Geographies, 15, 173–205. Retrieved July 22, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=31626322&site=ehost-live

Dannreuther, R. & Kennedy, J. (2007). The international relations of the "transition." International Political Sociology, 1, 339–335. Retrieved July 20, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=27462999&site=ehost-live

Davis, B. (2008). Rise of nationalism frays global ties. Wall Street Journal — Eastern Edition, 251, A1–A16. Retrieved July 23, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=31790947&site=ehost-live

Donson, A. (2006). Why did German youth become fascists? SocialHistory, 31, 337–358. Retrieved July 22, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=21459829&site=ehost-live

Gellner, E. (1983). Nations and Nationalism. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Retrieved July 20, 2008, from Google Books. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=jl7t2yMfxwIC&oi= fnd&pg=PR7&dq=%22Gellner%22+%22Nations+and+Nationalism%22+& ots=e0lFMvzya3&sig=RFcqpaITrN78PhmsgpMqOu-FgNk#PPP1,M1

Kasprzak, M. (2012). To reject or not to reject nationalism: debating Marx and Engels' struggles with nationalism, 1840s–1880s. Nationalities Papers, 40, 585–606. doi:10.1080/00905992.2012.685058 Retrieved October 29, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=78140877&site=ehost-live

Kaufmann, E. (2017). Complexity and nationalism. Nations & Nationalism, 23(1), 6–25. Retrieved March 2, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Sociology Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sxi&AN=119952190&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Lassman, P. (1989). Communism and nationalism: Karl Marx versus Friedrich List. Political Studies, 37, 711. Retrieved July 21, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=21385021&site=ehost-live

Lepsius, M.R. (2004). The nation and nationalism in Germany. Social Research, 71, 481-500. Retrieved July 23, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14829433&site=ehost-live

Maskovsky, J. (2017). Toward the anthropology of white nationalist postracialism: Comments inspired by Hall, Goldstein, and Ingram's "The hands of Donald Trump". HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 7(1), 433–440. Retrieved March 2, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Sociology Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sxi&AN=123968149&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Smith, A.D. (1994). Gastronomy or geology? The role of nationalism and the reconstruction of nations. Retrieved July 20, 2008, from The Nationalism Project: National Studies Information Clearing House. http://www.nationalismproject.org/what/smith1.htm

Smith, A.D. (2005). Nationalism in early modern Europe. History and Theory, 44, 404–415. Retrieved July 21, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=18188364&site=ehost-live

Szporluk, R. (1988). Communism and Nationalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved July 22, 2008, from Google Books. http://books.google.com/books?id=%5fd0hi3lF60cC&printsec=front cover.

Tsukamoto, S., Enright, J., & Karasawa, M. (2013). Psychological Essentialism and Nationalism as Determinants of Interethnic Bias. Journal of Social Psychology, 153, 515–519. doi:10.1080/00224545.2013.795926 Retrieved October 29, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=89432216&site=ehost-live

University of South Florida. (2005). A teacher's guide to the Holocaust. Retrieved July 23, 2008, from http://fcit.usf.edu/HOLOCAUST/TIMELINE/nazifica.htm

Verdi! Verdi! (2008). Retrieved July 19, 2008, from Anecdotage.com. http://anecdotage.com/index.php?aid=6859

Weedon, G. (2012). "I Will. Protect this House:" Under Armour, Corporate Nationalism and Post-9/11 Cultural Politics. Sociology of Sport Journal, 29, 265–282. Retrieved October 29, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=82314036&site=ehost-live

Wellings, B. (2006). Theorizing nationalism. Nations and Nationalism, 12, 359–360. Retrieved July 21, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=20287351&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Ali, A., McFarlane, E., Lees, K., & Srivastava, N. (2013). WHO IS A PATRIOT? PSYCHOLOGICAL RECOLONIZATION AND THE PROLIFERATION OF U.S NATIONALISM. Race, Gender & Class, 20(1/2), 353–362. Retrieved October 29, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=87581136&site=ehost-live

Beilharz, P. (2008). A social theory of the nation-state. Thesis Eleven, 93, 133–134. Retrieved July 24, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=31955030&site=ehost-live

Brincker, B., Hearn, J., Zimmer, O., & Leerssen, J. (2013). Seventh nations and nationalism debate: Joep Leerssen's National Thought in Europe: A Cultural History. Nations & Nationalism, 19, 409–433. doi:10.1111/nana.12010 Retrieved October 29, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=88263487&site=ehost-live

Condor, S. (2008). Multiculturalism, liberal fundamentalism and banal nationalism. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 18, 369–374. Retrieved July 24, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=33250737&site=ehost-live

Edwards, T. (2008). What makes a country a country? Multilingual, 19, 24–25. Retrieved July 24, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=32203473&site=ehost-live

Hutchinson, J. (2018). Bringing the study of warfare into theories of nationalism. Nations & Nationalism, 24(1), 6–21. Retrieved March 2, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Sociology Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sxi&AN=126984336&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Ikenberry, G.J. (2008). Nations, states, and violence. Foreign Affairs,87, 140. Retrieved July 24, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=31701311&site=ehost-live

Inglis, D. & Robertson, R. (2008). The elementary forms of globality. Journal of Classical Sociology, 8, 5–25. Retrieved July 24, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=32867009&site=ehost-live