Nationalism and Modernism A critical survey of recent theories of nations and nationalism Anthony D. Smith UNIVERSITY oF LONDON R London and New York 49981 The rise of classical modernism ‘Three main issues have dominated the theory of nations and nationalism site int tical and philosophical 1 concerts the roe of the nation in juman affairs. Should we regard the nation as an end in itself, an absolute value ‘hich is incommensurable with all other values? Or should we understand the nation and national identity as a means to other ends and values, a proximate value, and therefore bound to time, place and context, and especially to the gnttensat a modern coc? The second is anthropological and political. It con i os ic weerns the social definition ‘of the nation. Whit kind of community is the nation and what isthe relationship of the individual to that community? Is the nation fundamentally ethno-cultural in character, a community of (real or fietive} descent whose members are bound together from birth by kinship tis, common history and shared language? Or is it langely a social and political community based on common territory and resi dence, on citizenship rights and common laws, in relation to which individuals are free to choose whether they wish to belong? The third is historical and sociological. It concerns the place of the nation in ‘the history of humanity. Should we regard the nation as an immemorial and evolving SoumNEy, rooted in a long history of shared ties and culture? Or are nations (0 be treated as recent social constructs or cultural artefacts, at once bounded and malleable, typical products of a certain stage of history and the special conditions of a modern epoch, and hence destined to pass away when {hat stage as been surpassed and its conditions no longer apply? ‘These thee issues and the debates they have engendered recur continually in discussions of nations and nationalism. As we would expect, they often overlap and intertwine, and it is not unknown for theorists to take up clearcut positions ‘on one issue, only to ‘cross over’ to the unexpected ‘side’ in one or other of the debates, to hold for example that nations are recurrent and immemorial yet ‘means to other ends, or that they are social and politcal communities but conati- tute absolute values. Moreover, the third and last debate conflates two separate. issues the issue of the antiquity or modernity of the nation in history and the {question of its evolved or socially constructed nature. As we shall se, this conf ion of isues makes i¢ dificult to adhere to any simple characterisation of theorists or classification of approaches and theories in the field, Nevertheless, (The rise of classical modernism 9 is enough consistency among analysts and theories to propose a general fiatory scheme based in particular on the third of the above three issues. Sa clasifcation reveals the main lines of debate in the field in recent though it can serve only as an approximation to understanding of the ‘Work behind particular approaches and theories. ¢ roots of classical modernism forerunners "The carliest scholars of nationalism were in fact happy to conflate these issues, fing an evolutionary account of the development of nations with a degree ‘oluntarism, and a prescription for political activism with a sense of the long- {gem cthno-cultural roots of nations. Michele, for example, viewed the nation as best defence for individval libery in the era of fraternity, The French lution had ushered in a Rousseauan religion of patriotism, of ‘Man frater- filing in the presence of God’, with France, ‘the common child of nations’, munced by sympathetic countries like Italy, Poland and Ireland, whose tionalisms belonged to Mazzini’s Youug Europe movement. At the same time, shared the naturals. assumption of Sieyes and others for whom nations ‘existed outside the social and legal bond, in nature.! For Lord Acton, on the other hand, the central question is ethica: the extent ‘which the (French) theory of national unity ‘makes the nation a source of ‘despotism and revolution’, whereas the libertarian (English) theory of nationality harks back to the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and regards the nation ‘as the © bulwark of self-government, and the foremost limit to the excessive power of the ‘State’. For Acton, the continental idealist view of nationality does not aim at either liberty or prosperity, both of which it sacrifices to the imperative necessity of making the nation the mould and measure of the State. Its course will be marked with material as well as moral ruin, in order that a new invention may prevail ver the works of God and the interests of mankind. (Acton 1948: 166-95) ‘Acton’s conservative analysis nevertheless vindicates multinational empires, like F the Habsburg, on the ground that, unlike the national state, it can ‘satisfy different races’. His general commitment to diversity is not unlike that of Moser and Herder; and his belie in liberty he shares with John Stuart Mill who argued for the right of national self determination and collective voluntarism.” Perhaps the most influential of these early analyses was that contained in a lecture of 1882 by Ernest Renan, which he delivered to counter the militarist “rationalism of Heinrich Treitschke. Renan combines a sense of ethno-cultural “Tormation in Europe over the lgue durée with a belief in the active political commitment of members of the nation. Renan starts with a contrast that is toThe rise of classical modernism 11 five @ long history: between the fusion of “races inthe nations of Western j,rgPe andthe retention of ethic aiinctiveness in Eastern Europe. In renee Dy ‘te tenth century, the idea of aay difference in race between Gall ana Frankish populations had disappeared; what counts today ae the shared eqqune ences an common memories and fargetings) of the member, witinesen te ‘ration Even among the nationalists themselves, we find the same permutations and inconsistencies. Some, its true, followed the principles of German Romanticism to their conclusion and became full-blooded organicists, believing inthe seam Ib inmemorial nd cen Bslogial chaste of neton, Other wee ies at, believing with Mazen ot ography, history ethnic ‘stent, believing with Mazzini that, though geography, history ethnic escent language and egion might detesmine snc of charter an jon of the nation, political action and the mobilisation of the people were, tial f the nation was to be ‘reawakened! and recalled to its sacred mission, From an early period, these dilemmas of evolution and intervention, of ‘struc ure’ and ‘agency’, were as acute for nationalists as they were for communiats.> 2 soul spiritual principe. A nation is a great solidarity, created by the sentiment of the sacrifices which have been made and of those which ene is disposed to make in the future. Kt presupposes a past; but it resumes itself in the present by a tangible fact: the consent, the cleatly expressed desire to Spatinue life in common. The existence of'a nation i a plebiscite of every day, as the existence of the individual is a perpetual affirmation of life, (Renan 1882, cited in Kohn 1955: 135-40) intellectual foundations that we can discern is during this period, at the turn of the twentieth century, t ao oad speaing there were fat major steams of infuence: Maris, vd Drychology, Weberian and Durkheimian, I shall deal briefly with the contri ion of each to the formulation of a coherent modernist approach to the ‘understanding of nations and nationalism. tn these early commentaries on the principle of nationality, writen with specie Poli developments in mind, there is no atempt vo fashion a general theory + applicable co all eases, oF to resolve the antinomies of each iene in # ohare, and systematic manner. This was lef to the next generation, By the late nine teenth century, when the concept of ‘nation’ was often used interchangeal | ita of ‘tac’, more comprehensive and reductionist Schemes emerged’ The Tacit schema of biological struggle for mastery of organic racial nations wes Cony one, albeit the most striking and influential. Even the Marxists were noe immune, despite their official instrumentalist atitade to nationalism. In judging nationalisms by their evoluonary uses, Marx and Engels had aso been swayea by theit German Romantic and Hegelian inheritance, with its stress on the importance of Tanguage and politcal history for creaing nation-states snd Wis ‘annus against smal, Ristoryes, as well as Backward, uations. Their follomes took ove this contempt for the ‘unhistorical nation’, thereby allowing to the concept of the nation a certain historical and sociological independence, and Burrng the insistence on the dependance of nationality on the growth of capi talsm and its bourgeois ruling clases? Je can se this ambivalence on all the major issues ~ ethical, anthropological nd historical —in the work of the Austro-Marxiss like Otto Bauer. On the one hand, Bauer aces the long evolution of European nationalities fom their citinic foundations and class formations into ‘communities of character on the other hand, he and his associates believed it was possible to influence the course of national (and international) evolution by active political intervention which would separate the principle of cultural nationality from territorial location and Political rights. In this conception, the principle of nationality is both an abeoluee and a proximate value, hoth an evolved echno-cultural community and a claee constructed social category: By organising nas within a wider multinational. ate, it would be possible both 16 preserve thelr unique historical characier and also ensure that they contributed to wider societal integration and th ‘of social freedom and abundance." 1 ci mga ten a he ott a ne a ise wan wr cred more than peripherally with the analy of ratons or nation stn cs of de Marsan, ht might sed te cay ped whch he fang ater ot hg nthe we inated a power id eo Bars Ti Ik sons mt aes be sted tecnico on nt of both the founders and thei fellowes, in eating against Geran Tieiam, to rekgate emonmental and cura illiences fo the back. ground and concentrate on the. cxpliaton of te tle of command | class factors in the evolution of humanity. This in turn meant that, in rela- \ tion to the explanatory role attributed to class conflict and to the conracins in the mode of predation inthe seme aage of Har ical development, ethnic and national principles and phenomena had to be ded a second n derivative gle, becoming at most catalysts oF accorded a secondary or even derivative rae b at most cals oF contributory (or complicating) rather than major causal factor a cuca cnn, Gen he i open fan evolution to selftransendence through stages of politcal revolution, ani given the fundamental role of class conflict in generating revolution, there “was no place for any other factor, especially one that might impede or divert “Tom the ‘movement of history’, except insofar as it might contribute to ‘was in these circumstances hhastening that movement in specific instances. It ‘that Marxiss identified particular national cla nana amet in ut sm | 1s thy. judging their “progressive’ or ‘Tegressive’ character in relation to a fe ‘mlulboary simaan var om this perspective dat Marx and Engels passed favourable judgments on Polish and Irish nationalism, as they were ne realisati