- RSS feed 
- Twitter 
After clicking with left mouse button on book cover, an Amazon page (or publisher's) with book info appears in a new browser window.
Leonhardt van Efferink is a PhD student at Royal Holloway, University of London. For more information about his PhD, please check:
Leonhardt van Efferink: Geopolitical scripts and the (de)legitimisation of ISAF
He holds Master’s degrees in Geopolitics, Territory and Security (King’s College London) and Financial Economics (Erasmus University Rotterdam).
This article attempts to answer the question 'Which came first: nations, nationalism or states?' Each concept is explored by elaborating on several definitions, in line with the view of Armstrong (2004) that "any social science approach to a historical problem demands careful development of definitions."[1]
I further address the actual manifestation of the state, nationalism and nation. In addition, the three dominant academic approaches to nations and nationalism are discussed: modernism, ethno-symbolism and primordialism. In the conclusion, I explain why putting the emergence of the state, nation and nationalism in a chronological order is such a difficult endeavour.
This is the last part of the article. It examines definitions of nationalism and seeks to find out when nationalism first emerged in the past. Moreover, you find the conclusion, bibliography and endnotes of this article on the bottom of this page. The other two parts are about the state and the nation:
Leonhardt van Efferink: Nation, nationalism and state 2 - Modernism, Ethno-Symbolism, Primordialism
As with the nation, nationalism has been subject to an intense debate among academics on its definition and possible interpretations. Smith (2001) considers five usages essential in the modern academic debate:
In line with Smith’s view, Hearn (2006) states that nationalism can take five forms: "feeling", "identity", "ideology;", "social movement" and "historical process"[28]. He acknowledges that nationalism can take all these forms at once, but stresses that most approaches focus on some of these forms.
The definition of Connor (1994) for example revolves around the first two forms: "identification and loyalty to one’s nation"[29]
According to Gellner (2001), who was instrumental in the development of modernism, nationalism is first and foremost a doctrine that promotes the idea that the boundaries of the state should coincide with those of the nation[30]. He further argues that developments opposed to or in line with this doctrine evoke nationalist feelings. Gellner considers these feelings the key rationale behind nationalist movements.
Modernists and primordialists have different ideas about nationalism. The modernist version, ‘civic nationalism’, is "voluntaristic, rational and activist"[31]. ‘Ethnic nationalism’, on the other hand, means that people have no choice but belonging to the nation, as they share the same culture and past. Most cases of nationalism are a mixture of both versions[32].
Smith (2001) argues that the use of the term ‘nationalism’ with its current meanings became commonplace in the twentieth century. The concept was used for the first time in a socio-political context in France and Germany by the end of the eighteenth century. Essential for this paper is nevertheless that Smith asserts that nationalism (as ideology) manifested itself for the first time in the eighteenth century.
The following modernist views substantiate the uncertainty surrounding the moment when nationalism occurred for the first time. Breuilly (2008) claims that the general consensus is that nationalism became important around 1750. The war between Britain and France and the related emergence of a perception of an enemy fuelled the popularity of nationalism in both countries. However, Brubaker (1996) argues that nationalism saw the light by the end of the eighteenth century, while Kedouri (1985) claims that nationalism was created at the start of the nineteenth century.
These different viewpoints confirm findings of Connor (1991) on the widespread disagreement among historians about the time when nationalism took root in Europe. Connor mentions in this respect the viewpoints of Johan Huizinga, who claims that nationalism emerged in England and France by the 14th century, and Marc Bloch, who thinks that national consciousness was already present in England, France and Germany around 1100.
In this regard, it is important to recall Connor’s emphasis on identity and loyalty, explaining why he uses nationalism as synonym for national consciousness. He stresses that the promotion of national sentiments can only considered nationalism if the lion’s share of the population concerned develops a national consciousness.
This brief overview reveals the impossibility of -based on a literature review- claiming with a certain degree of certainty when nationalism emerged for the first-time. The broad variety in academic views not only stems from different interpretations of history, but also from the various meanings of nationalism.
This brief literature study has failed to find a crystal clear answer to its central question. A conclusive timeline for the first emergences of states, nations and nationalism turns out to be too ambitious.
Greek city-states in the eighth century BC and England by the end of the sixteenth century already had some of the features of the modern state. However, taking formal sovereignty as decisive factor, statehood came to fruition in the seventeenth century. The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 was instrumental in this regard, giving the states of Sweden and France the right to independently set policies.
Adherents of the three dominant schools of thought regarding nationalism claim that nations manifested themselves for the first time either many centuries ago or during the industrial revolution between the eighteenth and nineteenth century. However, lack of a convincing definition and my belief that the ‘nation’ is nothing but a social construct makes me conclude that I am unable to tell when the first nation emerged.
Different interpretations of history and the variety in definitions of nationalism leave me with no other choice than to refrain from claiming when nationalism emerged for the first-time.
Realising how the enormous amount of angles regarding nations and nationalism complicates the dating of both concepts, I now understand what Armstrong (2004) means when he argues that:
[1] Jackson (2004), p. 9.
[2] Max Weber (1864-1920) conducted both historical and economic research. He has been instrumental in the foundation of sociology (Elden, 2009).
[3] Gellner (2006), p. 3.
[4] Elden (2009), p. 197.
[5] Biersteker and Weber (1996)
[6] Emmerich de Vattel was among the first who elaborated on the principle that states should not engage in internal matters of other states.
[7] Elden (2009)
[8] Jackson (1990)
[9] Anderson (2006), p. 19.
[10] O’Leary (2001). p. 6.
[11] The Treaties both involved the Holy Roman Empire. The Osnabrück Treaty was concluded with Sweden, the Münster Treaty with France.
[12] Özkirimli (2000), p. 64.
[13] This paragraph is entirely based on Hearn (2006).
[14] This paragraph is entirely based on Smith (2001).
[15] Özkirimli (2001)
[16] Smith (2001), p. 11.
[17] Ibid, p. 13.
[18] Hobsbawm (1992), p. 5, emphasis in original text.
[19] Ibid, p. 9, emphasis in original text.
[20] Mayall (1999)
[21] Connor (1994), p. xi.
[22] Storey (2001), p. 77
[23] Brubaker (1996), p. 16.
[24] Ibid, p. 21.
[25] Breuilly (2001), p. 33
[26] Smith (2001), p. 10
[27] Ibid (2001), pp. 5-6.
[28] Hearn (2006), p. 6.
[29] Connor (1994), p. xi.
[30] The resulting entity is called a nation-state (Connor, 2004)
[31] Smith (2006), p. 170.
[32] Smith (2006)
[33] Armstrong (2004), p. 9
