- 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 part 2 of the article. It focuses on the definition of the nation and discusses various ideas about as to when the first nations emerged. This part starts with a comparison of Modernism, Ethno-Symbolism and Primordialism.
A brief introduction to the three dominant academic approaches is indispensable before turning to nations and nationalism. Özkirimli (2000) describes these very concisely:
The general view among modernists is that nations and nationalism emerged in Europe for the first time between the sixteenth and eighteenth century. A key driver of this development was the development of an industrial society that resulted in an unequal distribution of wealth. Moreover, the advent of the modern state brought legislation, regulations and citizenship. In addition, the gradual expansion of common languages and education, raising literacy levels, substantially facilitated the emergence of a mass culture and a common national consciousness[13].
Ethno-symbolists emphasise the importance of the exchange of ideas between elites and the people. Furthermore, their research into nations and nationalism focuses on centuries of social and cultural trends. As a result, ethno-symbolists attach much value to the cultural identities of human groups from the past. Particularly ‘ethnies’, human groups with a common ethnic background, play a prominent role. In this respect, the analysis of why people attach to their nation or ethnic group is important to ethno-symbolists[14].
According to Storey (2001), primordialists claim that nations have historical roots that go back centuries, strictly taken to the beginning of human civilisation. Hearn (2006) notes that primordialist approaches point to the organic development of ethnic groups into nations. Representations of national identities focus on the role of shared ancestry, territorial roots and common language.
It is important to note that the exact meanings of the three approaches are disputed. For example, some scholars consider Anthony Smith a perennialist, although he considers himself an adherent of ethno-symbolism[15]. Armstrong (2004) defines ‘perennialism’ as the idea that a small number of contemporary nations has revived after an earlier existence in the distant past or during the Middle Ages.
The concept of ‘nation’ is the focus of a fierce debate among academics. Smith (2001) manages to put the complexity surrounding the ´nation´ into perspective:
Smith defines a nation as:
In the introduction of his widely acclaimed book, Hobsbawm (1992) is very critical towards both objective and subjective definitions of a nation as he deems them both inadequate and deceptive. He argues that it is impossible "to distinguish a nation from other entities a priori"[18] and that "the real 'nation' can only be recognized a posteriori."[19] Accordingly, he deliberately does not provide a definition of nation.
Anderson (2006), a modernist, defines a nation as "imagined political community". He contends that a member of a nation will never know all but a limited number of other members of his or her nation. In fact, every community has an imagined nature, apart from tiny villages. The spread of the printing press provided a basis for the creation of ‘imagined communities’, as companies started printing publications in vernacular language.[20]
Connor (1994), a primordialist, defines a nation as ‘a group of people who believe they are ancestrally related.’[21] Nonetheless, he notes that disagreement persists on whether some groups form a separate nation or belong to a larger nation (e.g. the Macedonians). Connor further remarks that the categorisation of human groups as nations is complicated by ethnic factors. Are the Dutch a separate nation or part of the larger Germanic nation? And could the label ‘nation’ be applied to English people, which have Celtic, Angle, Saxon and Jute ancestors?
Storey (2001) points to another weakness of nations, the supposed reasons for their occurrence:
Brubaker (1996) advises against defining the ‘nation’ and instead argues that:
Brubaker further stresses that nations are products of a "contingent event"[24] and should not be treated as large, perennial groups.
This section confirms the claim of Mayall (1999) that a universally applicable definition of ‘nation’ does not exist. Accordingly, the United Nations have not been able to agree on a common definition.
As the previous sections showed, nations are widely believed to emerge for the first time either many centuries ago or during the industrial revolution in the eighteenth and nineteenth century. The earliest specific example that I have come across was England. According to Adrian Hastings, an English writer considered this area a nation in the eighth century[25].
After studying some major publications of the vast literature on nations, I fully endorse Charles Tilly’s claim that the ‘nation’ is one of the most confusing concepts within political sciences[26]. In fact, I have become more convinced that the ‘nation’ is nothing but a social construct. Critical in light of this paper is the observation that key scholars have serious trouble or even advise against defining ‘nation’. Given the lack of a convincing definition of nation, I am unable to assert when the first nation manifested itself.
Part 1 of the article discusses definitions of a state and a related historical overview, while part 3 does the same for nationalism. The last part also contains the conclusion, bibliography and endnotes.
