To what extent is nationalism a distinctively modern phenomenon?

Nationalism is a complex and abstract phenomenon that has been subjected to debate by scholars for many decades. The schools of thought that have emerged link nationalism to identity, ideology or even as a movement. The topic has been explored through different disciplines, such as sociology, history, and political science. One reason for this contested concept is in the challenge faced in defining a nation. As nationalism is intrinsically linked to the concept of nation, then whichever is the prevailing view, will be extended from nation to nationalism. To this point, I will critically assess how nationalism is indeed a modern phenomenon. To do this, I will explore key concepts relating to nationalism that support this view and review how they are applied.

So how can nationalism be best defined? If we are to look at Anderson’s (1983) definition of the nation as an imagined political community that is both limited and sovereign, we can start to build out how these concepts can be applied to nationalism. It is imagined as those within it could not know all the other members, limited as it is finite in terms of the extent of its boundaries and sovereign as it occurred in a time that divine dynasties were beginning to become moribund during the Enlightenment. How this can then be used to build a working definition of nationalism is difficult as the disciplines above can use the term in different contexts, as can the person doing the defining. It is therefore often defined specifically for the context that it is being used for. Furthermore, the use of the term ‘nation’ before the eighteenth century does not refer to the idea of the nation that we see post this period. In his seminal work The Wealth of Nations, for example, Smith (1776) refers to nations as societies or territorial states, not as limited and sovereign entities.

To further highlight our current understanding of nationalism and the nation state, and how the notion of nation has changed, as above, it is important to explore this concept further. Hobsbawn (1992) does this through analysis of the use of the term in premodern times and its application, from dictionary searches, as a way of highlighting that nation and nationalism in their modern form differ from premodern times. How nation is referred to in a Spanish dictionary in 1726 shows the term referring to the place where one is born or a district that is identified as a state. The New English Dictionary of 1908 notes that the old use of the term refers to mainly ethnic units, this differs from the more general political unity that it represents in modern times. This is important in that we know language and word meaning can shift over time, but the meaning has changed in more modern times to reflect our understanding of the effects that modernisation, industrialisation and political shifts have impacted nation states. This modern meaning of the word, and its understanding, offer further evidence of how the nation is understood in a political sense. The term nation could not have been applied in the same way to premodern Egyptian and Chinese empires.

Although there is much emphasis on scholars over the last forty years, there are those with the modernist view that predate this. For example, Arendt (1953) lays out quite clearly how nationalism arose from the creation of the nation states and the exclusion of certain peoples through the use of nationalistic rhetoric and actions. She posits that nations became formed through the people’s desire for self-determination and the superiority of an individual’s nation over others. Her analysis though led her to believe that nationalism could impede human rights, something that we have seen throughout the twentieth century during wars and totalitarian leaders. But it is also the nation that supports its people through infrastructure spending, economic growth, and security that we have seen in modern times that distinguishes it from the monarchical authorities that predate modern times. This can be traced back to the French Revolution and continue through to the end of the Cold War. It could be asserted that our transition from feudal groups has allowed nationalism to one work in a direction that has benefited human rights as a whole.

But does nationalism only have to be a modern phenomenon? Anthony Smith (1988) puts forward a clear and subtler tone to his view about this. He agrees that nationalism did come about in the modern era and that nation states are, as such, modern phenomenon. However, he acknowledges that historical roots stretching back deep in time can have an effect on nationalism and its role in the nation states identity and gives an example of how the ancient Israelites had a national identity but remained stateless. It is this subtle but important difference that now lets us view some of the worlds indigenous populations as First-Nations people. It could be argued that this also fits in with Anderson’s imagined definition as the language, culture and storytelling rituals are seen as a form of communication that predates the use of written words and the printing press.

As I have shown, nationalism is a modern phenomenon that came about through revolution, industrialization, and the emancipation of the people. Language and how it has changed in respect to the use of nation has also been demonstrated over the last couple of centuries as the concept has changed. Defining is a problem in such contested concepts and often fall on the definer to weave a narrative in favor of their own position. The ongoing creation of new nation states through the last century has also demonstrated that the speed of change means many new states are using a tried model to nationalism.