Containing Nationalism (review)

Containing Nationalism. By Michael Hechter, Oxford University Press, 2000. 256 pp. Cloth, $29.95.

This book comes well recommended on the dust jacket by two of the leading commentators in the field, John Hall and Charles Tilly. It purports to provide a theory of nationalism based on the argument that it most commonly arises from the imposition of direct rule in culturally heterogeneous societies. If nationalism is designed to make the boundaries of state and nation congruent, then where there is disjuncture, there is nationalism. Nations arise because of people's need to belong, and solidarity arises out of the investment of members in the collectivity.

The thrust of the book lies in the title: containing nationalism. Thus, it has a profoundly conservative message. Where states afford a degree of self-government asserted, then not. That the author does not think much of nationalism is summed up on the dust jacket: "Nationalism has become the most prevalent source of political conflict and violence in the world." One is tempted to say that the statement makes an ideal topic for a student essay, given that it is such a contentious statement. Indeed, according to the preface, the book owes its life to a series of lectures on nationalism at Oxford. The author has the good grace to admit that students voted with their feet as numbers in the class dwindled rapidly, leaving a couple of supportive colleagues.

The book's serious weakness is that it essentializes nationalism and nations. Nations appear to spring somewhat fully formed at the margins of political life. Hechter's account of their origins rests mainly in social identity theory, but the weakness of such is that it describes, and does not explain why people form "nations" rather than other political groupings. While he claims that "ethnicity" is the vital concept, theorists like Fredrik Barth are relegated to footnotes. And what footnotes! There are 45 pages of them (and only 160 of other text), consisting mainly of asides and comments. One wishes that the meat of the notes had ended up in the text and that the editors had been tougher with the author. There are many instances where the reader is left wondering what the author's evidence is for statements or else why so much of it is old or odd. Take these for example: The "Old English" in Ireland . . . were among the strongest supporters of Irish nationalism"; that support for nationalist policies in Quebec has reduced the province's overall economic well-being; Britain has lagged behind France in delegating administrative responsibility -- based on references dated 1944 and 1957. After a while, the reader tires of unsubstantiated assertions, which may make for challenging undergraduate lectures, but not much of a book.

The basic flaw seems to lie in a fairly unequivocal hostility to nationalism, which represents, in the author's words, the "recrudescence of 'the Old Adam.' " Ernest Gellner's strictures about resisting the "dark gods theory of nationalism" seem to have fallen on deaf ears. Perhaps those who inhabit large and powerful countries are simply not very good at making sense of what nationalism is all about. There is a figure that sets out types of nationalism: state-building nationalism, peripheral nationalism, irredentist nationalism, unification nationalism, and patriotism. The last, however, "is no form of nationalism at all." One is tempted to rehearse the old saw: "you are a nationalist, but I am a patriot." Surely, no student of nationalism these days can take seriously such a claim? However, one is led to believe, although the author does not say it explicitly, that the U.S. is the home of patriotism, but nationalism is quite definitely for others less enlightened. The best the author can say is that "nationalist movements [as Norway and Ireland] occasionally can make enough nuisance of themselves to win outright secession." Precisely why and how people construct identities in national terms, and how -- indeed, if -- they mobilize these for political ends is never properly explained. To this reviewer, at least, this is...