-
Conclusion
- University of Nevada Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
The study of nationalism is permeated by a handful of research questions. At the top of the list is the issue of its modernity: to what extent can the roots of nationalism be located in ancient, or at least premodern, times? This question, which used to be at the center of the debate between “primordialists” and “modernists,” is now featured in discussions over the ethno-symbolist approach promoted by Anthony Smith.1 These types of theoretical debates have framed the investigation of the relationship between nationalism and a variety of sociocultural and economic variables: language, religion, ethnicity, economic development, and also the state.2 Another erstwhile concern has been to distinguish between different types of nationalism, an effort most often conducted through the concepts of ethnic and civic nationalism. Here, the exercise is more heuristic than theoretical since the idea is to better understand the Janus-faced nature of nationalism.3 This last image underscores the commonly held view that while nationalism may sometimes represent a force for modernity,4 progress, and social solidarity, it can also generate exclusion, repression, and violence. In this context, it is hardly surprising that scholarship on nationalism has also featured explicit normative considerations. Political theorists, for example, have evaluated the legitimacy of nationalist claims, from autonomy to secession.5 All these research avenues are perfectly legitimate and contribute to the scholarly understanding of nationalism and its manifestation in contemporary politics. What is noticeable, however, is that nationalism has rarely been studied using general theories of comparative politics. This book was a modest attempt at placing nationalism within the framework of historical institutionalism. Such efforts should not involve dismissing the literature specific to nationalism, but rather complementing it by bringing in a variety of insights from the more general scholarship of comparative politics. This scholarship can come from research fields closely connected to nationalism (for example, on citizenship and political community)6 or from research on basic objects of inquiry in political science (state, civil society) that produce theories pertinent for understanding nationalism. My own inclination would be to look at the literature on the state. If one accepts that the construction of the state played an important role in the development of nations (a notion no longer accepted solely by modernists), it is likely that research on the state can provide us with insight on nationalism. For example, Hendrik Conclusion 177 Spruyt’s work explaining the mechanism of the rise of the western European state at the expense of rival forms of political organizations provides a perspective on the contingencies of nation-building.7 James C. Scott links the state with “high modernist projects” of standardization and “normalization” that speak (in a Gellner -type way) to the construction of nations.8 The construction of the modern state has been linked to questions relating to resource extraction and conscription that are also crucial for understanding the nation.9 Timothy Mitchell’s work on the colonial state provides insight into nationalism in the developing world.10 The literature on state-society relations may also prove fertile for thinking about nationalism. For example, distinctions between strong and weak states and civil societies, developed by, among others, Joel Migdal,11 suggest the possibility of correlations between substate nationalism and particular combinations of state and society types. Also, Peter Evans’s notion of the embedded autonomy of the state offers a conceptual framework particularly pertinent for understanding national cohesion.12 Indeed, states, or regional institutions, are often linked to civil society structures and organizations in a way that creates mutual constraints and limits deviations from nationalist politics. Another avenue for opening up research on nationalism is to draw from the work of international relations specialists who, especially over the last fifteen years or so, have studied cases of ethnic civil wars and genocide.13 Although the terminology used by specialists in international relations and comparative politics is different (typically ethnic conflict and nationalism, respectively), these two groups of scholars are really examining the same phenomenon: the mobilization of groups on the basis of identity. It is surprising, considering this common focus, that there exists two fairly distinct literatures not often brought together. For comparative politics scholars of nationalism, the international relations literature on ethnic conflict represents, so to speak, a world to discover. Of course, some aspects of this literature are less useful for studying nationalist movements in stable democracies. The focus on violence, for example, has led to the application of security dilemma perspectives,14 which only make...