ABSTRACT.

This paper deals with the view that culture and ethnicity did not play an important role in the

emergence of nationalism. Nation is the product of a modern concept.

INTRODUCTION.

“Nationalism is the yearning for, and acceptance of, the norm of the nation which can be defined

as a large, co-cultural, unmediated, anonymous society .Men become nationalists, out of genuine,

objective practical necessity”1 Hans Kohn, on the other hand, regarded the nation “as a free

association of rational human beings entered into voluntarily into an individual basis” .Kohn

termed this as a voluntarist type of nation. An organic type viewed the nation as “an organization

of fixed and inedible character which was stamped on its members at birth and free from which

they never could free themselves”2

PRIMORDIALIST VIEW OF NATIONALISM.

Primodialism can be defined as an umbrella term used to describe the belief that nationality is

embedded in the thought processes of human beings. Edward Shils had first used this term to

drfine relationships within the family.3 Ethnic groups and nations are a product of extended kin

groups. Pierre Van den Berghe argues that nations can be seen as an outcome of kin-selection.

1
Anthony D.Smith.. Nationalism and Modernism (New York:Routledge,1998),p.28.
2
Smith, Nationalism and Modernism. p.146.
3
Umut Ozkirmlp. Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction( New York:Palgrave Macmillan, 2010),p.49.
For Berghe, human sociality depends on selection, reciprocity and selection. However, he points

out that ethnicity, caste and race are defined by common descent and hence are based on kin

selection exclusively. The evolution of this can be seen from small tribes. Edward Shils, on the

other hand argued that primodial ties of kinship and religion played an important part within

modern socities which could be witnessed by public ceremonies. Glifford Geertz points out that

the emergence of the populations Asia and Africa were bound together by primodial ties such as

language, custom, race and religion. These explained the importance of ethnicity. However, Shils

and Geertz both see primordialism as a sentiment although to Geertz biological kinship units are

rather small and hence to him they are not of political significance. According to Joshua

Fishman, “Ethnicity has always been experienced as a kinship phenomenon, a continuity within

the self and within those who share an intergenerational link to common ancestors. Ethnicity is

partly experienced as being ‘bone of their bone, flesh of their flesh and blood of their blood’. The

human body itself is viewed as an expression of ethnicity and ethnicity is commonly felt to be in

the blood, bones and flesh”4 Fishman traces the roots of ethnicity in history and the human

psyche and sees its continuity from generation to generation. Walker Connon argues that a nation

is formed when the people feel that they are ancestrally related and hence has to right to

command a person’s loyalty because of the kinship ties which is why it can be seen as a fully

extended family. Connon brings up examples of Ho Chi Minh and Hitler who have appealed to

blood and kinship to mobilize nationalism, although he clearly differentiates between patriotism

and nationalism. To him patriotism is the love for one’s country and its institutions where as

nationalism is the love for one’s nation, an emotional feeling and the manifestation of the ethnic

group. Connor terms this phenomena as ‘ ethno-nationalism’ and brings out the fact that popular

sovereignty is intimately connected to ethnicity. However, he argues that ethnic groups when

4
Smith, Nationalism and Modernism,pp.145-160.
confronted with a foreign element may feel a low level of solidarity.5Geertz has distinguished

between ethos and world view as two important components in a culture. Ethos is to be seen as

the moral aspect where as world view can be defined as the cognitive aspect, or in other words, it

is the concept of self and the society.6

Hence, much importance is attached to culture and ethnicity by the primordialists.

MODERNIST VIEW OF NATIONALISM.

Nations have been seen as essentially political communities, which were sovereign and consisted

of legally equal citizens. Gender, religion, family ,region and class were subordinated to the

allegiance owed by its citizens to his or her nation-state and hence formed the base of democratic

civic participation. According to Ernest Gellner, nationalism had recognized the crucial

importance of education in the growth of an individual meant to function in an industrial society.

Adding to that, religion is secondary and hence is unimportant in a legitimate political order.

However, Gellner points out that these modernizing forces which generated nationalism had

been operating in Europe since Reformation, although he agrees that nationalism is an important

component in an industrial society and is embedded in its mode of production.7 There have been

three main stages in history, as stated by Gellner which are pre-agranian ,agranian and the

industrial. In the hunter-gatherer stage, the concept of a state had not existed. Gellner had clearly

defined a nation as a society with a high culture: cultivated, standardized , education-based

,literate culture. To Benedict Anderson, on the other hand, a nation is an imagined community

5
Smith, Nationalism and Modernism,pp161-164
6
Clifford Geertz. The Interpretation of Cultures. (New York:Basic Books, 1973.)p.126
7
Ernest Gellner. The State of the Nation (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998),pp.40-45
which is opposed to the dynastic realm and the religious community. Hence, Anderson believes

that a nation exists when its community thinks its cohesive.8

Tom Nairn, a follower of Marxism has also contributed to this interpretation of nationalism.

Nairn believes that nationalism is a product of an ideological phenomena and hence, nationalism

can be seen as the result of the class consequences of the ‘uneven diffusion of capitalism’. He

brings out the function of the intellegensia in mobilsing the masses and helping in the

development towards nationalism. Modern leaders with their skills of oratory and propaganda

can lead a movement. The proponents of this theory are Tom Nairn, Benedict Anderson,

Anthony D.Smith, Ernest Gellner, Elie Kedourie, J.H Kautsky and Peter Worsley.

8
David W.Cavers, ‘Nationalism, Ethnicity and the Cultural Politics of Identity’, Totem: The University of Western Ontario Journal of
Anthroplogy Vol 1, Issue 1(1994):p.23