"Nation" and "Nationalism": The Misuse of Key Concepts in Political Science

Author(s): Lowell W. Barrington

Source: PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 30, No. 4 (Dec., 1997), pp. 712-716
Published by: American Political Science Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/420397 .
Accessed: 15/06/2014 05:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
PS: Political Science and Politics.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 05:49:10 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
"Nation" and "Nationalism":The Misuse of Key Concepts in
PoliticalScience*
Lowell W. Barrington,
MarquetteUniversity
O ne of the essentialatartingpoints
of anybranchof science is a consis-
tent,broadlyunderstoodterminol-
ogy.Generallyaccepted definitions
of keytermswithina disciplineare
importantin orderto judge claims
by scholarsabout a giventopic. For-
tunately,amongthosewho workon
the topic of nationalism,thereis a
growingconvergenceof definitions
of "nation"and "nationalism."Un-
fortunately, both termsare oftenstill
misused,used loosely,or used incon-
sistently,especiallyamongthose in
politicalscience who discussthese
termsin passing.Authorsof intro-
ductorytextbooks,who are carefulin
theirusage of otherterms,oftenuse
these twowordsin varying-and
even contradictory-ways in different
partsof the same book. Because of
theirimportanceforthe discipline,
however,politicalscientistsshould
be verymindfulof theiruse of the
terms"nation"and "nationalism."']
In thisarticle,definitionsfor"na-
tion" and "nationalism"are pro-
posed, witheach definition followed
by sectionson commonwaysthe
termsare misemployedin political
science.I provideexamplesof both
misusesand "loose uses." While the
line betweenmisuseand loose use is
somewhatfuzzy(a pointreinforced
below in the discussionof nationsvs.
ethnicgroups),I considera misuse
to be one in whichthe termis used
in a way thatis completelyoutside
how the termis used by nationalism
scholars.A loose use is one in which
the authorhas capturedonlypartof
the conceptor has stretchedthe
meaningof the termto an extreme
degree. Of the two,whatI label mis-
uses in thisarticleare the more
problematic,especiallyforpolitical
science studentsstruggling to learn
definitions of importantconcepts.
The definitions I propose are no
more authoritative than anyothers
in the nationalismliterature, but
theyare consciouslybased on gener-
allyaccepted ideas in the literature
712
This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 05:49:10 AM
and designedto fitwithcircum-
stancesthatmostpeople who study
the topicwould label nationalism.2
The examplesof misusesand loose
uses in thisarticleare, of course,
dependenton the definitions. If one
does not accept the definitions,the
criticismof misusesis unlikelyto be
persuasive.That said, the definitions
in thisarticleshould providea start-
ing pointforbridgingdisciplinary
and subfielddividesand help schol-
ars begin to addressthe general
problemof the varietyof uses of
these termsin politicalscience.
The Conceptof Nation
Nation: A Definition
Whetherone believesthatnation-
alismscreate the idea of nationsor
thatnationsdevelop the ideas re-
lated to nationalism,3 one cannot
discussnationalismwithoutconsider- categories.As Nodia puts it,"a na-
ingwhatone means by a nation.
Yet, even the nationalismliterature
containsdifferent approachesto de-
the term. One with
fining problem
definitions of "nation"in thislitera-
tureis the combinationof definitions anotherreviewarticle,forexample,
and causal arguments.Smith'sdefi-
nitionof nationas a "named human
populationsharing an historicterri- als, believingthemselvesto be united
tory,commonmyths,and historical
memories, a mass publicculture, a
commoneconomyand commonle-
gal rights and duties for all mem-
bers" (Smith1991, 14), forexample,
is criticizedin a reviewarticleby
Tamir (1995, 424) formixingto-
gether"reasons forthe emergence
of a nation(a shared historicterri-
tory,a commoneconomy,and a
commonlegal system)withthe re-
sults(sharingmythsand historical
memories)."4But, Smith'semphasis
on culturalfeaturesis useful,and
something that is common to most
definitions.5 While criticalof Smith,
Tamir puts forthan even more prob- guishbetweennationsand other
lematicdefinition. For Tamir,a na-
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
tion is a "community whose mem-
bers share feelingsof fraternity,
substantialdistinctiveness, and exclu-
sivity,as well as beliefsin a common
ancestryand continuousgenealogy"
(1995, 425). While a good definition
of an ethnicgroup,the lack of refer-
ence to the idea of territorial self-
determination and the difficulty in
fitting nations based on political
ratherthanethnicidentityinto this
conceptionof nationmake thisdefi-
nitionunusable.6While an improve-
mentover vague definitions that
cannotdistinguish betweennations
and classes, it is unclearhow a na-
tion differs froman ethnicgroup
using thisdefinition.
The importanceof the beliefin
territorial self-determination forthe
groupis a centralpart of most defi-
nitionsof "nation" in the national-
ism literatureand providesan im-
portant criterionfordifferentiating
between nationsand othersocial
tion is a community of people orga-
nized around the idea of self-determi-
nation" (1994, 11, italicsin original).
Some take thisidea of self-determi-
nationto mean controlof a state.In
Haas proposes thatthe nationis "a
sociallymobilizedbody of individu-
by some set of characteristics that
differentiate them (in their own
minds)fromoutsiders,striving to
create or maintain their own state"
(1986, 726). While othersmightnot
agree thatthe nationmustpursue its
own state,the idea of territory is
crucialto understanding national
identity.
Keeping in mindthese ideas, what
are some of the commonthreadsof
the definitions of "nation" in the
nationalismliterature?Firstand
foremost,a nationis a collectiveof
people. This is a necessarydetail,
but one thatdoes not help us distin-
groupsin society.What makes na-
PS: PoliticalScience& Politics

tionsunique is thattheyare collec-
tivesunitedbysharedculturalfeatures
(myths, values,etc.) and thebeliefin
therightto territorialself-determina-
tion.Thus, nationsare groupsof
people linkedby unifying traitsand
the desire to controla territory that
is thoughtof as the group'snational
homeland.7The beliefin the rightto
controlis centralto distin-
territorial
guishingnationsfromothercollec-
tives.Many groupshold common
myths, values,and symbols(e.g., reli-
gious groups,ethnicgroups,or even
professionalassociations).But na-
tionsare notjust unifiedby culture;
theyare unifiedby a sense of pur-
pose: controllingthe territory that
the membersof the groupbelieve to
be theirs.
Nation: Misuses
The mostimportantand consis-
tentmisuseof "nation"in political
science is to equate it with"state" or
"country."This misuseappears in a
large numberof politicalscience
worksincludingmanytextbooks.
Worksin the Americanpoliticssub-
fieldare mostsusceptibleto this
misuse,thoughbooks and articlesin
comparativepoliticsand interna-
tionalrelationsare certainlynot im-
mune. Internationalrelationsschol-
ars seem to do better,possibly
because of the importancethey
place on emphasizingthe natureof
statesin international politics,but
the use of "nation"to mean "state"
or the inconsistent use of "nation"
(sometimesmeaninga "people,"
sometimesmeaninga "state") re-
mainsan especiallyseriousproblem
forscholarsin comparativepolitics.
Inconsistentusage is found,forex-
ample,in Almondand Powell's pop-
ular introductory textbookforthe
studyof comparativepolitics.At the
beginningof the book, the authors
write,"Justabout the entiresurface
of the worldtodayis coveredby in-
dependentcountries.We call them
statesor nationsor nation-states."
They thencontinue,"When we
speak of a 'nation,'we referto the
of a people based
self-identification
on the languagetheyspeak and the
values, allegiances,and historical
memoriestheyshare" (1996, 2, ital-
ics in original).Not onlydo these
December
1997
This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 05:49:10 AM
The MisueofKeyConceptsin PoliticalScience
"Nation"and "Nationalism":
statements(on the same page) con-
tradictthemselves,but in the pages
thatfollowthe authorsgo back to
using"nation"and "state" inter-
changeably,as tables are presented
on the per capita GNP and portion
of the populationin agricultureof
"selected nations"such as Japan,
Russia, Nigeria,and India. Even in
the indexof the book, the entryfor
"Country"reads,"See Nation(s).'"8
As discussedabove, "nation"is a
termthatrefersto a collectiveof
people. This is one pointin which
definitions of nationin the national-
ism literaturehave been unanimous,
makingit all the more ironicthat
nationis used verydifferently by so
manyin politicalscience.A state,on
the otherhand,is the principalpolit-
ical unitin the international political
systemcorrespondingto a territory,
a relativelypermanentpopulation,
and a set of rulinginstitutions. A
country is the territorial
component
of the state.Nigeriais state (and a
country);it is not a nation.
That nationis used interchange-
ablywith"country"in everyday Eng-
lish is partof the problem.Because
Americansare generallythoughtof
as a "civicnation"(one is an Ameri-
can by means of United States citi-
zenship),it is easy to associate "na-
tion"withthe politicalunititself.
Nevertheless,its use in commonlan-
guage is not a justificationforits
misuseby politicalscientists.Noth-
ing is lost by using"state" or "coun-
try"if thatis what is meant.Much is
lost if "nation"is used instead.
Nation: Loose Uses
The mostbasic loose use of "na-
tion" is the interchangingof the
termand "ethnicgroup"or "ethnic-
ity."I considerthisa loose use be-
cause nationscan evolvefromethnic
groups,but it would not be a stretch
to call it a misuse.A nationis more
than an ethnicgroup,differing from
such a groupbecause of a nation's
beliefin its rightto territorial
con-
trol,or what Richmond(1987) calls
referent."Also, and
its "territorial
more important, nationsneed not
even be based on a certainethnic
identity.Thus, the words"shared
culturalfeatures"in the definitionof
nationabove should not be read as
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
"shared ethnicidentity."What are
called "civic"or "political"nations
in the nationalismliteraturehave
sharedculturalfeaturesbut are gen-
erallymultiethnic in theirmake-up.9
Americansshare certainculturalfea-
tures(originmythsand symbols,as
well as-for mostpeople-lan-
guage), but one of these featuresis
certainlynot ethnicheritage.The
factthatit is necessaryto discuss
subgroupsof the Americanpopula-
tionwiththe help of hyphenated
prefixes(Italian-Americans, African-
Americans,etc.) demonstratesthat
Americansas a nationare not uni-
fiedin theirethnicidentity.
The Conceptof Nationalism
Nationalism:A Definition
One set of approachesto the defi-
nitionof nationalismconsidersit to
be an idea, belief,or principle.Igna-
tieff(1993), forexample,sees na-
tionalismas a notionthatcombines
the politicalidea of territorial self-
determination, the culturalidea of
the nationas one's primaryidentity,
and a moralidea of justification of
action to protectthe rightsof the
nation againstthe other.Gellner's
definitionof "a principlewhichholds
thatthe politicaland nationalunit
should be congruent"(1983, 1) is a
standardformanypeople who study
the topic.Haas's definitionis even
more basic: "a beliefheld by a group
of people thattheyoughtto consti-
tute a nation,or thattheyalready
are one" (1986, 727).
Motyltakes perhapsthe strongest
stand in defendingnationalismas an
idea, or, as he puts it, an "ideal." He
arguesthatbecause nationalismis
based on ideas-such as the nation-
state,self-determination, national
identity,and nationalsuperiority-
actionsbased on these ideas cannot
be the basis fora definitionof na-
tionalism,"unlesswe make the ab-
surd assumptionthatbeliefsinvari-
ablytranslateautomaticallyinto
behavior"(1992, 311).1oYet, many
"isms" (capitalism,socialism,terror-
ism,etc.) are based on ideas, and
the definitions of these "isms" focus
not on the necessaryideas but on
the activitiesthatstemfromthem.
While the idea of the marketis cen-
713
Features
tralto capitalism,the existenceof
such an idea alone is not what
makes an economicsystemcapitalis-
tic; rather,thatmarketprinciplesare
practicedis the crucialingredient.
Thus, one does not have to make an
"absurd assumption"to includeac-
tivitiesin the definition
of a concept
thatalso has importantideas at its
core. The idea of nationalrights
should not be thoughtof as national-
ism withoutat least the open articu-
lationof thisidea to the general
population.
A second,more usefulapproach
to defining"nationalism"takes it to
be a process.It is thoughtof as the
creationof the unifying featuresof
the nation,or the actionsthatresult
fromthe beliefsof the group.1"Na-
tionalismdefinedas an organized
endeavorto controlthe national
homeland,forexample,is common
in the nationalismliterature.12Some
stressthatthisstrugglemustturnthe
homelandinto an independentstate;
otherswould stop shortof the re-
quirementthatthe groupeven seek
its own state,acceptingstrugglesfor
territorialautonomywithinan exist-
ing state as nationalism.Nearlyall
would agree,however,thatthe con-
trolover one's own nation-stateis a
goal formostnationalists.Less ide-
alisticnationalistsmayrealize that
an independentstate is not practical
and seek somethingless thancom-
plete territorialsovereignty,but they
would nearlyalwayspreferto have
theirown state.Mellor's definition
of nationalism-"thepoliticalexpres-
sion of the nation'saspirations,"in-
cludingcontrolover territory that
membersof the nation"perceiveas
theirhomelandby right"(1989, 4-5,
myitalics)-is thereforean improve-
ment over the labeling of national-
ism as simply an idea. It combines
the ideas and the activities of nation-
alists.
While concern with territoryis a
necessary component of nationalism,
many nations lay claim to a territory
even when the members of the na-
tion are not a majority in that area.
Gellner's "Potato Principle" (roughly
that groups will look back histori-
cally to periods when they were
mainly farmers to justifythe control
of land in an urban and industrial
age) shows how territoryitself is
imagined (see Gellner 1992). Just as
714
This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 05:49:10 AM
thereare no predetermined nations,
thereare no predeterminedhome-
lands. An interesting possible excep-
tion to thisstatementis federalsys-
temswhereterritorial unitsare
named forethnicminorities.As the
break-upsof the Soviet Union, Yu-
goslavia,and Czechoslovakiaalong
the internallines createdby the
Communistsmake clear, the federal
natureof these Communistsystems
was more than an illusion.The resi-
dentsof these territories oftenbe-
lieved thatthe areas were homelands
within thelargerstate(see Kaiser1994).
Bringingthesevisionsof national-
ism together,"nationalism"is de-
finedhere as thepursuit-through
argument or otheractivity-ofa set of
rightsfortheself-defined membersof
thenation,including, at a minimum,
territorial
autonomyor sovereignty. All
nationalisms,therefore, share two
features:(1) theydefine,at least
roughly,the territorial boundaries
thatthe nationhas a rightto control
and (2) theydefinethe membership
boundariesof the populationthat
makes up the nation-the groupthat
deservesthisterritorial controland
thatis entitledto the supremeloy-
altyof othermembersof the collec-
tive.13These membershipboundaries
are set by membersof the nation
themselves,generallyby an intellec-
tual or politicalelite,thoughthey
maybe based on ideas of surround-
ing groupsas well. They establish
the we thatpossesses the rightto
controlthe homeland(and as a re-
sult the theythatdoes not share this
right).This does not mean, however,
thatthe boundariesare set easily.
The developmentof successful
claimsover boundariesmayinvolve
struggleswithanothergroup,serious
struggleswithinthe nationover com-
petingdefinitions of the territorial
and membershipboundaries,and
difficultyin transmitting the ideas of
nationalmembershipboundariesto
the masses.
Nationalism:Misuses
The mostbasic misuseof "nation-
alism" is to equate it with"patrio-
tism."Justas a nationis a groupof
people and not a state,nationalism
is firstand foremostabout the na-
tion,not the state.Because national-
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ism includesthe pursuitof territorial
control,and because the idea of the
"nation-state"stilldominatesthe
international state-system,it is easy
to fallintothe trapof associating
nationalismwithloyaltyto an exist-
ing state.The glossaryin Shively,for
example,says thatnations"oftenbut
not alwayscoincidewiththe political
boundariesof states."Yet "national-
ism" is definedin thissame glossary
as "passionateidentification witha
state on the partof its citizens"
(1993, 357). While pride in one's
state is not a bad definitionof patri-
otism,it is a bad definitionof na-
tionalism.Likewise,pride in one's
nationis not patriotism, and forthat
matteris, at best,onlya partof na-
tionalism.
Nationalism:Loose Uses
A commonloose use of "national-
ism" is to missone of its two sides.
Eitherit is thoughtof onlyas the
attemptto get territory or it is
thoughtof onlyas the emphasison a
unifiednationalidentity.Textbooks
in comparativepoliticsand even in-
ternationalrelationsare especially
fondof the latter.Roskin and Berry,
forexample,discussnationalismas
"an exaggeratedsense of the great-
ness and unityof one's people"
(1997, 121). Unityis important, and
a sense of greatnessmaybe partof
a particularnationalidentity.But it
is not a necessaryfeatureof nation-
alism.Again, everynationalismin-
volves the settingof membership
and territorialboundaries.
A second loose use of the term
"nationalism"is to equate it with
"ethnicpolitics."Rutland,forexam-
ple, definesnationalismas a "state-
mentof claimson behalfof an eth-
nic group" (1994, 4). Like the
discussionof "nation"and "ethnic
group" above, ethnicpolitics(the
politicalmobilizationof people
based on ethnicity)can be a starting
pointforsomethingthatbecomes
nationalism,but it alone is not na-
tionalism.Richmondmakes clear the
difference betweennationalismand
the politicalmobilizationof ethnic
groups:
An ethnicgroupwhenpoliticallymo-
bilizedcan havedifferent
goals.These
PS: PoliticalScience& Politics

mayincludetherightto franchise, the
use oftheethnicvoteto swingresults
in marginal constituencies.The
achievement ofspecialstatusforpar-
ticularlanguages or religions(espe-
ciallyin education), theremovalof
andtheenforcement ofhu-
injustices
manrights codes,affirmative action
programmes, compensation forpast
deprivation, therestitution ofprop-
erty,or therecognition ofspecial
treatment suchas exemption from
militaryservice."Nationalist" move-
mentsmayalso establish suchclaims
butgo further in seekingto achieve
self-government within a givengeo-
graphicarea.... The politicization of
is notthesamethingas eth-
ethnicity
nicnationalism itmaylead
although
to itwherea historical claimto a par-
ticularterritory can be established
(1987,4-5).
One can extendthispointto cover
the outbreakof conflict.Violent eth-
nic conflictsmayemergeover many
things(affirmative actionpolicies,
language laws, etc.). Nationalcon-
flicts,on the otherhand,mustin-
volve disputesover territory to be
truly "national."
Anotherimportantloose use of
"nationalism"-because of its role in
furtherconfusingstudentsand the
casual observerof the nationalism
literature-is the seeminglyinfinite
numberof what I call "'something'
nationalisms."Were one to count
the numberof different wordsat-
tached to "nationalism"in scholarly
works(imperialnationalism,integral
nationalism,etc.), it would be a truly
impressivelist.14Again, keepingin
mindthatnationalismis about two
things-definingthe nationand de-
finingits territory-helpsus make
sense of the myriad" 'something'
nationalisms"and also givesus a
tool to decide whetheror not a cer-
tainmovementactuallyis nationalism.
It is truethatone of these two
featuresmaybe emphasizedmore
thanthe other."Ethnicnationalism,"
forexample,is a legitimateterm
when the nationalistmovementis
mainlyemphasizingthe definitionof
the membershipboundariesof the
nationand is basingthisdefinition
on an existingethnicidentity.'5 Like-
wise,"separatistnationalism"would
make sense ifthe nationalistsare
concernedmostof all withjustifying
the separationof a territory thatis
partof an existingstate and the cre-
December1997
This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 05:49:10 AM
"Nation" and "Nationalism":The Misue of Key Conceptsin Political Science
ation of a new state.The problem
comes whenone triesto fita cir-
cumstancethatis not nationalism
into the categoryby amendingthe
termwithan antecedentlabel. Thus,
it is acceptable to attacha tag to
nationalismifone has thought
throughhow thismodifierfitswith
the basic idea of nationalism.But
especiallywhenbothpartsof the
nationalismequation (definingthe
membershipboundariesof the na-
tion and pursuingcontrolof the ter-
ritorialboundariesof the homeland)
are emphasizedroughlyequally,it is
bettersimplyto referto the argu-
mentor activityas "nationalism"and
avoid the use of the "something"
labels.
Conclusion
Given the importanceof national-
ism as a topic in comparativepoli-
tics,international relations,and the
disciplineas a whole,thisarticlehas
presenteddefinitions for"nation"
and "nationalism"in the hope of
promptingmore thoughtful and con-
sistentusage of the termsin political
scienceworks.The definitions incor-
porate areas of generalagreementin
the nationalismliteratureand help
highlight faultyor incompatibleus-
age of the termsin articlesand text-
books.
It is not expectedthatreaderswill
automaticallyaccept the definitions
providedabove. And thereis cer-
tainlyno expectationthatsuch un-
derstandings will make an impacton
the use of the termsin non-aca-
demic settingssuch as newspapers.
Uniformity in the definitionsof key
in any discipline
conceptsis difficult
(and impossiblein less formalset-
tings),wherepeople have learned
and developed theirown ideas over
time.But politicalscientistsmust
stillconcernthemselveswithhow
thosewho specialize in the studyof
a topic like nationalismare using
these keyterms.Politicalscientists
mustalso look at whetherthey
themselvesare usingsuch termscon-
sistently.'1
At a minimum,scholarsshould
make clear how theydefinekey
termssuch as these and thenuse
themin waysconsistentwiththeir
definitions. Failure to do thisin in-
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
troductory textbooksis inexcusable.
Even politicalscientistsreferringin
to "nation" and "national-
passing
ism" in theirscholarlyworksshould
providetheirown definitions. With
all of the different
(and oftencontra-
dictory)waysthatthese two terms
are used, perhapsthe biggestloose
use of "nation" and "nationalism"is
to discussthemwithoutgivingdefi-
nitions,assuminginsteadthatothers
thinkabout themin a similarway.
Notes
*Special thanksto Mark Beissinger,Alex-
ander Motyl,Ronald Suny,and Raju G. C.
Thomas fortheirhelpfulcommentson this
article.
1. It is outside the scope of thisarticle,
and the area of expertiseof the author,to
of otherterms,but there
propose definitions
is a definiteneed to addressthe problemof
competing(and sometimescontradictory) def-
initionsfora varietyof basic conceptsin po-
liticalscience.
2. As Haas (1986, 714) pointsout, even
scholarswho writea greatdeal about nation-
alism often"fail to make anyseriouseffort to
acknowledgeor use, leave alone integrate,the
plethoraof existingworkson the subject."
Yet, the problemis greaterforpoliticalscien-
tistswho use these termswithoutbeing aware
of the definitions and argumentsin the major
workson nationalism.
3. Gellner(1983, 55), forexample,states
that"nationalismengendersnations,"while
Mellor (1989, 5) arguesthat"everynationhas
its nationalism.'
4. The emphasison thingssuch as a com-
mon economyin thisdefinitionalso excludes
membersof a diaspora community frombeing
consideredpartof the nation.Given thatcmi-
gres usuallyconsiderthemselvespartof the
largernationand thattheyare oftenthe most
"nationalistic"membersof thisnation,the
idea thata nationmustshare an economyis
problematic.Interestingly, Smith'sdefinitionis
veryclose to thatof Stalin,who definedthe
nationas "a historically constituted,stable
community of people, formedon the basis of
a commonlanguage,territory, economiclife,
and psychologicalmake-up"(1994, 20).
5. Gellner (1983, 7), forexample,states
thattwo people belong to the same nation"if
and onlyiftheyshare the same culture."
6. Likewise,Connor's (1978) ideas about
the nationwould be bettersuitedas a defini-
tionof ethnicgroup.In fact,he has little
problemusingthe termsalmostinterchange-
ably,statingthatthe main difference is thata
nationmustbe self-defined while an ethnic
groupcan be "otherdefined."
7. Two pointsneed clarification. First,
'culture"here includesa broad rangeof traits
and beliefs,and the particularones stressed
by one nationmaydifferfromthose stressed
by another.Second, not all membersof the
715
Features
nationneed live in the perceivedhomeland,
and the groupdoes not need to have actual
controlof its own state to be a nation.
8. Anotherintroductory textbook-Mayer,
Burnett,and Ogden-discusses "nationsother
thanthe United States" and uses France,
ratherthantheFrench,to makethepointthat
nationsare unique.But theauthorsthendefine
"nation"threepages lateras "a largegroupof
people sharinga commonsense of belonging, a fail.Thus, I would argue thatnationalisms
commonpeoplehood"(1996, 1, 7-8).
9. The idea of politicalversusethnicna-
tionsis not accepted by all nationalismschol-
ars. Clearly,these are ideal types,withmost
nationsfailingto meet eitherideal. But as
ideal typestheyare usefulwaysto distinguish
how one nationsees itselfand how its nation-
alism differs fromanothernation's.A classic
workin thisregardis Brubaker(1992), where
the authorpointsout the effectsof different
ideas of nationhoodon the citizenshippolicies
of Germanyand France.
10. An explanationof how nationalism
spreads to the masses is one area wheremuch
workon nationalismstillneeds to be done.
For some interesting ideas about the spread
of nationalism,see Beissinger(1996) and
Connor (1990).
11. The creationof nationalidentitycan
take place in different ways.Brass pointsout
two possible routes:"Nationsmaybe created
by the transformation of an ethnicgroupin a
multiethnic state into a selfconsciouspolitical
entityor by the amalgamationof diverse
groupsand the formationof an inter-ethnic,
compositeor homogeneousnationalculture
throughthe agencyof the modernstate.Al-
thoughthe two processesof nation-formation
have different startingpointsand raise quite
different kindsof analyticaland theoretical
has been
questions,the end resulthistorically
sometimesthe same, and the two processes
have muchin common"(1991, 20).
12. See, forexample,Brass (1991, 48), who
says thatnationalism"is a politicalmovement
by definition." There are a fewexamplesof
people who eitherdo not see the territorial
componentas a necessarypartof nationalism
or who are loose in theirdiscussionof the
role of territory.Suny'slabelingof Armenian
nationalismin the early1900's as "non-territo-
rial nationalism"standsas an exampleof the
latter.By thisterm,he does not mean that
Armeniannationalismhad no sense of the
rightto a homeland,but ratherthatin reality
the Armeniannationhad "lost its hold on its
historichomeland"(Suny 1990, 14).
13. One mightbe concernedabout the sim-
ilaritybetweenthe proposed definitions of
"nation"and "nationalism."They are closely
related(as we would expectthemto be), but
theyare not the same thing.The factthata
nationhas a sense of homelandis not the
716
This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 05:49:10 AM
same thingas its pursuitof controlover that
territory. In addition,by settingthe member-
ship boundaries,nationalismlaysout the
characteristics of the people considereda na-
tion. It also sets the territorial
boundariesof
the homelandthat,as a nation,the group
should control.But unless the people them-
selves accept these ideas-unless theybelieve
theyare a nation-nationalismis doomed to
(or, better,nationalists)tryto produce na-
tions,but theyare in no way guaranteedsuc-
cess.
14. 1 gave up afterfindingnearlythirty. I
am sure thereare manymore.
15. A termsuch as "linguisticnationalism"
mayalso be acceptable iflanguage is used to
definemembershipin the nationand nation-
alistsare preoccupiedwiththe membership
boundariesmore than the territorial bound-
aries.
16. As Motylputs it,"Internalconsistency
is the goal" (1992, 308).
References
Almond,Gabriel,and G. BinghamPowell.
1996. ComparativePoliticsToday:A World
View.6thed. New York: HarperCollins.
Beissinger,Mark. 1996. "How Nationalisms
Spread: EasternEurope Adriftand Tides
and Cyclesof NationalistContention."
Social Research63(1): 97-146.
Brass, Paul. 1991.Ethnicityand Nationalism.
London: Sage.
Brubaker,Rogers. 1992. Citizenship and Na-
tionhoodin Franceand Germany.Cam-
bridge,MA: HarvardUniversity Press.
Connor,Walker. 1978. "A Nation is a Nation,
is a State,is an EthnicGroup,is a ....
Ethnicand Racial Studies1(4): 379-88.
.1990. "When is a Nation?" Ethnic
and Racial Studies13(1): 92-103.
Gellner,Ernest.1983.Nationsand National-
ism. Ithica,NY: Cornell UniversityPress.
.1992. "Nationalismin the Vacuum."
In ThinkingTheoretically about SovietNa-
ed. AlexanderMotyl.New
tionalities,
York: Columbia University Press.
Haas, Ernst.1986. "What is Nationalismand
WhyShould We StudyIt?" International
Organization40(3): 707-44.
Ignatieff,Michael. 1993. Blood and Belonging:
Journeys intotheNew Nationalism.New
York: Farrar,Straus,and Giroux.
Kaiser, Robert. 1994. The Geography of Na-
tionalismin Russia and the USSR. Prince-
ton: PrincetonUniversity Press.
Mayer,Lawrence,JohnBurnett,and Suzanne
Ogden. 1996.ComparativePolitics:Nations
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
and Theoriesin a ChangingWorld.2nd ed.
Upper Saddle River,NJ: PrenticeHall.
Mellor, Roy. 1989.Nation,State,and Territory:
A PoliticalGeography. London: Routledge.
Motyl,Alexander.1991. Sovietology, Rational-
ity,Nationality:Comingto GripswithNa-
tionalismin theUSSR. New York: Colum-
bia University Press.
. 1992. "The Modernityof Nationalism:
Nations,States and Nation-Statesin the
Contemporary World."Journalof Interna-
tionalAffairs 45(2): 307-23.
Nodia, Ghia. 1994. "Nationalismand Democ-
racy."In Nationalism,EthnicConflict, and
Democracy,ed. LarryDiamond and Marc
F. Plattner.Baltimore:JohnsHopkins
UniversityPress.
Richmond,Anthony.1987. "EthnicNational-
ism: Social Science Paradigms."Interna-
tionalSocial ScienceJournal111:3-18.
Roskin,Michael, and Nicholas Berry.1997.
IR: The New Worldof International Rela-
tions.3rd ed. Upper Saddle River,NJ:
PrenticeHall.
Rutland,Peter. 1994. "State Failure and State
Buildingin Post-SocialistEurope: Implica-
tionsforTheories of Nationalism."Pre-
sented at the Annual Meetingof the
AmericanPoliticalScience Association,
New York.
Shively,W. Phillips.1993. Powerand Choice:
An Introduction to PoliticalScience.3rd ed.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Smith,Anthony.1991. NationalIdentity. Lon-
don: PenguinPress.
Stalin,Joseph.1994. "The Nation." In Nation-
alism,ed. JohnHutchinsonand Anthony
D. Smith.Oxford:OxfordUniversity
Press.
Suny,Ronald. 1990. "Revenge of the Past:
Socialism and EthnicConflictin Transcau-
casia." New LeftReview184:5-34.
Tamir,Yael. 1995. "The Enigma of National-
ism." WorldPolitics47(3): 418-40.
Aboutthe Author
Lowell W. Barringtonis assistantprofessorof
politicalscience at MarquetteUniversity. His
specializationsincludepost-Communist poli-
tics and comparativedemocratization, witha
particularinterestin nationalismand ethnic
conflict.He is currentlyworkingon a book
titledNationalIdentity and International
Orga-
nizations:The Makingof Citizenship Policyin
theBalticStatesand Ukraine.Barringtonis
also editorofAnalysisof Current Events.His
e-mail address is: barringtonl@vms.csd.
mu.edu.
PS: Political Science & Politics