Republic of the Philippines

Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao

COTABATO STATE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Sinsuat Avenue, Cotabato City
__________________________________________________________________

Topic : Theories for Nation Building

Subject : EDD 706
Professor: Pancho G. Balawag, Ed.D
Student : Moanawara M. Kasim
Degree Program: Ph.D.- Ed.Ad / 2nd Semester / S.Y. 2021-2022

Theories for Nation Building

I. OBJECTIVE

The term Nation Building is often used simultaneously with state building,
democratization, modernization, political development, post-conflict reconstruction,
and peace building. However, each concept is different, though their evolution is
intertwined (Stephenson, 2005 p. 1).

II. OBJECTIVE

1. discusses the different theories for nation building

2. identify some theorist for nation building

Some of the theories of nation building are dedicated to the study of link between
nation and nationalism; others consider this process a enterprise to explore nation
building, state building, social integration, nationalintegration and even confl ict
transformation during various historical periods. However, nation building is a
normative concept usedby academicians and practiceners to study the role of armed
forces in building a nation in recent times.
Theory of Reinhard Bendix

Born in Berlin, the son of Ludwig Bendix. The University of Albany, which holds a
collection of Bendix papers, reports that Bendix was a member of an anti-Nazi
underground organization. He immigrated to the United States in 1938, where he
received undergraduate at the University of Chicago, followed by graduate studies
in sociology with Charles Merriam, also at the University of Chicago. His extensive
publications included books and articles on Max Weber and Karl Marx, German-
Jewish life, bureaucracy, political sociology, and other topics.

The nation building framework is based on the analysis that under medieval rule, or
what he called traditional rule. He argued that "governmental authority is as much
linked to family as to property" (Bendix 1996, p. 128). The right of rule or right to
exercise authority is held by individuals based on their position as a member of a
family as opposed to an individual (Bendix, 1996, p. 128). “In the medieval
conception the ‘building block’ of the social order is the family of hereditary privilege,
whose stability over time is the foundation of right and of authority” (Bendix, 1996, p.
128). However, a ‘modern’ state “presupposes that this link between governmental
authority and inherited privilege in the hands of families of notables is broken”
(Bendix 1996, p. 128).

Critics to the Theory of Bendix

One of the prominent critiques is that it diverts attention from the very real
possibility that modernization may never arrive at modernity, so that terms like
“development” or “transition” are misnomers when applied to societies whose future
condition may not be markedly different from the present (Bendix, 1996, pp. 394-
395).
Johan Geltung's Theory
Johan Vincent Galtung (born 24 October 1930) is a Norwegian sociologist, and the
principal founder of the discipline of peace and conflict studies. He was the main
founder of the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) in 1959 and served as its first
director until 1970. He also established the Journal of Peace Research in 1964. In
1969 he was appointed to the world's first chair in peace and conflict studies, at
the University of Oslo. He resigned his Oslo professorship in 1977 and has since
held professorships at several other universities; from 1993 to 2000 he taught as
Distinguished Professor of Peace Studies at the University of Hawaii. He has been
based in Kuala Lumpur, where he was the first Tun Mahathir Professor of Global
Peace at the International Islamic University Malaysia until 2015.
‘’Galtung presents his theory of the conflict Triangle, a frame work used in the
study of peace and conflict, with the purpose of defining the three key elements of
violence that form this triangle.’’ The theory is based on the principle that peace must
be defined by widely accepted social goals, and that any state of peace is
characterized by the absence of violence. When a conflict has features of all three
areas of violence, the result is a more consolidated, static state of violence in a
social system, which may include a conflict or a nation-state, whereas the absence
of these three typologies of violence results in peace.
In Galtung’s theoretical postulation, "Public welfare services were established
and nation-wide policies for the equalization of economic conditions were designed"
(Galtung, 1980, p. 1). He further mentioned that "there is conflict, or disharmony of
interest, if the two parties are coupled in such a way that the Local- Centre gap
between them is increasing. There is no conflict, or harmony of interest, if the two
parties are coupled in such a way that the gap between them is decreasing down to
zero. Some points in this defi nition should be spelled out" (Galtung, 1971, p. 82).

Critics to the Theory of Galtung’s

Johan Galtung's Conflict Triangle and Peace Research paper are widely cited
as the foundational pieces of theory [12] within peace and conflict studies. However,
they are not without criticism. Galtung uses very broad definitions
of violence, conflict and peace, and applies the terms of mean both direct and
indirect,
negative and positive, and violence in which one cannot distinguish actors or victims,
which serves to limit the direct application of the model itself.

Galtung uses a positivist approach,[13] in that he assumes that every rational

tenet of the theory can be verified, serving to reject social processes beyond
relationships and actions. This approach enforces a paradigm of clear-cut, currently
testable propositions as the ‘whole’ of the system, and thus is often
deemed reductionist. Galtung also wields an explicit normative orientation in the
paper, in which there is a weighting toward evaluative statements that may show
bias or simply opinion, or indeed a trend toward the institutions and concepts of
peace in the West, which may serve to limit the applicability of the model more
widely.

Benedict Anderson’s Theory of Imagined Communities.

Benedict Richard O’Gorman Anderson, (born August 26,
1936, Kunming, China—died December 12/13, 2015, Batu, Indonesia), Irish
political scientist, best known for his influential work on the origins of nationalism.

In Imagined Communities, Anderson argues, "the nation is a new, modern

phenomenon. The 17th and 18th century witnessed the demise of previous forms
political bodies that were shaped by a sacred language, sacred cosmology and
dynastic power, and sense of historical temporality shaped by cosmology”
(Anderson, 1991, p. 7). He further mentions that "it is through the emergence of
printcapitalism the technological, mass production of newspapers, the novel, and the
spread of vernacular print languages that individuals could think have themselves
and relate to others in diff erent ways" (Anderson 1991, p. 7).

Critiques to Anderson’s Theory

Chatterjee challenges the idea of nation as being imagined from certain modular
forms. He believes that nationalism is not rooted on an identity but rather on a
difference of the modular forms of the nationalist society propagated by the modern
west (Chatterjee, 1993, p. 2).

REFFERENCES
 file:///C:/Users/Muhammad%20Suadi/Downloads/112878%20(1). pdf

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Violence_Peace_and_Peace_Research#:~: text=In%20Johan%20Galtung's
%201969%20paper,principle%20that%20peace%20must%20be

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagined_community#:~:text=An%20imagined
%20community%20is%20a,as%20part%20of%20a%20group.

 https://www.britannica.com/topic/American-Academy-of-Arts-and-Sciences

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_Galtung

 https://www.google.com/search?
q=johan+galtung+picture&rlz=1C1EXJR_enPH907PH907&tbm=isch&source=
iu&ictx=1&vet=1&fir=2o16Jjg58ANpkM%252CwQnaSSYl9Z_J-M%25

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_Galtung

 https://www.google.com/search?
q=what+is+the+meaning+of+theories+in+nation+building&rlz=