I keep hearing and reading that the French Revolution created nationalism, but that strikes me as wrong. I see nationalism starting in England during the 1600s or even earlier. From there, it spread to Russia (partly via Peter the Great) and to France, both during the 1700s, though the Revolution certainly helped spread it. What do people think?
The English were considered insane by much of Europe during the 1600s and 1700s, with their sacred hunger for commerce and national success. Their kings certainly considered them insane. The Stuart dynasty could not figure out how to lead a nationalist polity, with Parliament insisting it represented the NATION: that the nation was like a team, with Parliament as the owner and the king relegated to a team captain role. The Stuarts were used to the older model, where the nation belongs to the king.
Where did the English get these crazy ideas? The Old Testament, which became an obsession around the same time. The ancient Hebrews were a nation, with the same sacred hunger that later drove the English. It’s no coincidence that, during the 1600s, the English started giving their children (silly-sounding) Old Testament names, like Jebediah and Hester.
This also casts a clearer light on the Amrerican Revolution. So many of the revolutionaries’ grievances were … of minimal importance. Their real problem: they’d inherited a nationalist tradition from England but weren’t being allowed full membership in the nation, so they needed a new one. And all that happened before the French Revolution.
BTW, lest I claim credit for others’ ideas, some of this comes from Liah Greenfeld, a brilliant professor at Boston U, who specializes in nationalism. I think she hits the nail on the head.
Jan, I think what we call nationalism didn’t exist in ancient China, but there’s an argument for Nara Japan. Basically, nationalism was a very unusual ideology until the modern period. It arguably existed in ancient Juda/Israel, ancient Egypt, Nara Japan, maybe even medieval Poland … but nowhere or close to nowhere else. But then Europeans stumbled into it and spread it around the world.
Isn’t “nationalism” just an outgrowth of tribalism? Once upon a time, we developed this “Us v. Them” mentality and that then developed into “nationalism” with the rise of nations. I don’t think “nationalism” began with nations. It’s a human construct that goes all the way back to “my cave is better than your cave.”
Nationalism has multiple definitions, but it usually refers to the ideas that (a) one’s national/ethnic group should have its own state, (b) loyalty to that state overrides other group loyalties, and (c) every member of the national group has stake in that state. Those are strange and unusual beliefs in history. So while I agree with Josh that they grow out of tribalism, they’re much more particular: a far more elaborate and powerful ideology than “my cave is better than your cave.”
I don’t think it’s accurate to say we can look to lots of ancient states for nationalism. For most of history, membership in the state has been the province of elites. Most people, the peasants, were essentially the instrument of the state, not members. Expanding the definition of the nation to a focus of effort and loyalty for everyone vastly increases its power. Ironically, it also creates problems for the elites, because now they’re no longer the only ones with a say in the state’s destiny, and some don’t know how to handle it (as England’s Stuart kings learned the hard way).
Jan, I think you’re right that the Roman Republic and Classical Athens are candidates for nationalistic polities. I don’t think democracy is a requirement for nationalism, but the two are connected, since if every member of the national group has a stake in the state, pure elite rule gets difficult. The Roman Republic blended democracy with elite rule. Classical Athens did too, though with far more power on the people’s side of the ledger. Of course, nationalism burnt itself out in both states. In the Roman case, the nation bit off more than it could chew and its institutions failed to govern a broad empire with multiple other national groups. And of course, Athens got overwhelmed by greater powers.
Nationalism gets a bad rap today because some of our ugliest leaders and movements are very nationalist. And it creates obvious problems for ethnic minorities in any state. But I think it’s a source of great power and hard to separate from democracy. Also, not all modern nation-states are limited to an ethnic definition of the nation. In the U.S., the definition from the start has been multi-ethnic (despite serious issues surrounding minorities, not to mention slavery). The same goes for national definitions in places like Brazil, Australia, and to some extent India …
The one part of nationalism that I’d push back on in terms of definition is “loyalty to that state overrides other group loyalties”. I don’t think there’s ever a nation-state that has achieved that, as historically religion has been the other big group loyalty that every state and its government had to negotiate with.
Yet it’s true that nationalism was and remains a powerful force. Isn’t that essentially what Napoleon did with France, to convince the populace that with him at the helm, everyone had a stake in the French state?
