what is the importance of practicing nationalism essay

Nationalism Essay for Students and Children

400 words essay on nationalism.

First of all, Nationalism is the concept of loyalty towards a nation. In Nationalism, this sentiment of loyalty must be present in every citizen. This ideology certainly has been present in humanity since time immemorial. Above all, it’s a concept that unites the people of a nation. It is also characterized by love for one’s nation. Nationalism is probably the most important factor in international politics.

Why Nationalism Is Important?

Nationalism happens because of common factors. The people of a nation share these common factors. These common factors are common language, history , culture, traditions, mentality, and territory. Thus a sense of belonging would certainly come in people. It would inevitably happen, whether you like it or not. Therefore, a feeling of unity and love would happen among national citizens. In this way, Nationalism gives strength to the people of the nation.

Nationalism has an inverse relationship with crime. It seems like crime rates are significantly lower in countries with strong Nationalism. This happens because Nationalism puts feelings of love towards fellow countrymen. Therefore, many people avoid committing a crime against their own countrymen. Similarly, corruption is also low in such countries. Individuals in whose heart is Nationalism, avoid corruption . This is because they feel guilty to harm their country.

Nationalism certainly increases the resolve of a nation to defend itself. There probably is a huge support for strengthening the military among nationalistic people. A strong military is certainly the best way of defending against foreign enemies. Countries with low Nationalism, probably don’t invest heavily in the military. This is because people with low Nationalism don’t favor strong militaries . Hence, these countries which don’t take Nationalism seriously are vulnerable.

Nationalism encourages environmental protection as well. People with high national pride would feel ashamed to pollute their nation. Therefore, such people would intentionally work for environment protection even without rules. In contrast, an individual with low Nationalism would throw garbage carelessly.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Contemporary Nationalism

Nationalism took an ugly turn in the 20th century with the emergence of Fascism and Nazism. However, that was a negative side of Nationalism. Since then, many nations gave up the idea of aggressive Nationalism. This certainly did not mean that Nationalism in contemporary times got weak. People saw strong Nationalism in the United States and former USSR. There was a merger of Nationalism with economic ideologies like Capitalism and Socialism.

In the 21st century, there has been no shortage of Nationalism. The popular election of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin is proof. Both these leaders strongly propagate Nationalism. Similarly, the election victory of other nationalistic leaders is more evidence.

Nationalism is a strong force in the world that is here to say. Nationalism has a negative side. However, this negative side certainly cannot undermine the significance of Nationalism. Without Nationalism, there would have been no advancement of Human Civilization.

500 Words Essay on Nationalism

Nationalism is an ideology which shows an individual’s love & devotion towards his nation. It is actually people’s feelings for their nation as superior to all other nations. The concept of nationalism in India developed at the time of the Independence movement. This was the phase when people from all the areas/caste/religion etc collectively fought against British Raj for independence. Hence nationalism can be called as collective devotion of all the nationals towards their country.

Introduction of Nationalism in India:

The first world war (1919) had far-reaching consequences on the entire world. After the first world war, some major movements broke out in India like Satyagrah & Non-co-operation movement. This has sown the seeds of nationalism in Indians. This era developed new social groups along with new modes of struggle. The major events like Jalianwala Bagh massacre & Khilafat movement had a strong impact on the people of India.

Thus, their collective struggle against colonialism brought them together and they have collectively developed a strong feeling of responsibility, accountability, love, and devotion for their country. This collective feeling of the Indian people was the start of the development of Nationalism. Foundation of Indian National Congress in 1885 was the first organized expression of nationalism in India.

Basis of Rising of Nationalism in India

There could be several basis of rising of nationalism in India:

The Britishers came to India as traders but slowly became rulers and started neglecting the interests of the Indians. This led to the feeling of oneness amongst Indians and hence slowly led to nationalism.
India developed as a unified country in the 19 th & 20 th century due to well-structured governance system of Britishers. This has led to interlinking of the economic life of people, and hence nationalism.
The spread of western education, especially the English language amongst educated Indians have helped the knowledgeable population of different linguistic origin to interact on a common platform and hence share their nationalist opinions.
The researches by Indian and European scholars led to the rediscovery of the Indian past. The Indian scholars like Swami Vivekanand & European scholars like Max Mueller had done historical researched & had glorified India’s past in such a manner that Indian peoples developed a strong sense of nationalism & patriotism.
The emergence of the press in the 19 th century has helped in the mobilization of people’s opinion thereby giving them a common platform to interact for independence motion and also to promote nationalism.
Various reforms and social movements had helped Indian society to remove the social evils which were withholding the societal development and hence led to rejoining of society.
The development of well-led railway network in India was a major boost in the transportation sector. Hence making it easy for the Indian population to connect with each other.
The international events like the French revolution, Unification of Italy & Germany, etc.have awakened the feelings of national consciousness amongst Indian people.

Though a lot of factors had led to rising of nationalism in India, the major role was played by First world war, Rowlatt act and Jaliawala bagh massacre. These major incidences have had a deep-down impact on the mind of Indians. These motivated them to fight against Britishers with a strong feeling of Nationalism. This feeling of nationalism was the main driving force for the independence struggle in India.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

Travelling Essay
Picnic Essay
Our Country Essay
My Parents Essay
Essay on Favourite Personality
Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
Essay on Knowledge is Power
Essay on Gurpurab
Essay on My Favourite Season
Essay on Types of Sports

Download the App

Importance of nationalism

Nationalism is the sense of solidarity that we feel with our own country- in most cases, the country we were born in. It is the feeling of pride that we feel when we see our country excel in international events, and when our country makes progress in and contributes to various areas of activity. Nationalism is instilled in us from a very young age; we are exposed to the national anthem, the national flag, and national areas of importance and pride. In this article, let us see what nationalism really means, and how important it is to human existence.

Inspires patriotism

The most important effect of nationalism is of course its ability to inspire patriotism in people. It instills in a person the feeling of solidarity with their country, and the zeal to make sacrifices for their country, should the need arise. It is this feeling of nationalism that inspired hundreds of freedom fighters to stand up for the rights of their country and fellow countrymen in the face of oppression by external forces. It is this sense of nationalism and national pride that leads people to defend their country’s honor, dominate other nations, and protect their own borders. Historically, men and women have laid down their lives selflessly for the sake of their country; in Vietnam, for instance, common people united to fight the much bigger force that was the United States of America.

Brings unity in diversity

Nationalism brings people together. In this age of globalization, most countries are multicultural, with people of a variety of creeds, faiths, and color living in the same place. Such diversity can be free of discord only when they are brought together by the spirit of nationalism. For instance, India is a multicultural country, with many different races, colors, faiths, and languages residing within. Yet, during the colonial era, people from all across the country rose up as one to fight for the independence of their country from the British Raj. It is this spirit of nationalism, that we all belong to the same country despite being very different from one another, is what keeps the various cultures from warring with each other.

Promotes self-sufficiency

The sense of nationalism is what drives people to be independent, free from the influences or domination of other cultures. The nationalistic spirit keeps people working hard for their own country, resisting changes that are forcefully brought into effect by external influences. People try to be self sufficient and use goods and services that are provided and produced indigenously, thus helping them to make something that can be used for the purpose of some of the others. This helps in driving the progress of the nation, and it becomes more self sufficient in terms of economy and manpower. This, in turn, helps to keep the brightest minds in the country, who can do their bit to make the country a batter place to live in.

Instills national pride

The sense of nationalism makes people feel proud of their national heritage, and drives them to work at perpetuating their heritage. When someone is proud of their national heritage, they will take steps to preserve and help it grow. This includes maintaining of the national monuments, and also preservation of and contribution to the language, literature, and the arts . Nationalism thus helps in the growth of a country’s culture. Steps are taken to ensure that the monuments are protected from decay, thus providing employment to hundreds of people, and attracting tourists from all over the world.

Drives progress and betterment

Nationalism helps in making the country a better place to live in altogether. A sense of national pride impels the citizens to treat their country well. A patriotic person is always eager to make sure that no one from outside the country is ever able to point an accusing finger at their homeland. Therefore, a patriotic person will do their bit to keep the country clean and ordered. They will behave civilly to other people, both their fellow countrymen and foreign tourists, so that no one gets a negative impression of their own nation. When a nationalistic person is in a position of power, they will do their best to use their authority not for their own personal gains, but for the betterment of the nation as a whole.

Nationalism is the desire to identify yourself as part of a certain nation. Even in this global village, it is good to have a sense of home in order to avoid alienation. And this is what we are exposed to all our lives. Even displaced persons are reported to miss their country- the place they were evicted from or were forced to live by external forces, even if it is clear that their stay there was never a pleasant one. It is through this sense of nationalism that we are able to grow roots and create an identity.

One thought on “ Importance of nationalism ”

While it’s important to have the feeling of nationalism in the citizens of any country, but hyper nationalists are not good for any society. These hyper nationalists will tell you to leave the country if you talk about any wrong things happening in your country. These hyper nationalists are a threat to the freedom of speech. This is happening in many countries. USA, China, India etc. have fascist governments and there is a sense of intolerance in these countries. I don’t want this type of nationalism in my country.

Article contents

Nationalism.

Renaud-Philippe Garner Renaud-Philippe Garner Department of Political Science, Aarhus University
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.2039
Published online: 18 May 2022

Nationalism is a set of beliefs about the nation: its origins, nature, and value. For nationalists, we are particular social animals. On the one hand, our lives are structured by a profound sense of togetherness and similarity: We share languages and memories. On the other hand, our lives are characterized by deep divisions and differences: We draw borders and contest historical narratives. For nationalism, humanity is neither a single species-wide community nor an aggregation of individuals but divided into distinct and unique nations. At the heart of nationalism are claims about our identity and needs as social animals that form the basis of a series of normative claims. To answer the question “what should I do” or “how should I live,” one must first answer the questions “who am I” and “where do I belong.” Nationalism says that our membership in a nation takes precedence and ultimately must guide our choices and actions. In terms of guiding choice and action, nationalist thought proposes a specific form of partiality. Rather than treat the interests or claims of persons and groups impartially, the nationalist demands that one favors one’s own, either as a group or as individual persons. While nationalism does not claim to be the only form of partiality, it does claim to outrank all others: Loyalty or obligations to other groups or identities are subordinated to national loyalty. Together, these claims function as a political ideology. Nationalism identifies the nation as the central form of community and elevates it to the object of supreme loyalty. This fundamental concern for the nation and its flourishing can be fragmented into narrower aims or objectives: national autonomy, national identity, and national unity. Debate on nationalism tends to divide into two clusters, one descriptive and one normative, that only make partial contact. For historians and sociologists, the questions are explanatory: What is nationalism, what is a nation, how are they related, and when and how did they emerge? Philosophers and political theorists focus on the justification of nationalism or nationalist claims: Is national loyalty defensible, what are the limits of this loyalty, how do we rank our loyalties, and does nationalism conflict with human rights?

nationalism
perennialism
civic nation
ethnic nation
liberal nationalism
globalization

Introduction: A Contested Concept

Nationalism is not a consensual idea: We might say that it is doubly contested. On the one hand, there is little consensus on what it is . Primarily, historians and sociologists have conducted descriptive research: They argue for a definition of nationalism as well as an account of its emergence, and they advance typologies of nationalism or stages of its transformation. Arguably, the central debate concerns the origins of nationalism and nations: When did they emerge and why did they do so? Modernists claim that nationalism emerged in the past few centuries and created nations: The ideology invents a new and artificial form of community. Their critics, often experts on premodern eras, either respond that nations are far older than the modernist paradigm allows or that they are transformations of older communities rather than ex nihilo creations.

These debates are not merely about dates. Behind the answer to the question “when did nationalism first emerge?” we find questions like “what is nationalism?” “what is its function?” and “which conditions made it possible or inevitable?” Even among those who agree on an approximate timeline or place for its emergence, we find a range of competing explanations on what produced nationalism: new economic conditions, political transformations, or the power of new ideas.

Nor is there any consensus on the precise relationship between nationalism and nations. For some, nations predate nationalism but are transformed by it, while for others, nationalism creates nations, and for others yet, nations are the modern transformation of prenational communities.

On the other hand, we find intense disagreement about the morality or justification of nationalism. While some scholars seem ambivalent, noting both achievements and failures, and others defend some version of it, there is no gainsaying that nationalism is the object of sustained criticism. The normative debate is further complicated by the fact that what philosophers call “nationalism” only partially overlaps with what historians and sociologists mean by it. Many philosophers and political theorists seem interested in national partiality— the idea that one can, should, or must be partial to fellow nationals—rather than an ideology that orders domestic life and the international order.

Generally, the seminal works on nationalism are explanatory accounts. In addition, to this difference in age and output, there is a question of reliance. Normative debates depend on descriptive ones. Those making normative arguments tend to draw on the descriptive research—from their conception of nationalism to the extent to which they think the nation is artificial. Consequently, this entry focuses on central descriptive and normative questions, with a longer examination of the former. It begins with a clarificatory section (“ Nationalism or Patriotism? ”) that distinguishes the two eponymous concepts and provides a “core” definition of nationalism. The section “ The Origins and Nature of Nationalism ” provides a critical survey of the central descriptive debate: How and when did nationalism emerge? This section divides into subsections: “ Modernism and Its Proponents ” as well as “ Antimodernism .” The section “ Conceptions of the Nation ” addresses the question of what kind of community the nation is through a critical discussion of the ethnic–civic distinction. Normative questions are considered in the section “ The Justification of Nationalism .” The subsection “ Liberal Nationalism and Its Defense ” distinguishes liberal nationalism from core nationalism before turning to prominent arguments made in favor of and against the former.

Nationalism or Patriotism?

While nationalism and patriotism are sometimes treated as synonymous, there are good reasons to differentiate them. First, patriotism is far older than nationalism. While modernists all believe that nationalism is recent, none contest Greek patriotism during the Medic Wars ( Kohn, 1944 ). This chronological difference depends upon a more basic one: Nationalism and patriotism belong to different categories. Typically, patriotism is viewed as a love for or loyalty to one’s community, whether an emotion or character trait ( Kedourie, 1960 ; Kleinig et al., 2015 ; MacIntyre, 1984 ; Oldenquist, 1982 ). 1 Either way, patriotism is neither an ideology nor a form of politics. Understood as an emotion or a character trait, we can grasp the futility of asking when it first appeared: We do not ask when courage was invented or which society discovered love. 2

This distinction also helps explain why the two phenomena are related and sometimes conflated. If patriotism is older and more basic, it makes sense that nationalism draws on this emotion or character trait that arises naturally within human communities. Conversely, it is unsurprising that those who cultivate love and loyalty for their community are drawn to an ideology centered on it.

Nationalism, however, cannot be reduced to sentiment or a character trait. The standard view is that it is an ideology, whatever else it might be ( Billig, 1995 ; Eriksen, 2002 ; Kedourie, 1960 ; Smith, 1991 , 1998 , 2010 ). 3 Despite a wide variety of nationalisms and nationalist thinkers, we can still identify a few core propositions that were shared by seminal thinkers as well as by nationalist movements. We can refer to this as “core” or “classical nationalism.”

Nationalism begins with a claim about the nature and order of the world: It is divided into distinct and unique nations (i). 4 Then it adds a claim about the human good: Human freedom (or flourishing) is dependent upon membership in a nation (ii). Upon these claims about the world and our nature, they add normative claims. The nation, and only the nation, is the source of political legitimacy (iii). Nations must be autonomous and express their characters (iv). Finally, national loyalty outranks all other loyalties (v) ( Kedourie, 1960 ; Smith, 1991 , 1998 , 2010 ). 5

Together, these propositions can explain a great deal of what we call nationalism. 6 For instance, the quest for authenticity depends upon (i) and (iv). If nations are not unique, then it is hard to understand why authenticity should matter. Nor does it make much sense to stress the value of self-expression is what is being expressed is banal or common. Similarly, the nationalist aim of achieving statehood largely follows from (iii) and (iv). On the one hand, if all alien rule is illegitimate, then why should a nation accept it? On the other hand, it seems plausible that the best guarantee of autonomy and self-expression is state sovereignty. Or consider how nationalism is associated with mass mobilization and self-sacrifice. This is in part a function of (v). These projects are justified by an appeal to rank-ordering; if national loyalty reigns supreme, then all other loyalties must be subordinate.

In sum, while nationalist thinkers and nationalist movements present us with additions or iterations, these five beliefs capture much of what is shared. When one speaks about the age of nationalism or its spread, one is invariably speaking about some or all of these propositions. 7

The Origins and Nature of Nationalism

Since the mid- 20th century , the origins and nature of nationalism have been fiercely debated between modernists and their critics. While the former view has emerged as the dominant paradigm, steady criticism has produced notable rival views.

Modernism developed as a rejection of previous scholarship. Throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries , school manuals and scholarship presented nations as ancient, even immemorial. History was taught as a multimillennia narrative of nations and their great members. For example, Germans were taught that their nation long predated unification under Otto von Bismarck. The Hermannsdenkmal— a 19th-century monument celebrating the victory of Arminius, a 1st-century warlord, over the Romans at Teutoburger Forest—embodies this belief in continuity between contemporary Germans and their alleged ancestors ( Grosby, 2005 ).

Modernism and Its Proponents

Nationalism is not the awakening of nations to self-consciousness: it invents nations where they do not exist—but it does need some pre-existing differentiating marks to work on, even if, as indicated, these are purely negative. ( Gellner, 1964 , p. 168)

For modernists, nationalism and nations are products of modernity, even necessary features of it. They emerge, together, sometime between the English Revolution ( Greenfeld, 1992 ; Kohn, 1940 ) or Fichte’s Addresses to the German Nation ( Kedourie, 1960 ). Central to modernism is the relationship between nationalism and nations: Nationalism invents nations. The latter are not organic communities. Unlike families or religious communities, they have not and cannot emerge anywhere, any time. The nation is created by nationalism, which in turn is the product of a particular set of sociohistorical circumstances.

This shared belief is also the point of departure for deep disagreement. Which features of modernity best explain the emergence of nationalism and the invention of nations? There are roughly five kinds of answers to this question: cultural, economic, political, ideological, and radical constructivism.

Modern man is not loyal to a monarch or a land or a faith, whatever he may say, but to a culture. ( Gellner, 1983 , p. 36)

Primarily associated with Ernest Gellner, the cultural view claims that modernization created nationalism, which in turn created nations, out of necessity ( Gellner, 1964 , 1973 , 1983 ). The disruption of premodern life caused by industrialization made it necessary to produce a homogeneous culture that would allow workers to communicate independently of context. To overcome fragmented local premodern cultures, one needs an overarching culture: a national culture. For this reason, a high culture is constructed and later a mass education system is devised to ensure its uniform transmission. Nationalism is a product of necessity: It constructs a new form of identity and community as a response to urban uprooting and industrialization. The dislocating effects of modernity require a refashioning of culture and identity.

People is all they have got: this is the essence of the underdevelopment dilemma itself. ( Nairn, 1977 , p. 100)

A rival view explains the origins of nationalism by appealing to another modern phenomenon: capitalism. For theorists like Tom Nairn, nationalism is a strategic response to the uneven spread of capitalism and the power that it provides ( Nairn, 1977 ). The unequal development and spread of capitalism distribute resources and power unequally: There are centers that benefited from the development of capitalism and there are poorer peripheries. Peripheral elites design an ideology that takes advantage of their only abundant resource: people. And to effectively mobilize and motivate those who do not share their class or interests, these peripheral elites must create a powerful sense of belonging. The solution is to draw on popular beliefs and practices to create a new interclass community: the nation. Thus, economic variants of modernism explain the advent of nationalism in terms of recent economic change, namely, capitalism.

On these views, nationalism is both a form of elite manipulation and transformation. The elites must construct a new sense of community to persuade the masses to endorse their priorities and projects. Yet, they must also change; they must become conversant in a language that draws on popular culture, its myths, and symbols, to mobilize this sense of interclass community.

But the clarity of focus on the nation as coterminous with the state cries out for a predominantly political explanation. ( Mann, 1995 , p. 48)

Yet another variant considers the territorial state to be the best explanation for the advent of nationalist ideology. Bluntly put, political changes are what call for a new political ideology. Nationalism emerges within the past few centuries because it is intimately linked to the modern state. The latter is not a collection of fiefdoms or local power structures but a stable administrative structure, centered in a capital, ruling over well-defined territories ( Giddens, 1985 ).

Here too modernity is cast as a disruptive force and nationalism is part and parcel of a response to it. Whatever else it disrupts, modernity destroys premodern polities and political frameworks. Instead of drawing on religious symbols or myths of descent, nationalism is the attachment to those symbols or representations of the modern state such as citizenship.

Other political variants of modernism emphasize interstate competition and the role that militarization plays ( Mann, 1986 ; Tilly, 1975 ). Still, the argument is essentially the same: Nationalism is created by modern states to help them function competitively and effectively in domestic or international affairs. Either way, it is a largely psychological phenomenon, a special esprit de corps tailor-made for the inhabitants of these new large administrative states.

Again, since a nation, ipso facto, must speak an original language, its speech must be cleansed of foreign accretions and borrowings, since the purer the language, the more natural it is, and the easier it becomes for the nation to realise itself, and to increase its freedom. ( Kedourie, 1960 , p. 67)

A fourth variant considers nationalism to be the response to the discontentment brought by modernity. Powerfully articulated by Elie Kedourie, this view presents nationalism as a civic religion, complete with a narrative of the fall, a path to redemption, and exhortations to sacrifice and purification. This creed was birthed by disillusioned marginal German intellectuals and then exported worldwide ( Kedourie, 1960 , 1971 ).

Collective humiliation and powerlessness are to be explained by national disunity, loss of identity, and autonomy. Like ancient Hebrews explaining their political subjugation in terms of their sinful ways, the nationalist blames contemporary discontentment on a failure to honor and safeguard one’s unique and distinct nation. The solution is national revival: The nation must be reunited, autonomy restored, and national identity restored to its authentic self.

Unlike other variants of modernism that see nationalism as the creation of elites seeking to secure the rising power structures or to provide the necessary social identity for the changing times, this view of nationalism as civic religion is invented by powerless members of society.

No surprise then that the search was on, so to speak, for a new way of linking fraternity, power and time meaningfully together. Nothing perhaps more precipitated this search, nor made it more fruitful, than print-capitalism, which made it possible for rapidly growing numbers of people to think about themselves, and to relate themselves to other, in profoundly new ways. ( Anderson, 1983/2006 , p. 36)

Finally, there are radical constructivist accounts that emphasize the artificiality of the nation: Nationalism is a narrative and the nation is a cultural artifact. For instance, Benedict Anderson has famously argued that changes in terms of how we conceptualize time, the combination of the printing press and capitalism, as well as political change meant that we could imagine new forms of community in which large groups of people can simultaneously imagine themselves as equal members ( Anderson, 1983/2006 ).

The convergence of factors explains what is needed for the narrative to take form and succeed. Print capitalism provides both the material means and an economic incentive to help construct and sustain reading publics, united by a vernacular language. Yet, the impetus to tell this story, to imagine such communities, comes from disaffected civil servants. Here we find echoes of the ideological account: Disaffected functionaries in Latin America came to resent their careers stunted by imperial metropoles. In short, the construction of nations through the nationalist narrative is made possible by several factors: new technology, changing ideas, and a class of people motivated to reimagine their sense of belonging.

Modernism is an attractive paradigm. Undeniably, nationalism spread and came to prominence in the past few centuries. Moreover, the nation-state and the notion of popular sovereignty certainly do not appear at home in the premodern world of multinational empires and dynastic power. And its advocates are right to show that much of what has been called ancient or authentic by nationalists was, in fact, neither. 8 Yet, for all its strengths, the modernist paradigm faces important hurdles.

The proliferation of variants reveals deep disagreement; irreconcilable modernisms cast doubt on the promise of modernism. For example, while modernists agree that the nation is a recent creation, they cannot agree on who created it. If nationalism invented nations, who invented nationalism?

For authors who defend economic modernism, it is the invention of peripheral elites who need a new form of mobilization to outcompete richer and more powerful elites ( Hechter, 1975 ; Nairn, 1977 ). Similarly, for those who consider nationalism as a form of political messianism, it is the invention of the marginal and frustrated among the educated and the skilled ( Kedourie, 1960 , 1971 ). Yet, conceiving nationalism as a rational strategy for weaker parties cannot be reconciled with the claim that nationalism emerges as the state’s official ideology to reinforce militarization or with the view that it is devised by elites for the sake of modernization and industrialization ( Gellner, 1964 , 1983 ; Tilly, 1975 ). One is left wondering whether nationalism is the ideology of the downtrodden who seek liberation or the ideology of the ruling class who seek consolidation.

There are deeper problems for modernist accounts. All of them purport to offer a unitary explanation and yet none do. Each variant draws its strength from its ability to compellingly explain certain cases, but none can explain all the central let alone the plausible cases. While economic theories rightly show how nationalism can be a strategy in an unequal contest, this hardly proves that nationalism is the consequence of such conditions: Underdevelopment often fails to produce nationalism, and nationalism regularly emerges among the (over)developed ( Connor, 1994 ). Similarly, explaining nationalism as a response to industrialization fails to account for those cases where the former precedes the latter ( Smith, 1983 ). And political accounts of nationalism fail to explain why nationalist energies can focus on something besides the state or sovereignty. If nationalism is only about the pursuit or consolidation of state power, what are we to make of cultural nationalism: artistic renaissances, campaigns for moral regeneration, and attempts to transform through education? And given that cultural and political nationalism feed off each other, why focus solely on the latter ( Hutchinson, 1987 , 1994 )?

Finally, the modernist paradigm struggles to persuasively answer important questions. Even if modern societies require new forms of community, this does not explain why the nation arouses such powerful and awe-inspiring passions. Put otherwise, how can instrumental accounts, which consider the nation an artificial community invented to serve some further end, explain its motivational power? Some modernists try to explain the power of nationalism by pointing to its self-referential quality: It is a form of self-worship ( Breuilly, 1993 ). But such replies must inevitably fail. Even if group worship provides great motivational power, this fails to answer a comparative question: Why is the national identity so much more powerful than other available identities? Why should an artificial and recent form of self-worship prove so effective?

Antimodernism

The appearance of the nation and its continuation over time is not a historically uniform process that can be attributed to one cause, such as the requirements of industrial capitalism, or confined to one period of time, such as the last several centuries. ( Grosby, 2005 , p. 58)

The primary fault line between modernists and their critics concerns not the origins of nationalism as an ideology but the nature of nations and their antiquity. Rather than conceive of nations as artificial and recent, the critics of modernism consider them to be either ancient forms of community or transformations of premodern forms of community.

Either way, critics of modernism tend to stress the extent to which nations must build upon dimensions of human identity that are far from modern, such as ethnicity or religion ( Armstrong, 1982 ; Gat, 2012 ; Grosby, 1991 , 2005 ; Hastings, 1997 ; Reynolds, 1983 , 1984 ; Smith, 1986 , 1991 , 1998 , 2000 ).

The argument tends to center on an existential claim: Is it or is it not the case that a nation has existed before modernity? For modernists, the answer must be negative. Indeed, if a single nation precedes nationalism, then the former can exist independently of the latter. And this demonstrates that nationalism neither invents the nation as a type of community nor all tokens of it. For this reason, considerable time and energy are expended to show that some nations, or at the very least one nation, existed before modernity.

We should distinguish between two antimodernist strands. Primordialism is the belief that nations are natural: They have always existed, or their origins are lost in time. While such views were more common in the 19th century , there are late- 20th-century attempts to defend primordialism. Sociobiological primordialism considers the nation as an extension of kin selection; our national ties are the product of our evolutionary inheritance and our tendency to favor those who are genetically similar ( van den Berghe, 1978 ). However, such views quickly break down. If the nation is primarily about kin selection, then it makes little sense to cooperate with and sacrifice oneself for those who are genetically unrelated. Even ethnic nations are bound by myths of common descent rather than actual genetic proximity.

Alternatively, we can speak of “cultural primordialism” when (national) culture is treated as a social given, something inherited that arouses powerful and nearly irresistible passions, even if this is only how we feel or perceive these ties ( Geertz, 1973 ). However, this view quickly falters. While “given” or “primordial” ties can be powerful, they are also subject to change, revision, and rejection. Moreover, the theory does not explain the power of these ties so much as rename them. Why should the given be stronger than the chosen?

Far more influential, perennialism accepts that nationalism is a modern ideology, that nations are historical objects—they appear at a point in time—but rejects that they were invented by nationalism in the modern era. 9 We can distinguish between perennialists who believe that the nation is persistent and those who argue that it is best understood as a recurrent phenomenon. The former is the idea that nations, or at least some of them, are continuous intergenerational communities that have existed without interruption while the latter is the view of nations as recurring, going in and out of existence throughout the ages ( Smith, 1998 ).

Because the critics of modernity do not claim that all or most nations are ancient, they readily concede that Tanzania is quite modern. Instead, the debate focuses on the antiquity of specific nations that serve as litmus tests. Thus, Adrian Hastings argued that England had already emerged as a functional national community during the Middle Ages. For him, there is an English national identity, modeled on the biblical model of Israel: a united people keenly aware of their identity, possessing a language and territory, a government, and a shared religion ( Hastings, 1997 ). Later developments, like the Reformation and the spread of a vernacular-language Bible, might reinforce and transform English identity, but what is being changed must be older than these transformations.

Naturally, if the English nation is modeled on something older, then the antiquity of the nation can be pressed further. Perhaps the hardest case for the modernist paradigm is that of ancient Israel. Here we are faced with what appears to be the uninterrupted intergenerational community that was conscious of its distinct identity, as well as possessed a unique language and religion and a homeland. In addition, they shared memories of an independent political community and rebellions against foreign occupation ( Grosby, 1991 ).

Again, cases such as medieval England or ancient Israel are designed to show that while premodern nations might be exceptional, modernism is wrong to assert that nationalism invents the concept of the nation and all instances of it. In a way, we might say that critics of modernity imagine nations like democracy: Most democracies are quite young, and the success of the idea is recent, but that does not show that democracy is a modern invention.

While radical critics of modernism argue that some nations have existed long before modernity, others present a moderate critique. Nations might be recent, but they are continuous with premodern communities. It is reasonable to understand these critics as rejecting the radical modernism of Eric Hobsbawm, who denies any serious continuity between older forms of community, ethnic or religious, for instance, and the nations invented by nationalism ( Hobsbawm, 1990 ; Hobsbawm & Ranger, 1983 ).

These moderate critics argue that nationalism does not create ex nihilo a novel form of community. Instead, nationalism transforms preexisting identities (cultural, ethnic, religious, etc.) to produce the modern nation. For medievalists like Susan Reynolds, it is a mistake to overlook the existence of communities that identified themselves through myths of ethnic descent, customs and laws, and the use of proper nouns. Nations might appear later, but many are rooted in the regnal kingdoms that possessed popular consciousness and a sense of identity ( Reynolds, 1983 , 1984 ).

Yet, the most sophisticated attempt to show continuity between the premodern and modern identity is probably the work of Anthony D. Smith’s. Through several decades of scholarship, Smith has stressed the importance of the longue durée , long-term analysis. To appreciate the emergence of nationalism and nations, we need to look at very long periods in part to avoid becoming narrowly focused on a particular era or set of cases that would lead to hasty generalizations. Where studies of short periods see invention, long-term analysis reveals that “invention” is often reinterpretation or reconstruction of older materials. Attention to the longue durée also helps explain why nationalism resonates. While many of its claims are inaccurate or false, the continuity between ethnic communities and modern nations shows that behind myths of antiquity and rootedness lie real shared memories and practices, an intergenerational sense of belonging that is not the invention of political elites ( Smith, 1986 , 1991 , 1998 , 2000 , 2009 ).

However insightful these rival views are, they are not without their weaknesses. To begin, none of them quite propose a rival grand narrative or general theory that explains the emergence of nationalism or nations. Again, many arguments center on the most convincing cases that can falsify modernism’s claims. Consequently, these case-study arguments often leave us with important questions about patterns and widespread change. Why do some nations like Israel emerge so early while others like Germany emerge much later? Why does the age of nationalism arrive so late if the nation is so old? What explains the appearance of major changes to collective identity if modernity does not invent nations?

Modernists also raise important methodological objections for their critics. For one, they accuse them of assuming that there is more continuity than the evidence supports ( Breuilly, 1996 ). A leitmotiv is that we have little idea what ordinary or plain persons believed in the premodern world given that they have left behind few writings. The writings of literate elites cannot be presumed to represent widespread beliefs or sentiments. 10 Furthermore, even when we do have some insight into what plain persons thought thanks to partial or fragmentary testimony, we must be careful to avoid reading the past through contemporary lenses.

In turn, this focus on written sources has itself been criticized. Azar Gat (2012) has argued that too much has been made of the written word or the lack of it. Not only is very little of human history covered by written documentation, but it is far from the only available evidence. For instance, while we have few texts documenting the sentiments of ordinary people, we have accounts of events that depended upon ordinary people. Gat repeatedly returns to the case of mobilization and war in the premodern world to argue that it is unrealistic to maintain that ordinary sentiments or identities are unknown or unknowable. Small and weak states did not simply coerce thousands if not tens of thousands of men to fight who barely recognized themselves in their elites. A fortiori , this is true of popular uprisings. 11 Simply put, Gat rejects the idea that we are begging the question of national identity or consciousness if they are part of the best explanation of phenomena ( Gat, 2012 ).

Still, this question of national consciousness is not solely methodological. It is one thing to ask on what grounds we attribute such beliefs or sentiments, and it is quite another to ask why this must be demonstrated. Here we shift from a discussion about whether nationalism invents nations to the very nature of the nation. Even if modernists and their critics could agree on how to conduct their inquiry, they might still disagree on its object. If a nation is defined as a group in which mass national consciousness must exist , then demonstrating that nations existed in the premodern world is far harder than if nations only require moderate consciousness. 12 Fundamentally, the question of how to prove the existence of premodern nations is a function of what the nation is.

Conceptions of the Nation

A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things that, in truth, are but one constitute this soul, this spiritual principle. One is in the past, the other in the present. One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories; the other is present consent, the desire to live together, the will to perpetuate the value of the heritage that one has received in an undivided form. ( Renan, 2018 , p. 261)

Despite its centrality, the question “what is a nation?” has been debated since Ernest Renan’s eponymous lecture at La Sorbonne in 1882 . Disagreement over what the nation is—what kind of community is it, how does it differ from other forms?—has produced some striking responses.

Faced with this question, Hugh Seton-Watson admits that there is nothing else to say save that a nation exists when enough people within a community believe that they belong to a nation or act as if they do ( Seton-Watson, 1977 ). Others like Rogers Brubaker deny that the nation is a particular kind of object. Instead, we should consider the “nation” as a category of practice rather than a form of community with set properties. Hence his proposal to “think about nationalism without nations” ( Brubaker, 1996 , p. 21).

Nevertheless, we can identify some broadly consensual beliefs about the nation. To begin, nations are territorial communities: They claim land as rightfully theirs. The homeland is sacred territory. It is imbued with meaning because it is the site of past events that define the group: where battles were fought, the dead are buried, and past generations flourished.

Moreover, nations are always understood as bounded and limited communities. No nation, however ambitious, understands itself as universal. Unlike certain religious communities, the nation does not aspire to or imagine itself as encompassing humankind. Finally, the nation is primarily a group in which membership is inherited, even when it is open to outsiders. Newborns are not without nationality until they reach the age of reason; one receives a nationality at birth even if one later opts to renounce it or to try to obtain another.

Beyond these shared and widely accepted features, we remain confronted by a central question: What is the nature of the community? What unites conationals?

Civic and Ethnic Views of the Nations

Two main concepts of nation and fatherland emerged in the intertwining of influence and conditions; conflicting and fusing, they became embodied in currents of thought in all nations and, to a varying degree, in entire nations. The one was basically a rational and universal concept of political liberty and the rights of man, looking towards the city of the future. In it the secularized Stoic-Christian tradition lived on: in England, it is Protestant form, in France, in its Catholic form. It found its chief support in the political and economic strength of the educated middle classes and, with a shift of emphasis, in the social-democratically organized labor movements. The other was basically founded on history, on monuments and graveyards, even harking back to the mysteries of ancient times and of tribal solidarity. ( Kohn, 1944 , p. 574)

Nations, and nationalisms, are often sorted according to two ideal types: French and German, Western and Eastern, or civic and ethnic. 13 This typology refers to the nature of the community or the identity that defines the nation. The Western or civic nation is primarily a political association and therefore more of a voluntary community. On this view, the nation is a pact or covenant, a social contract. The nation qua political community occupies a territory that is governed by laws and institutions. This is the view of the nation most associated with Western nations, particularly France, where republicanism played an important part in defining membership in the nation.

The Eastern or ethnic nation is defined by descent, or rather the presumed shared descent of its members. Here members understand themselves as ancestrally related, possessing an identity that is inherited and unchosen on the model of the family. The idea of the ethnic nation is often compared to the family as in Walker Connor’s well-known claim that it is perceived as “the family fully extended” ( Connor, 1994 , p. 202).

We might summarize these two views of the nations in terms of competing conceptions of nationality and its attribution— jus soli and jus sanguinis . How one acquires membership is a function of the nature of the community. The former attributes nationality to those born within the national territory while the latter attributes nationality based on the identity of one’s parents. 14

Of course, one’s conception of the nation is linked to other crucial concepts, namely, national identity. How one understands the nature of the community called the nation affects one’s conception of national identity. What it means to be an X—American or Turkish—will depend on the nature of the community in question. If one considers that the United States of America is a civic nation, a social contract in which members of the republic share political ideals and obey the same laws, then being or becoming an American is a function of becoming a member of a political union. On the civic view, who one’s parents are or which religion one practices will often be orthogonal to determining one’s national identity. Yet, if one holds an ethnic view of the nation, then the identity of one’s parents is no longer irrelevant but essential. On this view, to be Turkish is to be ancestrally related to other Turks and thus filiation is central.

However, these are ideal types. They allow us to make analytical distinctions, to explain patterns of thought and behavior, but they do not correspond to social reality. No actual nation is purely civic or purely ethnic but contains both civic and elements. For example, during the Third French Republic, while students learned about la Répulique, une et indivisible , they also learned that their country used to be called Gaul and their ancestors were Gauls. We find both the civic view embodied by the Republic and the ethnic view embodied in shared ancestry. While it is useful to speak of civic or ethnic to pick out what is emphasized, real nations only approximate these models ( Smith, 1991 ; Yack, 1996 , 2012 ). It is perhaps most useful to think of nations as ranging from more civic (e.g., the United States of America) to more ethnic (e.g., Japan).

The division of nations into civic and ethnic communities is not merely a descriptive question. Behind this categorization loom normative issues: We consider the civic nation to be more open and compatible with consent while the ethnic nation is bound through unchosen features—hence the reason why the civic nation is referred to as voluntarist conception while the ethnic nation is an organic conception. While ethnic nationalism might like to describe itself with the language of the family— fatherland, motherland, brotherhood, and so on —a less controversial unchosen association, it remains the case that the ethnic conception of the nationality makes it harder for newcomers to join. One can profess one’s faith in the republic, one can consent to the social contract, but one cannot so easily choose to change one’s (presumed) descent.

Here again, we must not lose sight that if we consider civic nations to be voluntary and ethnic nations to be organic, and that all actual nations combine elements of both models, then no nation is purely voluntarist or organic. This mixed view, which combines consent and inheritance, was already present in Ernest Renan’s seminal lecture. As it is often highlighted, he insists on the importance of consent, famously calling the nation an “everyday plebiscite” ( Renan, 2018 , pp. 262–263). Nevertheless, he also speaks about the importance of an indivisible past, an inheritance of “glory and regrets” ( Renan, 2018 , p. 261).

The Justification of Nationalism

Despite its unrivaled appeal and motivational power, nationalism has seduced few scholars. Several of its most prominent scholars could hardly disguise their contempt like Elie Kedourie or Eric Hobsbawm. Among philosophers and political theorists, it is often met with skepticism or hostility. Ethnic nationalism, the most ubiquitous form, past and present, is largely thought to be indefensible. Civic nationalism, while judged less harshly, is not universally embraced. In the words of an eminent political theorist, nationalism is “the starkest political shame of the twentieth century , most intractable and yet most unanticipated blot on the political history of the world since the year 1900 ” ( Dunn, 1979 , p. 55). Normatively, nationalism is on the back foot.

And yet, there is also considerable misunderstanding. To a large extent, the descriptive and the normative work fail to make contact. Consider what is arguably the most prominent anthology of high-profile philosophical papers on the justification of nationalism, The Morality of Nationalism ( McKim & McMahan, 1997 ). The endnotes reveal that many chapters contain few or no references to major or minor studies of nationalism. Several philosophers base their arguments on a commonsense understanding or on one or two works. Something similar holds the other way around. In Nations and Nationalism: A Reader ( Spencer & Wollman, 2010 ), 3 out of 19 of the authors from the above anthology appear very cursorily in the references. None of those contributing to the first anthology are the authors of any essential texts in the reader.

There are likely many reasons for this situation, but two should retain our attention. First, many normative works on nationalism either fail to distinguish it from patriotism or conflate them. In his defense of “nationalism,” Hurka defines it as “people being partial to their conationals” ( Hurka, 1997 , p. 140). However, so defined, it is indistinguishable from a widespread understanding of patriotism. Similarly, Judith Lichtenberg seems to think that the only difference between nationalism and patriotism is that the former applies before the establishment of the state while the latter applies after it ( Lichtenberg, 1997 ). This is an astonishing claim as it would make patriotism more recent than nationalism.

Second, and more fundamentally, many normative theorists use “nationalism” to mean something very different from the core ideology of nationalism or some variant. Typically, they mean national partiality , which amounts to the idea that one may, should, or must favor the claims or interests of one’s conationals over those of foreigners. For instance, when Thomas Hurka defends a moderate form of national partiality, he is very far from justifying the claim that national loyalty outranks all others, which was proposition (v). It is perfectly possible to favor one’s conationals over foreigners and yet believe that friends and family command a greater loyalty still.

We can add that nationalists, with few notable exceptions, do not have a purely instrumental view of loyalty and sacrifice: They do not love the nation to better serve humankind. 15 Rather, the nation itself is the ultimate end. In other words, the instrumental defenses of national partiality that we find in the philosophical literature share little with the classical view of nationalism. 16

In short, many philosophers are using “nationalism” in a very narrow sense compared to the scholars of nationalism. While we can find important contributions in these piecemeal or partial discussions of the morality of nationalism, we can also find defenses of something that goes beyond some measure of partiality or an isolated defense of self-determination. 17 However, we do not find much of a defense of classical or core nationalism. Commonly, we find a defense of liberal nationalism .

Liberal Nationalism and Its Defense

Liberals then need to ask themselves whether national convictions matter to their way of thinking, to their values, norms, and modes of behaviour, to their notions of social justice, and to the range of practical policies they support. In other words, they must rethink their beliefs and policies and seek to adapt them to the world in which they live. ( Tamir, 1993 , pp. 3–4)

Liberal nationalism is not part of an explanatory theory of nationalism. 18 Instead, it is an attempt to revise nationalism so that it can be reconciled with the dominant post-Enlightenment political framework, liberalism. Recall that the core ideology of nationalism involves certain claims about morality and human flourishing. On the one hand, we find claims about the value of community and membership. For instance, we saw that proposition (ii) of core nationalism was that individual freedom or flourishing required membership in a nation. Either way, the point is the connection between membership in a nation and human well-being. On the other hand, we find claims that are action-guiding: Proposition (v) is that national loyalty always comes first.

To be schematic, the classical view of the nation can be summarized as an ideology with a demanding view of partiality, which rests upon very strong claims about the value of nations. This demandingness is captured by the insistence that one sacrifice everything on the national altar. We find it in a Swiss “political catechism,” exhorting citizens to “sacrifice willingly and joyfully” their property and lives to the fatherland ( Kohn, 1944 , p. 385). Or in the poetry of Thomas Babington Macauley famously taught to British schoolchildren:

Then out spake brave Horatius, The Captain of the Gate; “To every man upon this earth Death cometh soon or late. And how can man die better Than facing fearful odds, For the ashes of his fathers, And the temples of his Gods.”

In sum, the morality view put forward by classical nationalism emphasizes the utmost importance of national membership in human flourishing and consequently affirms a rigid hierarchy of duties that places national loyalty above all else. These features—its demandingness, its absolute claims about communal life and flourishing—help explain why many have been so critical.

On the one hand, internal critiques seek to show that the classical view of nationalism is incapable of defending its strong claims. Prominently, we find objections concerning the relative value of the nation and nationality. A popular form of this objection lists the various communities to which one belongs and asks for a clear explanation as to why membership in the nation is so important. To be clear, the argument is not that the nation does not matter but that even if one can establish that it plays a very important role in human flourishing, perhaps even that it is the most valuable form of communal life, this does not yet show that national loyalty must always trump other loyalties ( Lichtenberg, 1997 ).

Here it is worth pointing out how descriptive research is mobilized to make normative arguments. If modernism is true, then the defenders of nationalism must explain why human flourishing depends so much upon a recent invention. Were premodern lives all deeply marred? If nations were invented, why can we not invent more inclusive communities to replace them? Conversely, if the critics of modernity are right, then it is easier to argue that national membership like family membership is a deep feature of human life and flourishing.

On a similar line of thought, one can admit that national autonomy is valuable or defensible and accept that national identity should be expressed and yet challenge precisely what is required to achieve either. If neither national autonomy nor national self-expression requires a nation-state, at least not in all cases, then it becomes much harder to justify nationalist demands for one.

On the other hand, we find external critiques that point to the conflict between nationalism and other normative beliefs or commitments we might have. First, it is difficult to reconcile the core ideology of nationalism with any demanding form of cosmopolitanism. Indeed, given the rigid rank-ordering of loyalties in core nationalism, one’s loyalty to humankind is at best something to be attended to once one’s duties to the nation are discharged. If cosmopolitanism is a commitment to impartial benevolence and the belief that our common humanity is our overriding identity and the object of our strongest loyalty, then they are flatly incompatible.

A similar point can be made about human rights. Understood as bedrock normative claims, human rights would represent (nearly) absolute side constraints. Here too there is a very real possibility that human rights and nationalism conflict. If national loyalty dominates all other loyalties, then it is difficult to understand how a nationalist can coherently choose to honor human rights when these conflict with the demands of the nation. Indeed, when scholars and plain persons evoke how nationalism can be belligerent or fanatical, this is largely what they mean. If loyalty always takes precedence, then there is little or nothing nationalists will not do. And this, its critics say, is precisely why the 20th century was so bloody. 19

Finally, classical nationalism can seem hard to reconcile with a strong commitment to autonomy or political consent. One is obligated to one’s nation and fellow nationals, and yet one’s nationality is often unchosen. This worry is at its strongest when applied to ethnic nationalism as on this view, membership is doubly unchosen: One cannot choose one’s ancestors at birth, nor can one easily later choose to be ancestrally related to members of a new group. Yet, ethnic nationalism is not unique in imposing obligations based on unchosen identities ( Scheffler, 1994 ). Even membership in civic nations is largely unchosen and can be demanding.

Liberal nationalism seeks to reconcile nationalism and liberalism, even showing them to be mutually reinforcing. Proposed initially by Yael Tamir in her seminal Liberal Nationalism , variants of this moderate form of nationalism have also been prominently defended by David Miller and Chaim Gans ( Gans, 2003 ; Miller, 1995 , 1999 , 2007 , 2016 ; Tamir, 1993 , 2019 ). Before addressing arguments for liberal nationalism, we should consider how it generally differs from classical or core nationalism.

First, liberal nationalists abandon the rigid acontextual hierarchy of duties of core nationalism. National loyalty may still outrank other loyalties, but it does not always do so. Most notably, when the human rights of foreigners are at stake, our duties to fellow nationals or to the nation itself must come second. This is the spirit of the “weak cosmopolitanism” we find endorsed by liberal nationalists ( Miller, 2016 ). We might also say that while we have stronger positive duties to fellow nationals than to foreigners, our negative duties to not violate human rights apply equally to all and take precedence over positive duties to fellow members ( Miller, 2005 ).

Second, liberal nationalism is essentially a nonethnic form of nationalism. This does not make it a pure civic nationalism because it focuses on the preservation and transmission of a national identity and a public culture that are not exhausted by constitutionalism. 20 However, it does essentially abandon myths of ethnic descent or ancestral relatedness as a part of national identity ( Smith, 2010 ). While nationality might still be attributed at birth, it becomes considerably easier to join and become accepted within another nation once ethnic descent is jettisoned.

Third, liberal nationalists are more concerned with the relationship between the nation and liberal democracy ( Tamir, 1993 , 2019 ). While many classical nationalists were strong advocates of democratic or republican regimes, it was by no means universal. Indeed, core nationalism is compatible with an authoritarian government so long as it is authentic or expressive of the national character. Indeed, some very prominent nationalists were antidemocratic, like Charles Maurras and l’Action française as well as Russian nationalists, who summed up their view as “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality” ( Riasanovsky, 2005 ).

To justify their views, liberal nationalists essentially offer two kinds of arguments. Recall, their project is not to revise or rehabilitate democracy or liberalism as it is to revise and rehabilitate nationalism; this explains why their arguments presume the value of democracy and liberalism and focus on establishing the ethical credentials of (a reformed) nationalism.

The first kind of argument put forward by nationalists might be called communitarian . These arguments are all noninstrumental in the sense that they do not derive the value of national community or loyalty from its contribution to either liberal democracy or liberal conceptions of justice. The arguments focus on the value of community independently of its contribution to democracy or social justice. We might further divide this argument into arguments over the intrinsic worth of national communities and the constitutive role of national communities in human flourishing.

The former strives to demonstrate that nations are valuable communities; they are the site of shared meaning and values. Cultures or cultural communities are good things, and they should continue to exist. Moreover, if we add that these cultures are distinct and unique—proposition (i) from core nationalism—then we ought to appreciate that preserving and sustaining nations provides the world with a diversity of cultures ( Berlin, 1976 ). If culture is good, then nations are valuable as incarnations of culture, and if we value a diversity of cultures, we ought to value the irreducible plurality of nations.

The latter kind of argument seeks to show how nations are constitutive of human flourishing. In their strongest form, they claim that one cannot flourish outside of the nation while weaker versions simply highlight how dispensing with the nation or national makes human flourishing harder or less complete than it otherwise might be. Here, we find various iterations. Some focus on the relationship between national identity and self-esteem ( Berlin, 1979 ; MacCormick, 1982 , 1991 , 1996 ; Margalit & Raz, 1990 ; Nielsen, 1999 ; Tamir, 1993 ; Taylor,1992 ), others on how our understanding of morality is conditioned by our membership in a nation and our participation in its moral traditions, its interpretation of principles or values ( MacIntyre, 1981 , 1984 , 1988 ; Taylor, 1989 ; Walzer, 1983 , 1987 , 1994 ). Others still insist on how choice and personal development require communal membership ( Kymlicka, 1995 ; Tamir, 1993 ).

The key point is that all these arguments seek to show that without the nation, human life would be greatly impoverished. Our national identities and our national loyalty constitute, at least for many of us, part and parcel of what it is to live a meaningful or good life.

The second kind of argument is instrumental: The value of the nation is derived from its role in sustaining either liberal democracy or liberal conceptions of justice. National identity and loyalty are either presented as necessary or uniquely valuable means of achieving our political aims of popular rule or social justice. Put otherwise, these arguments all work back from our commitments to democracy or justice and argue that once we properly appreciate how nations can help us achieve our aims, we will value them.

The most famous, the trust argument , has many variations. Essentially, we begin with the need for trust: To cooperate, to sacrifice for others, we must trust that others will reciprocate. For instance, in a democracy, the minority must believe that the majority will not abuse its power and will relinquish it when it loses. All must believe that others are equally committed to the common good. Yet, within large groups, trust cannot rest on personal knowledge of individual track records. To establish trust and motivate people to cooperate and make sacrifices, people need to feel committed to something above and beyond the partisan factions. The nation is presented as an engine of social trust because national identity will bind together and motivate nationals to work as a team. Liberal nationalists present the nation as (uniquely) capable of providing the identification and trust necessary to overcome the various forces, like disagreement or egoism, that threaten social cooperation, sacrifice, and trust ( Canovan, 1996 ; Kymlicka, 2001 ; Miller, 1995 ; Moore, 2001 ; Schnapper, 1998 ).

Of course, not only democracy requires social trust. Redistributive policies and social justice also require cooperation and sacrifice from people who are personally unacquainted. Here too, the argument goes, national identity provides the necessary identification and motivation.

In short, liberal nationalism is defended on two grounds. Noninstrumental arguments are fundamentally arguments about the value of community tout court or its constitutive role in human flourishing. Either way, they need to defend a certain conception of human nature or one about intrinsic value. The instrumental arguments are less ambitious as they begin from the commitments held by many critics of nationalism, such as democracy and social justice, and seek to show the cost of eliminating national identities and loyalties.

While more moderate than classical nationalism, liberal nationalism has not been spared criticism. On the one hand, it faces internal critiques. For instance, the trust argument has been the target of a fair amount of skepticism. Does national identity bind and motivate as its advocates claim? Critics have argued that it is far from clear that national identity can or does create the kind of affective bond and trust that its proponents claim. For instance, there appear to be plenty of cases in which fellow nationals distrust each other and would prefer to deal with foreigners if they had the choice ( Abizadeh, 2002 ). Moreover, given that a central claim can be empirically verified, we are entitled to ask what quantitative evidence can be produced in addition to sociohistorical narratives about the relationship between nation-states and welfare states. Here, even defenders of liberal nationalism concede that testing the claim has only provided partial support ( Miller & Ali, 2014 ).

Multiple external criticisms have been formulated, but two are particularly noteworthy against the backdrop of globalization. 21 An older and quite prominent critique is egalitarian. Essentially, these critics begin by identifying our commitment to equality and then show how nation-states contribute to inequality: They favor nationals at the expense of foreigners. While this might be tolerable in a world where everyone had access to a decent life, it is intolerable when so many lack so much and others live in abundance. In sum, the argument seeks to show that liberal nationalism, or any variation that does not significantly depart from the status quo, is deeply incompatible with a commitment to human equality ( Caney, 2005 ; Pogge, 2002 ; Singer, 1972 ; Steiner, 1994 ).

The second critique focuses on how liberal nationalism remains at odds with certain conceptions of human rights. Here, research is undeniably influenced by the political reality of the early 21st century ; migration and refugee crises have stimulated debate on the morality of borders. Behind talk of borders, we find the deeper conflict between, on the one hand, the notion of collective autonomy or the self-determination of peoples and, on the other hand, a human right to free movement or to immigrate. If liberal nationalism allows that one can exclude people from one’s group or territory, then we must ask whether self-determination comes at the expense of a basic right. For those who endorse a human right to immigrate, liberal nationalism’s support for borders and exclusion is objectionable ( Carens, 2013 ; Oberman, 2016 ).

Abizadeh, A. (2002). Does liberal democracy presuppose a national culture? Four arguments. American Political Science Review , 96 (3), 495–509.
Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origins and spread of nationalism (Rev. ed.). Verso. (Original work published 1983)
Armstrong, J. (1982). Nations before nationalism . University of North Carolina Press.
Bell, D. (2010). John Stuart Mill on colonies. Political Theory , 38 (1), 34–64.
Berlin, I. (1976). Vico and Herder: Two studies in the history of ideas . Hogarth.
Berlin, I. (1979). Against the current . Hogarth.
Billig, M. (1995). Banal nationalism . SAGE.
Breuilly, J. (1993). Nationalism and the state . Chicago University Press/Manchester University Press.
Breuilly, J. (1996). Approaches to nationalism. In G. Balakrishnan (Ed.), Mapping the nation (pp. 146–174). Verso.
Brubaker, R. (1996). Nationalism reframed: Nationhood and the national question in the New Europe . Cambridge University Press.
Caney, S. (2005). Justice beyond borders . Oxford University Press.
Canovan, M. (1996). Nationhood and political theory . Elgar.
Carens, J. (2013). The ethics of immigration . Oxford University Press.
Chatterjee, P. (1986). Nationalist thought and the colonial world . Zed Books for the United Nations University.
Chatterjee, P. (1993). The nations and its fragments . Princeton University Press.
Connor, W. (1994). Ethnonationalism: The quest for understanding . Princeton University Press.
Dietz, M. G. (1989). Patriotism. In T. Ball , J. Farr , & R. L. Hanson (Eds.), Political innovation and conceptual change (pp. 177–193). Cambridge University Press.
Dunn, J. (1979). Western political thought in the face of the future . Cambridge University Press.
Elshtain, J. B. (1993). Sovereignty, identity, sacrifice. In M. Ringrose & A. Lerner (Eds.), Reimagining the nation (pp. 159–175). Open University Press.
Enloe, C. (1989). Bananas, beaches, bases: Making feminist sense of international politics . Pandora.
Eriksen, T. (2002). Ethnicity and nationalism (2nd ed.). Pluto Press.
Falk, R. (2002). Revisioning cosmopolitanism. In M. Nussbaum (Ed.), For love of country? (pp. 53–60). Beacon.
Fichte, J. G. (2008). Addresses to the German nation ( G. Moore , Trans.). Cambridge University Press.
Gans, C. (2003). The limits of nationalism . Cambridge University Press.
Gat, A. (2012). Nations: The long history and deep roots of political ethnicity and nationalism . Cambridge University Press.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures . Fontana.
Gellner, E. (1964). Thought and change . Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Gellner, E. (1973). Scale and nation. Philosophy of the Social Sciences , 3 , 1–17.
Gellner, E. (1983). Nations and nationalism . Blackwell.
Giddens, A. (1985). The nation-state and violence . Polity.
Goodin, R. E. (1988). What is so special about our fellow countrymen? Ethics , 98 (4), 663–686.
Greenfeld, L. (1992). Nationalism: Five roads to modernity . Harvard University Press.
Grosby, S. (1991). Religion and nationality in antiquity. European Journal of Sociology , 32 (2), 229–265.
Grosby, S. (2005). Nationalism: A very short introduction . Oxford University Press.
Gustavsson, G. , & Miller, D. (2019). Liberal nationalism and its critics . Oxford University Press.
Habermas, J. (1994). Struggles for recognition in the democratic constitutional state. In A. Gutmann (Ed.), Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition (pp. 107–148). Princeton University Press.
Hare, R. M. (1981). Moral thinking . Oxford University Press.
Hastings, A. (1997). The construction of nationhood: Religion, ethnicity and nationalism . Cambridge University Press.
Hechter, M. (1975). Internal colonialism: The Celtic fringe in British national development , 1536–1966. Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Hobsbawm, E. (1990). Nations and nationalism since 1780 . Cambridge University Press.
Hobsbawm, E. , & Ranger, T. (Eds.). (1983). The invention of tradition . Cambridge University Press.
Horsman, M. , & Marshall, A. (1994). After the nation-state . HarperCollins.
Hurka, T. (1997). The justification of national partiality. In R. McKim & J. McMahan (Eds.), The morality of nationalism (pp. 139–157). Oxford University Press.
Hutchinson, J. (1987). The dynamics of cultural nationalism: The Gaelic revival and the creation of the Irish nation state . Allen and Unwin.
Hutchinson, J. (1994). Modern nationalism . Fontana.
Juergensmeyer, M. (1993). The new cold war? Religious nationalism confronts the secular state . University of California Press.
Kedourie, E. (1960). Nationalism . Hutchinson.
Kedourie, E. (Ed.). (1971). Nationalism in Asia and Africa . Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Kleinig, J. , Keller, S. , & Primoratz, I. (2015). The ethics of patriotism: A debate . Wiley-Blackwell.
Kohn, H. (1940). The genesis and character of English nationalism. Journal of the History of Ideas , 1 (1), 69–94.
Kohn, H. (1944). The idea of nationalism . Macmillan.
Kymlicka, W. (1995). Multicultural citizenship . Oxford University Press.
Kymlicka, W. (2001). Politics in the vernacular . Oxford University Press.
Lichtenberg, J. (1997). Nationalism, for and (mainly) against. In R. McKim & J. McMahan (Eds.), The morality of nationalism (pp. 158–175). Oxford University Press.
MacCormick, N. (1982). Legal right and social democracy . Oxford University Press.
MacCormick, N. (1991). Is nationalism philosophically credible? In W. L. Twining (Ed.), Issues of self-determination . Aberdeen University Press.
MacCormick, N. (1996). Liberalism, nationalism, and the post-national state. Political Studies , 44 (4), 553–567.
MacIntyre, A. (1981). After virtue . Notre-Dame University Press.
MacIntyre, A. (1984). Is patriotism a virtue? University of Kansas.
MacIntyre, A. (1988). Whose justice? Which rationality? University of Notre-Dame Press.
Mann, M. (1986). The sources of social power (Vol. I). Cambridge University Press.
Mann, M. (1995). A political theory of nationalism and its excesses. In S. Periwal (Ed.), Notions of nationalism (pp. 44–64). Central European University Press.
Margalit, A. , & Raz, J. (1990). National self-determination. Journal of Philosophy , 87 (9), 439–461.
McKim, R. , & McMahan, J. (1997). The morality of nationalism . Oxford University Press.
McNeill, W. (1986). Polyethnicity and national unity in world history . University of Toronto Press.
Miller, D. (1995). On nationality . Clarendon.
Miller, D. (1999). Principles of social justice . Harvard University Press.
Miller, D. (2005). Reasonable partiality towards compatriots. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 8 (1/2), 63–81.
Miller, D. (2007). National responsibility and global justice . Oxford University Press.
Miller, D. (2016). Strangers in our midst . Harvard University Press.
Miller, D. , & Ali, S. (2014). Testing the national identity argument. European Political Science Review , 6 (2), 237–259.
Moore, M. (2001). Normative justifications for liberal nationalism: Justice, democracy, and national identity. Nations and Nationalism , 7 (1), 1–20.
Nairn, T. (1977). The breaking-up of Britain: Crisis and neo-nationalism . New Left Books.
Nielsen, K. (1999). Cultural nationalism, neither ethnic nor civic. In R. Beiner (Ed.), Theorizing nationalism (pp. 119–130). SUNY Press.
Oberman, K. (2016). Immigration as a human right. In S. Fine & L. Ypi (Eds.), Migration in political theory: The ethics of movement and membership (pp. 32–56). Oxford University Press.
Oldenquist, A. (1982). Loyalties. Journal of Philosophy , 79 (4), 73–93.
Pogge, T. (2002). World poverty and human rights . Polity.
Renan, E. (2018). What is a nation? In M. F. N. Giglioli (Trans.), What is a nation and other political writings (pp. 247–263). Columbia University Press.
Reynolds, S. (1983). Medieval “origins gentium” and the community of the realm. History , 68 (224), 375–390.
Reynolds, S. (1984). Kingdoms and communities in Western Europe, 900–1300 . Clarendon.
Riasanovsky, N. V. (2005). Russian identities: A historical survey . Oxford University Press.
Scheffler, S. (1994). Families, nations and strangers . University of Kansas.
Schnapper, D. (1998). Community of citizens . Transaction.
Seton-Watson, H. (1977). Nations and states: An enquiry into the origins of nations and the politics of nationalism . Westview.
Singer, P. (1972). Famine, affluence, and morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs , 1 (3), 229–243.
Smith, A. D. (1983). Theories of nationalism (2nd ed.). Duckworth.
Smith, A. D. (1986). The ethnic origins of nations . Blackwell.
Smith, A. D. (1991). National identity . University of Nevada Press.
Smith, A. D. (1998). Nationalism and modernism: A critical survey of recent theories of nations and nationalism . Routledge.
Smith, A. D. (2000). The nation in history . University Press of New England.
Smith, A. D. (2009). Ethno-symbolism and nationalism . Routledge.
Smith, A. D. (2010). Nationalism (2nd ed.). Polity.
Spencer, P. , & Wollman, H. (2010). Nations and nationalism: A reader . Edinburgh University Press.
Steiner, H. (1994). An essay on rights . Blackwell.
Tamir, Y. (1993). Liberal nationalism . Princeton University Press.
Tamir, Y. (2019). Why nationalism? Princeton University Press.
Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the self . Harvard University Press.
Taylor, C. (1992). The politics of recognition. In A. Gutmann (Ed.), Multiculturalism and “the politics of recognition” (pp. 25–73). Princeton University Press.
Taylor, C. (1997). Nationalism and modernity. In R. McKim & J. McMahan (Eds.), The morality of nationalism (pp. 31–55). Oxford University Press.
Tilly, C. (Ed.). (1975). The formation of national states in Western Europe . Princeton University Press.
van den Berghe, P. (1978). Race and ethnicity: A sociobiological perspective. Ethnic and Racial Studies , 1 (4), 401–411.
Viroli, M. (1995). For love of country: An essay on nationalism and patriotism . Clarendon.
Walby, S. (1992). Woman and nation. In A. D. Smith (Ed.), Ethnicity and nationalism: International studies in sociology and social anthropology (pp. 81–100). Brill.
Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of justice . Basic Books.
Walzer, M. (1987). Interpretation and social criticism . Harvard University Press.
Walzer, M. (1994). Thick and thin . University of Notre-Dame Press.
Yack, B. (1996). The myth of the civic nation. Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society , 10 (2), 193–211.
Yack, B. (2012). Nationalism and the moral psychology of community . Chicago University Press.

1. Classically, patriotism was classified as a virtue (i.e., an admirable character trait). Yet, its ethical credentials have been increasingly questioned in the wake of World War I. Still, proponents and opponents of patriotism tend to agree that it is a character trait.

2. One view is that patriotism is loyalty to political institutions, specifically republican, rather than to an ethnocultural community ( Connor, 1994 ; Dietz, 1989 ; Taylor, 1997 ; Viroli, 1995 ). However, this definition is questionable. Even if “patriots” has often been used to name advocates of republicanism, it is certainly not the only recorded use. Nor does this view match the common uses of “patriot” or “patriotism” to speak of the intense loyalty of those who have no institutions or do not necessarily believe in republicanism (e.g., patriotic Kurds). Worse, if patriotism is loyalty to institutions and nationalism is loyalty to an ethnocultural group, then those who defend this distinction seem committed to the claim that nationalism is ancient. How else can they describe loyalty to the Jewish people and Kingdom during the Jewish-Roman wars?

3. A prominent dissenter in the literature is Benedict Anderson. He claimed that nationalism was more like kinship or religion, no doubt in part due to what he considered to be its philosophical poverty and even incoherence ( Anderson, 2006 , pp. 4–5).

4. We might say that nations are numerically distinct and qualitatively distinct as opposed to manufactured objects that are numerically distinct but qualitatively indistinct.

5. The point is not that there existed a clear doctrine called “core nationalism” that people simply adopted or not. There are and have been nationalists of all ideological stripes—conservative, liberal, socialist, and so on. The point of putting forward core nationalism is to identify those beliefs most shared between them that allow us to recognize that despite their differences and nuances, there are common threads.

6. This view is open to the challenge that it primarily summarizes Western nationalism. For those interested in an influential non-Western perspective, see Chatterjee (1986 , 1993 ).

7. An example is the way in which proposition (iii) has become so central to nationalist movements in the wake of the French Revolution. The age of nationalism and later decolonization delegitimized the millennia-old institution of empire by spreading the proposition that all alien rule is illegitimate.

8. From Thanksgiving that commemorates events in the early 17th century but only becomes a national institution in the late 19th century, to the 19th-century invention of distinct clan tartans in Scotland, more than one practice or symbol is far more recent than commonly believed ( Hobsbawm & Ranger, 1983 ).

9. Authors like Azar Gat would be unhappy with this label. Nevertheless, his overall argument is far more critical of modernism than anything else. Indeed, insisting on the antiquity of the national state seems like a form of perennialism ( Gat, 2012 ).

10. Modernists are skeptical of identity unsupported by institutions. Identity that is not affirmed and transmitted through institutions is “fragmentary, discontinuous and elusive” ( Breuilly, 1996 , p. 156).

11. The battle of Raphia and the subsequent popular Egyptian revolt against Hellenistic rule is a textbook case drawn from the premodern world ( Gat, 2012 , pp. 118–119). Similar examples abound in Gat’s account.

12. For instance, Walker Connor insists that nations begin at the end of the 19th or early 20th century because they require mass consciousness, which in turn depends upon mass communication and standardized education. Adrian Hastings believed that so long as national consciousness extends to many people beyond government circles and the ruling class, then one can speak of a nation ( Connor, 1994 ; Hastings, 1997 ).

13. These are the most prominent, but they are not the only classification of nations and nationalism. For instance, one may draw the line between secular and religious forms of nationalism ( Juergensmeyer, 1993 ).

14. While many accept that there are different kinds of nations, some reject this pluralism in favor of a monolithic view. Walker Connor insists that all nationalism is ethnic nationalism ( Connor, 1994 ).

15. Perhaps the most notable exception is Johann Gottlieb Fichte, who often defends nationalism as essential for the progress of humanity ( Fichte, 2008 ). Notwithstanding these passages, Fichte certainly sounds like an ardent nationalist.

16. Authors who defend loyalty to the nation or national partiality purely as a means of achieving the greatest happiness or to ensure the maximal discharging of moral duties, such as R. M. Hare and Robert Goodin respectively argue, are hardly endorsing “nationalism” ( Goodin, 1988 ; Hare, 1981 ). Few nationalists think of their nation as a mere tool let alone believe that humanity is the ultimate object of loyalty.

17. An excellent example of the way that debate has proceeded is the way that Alasdair MacIntyre (1984) is cited or discussed. MacIntyre does not discuss let alone defend nationalism but patriotism. His focus is clearly on a character trait and not an ideology: Nowhere does he claim that all political legitimacy comes from the nation or that nations must be as autonomous as possible. Of course, this does not mean that MacIntyre’s defense of patriotism is irrelevant—he does after all make strong claims about communal life and human flourishing. The point is that many philosophers and political theorists treat nationalism and national partiality as interchangeable. Consequently, what is discussed on the heading of “nationalism” in the normative debate is often an anemic understanding of what historians and sociologists are discussing.

18. Authors like David Miller might reply that liberal nationalism is not a contemporary reconstruction of nationalism but a view inspired by historical nationalists such as Giuseppe Manzini and John Stuart Mill ( Gustavsson & Miller, 2019 ). While one might convincingly argue that Manzini advocated something sufficiently like contemporary liberal nationalism, things are less clear for Mill. While he did believe that national sentiment was crucial to representative government, he also advocated colonialism on the grounds that it made the colonized better off—a point hard to square with core nationalism ( Bell, 2010 ).

19. The accusation that nationalism is particularly responsible for brutal and total wars in the 20th century is widespread ( Smith, 1998 , 2010 ). Even if the accusation is correct, nationalism was also a driving force, if not the driving force, behind decolonization. Whatever historical debates are to be had about what causes what, the cost-benefit analysis of nationalism is likely more complex than François Mitterand’s “ Le nationalisme, c’est la guerre .”

20. If by “constitutional patriotism” we mean that people are primarily loyal not to a cultural community but the norms and values of a liberal democratic constitution, then liberal nationalism remains a form of nationalism ( Habermas, 1994 ).

21. There is no shortage of external critiques. Feminist authors have pointed out the extent to which nationalism can be understood as a gendered ideology: one that rarely grants women an equal role in the nation or addresses their concerns ( Elshtain, 1993 ; Enloe, 1989 ; Walby, 1992 ). Similarly, those whose argue that we inhabit an increasingly postnational or globalized world argue that the nation and nationalism are obsolete ( Falk, 2002 ; Horsman & Marshall, 1994 ; McNeill, 1986 ).

Nationalism and Foreign Policy
Religious Nationalism and Religious Influence
Nationalism in African Politics

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 24 May 2024

Cookie Policy
Privacy Policy
Legal Notice
Accessibility
[66.249.64.20|185.80.151.9]
185.80.151.9

Character limit 500 /500

Table of Contents
Random Entry
Chronological
Editorial Information
About the SEP
Editorial Board
How to Cite the SEP
Special Characters
Advanced Tools
Support the SEP
PDFs for SEP Friends
Make a Donation
SEPIA for Libraries
Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

Friends PDF Preview
Author and Citation Info
Back to Top

Nationalism

The term “nationalism” is generally used to describe two phenomena:

the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their national identity, and
the actions that the members of a nation take when seeking to achieve (or sustain) self-determination.

(1) raises questions about the concept of a nation (or national identity), which is often defined in terms of common origin, ethnicity, or cultural ties, and specifically about whether an individual’s membership in a nation should be regarded as non-voluntary or voluntary. (2) raises questions about whether self-determination must be understood as involving having full statehood with complete authority over domestic and international affairs, or whether something less is required.

Nationalism came into the focus of philosophical debate three decades ago, in the nineties, partly in consequence of rather spectacular and troubling nationalist clashes. Surges of nationalism tend to present a morally ambiguous, and for this reason often fascinating, picture. “National awakening” and struggles for political independence are often both heroic and cruel; the formation of a recognizably national state often responds to deep popular sentiment but sometimes yields inhuman consequences, from violent expulsion and “cleansing” of non-nationals to organized mass murder. The moral debate on nationalism reflects a deep moral tension between solidarity with oppressed national groups on the one hand and repulsion in the face of crimes perpetrated in the name of nationalism on the other. Moreover, the issue of nationalism points to a wider domain of problems related to the treatment of ethnic and cultural differences within democratic polity, arguably among the most pressing problems of contemporary political theory.

In the last two decades, migration crisis and the populist reactions to migration and domestic economic issues have been the defining traits of a new political constellation. The traditional issue of the contrast between nationalism and cosmopolitanism has changed its profile: the current drastic contrast is between populist aversion to the foreigners-migrants and a more generous, or simply just, attitude of acceptance and Samaritan help. The populist aversion inherits some features traditionally associated with patriotism and nationalism, and the opposite attitude the main features of traditional cosmopolitanism. One could expect that the work on nationalism will be moving further on this new and challenging playground, addressing the new contrast and trying to locate nationalism in relation to it.

In this entry, we shall first present conceptual issues of definition and classification (Sections 1 and 2) and then the arguments put forward in the debate (Section 3), dedicating more space to the arguments in favor of nationalism than to those against it in order to give the philosophical nationalist a proper hearing. In the last part we shall turn to the new constellation and sketch the new issues raised by nationalist and trans-nationalist populisms and the migration crisis.

1.1 The Basic Concept of Nationalism

1.2 the concept of a nation, 2.1 concepts of nationalism: classical and liberal, 2.2 moral claims, classical vs. liberal: the centrality of nation, 3.1 classical and liberal nationalisms, 3.2 arguments in favor of nationalism, classical vs. liberal: the deep need for community, 3.3 arguments in favor of nationalism: issues of justice, 3.4 populism and a new face of nationalism, 3.5 nation-state in global context, 4. conclusion, introduction, other internet resources, related entries, 1. what is a nation.

Although the term “nationalism” has a variety of meanings, it centrally encompasses two phenomena: (1) the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their identity as members of that nation and (2) the actions that the members of a nation take in seeking to achieve (or sustain) some form of political sovereignty (see for example, Nielsen 1998–9: 9). Each of these aspects requires elaboration.

raises questions about the concept of a nation or national identity, about what it is to belong to a nation, and about how much one ought to care about one’s nation. Nations and national identity may be defined in terms of common origin, ethnicity, or cultural ties, and while an individual’s membership in the nation is often regarded as involuntary, it is sometimes regarded as voluntary. The degree of care for one’s nation that nationalists require is often, but not always, taken to be very high: according to such views, the claims of one’s nation take precedence over rival contenders for authority and loyalty. [ 1 ]
raises questions about whether sovereignty requires the acquisition of full statehood with complete authority over domestic and international affairs, or whether something less than statehood suffices. Although sovereignty is often taken to mean full statehood (Gellner 1983: ch. 1), [ 2 ] possible exceptions have been recognized (Miller 1992: 87; Miller 2000). Some authors even defend an anarchist version of patriotism-moderate nationalism foreshadowed by Bakunin (see Sparrow 2007).

There is a terminological and conceptual question of distinguishing nationalism from patriotism. A popular proposal is the contrast between attachment to one’s country as defining patriotism and attachment to one’s people and its traditions as defining nationalism (Kleinig 2014: 228, and Primoratz 2017: Section 1.2). One problem with this proposal is that love for a country is not really just love of a piece of land but normally involves attachment to the community of its inhabitants, and this introduces “nation” into the conception of patriotism. Another contrast is the one between strong, and somewhat aggressive attachment (nationalism) and a mild one (patriotism), dating back at least to George Orwell (see his 1945 essay). [ 3 ]

Despite these definitional worries, there is a fair amount of agreement about the classical, historically paradigmatic form of nationalism. It typically features the supremacy of the nation’s claims over other claims to individual allegiance and full sovereignty as the persistent aim of its political program. Territorial sovereignty has traditionally been seen as a defining element of state power and essential for nationhood. It was extolled in classic modern works by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau and is returning to center stage in the debate, though philosophers are now more skeptical (see below). Issues surrounding the control of the movement of money and people (in particular immigration) and the resource rights implied in territorial sovereignty make the topic politically central in the age of globalization and philosophically interesting for nationalists and anti-nationalists alike.

In recent times, the philosophical focus has moved more in the direction of “liberal nationalism”, the view that mitigates the classical claims and tries to bring together the pro-national attitude and the respect for traditional liberal values. For instance, the territorial state as political unit is seen by classical nationalists as centrally “belonging” to one ethnic-cultural group and as actively charged with protecting and promulgating its traditions. The liberal variety allows for “sharing” of the territorial state with non-dominant ethnic groups. Consequences are varied and quite interested (for more see below, especially section 2.1 ).

In its general form, the issue of nationalism concerns the mapping between the ethno-cultural domain (featuring ethno-cultural groups or “nations”) and the domain of political organization. In breaking down the issue, we have mentioned the importance of the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their national identity. This point raises two sorts of questions. First, the descriptive ones:

Second, the normative ones:

This section discusses the descriptive questions, starting with (1a) and (1b) ;the normative questions are addressed in Section 3 on the moral debate. If one wants to enjoin people to struggle for their national interests, one must have some idea about what a nation is and what it is to belong to a nation. So, in order to formulate and ground their evaluations, claims, and directives for action, pro-nationalist thinkers have expounded theories of ethnicity, culture, nation, and state. Their opponents have in turn challenged these elaborations. Now, some presuppositions about ethnic groups and nations are essential for the nationalist, while others are theoretical elaborations designed to support the essential ones. The definition and status of the social group that benefits from the nationalist program, variously called the “nation”, “ethno-nation”, or “ethnic group”, is essential. Since nationalism is particularly prominent with groups that do not yet have a state, a definition of nation and nationalism purely in terms of belonging to a state is a non-starter.

Indeed, purely “civic” loyalties are often categorized separately under the title “patriotism”, which we already mentioned, or “constitutional patriotism”. [ 4 ] This leaves two extreme options and a number of intermediates. The first extreme option has been put forward by a small but distinguished band of theorists. [ 5 ] According to their purely voluntaristic definition, a nation is any group of people aspiring to a common political state-like organization. If such a group of people succeeds in forming a state, the loyalties of the group members become “civic” (as opposed to “ethnic”) in nature. At the other extreme, and more typically, nationalist claims are focused upon the non-voluntary community of common origin, language, tradition, and culture: the classic ethno-nation is a community of origin and culture, including prominently a language and customs. The distinction is related (although not identical) to that drawn by older schools of social and political science between “civic” and “ethnic” nationalism, the former being allegedly Western European and the latter more Central and Eastern European, originating in Germany. [ 6 ] Philosophical discussions centered on nationalism tend to concern the ethnic-cultural variants only, and this habit will be followed here. A group aspiring to nationhood on this basis will be called an “ethno-nation” to underscore its ethno-cultural rather than purely civic underpinnings. For the ethno-(cultural) nationalist it is one’s ethnic-cultural background that determines one’s membership in the community. One cannot choose to be a member; instead, membership depends on the accident of origin and early socialization. However, commonality of origin has become mythical for most contemporary candidate groups: ethnic groups have been mixing for millennia.

Sophisticated, liberal pro-nationalists therefore tend to stress cultural membership only and speak of “nationality”, omitting the “ethno-” part (Miller 1992, 2000; Tamir 1993,2013; Gans 2003). Michel Seymour’s proposal of a “socio-cultural definition” adds a political dimension to the purely cultural one: a nation is a cultural group, possibly but not necessarily united by a common descent, endowed with civic ties (Seymour 2000). This is the kind of definition that would be accepted by most parties in the debate today. So defined, the nation is a somewhat mixed category, both ethno-cultural and civic, but still closer to the purely ethno-cultural than to the purely civic extreme.

Let us now turn to the issue of the origin and “authenticity” of ethno-cultural groups or ethno-nations. In social and political science one usually distinguishes two kinds of views, but there is a third group, combining element from both. The first are modernist views that see nationalism as born in modern times, together with nation-states. [ 7 ] In our times the view was pioneered by Ernst Gellner (see his 1983). [ 8 ] Other modernist choose similar starting points with century or two of variation. [ 9 ] The opposite view can be called, following Edward Shils (1957) “primordialist”. According to it, actual ethno-cultural nations have either existed “since time immemorial”.

The third, quite plausible kind of view, distinct from both primordialism-ethno-symbolism and modernism, has been initiated by W. Connor (1994). [ 10 ] A nation is a politicized and mobilized ethnic group rather than a state. So, the origins of nationalism predate the modern state, and its emotional content remains up to our times (Conversi 2002: 270), but the actual statist organization is, indeed, modern. However, nation-state is a nationalist dream and fiction, never really implemented, due to the inescapable plurality of social groups. So much for the three dominant perspectives on the origin of nationalism.

Indeed, the older authors—from great thinkers like Herder and Otto Bauer to the propagandists who followed their footsteps—took great pains to ground normative claims upon firm ontological realism about nations: nations are real, bona fide entities. However, the contemporary moral debate has tried to diminish the importance of the imagined/real divide. Prominent contemporary philosophers have claimed that normative-evaluative nationalist claims are compatible with the “imagined” nature of a nation. [ 11 ] They point out that common imaginings can tie people together, and that actual interaction resulting from togetherness can engender important moral obligations.

Let us now turn to question (1c) about the nature of pro-national attitudes. The explanatory issue that has interested political and social scientists concerns ethno-nationalist sentiment, the paradigm case of a pro-national attitude. Is it as irrational, romantic, and indifferent to self-interest as it might seem on the surface? The issue has divided authors who see nationalism as basically irrational and those who try to explain it as being in some sense rational. Authors who see it as irrational propose various explanations of why people assent to irrational views. Some say, critically, that nationalism is based on “false consciousness”. But where does such false consciousness come from? The most simplistic view is that it is a result of direct manipulation of “masses” by “elites”. On the opposite side, the famous critic of nationalism Elie Kedourie (1960) thinks this irrationality is spontaneous. A decade and a half ago Liah Greenfeld went as far as linking nationalism to mental illness in her provocative 2005 article (see also her 2006 book). On the opposite side, Michael Walzer has offered a sympathetic account of nationalist passion in his 2002. Authors relying upon the Marxist tradition offer various deeper explanations. To mention one, the French structuralist Étienne Balibar sees it as a result of the “production” of ideology effectuated by mechanisms which have nothing to do with spontaneous credulity of individuals, but with impersonal, structural social factors (Balibar & Wallerstein 1988 [1991]). [ 12 ]

Some authors claim that it is often rational for individuals to become nationalists (Hardin 1985). Can one rationally explain the extremes of ethno-national conflict? Authors like Russell Hardin propose to do so in terms of a general view of when hostile behavior is rational: most typically, if an individual has no reason to trust someone, it is reasonable for that individual to take precautions against the other. If both sides take precautions, however, each will tend to see the other as increasingly inimical. It then becomes rational to start treating the other as an enemy. Mere suspicion can thus lead by small, individually rational steps to a situation of conflict. (Such negative development is often presented as a variant of the Prisoner’s Dilemma; see the entry on prisoner’s dilemma ). It is relatively easy to spot the circumstances in which this general pattern applies to national solidarities and conflicts (see also Wimmer 2013).

Finally, as for question (1d) , the nation is typically seen as an essentially non-voluntary community to which one belongs by birth and early nurture and such that the belonging is enhanced and made more complete by one’s additional conscious endorsement. Not everyone agrees: liberal nationalists accept the idea of choice of one’s national belonging and of possibility for immigrants to become nationals by choice and intentional acculturation.

2. Varieties of Nationalism

We pointed out at the very beginning of the entry that nationalism focuses upon (1) the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their national identity, and (2) the actions that the members of a nation take when seeking to achieve (or sustain) some form of political sovereignty. The politically central point is (2): the actions enjoined by the nationalist. To these we now turn, beginning with sovereignty and territory, the usual foci of a national struggle for independence. They raise an important issue:

The classical answer is that a state is required. A more liberal answer is that some form of political autonomy suffices. Once this has been discussed, we can turn to the related normative issues:

Consider first the classical nationalist answer to (2a) . Political sovereignty requires a state “rightfully owned” by the ethno-nation (Oldenquist 1997). Developments of this line of thought often state or imply specific answers to (2b) , and (2c) , i.e., that in a national independence struggle the use of force against the threatening central power is almost always a legitimate means for bringing about sovereignty. However, classical nationalism is not only concerned with the creation of a state but also with its maintenance and strengthening.

Classical nationalism is the political program that sees the creation and maintenance of a fully sovereign state owned by a given ethno-national group (“people” or “nation”) as a primary duty of each member of the group. Starting from the assumption that the appropriate (or “natural”) unit of culture is an ethno-nation, it claims that a primary duty of each member is to abide by one’s recognizably ethno-national culture in all cultural matters.

Classical nationalists are usually vigilant about the kind of culture they protect and promote and about the kind of attitude people have to their nation-state. This watchful attitude carries some potential dangers: many elements of a given culture that are universal or simply not recognizably national may fall prey to such nationalist enthusiasms. Classical nationalism in everyday life puts various additional demands on individuals, from buying more expensive home-produced goods in preference to cheaper imported ones to procreating as many future members of the nation as one can manage (see Yuval-Davies 1997, and Yack 2012).

Besides classical nationalism (and its more radical extremist cousins), various moderate views are also now classified as nationalist. Indeed, the philosophical discussion has shifted to these moderate or even ultra-moderate forms, and most philosophers who describe themselves as nationalists propose very moderate nationalist programs.

Nationalism in this wider sense is any complex of attitudes, claims, and directives for action ascribing a fundamental political, moral, and cultural value to nation and nationality and deriving obligations (for individual members of the nation, and for any involved third parties, individual or collective) from this ascribed value. The main representative of this group of views is liberal nationalism , proposed by authors like Miller, Tamir, and Gans (see below).

Nationalisms in this wider sense can vary somewhat in their conceptions of the nation (which are often left implicit in their discourse), in the grounds for and degree of its value, and in the scope of their prescribed obligations. Moderate nationalism is less demanding than classical nationalism and sometimes goes under the name of “patriotism.” (A different usage, again, reserves “patriotism” for valuing civic community and loyalty to state, in contrast to nationalism, centered on ethnic-cultural communities).

Let us now turn to liberal nationalism, the most discussed kind of moderate nationalism.

Liberal nationalists see liberal-democratic principles and pro-national attitudes as belonging together. One of the main proponents of the view, Yael Tamir, started the debate in her 1993 book and in her recent book talks about the nation-state as “an ideal meeting point between the two” (2019: 6). Of course, some things have to be sacrificed: we must acknowledge that either the meaningfulness of a community or its openness must be sacrificed to some extent as we cannot have them both. (2019: 57). How much of each is to give way is left open, and of course, various liberal nationalists take different views of what precisely the right answer is.

Tamir’s version of liberal nationalism is a kind of social liberalism, in this respect similar to the views of David Miller who talks about “solidaristic communities” in his 1999 book Principles of Social Justice and also takes stance in his 1995 and 2008 books. They both see the feeling of national identity as a feeling that promotes solidarity, and solidarity as means for increased social justice (Tamir 2019, in particular ch.20; compare Walzer 1983, Kymlicka 1995a, 2001, and Gans 2003, 2008).

Liberal nationalists diverge about the value of multiculturalism. Kymlicka takes it as basic for his picture of liberalism while Tamir dismisses it without much ado: multicultural, multiethnic democracies have a very poor track record, she claims (2019: 62). Tamir’s diagnosis of the present day political crisis, with politicians like Trump and Le Pen coming to the forefront, is that “liberal democrats were paralyzed by their assumed victory” whereas “nationalists felt defeated and obsolete” (2019: 7).

Tamir lists two kinds of reasons that guarantee special political status to nations. First kind, that no other political entity “is more able than the state to promote ideas in the public sphere” (2019: 52), and the second kind that nation needs continuous creative effort to make it functional and attractive.

The historical development of liberalism turned it into a universalistic, anti-communitarian principle; this has been a fatal mistake that can be and should be corrected by the liberal nationalist synthesis. Can we revive the unifying narratives of our nationality without sacrificing the liberal inheritance of freedom and rights? Liberal nationalism answers in the affirmative. From its standpoint, national particularism has primacy: “The love of humanity is a noble ideal, but real love is always particular…” (2019: 68).

Interestingly, Tamir combines this high regard of nation with an extreme constructivist view of its nature: nations are mental structures that exist in the minds of their members (2019: 58).

Is liberal nationalism implemented anywhere in the present world, or is it more of an ideal, probably end-state theory, that proposes a picture of a desirable society? Judging by the writings of liberal nationalists, it is the latter, although presented as a relatively easily reachable ideal, combining two traditions that are already well implemented in political reality.

The variations of nationalism most relevant for philosophy are those that influence the moral standing of claims and of recommended nationalist practices. The elaborate philosophical views put forward in favor of nationalism will be referred to as “theoretical nationalism”, the adjective serving to distinguish such views from less sophisticated and more practical nationalist discourse. The central theoretical nationalist evaluative claims can be charted on the map of possible positions within political theory in the following useful but somewhat simplified and schematic way.

Nationalist claims featuring the nation as central to political action must answer two crucial general questions. First, is there one kind of large social group that is of special moral importance? The nationalist answer is that there certainly is one, namely, the nation. Moreover, when an ultimate choice is to be made, say between ties of family, or friendship, and the nation, the latter has priority. Liberal nationalists prefer a more moderate stance, which ascribes value to national belonging, but don’t make it central in this way. Second, what are the grounds for an individual’s obligations to the morally central group? Are they based on voluntary or involuntary membership in the group? The typical contemporary nationalist thinker opts for the latter, while admitting that voluntary endorsement of one’s national identity is a morally important achievement. On the philosophical map, pro-nationalist normative tastes fit nicely with the communitarian stance in general: most pro-nationalist philosophers are communitarians who choose the nation as the preferred community (in contrast to those of their fellow communitarians who prefer more far-ranging communities, such as those defined by global religious traditions). [ 13 ]

Before proceeding to moral claims, let us briefly sketch the issues and viewpoints connected to territory and territorial rights that are essential for nationalist political programs. [ 14 ] Why is territory important for ethno-national groups, and what are the extent and grounds of territorial rights? Its primary importance resides in sovereignty and all the associated possibilities for internal control and external exclusion. Add to this the Rousseauian view that political attachments are essentially bounded and that love —or, to put it more mildly, republican civil friendship—for one’s group requires exclusion of some “other”, and the importance becomes quite obvious. What about the grounds for the demand for territorial rights? Nationalist and pro-nationalist views mostly rely on the attachment that members of a nation have to national territory and to the formative value of territory for a nation to justify territorial claims (see Miller 2000 and Meisels 2009). This is similar in some respects to the rationale given by proponents of indigenous peoples’ rights (Tully 2004, but see also Hendrix 2008) and in other respects to Kolers’ 2009 ethno-geographical non-nationalist theory, but differs in preferring ethno-national groups as the sole carriers of the right. These attachment views stand in stark contrast to more pragmatic views about territorial rights as means for conflict resolution (e.g., Levy 2000). Another quite popular alternative is the family of individualistic views grounding territorial rights in rights and interests of individuals. [ 15 ] On the extreme end of anti-nationalist views stands the idea of Pogge) that there are no specific territorial problems for political philosophy—the “dissolution approach”, as Kolers calls it.

We now pass to the normative dimension of nationalism. We shall first describe the very heart of the nationalist program, i.e., sketch and classify the typical normative and evaluative nationalist claims. These claims can be seen as answers to the normative subset of our initial questions about (1) pro-national attitudes and (2) actions.

We will see that these claims recommend various courses of action: centrally, those meant to secure and sustain a political organization for the given ethno-cultural national community (thereby making more specific the answers to our normative questions (1e) , (1f) , (2b) , and (2c) ). Further, they enjoin the community’s members to promulgate recognizable ethno-cultural contents as central features of the cultural life within such a state. Finally, we shall discuss various lines of pro-nationalist thought that have been put forward in defense of these claims. To begin, let us return to the claims concerning the furthering of the national state and culture. These are proposed by the nationalist as norms of conduct. The philosophically most important variations concern three aspects of such normative claims:

The normative nature and strength of the claim: does it promote merely a right (say, to have and maintain a form of political self-government, preferably and typically a state, or have cultural life centered upon a recognizably ethno-national culture), or a moral obligation (to get and maintain one), or a moral, legal, and political obligation? The strongest claim is typical of classical nationalism; its typical norms are both moral and, once the nation-state is in place, legally enforceable obligations for all parties concerned, including for the individual members of the ethno-nation. A weaker but still quite demanding version speaks only of moral obligation (“sacred duty”).
The strength of the nationalist claim in relation to various external interests and rights: to give a real example, is the use of the domestic language so important that even international conferences should be held in it, at the cost of losing the most interesting participants from abroad? The force of the nationalist claim is here being weighed against the force of other claims, including those of individual or group interests or rights. Variations in comparative strength of nationalist claims take place on a continuum between two extremes. At one rather unpalatable extreme, nation-focused claims take precedence over any other claims, including over human rights. Further towards the center is the classical nationalism that gives nation-centered claims precedence over individual interests and many needs, but not necessarily over general human rights (see, for example, MacIntyre 1994, Oldenquist 1997). On the opposite end, which is mild, humane, and liberal, the central classical nationalist claims are accorded prima facie status only (see Tamir 1993, Gans 2003, and Miller 2013; and for applications to Central Europe Stefan Auer 2004).

Universalizing nationalism is the political program that claims that every ethno-nation should have a state that it should rightfully own and the interests of which it should promote.

Alternatively, a claim may be particularistic, such as the claim “Group X ought to have a state”, where this implies nothing about any other group:

Particularistic nationalism is the political program claiming that some ethno-nation should have its state, without extending the claim to all ethno-nations. It claims thus either by omission (unreflective particularistic nationalism), or by explicitly specifying who is excluded: “Group X ought to have a state, but group Y should not” (invidious nationalism).

The most difficult and indeed chauvinistic sub-case of particularism, i.e., (B), has been called “invidious” since it explicitly denies the privilege of having a state to some peoples. Serious theoretical nationalists usually defend only the universalist variety, whereas the nationalist-in-the-street most often defends the egoistic indeterminate one.

The nationalist picture of morality traditionally has been quite close to the dominant view in the theory of international relations called “realism”. Put starkly, the view is that morality ends at the boundaries of the nation-state; beyond there is nothing but anarchy. [ 16 ] It nicely complements the main classical nationalist claim about the nation-state, i.e., that each ethno-nation or people should have a state of its own, and suggests what happens next: nation-states enter into competition in the name of their constitutive peoples.

3. The Moral Debate

Recall the initial normative question centered around (1) attitudes and (2) actions. Is national partiality justified, and to what extent? What actions are appropriate to bring about sovereignty? In particular, are ethno-national states and institutionally protected (ethno-) national cultures goods independent from the individual will of their members, and how far may one go in protecting them? The philosophical debate for and against nationalism is a debate about the moral validity of its central claims. In particular, the ultimate moral issue is the following: is any form of nationalism morally permissible or justified, and, if not, how bad are particular forms of it? [ 17 ] Why do nationalist claims require a defense? In some situations they seem plausible: for instance, the plight of some stateless national groups—the history of Jews and Armenians, the historical and contemporary misfortunes of Kurds—lends credence to the idea that having their own state would have solved the worst problems. Still, there are good reasons to examine nationalist claims more carefully. The most general reason is that it should first be shown that the political form of the nation-state has some value as such, that a national community has a particular, or even central, moral and political value, and that claims in its favor have normative validity. Once this is established, a further defense is needed. Some classical nationalist claims appear to clash—at least under normal circumstances of contemporary life—with various values that people tend to accept. Some of these values are considered essential to liberal-democratic societies, while others are important specifically for the flourishing of creativity and culture. The main values in the first set are individual autonomy and benevolent impartiality (most prominently towards members of groups culturally different from one’s own). The alleged special duties towards one’s ethno-national culture can and often do interfere with individuals’ right to autonomy.

Liberal nationalists are aware of the difficulties of the classical approach, and soften the classical claims, giving them only a prima facie status. They usually speak of “various accretions that have given nationalism a bad name”, and they are eager to “separate the idea of nationality itself from these excesses” (Miller 1992, 2000). Such thoughtful pro-nationalist writers have participated in an ongoing philosophical dialogue between proponents and opponents of the claim. [ 18 ] In order to help the reader find their through this involved debate, we shall briefly summarize the considerations which are open to the ethno-nationalist to defend their case (compare the useful overview in Lichtenberg 1997). Further lines of thought built upon these considerations can be used to defend very different varieties of nationalism, from radical to very moderate ones.

For brevity, each line of thought will be reduced to a brief argument; the actual debate is more involved than one can represent in a sketch. Some prominent lines of criticism that have been put forward in the debate will be indicated in brackets (see Miscevic 2001). The main arguments in favor of nationalism will be divided into two sets. The first set of arguments defends the claim that national communities have a high value, sometime seen as coming from the interests of their individual member (e.g., by Kymlicka, Miller, and Raz) and sometimes as non-instrumental and independent of the wishes and choices of their individual members, and argues that they should therefore be protected by means of state and official statist policies. The second set is less deeply “comprehensive”, and encompasses arguments from the requirements of justice, independent from substantial assumptions about culture and cultural values.

The first set will be presented in more detail since it has formed the core of the debate. It depicts the community as the source of value or as the transmission device connecting its members to some important values. For the classical nationalist, the arguments from this set are communitarian in a particularly “deep” sense since they are grounded in basic features of the human condition.

The general form of deep communitarian arguments is as follows. First, the communitarian premise: there is some uncontroversial good (e.g., a person’s identity), and some kind of community is essential for acquisition and preservation of it. Then comes the claim that the ethno-cultural nation is the kind of community ideally suited for this task. Then follows the statist conclusion: in order for such a community to preserve its own identity and support the identity of its members, it has to assume (always or at least normally) the political form of a state. The conclusion of this type of argument is that the ethno-national community has the right to an ethno-national state and the citizens of the state have the right and obligation to favor their own ethnic culture in relation to any other.

Although the deeper philosophical assumptions in the arguments stem from the communitarian tradition, weakened forms have also been proposed by more liberal philosophers. The original communitarian lines of thought in favor of nationalism suggest that there is some value in preserving ethno-national cultural traditions, in feelings of belonging to a common nation, and in solidarity between a nation’s members. A liberal nationalist might claim that these are not the central values of political life but are values nevertheless. Moreover, the diametrically opposing views, pure individualism and cosmopolitanism, do seem arid, abstract, and unmotivated by comparison. By cosmopolitanism we refer to moral and political doctrines claiming that

one’s primary moral obligations are directed to all human beings (regardless of geographical or cultural distance), and
political arrangements should faithfully reflect this universal moral obligation (in the form of supra-statist arrangements that take precedence over nation-states).

Confronted with opposing forces of nationalism and cosmopolitanism, many philosophers opt for a mixture of liberalism-cosmopolitanism and patriotism-nationalism. In his writings, B. Barber glorifies “a remarkable mixture of cosmopolitanism and parochialism” that in his view characterizes American national identity (Barber 1996: 31). Charles Taylor claims that “we have no choice but to be cosmopolitan and patriots” (Taylor 1996: 121). Hilary Putnam proposes loyalty to what is best in the multiple traditions in which each of us participates, apparently a middle way between a narrow-minded patriotism and an overly abstract cosmopolitanism (Putnam 1996: 114). The compromise has been foreshadowed by Berlin (1979) and Taylor (1989, 1993), [ 19 ] and in the last two decades it has occupied center stage in the debate and even provoked re-readings of historical nationalism in its light. [ 20 ] Most liberal nationalist authors accept various weakened versions of the arguments we list below, taking them to support moderate or ultra-moderate nationalist claims.

Here are then the main weakenings of classical ethno-nationalism that liberal, limited-liberal, and cosmopolitan nationalists propose. First, ethno-national claims have only prima facie strength and cannot trump individual rights. Second, legitimate ethno-national claims do not in themselves automatically amount to the right to a state, but rather to the right to a certain level of cultural autonomy. The main models of autonomy are either territorial or non-territorial: the first involves territorial devolution; the second, cultural autonomy granted to individuals regardless of their domicile within the state. [ 21 ] Third, ethno-nationalism is subordinate to civic patriotism, which has little or nothing to do with ethnic criteria. Fourth, ethno-national mythologies and similar “important falsehoods” are to be tolerated only if benign and inoffensive, in which case they are morally permissible despite their falsity. Finally, any legitimacy that ethno-national claims may have is to be derived from choices the concerned individuals are free to make.

Consider now the particular pro-nationalist arguments from the first set. The first argument depends on assumptions that also appear in the subsequent ones, but it further ascribes to the community an intrinsic value. The later arguments point more towards an instrumental value of nation, derived from the value of individual flourishing, moral understanding, firm identity and the like.

The Argument From Intrinsic Value . Each ethno-national community is valuable in and of itself since it is only within the natural encompassing framework of various cultural traditions that important meanings and values are produced and transmitted. The members of such communities share a special cultural proximity to each other. By speaking the same language and sharing customs and traditions, the members of these communities are typically closer to one another in various ways than they are to the outsiders.
The Argument from Flourishing . The ethno-national community is essential for each of its members to flourish. In particular, it is only within such a community that an individual can acquire concepts and values crucial for understanding the community’s cultural life in general and the individual’s own life in particular. There has been much debate on the pro-nationalist side about whether divergence of values is essential for separateness of national groups.

The Canadian liberal nationalists Seymour (1999), Taylor, and Kymlicka pointed out that “divergences of value between different regions of Canada” that aspire to separate nationhood are “minimal”. Taylor (1993: 155) concluded that it is not separateness of value that matters.

The Argument from Identity . Communitarian philosophers emphasize nurture over nature as the principal force determining our identity as people—we come to be who we are because of the social settings and contexts in which we mature. This claim certainly has some plausibility. The very identity of each person depends upon his/her participation in communal life (see MacIntyre 1994, Nielsen, 1998, and Lagerspetz 2000). Given that an individual’s morality depends upon their having a mature and stable personal identity, the communal conditions that foster the development of personal identity must be preserved and encouraged. Therefore, communal life should be organized around particular national cultures.
The Argument from Moral Understanding . A particularly important variety of value is moral value. Some values are universal, e.g., freedom and equality, but these are too abstract and “thin”. The rich, “thick” moral values are discernible only within particular traditions; as Charles Taylor puts it, “the language we have come to accept articulates the issues of the good for us” (1989: 35). The nation offers a natural framework for moral traditions, and thereby for moral understanding; it is the primary school of morals.

The ‘physiognomies’ of cultures are unique: each presents a wonderful exfoliation of human potentialities in its own time and place and environment. We are forbidden to make judgments of comparative value, for that is measuring the incommensurable. (1976: 206)

Assuming that the (ethno-)nation is the natural unit of culture, the preservation of cultural diversity amounts to institutionally protecting the purity of (ethno-)national culture. The plurality of cultural styles can be preserved and enhanced by tying them to ethno-national “forms of life”.

David Miller has developed an interesting and sophisticated liberal pro-national stance over the course of decades from his work in 1990 to the most recent work in 2013. He accepts multicultural diversity within a society but stresses an overarching national identity, taking as his prime example British national identity, which encompasses the English, Scottish, and other ethnic identities. He demands an “inclusive identity, accessible to members of all cultural groups” (2013: 91). miller claims such identity is necessary for basic social solidarity, and it goes far beyond simple constitutional patriotism. A skeptic could note the following. The problem with multicultural society is that national identity has historically been a matter of ethno-national ties and has required sameness in the weighted majority of cultural traits (common language, common “history-as-remembered”, customs, religion and so on). However, multi-cultural states typically bring together groups with very different histories, languages, religions, and even quite contrasting appearances. Now, how is the overarching “national identity” to be achieved starting from the very thin identity of common belonging to a state? One seems to have a dilemma. Grounding social solidarity in national identity requires the latter to be rather thin and seems likely to end up as full-on, unitary cultural identity. Thick constitutional patriotism may be one interesting possible attitude that can ground such solidarity while preserving the original cultural diversity.

The arguments in the second set concern political justice and do not rely on metaphysical claims about identity, flourishing, and cultural values. They appeal to (actual or alleged) circumstances that would make nationalist policies reasonable (or permissible or even mandatory), such as (a) the fact that a large part of the world is organized into nation-states (so that each new group aspiring to create a nation-state just follows an established pattern), or (b) the circumstances of group self-defense or of redressing past injustice that might justify nationalist policies (to take a special case). Some of the arguments also present nationhood as conducive to important political goods, such as equality.

The Argument from the Right to Collective Self-determination . A group of people of a sufficient size has a prima facie right to govern itself and decide its future membership, if the members of the group so wish. It is fundamentally the democratic will of the members themselves that grounds the right to an ethno-national state and to ethno-centric cultural institutions and practices. This argument presents the justification of (ethno-)national claims as deriving from the will of the members of the nation. It is therefore highly suitable for liberal nationalism but not appealing to a deep communitarian who sees the demands of the nation as independent from, and prior to, the choices of particular individuals. [ 22 ]
The Argument from the Right to Self-defense and to Redress Past Injustices . Oppression and injustice give the victimized group a just cause and the right to secede. If a minority group is oppressed by the majority to the extent that almost every minority member is worse off than most members of the majority simply in virtue of belonging to the minority, then nationalist claims on behalf of the minority are morally plausible and potentially compelling. The argument establishes a typical remedial right, acceptable from a liberal standpoint (see the discussion in Kukathas and Poole 2000, also Buchanan 1991; for past injustices see Waldron 1992).
The Argument from Equality . Members of a minority group are often disadvantaged in relation to the dominant culture because they have to rely on those with the same language and culture to conduct the affairs of daily life. Therefore, liberal neutrality itself requires that the majority provide certain basic cultural goods, i.e., granting differential rights (see Kymlicka 1995b, 2001, and 2003b). Institutional protections and the right to the minority group’s own institutional structure are remedies that restore equality and turn the resulting nation-state into a more moderate multicultural one.
The Argument from Success . The nationstate has in the past succeeded in promoting equality and democracy. Ethno-national solidarity is a powerful motive for a more egalitarian distribution of goods (Miller 1995; Canovan 1996, 2000). The nation-state also seems to be essential to safeguard the moral life of communities in the future, since it is the only form of political institution capable of protecting communities from the threats of globalization and assimilationism (for a detailed critical discussion of this argument see Mason 1999).

Andreas Wimmer (2018) presents an interesting discussion of the historical success of nation-state (discussed in Knott, Tolz, Green, & Wimmer 2019).

These political arguments can be combined with deep communitarian ones. However, taken in isolation, their perspectives offer a “liberal culturalism” that is more suitable for ethno-culturally plural societies. More remote from classical nationalism than the liberal one of Tamir and Nielsen, it eschews any communitarian philosophical underpinning. [ 23 ] The idea of moderate nation-building points to an open multi-culturalism in which every group receives its share of remedial rights but, instead of walling itself off from others, participates in a common, overlapping civic culture in open communication with other sub-communities. Given the variety of pluralistic societies and intensity of trans-national interactions, such openness seems to many to be the only guarantee of stable social and political life (see the debate in Shapiro and Kymlicka 1997).

In general, the liberal nationalist stance is mild and civil, and there is much to be said in favor of it. It tries to reconcile our intuitions in favor of some sort of political protection of cultural communities with a liberal political morality. Of course, this raises issues of compatibility between liberal universal principles and the particular attachments to one’s ethno-cultural nation. Very liberal nationalists such as Tamir divorce ethno-cultural nationhood from statehood. Also, the kind of love for country they suggest is tempered by all kinds of universalist considerations, which in the last instance trump national interest (Tamir 1993: 115; 2019: passim, see also Moore 2001 and Gans 2003). There is an ongoing debate among philosophical nationalists about how much weakening and compromising is still compatible with a stance’s being nationalist at all. [ 24 ] There is also a streak of cosmopolitan interest present in the work of some liberal nationalists (Nielsen 1998–99). [ 25 ]

In the last two decades, the issues of nationalism have been increasingly integrated into the debate about the international order (see the entries on globalization and cosmopolitanism ). The main conceptual link is the claim that nation-states are natural, stable, and suitable units of the international order. A related debate concerns the role of minorities in the processes of globalization (see Kaldor 2004). Moreover, the two approaches might ultimately converge: a multiculturalist liberal nationalism and a moderate, difference-respecting cosmopolitanism have a lot in common. [ 26 ]

“Populism” is an umbrella term, covering both right-wing and left-wing varieties. This section will pay attention to right-wing populist movements, very close to their traditional nationalist predecessors. This corresponds to the situation in the biggest part of Europe, and in the US, where nationalist topics are being put forward by the right-wing populist. [ 27 ]

However, it has become quite clear that nationalism is only one of the political “isms” attracting the right-wing populists. The migration crisis has brought to the forefront populist self-identification with linguistic-cultural communities (“we, French speaking people” for the former, “we Christians” for the later) that goes beyond nationalism.

Jan-Werner Müller (2016) and Cas Mudde (2007) note that the form common to all sorts of populism is quite simple and describe it as “thin”. Mudde explains: “Populism is understood as a thin-centered ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, ‘the pure people’ versus ‘the corrupt elite’, and which argues that politics should be an expression of the volonté générale (general will) of the People” (2007: 23). Populism, so defined, has two opposites: elitism and pluralism. First, there is the elite vs. people (“underdog”) contrast. Second, it is possible to distinguish two ways of characterizing “the people”: either in terms of social status (class, income-level, etc.) or in terms of ethnic and/or cultural belonging (see also de Cleen 2017).

The second, horizontal dimension distinguishes the predominantly left-wing from the predominantly right-wing populisms and leaves a place for a centrist populist option. Take classical strong ethnic nationalism. The relation between right-wing populism and such a nationalism is very tight. This has led some theoreticians (Taguieff 2015) to present “nationalist populism” as the only kind of populism. The term captures exactly the synthesis of populism and the strong ethnic nationalism or nativism. From populism, it takes the general schema of anti-elitism: the leader is addressing directly the people and is allegedly following the people’s interest. From nationalism, it takes the characterization of the people: it is the ethnic community, in most cases the state-owing ethnic community, or the ethno-nation. In his work, Mudde documents the claim that purely right-wing populists claim to represent the true people who form the true nation and whose purity is being muddied by new entrants. In the United States, one can talk about populist and reactionary movements, like the Tea Party, that have emerged through the recent experience of immigration, terrorist attacks, and growing economic polarization. We have to set aside here, for reasons of space, the main populist alternative (or quasi-alternative) to national populism. In some countries, like Germany, some populist groups-parties (e.g., German AfD party (Alternative for Germany)), appeal to properties much wider in their reach than ethno-national belonging, typically to religious affiliations. Others combine this appeal with the ethno-national one. This yields what Riva Kastoryano (2006) calls “transnational nationalism”.

Interestingly, liberal nationalism is not very attractive to the populists. On the theoretical side one can note that Tamir (2019) sees her liberal nationalism as a good recipe against the threat of demagogues like Trump and Boris Johnson (she avoids the use of the label “populist”, e.g., 2019: 31).

The rise of populism is changing the political playfield one must work with. The tolerant (liberal nationalist or anti-nationalist) views are confronting new problems in the populist age marked by migration crisis, etc. The dangers traditionally associated with military presence are gone; the national populists have to invent and construct a presumed danger that comes into the country together with foreign families, including those with children. In short, if these conjectures hold, the politicians and theoreticians are faced with a change. The traditional issue of the contrast between patriotism/nationalism and cosmopolitanism has changed its profile: the current drastic contrast is between the populist aversion to the foreigners-migrants and a more generous attitude of acceptance and Samaritan help. Finally, the populist understanding of “our people” (“we-community”) encompasses not only nationalist options but also goes way beyond it. The important element is the promiscuous character of the populist choices. It is probable that the future scholarship on nationalism will mainly focus on this new and challenging playfield, with an aim to address the new contrast and locate kinds of nationalism in relation to it. [ 28 ]

The migration crisis has made the nation-state in global context the central political topic concerning nationality. Before moving on to current events, the state of art before the crisis should be summarized. First, consider the debates on territory and nation and issues of global justice.

Liberal nationalists try to preserve the traditional nationalist link between ethnic “ownership” of the state and sovereignty and territorial control, but in a much more flexible and sophisticated setting. Tamar Meisels thus argues in favor of “taking existing national settlements into account as a central factor in demarcating territorial boundaries” since this line “has both liberal foundations” (i.e., in the work of John Locke) and liberal-national appeal (2009: 159) grounded in its affinity with the liberal doctrine of national self-determination. She combines it with Chaim Gans’ (2003: Ch. 4) interpretation of “historical right” claims as “the right to formative territories”. She thus combines “historical arguments, understood as claims to formative territories”, with her argument from settlement and insists on their interplay and mutual reinforcement, presenting them as being “most closely related to, and based on, liberal nationalist assumptions and underlying ideas” (Meisels 2009: 160). She nevertheless stresses that more than one ethnic group can have formative ties to a given territory, and that there might be competing claims based on settlement. [ 29 ] But, given the ethno-national conflicts of the twentieth century, one can safely assume that culturally plural states divided into isolated and closed sub-communities glued together merely by arrangements of modus vivendi are inherently unstable. Stability might therefore require that the pluralist society envisioned by liberal culturalists promote quite intense intra-state interaction between cultural groups in order to forestall mistrust, reduce prejudice, and create a solid basis for cohabitation.

But where should one stop? The question arises since there are many geographically open, interacting territories of various sizes. Consider first the geographical openness of big continental planes, then add the modern ease of interaction (“No island is an island any more”, one could say), and, finally and dramatically, the substantial ecological interconnectedness of land and climate. Here, the tough nationalistic line is no longer proposed seriously in ethical debates, so the furthest pro-national extreme is in fact a relatively moderate stance, exemplified by Miller in the works listed. Here is a typical proposal of his concerning global justice based on nation-states: it might become a matter of national pride to have set aside a certain percentage of GDP for developmental goals—perhaps for projects in one particular country or group of countries (2013: 182).

This brings us to the topic of migrations, and the heated debate on the present scene. [ 30 ] In Europe immigration is probably the main topic of the present day populist uproar, and in the United States it is one of the main topics. So, immigration plus the nationalist-populist reactions to it are in the current decade the main testing ground for nationalist and cosmopolitan views.

Let’s look at the pro-national side in the debate. Liberal nationalists, in particular Miller, have put forward some thoughtful pro-nationalist proposal concerning immigration. Miller’s proposal allows refugees to seek asylum temporarily until the situation in their country of origin improves; it also limits economic migration. Miller argues against the defensibility of a global standard for equality, opportunity, welfare, etc., because measures of just equality are context-bound. People do have the right to a minimum standard of living, but the right to migrate only activates as a last resort after all other measures within a candidate-migrant’s country of origin have been tried. However, he also (particularly in his book on “Strangers in our midst”, 2016), claims that national responsibility to accept immigrant refugees is balanced by considerations of the interest of would-be immigrants and the interests that national communities have in maintaining control over their own composition and character.

If we agree with the liberal nationalists on the positive side, we can ask about the dynamics of the help required for the immigrants. Distinguish at least three stages, first, the immediate emergency (starvation, freezing, urgent medical problems) and catering to it, second, settlement and learning (on the host and the immigrant newcomer side), and third, the stage of (some kind of) citizenship, of relatively stable life in the host country.

In the first phase, the immediate help comes first, both normatively and causally: just accept the would-be refugees (indeed, the would-be refugees should be helped in leaving their countries and travelling to the host country). In longer term, staying should involve opportunity for work and training.

But there is more. The Samaritan obligation can and should function as a preparation for wider global activity. [ 31 ] So, we have two theoretical steps, first, accepting Samaritanism and second, agreeing with deeper trans-national measure of blocking distant causes, like poverty and wars in the Third world. Let us call this “Samaritan-to-deeper-measures model”. The model is geared to the dramatically changed playground in which the nationalism issues are played out in the context of populism and refugee crisis, raising issues that were not around two decades ago.

In presenting the claims that the pro-nationalists defend, we have proceeded from the more radical towards more liberal nationalist alternatives. In examining the arguments for these claims, we have presented metaphysically demanding communitarian arguments resting upon deep communitarian assumptions about culture, such as the premise that the ethno-cultural nation is the most important community for all individuals. This is an interesting and respectable claim, but its plausibility has not been established. The moral debate about nationalism has resulted in various weakenings of culture-based arguments, typically proposed by liberal nationalists, which render the arguments less ambitious but much more plausible. Having abandoned the old nationalist ideal of a state owned by a single dominant ethno-cultural group, liberal nationalists have become receptive to the idea that identification with a plurality of cultures and communities is important for a person’s social identity. They have equally become sensitive to trans-national issues and more willing to embrace a partly cosmopolitan perspective. Liberal nationalism has also brought to the fore more modest, less philosophically or metaphysically charged arguments grounded in concerns about justice. These stress the practical importance of ethno-cultural membership, ethno-cultural groups’ rights to have injustices redressed, democratic rights of political association, and the role that ethno-cultural ties and associations can play in promoting just social arrangements.

The events in the current decade, the refugee crisis and the rise of right-wing populism, have dramatically changed the relevant practical and theoretical playground. The traditional nationalism is still relevant, but populist nationalism attracts much more attention: new theories are being produced and debated, coming to occupy the center stage. On the other hand, migration crisis has replaced the typical cosmopolitan issue of solidarity-with-distant-strangers with burning issues of helping refugees present at our doors. Of course, the causes of the crisis are still the same ones that cosmopolitans have been worrying about much earlier: wars and dramatically unequal global distribution of goods, and of threats, like illnesses and climate disasters. The task of the theory is now to connect these deeper issues with the new problems occupying the center-stage of the new playground; it is a challenge now formulated in somewhat different vocabulary and within different political conceptual frameworks than before.

This is a short list of books on nationalism that are readable and useful introductions to the literature. First, two contemporary classics of social science with opposing views are:

Gellner, Ernest, 1983, Nations and Nationalism , Oxford: Blackwell.
Smith, Anthony D., 1991, National Identity , Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Three presentations of liberal nationalism, two of them by the same author, Yael Tamir, offer the best introduction to the approach:

Miller, David, 1995, On Nationality , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0198293569.001.0001
Tamir, Yael, 1993, Liberal Nationalism , Press, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
–––, 2019, Why Nationalism , Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Two short and readable introductions are:

Özkirimli, Umut, 2010, Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction , second edition, London: Palgrave Macmillan. First edition is 2000; third edition is 2017.
Spencer, Philip and Howard Wollman, 2002, Nationalism, A Critical Introduction , London: Sage.

The two best anthologies of high-quality philosophical papers on the morality of nationalism are:

McKim, Robert and Jeff McMahan (eds), 1997, The Morality of Nationalism , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Couture, Jocelyne, Kai Nielsen, and Michel Seymour (eds.), 1998, Rethinking Nationalism , Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Supplement Volume 22, Calgary, AB: University of Calgary Press.

The debate continues in:

Miscevic, Nenad (ed), 2000, Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict: Philosophical Perspectives , La Salle and Chicago: Open Court.
Dieckoff, Alain (ed.), 2004, The Politics of Belonging: Nationalism, Liberalism, and Pluralism , Lanham: Lexington.
Primoratz, Igor and Aleksandar Pavković (eds), 2007, Patriotism, Philosophical and Political Perspectives , London: Ashgate.
Breen, Keith and Shane O’Neill (eds.), 2010, After the Nation? Critical Reflections on Nationalism and Postnationalism , London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230293175

A good brief sociological introduction to nationalism in general is:

Grosby, Steven, 2005, Nationalism: A Very Short Introduction , Oxford: Oxford University Press.

and to the gender-inspired criticism of nationalism is:

Yuval-Davis, Nira, 1997, Gender & Nation , London: Sage Publications.
Heuer, Jennifer, 2008, “Gender and Nationalism”, in Herb and Kaplan 2008: vol. 1, 43–58.
Hogan, Jackie, 2009, Gender, Race and National Identity: Nations of Flesh and Blood , London: Routledge.

The best general introduction to the communitarian-individualist debate is still:

Avineri, Shlomo and Avner de-Shalit (eds.), 1992, Communitarianism and Individualism , Oxford: Oxford University Press.

For a non-nationalist defense of culturalist claims see:

Kymlicka, Will (ed.), 1995a, The Rights of Minority Cultures , Oxford: Oxford University Press.

A very readable philosophical defense of very moderate liberal nationalism is:

Gans, Chaim, 2003, The Limits of Nationalism , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511490231

And for application to Central Europe see:

Auer, Stefan, 2004, Liberal Nationalism in Central Europe , London: Routledge.

A polemical, witty and thoughtful critique is offered in:

Barry, Brian, 2001, Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism , Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

And a more recent one in

Kelly, Paul, 2015, “Liberalism and Nationalism”, in The Cambridge Companion to Liberalism , Steven Wall (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 329–352. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139942478.018

Interesting critical analyses of group solidarity in general and nationalism in particular, written in the traditions of rational choice theory and motivation analysis, are:

Hardin, Russell, 1985, One for All, The Logic of Group Conflict , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Yack, Bernard, 2012, Nationalism and the Moral Psychology of Community , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

There is a wide offering of interesting sociological and political science work on nationalism, which is beginning to be summarized in:

Motyl, Alexander (ed.), 2001, Encyclopedia of Nationalism , Volumes I and II, New York: Academic Press.

A fine encyclopedic overview is:

Herb, Guntram H. and David H. Kaplan, 2008, Nations and Nationalism: a Global Historical Overview , four volumes, Santa Barbara, CA: ABC Clio.

A detailed sociological study of life under nationalist rule is:

Billig, Michael, 1995, Banal Nationalism , London: Sage Publications.

The most readable short anthology of brief papers for and against cosmopolitanism (and nationalism) by leading authors in the field is:

Cohen, Joshua (ed.), 1996, For Love of Country: Debating the Limits of Patriotism , Martha Nussbaum and respondents, Boston, MA: Beacon Press
Anderson, Benedict, 1983 [2006], Imagined Communities , London: Verso; revised edition, 2006.
Aron, Raymond, 1962, Paix et guerre entre les nations , Paris: Calmann-Levy. Translated as Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations , Richard Howard and Annette Baker Fox (trans), Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965.
Balibar, Etienne and Immanuel Wallerstein, 1988 [1991], Race, nation, classe: les identités ambiguës , Paris: Editiones La Découverte; translated as Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities , Chris Turner (trans.), London-New York: Verso.
Barber, Benjamin R., 1996, “Constitutional Faith”, in J. Cohen (ed.) 1996: 30–37.
–––, 1996, Jihad Vs. McWorld: How Globalism and Tribalism are Reshaping the World , New York: Ballantine Books.
Barry, Brian, 1999, “Statism and Nationalism: a Cosmopolitan Critique”, in Shapiro and Brilmayer 1999: 12–66.
–––, 2001, Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism , Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Bauböck, Reiner, 2004, “Territorial or Cultural Autonomy for National Minorities?”, in Dieckoff 2004: 221–258.
Bechhofer, Frank and David McCrone (eds.), 2009, National Identity, Nationalism and Constitutional Change , London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230234147
Bell, Duncan (ed.), 2008, Political Thought and International Relations: Variations on a Realist Theme , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Berlin, Isaiah, 1976, Vico and Herder: Two Studies in the History of Ideas , London: The Hogarth Press.
–––, 1979, “Nationalism: Past Neglect and Present Power”, in Against the Current: Essays in the History of Ideas , London: Hogarth Press, 333–355.
Betts, Alexander and Paul Collier, 2017, Refuge: Transforming a Broken Refugee System , London: Penguin.
–––, 2017, “Banal Nationalism and the Imagining of Politics”, in Everyday Nationhood: Theorising Culture, Identity and Belonging after Banal Nationalism , Michael Skey and Marco Antonsich (eds.), London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 307–321. doi:10.1057/978-1-137-57098-7_15
Blake, Michael, 2013, Justice and Foreign Policy , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199552009.001.0001
Breuilly, John, 2001, “The State”, in Motyl (ed.) 2001: Volume 1.
–––, 2011, “On the Principle of Nationality”, in The Cambridge History of Nineteenth-Century Political Thought , Gareth Stedman Jones and Gregory Claeys (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 77–109. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521430562.005
Breuilly, John, John Hutchinson, and Eric Kaufmann (eds), 2019, special issue on populism and nationalism in Nations and Nationalism , 25(1): 1–400.
Brubaker, Rogers, 2004, “In the Name of the Nation: Reflections on Nationalism and Patriotism1”, Citizenship Studies , 8(2): 115–127. doi:10.1080/1362102042000214705
–––, 2013, “Language, Religion and the Politics of Difference”, Nations and Nationalism , 19(1): 1–20. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8129.2012.00562.x
–––, 2015, Grounds for Difference , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Buchanan, Allen, 1991, Secession: The Morality of Political Divorce from Fort Sumter to Lithuania and Quebec , Boulder: Westview Press.
–––, 2004, Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-Determination: Moral Foundations for International Law , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0198295359.001.0001
Buchanan, Allen and Margaret Moore (eds.), 2003, States, Nations and Borders: The Ethics of Making Boundaries , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511613937
Butt, Daniel, Sarah Jane Fine, & Zofia Stemplowska (eds), 2018, Political Philosophy, Here and Now: Essays in Honour of David Miller , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Calhoun, Craig, 2007, Nations Matter. Culture, History, and the Cosmopolitan Dream , London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203960899
Canovan, Margaret, 1996, Nationhood and Political Theory , Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
–––, 2000, “Patriotism Is Not Enough”, British Journal of Political Science , 30(3): 413–432. doi:10.1017/S000712340000017X
–––, 2001, “Sleeping Dogs, Prowling Cats and Soaring Doves: Three Paradoxes in the Political Theory of Nationhood”, Political Studies , 49(2): 203–215. doi:10.1111/1467-9248.00309
Carens, Joseph H., 2013, The Ethics of Immigration , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Casertano, Stefano, 2013, Our Land, Our Oil! Natural Resources, Local Nationalism, and Violent Secession , Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. doi:10.1007/978-3-531-19443-1
Chatterjee, Deen K. and B. Smith (eds.), 2003, Moral Distance , special issue of The Monist , 86(3): 327–515.
Christiano, Thomas, 2008, “Immigration, Community and Cosmopolitanism”, in San Diego Law Review , 933(Nov–Dec): 938–962.
–––, 2012, “The Legitimacy of International Institutions”, in The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Law , Andrei Marmor (ed.), London: Routledge, pp. 380–394.
Christiano, Thomas and John Christman (eds.), 2009, Contemporary Debates in Political Philosophy , Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781444310399
Cohen, Joshua (ed.), 1996, For Love of Country? (Martha C. Nussbaum with respondents), Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Colm Hogan, Patrick, 2009, Understanding Nationalism: On Narrative, Cognitive Science and Identity , Ohio: Ohio State University Press.
Connor, Walker, 1994, Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Conversi, Daniele, 2002, Ethnonationalism in the Contemporary World: Walker Connor and the Study of Nationalism , London: Routledge.
–––, 2018, “Introduction: Why a State Is Not a Nation – and Whether Economics Really Matters. Walker Connor 50 Years On”, Nations and Nationalism , 24(3): 497–505. doi:10.1111/nana.12441
Crowley, Brian Lee, 1987, The Self, the Individual and the Community , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Dagger, Richard, 2009, “Individualism and the Claims of Community”, in Christiano and Christman 2009: 303–332. doi:10.1002/9781444310399.ch17
de Cleen, Benjamin, 2017, “Populism and Nationalism”, in Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser, Paul Taggart, Paulina Ochoa Espejo, and Pierre Ostiguy (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Populism , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
de Lange, Deborah E., 2010, Power and Influence: The Embeddedness of Nations , New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. doi:10.1057/9780230115545
De Schutter, Helder and Ronald Tinnevelt (eds.), 2011, Nationalism and Global Justice: David Miller and His Critics , London: Routledge.
Delanty, Gerard, John Hutchinson, Eric Kaufmann, Umut Özkirimli, and Andreas Wimmer, 2008, “Debate on John Hutchinson’s Nations as Zones of Conflict ”, Nations and Nationalism , 14(1): 1–28. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8129.2008.00306.x
Delanty, Gerard and Krishan Kumar (eds.), 2006, The SAGE Handbook of Nations and Nationalism , Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Derks, Tom and Nico Roymans (eds.), 2009, Ethnic Constructs in Antiquity: The Role of Power and Tradition , Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press.
–––, 2017, Nationalism and the Multination State , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Edensor, T., 2002, National Identity, Popular Culture and Everyday Life , Oxford: Berg.
Eisenberg, Avigail and Jeff Spinner-Halev (eds.), 2005, Minorities within Minorities: Equality, Rights and Diversity , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511490224
Farris, Sara R., 2017, In the Name of Women’s Rights: The Rise of Femonationalism , Durham: Duke University Press.
Feltham, Brian and John Cottingham (eds), 2010, Partiality and Impartiality: Morality, Special Relationships, and the Wider World , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199579952.001.0001
Fine, Sarah and Lea Ypi (eds.), 2016, Migration in Political Theory: The Ethics of Movement and Membership , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199676606.001.0001
Fox, Jon E., 2017, “The Edges of the Nation: A Research Agenda for Uncovering the Taken-for-Granted Foundations of Everyday Nationhood”, Nations and Nationalism , 23(1): 26–47. doi:10.1111/nana.12269
Frost, Catharine, 2006, Morality and Nationalism , London: Routledge.
–––, ,2017, “Citizenship and Nationhood”, in Rainer Baubock et al. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Citizenship , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gat, Azar and Alexander Yakobson, 2013, Nations: The Long History and Deep Roots of Political Ethnicity and Nationalism , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139047654
Giddens, Anthony, 1985, The Nation-state and Violence (Volume 2), Berkeley: University of California Press.
Glenn, John, 1997, “Nations and Nationalism: Marxist Approaches to the Subject”, Nationalism and Ethnic Politics , 3(2): 79–100. doi:10.1080/13537119708428503
Goetze, David, 2001, “Evolutionary Theory”, in Motyl (ed.) 2001: Volume 1.
Goodin, Robert E., 2006, “Liberal Multiculturalism: Protective and Polyglot”, Political Theory , 34(3): 289–303. doi:10.1177/0090591705284131
Greenfeld, Liah, 2001, The Spirit of Capitalism: Nationalism and Economic Growth , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
–––, 2005, “Nationalism and the Mind”, Nations and Nationalism , 11(3): 325–341. doi:10.1111/j.1354-5078.2005.00207.x
–––, 2006, Nationalism and the Mind: Essays Modern Culture . London: Oneworld.
Habermas, Jürgen, 1992 [1996], Faktizität und Geltung: Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Translated as Between Facts and Norms: Contribution to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy , Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996.
–––, 1996 [1998], Die Einbeziehung des Anderen: Studien zur politischen Theorie , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Translated as The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory , Ciaran Cronin and Pablo De Greiff (eds), Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1998.
Haidt, Jonathan, 2016, “When and Why Nationalism Beats Globalism”, The American Interest , 12(1): 10 July 2016. URL = < available online >.
Hale, Henry E., 2008, The Foundations of Ethnic Politics: Separatism of States and Nations in Eurasia and the World , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511790669
Harris, Erika, 2016, “Why Has Nationalism Not Run Its Course?”, Nations and Nationalism , 22(2): 243–247. doi:10.1111/nana.12185
Hastings, Adrian, 1997, The Construction of Nationhood: Ethnicity, Religion and Nationalism , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511612107
Hazony, Yoram, 2018, The Virtue of Nationalism , New York: Basic Books.
Hearn, Jonathan, 2018, “Power, Culture, Identity, and the Work of Anthony Smith”, Nations and Nationalism , 24(2): 286–291. doi:10.1111/nana.12407
Hearn, Jonathan, Chandran Kukathas, David Miller, and Bernard Yack, 2014, “Debate on Bernard Yack’s Book Nationalism and the Moral Psychology of Community ”, Nations and Nationalism , 20(3): 395–414. doi:10.1111/nana.12074
Hechter, Michael, 2001, Containing Nationalism , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/019924751X.001.0001
Helbling, Marc, Tim Reeskens, and Matthew Wright, 2016, “The Mobilisation of Identities: A Study on the Relationship between Elite Rhetoric and Public Opinion on National Identity in Developed Democracies”, Nations and Nationalism , 22(4): 744–767. doi:10.1111/nana.12235
Held, David, 2003, “Cosmopolitanism: Globalisation Tamed?”, Review of International Studies , 29(4): 465–480. doi:10.1017/S0260210503004650
Hendrix, Burke A., 2008, Ownership, Authority, and Self-Determination: Moral Principles and Indigenous Rights Claims , University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Hobsbawm, E. J., 1990, Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Second edition 2012. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107295582
Hutchinson, John, 2005, Nations as Zones of Conflict , London: Sage; see also the debate on this book in Delanty et al. 2008.
–––, 2017, Nationalism and War , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198798453.001.0001
–––, 2018, “Bringing the Study of Warfare into Theories of Nationalism”, Nations and Nationalism , 24(1): 6–21. doi:10.1111/nana.12364
Ichijo, Atsuko and Ronald Ranta, 2016, Food, National Identity and Nationalism: From Everyday to Global Politics , London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. doi:10.1057/9781137483133
Ichijo, Atsuko, Jon E. Fox, Arthur Aughey, David McCrone, and Frank Bechhofer, 2017, “Debate on Understanding National Identity by David McCrone and Frank Bechhofer”, Nations and Nationalism , 23(3): 441–462. doi:10.1111/nana.12314
Ingram, James D., 2017, “Populism and Cosmopolitanism”, in Oxford Handbook of Populism , Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser, Paul Taggart, Paulina Ochoa Espejo,and Pierre Ostiguy (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 644–660.
Iyall Smith, Keri E. and Patricia Leavy (eds.), 2008, Hybrid Identities: Theoretical and Empirical Examinations , Leiden: Brill.
Jaramillo Torres, Angel and Marc Benjamin Sable (eds.), 2018, Trump and Political Philosophy: Leadership, Statesmanship, and Tyranny , Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-74445-2
Joppke, Christian and Steven Lukes (eds.), 1999, Multicultural Questions , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/019829610X.001.0001
Kaldor, Mary, 2004, “Nationalism and Globalisation”, Nations and Nationalism , 10(1–2): 161–177. doi:10.1111/j.1354-5078.2004.00161.x
Kastoryano, Riva, 2006, “Vers un Nationalisme Transnational. Redéfinir la Nation, le Nationalisme et le Territoire”, Revue Française de Science Politique , 56: 533–553.
Kaufmann, Eric, 2019, “Ethno‐traditional Nationalism and the Challenge of Immigration”, Nations and Nationalism , 25(2): 435–448. doi:10.1111/nana.12516
Kedourie, Elie, 1960, Nationalism , London: Hutchison.
Kim, Sung Ho, 2002, “Max Weber’s Liberal Nationalism”, History of Political Thought , 23(3): 432–457.
Kleinig, John, 2014, On Loyalty and Loyalties: The Contours of a Problematic Virtue , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Knott, Eleanor, Vera Tolz, Elliott Green, and Andreas Wimmer, 2019, “Debate on Andreas Wimmer’s Nation Building: Why Some Countries Come Together While Other Fall Apart” Nation and Nationalism , 25(1): 82–103.
Kohen, Marcelo G. (ed.), 2006, Secession: International Law Perspectives , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511494215
Kohn, Hans, 1965, Nationalism: Its Meaning and History , revised edition, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
Kolers, Avery, 2009, Land, Conflict, and Justice: A Political Theory of Territory , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511575709
Kostagiannis, Konstantinos, 2018, Realist Thought and the Nation-State: Power Politics in the Age of Nationalism , (The Palgrave Macmillan History of International Thought), Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-59629-7
Kukathas, Chandran, 2003, The Liberal Archipelago: A Theory of Diversity and Freedom , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/019925754X.001.0001
Kukathas, Chandran and R. Poole, Ross, (eds.), 2000, Australasian Journal of Philosophy (Special Issue on Indigenous Rights), Volume 78, Issue 3.
Kuran Burcoglu, Nedret (ed.), 1997, Multiculturalism: Identity and Otherness , Istanbul: Bogazici University Press.
–––, 1995b, Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0198290918.001.0001
–––, 2001, Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism, and Citizenship , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0199240981.001.0001
–––, 2003a, “Conclusion: The Futures of Nationalism”, in Nationalism and Its Futures , Umut Özkırımlı (ed.), London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 145–151. doi:10.1057/9780230524187_8
–––, 2003b, “Liberal Theories of Multiculturalism”, in Rights, Culture and the Law: Themes from the Legal and Political Philosophy of Joseph Raz , Lukas H. Meyer, Stanley L. Paulson, and Thomas W. Pogge (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 229–252.
–––, 2004, “Justice and Security in the Accommodation of Minority Nationalism”, in Dieckoff 2004: 127–154.
–––, 2007a, “Community and Multiculturalism”, in A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy (Volume 2), second edition, Robert E. Goodin, Philip Pettit, and Thomas Pogge (eds.), Oxford: Blackwell, 463–477.
–––, 2007b, Multicultural Odysseys: Navigating the New International Politics of Diversity , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–––, 2016 “Defending Diversity in an Era of Populism: Multiculturalism and Interculturalism Compared” in Multiculturalism and Interculturalism: Debating the Dividing Lines , Nasar Meer, Tariq Modood and Ricard Zapata-Barrero (eds.), Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 158–177.
Kymlicka, Will and Alan Patten (eds.), 2004, Language Rights and Political Theory , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lægaard, Sune, 2007, “Liberal Nationalism and the Nationalisation of Liberal Values”, Nations and Nationalism , 13(1): 37–55. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8129.2007.00269.x
Lagerspetz, Olli, 2000, “On National Belonging” in Miscevic 2000: 57–74.
Laitin, David, 2001, “Political Science and Nationalism”, in Motyl (ed.) 2001: Volume 1.
–––, 2007, Nations, States, and Violence , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Laitin, David D. and Rob Reich, 2004, “A Liberal Democratic Approach to Language Justice”, in Kymlicka and Patten 2004: 80–104.
Laitin, David D., James T. Watkins IV, and Elise V. Watkins, 1998, Identity in Formation: The Russian-Speaking Populations in the Near Abroad , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Lecours, André and Luis Moreno (eds.), 2010, Nationalism and Democracy: Dichotomies, Complementarities, Oppositions , London: Routledge.
Leoussi, Athena S. and Steven Grossby (eds.), 2007, Nationalism and Ethnosymbolism: History, Culture and Ethnicity in the Formation of Nations , Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Levy, Jacob T., 2000, Multiculturalism of Fear , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0198297122.001.0001
–––, 2004, “National Minorities without Nationalism”, in Dieckoff 2004: 155– 174.
Lichtenberg, Judith, 1997, “Nationalism, For and (Mainly) Against”, in McKim & McMahan 1997: 158–175.
MacCormick, Neil, 1982, Legal Right and Social Democracy: Essays in Legal and Political Philosophy , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
MacIntyre, Alasdair, 1984“Is Patriotism a Virtue?”, The Lindley Lecture, Lawrence: The University of Kansas, available online .
Malešević, Siniša, 2011, “The Chimera of National Identity”, Nations and Nationalism , 17(2): 272–290. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8129.2010.00479.x
–––, 2013, Nation-States and Nationalisms: Organization, Ideology and Solidarity , Cambridge: Polity.
–––, 2018, “The Rise and Rise of Grounded Nationalisms”, Ethnopolitics , 17(5): 553–557. doi:10.1080/17449057.2018.1532636
Malešević, Siniša and Mark Haugaard (eds.), 2007, Ernest Gellner and Contemporary Social Thought , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511488795
Malešević, Siniša, 2017, The Rise of Organized Brutality , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Margalit, Avishai, 1997, “The Moral Psychology of Nationalism”, in McKim and McMahan 1997: 74–88.
Margalit, Avishai and Joseph Raz, 1990, “National Self-Determination”, Journal of Philosophy , 87(9): 439–461. doi:10.2307/2026968
Markell, Patchen, 2000, “Making Affect Safe for Democracy?: On ‘Constitutional Patriotism’”, Political Theory , 28(1): 38–63. doi:10.1177/0090591700028001003
Mason, Andrew, 1999, “Political Community, Liberal‐Nationalism, and the Ethics of Assimilation”, Ethics , 109(2): 261–286. doi:10.1086/233896
McCabe, David, 1997, “Patriotic Gore, Again”, The Southern Journal of Philosophy , 35(2): 203–223. doi:10.1111/j.2041-6962.1997.tb00834.x
Meadwell, Hudson, 2012, “Nationalism Chez Gellner”, Nations and Nationalism , 18(4): 563–582. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8129.2012.00544.x
–––, 2014, “Gellner Redux?”, Nations and Nationalism , 20(1): 18–36. doi:10.1111/nana.12029
Meinecke, Friedrich, 1924 [1965], Die Idee der Staatsräson in der neueren Geschichte , Munich and Berlin: R. Oldenbourg. Translated as Machiavellism , Douglas Scott (trans.), New York: Praeger, 1965.
Meisels, Tamar, 2009, Territorial Rights , second edition, (Law and Philosophy Library 72), Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9262-6
Miller, David, 1990, “The Resurgence of Political Theory”, Political Studies , 38(3): 421–437.
–––, 1992, “Community and Citizenship”, in Avineri and de Shalit 1992: 85–100.
–––, 1995, On Nationality , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0198293569.001.0001
–––, 1999, Principles of Social Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
–––, 2000, Citizenship and National Identity , Oxford: Blackwell.
–––, 2005a, “Crooked Timber or Bent Twig? Isaiah Berlin’s Nationalism”, Political Studies , 53(1): 100–123. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2005.00519.x
–––, 2005b, “Immigration: The Case for Limits”, in Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics , Andrew I. Cohen and Christopher Heath Wellman (eds.), Oxford; Blackwell, 193–206.
–––, 2007, National Responsibility and Global Justice , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199235056.001.0001
–––, 2008, “Immigrants, Nations, and Citizenship”, Philosophy, Politics & Society (Special Issue), 4 (December): 371–390.
–––, 2013, Justice for Earthlings: Essays in Political Philosophy , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139236898
–––, 2016, Strangers in Our Midst: The Political Philosophy of Immigration , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Miller, David Lee and Sohail H. Hashmi (eds.), 2001, Boundaries and Justice: Diverse Ethical Perspectives , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Miscevic, Nenad (ed.), 2000, Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict. Philosophical Perspectives , La Salle and Chicago: Open Court.
–––, 2001, Nationalism and Beyond , Budapest, New York: Central European University Press.
–––, 2019, “Populism and nationalism”, in New Politics of Decisionism , Violeta Besirevic (ed.), The Hague: Eleven International Publishing.
Moore, Margaret (ed.), 1998, National Self-Determination and Secession , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0198293844.001.0001
–––, 2001, “Normative Justifications for Liberal Nationalism: Justice, Democracy and National Identity”, Nations and Nationalism , 7(1): 1–20. doi:10.1111/1469-8219.00001
–––, 2009, “Liberalism, Communitarianism and the Politics of Identity”, in Christiano and Christman 2009: 322–342. doi:10.1002/9781444310399.ch18
Morgenthau, Hans, 1946, Scientific Man versus Power Politics , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Motyl, Alexander (ed.), 2001, Encyclopedia of Nationalism: Volume 1: Fundamental Themes , New York: Academic Press.
Mudde, Cas, 2007, Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511492037
Müller, Jan-Werner, 2016, What is Populism , Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Nation and Nationalism , 2019, thematic issue on migration, 25(2): 401–751.
Nielsen, Kai, 1998, “Liberal Nationalism, Liberal Democracies and Secession”, University of Toronto Law Journal , 48(2): 253–295. doi:10.2307/825982
–––, 1998–99, “Cosmopolitanism, Universalism and Particularism in the age of Nationalism and Multiculturalism”, Philosophical Exchange , 29(1): art. 2 (3–34). [ Nielsen 1998–99 available online ]
O’Neill, Onora, 2000, Bounds of Justice , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511605734
Okin, Susan Moller, 1999, “Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?” and “Response”, in Boston Review , 1997; reprinted with some revisions in Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? Joshua Cohen, Matthew Howard, and M. Nussbaum (eds.), Princeton: Princeton University Press.
–––, 2002, “‘Mistresses of Their Own Destiny’: Group Rights, Gender, and Realistic Rights of Exit”, Ethics , 112(2): 205–230. doi:10.1086/324645
–––, 2005, “Multiculturalism and Feminism: No Simple Question, No Simple Answers”, in Eisenberg and Spinner-Halev 2005: 67–89. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511490224.004.
Oldenquist, Andrew, 2002, “Ethnicity and Sovereignty”, Studies in East European Thought , 54(4): 271–284.
Orgad, Liav, 2015, The Cultural Defense of Nations: A Liberal Theory of Majority Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199668687.001.0001
Orwell, George, 1945 [2000], “Notes on Nationalism”, first published: Polemic. May 1945, London; reprinted in his Essays , Bernard Crick (ed.), London: Penguin, 2000.
Özkirimli, Umut, 2003, “The Nation as an Artichoke? A Critique of Ethnosymbolist Interpretations of Nationalism”, Nations and Nationalism , 9(3): 339–355. doi:10.1111/1469-8219.00100
–––, 2010, Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction , second revised edition, London: Palgrave Macmillan. First edition is 2000; third edition is 2017.
Patten, Alan, 2003, “Liberal Neutrality and Language Policy”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 31(4): 356–386. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2003.00356.x
Pavković, Aleksandar and Peter Radan (eds.), 2007, Creating New States: Theory and Practice of Secession , London: Ashgate.
Pogge, Thomas W., 1997, “Group Rights and Ethnicity”, in Shapiro and Kymlicka 1997: 187–221.
–––, 2001, “Rawls on International Justice”, The Philosophical Quarterly , 51(203): 246–253. doi:10.1111/j.0031-8094.2001.00228.x
–––, 2002, World Poverty and Human Rights , Cambridge: Polity Press.
Primoratz, Igor, 2017, “Patriotism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/patriotism/ >.
Putnam, Hilary, 1996, “Must We Choose Between Patriotism and Universal Reason?”, in Cohen 1996: 91–97.
Rawls, John, 1999, The Law of Peoples , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Renan, Ernest, 1882, “Qu’est-ce qu’une nation?”, lecture delivered at the Sorbonne, 11 March 1882. Translated by Martin Thom as “What is a nation?”, in Nation and Narration , Homi K. Bhabha (ed.), London: Routledge, 1990, 8–22; reprinted in part in Nationalism , John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994, 17–18.
Risse, Mathias, 2012a, “Global Justice” in The Oxford Handbook of Political Philosophy , David Estlund (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 457–489
–––, 2012b, On Global Justice , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Roshwald, Aviel, 2006. The Endurance of Nationalism: Ancient Roots and Modern Dilemmas , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sardoč, Mitja (ed.), 2017–, Handbook of Patriotism , Springer International Publishing AG (some chapters available on the web from 2017 on). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-30534-9
Satz, Debra and Rob Reich (eds.), 2009, Toward a Humanist Justice: The Political Philosophy of Susan Moller Okin , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/Acprof:Oso/9780195337396.001.0001
Scruton, Roger, 2004, England and the Need for Nations , London: Civitas: Institute for the Study of Civil Society.
Searle-White, Joshua, 2001, The Psychology of Nationalism , New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. doi:10.1057/9780312299057
Seymour, Michel, 1999, La nation en question , Montreal: L’Hexagone.
–––, 2000, “On Redefining the Nation”, in Miscevic 2000: 25–56.
Shapiro, Ian and Lea Brilmayer (eds.), 1999, Global Justice , (Nomos, Volume XLI), New York: New York University Press.
Shapiro, Ian and Will Kymlicka (eds.), 1997, Ethnicity and Group Rights , (Nomos, Volume XXXIX), New York: New York University Press.
Simmons, A. John, 2001, “On The Territorial Rights of States”, Philosophical Issues , 11: 300 –326. doi:10.1111/0029-4624.35.s1.12
–––, 2016, Boundaries of Authority , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190603489.001.0001
Shils, Edward, 1957, “On The Territorial Rights of StatesPrimordial, Personal, Sacred and Civil Ties: Some Particular Observations on the Relationships of Sociological Research and Theory”, The British Journal of Sociology , 8(2): 130– 145.
Smith, Anthony D., 1991, National Identity , Penguin, Harmondsworth.
–––, 2001, Nationalism , Cambridge: Polity Press.
–––, 2003, “The Poverty of Anti-Nationalist Modernism”, Nations and Nationalism , 9(3): 357–370. doi:10.1111/1469-8219.00101
–––, 2008a. The Cultural Foundations of Nations: Hierarchy, Covenant and Republic , Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
–––, 2008, “Opening Remarkts to the Debate on Aviel Roshwald’s The Endurance of Nationalism”, Nations and Nationalism , 14(4): 637–663. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8129.2008.00355.x
–––, 2009, Ethno-Symbolism and Nationalism: a Cultural Approach , London: Routledge.
–––, 2011, “National Identity and Vernacular Mobilisation in Europe”, Nations and Nationalism , 17(2): 223–256. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8129.2011.00491.x
Sober, Elliott, and David Sloan Wilson, 1998, Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sparrow, Robert, 2007, “For the Union Makes Us Strong: Anarchism and Patriotism”, in Primoratz and Pavkovic 2007: 201–218.
Spinner-Halev, Jeff, 2008, “Democracy, Solidarity and Post-Nationalism”, Political Studies , 56(3): 604–628. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00708.x
Steiner, Hillel, 1999, “Just Taxation and International Redistribution”, in Shapiro and Brilmayer 1999: 171–191.
Stiltz, Anna, 2016, “The Value of Self-Determination”, Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy 2 , David Sobel, Peter Vallentyne, and Steven Wall (eds), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 98–127. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198759621.003.0005
Stone, John and Ioanna Christodoulaki, 2018, “Nebulous Nationalism: Walker Connor in an Era of Rising Populism”, Nations and Nationalism , 24(3): 513–518. doi:10.1111/nana.12443
Storm, Eric, 2018, “A New Dawn in Nationalism Studies? Some Fresh Incentives to Overcome Historiographical Nationalism”, European History Quarterly , 48(1): 113–129. doi:10.1177/0265691417741830
Tan, Kok-Chor, 2004, Justice without Borders: Cosmopolitanism, Nationalism, and Patriotism , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511490385
–––, 2011, “Nationalism and Global Justice: A Survey of Some Challenges”, in Sovereign Justice: Global Justice in a World of Nations , Diogo P. Aurélio, Gabriele De Angelis, and Regina Queiroz (eds.), Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 9–24. doi:10.1515/9783110245745.1.9
–––, 2012, Justice, Institutions, and Luck: The Site, Ground, and Scope of Equality , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199588855.001.0001
Taguieff, Pierre-André, 2015, La revanche du nationalisme: Néopopulistes et xénophobes ? l’assaut de l’Europe , Paris: Presses Universitaires De France.
Tajfel, Henri, 1981, Human Groups and Social Categories , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
–––, 2019, Why Nationalism, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Taylor, Charles, 1989, Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
–––, 1993, Reconciling the Solitudes , Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
–––, 1996, “Why Democracy Needs Patriotism”, in Cohen 1996: 119–121.
Tilly, Charles (ed.), 1975, The Formation of National States in Western Europe , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Tonkiss, Katherine, 2013, Migration and Identity in a Post-National World , London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. doi:10.1057/9781137309082
Tully, James, 1994, An Approach to Political Philosophy: Locke in Contexts , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511607882
–––, 2004, “Recognition and dialogue: the emergence of a new field”, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy , 7(3): 84–106.
Twining, William (ed.), 1991, Issues of Self-determination , Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press.
Vick, Brian, 2007, “Of Basques, Greeks, and Germans: Liberalism, Nationalism, and the Ancient Republican Tradition in the Thought of Wilhelm von Humboldt”, Central European History , 40(4): 653–681. doi:10.1017/S0008938907001070
Vincent, Andrew, 2001, “Political Theory”, in Motyl (ed.) 2001: Volume 1, 589–599.
Waldron, Jeremy, 1992, “Superseding Historic Injustice”, Ethics , 103(1): 4–28. doi:10.1086/293468
Walker, R.B.J., 2001, “Postmodernism”, in Motyl (ed.) 2001: Volume 1, 611–630.
Walzer, Michael, 1983, Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality , New York: Basic Boooks.
–––, 2002, “Passion and Politics”, Philosophy & Social Criticism , 28(6): 617–633. doi:10.1177/019145370202800602
–––, 2004, Arguing about War , New Haven & London: Yale University Press.
Weber, Max, 1924, “Diskussionsrede zum Vortrag von P. Barth ‘Die Nationalitit in ihrer soziologischer (1912) Bedeutung’ auf dem zweiten Deutschen Soziologentag in Berlin 1912”, in Max Weber, Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Soziologie und Sozialpolitik , Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), S. pp. 484–486.
Wellman, Christopher Heath, 2005, A Theory of Secession: The Case for Self- Determination , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511499265
Williams, Michael C., 2007, “Morgenthau Now: Neoconservatism, National Greatness, and Realism”, in Realism Reconsidered: The Legacy of Hans Morgenthau in International Relations , Michael C. Williams (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 216–240.
Wimmer, Andreas, 2013, Waves of War: Nationalism, State Formation, and Ethnic Exclusion in the Modern World , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139198318
–––, 2018, Nation Building: Why Some Countries Come Together While Others Fall Apart, Princeton: Princeton University Press
Wright, Sue, 2016, Language Policy and Language Planning: From Nationalism to Globalisation , second revised edition, London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. doi:10.1007/978-1-137-57647-7
–––, 2018, “Nationalism’s Grip on Democracy: Good News and Bad”, in Reimagining Nation and Nationalism in Multicultural East Asia , Sungmoon Kim and Hsin-Wen Lee (eds.), London: Routledge, chapter 1.
Ypi, Lea, 2011, Global Justice and Avant-Garde Political Agency , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199593873.001.0001
Yuval-Davis, Nira, 1997, Gender and Nation , New York: Sage Publications.
Žižek, Slavoj, 2015, “In the Wake of Paris Attacks the Left Must Embrace Its Radical Western Roots”, In These Times , 16 November 2015, available online .
–––, 2017, The Incontinence of the Void , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

Nussbaum, Martha C. 2002, “ Beyond the Social Contract: Toward Global Justice ”, Tanner Lecture, Australian National University.
Waldron, Jeremy, 2005, “ Proximity as the Basis of Political Community .”
Nationalism – A Bibliography , compiled by Peter Rasmussen. A good collection of links and bibliographies, but no longer maintained.
The Warwick Debates , debate between Ernest Gellner and Anthony D. Smith at the London School of Economics, 1995.
ARENA: Centre for European Studies ; ARENA is a research centre at the University of Oslo studying the dynamics of the evolving European systems of governance. This site contains a good selection of papers on ethics of international relations.
Global Policy Forum , has papers on the future of nation-states.
Academy of European Law , at the European University Institute.
Territory and Justice network: repository of pre-publication papers .

Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

Info about mirror sites

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Beyond Intractability

The Hyper-Polarization Challenge to the Conflict Resolution Field: A Joint BI/CRQ Discussion BI and the Conflict Resolution Quarterly invite you to participate in an online exploration of what those with conflict and peacebuilding expertise can do to help defend liberal democracies and encourage them live up to their ideals.

Follow BI and the Hyper-Polarization Discussion on BI's New Substack Newsletter .

Hyper-Polarization, COVID, Racism, and the Constructive Conflict Initiative Read about (and contribute to) the Constructive Conflict Initiative and its associated Blog —our effort to assemble what we collectively know about how to move beyond our hyperpolarized politics and start solving society's problems.

By Charles (Chip) Hauss

September 2003

In the Dictionary of International Relations, Graham Evans and Jeffrey Newnham start their entry with this relatively benign definition of nationalism. "This term is used in two related senses. In the first usage, nationalism seeks to identify a behavioral entity - the nation - and thereafter to pursue certain political and cultural goals on behalf of it. In the second usage, nationalism is a sentiment of loyalty toward the nation which is shared by people."[1] But, like most modern students of international relations, they argue that nationalism has been one of the most important forces shaping international politics.

And not always for the better.

What Is Nationalism?

Nationalism has been the subject of hundreds of analyses and dozens of theories. However, the Evans/Newnham definition is a good start.

Political scientists draw a sharp distinction between the concepts of state and nation . State refers to government and other institutions which run the country. Nation, by contrast, is a psychological characteristic, what individuals identify with. There are nation-states in which almost everyone accepts the state as theirs and makes it the primary home of their political identity and loyalty. That would certainly be true of most people in the United States or France, but is less true in countries where people might think of themselves as Scots more than British, Quebecois more than Canadian, or Walloon more than Belgian. There are also countries with important Diasporas or groups of people who live outside the countries' borders but would rather not do so. As we will see later in this article, one of the most tragic examples of nationalism-induced violence occurred when Yugoslavia disintegrated into now six separate states. Only Slovenia was anywhere near homogeneous, and most ethnic minorities chafed under the nationalistic rule of the majority group's leaders.

Nationalism and the state are surprisingly new phenomena given the importance they play in international relations today.

Why Nationalism Is Important

Nationalism is important in two ways.

The first is relatively benign and is best seen in the patriotism of most people in the United States, the United Kingdom, or France. In those countries, almost everyone believes that the state is legitimate and supports it often without question. In countries that still have a draft, virtually everyone agrees to put on a uniform if conscripted.

Such patriotism can have an ugly side - who hasn't been appalled by the boorishness of American hockey or English soccer fans. And, most observers are convinced that patriotism can leave most people more blind than they should be to their country's political flaws, something many critics have argued about Americans since the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Yet that sort of hyper-nationalism has not often led to the kind of violent conflict which claimed well over 100 million people in the twentieth century. One of the major causes of most of those conflicts has been nationalism of a different kind -- one that gets out of hand, turns into hatred of others, and sparks violence, often of the most brutal form. That is especially true when leaders of states can convince people that they have somehow been treated abusively by the "other" or that members of "our" group who live outside "our" borders need to be incorporated into the "homeland."

As far as interstate war is concerned, there is no more obvious example than World War II. Japan, Italy, and especially Germany were all led by leaders who stressed unmet nationalist goals and grievances in the years leading up to the outbreak of fighting in 1939. While psychologists and historians still debate exactly how this took place, there is little doubt that the intense emotions felt by leaders and followers alike contributed to the atrocities committed by people from all three of these countries.

Nationalism of only a slightly different sort has fueled much of the intrastate violence that has been the dominant form of intractable political conflict since the end of World War II. In some cases, the term nationalism itself may not be used at all in what are referred to as ethnic or other "sub-national" conflicts, as is the case with many of the conflicts taking place inside of multinational countries such as India. In other cases, there is no realistic possibility of creating ethnically pure states; there is, for instance, no way to envision Hutu or Tutsi states emerging out of either Rwanda or Burundi. The largest number of cases involve nationalities whose historical claims to state- or nation-ness are rather tenuous as in Kashmir, Chechnya, or most of the former Yugoslav republics. But, the people who take up arms in those conflicts share the same kind of deeply rooted emotions that gave rise to the Nazis in Germany and any other Volk or nation-based ideology.

What Individuals Can Do

The most obvious thing for an average citizen to do is to resist adopting ideologies that starkly divide the world into "we versus them" terms or choosing leaders who do so. I know from personal experience that is not always easy to do. I still harbor significant resentment toward Germans who wiped out half of my family. It is also hard for me not to feel hatred toward the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 and other attacks in recent years.

In more general terms, it is hard for people to refuse to accept such values during times of crisis, such as the combination of defeat and depression that gripped Germany during the interwar years. To begin with, the Germans had legitimate grievances about the humiliation they were forced to suffer as a result of losing World War I. Moreover, the German people were bombarded with "messages" from the media and respected local leaders which served to deepen their resentments. Eighty years ago, Hitler had to rely on newspapers, mass organizations, public meetings, and primitive radio and film technologies. Today's nationalist (and often demagogic) leader has the full range of mass media technologies to draw on. And, in some of the most destructive conflicts in the last decade (e.g., in Rwanda and Serbia), they did just that.

What Leaders Can Do

Obviously, leaders should resist the temptation to support and promote hyper-nationalist ideas. They may pay off in the short term, but the carnage of the last century suggests that they produce few, if any, lasting winners.

But, it may be even harder for leaders to resist hyper-nationalism than it is for average citizens. First, it is clear that some leaders, like Adolf Hitler, truly believe in their nationalism and the prejudices that go with it. Second, and probably more common, are the politicians like Slobodan Milosevic who used hyper-nationalist themes in a more opportunistic way to propel and keep themselves in power.

[1] Evans, Graham and Jeffrey Newnham, Penguin Dictionary of International Relations. 1 st ed. (London: Penguin, 1998), 346. < http://books.google.com/books?id=ap2yAAAAIAAJ >.

Use the following to cite this article: Hauss, Charles (Chip). "Nationalism." Beyond Intractability . Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: September 2003 < http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/nationalism >.

Additional Resources

The intractable conflict challenge.

what is the importance of practicing nationalism essay

Our inability to constructively handle intractable conflict is the most serious, and the most neglected, problem facing humanity. Solving today's tough problems depends upon finding better ways of dealing with these conflicts. More...

Selected Recent BI Posts Including Hyper-Polarization Posts

Massively Parallel Peace and Democracy Building Links for the Week of May 19, 2024 -- Another in our weekly set of links from readers, our colleagues, and others with important ideas for our field.
Crisis, Contradiction, Certainty, and Contempt -- Columbia Professor Peter Coleman, an expert on intractable conflict, reflects on the intractable conflict occurring on his own campus, suggesting "ways out" that would be better for everyone.
Massively Parallel Peace and Democracy Building Links for the Week of April 28, 2024 -- New suggested readings from colleagues and the Burgesses.

Get the Newsletter Check Out Our Quick Start Guide

Educators Consider a low-cost BI-based custom text .

Constructive Conflict Initiative

Join Us in calling for a dramatic expansion of efforts to limit the destructiveness of intractable conflict.

Things You Can Do to Help Ideas

Practical things we can all do to limit the destructive conflicts threatening our future.

Conflict Frontiers

A free, open, online seminar exploring new approaches for addressing difficult and intractable conflicts. Major topic areas include:

Scale, Complexity, & Intractability

Massively Parallel Peacebuilding

Authoritarian Populism

Constructive Confrontation

Conflict Fundamentals

An look at to the fundamental building blocks of the peace and conflict field covering both “tractable” and intractable conflict.

Beyond Intractability / CRInfo Knowledge Base

Home / Browse | Essays | Search | About

BI in Context

Links to thought-provoking articles exploring the larger, societal dimension of intractability.

Colleague Activities

Information about interesting conflict and peacebuilding efforts.

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Beyond Intractability or the Conflict Information Consortium.

Beyond Intractability

Unless otherwise noted on individual pages, all content is... Copyright © 2003-2022 The Beyond Intractability Project c/o the Conflict Information Consortium All rights reserved. Content may not be reproduced without prior written permission.

Guidelines for Using Beyond Intractability resources.

Citing Beyond Intractability resources.

Photo Credits for Homepage, Sidebars, and Landing Pages

Contact Beyond Intractability Privacy Policy The Beyond Intractability Knowledge Base Project Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess , Co-Directors and Editors c/o Conflict Information Consortium Mailing Address: Beyond Intractability, #1188, 1601 29th St. Suite 1292, Boulder CO 80301, USA Contact Form

production_1

Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

Browse content in Arts and Humanities
Browse content in Archaeology
Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
Archaeology by Region
Archaeology of Religion
Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
Biblical Archaeology
Contemporary and Public Archaeology
Environmental Archaeology
Historical Archaeology
History and Theory of Archaeology
Industrial Archaeology
Landscape Archaeology
Mortuary Archaeology
Prehistoric Archaeology
Underwater Archaeology
Urban Archaeology
Zooarchaeology
Browse content in Architecture
Architectural Structure and Design
History of Architecture
Residential and Domestic Buildings
Theory of Architecture
Browse content in Art
Art Subjects and Themes
History of Art
Industrial and Commercial Art
Theory of Art
Biographical Studies
Byzantine Studies
Browse content in Classical Studies
Classical Literature
Classical Reception
Classical History
Classical Philosophy
Classical Mythology
Classical Art and Architecture
Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
Greek and Roman Papyrology
Greek and Roman Archaeology
Greek and Roman Epigraphy
Greek and Roman Law
Late Antiquity
Religion in the Ancient World
Digital Humanities
Browse content in History
Colonialism and Imperialism
Diplomatic History
Environmental History
Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
Historical Geography
History by Period
History of Emotions
History of Agriculture
History of Education
History of Gender and Sexuality
Industrial History
Intellectual History
International History
Labour History
Legal and Constitutional History
Local and Family History
Maritime History
Military History
National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
Oral History
Political History
Public History
Regional and National History
Revolutions and Rebellions
Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
Social and Cultural History
Theory, Methods, and Historiography
Urban History
World History
Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
Language Learning (Specific Skills)
Language Teaching Theory and Methods
Browse content in Linguistics
Applied Linguistics
Cognitive Linguistics
Computational Linguistics
Forensic Linguistics
Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
History of English
Language Evolution
Language Reference
Language Variation
Language Families
Language Acquisition
Lexicography
Linguistic Anthropology
Linguistic Theories
Linguistic Typology
Phonetics and Phonology
Psycholinguistics
Sociolinguistics
Translation and Interpretation
Writing Systems
Browse content in Literature
Bibliography
Children's Literature Studies
Literary Studies (Romanticism)
Literary Studies (American)
Literary Studies (Modernism)
Literary Studies (Asian)
Literary Studies (European)
Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
Literary Studies - World
Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
Literary Studies (19th Century)
Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
Literary Studies (African American Literature)
Literary Studies (British and Irish)
Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
Literary Studies (History of the Book)
Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
Literary Studies (War Literature)
Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
Mythology and Folklore
Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
Browse content in Media Studies
Browse content in Music
Applied Music
Dance and Music
Ethics in Music
Ethnomusicology
Gender and Sexuality in Music
Medicine and Music
Music Cultures
Music and Media
Music and Culture
Music and Religion
Music Education and Pedagogy
Music Theory and Analysis
Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
Musicology and Music History
Performance Practice and Studies
Race and Ethnicity in Music
Sound Studies
Browse content in Performing Arts
Browse content in Philosophy
Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
Epistemology
Feminist Philosophy
History of Western Philosophy
Metaphysics
Moral Philosophy
Non-Western Philosophy
Philosophy of Language
Philosophy of Mind
Philosophy of Perception
Philosophy of Action
Philosophy of Law
Philosophy of Religion
Philosophy of Science
Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
Practical Ethics
Social and Political Philosophy
Browse content in Religion
Biblical Studies
Christianity
East Asian Religions
History of Religion
Judaism and Jewish Studies
Qumran Studies
Religion and Education
Religion and Health
Religion and Politics
Religion and Science
Religion and Law
Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
Religious Studies
Browse content in Society and Culture
Cookery, Food, and Drink
Cultural Studies
Customs and Traditions
Ethical Issues and Debates
Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
Sports and Outdoor Recreation
Technology and Society
Travel and Holiday
Visual Culture
Browse content in Law
Arbitration
Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
Commercial Law
Company Law
Browse content in Comparative Law
Systems of Law
Competition Law
Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
Government Powers
Judicial Review
Local Government Law
Military and Defence Law
Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
Construction Law
Contract Law
Browse content in Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure
Criminal Evidence Law
Sentencing and Punishment
Employment and Labour Law
Environment and Energy Law
Browse content in Financial Law
Banking Law
Insolvency Law
History of Law
Human Rights and Immigration
Intellectual Property Law
Browse content in International Law
Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
Public International Law
IT and Communications Law
Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
Law and Society
Law and Politics
Browse content in Legal System and Practice
Courts and Procedure
Legal Skills and Practice
Primary Sources of Law
Regulation of Legal Profession
Medical and Healthcare Law
Browse content in Policing
Criminal Investigation and Detection
Police and Security Services
Police Procedure and Law
Police Regional Planning
Browse content in Property Law
Personal Property Law
Study and Revision
Terrorism and National Security Law
Browse content in Trusts Law
Wills and Probate or Succession
Browse content in Medicine and Health
Browse content in Allied Health Professions
Arts Therapies
Clinical Science
Dietetics and Nutrition
Occupational Therapy
Operating Department Practice
Physiotherapy
Radiography
Speech and Language Therapy
Browse content in Anaesthetics
General Anaesthesia
Neuroanaesthesia
Clinical Neuroscience
Browse content in Clinical Medicine
Acute Medicine
Cardiovascular Medicine
Clinical Genetics
Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
Dermatology
Endocrinology and Diabetes
Gastroenterology
Genito-urinary Medicine
Geriatric Medicine
Infectious Diseases
Medical Toxicology
Medical Oncology
Pain Medicine
Palliative Medicine
Rehabilitation Medicine
Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
Rheumatology
Sleep Medicine
Sports and Exercise Medicine
Community Medical Services
Critical Care
Emergency Medicine
Forensic Medicine
Haematology
History of Medicine
Browse content in Medical Skills
Clinical Skills
Communication Skills
Nursing Skills
Surgical Skills
Medical Ethics
Browse content in Medical Dentistry
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Paediatric Dentistry
Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
Surgical Dentistry
Medical Statistics and Methodology
Browse content in Neurology
Clinical Neurophysiology
Neuropathology
Nursing Studies
Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Gynaecology
Occupational Medicine
Ophthalmology
Otolaryngology (ENT)
Browse content in Paediatrics
Neonatology
Browse content in Pathology
Chemical Pathology
Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
Histopathology
Medical Microbiology and Virology
Patient Education and Information
Browse content in Pharmacology
Psychopharmacology
Browse content in Popular Health
Caring for Others
Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Self-help and Personal Development
Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
Cell Biology
Molecular Biology and Genetics
Reproduction, Growth and Development
Primary Care
Professional Development in Medicine
Browse content in Psychiatry
Addiction Medicine
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Forensic Psychiatry
Learning Disabilities
Old Age Psychiatry
Psychotherapy
Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
Epidemiology
Public Health
Browse content in Radiology
Clinical Radiology
Interventional Radiology
Nuclear Medicine
Radiation Oncology
Reproductive Medicine
Browse content in Surgery
Cardiothoracic Surgery
Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
General Surgery
Neurosurgery
Paediatric Surgery
Peri-operative Care
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Surgical Oncology
Transplant Surgery
Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
Vascular Surgery
Browse content in Science and Mathematics
Browse content in Biological Sciences
Aquatic Biology
Biochemistry
Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
Developmental Biology
Ecology and Conservation
Evolutionary Biology
Genetics and Genomics
Microbiology
Molecular and Cell Biology
Natural History
Plant Sciences and Forestry
Research Methods in Life Sciences
Structural Biology
Systems Biology
Zoology and Animal Sciences
Browse content in Chemistry
Analytical Chemistry
Computational Chemistry
Crystallography
Environmental Chemistry
Industrial Chemistry
Inorganic Chemistry
Materials Chemistry
Medicinal Chemistry
Mineralogy and Gems
Organic Chemistry
Physical Chemistry
Polymer Chemistry
Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
Theoretical Chemistry
Browse content in Computer Science
Artificial Intelligence
Computer Architecture and Logic Design
Game Studies
Human-Computer Interaction
Mathematical Theory of Computation
Programming Languages
Software Engineering
Systems Analysis and Design
Virtual Reality
Browse content in Computing
Business Applications
Computer Games
Computer Security
Computer Networking and Communications
Digital Lifestyle
Graphical and Digital Media Applications
Operating Systems
Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
Atmospheric Sciences
Environmental Geography
Geology and the Lithosphere
Maps and Map-making
Meteorology and Climatology
Oceanography and Hydrology
Palaeontology
Physical Geography and Topography
Regional Geography
Soil Science
Urban Geography
Browse content in Engineering and Technology
Agriculture and Farming
Biological Engineering
Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
Electronics and Communications Engineering
Energy Technology
Engineering (General)
Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
History of Engineering and Technology
Mechanical Engineering and Materials
Technology of Industrial Chemistry
Transport Technology and Trades
Browse content in Environmental Science
Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
Environmental Sustainability
Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
History of Science and Technology
Browse content in Materials Science
Ceramics and Glasses
Composite Materials
Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
Nanotechnology
Browse content in Mathematics
Applied Mathematics
Biomathematics and Statistics
History of Mathematics
Mathematical Education
Mathematical Finance
Mathematical Analysis
Numerical and Computational Mathematics
Probability and Statistics
Pure Mathematics
Browse content in Neuroscience
Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
Development of the Nervous System
Disorders of the Nervous System
History of Neuroscience
Invertebrate Neurobiology
Molecular and Cellular Systems
Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
Neuroscientific Techniques
Sensory and Motor Systems
Browse content in Physics
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
Biological and Medical Physics
Classical Mechanics
Computational Physics
Condensed Matter Physics
Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
History of Physics
Mathematical and Statistical Physics
Measurement Science
Nuclear Physics
Particles and Fields
Plasma Physics
Quantum Physics
Relativity and Gravitation
Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
Browse content in Psychology
Affective Sciences
Clinical Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Cognitive Neuroscience
Criminal and Forensic Psychology
Developmental Psychology
Educational Psychology
Evolutionary Psychology
Health Psychology
History and Systems in Psychology
Music Psychology
Neuropsychology
Organizational Psychology
Psychological Assessment and Testing
Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
Psychology Professional Development and Training
Research Methods in Psychology
Social Psychology
Browse content in Social Sciences
Browse content in Anthropology
Anthropology of Religion
Human Evolution
Medical Anthropology
Physical Anthropology
Regional Anthropology
Social and Cultural Anthropology
Theory and Practice of Anthropology
Browse content in Business and Management
Business Ethics
Business History
Business Strategy
Business and Technology
Business and Government
Business and the Environment
Comparative Management
Corporate Governance
Corporate Social Responsibility
Entrepreneurship
Health Management
Human Resource Management
Industrial and Employment Relations
Industry Studies
Information and Communication Technologies
International Business
Knowledge Management
Management and Management Techniques
Operations Management
Organizational Theory and Behaviour
Pensions and Pension Management
Public and Nonprofit Management
Strategic Management
Supply Chain Management
Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
Criminal Justice
Criminology
Forms of Crime
International and Comparative Criminology
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
Development Studies
Browse content in Economics
Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
Asian Economics
Behavioural Finance
Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
Economic History
Economic Methodology
Economic Systems
Economic Development and Growth
Financial Markets
Financial Institutions and Services
General Economics and Teaching
Health, Education, and Welfare
History of Economic Thought
International Economics
Labour and Demographic Economics
Law and Economics
Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
Microeconomics
Public Economics
Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
Welfare Economics
Browse content in Education
Adult Education and Continuous Learning
Care and Counselling of Students
Early Childhood and Elementary Education
Educational Equipment and Technology
Educational Strategies and Policy
Higher and Further Education
Organization and Management of Education
Philosophy and Theory of Education
Schools Studies
Secondary Education
Teaching of a Specific Subject
Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
Teaching Skills and Techniques
Browse content in Environment
Applied Ecology (Social Science)
Climate Change
Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
Natural Disasters (Environment)
Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
Browse content in Human Geography
Cultural Geography
Economic Geography
Political Geography
Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
Communication Studies
Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
Browse content in Politics
African Politics
Asian Politics
Chinese Politics
Comparative Politics
Conflict Politics
Elections and Electoral Studies
Environmental Politics
European Union
Foreign Policy
Gender and Politics
Human Rights and Politics
Indian Politics
International Relations
International Organization (Politics)
International Political Economy
Irish Politics
Latin American Politics
Middle Eastern Politics
Political Behaviour
Political Economy
Political Institutions
Political Theory
Political Methodology
Political Communication
Political Philosophy
Political Sociology
Politics and Law
Politics of Development
Public Policy
Public Administration
Quantitative Political Methodology
Regional Political Studies
Russian Politics
Security Studies
State and Local Government
UK Politics
US Politics
Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
African Studies
Asian Studies
East Asian Studies
Japanese Studies
Latin American Studies
Middle Eastern Studies
Native American Studies
Scottish Studies
Browse content in Research and Information
Research Methods
Browse content in Social Work
Addictions and Substance Misuse
Adoption and Fostering
Care of the Elderly
Child and Adolescent Social Work
Couple and Family Social Work
Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
Emergency Services
Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
International and Global Issues in Social Work
Mental and Behavioural Health
Social Justice and Human Rights
Social Policy and Advocacy
Social Work and Crime and Justice
Social Work Macro Practice
Social Work Practice Settings
Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
Welfare and Benefit Systems
Browse content in Sociology
Childhood Studies
Community Development
Comparative and Historical Sociology
Economic Sociology
Gender and Sexuality
Gerontology and Ageing
Health, Illness, and Medicine
Marriage and the Family
Migration Studies
Occupations, Professions, and Work
Organizations
Population and Demography
Race and Ethnicity
Social Theory
Social Movements and Social Change
Social Research and Statistics
Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
Sociology of Religion
Sociology of Education
Sport and Leisure
Urban and Rural Studies
Browse content in Warfare and Defence
Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
Land Forces and Warfare
Military Administration
Military Life and Institutions
Naval Forces and Warfare
Other Warfare and Defence Issues
Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
Weapons and Equipment

Constitutional Law and National Pluralism

< Previous chapter
Next chapter >

2 Theories of Nationalism and National Identity

Published: December 2005
Cite Icon Cite
Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter addresses how liberal nationalist theorists have constructed an argument to the effect that sub-state national societies constitute a distinct category of group, distinguishable from both the majority of ‘dominant’ national society of the host state, and other ‘minority’ groups within the state. It explores the objective and subjective features of identity which liberal nationalists have identified as characteristic of a national society, and which help to explain the resilience of national identity at sub-state level. The chapter examines how different traditions have emerged in the study of nationalism. In particular, it discusses the dominant ‘modernist’ school of nationalism which has attempted to explain nationalism as an essentially instrumental device.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]
Google Scholar Indexing

Personal account

Sign in with email/username & password
Get email alerts
Save searches
Purchase content
Activate your purchase/trial code
Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with username/password
Recommend to your librarian
Institutional account management
Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institutionâ€™s website and Oxford Academic.

Click Sign in through your institution.
Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institutionâ€™s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see â€˜Sign in through society siteâ€™ in the sign in pane within a journal:

Click Sign in through society site.
When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

About Oxford Academic
Publish journals with us
University press partners
What we publish
New features
Open access
Rights and permissions
Accessibility
Advertising
Media enquiries
Oxford University Press
Oxford Languages
University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

Cookie settings
Cookie policy
Privacy policy
Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

EssayBanyan.com – Collections of Essay for Students of all Class in English

Essay on Nationalism

Nationalism is an ideology that fosters unity and a sense of responsibility towards the nation, among a group of people. Nationalism plays a significant role in the progress and prosperity of a nation.

Short and Long Essays on Nationalism in English

I have given below three essays of 100 – 120 Words, 250 Words, 500 Words and 600 Words limit on Nationalism, for my readers.

Nationalism Essay 10 Lines (100 – 150 Words)

1) A nation’s loyalty and devotion to its citizens may be defined simply as nationalism.

2) Our nation’s unity and integrity are strengthened by nationalism.

3) Nationalism is putting the country above all else.

4) Nationalism was a major component of the Indian independence movement.

5) Nationalism initially sparked several movements and reforms.

6) New nations are built on the basis of nationalism.

7) Nationalism keeps peace, harmony, and cooperation between religious groups.

8) Nations with nationalism are less likely to battle within themselves.

9) Nationalism protects the country from globalization-related stuff like capitalism and colonialism.

10) Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel was the nation’s greatest nationalist who integrated the princely states.

Essay 1 (250 Words) – Nationalism and its Types

Introduction

Nationalism is an ideology that unites the people of a nation, who had the interest of the nation in mind. It is a feeling that fosters unity and encourages people to consider themselves as one unit and inspires them to keep the theory of nation before self.

Important Types of Nationalism

There are several types of nationalism. We will discuss below some important types of nationalism –

Civic Nationalism

This form of nationalism represents the political prowess of people. The ideals of civic nationalism are at the core of successful democracies, like America and India, to state few examples.

Cultural Nationalism

Cultural nationalism has been described as the nationalism originating from the cultural values of a particular ethnic group. People in a cultural type of nationalism share each other’s cultural values, keeping the overall interest of the nation in mind.

Revolutionary Nationalism

The second name of revolutionary nationalism is radical nationalism and it resembles people united for a noble cause or a future destiny in mind. People united to fight external aggression are an example of revolutionary nationalism. Another example is people united to fight against the unjust practices of their own government.

Liberal Nationalism

This kind of nationalism infuses liberal values among the citizens and foster mutual respect for the liberty of each other.

Nationalism is fundamental to a nation’s unity and progress. The nation is safe and will progress as long as nationalism fosters among its citizens. It is indeed at the core of the interest of the nation and values by nationalistic citizens.

Essay 2 (400 Words) – Definition and Key Features of Nationalism

Nationalism is an ideology that seeks to foster national interest in every citizen. It encourages them to keep national interest above self. People value national issues more than their own interests, in nationalistic sentiment. In the essay, we will know the true definition of nationalism and its key features as well.

Definition of Nationalism

Nationalism is at the core of any free nation and its governance. In fact, in a true sense, nationalism cannot be separated from independence or self-governance. It is a feeling that encourages people to consider their nation as the epicenter of their existence. They keep national interest at the helm of every activity.

It is also related to freedom. Some believe that nationalism is a state when a particular group of people stays free, away from external influences of any kind.

Key Features of Nationalism

Below are some of the important key features of nationalism –

Concept of Oneness

The unity of the masses is at the core of the concept of nationalism. Nationalism and unity are inseparable. For nationalism to exist, people from different backgrounds must be united together. The reverse also holds true, that is if the people are united then nationalism will foster among them, come what may.

Accountability

Nationalism develops a sense of responsibility among the people, for others as well as for the nation. The people hold themselves accountable for the state of the nation and its people. This in turn fosters a sense of responsibility that helps in the progress of the nation.

Clear Demarcation of Boundaries

Another important feature of nationalism is a clear demarcation of boundaries. Unless the boundaries i.e. limits of a nation are clearly defined, nationalism cannot be feasibly implemented. People need to have a clear picture of what constitutes their own land, for nationalism to foster among them.

National Interest at the Core

Another characteristic of nationalism is that it keeps national interest at the core of every activity. Citizens participate in their everyday activities keeping in mind the interest of the nation. Where there is nationalism, there has to the interest of the nation at the apex.

Nationalism is an ideology that must be fostered in the nations at all costs. It helps not only the nations to grow but also keeps them secure and people united. A nation progresses only when nationalism remains at the core of the principles of its people.

Essay 3 (500 – 600 Words) – Nationalism and its Importance

The word ‘Nationalism’ is used widely whenever there is a need to evoke national sentiments among the masses and to unite them in the national interest. Today, in this essay we will understand the meaning of nationalism and its importance for a nation.

What is Nationalism?

Nationalism could be understood as a sentiment that binds people of land together and compels them to act in the national interest. It is a sentiment that makes people to keep service to the nation over self.

From a larger perspective, it could also be understood as the national sentiment that binds the people of different caste, creed, religion, and culture, together. They stay united to protect their nation from external threats as well as to contribute to its growth.

Nationalism fosters the citizens a responsibility to preserve their national heritage and culture. It encourages the preservation of national values and heritage.

Importance of Nationalism

Nationalism is a very important ideology that helps a nation stay secure and also make consistent progress. When the people of a nation are not united by nationalism, it becomes vulnerable to several threats. Below discussed is some importance of nationalism.

Fosters Unity

Nationalism binds the people of a country together. People of different religions, castes, and cultures are bind together for the national interest. They stay united and face any threat to the nation with unity. Nationalism is the ideology that binds the people together, in the national interest.

Preserves National Heritage

Nationalism also fosters a sense of accountability among the citizens towards their national heritage. People tend to preserve their culture and values, keeping in mind a larger objective of preserving their national heritage.

Keeps National Threats at Bay

Nationalism helps in keeping the external threats outside the country. When people are united for the cause of securing their nation, then no power can intrude into its boundary. National also helps to deal with internal conflicts and law and order situations. People who value nationalism will have fewer instances of religious or other conflicts.

Helps in Nation’s Growth

The concept of nationalism helps in the economical and cultural development of a nation. A country where people value nationalism progresses steadily. People understand their responsibility towards the country and fellow citizens; thereby, helping the nation grow.

Fosters Democracy

Nationalism plays a crucial role in preserving democratic principles. Democracy is successful only when people are united despite several demographic differences between them. People belonging to different religions and castes take part in the electoral process to form a democratic government that preserves their interests. Nationalism is at the core of democratic governance and its functioning.

Strengthen People

Nationalism is also the greatest strength of the people. There have been many revolutions in the history that were fuelled by nationalistic fervor. People who value nationalism are vocal about their own rights and privileges as well as the rights and privileges of others. Nationalism had proved to the game changer when it comes to independence and sovereignty. Many countries including India successfully toppled the colonial governments, only after nationalism was induced in the ideology of its people. India was able to gain complete independence from British Rule after two hundred years, only due to nationalism fostered into its people by political leaders and their movements.

Nationalism plays a significant role in the growth of a nation and its people. It is fundamental to democratic principles and ensures fair and people-centric governance. It also encourages national values and unites people from various backgrounds, for the growth of the nation as well as for it safety.

FAQs: Frequently asked Questions

Ans . It is the strong feeling of patriotism and love by the masses for the nation.

Ans . The feeling of nationalism promotes unity among the people of a nation.

Ans . The emergence of nationalism in India was in the 19th century.

Ans . The Moderates i.e. a group of political leaders was the first nationalist in India.

Essay on digital india, cashless india essay, essay on child is father of the man, essay on causes, effects and prevention of corona virus, essay on dr. sarvepalli radhakrishnan, durga puja essay, essay on summer vacation, essay on my plans for summer vacation, essay on holiday, leave a comment cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Share full article

Supported by

Bret Stephens

What a ‘Free Palestine’ Means in Practice

The word “Free” is written on a sheet also emblazoned with the Palestinian flag.

By Bret Stephens

Opinion Columnist

Imagine that the campus protesters got their wish tomorrow: Not just “Cease-fire Now” in Gaza, but the creation of a “Free Palestine.” How free would that future Palestine be?

This isn’t a speculative question. Palestinians have had a measure of self-rule in the West Bank since Yasir Arafat entered Gaza in 1994 . Israel evacuated its settlers and soldiers from the Gaza Strip in 2005. Mahmoud Abbas was elected president of the Palestinian Authority that same year and Hamas won legislative elections the next.

How much freedom have Palestinians enjoyed since then? They and their allies abroad argue they’ve had none because Israel has denied it to them — not just by refusing to accept a Palestinian state, but also through road closings, land expropriations in the West Bank, an economic blockade of Gaza and frequent Israeli incursions into Palestinian areas.

There’s partial truth to this. Israeli settlers have run riot against their Palestinian neighbors . The Israeli government imposes heavy and unequal restrictions on Palestinians, as my colleague Megan Stack has reported in painful detail . The frequent mistreatment of Palestinians at Israeli checkpoints is a long-running disgrace.

At the same time, Israeli leaders have repeatedly offered the creation of a Palestinian state — offers Arafat and Abbas rejected. Charges of an Israeli economic blockade tend to ignore a few facts: Gaza also has a border with Egypt; many goods, including fuel and electricity , flowed from Israel to Gaza up until Oct. 7; much of the international aid given to Gaza to build civilian infrastructure was diverted for Hamas’s tunnels, and Hamas used the territory to start five wars with Israel in 15 years.

But there’s an equally important dimension to Palestinian politics that is purely domestic. When Abbas was elected in 2005, it was for a four-year term. He is now in the 20th year of his four-year term. When Hamas won the 2006 legislative elections, it didn’t just defeat its political rivals in Fatah. It overthrew the Palestinian Authority completely in Gaza after a brief civil war and followed it up with a killing, torture and terror spree that eliminated all political opposition.

Perhaps the absence of Palestinian democracy shouldn’t come as a shock. The regime established by Hamas isn’t merely autocratic. It’s more like the old East Germany, complete with its own version of the Stasi, which spied on, blackmailed and abused its own citizens.

“Hamas leaders, despite claiming to represent the people of Gaza, would not tolerate even a whiff of dissent,” The Times’s Adam Rasgon and Ronen Bergman reported on Monday . “Security officials trailed journalists and people they suspected of immoral behavior. Agents got criticism removed from social media and discussed ways to defame political adversaries. Political protests were viewed as threats to be undermined.”

Even this doesn’t quite capture the extent of Hamas’s cruelty. Consider its treatment of gay Palestinians — a point worth emphasizing since “ Queers for Palestine ” is a sign sometimes seen at anti-Israel marches.

In 2019, the Palestinian Authority banned an L.G.B.T.Q.-rights group’s activities in the West Bank , claiming they are “harmful to the higher values and ideals of Palestinian society.” In 2016, Hamas tortured and killed one of its own commanders, Mahmoud Ishtiwi, on suspicions of “moral turpitude” — code for homosexuality. “Relatives said Mr. Ishtiwi had told them he had been suspended from a ceiling for hours on end, for days in a row,” The Times’s Diaa Hadid and Majd Al Waheidi wrote .

Would an independent Palestinian state, living alongside Israel, improve its internal governance? Not if Hamas took control — which it almost certainly would if it isn’t utterly defeated in the current war. And what if the protesters achieved their larger goal — that is, a Palestine “from the river to the sea”?

We know something about what Hamas intends thanks to the concluding statement of a conference that it held in 2021 about its plans for “liberated” Gaza. Any Jew considered a “fighter” “must be killed”; Jews who flee could either “be left alone” or “prosecuted”; peaceful individuals could either be “integrated or given time to leave.” Finally, “educated Jews” with valuable skills “should not be allowed to leave.”

In other words, what the campus protesters happily envisage as a utopian, post-Zionist “state for all of its citizens” would under Hamas be one in which Jews were killed, exiled, prosecuted, integrated into an Islamist state or pressed into the servitude of a Levantine version of Solzhenitsyn’s First Circle. Those same protesters might rejoin that they don’t want a future to be led by Hamas — but that only raises the question of why they do absolutely nothing to oppose it.

This is not the first generation of Western activists who championed movements that promised liberation in theory and misery and murder in practice: The Khmer Rouge came to power in Cambodia in 1975 to the cheers of even mainstream liberal voices . Mao Zedong, possibly the greatest mass murderer of the past 100 years, never quite lost his cachet on the political left. And magazines like The Nation eulogized Hugo Chávez as a paragon of democracy.

These attitudes are a luxury that people living in safe and free societies can freely indulge. Israelis, whose freedom is made more precious by being less safe, can be forgiven for thinking differently.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Bret Stephens is an Opinion columnist for The Times, writing about foreign policy, domestic politics and cultural issues. Facebook

COMMENTS

Nationalism Essay for Students and Children
500 Words Essay on Nationalism. Nationalism is an ideology which shows an individual's love & devotion towards his nation. It is actually people's feelings for their nation as superior to all other nations. The concept of nationalism in India developed at the time of the Independence movement.
Nationalism
nationalism, ideology based on the premise that the individual's loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests. This article discusses the origins and history of nationalism to the 1980s. For later developments in the history of nationalism, see 20th-century international relations; European Union; and ...
Importance of nationalism
The most important effect of nationalism is of course its ability to inspire patriotism in people. It instills in a person the feeling of solidarity with their country, and the zeal to make sacrifices for their country, should the need arise. It is this feeling of nationalism that inspired hundreds of freedom fighters to stand up for the rights ...
Nationalism: What We Know and What We Still Need to Know
This review takes stock of political science debates on nationalism to critically assess what we already know and what we still need to know. We begin by synthesizing classic debates and tracing the origins of the current consensus that nations are historically contingent and socially constructed. We then highlight three trends in contemporary ...
Nationalism
Nationalism is a product of necessity: It constructs a new form of identity and community as a response to urban uprooting and industrialization. The dislocating effects of modernity require a refashioning of culture and identity. People is all they have got: this is the essence of the underdevelopment dilemma itself.
What is Nationalism and Why Should We Study it?
A nation is a group of people who wish to practice self- determination. Nationalism is a belief held by a group of people that they ought to constitute a nation, or that they already are one. It is a doctrine of social solidarity based on the characteristics and symbols of nationhood.
The Importance Of Nationalism
Open Document. Nationalism is a political ideology that has been around since the 19th century, the idea of nationalism stands for the nation-state and the love for the nation-state. It is able to bind different members of society within a certain geographical location to form a stronger bond and give the nation a sense of belonging and identity.
Nationalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
The important element is the promiscuous character of the populist choices. It is probable that the future scholarship on nationalism will mainly focus on this new and challenging playfield, with an aim to address the new contrast and locate kinds of nationalism in relation to it. ... 2006, Nationalism and the Mind: Essays Modern Culture ...
READ: Origins and Impacts of Nationalism
Some historians have argued that nationalism became important because older loyalties became less important—which brings us to religion. For hundreds of years after the split of the Christian church into Catholic and Protestant, wars were fought over religious and dynastic loyalties. The Enlightenment weakened the hold of religion over many ...
PDF Nationalism in Settled Times
Dominant scholarly approaches to nationalism can be classiﬁed along two dimensions, illustrated in Table 1: political versus quotidian (i.e., focusing on elite political projects or on the beliefs of everyday people) and ideology versus practice (i.e., treating nationalism as a coherent set of
Nationalism
Nationalism is important in two ways. The first is relatively benign and is best seen in the patriotism of most people in the United States, the United Kingdom, or France. In those countries, almost everyone believes that the state is legitimate and supports it often without question. In countries that still have a draft, virtually everyone ...
Nationalism: What We Know and What We Still Need to Know
Nationalism, a celebration of the nation, involves a desire for political. sovereignty exercised by a nation over a given territory and is thus the "political principle which. holds that the ...
Why nationalism? Because nothing else works
The debate between nationalism and multiculturalism thus turns into a debate about the level of diversity a society can accomodate without falling apart. Rethinking the relationship between nationalism and multiculturalism exposes a simple truth: social and political attitudes towards others distinguishes one kind of nationalism form another.
Nationalism
Abstract. The chapter focuses on nationalism as an ideology. It reviews the largely unresolved debates over the background, genealogy, and development of nationalism, many of which oscillate between primordial, pre-modern, and modernist accounts. It scrutinizes debates over ethnicity, culture, race, self-determination, and democracy, in ...
What is nationalism and why should we study it?
1. Waldron, Arthur N., " Theories of Nationalism and Historical Explanation," World Politics 37 (04 1985), p. 427 CrossRef Google Scholar.I agree with Waldron's core argument that the vague invocation of "nationalism" in explaining events in the non-European world is unsatisfactory, because the "adjective 'nationalist' has been attached to people, movements, and sentiments in a ...
Introduction
While nationalism is an attachment to the ethnic, cultural, and spiritual homogeneity of a nation, patriotism refers to the love of the republic and the political institutions that sustain it. The language of patriotism avoids the dangers of intolerance inherent in a nationalistic conception of civic virtue by appealing to the non‐exclusive ...
PDF NATIONHOOD AND NATIONALISM
history of nationhood and nationalism from ancient times to the twentieth century. Volume II theorizes the connections between nationhood/nationalism and ideology, religion and culture. Together, they enable readers to understand the roots of and how nationhood and nationalism function in the present day.
2 Theories of Nationalism and National Identity
Behind any attempt to define 'sub-state national societies' lie a priori definitional questions vis-à-vis over-arching concepts such as 'nation, 'national identity' and 'nationalism'. It is not a task of this book to rehearse the voluminous literature which now exists on the origins and dynamics of nations and nationalism, particularly since this area has proven to be a ...
The consequences of nationalism: A scholarly exchange
The main thrust of the scholarship on nationalism has so far been concerned with its origins. But nationalism also has effects. Whether it underpins the nation-building efforts of states, is mobilised by counter-state forces or is used in everyday life, nationalism might implicate a wide range of substantive outcomes, including political regimes, public goods provision, citizenship and ...
Importance Of Nationalism
Importance Of Nationalism. 1055 Words5 Pages. There is no precise definition of nationalism to begin with, from what I've understood about nationalism is that, it is a feeling of oneness, or togetherness and of a common consciousness of large group of people based on many factors such as historical, religious, linguistic, racial, cultural ...
Essay on Nationalism for all Class in 100 to 500 Words in English
Essay 3 (500 - 600 Words) - Nationalism and its Importance. Introduction. The word 'Nationalism' is used widely whenever there is a need to evoke national sentiments among the masses and to unite them in the national interest. Today, in this essay we will understand the meaning of nationalism and its importance for a nation. What is ...
Nationalism in the eyes of our youth
"Ako ay Pilipino," a virtual district essay writing and interview contest for students last November 6, 2021, gave me the opportunity to be the chair of the board of judges.
Importance Of Nationalism In The Philippines
Nationalism has been a part of the history of every Filipino. Nationalism is not just a sentiment but also a political concept that can be organized into various categories such as liberal, civic, ethnic or cultural. The emphasis in the words "every Filipino" is a means to widely acknowledge all the Filipinos not just Filipinos from Luzon but ...
Chinese Nationalism: Insights and Opportunities for Comparative Studies
Mylonas and Tudor's (Reference Mylonas and Tudor 2021) assessment of the state of the field of nationalism studies explains how practice-based approaches to studying nationalism see the instrumentalization of the nation by elites as indivisible from the way in which the nation is maintained and renegotiated through the practices of mass publics.
Opinion
But there's an equally important dimension to Palestinian politics that is purely domestic. When Abbas was elected in 2005, it was for a four-year term. He is now in the 20th year of his four ...

Nationalism Essay for Students and Children

Why Nationalism Is Important?

Contemporary Nationalism

500 Words Essay on Nationalism

Introduction of Nationalism in India:

Basis of Rising of Nationalism in India

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Download the App

Importance of nationalism

Inspires patriotism

Brings unity in diversity

Promotes self-sufficiency

Instills national pride

Drives progress and betterment

One thought on “ Importance of nationalism ”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Article contents

Introduction: A Contested Concept

Nationalism or Patriotism?

The Origins and Nature of Nationalism

Modernism and Its Proponents

Antimodernism

Conceptions of the Nation

Civic and Ethnic Views of the Nations

The Justification of Nationalism

Liberal Nationalism and Its Defense

Related Articles

Bibliography

Nationalism

1.1 The Basic Concept of Nationalism

2. Varieties of Nationalism

3. The Moral Debate

Support SEP

Beyond Intractability

What Is Nationalism?

Why Nationalism Is Important

What Individuals Can Do

What Leaders Can Do

Additional Resources

Selected Recent BI Posts Including Hyper-Polarization Posts

Things You Can Do to Help Ideas

Conflict Frontiers

Conflict Fundamentals

BI in Context

Colleague Activities

Sign in through your institution

2 Theories of Nationalism and National Identity

Signed in as

Personal account

Institutional access

IP based access

Society Members

Sign in through society site

Sign in using a personal account

Viewing your signed in accounts

Signed in but can't access content

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Essay on Nationalism

Short and Long Essays on Nationalism in English

Nationalism Essay 10 Lines (100 – 150 Words)

Essay 1 (250 Words) – Nationalism and its Types

Essay 2 (400 Words) – Definition and Key Features of Nationalism

Essay 3 (500 – 600 Words) – Nationalism and its Importance

FAQs: Frequently asked Questions

Related Posts

What a ‘Free Palestine’ Means in Practice

COMMENTS