State-Building Nationalism: Selling a Dream

This is what happens when people gullibly follow
nationalist sentiments.

There have been numerous definitions given for the nationalism phenomena. Most of these definitions give just a glimpse of nationalism. Few of these definitions are adequate enough to provide the broader picture. The sentiment that the emerging nation relies upon is best described by Ernest Gellner. He states that nationalism is a primarily a political principle, which requires the political and the national unit being harmonious (1). The success of nationalism relies on both of them.

As referred to in the definition given by Gellner, the emerging nation will have to be congruent concerning political and natural unit. This naturally brings one to state-building nationalism, which is mentioned by Hechter (141). This type of nationalism has been around since the 16^th century but it was at its’ peak between the mid 19^th and early 20^th centuries. The fact that state-building nationalism is older than most of the typologies in nationalism studies does not mean it is out of fashion. An undeniable number of emerging countries used and is still using this technique to create a homogenous and congruent nation, such in the case, of Turkey, Estonia, Kazakhstan and many more. The reason many states are using this specific type is not a coincidence. This is because the term is beneficial for the elite in reshaping the nation, which will be mentioned later in this paper.

The “nation” term has been around since ancient times. The anecdote of Noah prophet says that his sons (Mizraim, Cush, Put, Canaan) that survived the flood, emigrated to the different parts of the globe and formed the prototypes of the contemporary nations (Freemaninstitute). Even though these prototypes might be far from the nations known today, they are still important as this shows that the nations did not suddenly form in the modern era. However, one should not assert that the nations are perennial and everlasting, nor they are just a production of industrialization and will pass away. They are a mixture of them. In The Warvick Debates, Anthony Smith states that modern political nationalism cannot be understood without reference to pre-modern ethnic identities and communities (4). The conflicts in Balkans is a perfect example for this argument. Serb political analyst Aleksa Djilas states that “The nationalist struggle between Yugoslavia’s constituent groups were not inventions and they based on past, but the war between them was a creation of the manipulative elite (1). One can use pre-modern eras symbols to provoke nationalist feelings in the modern world. This further proves that there is a close link between the modern and pre-modern epochs.

As mentioned in the preceding paragraph, nations did not solely emerge because of industrialization and the French Revolution. They are not primordial, either. So how did they form? To understand this phenomena, one must go back to ancient times when multi-national empires ruled the world. Materializing this abstract subject will make things easier. Hence, the Ottoman Empire, on behalf of all pre-modern empires, will be a good example. Even though the Turks were the founders of this empire and the royal family was from Turkish descent, at the empires’ prime time, the Turks constituted only a small fraction. The governing class was mainly of Slavic ethnicity who converted to Islam via a unique system called devshirme. The empire reached its’ peak in the early 17^th century and started to dissolve like many other empires in the 19^th century. Thus, the reason why they dissolved is pretty clear. The idea of freedom, equality and, more importantly, nationalism, which was spread by the French Revolution, were the causes of this dissolution. This was where the elites took control. The nationalism idea shattered most of the empires and the elites of nations under empires control dealt the final blow. To secede from empires, the elite had to create a nation image for their nation to believe in and, if needed, to die for. They used the symbols, accepted practices and myths of their own nations and other similar nations. They merged these fragments, remoulded them and presented it as brand new. To present their finished work, they used print-capitalism, because through print-capitalism the elites had the opportunity to strengthen vernacular languages and in conclusion their own power. James G.Kellas, on behalf of Benedict Anderson’s work, states that, “Printing standardises languages, and aids the development of capitalism and the centralised state.” (57). However, it should not be interpreted that this is something unwanted, because without the elites the nationalist movements would have been temporary and would not have a specific goal to reach.

           
In conclusion, to create a new nation/nationalism in the contemporary world, one must be imaginative because to unite people, one must sell a dream where their nation is everlasting and will prevail through time. This way the modern people who are feeling obsolete in the mass crowds can have an ideal to believe in so a commonality would be formed between them. Otherwise, these masses would have been distinct. This paper tries to claim that if given chance, the best way to create a nation/nationalism is to use state-building nationalism with the aid of the elites’ manipulative power.

Works Cited

Anthony, Oberschall. Ordinary People in the Balkan Wars: Ethnic Nationalism, Opportunism, Fear, Conformity and Confusion Panel, 25 Apr. 2009, U of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Gellner, Ernest. Nations and Nationalism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983. 1-7. Print.

Hechter, Michael. “Types of Nationalism.” The Nationalism Project. N.d. Web. 24 Oct. 2011.

Kellas, James. The Politics of Nationalism and Ethnicity. 2nd ed. New: York: St Martin’s Press,1998. 1-9, 43-63. Print.

Smith, Anthony. Nations and Nationalism in a Global Era. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995. 1-7. Print.

“Table of Nations.” Freemaninstitute. Web. 25 Oct. 2011