Hans Kohn
Historia del Nacionalismo. Madrid: FCE, 1984. (ed. orig. The Idea of Nationalism. A Study in Its Origins and Background. New York: MacMillan, 1944)
Hans Kohn, judío checo de cultura alemana (al igual que Gellner y otros autores interesados en el tema) concluye este libro en el otoño de 1943, en plena guerra mundial, escribiendo desde su refugio universitario en Massachussets. Su origen étnico y el momento en que escribe no le impiden mantener un grado notable de equilibrio, serenidad e imparcialidad frente a un fenómeno con aspectos inquietantes en esa epoca. El referente teórico principal de Kohn es la teoría de la historia de Hegel.
The Idea of Nationalism es un estudio pionero que senta las bases para muchos trabajos sucesivos. Entre sus elementos más destacables está la vinculación del nacionalismo con la modernidad: el nacionalismo nace con la formación del estado moderno en Europa a partir del siglo XVI, se define más claramente con el auge de la idea de soberanía popular y el avance del proceso de secularización; y finalmente toma su forma en la Revolución francesa, evento esencialmente nacionalista y fundador de la forma acabada y moderna del fenómeno. Aunque moderno, el nacionalismo se nutre de elementos primordiales, como el apego al terruño, a la tierra natal, la desconfianza por los no-lugareños, la extraneidad frente a idiomas y costumbres diferentes. La extensión de este sentimiento primario hasta la nación es, sin embargo, moderna y artificial: "El nacionalismo -nuestra identificación con la vida de varios millones de seres que jamás conoceremos, con un territorio quen nunca visitaremos en toda su extensión- es diferente, cualitativamente, al amor por la familia o por el terruño. Es de calidad análoga al amor por la humanidad o por la terra entera" (p. 21). El modo de manifestarse de esta identificación es primariamente psicológico, es decir, una percepción o conciencia de pertenecer a un grupo: "El nacionalismo es primero un estado de espíritu, una actitud conciente que desde la Revolución francesa se ha hecho cada vez más común entre la humanidad" (p. 23); y más adelante define la nacionalidad como "un estado del espíritu que corresponde a un hecho politico" (p. 29). Gran parte del libro está dedicada a rastrear los caminos de formación de este estado del espíritu, sobresaliendo el segundo capítulo en donde Kohn describe los dos pueblos que por primera vez en la historia generaron algunos rasgos protonacionalistas: los judíos y los griegos, cuyas culturas serán incorporadas y universalizadas por el Imperio Romano y la Cristiandad medieval.
F. Savarino, 2002.
___________________________________
cfr. también esta reseña norteamericana:
In a venerable book, Hans Kohn examines in his the roots of nationalism from antiquity until 1789. (p. vii) The author's thesis contends that "Nationalism, industrialism, and democracy, though emerging as determining factors in the eighteenth century, have their roots in the past." (p. vii) A point of interest is Kohn's omission to credit any specific person or work that influenced his views concerning nationalism. Rather, Kohn discusses in general terms that his analysis of nationalism is the result of his own personal experiences together with discussions with students and colleagues. Declaring that nationalism is first a state of mind, the author maintains that its group-consciousness is not mutually exclusive. (p. 11) Kohn contends that the advent of nationalities resulted from the combination of some but not all of the following characteristics: "…common descent, language, political entity, customs and traditions, and religion." (p. 14) Beginning with ancient Israel and Greece, Kohn notes that these groups contributed to nationalism's foundation a divinely ordained sense of their members' individual dignity and group destiny. (p. 27) Also, the author writes that the spirit of these people groups were transformed from Jew and Greek to man and humanity. (p. 60) Kohn's study of the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages reveals that the fusion of Greek culture to Latium allowed the ideals of Israel to spread in its universalistic form a new political unity. (p. 63) By the close of the Middle Ages, Kohn notes that this new political unity, although vaguely understood, began to emerge in the form of the secular state. (p. 115) According to Kohn, the influences of the Renaissance and Reformation formed the bridge to the Modern Age. (p. 119) The close of these eras saw "…a unique consciousness of the identity of divine, natural, and national law." (p. 183) In concrete form, absolutism although broken in England lingered on in France for another 130 years. (p. 183) The arrival of a second Renaissance resulted in a marked change in human relations through the dissemination and acceptance of Enlightenment ideas concerning an individual's worth. (p. 187) The pursuit of individual happiness and hatred of all forms of prejudice Kohn maintains is embodied Rousseau's conception of "…the rational order of Law." (p. 259) Correspondingly in the "New World" individuals began to turn away from elite leadership, resulting in the peak of cosmopolitanism and the beginnings of nationalism. (p. 263) The rise of nationalism in America Kohn writes was not the combination of blood, soil or a common long history, but resulted from a universal idea "…and loyalty to America meant loyalty to that idea." (p. 324) The effects of the American Revolution the author contends was felt most strongly in Europe by France. (p. 324) Defining countries as corporate identities, Kohn maintains that the rise of nationalism in Western Civilization was more of a political occurrence. (p. 329) Whereas in Central Europe and Asia nationalism arose much later and occurred at a more "backwards stage" in their development resultant in an adjustment of political boundaries "…in conformity with ethnographic demands." (p. 329)
Jon Hood, 1999.
______________________________________
Anthony D. Smith
La identidad nacional. Madrid: Trama Editorial, 1997. (ed. original National Identyty. London: Penguin, 1991)
The concepts of nation and national identity can be difficult to define, yet the two are of paramount importance in the modern world. Anthony D. Smith’s _National Identity_ is an attempt to pinpoint the nature, causes, and consequences of national identity and nationalism. Tracing the concept of identity back to ancient times, Smith forms a definition of and preconditions for national identity in the modern period and examines the role of different ethnic bases in the formation of modern nations, the different types of nationalist ideology and their impact on the formation of territorial and ethnic political identities, and the political and societal consequences of national identity. The work is based largely upon secondary sources, yet Smith is quite adept at providing numerous examples to support his theory that while nations and nationalism are relatively new, complex, and rather abstract phenomena, they are among the most (if not the most) powerful influences in the modern world. Moreover, while Smith acknowledges that numerous other cultural identities are at play in the modern world, he quite convincingly contends that the national identity which is so prevalent in the world today is nonetheless the more durable and potent influence which will likely command mankind’s allegiances for a long time to come. With this rampant national identity unfortunately arises the likelihood of future ethnic conflicts since Smith maintains that ethnicity is of great importance in the formation of nations and the development of national identity. While not an appealing thought, Smith also concedes that nationalism can likewise provide the “sole vision and rationale of political solidarity today.” Regardless of whether national identity is beneficial or deleterious to society, according to Anthony D. Smith it is a force that has undeniably shaped the world today and will likely continue to do so far into the future.
Lynn Sholtis, 1999
__________________________
Nations and Nationalism in a Global Era. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995,
In
his book Smith basically argues against the theorists who see nationalism as a
by product of modernity and industrialisation, and because of this, once they
lose their determining effects, nationalism would fade away. He states that the
problem these modernisation theorists face when they are unable to explain the
sweeping nationalist and ethnicist movements of the recent decades is based on
their ill defined conceptualisation of nationalism.
His
main argument is that nationalism is based upon the longstanding cultural values
of ethnies, thus the resurgence of nationalist claims should be searched in this
cultural continuity. However, his main argument is lacking the explanation of
how cultural continuity persists.
Whatever
he discusses he comes back to this main argument. When he says that nationalism
has its roots in the cultural sphere, he fails to explain how state decides to
be based on which cultural values. Moreover he also fails how nationalism, once
it becomes the dominant and the most powerful ideology of modern times, how it
reproduces itself. This, for sure, cannot be understood only in term of the
persistent culture. The modern power of the state, the central organisation and
the utilisation of nationalism as the fundamental idea that legitimise the state
are the main sources for the production, reproduction and re-invention of
nationalism in times of crises. However, Smith does not mention about these, or
any other dynamics and facilitations or cultivations, which keeps the culture
alive, which constitutes national culture as the main field of a meaningful
life.
Another
point is that, if nationalism had been based on the dominant ethnie’s culture,
as Smith argues, there should be as many nationalisms as dominant ethnies. On
the contrary, what we observe is that nationalism and the nation-states are
possible to be categorised and are following certain patters, emphasising
similar issues. They in no way represent an incomprehensible differentiation in
their theories and practices.
Where
he compares the alleged cosmopolitan culture with the past culture, to argue
against the idea that cosmopolitan culture will substitute past culture, he
again fails why past cultures were more effective. He tries to show why global
culture is not penetrative, but this itself alone does not help us to understand
how past cultures were sewing a meaningful value sphere for people. He also
attracts the readers attention to the need of distinguishing economics and
culture, because politics and culture has their own characteristics and
patterns. It is important to underline that these have autonomous existence to a
certain extend, at least analytically, especially when arguing against the
economically reductionist theories, but this should not lead us to isolate
culture and politics and neglect the close relationships and interconnectedness
of each. In fact, none of them has a life of their own and none can exist
without the other.
Ethnic
conflicts rise also because of the fact that what they in one way or another
confront is the nation-states, which try to impose a national culture and
identity that is incompatible with what is going on that different sphere.
Following Barth and Eriksen, that the ethnic cultures are cultivated only in a
social encounter of different cultural values. But it needs a context for this
cultural difference turns out to be the base of an ethnic claim or a pool from
which the nation-state draws its core values. This has, arguing against Smith,
its resources in modernisation and nation-state formation contexts.
Culture,
no doubt, exists and is important to its members. However, because of this, it
is always subject to constant fluctuation and change. It is generally the first
target of political elites, to play over, to govern and to transform. The
question why cultures turned out to be nationalisms or ethnic cultures needs
much more elaborated and empirical arguments to be explained.
Smith
also does not explain how important culture, as such, is. In what sense people
possess cultural values and make them their first concern and pursuit? It can
also be said that culture is a fertile framework that everybody is born into and
it penetrates the conception and perception of the world and life, giving
ready-made codes for a meaningful understanding of the social life. This is,
however, misses the enormous dynamism of cultural world.
In general, Smith gives a rather stable and stagnant account of culture. His standpoint is, on the other hand, is important for the studies of nationalism and ethnicity, in the sense that it draws our attention on the cultural aspects of nationalism, which is extremely important for us. If we are to understand nationalism in its entirety, we should definitely look at the cultural mechanisms and networks enables nationalism to reproduced or re-defined and still be a determinant factor in our age.
Mehmet Berk Balcik, 2001.
______________________