I’ve downloaded this and will give it a study. From your short excerpts it’s certainly well written.

Left by subadei on May 16th, 2007

Good paper. But I don’t know about your claim that there are 200 nation-states in existence today. For instance I don’t think there is a single nation-state in the whole of Africa. I’d put the number much lower, say around 25 or 30, with most of them in Europe.

Left by a517dogg on May 19th, 2007

Interesting paper, but some thoughts. It seems you’ve taking a side in the chicken/egg debate applied to nations. In some cases, you have a nation creating a state, in others you have a state creating a national identity or “marketing” (coercively or not) the national identity to bring people inside. On the later I’m thinking of four of the more famous nations: France, Germany, the “United Kingdom”, and of course the United States prior to the Civil-War (and arguably somewhat afterwards especially in Texas and the South in general).

States do not exist purely as an abstract exercise, again take France with its imposed national identity crushing other nations within its terroritory to impose its Weberian monopoly.

It seems to me you write from the position that nationalism drives the state, largely ignoring the Gramscian reality of its use for other reasons: to emotionally motivate a population to follow either with rifle in hand or pocket book open.

The concept of a “nation-state” existed before the American Revolution and before Romans took such pride in their citizen army. It was an idea extending back to Sparta and before (note Sparta, not a democracy, used a “citizen”-army and Athens, a democracy, did not in its wars).

“Transnational” threats refers not to cross-nationalism but trans-border and whether the “state” is a state-nation, a nation-state, a market-state, or something else, it’s a threat. It does not inherently threaten the “nation-state”, itself a term used liberally without a real understanding to its real meaning.

Go back to Weber’s late-18th / early-19th Century view of the state: an administrative unit of a group over a group within a given territory that it secures. It does not have to provide that security personally, Weber permits its licensing (otherwise their would be no private ownership of guns, constraints on police forces, etc).

Nationalism has waned with increased communications. You can now be a Kiwi, a blogger, a Rugby fanatic, or anything else in any particular slice of time. If your mother is an Aussie or your father Welsh, a more likely scenario with decreased transportation costs over the last one hundred years, to where do you owe your “allegience”?

The very existance of hyphenates (Africa-American, Asian-American, etc) in the US denotes its own dilution of the “American” national identity.

Markets helped create nationalism and markets are helping tear down nationalism as a barrier.

War is not the threat. If anything, it will foster a deeper personalization of nationalism as it brings people together. Islam has, in many or all respects, has come into its own as a new national-identity after years of effort by the likes of Sadat.

Just some thoughts on the idea.

Left by MountainRunner on May 19th, 2007

You’re lucky you got a response from a single professor. Often I get very little constructive / insightful commentary from my professors (who I’m certain aren’t reading this even after I link to this thread in a post later).

Left by MountainRunner on May 21st, 2007

“The concept of a “nation-state” existed before the American Revolution and before Romans took such pride in their citizen army. It was an idea extending back to Sparta and before (note Sparta, not a democracy, used a “citizen”-army and Athens, a democracy, did not in its wars).”

MountainRunner, I am not so sure about this statement… in Sparta, people were “citizens” only because they existed to serve the state, either through war directly if they were men, or through supporting war by giving birth to soldiers if they were women. Those who could not serve Sparta were discarded at birth.

In a nation-state, there is an existing identity (nation) that uses the machinery of the state to further its own ends. That identity could be created by the state or it could be pre-existing, but the key is that the state is subordinated to the nation. The state of France now is legitimated by its serving the interests of the French. Sparta was the complete opposite. I can’t think of any examples of a nation-state before eighteenth century Europe. It is a thoroughly modern invention.

Left by a517dogg on May 21st, 2007

a517dogg,
You statement that “the key is that the state is subordinated to the nation” is a romanticized belief in nationalism as well as legitimacy. This supposes all actions taking in the name of state is taking in the interest of the national identity. Kinetic wars don’t bear that out, nor do issues of trade (often non-kinetic warfare).

About examples of a nation-state, how was the Roman identity not nationalist identity?

Left by MountainRunner on May 21st, 2007

I’ve never heard anyone argue that Rome had its own national identity before. Most historians I’ve read agree that the three dates most important to nationalism’s development are 1776, 1789, and 1848. I’ll flip the question – how was Roman identity different from any other tribal identity? Were the Sabines or Etruscans nationalities?

Left by a517dogg on May 22nd, 2007

I think the interesting thing about Rome was that it was in many respects infinitely more tolerant of other identities than the middle ages states that came after it. One could believe anything they wanted provided that they believed in the state deities of the empire and obeyed the empire’s dictates. Contrast this to the endless pogroms and wars of religion that went on in Europe.

Left by A.E. on May 22nd, 2007

Apologies in advance as I have to be brief as I forgot my power adapter at home and I’m on the road…

a517dogg… regardless of what historians say, the idea that there is a group based on a shared identity is what makes nationalism. After the Am Rev, we developed the “American” identity, however if we look at the real history, how unified were the states really? Not for decades later. 1789 in France, a little more, but again, they eliminated the other national identities in their territory through education and policies.

How was being a Roman any different than say being a Frenchman today? A Swede? You were born in a place, shared beliefs, cultural practices, etc. As Adam alludes to, having a national identity doesn’t prevent you from understanding others, but it does make others.

Modern “nationalism” dating from the various dates you rightly give is based on modern scholarship is similar to the articifial construct of the the being born on 1648.

This isn’t a semantic contest, but a question of what really is nationalism. How was Etruscan not a national identity? If you start to say they were because of the absence of a formal admin unit, then you’re basing the notion of a nation on the existence of a “state”. How then do you explain the Ethiopian or Armenian diasporas? If it is based on a single religion, how then do you explain the American national identity?

Adam’s point, if I may extend it here, is that the Roman identity wasn’t threatened by non-Romans, however it still differentiated itself from the outsider. I’m not talking about Empire but nationalism. You didn’t have to be a “Roman” to be in the Empire, but to be “Roman” you had to be / become certain things.

(Hope this makes sense, need to shut down… hopefully I’ll borrow an adapter tomorrow)

Left by MountainRunner on May 22nd, 2007