Overview[ edit ] Different parts of Europe have nationalist parties with different ideologies and goals.
In my post attacking immigration control I mentioned that I was going to study nationalism. Hobsbawm usefully summarizes some of these achievements in his introduction, and in doing so shows how surprisingly little attention was paid to the subject by scholars before this new spate of books.
However, I should note that I am not too concerned right now with matters of historiography the study of the methodology of the discipline of history, or the history of history if you likepartly because I am not remotely qualified. I am convinced that an understanding of nationalism is vital to any progressive or radical democratic politics.
It is the basis of increasingly unaccountable state power and the intensified restriction of migration even while national control over capitalism is being eroded by globalization. Although Hobsbawm does not cover these things in the book, they are the phenomena that I am trying to understand, and despite my doubts about his conclusions I found his analysis to be an invaluable education.
Hobsbawm sets off from the definition of nationalism given by Ernest Gellner: He begins the first chapter by arguing for the basic foundational premise upon which he builds everything else: This is in stark contrast to the way we are often taught to think about it, and the way that commentators, politicians, statesmen — and historians — routinely talk about it.
Indeed, appeals to nationhood and national feeling, that is, the basic ideology of nationalism which to a greater or lesser degree seems to frame our thinking about anything political and historical, most often depend on a conception of the nation as ancient and primordial. What is a Nation?
I have always been accustomed to think of a nation just as a sovereign state, the basic global political unit bounded by definite borders, administered by a single government, and having its own flag, capital city, and so on. I have come to realize that this is at the very least a narrow, idiosyncratic and new use of the word; it has more usually meant a people rather than a state, more specifically a culturally homogeneous group with shared history and language, or what we now call an ethnicity.
In any case, it seems that today it still means a people, but one that controls a defined territory under one government — rather than the state as such. My Oxford dictionary has two senses for the word, the relevant one being… A community of people of mainly common descent, history, language.
Hobsbawm addresses the question of how this came to be important, with a view to examining the social and political developments out of which nationalism would become a force to be reckoned with. In doing so he shows how the balance of the ethnic and the political elements of the concept of nation has shifted.
The relationships we have to other members of the nation are imaginary or constructed: A Modern Phenomenon To return to the basic premise, nations in the modern sense are not the primary, essential and eternal units of humanity; the modern sense coincides with a modern phenomenon.
The basic characteristic of the modern nation and everything connected with it is its modernity. However, the point is that prior to the studies of Hobsbawm, Gellner, Anderson and others, the mainstream view among historians was that the nation as we came to understand it in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, i.
Hence it is more important than it first appears to emphasize the modernity of the modern nation. Prior to this, kingdoms, multicultural empires and polyglot city-states prevailed, and it is wrong to describe these as nations.
It was taken for granted in medieval Europe, for example, that a king did not share the culture, history, genetic descent or even language of his subjects, and their loyalty or antipathy to him had little to do with these things.5 Malcolm Anderson () States and Nationalism in Europe since , London: Routledge, p And ; 2 The collapse of communist regimes in Eastern Europe provoked a major reappraisal of nationalism and its political significance.
Suddenly, nationalism became the elemental force to be reckoned with in the post-Cold War world order, challenging its stability by reshaping boundaries, unleashing. Nationalism triggered the World War as countries tried to show others what they were capable of.
When nationalism spread itself around Europe, it angered many as many important figures were assassinated and left a massive mark which angered thousands.
The result was two catastrophic general wars in Europe that began in and ended in with the occupation of Europe by the United States and the Soviet Union and .
The Rise Of Nationalism In Europe History Essay. Print Reference this. Published: 23rd March, Disclaimer: This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
Nationalism in Europe started to bend towards "liberal nationalism." According to the dictionary. Nationalism in europe s essay help. to essays about america dong zhongshu essays on kings hip aquinas summary marilyn monroe pop art andy warhol analysis essay philmont essay immaterialism argumentative essays.
research paper starbucks corporation annual report intro essay words introduction. An introduction to modernism, primordialism and ethnosymbolism.
[/dropcap]odernists see nations and nationalism as entirely modern phenomena, beginning predominantly in Europe at the advent of industrialization. Ethnic and cultural roots are irrelevant to this view because not all modern nations have them.
The primordialist branch of.