Nationalism: A Very Short Introduction

Very Short Introductions #134

by Steven Grosby

Throughout history, humanity has borne witness to the political and moral challenges that arise when people place national identity above allegiance to geo-political states or international communities. This book discusses the concept of nations and nationalism from social, philosophical, geological, theological, and anthropological perspectives. It examines nationalist conflicts past and present, including recent struggles in the Balkans and the Middle East. Above all, this fascinating and comprehensive work clearly shows how feelings of nationalism are an inescapable part of being human.

Genres: Politics, Philosophy, History, Nonfiction, Sociology, Political Science, Theory

160 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2005

Reviews

[Amira Mahmoud · Rating 4 out of 5]

أعتقدت إنه يناقش القومية من منظور سياسي أو إيديولوجي لكنه ناقشها من منظور أنثروبولوجي فقط، وعلى الرغم من ذلك كان ممتع وغزير
كنت أتمنى فقط لو إنه اختار أمثلة إضافية لمناقشة الفكرة من خلالها بخلاف الأمثلة الأربعة التي ناقشها طوال الكتاب والتي تضمنت فقط بني إسرائيل القدماء والإمبراطورية اليابانبة القديمة وسيرلانكا وبولندا.

[Amirography · Rating 2 out of 5]

There are a few big problems with this book.
1. The book is not about nationalism. It's about nations, their being and how they form. Nationalism plays a side role in this book.
2. The book does not offer a well thought out structure. From the middle of the book, every chapter contains every subject.
3. There were many particular examples. But they were not an example of something per say. Rather they were stories that may have importance to understand nations.

[Anna Janes · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is the worst book I have read for a very long time. 'The Very Short Introduction series' are usually clear, structured and well written. 'Nationalism' on the other hand is muddled, poorly structured. The writer seems vague on the subject and most keen to endow old political units with nation label, rather than introducing the concept in itself.
The writer cheerfully skirts over issues like stateless nations, and simplifies history. Instead there is a constant return to family and religion. The focus is also on the nation, rather than nationalism.
As far as doing what it says on the tin, i.e. introdcue the concept Nationalism (not nation) the book totally fails. Rather than clearly presenting different theories and developments, as well as looking at the clear political character and potential problems associated with Nationalism, it is, as declared by the writer a personal alternative perspective on what 'Nation' is.

[Ismoil Sadullozoda · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is not about nationalism as a study, but the object of the nationalism-the nation. It analyzes the different aspects of the nation: the formation of the nation, the structure, what keeps the nation united, what are the tools to justify and keep the nation. There are reflections on the law, culture, religion, economy, and history as the means of the evolvement of this phenomenon. The seventh chapter (Human divisiveness) is very interesting where the author discusses different theories about the origin of the nation like the biological instinct to procreate and the cultural aspects of the social links between individuals. I recommend this book to those who are new to nationalism. Because it gives the fundaments to understand the nation and then there are recommended further readings at the end of the book for the theoretical part.

[Claire · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting, brief overview of the concept nationalism, as it has developed across human history, and the forces which influence it. Grosby is both thorough and structured in his exploration of the question “what does the existence of nations say about human beings?” Although his purpose didn’t entirely align with mine, this was an interesting read.

[Evelyn · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although it's meant to be written as an introduction to Nationalism, I'd only recommend it as such if you've done some prior background reading to the subject beforehand. I found it very useful using it as a revision aid at degree level, but perhaps would have been a little overwhelmed if I wasn't already aware of most of the content and concepts. Saying that, it's a pretty comprehensive book given its slim size.

[Tomasz · Rating 2 out of 5]

The title is misleading. It's the book about the nations and national identity. Nationalism is at the margins and many crucial problems (such as nationalist movements) are not addressed. Gellner's Nations and Nationalism, comparable in size, is much better as an introduction.

[mohab samir · Rating 4 out of 5]

هذا الكتيب الصغير يتناول دراسة أنثروبولوجية مقتضبة عن القومية والفكر القومى فى تاريخ البشرية .
وهو إيجازا يهتم بثلاث قضايا أساسية هى على الترتيب : بحث صغير فى مفهوم القومية . التطور التاريخى للفكر القومى . وأخيراً بحث عن أسباب ميل الإنسانية إلى الإنقسام المستمر .
بالنسبة للنقطة الأولى يميز جرسبى بين مفاهيم القومية والوطنية والأمة ودور العادات والتقاليد فى هذه المفاهيم وكيفية توارثها وأهمية دور الأسرة كوحدة بنائية للوجود المجتمعى الحالى من ناحية وإستمرار إنتقال أساسيات المجتمع من جيل لآخر من ناحية أخرى.
وفى النقطة الثانية يخرج المؤلف عن الحديث المألوف عن الفكر القومى فى التاريخ بربطة بفترة الإصلاح الدينى تقريباً فى أوروبا ويثبت منشأ الفكرة والإتجاه إلى تحقيقها على مر التاريخ متخذا عدة أمثلة وافية على هذا المسار التاريخى للفكر القومى كسيرلانكا فى العصور القديمة واليابان وبولندا من العصور الوسطى وإسرائيل القديمة والحديثة وأمثلة قصيرة مقتطفة من هنا وهناك كفرنسا وإنجلترا الحديثة .
وفى هذا الإطار يتناول العوامل الثقافية المؤثرة فى الفكر القومى كالديانة وإتجاهها المستمر نحو التوحيد وتضارب هذا الفكر التوحيدى مع الإتجاه القومى من ناحية وتعزيزه من ناحيه أخرى . وهناك أيضاً عوامل الإمتداد الإقليمى التاريخى لكل أمة وهى أيضا فى تطور وتغير مستمر وإن كان أبطأ من العوامل الثقافية . وهناك صلات القرابة المفترضة منذ القدم ونشأة الأمم من الأعراق المختلف أو القبائل المرتبطة إرتباطاً وثيقاً بالأرض .
وأخيراً السعى المستمر للإنسانية نحو التقسيم والتحزب يمكن أن نستخلص أنها نتيجة صراع بين رغبة المنافسة البشرية من ناحية ولزوم الإتحاد لتحقيق الإنتصار من ناحية أخرى على مستويات مختلفة . وهى إجابة مستشفة من فهم خاص فالأنثروبولوجيا عادةً لا تعطى إجابات نهائية ولكنها تعطى صورة عامة أكثر وضوحا عن تلك التى يعطيها أى علم متخصص فهى تتناول شتى العوامل التى تؤثر فى موضوع الدراسة من قريب او من بعيد فى الزمان والمكان ولا تعترف بأسباب أحادية بل هناك دائما أسباب وتأثيرات مجتمعة وترفض القول العقيم الدائم بالنسبية وفى نفس الوقت ترفض إعطاء إجابات نهائية مطلقة .
لذلك أعتبرها أكثر العلوم إمتاعا ووضوحا عندما نريد أن نفهم الطبيعة البشرية المجردة .

[Peter Bradley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-re...

This is a dry, academic analysis of the "nation," not "nationalism." The only discussion of "nationalism" is in the first chapter, which writes off nationalism as something not worth discussion. The author, Steven Grosby, states:

"Many wrongly use the term ‘nationalism’ as a synonym for ‘nation’. Nationalism refers to a set of beliefs about the nation. Any particular nation will contain differing views about its character; thus, for any nation there will be different and competing beliefs about it that often manifest themselves as political differences. Some may view their nation as standing for individual liberty, while others may be willing to sacrifice that liberty for security."

Well, maybe, but nationalism was considered part of the twin horses that drew liberalism in the 19th century. Perhaps, "nationalism," as such, is wrong and misguided, but it seems like a book entitled "nationalism" would say something about that subject.

Grosby's interest is in defining the term "nation" and seeing how that definition plays out among different cultures. The gist of Grosby's definition is that a "nation" is a bounded area defined by common perceived kinship and tied to territory. A nation feels like "home." One knows that one is in one's own nation when one feels comfortable and at home. He writes:

"This phenomenon of attributing qualities of parentage to an inanimate object (land) can be seen in another example drawn from everyday speech that has a bearing on our understanding of the nation: the distinction between the words ‘house’ and ‘home’. By the word ‘house’, we generally mean a physical, spatial structure that is not a home, but that has the capacity to become one. By the term ‘home’, we usually mean that the physical structure of the house has in some way become pervaded by the spirit or power or even moral qualities of its inhabitants. It is as if the house, when it becomes a home, has become a part of the family. The modern nation is recognized by its members as being more than merely a spatial setting – a house – for the random interaction between individuals. It is viewed as a home, where the ‘spirit’ of past and current generations has filled up that spatial setting, making it a homeland, a territory. This spirit of past and current generations are those traditions that contribute to organizing an area of space into a territory and that, as such, provide meaning around which the territorial relation is organized. Such territorially specific traditions both structure and provide meaning to the conduct of the participants in that culture. Consider, for instance, that the Sinhalese view their territory as a holy land, Sri Lanka. To take another example, note how President Lyndon B. Johnson described the land of the United States of America as being a partner in covenant, as if it were a person with moral expectations."

He also writes:

"Humans seek the familiar because what is familiar is also habitual; and, as such, the structured familiarity of the home provides comfort as it limits the anxiety-provoking multitude of possibilities of action that present themselves for consideration to human beings. In this regard, a parallel can be drawn between the behavioural component in the formation of an animal’s spatial habitat and the structured familiarity of the home. However, there is an important difference between the human home and the animal habitat. The human home is not instinctually determined like a beehive for bees, or restricted to a particular environment like the Arctic for polar bears; humans live in many different environments in which they create their homes. Thus, even if there are behavioural components to the human tendency to form spatially bounded structures of familiarity, the very variability of those structures and their locations indicates the intervention of the human imagination in their formation. The role of the imagination in the spatial attachments formed by human beings is clear when those attachments extend to areas that have never been physically experienced by the individual but which are nonetheless considered to be part of his or her home. This is certainly the case with the territorially extensive homeland of the nation. It, too, is viewed as a home; it, too, is a structure of anxiety-reducing familiarity. As you return to your national homeland from a foreign country, you may experience a feeling of relief. You immerse yourself again in the familiarity of your own language and customs. That is one reason why those familiar patterns of activity – inherited traditions – that structure our conduct and which we call ‘culture’ are so important to the individual."

I was surprised in reading this. Not because it's wrong, but because it seems to have slipped through a politically correct filter.

The objection to mass immigration to the West is precisely the fact that mass immigration is causing the natives to feel anxiety, to question whether their home is their home. One gets the feeling that modern politicians view the nation as a kind of motel where one set of tenants can be replaced by another set. (See e.g., The Strange Death of Europe by Douglas Muray.) Those who object are disparaged as "nationalists."

Yet, the burden of this book is to argue that these people are not deranged; they accurately intuit that identity and "home" rather than "housing" is the core of the social compact they have with their nation.

I think that merits the fourth star.

[Ali Ziraoui · Rating 4 out of 5]

تأصيل تاريخي و إناسي و سياسي و قانوني للقومية و تسليط أضواء التشريح اللغوي و الماهوي على الحدود الفاصلة بين القومية من جهة و بين الوطنية و الدولة و الامبراطورية و المجتمع و القبيلة و الأسرة و القرابة ، و في المحصلة عمل أكثر من مقبول و الترجمة العربية عن مؤسسة هنداوي غاية في الحرفية

[Josefin]

Total katastrof. De flesta kapitlen var helt obegripliga och resonemangen i de resterande var undermåligt underbyggda. Han driver tydligt en tes vilket jag inte tänkte var poängen med boken.

[Kusaimamekirai · Rating 2 out of 5]

I don’t know where to start with this book. It purports to be a short introduction to nationalism. It is indeed short in length but as an introduction for nationalism? No.
This is mainly because for lack of a better way to describe the writing, it’s unreadable. Perhaps it is my own bias but when presenting something ostensibly for the first time to a reader, it is important to make the topic clear and concise. This book is neither. It meanders through academic jargon, prodigious quotes from the Bible (why?), obscure societies from history that each get barely a paragraph, and sentences like this:

"There exists a collective self consciousness that a people has its land, that land has its people, and both that people and that land are unified respectively into a nation and a territory through the worship of the god of that people and that land."

Ugh. Or my personal favorite:

"Let us consider as an example the uniting of man and woman for the purpose of procreation"

I mean, really? You really want to phrase it like that? I get that he’s a smart guy but sometimes being smart means making a topic accessible to someone who has little to no knowledge of it. He not only makes no effort to do that, he probably discourages his reader from going within 1,000km of any book about it again. I do know some things about nationalism and was looking to learn more here. That didn’t happen. Very disappointing.

[Ali Elgarby · Rating 2 out of 5]

اقل من توقعاتي 👎🏻
كنت حاسس انه هيناقش الموضوع بطريقة اشمل وبتفاصيل اكتر من كدة، لكن لقيته بيعيد ويزيد فكام حاجة كدة وكلامه عام كأنه شوية كلام متجمع من على الانترنت .
بالنسبة لي كتاب (العاقل) ليوفال هراري ناقش-فجزء منه-الموضوع بشكل افضل

[Preetam Chatterjee · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mission 2026: Binge reviewing all previous Reads, I was too slothful to review back when I read them.

Reading Steven Grosby’s 'Nationalism' was an exercise in intellectual compression. Few books attempt so much in so little space without collapsing into slogans. Grosby’s succeeds not by simplifying nationalism into a single theory, but by refusing to reduce it at all. Instead, he presents nationalism as a persistent, adaptable, and deeply human phenomenon — neither a modern aberration nor a purely ideological invention.

What struck me immediately was the book’s calm refusal to moralise. Grosby does not begin by condemning nationalism as dangerous, nor by celebrating it as emancipatory. He begins with definition. Nationalism, for him, is an attachment to a territorially bounded community understood as continuous through time — a community that claims both political and moral significance. This definition is modest, but it carries enormous explanatory weight.

Unlike many treatments of nationalism that frame it as a purely modern product of capitalism, print culture, or colonialism, Grosby insists on its deeper historical roots. He does not deny modern transformations, but he challenges the idea that nations emerged from nothing in the eighteenth century. Instead, he traces forms of collective territorial identity back to ancient Israel, Greece, Rome, and mediaeval Europe.

This is one of the book’s most provocative moves. Grosby’s argument unsettles the dominant academic consensus shaped by figures like Benedict Anderson and Ernest Gellner. Where Anderson emphasises imagined communities enabled by modern media, Grosby emphasises continuity — the human tendency to bind identity to land, memory, and ancestry. Nations may be imagined, but they are not arbitrary.

Reading this in 2024, amid resurgent nationalisms across the globe, Grosby’s refusal to treat nationalism as a temporary pathology felt bracing. He does not excuse its excesses, but he refuses to treat it as an illusion that education or globalisation will simply dissolve. Nationalism persists because it answers real human needs: belonging, continuity, and meaning.

The book’s strength lies in its balance. Grosby acknowledges nationalism’s capacity for violence, exclusion, and myth-making, but he also recognises its role in political solidarity and social cohesion. Nationalism is not reducible to xenophobia or aggression. It can support welfare states, democratic participation, and resistance to imperial domination. Its moral valence depends on context, not essence.

What I appreciated most was Grosby’s attention to symbols. Flags, anthems, monuments, sacred landscapes — these are not trivial ornaments but mechanisms through which national identity is experienced emotionally. Grosby understands nationalism not just as an ideology, but as a lived attachment. This emphasis distinguishes his work from more abstract political theories.

The book also engages religion in a way many nationalism studies avoid. Grosby shows how religious traditions often provide the symbolic language through which nations imagine their continuity. This does not mean nationalism is religion, but it often borrows religion’s structures: sacred history, chosen people, promised land. Reading this alongside works on myth and political theology sharpened its resonance.

One of the book’s most valuable contributions is its insistence that nationalism is not synonymous with the nation-state. National identity can exist without sovereignty, and sovereignty can exist without strong national feeling. This distinction matters deeply in contemporary debates about secession, federalism, and supranational governance. Grosby resists the temptation to collapse complex realities into neat alignments.

Stylistically, the book is dense but disciplined. Grosby writes like a scholar who respects the reader’s intelligence. There are no rhetorical shortcuts. Arguments are carefully constructed, evidence is selectively deployed, and counterpositions are treated seriously. For a book in the 'Very Short Introduction' series, it demands more attention than the label suggests.

That density, however, may deter casual readers. This is not an introductory book in the sense of being easy. It assumes patience and a willingness to engage with abstract distinctions. But the payoff is clarity rather than comfort.

The book also complicated my reading of post-liberalism and international relations. If nationalism is not going away, then political projects that assume its decline are built on sand. Grosby quietly undermines cosmopolitan optimism without endorsing nationalist triumphalism. His realism is intellectual rather than ideological.

What the book does not do — and this is both a strength and a limitation — is offer policy prescriptions. Grosby describes nationalism; he does not manage it. Readers looking for guidance on how to tame or deploy nationalism will not find it here. But that restraint feels appropriate. Understanding must precede strategy.

There are moments where I wished Grosby had engaged more directly with colonial and postcolonial nationalisms. While he acknowledges them, the book’s examples lean heavily toward Europe and the ancient world. Given the explosive role of nationalism in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, this imbalance is noticeable. Still, within its limited scope, the book remains coherent.

What lingered after reading was a sense of nationalism as tragedy rather than error. It binds people together and pushes them apart. It gives meaning and justifies cruelty. It is capable of dignity and disaster. Grosby does not try to resolve this contradiction; he insists we live with it honestly.

In the context of my latest reading, 'Nationalism: A Very Short Introduction' functioned as a conceptual anchor. It clarified debates that often feel overheated and moralised. By slowing the discussion down and grounding it historically, Grosby restores seriousness to a topic frequently reduced to slogans.

The book also challenged my own assumptions. It is tempting to treat nationalism as something other people have — something irrational, provincial, or regressive. Grosby forces recognition that nationalism is not an external threat but a recurring feature of human political life. To deny it is not enlightenment; it is evasion.

What ultimately distinguishes Grosby’s book is its refusal of comfort. It does not reassure the reader that nationalism will fade, nor does it promise that it can be purified. It insists instead on understanding nationalism as a durable form of human association — one that must be reckoned with, not wished away.

In a year of reading dominated by collapse narratives and moral indictments, Grosby’s sober clarity felt almost radical. He does not shout. He does not simplify. He explains.

And sometimes, in a world addicted to outrage and certainty, explanation is the most subversive act of all.

Recommended.

[Sara Ali · Rating 3 out of 5]

يقدم الكتاب نظرة بانورامية تاريخية عن نشآة الأمم والعوامل التي ساهمت في تشكيل الأمم والمجتمعات القومية ما قبل الحديثة والحديثة, كالدين الموحد إقليميا وكيف ساهم في تشكيل الأمم واستمرار وجودها واللغة , وظهورالقانون الموحد الذي يعمل على نشره المركز الحاكم للبلاد، والعوامل العقائدية والنفسية كالألفة التي يتم غرسها في الفرد منذ الطفولة كعضو في العائلة وعضو في الأمة ودور العناصر الأسطورية في تشكيل الأمة وكيف استخدمت الخرافات في خدمة بث رؤية قومية في العلاقة الأقليمية، ثم يبحث في أسباب انقسام الأمم ودور الحروب في تشكيل قرابة إقليمية قومية، ويطرح سؤالا مهما حول تماهي الفرد في الجماعات والأمم ولماذا هناك الكثير من الشواهد التاريخية للصراعات والنزاعات التي تسبب بها من سحرتهم القومية الفاتنة، وهو ما دفعني لقراءة هذا الكتاب : ما أهمية الفهم الذاتي للفرد باعتباره عضوا في أمة ما ؟ ولماذا يحدث أحيانا أن يطغى هذا الفهم على سائر صور فهم الذات؟
طرح الكتاب أمثلة تاريخية في مراحل مختلفة لمحاولة إثبات أن الأمم ليست حديثة تاريخيا، وهو ما أسماها بأمم ما قبل الحديثة.

[Tony Gallwey · Rating 3 out of 5]

okay it wasn’t the WORST thing i’ve ever read, but i certainly did not enjoy this. while he does make some good points, Grosby’s writing on the subject is extremely redundant at times and is unnecessarily complicated for an introduction to nationalism. the book is more-so a book on nation-states and national identity more than nationalism, though it does play almost a “side-character” role in the book. If you aren’t already familiar with nationalism this would be hard to understand.

[ahmad afridi · Rating 1 out of 5]

this book discussed everything except what is written in its title.
or may I am too dumb to differentiate between nation states and nationalism
don't ever give it a try

[Amina · Rating 3 out of 5]

عندما وقعت على هذا العنوان من سلسلة "مقدمة قصيرة جدا" تحمست، لأني توقعت أني سآخذ جولة ممتعة، واضحة المعالم، مبسطة وخفيفة للتعرف على هذا المصطلح وكل الاسئلة التي كانت في ذهني عنه. وهذا وجدته في قرءاتي السابقة لهذه السلسلة.
لكن، لم أجد فعلا ما بحثت عنه، للأسباب التالية:
1. رغم توضيح الكاتب للفرق بين "القومية" والأمة" في بداية كتابه، إلا أنه استفاض في الحديث عن المصطلح الثاني، عن تاريخ الامم، كيفية تشكلها، مدى حداثتها ليصير النقاش الاساسي حولها، وليس عن "القومية" التي ازيحت للجانب.
2. لم استطع التركيز لوقت طويل كلما فتحت الكتاب، لان الطرح يفتقد لهيكلة واضحة، كما ان العديد من المسائل "الثقيلة" اثيرت في فقرات لا تتسع لها، كالدين، التطور، السلوكية، اللغة، الحرب، الخ. بشكل يجعلك تتساءل أكثر، دون أن تشعر بالرضى مما يطرحه الكاتب.
3. الكتاب في نظري، ليس موجها لأولئك الذين يبحثون عن المصطلح لأول مرة (ومن المفترض أن يكون هذا هو القصد من ادراجه كمقدمة قصيرة للموضوع)، بل هو موجه لدائرة أكاديمية أضيق، أولئك المعتادين على الخوض في هذه المواضيع وتعقيداتها.
4. الكاتب يطرح محاججاته القابلة للتفنيد في أكثر من موضع، ما يجعل قارئا مبتدئا يقع في حيرة حول ما إذا كانت هاته الآراء مطروحة كحقائق في المجتمع الاكاديمي، أم أنها اجتهادات للكاتب بحد ذاته. أعتقد انه لا ينبغي لكاتب ان يقحم رأيه كثيرا حين يدعي ان ما يقوم به هو تمهيد لفهم موضوع معين، هو مقدمة وليس محاولة للاجابة عن الاشكاليات التي يطرحها الموضوع.

من ناحية أخرى، وجدتني استفيد في عدد من المواضع، وهذا ما جعلني اواصل القراءة للنهاية رغم الانزعاج الذي احسست به وانا احاول الربط بين افكار الكتاب ومحاولة الفهم.
الترجمة جد جيدة وممتعة كعادة الاعمال التي تطرحها هذه الدار، شكرا مؤسسة هنداوي .
----------------

اقتباس من الكتاب:
"فعل البحث عن الماضي وادعاء ملكيته هو ومكانه، هو ما يؤسس للاستمراية بين الماضي وموقعه من جانب، والحاضر وموقعه من جانب آخر"

[Nick · Rating 2 out of 5]

The most interesting part of this is the discussion of proto-nationalism, or the features which comprise nationalism, and the stages in the historical development of nationalism. The rest is kinda just ideological trash. The guy is openly hostile to nationalism in pretty much all its variants, and you can tell. It also brings up the most elementary tropes to bash the opposition with, which makes me think that the author has never even read the counterarguments to the stuff he writes here. The Fascism very short introduction was a much better example of someone even-handedly writing about a controversial "right-wing" subject.

[Maria · Rating 2 out of 5]

من وجهة نظرى, الكاتب المفروض كان يركز على مفهوم القومية والأمة أكتر من كده و أكتر من المواضيع الفرعية
اللى اخذت حيز و أهتمام أكبر من المفهوم الأساسى

[Lord_Humungus · Rating 1 out of 5]

Un libro completamente prescindible:

*Trata sobre el concepto de nación, no sobre el nacionalismo, al que despacha con un par de párrafos.
*Para definir nación, se mete en un gazpacho mental impresionante.
*Es muy deslavazado y repetitivo. No para de poner una y otra vez los mismos ejemplos, y es exhaustivo cuando no debería serlo. Cansa mucho.
*Es un libro introductorio no objetivo: aborda el tema desde una perspectiva, olvidándose de que otros la abordaron desde perspectivas bastante diferentes.
*Quizá lo único original e interesante es que defiende que hubo "naciones" desde la antigüedad (como Israel, por ejemplo), no sólo desde la época moderna.
*Aún así, si alguna vez quiero defender mi tesis de que las naciones son como los dioses -es decir, que no existen-, este es uno de los libros contra los cuales debo ir, porque, como muchos autores, a las naciones las da por sentadas, pero al menos se esfuerza en definirlas de la manera más precisa que puede. Que aun así no es muy precisa, claro. A veces la nación es una tendencia, a veces es una relación social, a veces es un grupo, a veces es un tipo de sociedad. No se aclara. Pero en el punto álgido de claridad dice:
"Una nación es una comunidad territorial de nacimiento. Uno nace en una nación. El significado que se atribuye a este hecho biológico del nacimiento dentro de una estructura territorial en evolución de la comunidad cultural de la nación es la razón por la cual la nación es una entre varias formas de parentesco (kinship) [no creo que esta oración tenga sentido]. Difiere de otras formas de parentesco como la familia en la centralidad del territorio. Difiere de otras sociedades territoriales como la tribu, la ciudad-estado o diversos "grupos étnicos" no sólo por su mayor extensión territorial, sino también por su cultura relativamente uniforme, que proporciona estabilidad, esto es, continuidad en el tiempo".

[Mahmoud Moftah · Rating 2 out of 5]

كمن يرىَ طريق مُمهَده لأعلى الجبل ويتجاهلها مُفضِلاً تسلق الصخور سعياً لوجهتهُ ..

هذا تماماً ما فعلهُ الكاتب فـ للمره الأولىَ أجد كاتب يقوم بتطويع موضوع الكتاب الرئيسي لشرح الأمثله وتفسير الأحداث التاريخيه وإعطائها الأولوية في التوضيح بدلاً من إستخدامهُما في شرح مضمون الكتاب (القومية) ! في أغلب أجزاء الكتاب يقوم الكاتب بإسقاط الفكره علي المثال ليوضحُه ثم يعود ويحاول أن يستقي منه ما أراد تعليله في البدايه فيتسَبب بذلك في إرباك القارئ وتشتيتهُ خصوصاً أن الكاتب يعتمِد علي أمثله رئيسيه ثابته وأخرىَ كثيره ومتغيره لتجد نفسك محاصراً بين جيش من الأمثله التي تأخذك أسيراً وتكبلك ثم تبعدك عن أرض المعركه (مضمون الكتاب) فتجلس فقط منتظراً النهاية !

في الواقع لا أستطيع أن أنكِر أبداً أكاديمية الكتاب وجودتهُ إلا أنه إفتقد بشدة إلي القدر الواجب من (البساطه) و(متعه الشرح) اللذان من الطبيعي أن يتواجدا حتىَ في الكتب الأكاديمية ؛ أفضل أجزاء الكتاب بالنسبه لي هي الفصل الأول والسابع والخاتمه وهي الأجزاء التي إعتمد فيها الكاتب بشكل واضح علي الشرح والتناول الفلسفي والتاريخي وسلك الطريق المُمهَدة بدلاً من تسلق الصخور.

[ehk2 · Rating 1 out of 5]

If you intend writing "a very short introduction", you try to avoid renarrating the same thoughts over and over again. In this case, this book could be much much shorter, if the author would have cut so much verbosity to explain those rather simple and uncomplicated ideas.

Too-much verbosity to express the rather simple philosophical antropological or sociological notions about formations of human divisions

Too-much space is devoted to 'proto-nation' stage and virtually none to modern day phenomena.

[Maddy · Rating 1 out of 5]

This was honestly the worst book I've ever read. As a book I had to read for class, I was really not expecting much, but somehow it still let me down. Rather than reading like an informative guide or a history book, it read like it was written by a philosopher, full of rambling, overly intellectual points. The question being answered by the book was "How can we define a nation and when did the world start dividing into them?" rather than "What is nationalism?"

[Abdulmalik · Rating 4 out of 5]

كتيب ممتع وشيق في هذا الصدد
حقيقة الأمر أنني تجاوزت الفصل المتعلق بذكره لمفهوم الأمة في الأديان المختلفة بأستثناء الإسلام لكن المؤلف ضليع وواسع الإطلاع عمومًا إذا يذكر مفهوم الأمة وتكونها لدى مختلف الحضارات ولا يقتصر على الأديان التوحيدية فحسب
أنصح بالكتاب لمن هو مهتم في القومية لكن بطبيعة الحال إذ المؤلف يشرع في تأليفه للكتاب من منظور أنثروبولوجي سياسي إجتماعي ومن ناحية مقتضبة ولا ننسى عنوان الكتاب بأنه مقدمة قصيرة جدًا فلا نحمل الكتاب مالا يحتمل

[Matt · Rating 2 out of 5]

A very short introduction indeed! What it gains it brevity it loses in Grosby's arguments; they tend to be either very selective (ignoring scenarios that directly counter his premises) or having a very weak causal explanation towards nationalism. A good place to start, but by no means should it be considered a definitive work on the subject.

[Abdelrahman Kasem · Rating 3 out of 5]

هذا الكتاب ليس قائمًا على تحليل القومية في المقام الأول على عكس ما هو متوقع من العنوان، وإنما تحليل الأمة من جوانب عدة، كيف تنشأ؟ والعوامل المؤثرة عليها كالدين والسياسة والقانون والتاريخ. وما هو السر وراء الرغبة البشرية في الانقسام لأمم، وماذا تخبرنا عن البشر تلك الرغبة المُلحة في الانقسام لأمم؟


أضاف لي الكثير، وكان شاقًا عليّ لا لشئ بل لأني في ال reader's block zone منذ عدة أيام.

[Zach Waldis · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very informative and concise book. Grosby makes the argument that nations have been a part of human history long before the past couple of centuries, an argument that I don't think I agree with, but this is an excellent starting point to the topic.

[Cole Jensen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overall an interesting introduction to nationalism, the various kinds of nations as well as the way a nation may form. The biggest issue I had was the misguided understanding of the way Catholics view saints.

[Jonas Green · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is not a book about nationalism, but a book about different notions of the nation. It’s very basic and very limited in its scope and engagement with various theories. If you are looking for an overview or critical introduction to ideologies of nationalism (as I was), then this is not it.