Nations: The Long History and Deep Roots of Political Ethnicity and Nationalism

by Azar Gat, Alexander Yakobson (Primary Contributor)

What are the origins of nationalism and why is it capable of arousing such intense emotions? In this major study, Azar Gat counters the prevailing fashionable theories according to which nations and nationalism are modern and contrived or 'invented'. He sweeps across history and around the globe to reveal that ethnicity has always been highly political and that nations and national states have existed since the beginning of statehood millennia ago. He traces the deep roots of ethnicity and nationalism in human nature, showing how culture fits into human evolution from as early as our aboriginal condition and, in conjunction with kinship, defines ethnicity and ethnic allegiances. From the rise of states and empires to the present day, this book sheds new light on the explosive nature of ethnicity and nationalism, as well as on their more liberating and altruistic roles in forging identity and solidarity.

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction, Sociology, World History, Anthropology, Philosophy

447 pages, Paperback

First published December 10, 2012

Reviews

[Riku Sayuj · Rating 2 out of 5]

Nations are as old as history and are not a modern invention. It is especially not a colonial imposition on conquered peoples. Thinking so is a big mistake and sidesteps historical realities, the book tries to prove. It bored me to bits doing so.

Quick & Dirty Summary:

Far from being a coincidence, the rough congruence of ethnicity, peoplehood, and statehood in national monarchies throughout history was grounded in common identity, affinity, and solidarity, which greatly facilitated and legitimized political rule. Ethnicity has always been political and politicized, ever since the beginning of politics, because people have always been heavily biased toward those they identify as their kin–culture community. As long as human nature has kinship tendencies, nation-building tendencies will accrue.

I could attempt a critique of Gat, but for that I would have needed to pay much more attention to his torturous phrasing and never-ending repetitions… so for now, I will keep it for a better book making the same arguments.

[Garrett Edwards · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Ethnicity made the state."

This study traces the origins of nationalism to prehistory. In doing so, it demolishes the modernist claim that nationalism is an artificial construct of modernity that only emerged after the French Revolution (similar to the absurd liberal claim that race is a social construct).

Ethnicity has always been political, ever since the emergence of the state and well before. Indeed, a preference for one's kinship group was a strong selective force that spans back to the Neolithic.

Petty-states were ethnically related and through this shared kinship they forged social cooperation against outsiders. Spaces inhabited by an ethnically related population became "conducive to the growth and expansion of larger states, facilitating a process of unification....the state, in turn, greatly reinforced the ethnic unity of its realm."

The ethnic group became the substratum of the nation.

Ancient city-states were ethnically constituted. The ancient Greeks had a strong sense of being a single ethnos. In Sparta, ethnic identity underpinned the polis and had protohistoric roots. When the Greeks faced the threat of subjugation by foreign powers, it was "the kinship of all Greeks in blood" that assured common cause in resisting Persia according to Herodotus.

The ancient ethnostate was also present in Egypt, which emerged as a unified national state, "congruent with a distinct people of shared ethnicity."

Empires "were grounded in and relied upon a dominant ethnic nucleus." As the darkness of prehistory lifted from the Italian peninsula conflict and war were rife among tribes and among city-states both within and between ethne. "Many of these ethne formed an alliance or league of their ethnos to cooperate against foreign challenges...Rome was started out as the leader of one of these alliances, that of the Latins."

The book goes on to survey premodern nations throughout Asia, the Middle East, Europe and the Americas. The same theme emerges; ethnic groups forged the nation, not the other way around.

[Read a Book · Rating 2 out of 5]

A fresh take on ethnicity, nationalism, and international comparative politics that shakes Benedict Anderson to his core.

[Ward · Rating 2 out of 5]

Azar Gat valt met Nations de modernistische interpretatie van naties en nationalisme aan. Gat ziet noodzaak hiertoe, omdat hij vindt dat historici steeds minder kritisch omgaan met deze stroming. Het modernistische idee, zoals beschreven door Ernest Gellner, beschrijft de nationalistische staat als het resultaat van de eenheidspolitiek van moderne Europese naties na de Franse en Industriële Revoluties. Deze eerste, liberale revolutie maakte het nationale gevoel mogelijk door het introduceren van massa-onderwijs en sociale integratie. De industriële revolutie industrialiseerde en urbaniseerde de samenleving, met het resultaat de oude kleinschalige gemeenschappen te verbinden via nieuwe transportatie- en communicatiemogelijkheden en een geïntegreerde kapitalistische economie.

Gat verwerpt echter het idee dat nationalisme exclusief is voor de moderne tijd. Hij gebruikt hiervoor Gellners eigen, nauwe definitie van een natie als ‘a rough congruence between culture or ethnicity and state.’ In tegenstelling tot Gellner trekt Gat hieruit niet de conclusie dat de natie exclusief is voor de moderne tijd. Gat beweert dat ook premoderne volken ‘liefde en devotie’ voelden voor hun etnopolitieke gemeenschappen, en wanneer deze gemeenschap met de staat samenvalt, dit nationalisme genoemd mag worden. Gat beweert dus niet dat in elke premoderne staat nationalistische gevoelens dominant zouden zijn, maar betoogt dat in sommige premoderne staten deze gevoelens wel al bestonden. Een voorbeeld hiervan is het Macedonië van Filip II. Gat omschrijft eenheid tussen koning, aristocratie en volk en noemt Macedonië zelfs een ‘remarkably egalitarian, participatory, almost citizen state.’ Gat wil laten zien dat de Macedoniërs en hun staat op een nationale eenheid rustte.

Echter, Gat verruimt zijn mogelijkheden nog door te stellen dat nationalisme tevens gevoeld werd in multi-etnische staten, namelijk door het meest dominante volk (staatsvolk), of zelfs door kleinere volkeren binnen het rijk, die een begunstigde of speciale status genoten. Voorbeelden van staatsvolken zijn de Castilianen in de personele unie van de Kronen van Castilië en Aragon, en de Engelsen in het Verenigd Koninkrijk. Een voorbeeld van een volk met een speciale status waren de Catalanen, die tot 1640 een lagere belasting betaalden. Toen dit ongedaan gemaakt werd, riepen ze onafhankelijkheid uit: de Catalanen voelden behoefde aan een eigen staat. In het Verenigd Koninkrijk waren dit de Schotten, die in 1320 onafhankelijkheid van Engeland aanvroegen bij de Paus, in de Declaration of Arbroath, met de woorden ‘Scottorum nacio.’ Deze claim was niet gebaseerd op een dynastiek geschil, maar op gronde van hun eigen, andere geschiedenis: dit geeft aan dat het een identiteitskwestie was.

[Kyle · Rating 5 out of 5]

Another stimulating read by Gat. I was acquainted with the thesis he argues against before (that nationalism is a modern thing only and didn't really exist before modern times, roughly the 18th century). Gat does a good job explaining why modern nationalism is different but not completely novel from the nationalism and ethnocentric tendencies of humanity from the beginning of history. He explains where it comes from and does a good job of using historical case studies to show why a form of nationalism has existed for many regions and peoples of the world.

If you're interested in the history of people groups creating such "imagined communities" as nations, then this book is definitely worth reading.

[F · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have removed one star because it was really dense, thought it was to be expected in a book covering all periods of recorded history all over the globe. I enjoyed most of all the final chapters, especially the one written by Alexander Jacobson.

[Dominic Nordenberg · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting and refreshing read.

[Piet Boels · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not the easiest read to digest but that is probably more a personal than a general opinion as I found the author's style not entirely to my liking and I would have liked there to be bit more example-flesh on the theory-bone. Apart from these minor niggles, lots of interesting insights and I achieved my goal which was to better understand the issues as described in the title. I do not think I will be re-reading this in a hurry and I was glad, after finishing, that I did not buy the book but that it was available from a local library.

[Jeffrey Cavanaugh · Rating 4 out of 5]

From the author of 'War in Human Civilization' comes a discussion of nationalism and the modern sociological theories explaining it. Although not as comprehensive an exploration of the topic as his earlier work on war, Gat nonetheless makes a very strong argument that the contemporary 'imagined' communities view of modern nationalism is only partly correct. Far from being created out of whole cloth, nationalism taps deeply-rooted human impulses to favor kin and near kin over those who are not so considered. This means that far from being a modern creation, nationalism, or something very much like it, is at least as old as the human political communities from which it springs.

[Fred R · Rating 3 out of 5]

Azar Gat, an Israeli Jew, takes issue with the prevailing modernist interpretation of Nationalism as a recent and superficial phenomenon, an academic theory, he points out, developed largely by displaced diaspora Jews. The implied intra-Jewish argument is pretty funny, but I'm on Gat's side, even if he burdens his argument with a lot of unnecessary detail. Anthony Smith's work is much more profound.

[Jessica · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really liked the general premise. It goes along well with my own thoughts on nations and nationalism. But there were some things I didn't agree with and the author is rather repetitive and long-winded at times.