What do you think?
Rate this book
Avrupa'da Milli Uyanış: Toplumsal Koşulların ve Toplulukların Karşılaştırmalı Analizi
Miroslav Hroch, Orta ve Kuzey Avrupa’da milliyetçiliğin nasıl geliştiğini betimleyerek başlıyor çalışmasına ama önemli bir farkla: kitleselleşmiş milli hareketin başlangıcından önceki milli ajitasyon dönemine özellikle yoğunlaşıyor. Çeşitli kıyaslamalar yaparak, benzerlik ve farklılıkları belirginleştiriyor. Millet-inşa sürecini evrelere bölerek pek çok bakımdan zihin açıcı cevap ve açılımlar içeren bir modelleme sunuyor. Milliyetçi entelektüellerin, aktivistlerin, yayınların, derneklerin tarihsel önemini, siyasi aktör olarak devamlılıklarını tartışıyor böylelikle. Milli kimliklerin inşasında öne çıkan grup ve sınıfların rollerini, etkinlik ölçülerini bu modelleme içinde ayrıca tasnif ediyor. Propagandanın ve milli ajitasyonun hangi şartlarda ve neden o zamanda kabul edilip, kitlesel bir hareket statüsüne ulaştığını anlatıyor. Öncü milliyetçi grupların nasıl ve ne biçimde dönüşüm geçirdiğini, farklı kültürel ve siyasi gelişmeler içinde irdeliyor, nicel verilere başvuruyor. Giderek artan sayıdaki insanın ortak bir kültür, mukadderat (ortak bir bellek), dil, toplumsal deneyim vb. bağlarla birarada duran eşit bir yurttaşlar grubuyla kendini özdeşleştirmesinin tarihsel panoramasını çiziyor bize.
Hroch, milliyetçilik yazınında çığır açmış kitabıyla Türkçede...
Hroch, milliyetçilik yazınında çığır açmış kitabıyla Türkçede...
302 pages, Paperback
First published January 31, 1985
3 people are currently reading
122 people want to read
About the author
Miroslav Hroch
38 books7 followersMiroslav Hroch (* 1932) přednášel v letech 1956-2011 evropské dějiny novověku na Filosofické Fakultě a Fakultě humanitních studií Univerzity Karlovy. V roce 1994 založil na FF UK Seminář obecných a komparativních dějin. Soustředil se na problematiku vztahu obchodu a politiky, na dějiny revolucí, výklad utváření moderních evropských národů, úlohu historického vědomí. Publikoval řadu knižních monografií a syntéz, z nichž sedm bylo vydáno v zahraničí. Jeho odborné stati byly publikovány ve většině evropských zemí. Obdržel čestné doktoráty tří evropských univerzit. K jeho nejvýznamnějším publikacím patří: Buržoazní revoluce v Evropě (1981), Metody historikovy práce (1983), Social preconditions of national revival in Europe (1985), Evropská národní hnutí v 19. století (1986), Na prahu národní existence (1999), Pohledy na národ a nacionalismus (2003), Comparative studies in modern european history (2007) a Národy nejsou dílem náhody (německy 2005, česky 2009, anglicky 2015). V roce 2024 vydal knihu vzpomínek Jak jsem to tenkrát viděl
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
October 15, 2024
Outstanding combination of qualitative and quantitative research
Te be more accurate to use the subtitle: a Comparative Analysis of Patriotic Groups among the Smaller European Nations, written by a Czech historian, a professor of our university, Miroslav Hroch. As our topic to say, it concerns about national emancipation, but not only of the 19th century, but also has something to do with the situation of last century. In 1968, i.e. the year in which Prague Spring was to just begin, we can see that force comparison between the great and the small is so obvious. 1968, is also the year in which the Czech edition of the book was published, a time when scholarly interest in understanding the historical processes underlying nation-building and social transformation was burgeoning. And less than 20 years later, about in 1985, Columbia University published an English translation. What did it mean? Especially in Czech it was still a socialist system at the time, the book gained recognition - marked by publication - by Western academics. Of course, an enlightened and inclusive atmosphere is what promotes the flourishing of ideas. But I'd say it's an amazing thing. I found some interviews with Prof Hroch, and in one of interviews, Professor Hroch was asked why he studied history, he said, “we had the impression that history had some meaning in the form of understanding the course of history and explaining it. We considered it a bit of a mission and not doing something just for fun.” With the urgent temptation to build national history, all eyes are on the course of the history of the Great Powers, small states and nations occupy only a marginal place, or no place at all. And he did such a thing to advocate for a more inclusive approach that considers the histories of smaller nations alongside those of major states to discern common causal interconnections and laws governing nation-building processes. In preface, the author also expressed his intention, to look at the basic and decisive relations involved in the interpretation of the formation of the modern nations, mainly small nations. Meanwhile, he acknowledged the importance of patriotic emotions and individual attitudes in shaping national identities but emphasized the need to contextualize these sentiments within broader social and economic contexts.
It is already clear that this book uses a Marxist view of development, at the same time, Professor Hroch applicated the comparative method in association with the use of quantitative techniques for the macro-analysis of social structure. This book is a truly comprehensive work, which is divided into three sections: a theoretical examination of the origins of nationalism and nationhood, a quantitative survey of the social and territorial structure of the patriots of eight representative national movements, and a comparative analysis of the social and professional groups that formed the milieu of patriotism.
The book is quite difficult to read, especially at the beginning. But the empirical research in Chapter 2 is much more interesting. I think this is because of the biographical research approach. Drawing from a wide array of sources including historical documents, archival records, and sociological studies, the author examined the roles of various classes and social groups, such as the ruling class, bourgeoisie, clergy, teachers, students, and peasantry, across different regions and phases of the movements. Numerous statistical tables and maps illuminate the text, which forms one of the most significant studies of the nationalist phenomenon to be published in recent years.
The key message here is the concept of nation and the typology of national movements.
Professor Hroch classified a nation as "a large social group integrated not by one but by a combination of several kinds of objective relationships (economic, political, linguistic, cultural, religious, geographical. Historical) and their subjective reflection in collective consciousness. As to its typology, he divided the national revival into three phases, embedded in two stages. Phase A means that: Activists strive to lay the foundation for a national identity. They research historical attributes of a non-dominant group to raise awareness of the common traits. Phase B means that: “A new range of activists emerged, who sought to create a future nation." Like Smetana, by the way, last Saturday is his bicentenary. Phase C means that: The majority of the population forms a mass movement. "In this phase, a full social movement comes into being and with each with its own program. The first stage is during the period of the rise of capitalism, the second stage is under the conditions of stabilized capitalist 'modern' society. In summary, Professor Hroch divided the national movement into a total of four types, but lacked illustrative information on the third type: insurrectional type, so only types 1, 2 and 4 were elaborated in the study.
In contrast to other works on the nationalism, it analyses not only the necessity for the emergence of national movements, but also extensively what is not necessary and why. As to today, the book still can offer a rich historical context for understanding contemporary issues related to nationalism, identity politics, and social cohesion.
Te be more accurate to use the subtitle: a Comparative Analysis of Patriotic Groups among the Smaller European Nations, written by a Czech historian, a professor of our university, Miroslav Hroch. As our topic to say, it concerns about national emancipation, but not only of the 19th century, but also has something to do with the situation of last century. In 1968, i.e. the year in which Prague Spring was to just begin, we can see that force comparison between the great and the small is so obvious. 1968, is also the year in which the Czech edition of the book was published, a time when scholarly interest in understanding the historical processes underlying nation-building and social transformation was burgeoning. And less than 20 years later, about in 1985, Columbia University published an English translation. What did it mean? Especially in Czech it was still a socialist system at the time, the book gained recognition - marked by publication - by Western academics. Of course, an enlightened and inclusive atmosphere is what promotes the flourishing of ideas. But I'd say it's an amazing thing. I found some interviews with Prof Hroch, and in one of interviews, Professor Hroch was asked why he studied history, he said, “we had the impression that history had some meaning in the form of understanding the course of history and explaining it. We considered it a bit of a mission and not doing something just for fun.” With the urgent temptation to build national history, all eyes are on the course of the history of the Great Powers, small states and nations occupy only a marginal place, or no place at all. And he did such a thing to advocate for a more inclusive approach that considers the histories of smaller nations alongside those of major states to discern common causal interconnections and laws governing nation-building processes. In preface, the author also expressed his intention, to look at the basic and decisive relations involved in the interpretation of the formation of the modern nations, mainly small nations. Meanwhile, he acknowledged the importance of patriotic emotions and individual attitudes in shaping national identities but emphasized the need to contextualize these sentiments within broader social and economic contexts.
It is already clear that this book uses a Marxist view of development, at the same time, Professor Hroch applicated the comparative method in association with the use of quantitative techniques for the macro-analysis of social structure. This book is a truly comprehensive work, which is divided into three sections: a theoretical examination of the origins of nationalism and nationhood, a quantitative survey of the social and territorial structure of the patriots of eight representative national movements, and a comparative analysis of the social and professional groups that formed the milieu of patriotism.
The book is quite difficult to read, especially at the beginning. But the empirical research in Chapter 2 is much more interesting. I think this is because of the biographical research approach. Drawing from a wide array of sources including historical documents, archival records, and sociological studies, the author examined the roles of various classes and social groups, such as the ruling class, bourgeoisie, clergy, teachers, students, and peasantry, across different regions and phases of the movements. Numerous statistical tables and maps illuminate the text, which forms one of the most significant studies of the nationalist phenomenon to be published in recent years.
The key message here is the concept of nation and the typology of national movements.
Professor Hroch classified a nation as "a large social group integrated not by one but by a combination of several kinds of objective relationships (economic, political, linguistic, cultural, religious, geographical. Historical) and their subjective reflection in collective consciousness. As to its typology, he divided the national revival into three phases, embedded in two stages. Phase A means that: Activists strive to lay the foundation for a national identity. They research historical attributes of a non-dominant group to raise awareness of the common traits. Phase B means that: “A new range of activists emerged, who sought to create a future nation." Like Smetana, by the way, last Saturday is his bicentenary. Phase C means that: The majority of the population forms a mass movement. "In this phase, a full social movement comes into being and with each with its own program. The first stage is during the period of the rise of capitalism, the second stage is under the conditions of stabilized capitalist 'modern' society. In summary, Professor Hroch divided the national movement into a total of four types, but lacked illustrative information on the third type: insurrectional type, so only types 1, 2 and 4 were elaborated in the study.
In contrast to other works on the nationalism, it analyses not only the necessity for the emergence of national movements, but also extensively what is not necessary and why. As to today, the book still can offer a rich historical context for understanding contemporary issues related to nationalism, identity politics, and social cohesion.
March 27, 2026
A solid work by the Czech historian Miroslav Hroch. Social preconditions... is about how small nations developed in Europe, a very insightful book that combines archival study and sociological comparison. The specific attribute of their emancipation was that they had to deal with two problems, in Marxists jargon, social and foreign rule. National emancipation matters today, and I recommend this work for the reader interested in current events.
A classic of nationalism studies, Social preconditions... was published right after the Prague Spring and translated into English fifteen years later in a condensed form. Inspired by a reformist version of Marxism, Miroslav Hroch argued that the nation was a mixture of objective and subjective factors. The first were economic conditions and political development, while the latter consisted of the ideas promoted by nationalistic movements. All of this was part of the wider modernization process.
In Social preconditions... Miroslav Hroch`s approach was very methodical. He developed a model of a nation's formation with three stages: intellectuals become preoccupied with national problems, then a patriotic movement is established, which may become a mass phenomenon. Combined with local conditions, four types were produced (integrated, belated, insurrectional, and disintegrated movements). This study is focused on the third stage, for which he did a thorough investigation of social composition in the case of Norwegian, Czech, Finnish, Estonian, Lithuanian, Slovakian, and Flemish activism, alongside the situation of the Danish community in Schleswig.
Let’s look at an example from Social preconditions..... To understand the Lithuanian national movement, Miroslav Hroch gathered data on activist groups from the 19th century, catalyzed by the Aušra newspaper, which then developed the national movement. Students initially played an oversized role, then the clergy and middle class followed suit and became dominant. A considerable proportion came from the Suvalki region, where today, Poland and Lithuania intersect, while Russia is close.
Miroslav Hroch repeated this procedure for all his cases and drew two conclusions in Social preconditions..... The first one was that a direct link between a specific social class and nationalist movements did not exist. The second was that this activism was stronger where social communication was developed at a medium level of integration, and it was combined with social conflicts. It was weak when the informational interdependence was either too profound or too low. I’m not convinced that Marxism is the best framework for this explanation, and generality may be an issue, yet the work is consistent and national emancipation is still important, as attested by the Russo-Ukrainian War and the repression in Gaza.
A classic of nationalism studies, Social preconditions... was published right after the Prague Spring and translated into English fifteen years later in a condensed form. Inspired by a reformist version of Marxism, Miroslav Hroch argued that the nation was a mixture of objective and subjective factors. The first were economic conditions and political development, while the latter consisted of the ideas promoted by nationalistic movements. All of this was part of the wider modernization process.
In Social preconditions... Miroslav Hroch`s approach was very methodical. He developed a model of a nation's formation with three stages: intellectuals become preoccupied with national problems, then a patriotic movement is established, which may become a mass phenomenon. Combined with local conditions, four types were produced (integrated, belated, insurrectional, and disintegrated movements). This study is focused on the third stage, for which he did a thorough investigation of social composition in the case of Norwegian, Czech, Finnish, Estonian, Lithuanian, Slovakian, and Flemish activism, alongside the situation of the Danish community in Schleswig.
Let’s look at an example from Social preconditions..... To understand the Lithuanian national movement, Miroslav Hroch gathered data on activist groups from the 19th century, catalyzed by the Aušra newspaper, which then developed the national movement. Students initially played an oversized role, then the clergy and middle class followed suit and became dominant. A considerable proportion came from the Suvalki region, where today, Poland and Lithuania intersect, while Russia is close.
Miroslav Hroch repeated this procedure for all his cases and drew two conclusions in Social preconditions..... The first one was that a direct link between a specific social class and nationalist movements did not exist. The second was that this activism was stronger where social communication was developed at a medium level of integration, and it was combined with social conflicts. It was weak when the informational interdependence was either too profound or too low. I’m not convinced that Marxism is the best framework for this explanation, and generality may be an issue, yet the work is consistent and national emancipation is still important, as attested by the Russo-Ukrainian War and the repression in Gaza.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews