National Identity

by Anthony D. Smith

Why do people feel loyalty to a nation, as well as to family, region, class, and religion? When is a healthy sense of national identity transformed into virulent nationalism? What are the ethnic roots of so many contemporary conflicts? Can nations be created by design when colonial or multiethnic empires collapse? And what, exactly, is a nation? Such controversial questions are analyzed in this stimulating new text. Smith asks why the first modern nation-states developed in the West and considers how ethnic origins, religion, language, and shared symbols provide a sense of nation—even to the Basques, Kurds, and Tamils who are without states of their own. He illuminates his argument with a wealth of detailed the divisions in the former Soviet Union, ethnic separatism within Europes, pan-Arab and pan-African movements, the successes and failures of nation-building on every continent. Throughout National Identity Smith stresses the positive as well as the pernicious aspects of strong national allegiances. A provocative final chapter considers the prospects of a post-national world. This will be of particular interest to ethnographers, students of international studies, historical sociologists, and political scientists.

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

240 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1991

About the author

Anthony D. Smith was Professor Emeritus of Nationalism and Ethnicity at the London School of Economics, and is considered one of the founders of the interdisciplinary field of nationalism studies. His best-known contributions to the field are the distinction between 'civic' and 'ethnic' types of nations and nationalism, and the idea that all nations have dominant 'ethnic cores'. While Smith agreed with other authors that nationalism is a modern phenomenon, he insisted that nations have pre-modern origins.

Reviews

[Andreea · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is slightly better than Imagined Communities, but still really problematic and full of historical errors. The author's main thesis is that there are two types of nationalism, a Western somehow more 'evolved' one that he calls 'civic-territorial' (led by the upper class / aristocratic elites, is successful due mostly to bureaucracy, tries to create a common political community) and a more 'barbaric' one which he calls ethnic-genealogical (which is started from smaller, demotic communities whose ethno-religious self-conceptions had to be exchanged for more activist, political ones. The key to this transformation was the process of vernacular mobilization. Small circles of educator-intellectuals, despite their differential responses to westernization and modernity, were intent on purifying and mobilizing 'the people' through an appeal to the community's alleged ethnic past. p69). Throughout the book the role racism / xenophobia play in creating political / ethnic communities is not discussed and very often the existence of racism / xenophobia itself is denied. Otherwise, it's full of confusing anecdotes and not that much reliable / verifiable data.

[Thomas Wright · Rating 3 out of 5]

Another dissertation book finally finished. Smith sometimes loses his focus with so many different examples. Overall pretty good and has been the most useful book for my dissertation.

[C · Rating 2 out of 5]

For such a grand figure in the field of Nationalism studies as Anthony Smith, this book is not the best. It is a difficult, sometimes incredibly convoluted book, with no central thesis. Rather it reads more like a series of thoughts, sometimes fleshed out into theoretical propositions, but without a coherent thread to properly link them.

In attempting to describe the ethnic basis underlying modern national identities, Smith's study provides some interesting insights and points for further research. But his analysis relies largely on a problematic distinction between 'Civic' and 'Ethnic' (which he calls 'demotic') nationalism - a binary sufficiently critiqued into incoherence by Umut Özkırımlı, whose arguments I will attempt to summarise below:

- Firstly, as Bernard Yack has also shown, the distinction between 'civic' and 'ethnic' elements in contemporary nationalisms is much more vague than initially appears. Most formations of nationalism actually contain elements of both.

- Following from the point above, even 'civic' nationalist forms take on ethnocultural assumptions (whereby the 'civic' nation becomes like a family, thus denoting a particular 'cultural' aspect).

- Even in areas where ethnic formation is guided by genealogical pretensions (Smith, following in Armstrong's footsteps, primarily assigns this characteristic to the "eastern" world), the label 'ethnic' underplays the extent to which these genealogical ties were often exaggerated or invented altogether.

Smith actually admits himself that 'every nationalism contains civic and ethnic elements in varying degrees and different forms' (p. 13), which then begs the question - what is the use in his making the distinction?

There are, nonetheless, as mentioned above, useful aspects to the book. The ethnic/civic distinction has some descriptive power in regards to the shape nations took once they were formulated. Take for example the fact British and French nationalisms are commonly considered 'civic', while Arab nationalism carried a more overtly 'ethnic' character. Nonetheless, Kurdish nationalism and German nationalism in its Nazi form are historical examples that fundamentally complicate the simple east/west correlation. What's more, Smith conflates descriptive power with explanatory power, thus implying a determinism that simply isn't discernible from the historical material nor his reasoning.

Additionally, while accepting the modernity on national identity (as has been argued more fluently by Anderson, Gellner, Hobsbawm, Hall, Hroch, Mann, etc.), he fails to account for the ways in which premodern ethnic identities differed from contemporary national identities, nor the process of shifting power relations in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that led to the development and sustainment of nationalist projects.

The book is a decent example of Smith's ethnosymbolic framework, but it suffers from all its typical flaws. Among them: conflation of premodern 'ethnic' and modern 'national' identities, obscuring of the boundaries between elite and popular conceptions of premodern identities, and essentialism (with, in the words of Calhoun, all its potential authoritarian consequences).

Nonetheless, as stated, there are useful elements: the distinction between the terms 'nation' and 'nationalism' (the latter a specific political doctrine that holds the 'nation' to be the primary legitimiser of state power), the troubled history of the pursuit of national homogeneity and its violent consequences (p. 76), his tracing of the idea of 'national' character and identity to the Romantics. Unfortunately these elements are buried deep within Smith's convoluted analysis that obscures more than it reveals or explains.

[Eitental · Rating 4 out of 5]

This examination of nationalism and the nation is perhaps less celebrated than similar works by Benedict Anderson, Ernest Gellner and Eric Hobsbawn, but one of my university lecturers recommended it as the best. On the one hand, I can see why: Smith’s approach is highly systematic and thorough, never sacrificing detail in the name of simplicity. However, this – combined with Smith’s dense and verbose writing style – does mean that it is not an easy read. I frequently found my attention wandering and had to re-read some paragraphs several times for the meaning to sink in. This is especially true of the first four chapters, which are highly theoretical, dealing meticulously with issues of definition, typology and origins. Chapters five to seven are considerably more engaging, as they focus more on practical matters: namely post-colonial nationalism, ethnic conflict and the question of whether we will move towards a post-national world. Furthermore, in the first four chapters, most examples are drawn from antiquity and from mediæval and early-modern Europe, of which Smith assumes more familiarity than the average reader is likely to have, whereas the last three chapters mostly refer to the twentieth century, with which I for one am much more familiar.

On the whole, I’d say that if you’re seriously interested in a deep theoretical understanding of nationalism and national identity, this work should definitely be high on your to-read list, but if you just want a background on nationalism to inform your study of other issues or to enrich your general knowledge of history and society, you’re probably better off with Anderson’s Imagined Communities. The strength of Imagined Communities is the way that it synthesizes a very complex subject into clear and simple theses, whereas the strength of National Identity is the exact opposite: nothing is oversimplified, and every nuance is explored.

[В'ячеслав Омельченко · Rating 3 out of 5]

Пан Сміт доволі одноманітний в своїх тезах. До того ж книга написана перед самим розпадом СССР і не надто сильна у передбаченні. Мені здалося, що як особа розв'язок оцього сплеску етнічних націоналізмів який починається він вбачає в паннаціоналізмах - передовсім єврофедералізмі, але навіть і пантюркізмі, скажімо.

[Oğuzhan · Rating 5 out of 5]

http://milliyetcilikcalismalari.com/m...

[Stevan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nacionalni identitet autora Antonija Smita(Anthony D. Smith) predstavlja jedan od neizostavnih stubova teorije nacija. Za razliku od svog učitelja Ernsta Gelera(Ernest Gellner) koji naciju isključivo stavlja u kontekst moderne, za Smita, koji priznaje naciju kao moderni fenomen, veliki uticaj imaju i premoderne formacije na kojima počivaju nacije i nacionalizmi. On ih ovde naziva "etničke zajednice"(etnije) opisujući ih kao grupe ljudi koje imaju "kolektivno ime, mit o precima, zajedničko istorijsko sećanje, povezanost sa domovinom/teritorijom, jedan ili više diferencirajućih elemenata zajedničke kulture...". Otuda se Smitovo shavatanje obično naziva "etno-simbolizam"(naglašen uticaj simbola, najviše mitova, u oblikovanju prvo etnije a zatim i nacije).

Smitova podela etnija počiva na bipolarnom principu koji se mogao uvideti već kod Hansa Kona(Hans Kohn) koji upotrebljava podelu na zapad/istok po pitanju nacija i tipova nacionalizma. Smit ovu osnovnu tezu osvežava svojim pogledom zadržavajući bipolarnost zapada(za Smita su ovde lateralno-birokratske etnije) i istočne(ovde smešta vertikularno-demotske etnije) ali sa naglašavanjem da se i jedan i drugi oblik mogu pronaći i na Zapadu i na Istoku. Osnovna razlika kod dva tipa etnija jeste što u lateralno-birokratskim vodeću ulogu u formiranju identieta imaju plemići kao nosioci glavnine etnije dok kod vertikalno-demotskih veći uticaj imaju "svete knjige" tj. "kolektivna verovanja" kao i šira socijalna grupa(za razliku od plemstva).

Lociranje nacionalizma i momenat evoluiranja etnije u naciju preko nacionalizma kao oblika političke ideologije i kulturne doktrine autor ne utvrđuje zbog prevelike složenosti procesa iako ga smešta okvirno u period modernog doba, većinski u 18. vek. Ono što čini glavnu razliku etnije i nacije jeste to da nacija poseduje teritoriju dok etnija može imati ali i ne mora direktan dodir sa teritorijom, kultura u naciji mora biti javna ali u etniji ne mora jer je naciji kroz proces nacionalizma bitno da obuhvati celinu etnije(otuda i bitnost javnog školstva karakterističnog za moderni period kojim se postiže veća kohezija) kao i posedovanje istih zakona(opet zbog kohezije). Kroz knjigu su dati primeri uobličavanja nacija poput Engleske, Francuske, Češke, Ruske itd... Isto tako je autor naveo primere stvaranje nacija bez etnije(primer SAD-a i stvaranja američkog nacionalizma na temelju kulturnih talasa doseljenika).

Na osnovu podela etnija autor je izvršio i podelu nacija na teritorijalne(većinski odgovaraju lateralnom tipu etnije ali ne nužno) i etničke(odgovaraju vertikalno-demotskom, ali ne nužno). Teritorijalne nacije stavljaju naglasak na prebivalištu koje je bitnije od loze i genealogije(obrnuto kod etničkih nacija). Razlika se pronalazi i u "nenamernosti" oblikovanja nacija na Zapadu dok se na istoku ističe njihova "namernost" pod uticajem Zapadnog modela iako autor za to nudi malo obrazloženja. Nosioci nacija su isto tako različiti i dok se oni u teritorijalnim većinski vezuju za birokratske slojeve u etničkim oni predstavljaju sloj inteligencije(činjenica da neretko buduće etničke nacije nisu imale sopstvenu državu pa odatle i nedostatak birokratije već su bile u sklopu većih konglomerata poput imperija). Autor daje detalje podele u vidu različitih podgrupa nacionalizama o kojima ovde neće biti reči jer bi previše opteretilo recenziju.

Odnos između kapitalizma i nacionalizma autor je relativno loše objasnio iznoseći misao da su često saučesnici ali da se pojavljuju ne toliko sinhronizovano da bi bili apsolutno vezani. Činjenica jeste da je kapitalizam obezbedio nacionalizmu i naciji nove klase koje bi ga rasprostranjivale ali autor je tu vezu ostavio kao sekundarnu. Isto tako sa blagim prezirom govori o potencijalnom postmodernom društvu jer čak i da postoji, ostaje pitanje da li bi nacionalizmi i nacije doživeli sopstveni krah.

Na kraju se zaključuje da je potencijalna budućnost za neke tvorevine koje bi bile suprotne od nacionalnih šansa mala. Obrazlažena je mogućnost stvaranja "nadnacionalnih" tj. pannacionalih zajednica koje bi počivale na savezima zasnovanim na širim kulturnim vezama(recimo bliskost Slovenskih naroda po jeziku bi rezultiralo potencijalno u panslovenskoj državi). Mada se ova teza može teže prihvatiti nakon krvavih ratova(primer raspada/uništenja države SFRJ autoru se to ne može uzeti kao kritika jer je knjiga ugledala svetlost dana pre samog događaja).

[Michael Kerjman · Rating 2 out of 5]

An impressive collage of historic data amuses an averagely-acquainted with a world history reader much more, than author's analysis of both processes eventuated in Yugoslavia / the U.S.S.R./ Middle East, and emphasis on intellectually-cultural rather than mere socio-economic gains a clique of nationalists might rip off from partitioning assess to any sort of resources available.
Thus, no wonder, traditionally xenophobic racist apartheid-in-a-very-core "multiculturalism" of British Realm was no once mentioned of.
What education and artifacts could birds of different feathers prevent flocking together?
Scholar-implied affect of computerisation and globalisation, impact of spreading deceases worldwide on society constitute a significant credit to a book published much prior to a covid-coax continuing also his suggestions were being delivered in cetais paribus while a decrease in numbers of undesirables, ethnic minorities the most among are, is on cards.

[Martin Raybould · Rating 4 out of 5]

My well thumbed paperback copy is from 1991 so. needless to say, some of this book is dated but the theory holds up and there some invaluable observations on the nature of national and cultural identity communicated in plain English.

[Helena · Rating 3 out of 5]

there are two wolves inside me - humanities major wolf and evil social science major wolf, spawned during my high school pre law trenches; by my capstone reading list, you can guess which wolf has taken over as i was deciding on my topic (why did i do this)

[Muhammad · Rating 4 out of 5]

Despite cultural problema, the national identity are not performed enough. Many young people still in stagnancy. Just like another propaganda, the ability must be improved before the judgement day.

[Luísa Silva · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mais um para a lista da dissertação.

[J A · Rating 3 out of 5]

An important text in this area, establishing civic and ethnic nationalisms, scrutinising the pre-modern aspects of this phenomenon and engaging with why nationalism exists. Nevertheless, there are some methodological problems, particularly when Smith is not only Euro-centric in his analysis, but also relentlessly pushes European exceptionalism (that England and France were the progenitors of the nation). I would have liked to have seen more of an examination of the United States, which is covered very briefly in one chapter (in a comparison with the Soviet Union).

Problematic as well is the way that he splits nationalism into 'civic-territorial' that emerges from the aristocracy, and 'ethno-genealogical' that emerges from a vertical aggregation of social classes; it's not a particularly convincing argument, making all kind of assumptions about countries (and establishes a binary between West and Eastern Europe) and I find it hard to explain the concept even after reading. This point hints at what is probably the flaw of Smith's argument, that he attempts to cover too much; there is simply no way to succinctly cover the amount of countries that he does without making sweeping generalisations or historical inaccuracies; or to address each aspect of the phenomenon in sufficient detail (within 250 pages).

In summary, a key text, but definitely not the final say; and to be taken with a dose of scepticism.

[EJ Daniels · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent introduction to the study of the nation and national identity. Smith illustrates an obvious bias towards the West in defining a nation, and one wishes that he had simply limited the scope of his work to the concept of the nation in the West - it would have tidied up a great deal of unhelpful asides.

Smith is also prone to generalizations and anecdotal evidence, but for a work of this scope, which is clearly intended to be an introduction, this style works very nicely. And this book is most helpful for its straightforward, grounded introduction of concepts and vocabulary, serving as an ideal stepping off point for further and more nuanced research later.

While this book is a little dated (the ruminations of what the EU might look like are quite funny) its basic principles continue to ring true.

I would recommend this book for anyone interested in starting research into national identity and the concept of the nation; the bibliography for this text will prove especially useful for further research, although one would do well to also seek out more contemporary resources

[Jennifer Plummer · Rating 1 out of 5]

The writing style of this author definitely did not agree with me. I'm currently taking a graduate-level course on this topic and of the eight books we're working our way through with this class, this one I liked the least. I respect the author and feel he has done much research and I know he has been praised for his work. In a conversation, or possibly one of his other books, I may be able to learn a lot from him. This book, however, was very difficult to read and as childish as this many sound, used really big words over and over in the same sentence. Run-ons were horrendous. In fact, one sentence went on for 11 lines. He also liked to briefly mention a topic and skip to something else after stating he would talk more about the last topic in another chapter. It was choppy and not something anyone should read for information of this topic unless you are truly interested and know some of the background already. Other than using it as reference material, I wouldn't recommend it.

[Mert · Rating 3 out of 5]

3/5 Stars (%56/100)

Anthony D. Smith’s National Identity provides a comprehensive exploration of the origins, development, and significance of national identity, blending historical, sociological, and cultural perspectives. Smith’s analysis of how myths, symbols, and memories shape the collective consciousness of nations is thought-provoking, offering insight into the dynamics of identity formation. However, the book can sometimes be dense and theoretical, which may make it less engaging for readers seeking more accessible or practical discussions of nationalism in contemporary contexts.

[Andrew]

A not-bad, and at the very least compulsively readable analysis of the phenomenon that exists rather within the shadow of Benedict Anderson and Eric Hobsbawm, which is pretty hard for any scholar in the nationalist concept to escape. Anthony Smith asks the important questions, provides some kinda fluffy, kinda anecdotal, but still provocative answers, and points the way to some further research on the difference between his "demotic" and "bureaucratic" nationalisms-- a concept that I'm not entirely sure holds water, but is worth checking into.

[Sofia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting book!

[Veronika]

thank you