What do you think?
Rate this book
Nationalism and the State
Since its publication this important study has become established as a central work on the vast and contested subject of modern nationalism. Placing historical evidence within a general theoretical framework, John Breuilly argues that nationalism should be understood as a form of politics that arises in opposition to the modern state. In this updated and revised edition, he extends his analysis to the most recent developments in central Europe and the former Soviet Union. He also addresses the current debates over the meaning of nationalism and their implications for his position.
Breuilly challenges the conventional view that nationalism emerges from a sense of cultural identity. Rather, he shows how elites, social groups, and foreign governments use nationalist appeals to mobilize popular support against the state. Nationalism, then, is a means of creating a sense of identity. This provocative argument is supported with a wide-ranging analysis of pertinent examples—national opposition in early modern Europe; the unification movement in Germany, Italy, and Poland; separatism under the Hapsburg and Ottoman empires; fascism in Germany, Italy, and Romania; post-war anti-colonialism and the nationalist resurgence following the breakdown of Soviet power.
Still the most comprehensive and systematic historical comparison of nationalist politics, Nationalism and the State is an indispensable book for anyone seeking to understand modern politics.
Breuilly challenges the conventional view that nationalism emerges from a sense of cultural identity. Rather, he shows how elites, social groups, and foreign governments use nationalist appeals to mobilize popular support against the state. Nationalism, then, is a means of creating a sense of identity. This provocative argument is supported with a wide-ranging analysis of pertinent examples—national opposition in early modern Europe; the unification movement in Germany, Italy, and Poland; separatism under the Hapsburg and Ottoman empires; fascism in Germany, Italy, and Romania; post-war anti-colonialism and the nationalist resurgence following the breakdown of Soviet power.
Still the most comprehensive and systematic historical comparison of nationalist politics, Nationalism and the State is an indispensable book for anyone seeking to understand modern politics.
482 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1982
5 people are currently reading
150 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
February 14, 2021
My recollection is that when I read this book thirty years ago in grad school, I was not particularly impressed. Returning to it I was even more frustrated than I remember.
Breuilly has a comprehensive grasp of literature on nationalism up to the early 1980s, and the title sounds like exactly the kind of ground breaking book one would expect from the person whom I believe was Anthony D. Smith's first student, and so following in a succession from Ernest Gellner. Unfortunately, this book suffers from the attempt to do a massive comparative study without having done a serious case study based on archival research. This is most unfortunate for his study, because while the theoretical understanding of nationalism was growing in leaps and bounds as the first edition was published, this had as yet had little affect on empirical studies driven by archival research. Indeed, while Breuilly cites Gellner's _Thought and Change_, Gellner's more extensive reflection _Nations and Nationalism_ appeared a year after this book, and Benedict Anderson's _Imagined Communities_ likewise is not mentioned for the same reason. So Breuilly's discussions of the various cases he uses are simply a regurgitation of the respective conventional national historical narratives. So he accepts the assumption that elite Poles were broadly active supporters of the restoration of a Polish state, and while he sees some differences the way Polish nationalism became an active concern, Breuilly never stops to think if the nationalist historiography is misleading him. The same holds true for the Hungarians, Czechs, Romanians and Serbs in the Habsburg Monarchy, while remarkably he excuses himself from exploring German nationalist sentiment in Austria, a case that would probably offer more insight into the connection between the state and nationalism and the interplay with the other nationalism had he chosen to explore that topic. My knowledge of Arab nationalism, and anti-colonial nationalism is not so well developed but the I saw no evidence that these case studies were more critical of the existing narratives and therefore more insightful. Indeed, the fact that he has predetermined the categories before presenting his case studies is really a warning sign. Of course, the ambitious nature of the project likely led to that, but it says something about the state of nationalism studies at the time, that the theoretical leaders, were not positioned to see the flaw of allowing Breuilly to write such a book without having done some significant empirical research before tackling such a huge topic, maybe too large to bring truly valuable insights. After all if late 18th C. efforts to revive the Czech language, the Indian Independence movement and Nazi radical nationalism are all part of one large continuum rather than qualitatively different political movements that all made the nation the focus, then maybe the problem is the thesis that nationalism is a form of politics might use some refining. That said, given the much more nuanced discussion of nationalism and national movements that have developed in the meantime, it might be time for someone else to revisit this topic for there can be no doubt that the state is important player in defining nationalism and nations and why they are important.
Breuilly has a comprehensive grasp of literature on nationalism up to the early 1980s, and the title sounds like exactly the kind of ground breaking book one would expect from the person whom I believe was Anthony D. Smith's first student, and so following in a succession from Ernest Gellner. Unfortunately, this book suffers from the attempt to do a massive comparative study without having done a serious case study based on archival research. This is most unfortunate for his study, because while the theoretical understanding of nationalism was growing in leaps and bounds as the first edition was published, this had as yet had little affect on empirical studies driven by archival research. Indeed, while Breuilly cites Gellner's _Thought and Change_, Gellner's more extensive reflection _Nations and Nationalism_ appeared a year after this book, and Benedict Anderson's _Imagined Communities_ likewise is not mentioned for the same reason. So Breuilly's discussions of the various cases he uses are simply a regurgitation of the respective conventional national historical narratives. So he accepts the assumption that elite Poles were broadly active supporters of the restoration of a Polish state, and while he sees some differences the way Polish nationalism became an active concern, Breuilly never stops to think if the nationalist historiography is misleading him. The same holds true for the Hungarians, Czechs, Romanians and Serbs in the Habsburg Monarchy, while remarkably he excuses himself from exploring German nationalist sentiment in Austria, a case that would probably offer more insight into the connection between the state and nationalism and the interplay with the other nationalism had he chosen to explore that topic. My knowledge of Arab nationalism, and anti-colonial nationalism is not so well developed but the I saw no evidence that these case studies were more critical of the existing narratives and therefore more insightful. Indeed, the fact that he has predetermined the categories before presenting his case studies is really a warning sign. Of course, the ambitious nature of the project likely led to that, but it says something about the state of nationalism studies at the time, that the theoretical leaders, were not positioned to see the flaw of allowing Breuilly to write such a book without having done some significant empirical research before tackling such a huge topic, maybe too large to bring truly valuable insights. After all if late 18th C. efforts to revive the Czech language, the Indian Independence movement and Nazi radical nationalism are all part of one large continuum rather than qualitatively different political movements that all made the nation the focus, then maybe the problem is the thesis that nationalism is a form of politics might use some refining. That said, given the much more nuanced discussion of nationalism and national movements that have developed in the meantime, it might be time for someone else to revisit this topic for there can be no doubt that the state is important player in defining nationalism and nations and why they are important.
April 21, 2026
Nationalism and the State is one of the most interesting works on this subject that I’ve read. John Breuilly explicitly avoided broad and vague generalizations about modernization, communication, and identity construction. He emphasized political action, capabilities and the setting—a framework that can still be used, with minor changes. Therefore, I recommend this book to readers interested in contemporary international relations.
John Breuilly argues that nationalism is best understood as a specific form of politics. This phenomenon must be studied in a specific context, and it has three functions or tasks. Coordination involves the various social elites, mobilization gathers the population in support of its ascension to power, and legitimization justifies the movement to the outside world. The relevant political context concerns the growth of the state, as the dominant institution of the modern world.
The author argued that nationalism is a form of contestation, that can press for separation, reform or unification. The political entity being opposed can be a nation-state or something else (e.g., a multinational or colonial empire). From these concepts, John Breuilly started a comparative research of historical case studies. Probably one of the book's strongest arguments is that state building precedes nationalism, even during the process of national unification in Germany or Italy in the 19th century, and usually, once the state is defined in national terms and is consolidated, the movement ends.
The separation and unification types are the easiest to understand, in both classes of states. Reform is more complex, and the term has a technical meaning: a change of an existing state, with right-wing extremism as a major example. It reflected the limits of older national states, especially concerning their ability to integrated the population into the existing political system. These crises were sometimes amplified by external conditions, such as war.
But what happens with post-national politics, such as inside EU? As integration progressed and became more socially relevant, nationalist populism emerged as a major force, one that managed to persist for decades. John Breuilly's thesis can be extended here: the political context still includes states, alongside European institutions, which made the contestants choose between separation (Brexit) and reform types, especially during crisis, or institutional failure. This book thesis is easier to apply in retrospect, as the goals, capabilities and behavior of contemporary right-wing populist groups are difficult to predict and sometimes shady.
John Breuilly argues that nationalism is best understood as a specific form of politics. This phenomenon must be studied in a specific context, and it has three functions or tasks. Coordination involves the various social elites, mobilization gathers the population in support of its ascension to power, and legitimization justifies the movement to the outside world. The relevant political context concerns the growth of the state, as the dominant institution of the modern world.
The author argued that nationalism is a form of contestation, that can press for separation, reform or unification. The political entity being opposed can be a nation-state or something else (e.g., a multinational or colonial empire). From these concepts, John Breuilly started a comparative research of historical case studies. Probably one of the book's strongest arguments is that state building precedes nationalism, even during the process of national unification in Germany or Italy in the 19th century, and usually, once the state is defined in national terms and is consolidated, the movement ends.
The separation and unification types are the easiest to understand, in both classes of states. Reform is more complex, and the term has a technical meaning: a change of an existing state, with right-wing extremism as a major example. It reflected the limits of older national states, especially concerning their ability to integrated the population into the existing political system. These crises were sometimes amplified by external conditions, such as war.
But what happens with post-national politics, such as inside EU? As integration progressed and became more socially relevant, nationalist populism emerged as a major force, one that managed to persist for decades. John Breuilly's thesis can be extended here: the political context still includes states, alongside European institutions, which made the contestants choose between separation (Brexit) and reform types, especially during crisis, or institutional failure. This book thesis is easier to apply in retrospect, as the goals, capabilities and behavior of contemporary right-wing populist groups are difficult to predict and sometimes shady.
June 23, 2019
This book has an insightful argument about the fundamental connection between the success of nationalism and the rise of the modern state. Also, Breuilly covers a lot of literature about nationalism published until the 1990s. However, this work tremendously suffers from a poor application of its thesis to different case-studies all around the globe. Also, he suspiciously misses the discussion on Latin America. Overall, the book would have benefited from a more rigorous application of its main ideas.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews