Customer Reviews

Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality (Canto original series)

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Hobsbawm is a masterful historian, with the chops and interests to take on a variety of important topics. This book is his contribution to the Birth-of-Nationalism literature. Nationalism is often associated with questions of personal commitments or identity politics. This aspect of consciousness, however, is easy to assume, but more difficult to demonstrate, and even harder to historicize. As a result Hobsbawm begs off this question some, and turns his attention instead to the ways that governments (states in search of nations) and national elites (nations in search of states) have invoked or pursued the concept of nation. This work is particularly useful and importnat for its attention to language and education as technologies of nation building. Those who confuse a critical perspective with bias, or cannot overcome their own Marxiphobia, may want to stick to tamer works. For the rest of us, Hobsbawm has provided a readable and compelling exploration. While it has its limits, this is a valuable and important work.

Hobsbawm's 'Nations and Nationalism' reveals once again the author's genius. Splendidly written, it is, first of all, a pleasure to read. With a wide range of examples, the British historian shows a truly cosmopolitan view of a rather narrow-minded phenomenon. Much more importantly, however, he unveils one of the great myths of populist rhetoric: that nations have always existed. Not only are they fairly recent developments, argues Hobsbawm, but their conceptions have changed significantly over the last 200 years or so. From time to time, the author may be a little bit too idealistic in his judgments. But over all, 'Nations and Nationalism Since 1780' is an extremely valuable book. Read it as an introduction, or read it as polemic: both ways, you will most probably enjoy it!

"...no serious historian of nations and nationalism can be a committed political nationalist...Nationalism required too much belief in what is patently not so. As Renan said: `Getting its history wrong is part of being a nation.' This bold and principled comment, which is duly qualified in the ellipsis I left out, is near the beginning of one of the most liberating books on modern nationalism. This is a vital book which puts nationalism into its historical context, and it reminds us of the vital truth that Yugoslavia and Rwanda were not doomed by something called "irreconcilable ethnic strife," to fall into the hell that the First World has done its part to condemn them to.

"The basic characteristic of the nation and everything with it is its modernity." Even the very vocabulary of nationality is relatively new. Especially invaluable is Hobsbawm's chapter on popular proto-nationalism as he discusses all the elements that supposedly "cause" nationalism and finds them all insufficient. Many Central and Eastern European peasants did not view themselves so much as members of particular nationalities but as peasants. The term "Estonian" for instance only came into use in the 1860s. Languages appear stronger, yet dialects were so common up until the late nineteenth century that only half of the French in 1789 spoke the language, while only 2.5% of pre-unification Italy spoke what is now Italian. Nationalists often had to write their own grammars and dictionaries, and in the process the various Yugoslav groups turned three major dialects into the language we now know as Serbo-Croat. And where "there are no other languages within earshot, one's own idiom is not so much a group criterion as something that all people have, like legs." Ethnicity is not an undisputed concept: some of the most clearly defined ethnic groups are those like the Scots highlanders, or the Berbers or Afghan Pushtus who are hostile to any state. Many of the greatest fighters for Greek independence were Albanians, while Hungary's greatest 19th century poet, Petofi, was in fact a Slovak. Religion has its own ironies: many of the leaders of the Arab independence movement were Copts, Maronites and other Christians. Religions try to be universal so often they will separate Lithuanians from Russians, but not from Poles. The Catholic Church was the only all-Italian institution in 1859, but Italian nationalism had to make its way without it. Many pre-modern revolts against foreign invaders are less nationalistic than social and religious. When the citizens of Berlin offered to defend that city, Frederick the Great told them to mind their own business and let professionals handle the job.

Hobsbawm goes on to discuss how the modern state in the nineteenth century had its own reasons to encourage patriotism and national consciousness. He discusses how nationalist movements in Georgia, Armenia and Finland were dominated by socialists. "What would the future of Hebrew have been, had not the British mandate in 1919 accepted it as one of the three official languages of Palestine, at a time when the number of people speaking Hebrew as an everyday language was less than 20,000?" After discussing the rise of fascism, the Popular Front and the end of the Cold war, Hobsbawm ends memorably with this image: "The owl of Minerva which brings wisdom, said Hegel, flies out at dusk. It is a good sign that it is now circling round nations and nationalism."

We ordered this book as a reading for our 'Old Curmudgeons Book Club'. The book club is made up of a small bunch of 'older guys', i.e. in their 50s and 60s. We get together once a month and disucss non-fiction books. We've been doing this for about 15 years now. The book has to have something important to say about the human condition. Since nations and nationalism play such an important role in the 20th and 21st centuries, we thought it important to get a better handle on this. Hobsbawm's book helps us to understand the incredibly short time that nations and nationalisms have played a big role in the human experience. It is essentially a 19th century invention and yet it has become such a part of our thinking - e.g. the notion of the inviolability of national sovereignty, the whole business of being an 'American', Briton, Australian, etc. which is such an important part of self identity. One piece of information I found to be astonishing is the statement that at the time of the founding of modern 'Italy',in the mid 19th century, only 2.5% of the population in the territory now known as Italy spoke Italian. Hobsbawm's book then, helps to put into perspective the whole notion of nation and nationalism and helps us to be a bit more critical and more sceptical (suspicious perhaps) when political leaders appeal in language such as 'My fellow Americans', or 'Canadians believe that...', etc. Oh yeah? (What's America? What's Canada, etc.? It helps us to recall Samuel Johnson's famous and useful phrase 'Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel'. Of course, we can get into debates about the difference between 'nationalism' and 'patriotism' but, for my money, they're pretty much the same thing and both are based on unexamined assumptions. Hobsbawm's book will get you thinking about these issues.
Jim Ward

Hobsbawm's contribution to the study of nationalism is, I believe, overrated, simply because it has become something of a starting point for people who want to familiarize themselves with this complex subject. Not to criticize Hobsbawm excessively; I think he's one of the finest living historians who writes in the English language, and his four "Age of..." books are among the finest historiographical works on the last two centuries. But in this book his anti-nationalist bias shows, and the work suffers for it, especially the conclusion. Hobsbawm has an explicitly critical stance on nationalism, and his entire argument in this book seems to be aimed at showing that as a historical phenomena nationalism is on its way out. While I share, to some extent, Hobsbawm's distaste for nationalism, I can't agree with this conclusion--and the events of the last decade definitely contradict this view. Whatever one may think of nationalism, it is a very important political and social phenomenon, and it deserves more serious and careful consideration than it gets in this book. Even so, I give it a three-star rating, because like all of Hobsbawm's books, it is very well written and engaging, and he provides some interesting insights into the ways nationalism became a political force during the late 19th century.

Hobsbawm takes issues the premise that the "nation" is the genesis of social groups. He writes, "Nations as a natural way of classifying men as an inherent political destiny is a myth" (10). Rather, he contends that a good deal of "social engineering" is involved in the creation of nations and the nation-state. As such, the idea of nations and nationhood is not static, but rather has changed over time. Hobsbawm examines the nature of nationalism, its origin, and its evolution over a number of epochs.

During the revolutionary period, nationalism was based on the common interest of a group of people seeking sovereignty in their political expression. However, as the idea of nation becomes more solidified, issues of heterogeneity may become problematic. Pressures emerge for "the people" to adopt a system of common norms. From this, emerges an idea of unifying citizenship.

Between 1830 and 1880, a number of nation-states emerge, particularly in Europe. In many regards, this emergence was in response to capitalism development. The nation-state "guaranteed the security of property and contracts" and ensured competition (28). Nation-states began to internalize their national economies, "...in any case nation implied national economy and its systematic fostering by the state, which in the 19th century meant protectionism" (29).

Up until about 1880, nationalism and "the nation" was a unifying concept; it brought various groups under one umbrella. After 1880, things began to change. The national sentiments of the common people became politically relevant. Thus we begin to see the rise of proto-nationalism. With the emergence of the modern state (an encompassing, institutionalized government ruling over a particular territory) issues of legitimacy emerged, particularly during modernization. Social structures were changing. Monarchical forms (dynastic lineages, or divine rule) were failing. As such, the state and ruling elites needed to create a "civic religion" or a sense of state-patriotism. Hobsbawm writes that patriotism relates to "the sovereign people" of a territory, regardless of language or ethnicity (86-7). One way state-patriotism is created in through the opening of the political process. Subjects are changed into citizens. As such, the citizens gain a "stake" in their state.

The state and ruling elites can create a concept of state-patriotism based upon commonalities between groups (real or imagined) between various nationalistic groups, thus creating one community. One way this unifying concept emerges is through a sense of protonationalism. Protonationalism refers to the ways in which nationalism is politicized. Holding with his premise that feelings of nationalism are socially constructed, Hobsbawm writes "states and national movements could mobilize certain variants of feelings of collective belonging which already existed and which could operate, as it were, potentially in the more macro-political scale which could fit in with modern states and nations" (46). Protonational bonds include religion, kinship, empire, and a sense of national consciousness.
Hobsbawm also illustrates the dynamism of nationalism in his discussion the emergence of ethnicity and language as requirement for national movements between 1880-1914. Hobsbawm argues that social, political and international changes led to the emergence of ethnic and linguistic nationalism. He contends that traditional groups may feel threatened by the emergence of a strong state and thus mobilize against it. Also, ethnic groups become urbanized which leads to a greater propensity for mobilization. Politically, the move towards democratization leads to the emergence of increasing number of interest groups, often based on ethnicity and language. Additionally, modernization increased the size of the middle class. This middle class felt pressures from both the lower and upper classes. In a bid for protection, the middle class moved towards the political right. In the international environment of the era, many states with imperial designs or national rivalries, welcomed the middle strata. By embracing right-wing causes, the middle class achieves a sense of identity.

The discussion is continued through the interwar years, and continues through the 1950s. Following WWI, the old, unifying nationalism gave way to the still "unredeemed minorities" who were rebelling against the new existing states, i.e. the Basques, Welsh, etc. "What was new was the emergence of such aspirations in nominally national, but actually pluri-national states of western Europe in a political rather than a primarily cultural form" (139). What we see during the interwar period "was the nationalism of established nation-states and their irredenta" (143).

During WWII and the post-war period, many national movements moved towards leftist ideologies, as opposed to the right-wing political movements of the WWI era. This was in part a response to the rise of fascism, and also a move towards decolonization (throw of the chains). In fact, during the war and slightly before it could be argued that a sense of "internationalism" existed. Nations joined forces to fight fascism, colonization, etc.

In regards to nationalism at present, Hobsbawm historically sees a rise and decline trajectory of nationalism's importance. He argues that nationalism at the end of the 20th century is declining in importance. In the Third World, we begin to see a different nationalism than was found in Europe. Hobsbawm argues that this leads to a "general skepticism about the universal applicability of the `national' concept" (152). Third World nationalism was not necessarily based on homogenous ethnicity, etc. When decolonization occurred, groups were "trapped in the state territories drawn by the colonizing powers. This leads to a lot of tension within the state. What we find in these states is not necessarily a move towards self-determination, but rather the groups are bargaining for their share of resources within the state. This is partly the result of modernization. Hobsbawm writes that the "massive and multifarious movements, migrations, and transfers of people [which] undermined the other basic nationalist assumption of territory inhabited essentially be an ethnically, culturally, and linguistically homogenous population" (157).

This is a very good overview of nationalism. Following other scholars, notably the pioneering work of Carlton Hayes and Hans Kohn in the 1930s, Hobsbawm point of departure is the fact that nationalism in the modern sense is a recent phenomenon, arising prinicipally in the 19th century and often as the produce of state formation in that era. Hobsbawm covers the history of nationalist ideas from the early 19th century onward, describing the evolution of nationalist ideas from their association with liberal political movements to their later association with the right, indeed, the fascist right. Hobsbawm covers also the basic historiography as well. The primary theme is the social construction of nationalism, often as a state mediated process with developing states using nationalist ideas to increase social cohesion. Hobsbawm also points out how nationalist ideas often arise from confrontation with others, an increasingly common experience as 19th and 20th century Europe saw increasing contact with others from differing ethnicities and religions as the world economy promoted large population movements and novel information about others. Written with Hobsbawm's typical combination of broad erudition and solid prose, this is an engaging and instuctive book.

According to the book "Nations and Nationalism since 1780" by Professor Hobsbawm, the national feelings of people will fade and, eventually, disappear. Nation-states, the 18th-19th century creation of European cultural elites, will cease to exist. The erudite knowledge and masterful manipulation of historical facts brought in support of the main thesis makes it difficult to defend any opposing viewpoints.
I believe that the nationalities and national feelings, important components of human identity and the driving force of many conflicts, are here to stay. The growth of clans into tribes and their subsequent merger into nations is not an invention of European cultural elites. It is a phenomena as old as written history. The Bible has many pages listing tribes begetting one another. The myths, legends and sagas of Greeks, Slavs and Norsemen are no different. The creators of native alphabets, founders of native schools or national newspapers, collectors of national folklore - in short, the cultural elites ¬- they all brought coherency to the national feelings of people they worked among, but they did not create nations.
The formation and birth of a nation is a natural process. We can think of it as akin to the appearance of new species in the natural world. The perpetual growth and reshuffling of humankind brings about the births of new and disappearance of worn-out nations. The multitude of competitive nations is needed to secure the existence of humanity in the never-ending process of creation. Humankind is advanced through ceaseless competition between different nations.
Professor Hobsbawm believes otherwise. He belongs to a vanishing tribe of Marxists Internationalists. True to Marxist ideology, whose goal is to create a classless and nation-less society, he believes in the eventual disappearance of nations. By Professor Hobsbawm own account (see his biography, Interesting times), the Communist movement was the only "family" he ever truly felt at home with. Marxist ideals shaped the worldview of Professor's Hobsbawm and he remains captive to them. His book is the product Marxist thinking.
As if by mischief, the book front cover bears a reproduction of Breughel's "The Tower of Babel", which contradicts the "nation-less future" thesis of the book. The arrogant builders of the biblical Tower of Babel had to abandon the project punished by God, who, to thwart their plans, confused them by making them speak different languages. The Marxist vision of a class-less future without nations was abandoned too. The Marxist "tower" came crushing down. The front cover impishly symbolizes the futility and arrogance of the Marxist project.
It is a shame so much knowledge and wit of Professor Hobsbawm was spent propagating the ideas of misguided Marxist vision. Be as it may, the sheer amount of facts and stories on nation-building in 19th and 20th centuries makes the book "Nations and Nationalism since 1780" compelling reading for history buffs.

Hobsbawm's thesis is that nationalism as he defines it is a concept that was birthed around the time of the French Revolution. He states that there may have been partial occurrences prior to this, but dismisses them as a real nation. Unfortunately, this shows his lack of understanding of previous historical civilizations.

According to him, "any sufficiently large body of people whose members regard themselves as members of a `nation' will be treated as such." (Hobsbawm p 8). He goes on to qualify that any body of people who do not regard themselves as a nation are excluded. These statements exclude any conquered people under the Egyptians (Jews a group to which the author belongs) Greeks, Romans, Ottomans, Chinese, Mongols, Macedonians, the Spanish conquistadors in the `New World' or any other colonial expedition based out of Europe. Many conquered people were assimilated into their `new nation' but still held on to their ancestral patriotism.

I agree that the examples are more prevalent after 1780, but they did exist prior to this.

Eric Hobsbawm, as a person with a deeply-held belief (communism) that is opposed to the subject he purports to carefully examine, was unable to overcome his own debilitating point of view and write neutrally on the topic of nationalism. The book is replete with his attempts to dimish or demean the various forms of nationalism, and it is only logical to assume that his animus is due to communism's ultimate denial of national sentiment. To top it off, at the end of Chapter one Hobsbawm hypocritically lectures his audience about the importance of detachment and impartiality in the study of nationalism. So read the book for a quick, interesting overview of various national movements, but always remember that what you're reading is not as scholarly as it claims to be.