At first I thought this was going to be an enjoyable, positive reading exercise since Chapter 1 was clear and thought provoking. But by the sixth chapter I literally wanted to tear the book to pieces. Gellner's book is considered "a classic" in the literature on nationalism, but I contend that its weaknesses equal or outweigh its contributions. I found Gellner's theory extremely Euro-centric and remarkably exasperating. Moreover, Gellner's style of writing was excessively repetitive, "tedious and pedantic" (something he claimed in his conclusion to have avoided), besides being overly assertive.
Gellner's typology, in my opinion, is based on the faulty idea that there are only two types of societies: agrarian and industrial, and that the modern state is omnipotent vis a vis the society. While agrarian Europe was stagnating, other areas of the world had flourishing cultures based on trade *and* agriculture *and* small-scale industry. Some even had local identities (early ersatz nationalisms) that set them apart from the other localities with which they had regular contact through trade, diplomacy, wars and exploration. And while modern European societies are fully industrialized, with omnipotent states, many modern "third-world" societies are mixed agrarian/industrial, and the state vies with other groups in society for loyalty.
I do agree with Gellner's appraisal that nationalism and nationalities are not inevitable aspects of the human condition. But I disagree with his theory that industrial society led to the homogenization of cultures and appearance of nationalism. Much of my disagreement lies in his a priori assumption that the state is "only too conspicuously present" and that power is highly centralized in the state of the industrial era. In fact, Gellner went so far as to claim that having no state is not an "option". Certainly, having a state is the norm in the modern world, but it is by no means impossible that a state can fail, leaving a society essentially `stateless'. Moreover, presence of a state does not necessarily indicate that the state is able to control the society over which it nominally has authority.
Gellner's use of the term of culture is very ambiguous. Rather than rely on an anthropological definition of culture as a "system of ideas and signs and associations and ways of behaving and communicating" Gellner claims it is better to focus on "what culture does". But, his explanation of what culture does is inadequate. According to Gellner, culture in agrarian society favored "horizontal" cleavages, whereas industrial society is more egalitarian and favors "vertical" cultural cleavages. In other words, cultural differences led to regionally cross-cutting societal hierarchies in agrarian society but in industrial society, cultural differences led to national divisions and culturally homogenous groups - which, according to Gellner, industrial society required for survival.
Do societies *need* to be homogenous or do individuals themselves *want* to assimilate in order to get ahead? And does assimilation necessarily mean the fading away of sub-cultures? These are the types of questions that came to mind as I read Gellner's theory, and his rejection of Elie Kedourie's theory that nationalism forces homogenization. Certainly, a common means of communication becomes crucial in a highly specialized industrial society. But Gellner's theory does not explain why people would die or kill to promote or protect their culture. His theory also implies that people can belong to only one culture.
Gellner, if alive today, would probably agree with Francis Fukiyama's and Ron Unz's assessment that the survival of the United States relies on the continued supremacy of Anglo-Saxon culture and the end of bilingualism and multi-culturalism. But I whole-heartedly disagree that a mono-culture is an "inescapable imperative" of industrial society. Especially in today's `global village', education should support awareness of other cultures and the skills needed to interact confidently with those other cultures. That, in my opinion, includes a strong basis in one's own sub-culture, the "national" culture and international cultures. I also disagree that traditional, kin-based groupings have no place in our modern society. In fact, I believe that educational systems in developing states should make use of traditional forms of education. This would require rejecting the industrial -age mode of education that Gellner described - unspecialized and suffering from "Diploma Disease" in favor of a return to the specialized training of the `agrarian era' that Gellner says it is impossible to return to. Let's hope he is wrong about that too!
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
There is a newer edition of this item:
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
Reviews with images
Submit a report
A few common reasons customers report reviews:
- Harassment, profanity
- Spam, advertisement, promotions
- Given in exchange for cash, discounts
When we get your report, we'll check if the review meets our Community guidelines. If it doesn't, we'll remove it.
