Explaining the emergence of nationalism
by
Dr. CENAP ÇAKMAK*

They may assert that they embrace the entire nation, yet this is far from being the case. They mostly base their action on the profane distinction between “us” and “others.” In their conception, “us” are supreme and noble, whereas “others” are mostly enemies who plot conspiracies against “us.” Using such an exclusionary language, neo-nationalist agents de-align themselves from the mainstream society. Their reliance on a very narrow and strict set of extremely nationalist prepositions only contributes to fragmentation rather than integration.

In contrast, conventional, traditional or regular -- whatever you may want to call it -- nationalism is entirely different from the alienating neo-nationalism in that the first promotes unity and solidarity with no reference to ethnic or racial background. As opposed to neo-nationalism, modern nationalism avoids any distinction based on “otherness,” but encourages cooperation between different nations.

“Nationalism” has long been considered a very controversial phenomenon among scholars, attracting great attention from various disciplines, including political science, history, sociology and theology. Whereas questions such as “what is nationalism?”, “when did it first emerge?” and “what impacts has it had up until now?” can be somehow answered, no commonly acceptable answers are possible for “why do people feel that they belong to a certain nation?”, “how does a nation emerge and evolve?”, “what constitutes a nation?” and “what are the precise differences between a nation and a gathering of people?”

The paradigm that historian Benedict Anderson offers is generally acknowledged as the most authoritative explanation for the emergence and spread of nationalism. Anderson, in his seminal book “Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism,” discusses how nationalism as an ideology -- and national identity embedded in that ideology -- has evolved and remained effective in world politics for centuries.    

Anderson, who employs a fairly socio-cultural analysis, asserts that explaining “the sense of nationality, the personal and cultural feeling of belonging to a nation” is more important than examining nationalism as a political movement. To this end, he does not rely on explanations based on ethnicity, historical commonalities and, to some extent, religion. He suggests that a nation is “an imagined political community -- and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign.” It is imagined in the sense that individuals who consider themselves to be members of a nation somehow know that other members belonging to the community exist; however, they do not, and perhaps will never know who they are and what they look like. In other words, “the nation” actually exists in the minds of its members as an “image.” But it should be noted that existing as an image does not necessarily mean that it is an illusion. Anderson believes that “the nation” is a genuine entity rather than a gathering whose presence is confined to certain boundaries.     

From Anderson’s perspective, nations have neither existed potentially nor been created by industrial societies. To the contrary, he presents nationalism as a project designed by groups that have become distinct through diverse experiences in connection with socioeconomic conditions at different times and in different locations. Because of the diversification, the features of each nation have evolved differently. This implies that it is very difficult -- and irrational, one might say -- to treat each nation in the same way, although some certain commonalities among nation building processes can be mentioned.

As already noted, in Anderson’s analysis, socio-cultural aspects have a central place to explain the origins of nationalism and nation-ness. He traces the “cultural roots” of nationalism back to the emergence of capitalism, which, however, does not play an ideological role. In other words, ideological capitalism had no determinative influence on the outbreak of nationalism. Rather, its role is more visible when considered together with the spread of print. According to Anderson, with the rapid spread of print capitalism, people became more literate; the number of printed books proliferated dramatically and the printed materials became increasingly affordable to the public who, at earlier times, had to depend on the church with regard to this particular matter. The new era also brought the spread of newspapers and as a consequence, people became aware of the presence of other members of the community to which they believed they belonged. This eventually helped them “imagine” the nation and the feeling of belonging to a nation.

Anderson contends that nationalism emerged at a time when religion as a cultural conception was in decline. The process was overwhelmingly intertwined with the Reformation, which heavily injured the image of church as the supreme authority in every aspect of life. While religious perceptions were all the same and unified before the Reformation, in the new era, the homogenous structure was fragmented into several major parts. In Anderson’s analysis, the fragmentation in religious identities led to the emergence of national identities.

Anderson’s approach seems to be purely theoretical and unsuitable for verification by further empirical data. Yet it remains the most cited and reliable analysis available able to provide a plausible explanation for the emergence and rapid spread of nationalism.

More importantly Anderson’s paradigm is pragmatic and practical, it promotes pursuit of unification and consolidation rather than clash and disruption. His analysis is comparable to the geometrical shapes that exist in perfect form in human minds but not in reality. Take a triangle, which is, by definition, a two-dimensional polygon with three sides. However, because the intersecting lines are inevitably three-dimensional, the triangle formed through the intersection of the lines will also have to be three-dimensional (any drawn line will have length, width and depth or height); yet for the sake of mathematical advance, we assume -- or imagine -- that it is two-dimensional. Obviously, a two-dimensional triangle does not exist in the real world, but it comes into existence through our imagination. It should be noted that this does not mean it does not really exist; quite the contrary, without such an assumption, the whole math science will collapse.

Through the prism of Anderson’s analysis, a nation, like a triangle, is a constructed image that exists in the mind. This image helps individuals connect and create a common space that will further promote their interests and ensure their betterment. Therefore nationalism is best and most meaningful when it serves the individuals and functions as the common denominator that will ensure creation of a sense of unification and solidarity.