Introduction: conceptual assumptions

Functionalist theories have persistently conveyed the idea that internal territorial differences within nation states would disappear with the extension of liberal democracy and industrial capitalism. As communication of political, economic and cultural matters increased, the peoples of different regions would develop a new common identity, which would transcend their differences (Deutsch 1966). The centre–periphery dichotomy was to decline in importance as society became modernized by means of elite-initiated policies aimed at achieving social standardization (e.g. a common language and citizenship). Likewise, the cultural identities of ethnic groups and minorities would be replaced by a set of class-oriented conflicts, or conflicts among interest groups. Thus, modernization was thought to have brought about an all-embracing nation-state identity rooted in both cultural and civic bases. History, however, has repeatedly falsified such analyses.

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, I think we ought to reconsider both the premises and implications of all-embracing identities, for they are increasingly untenable. While being corroded by the forces of globalization, these identities are also subject to fragmentation, competition and overlap with numerous other senses of belonging. The discontinuity and dislocation of social arrangements allow different identities, particularly those of a territorial nature, to relate to each other in quite an unpredictable manner. In fact, identities are shared to various degrees by individuals and are constantly subject to internalization by group members in different ways (Melucci 1989; Giddens 1991; Smith 1991; Greenfeld 1992; Castells 1997).