3 results
12 - Nations and nationalism
- from Part III - The traditional agenda: States, war and law
-
- By Gavin Mount, Lecturer in Global Politics in the School of Humanities and Social Sciences at the Australian Defence Force Academy, University of New South Wales
- Edited by Richard Devetak, University of Queensland, Jim George, Australian National University, Canberra, Sarah Percy, University of Queensland
-
- Book:
- An Introduction to International Relations
- Published online:
- 21 June 2018
- Print publication:
- 11 September 2017, pp 185-197
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
While nations and nationalism have become the dominant mode of ascribing political culture in world politics, understanding the meaning and political importance of these terms has been a notoriously challenging task. One survey of concepts in International Relations (IR) said of the term ‘national interest’ that it was ‘the most vague and therefore easily used and abused’; of nationalism, that ‘there is a lack of consensus about what it is and why it has maintained such a firm hold over so much of the world's population’; and that ‘Nations and states seem identical but they are not’ (Griffiths and O'Callaghan 2002: 202–13). The discussion that follows will survey debates on nation and nationalism around four broad questions. The first concerns debates around terminology and their contemporary relevance for the study of IR. The second relates to questions of nation formation and the origins of nationalism, particularly in terms of how it came to shape modern states and international society. The third explores how the ideas of nations and nationalism have been important in IR theory and practice. The fourth section briefly considers the rise of new nationalism in contemporary world politics.
As a discipline, IR has made a surprisingly modest contribution to this scholarship (see Carr 1945; Hinsley 1973; Mayall 1990; Breuilly 2013). Nationalism is often not addressed explicitly, but it has a significant tacit presence in all of the major schools of thought in the discipline. Consequently, mainstream IR theories have compounded some of the analytical problems associated with understanding nationalism. For example, classical realists have tended to conflate nation and state into the concept of ‘national interest’, while liberal and Marxist theorists have been internally conflicted over the merits of nationalism versus its potential to undermine ideals of internationalism. The study of nationalism should be a central consideration for any analysis of the major issues in contemporary global politics because taking questions of national interest, values and identity seriously is one way of invoking the idea that culture and ‘people’ matter.
10 - Nations and Nationalism
- from 2 - The Traditional Agenda
-
- By Gavin Mount
- Edited by Richard Devetak, University of Queensland, Anthony Burke, Jim George, Australian National University, Canberra
-
- Book:
- An Introduction to International Relations
- Published online:
- 05 June 2012
- Print publication:
- 17 October 2011, pp 148-159
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
In this chapter we will see that understanding the meaning and political importance of nations and nationalism in world politics is a challenging task. One recent survey of concepts in International Relations (IR) said of the term ‘national interest’ that it was ‘the most vague and therefore easily used and abused’; of nationalism it said that ‘there is a lack of consensus about what it is and why it has maintained such a firm hold over so much of the world’s population’; and that ‘Nations and states seem identical but they are not’ (Griffiths and O’Callaghan 2002: 202–13). The following discussion will survey debates on nation and nationalism around three broad questions. The first concerns debates around terminology and their contemporary relevance for the study of IR. The second relates to questions of nation formation and the origins of nationalism, particularly in terms of how it came to shape modern states and international society. The third illustrates how the ideas of nations and nationalism have been important in IR theory and practice.
The focus here will be on how interdisciplinary debates on nationalism have informed our understanding of this complex issue in IR. As a discipline, the field itself has made a surprisingly modest contribution to this scholarship (see Carr 1945; Hinsley 1973; and Mayall 1990). Nationalism is often not addressed explicitly but it has a significant tacit presence in all of the major schools of thought in the discipline. However, mainstream IR theories have compounded some of the analytical problems associated with understanding nationalism. For example, classical realists have tended to conflate nation and state into the concept of ‘national interest’, while liberal and Marxist theorists have been internally conflicted over the merits of nationalism versus its potential to undermine ideals of internationalism. The study of nationalism should be a central consideration for any analysis of the major issues in contemporary global politics because taking questions of national interest, values and identity seriously is one way of invoking the idea that culture and ‘people’ matter.
11 - Nationalism and war
- from Part 2 - The traditional agenda: states, war and law
-
- By Gavin Mount, Lecturer in the School of Humanities and Social Sciences at the Australian Defence Force Academy, University of New South Wales
- Edited by Richard Devetak, University of Queensland, Anthony Burke, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Jim George, Australian National University, Canberra
-
- Book:
- An Introduction to International Relations
- Published online:
- 05 June 2012
- Print publication:
- 13 November 2007, pp 133-143
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
This chapter examines two debates that have divided scholars on the meaning and significance of nationalism as a force that has profoundly shaped modern international society. The first debate concerns the terminological confusion surrounding the composition of national identity and whether nations and nationalism should be regarded as pre-modern or distinctively modern phenomena. The second examines the paradox of why nationalism has been characterised as both a progressive force that helped to build international society and a destructive force that causes war. From the perspective of the study of international relations in an Australian context, these debates continue to have significant practical implications for understanding some of the most challenging practical problems confronting contemporary global politics.
What is a nation?
The terms nation, nationality and nationalism are all notoriously difficult to define. Scholars disagree on whether the most important characteristic of nations should be its physical, spiritual or social characteristics, whether it is old or new, whether it is imagined or real, whether it is separate from the state or not and so forth (see Box 11.1). As political ideologies, nationalisms have been characterised as democratic or authoritarian, imperial or anti-imperial, forward looking or backward looking, state-led or state-seeking and pre-modern or postmodern. In fact, the only thing that scholars on nations and nationalism seem to agree upon is that the concepts are ‘impossibly fuzzy’ (Kamenka 1975: 3) and that attempts to arrive at a coherent universal definition of these words are at best ‘foolish’ or at worst, ‘a bootless exercise of definitional imperialism’ (Nash 1989: 125; also see Comaroff and Stern 1997; Connor 1994; Seton-Watson 1977).