The question of the continued power of nationalism in the modern world has long been the subject of debate amongst sociologists. One could define nationalism as a set of beliefs which asserts that a particular community of people constitutes an actual or potential nation, or desire for an advancement of that nation and projection of its virtues and powers. In a world of interdependence, trade agreements and the increasingly inter-reliant nature of the European Union, many have questioned why nationalism is still so relevant, especially when considering how little attention the so-called founders of sociology paid to it. Although Treitschke and Weber both locate the state in the arena of the constant struggles between nations, Durkheim believed that ‘patriotism’ would be replaced by ‘world patriotism’ and Marx could not fathom the idea of ‘the people’ aligning themselves with the ‘elites’ above the ‘masses’ of other nations, and promoted ‘universal emancipation.’ There have been various theories regarding nationalism in the present day, although it seems necessary within the confines of this essay to concentrate on three of the most

Anderson’s account has, however, been criticized on two main points. Firstly, his alleged connection between the development of printing and the rise of nationalism is not spelt out or empirically argued in any from. For one to understand his argument, it would have been necessary to explain why, when reading and print became widespread in the sixteenth to seventeenth centuries, the rise of nationalism did not emerge until the late eighteenth to nineteenth centuries. To give so much significance to print capitalism, one would imagine there must be sufficient explanation of why it took so long for this embryo to develop. Secondly, the emotional appeal of a community which is imagined in an abstract way is questionable, and one must surely ask whether it would be influential enough to make people die for it. It would thus seem that Anderson’s approach, whilst interesting and perhaps holding some truth, needs to be supplemented with the emotional and effective dimension of nationalism and an account of factors other than shared language. It is also possible to argue that peripheral nations with high illiteracy and an inability to understand the common language of the state are more likely to keep alive their indigenous culture and language, and could, as a result form a stronger sense of national consciousness and identity through their difference to the majority of the state. This is exemplified by the Catalonians in Spain.

The final influential understanding of why nationalism is such a powerful force in the modern world is that of Smith, in ‘Nations and Nationalism in a Global Era.’ Smith believes that one must trace nations and nationalisms back to underlying ethnic and territorial contexts and set them in a wider historical intersection between cultural ties and political communities. He asserts that as these influenced, and were influenced by, the process of administration, centralization, economic transformations, mass communication and the disintegration of traditions which we associate with modernity, they are crucial to any understanding of nationalism. In a period when other forces, such as worldwide organizations and globalisation are attempting to put a halt to nationalism, it is crucial to use a longer term framework to understand the hold of national ideals. For this purpose, Smith analyses ethnies, or ethnic communities, in great detail. He argues that the ideals of popular participation and autonomy pioneered by middle class intellectuals in the late eighteenth century must be fused with a pre-existing sense of origin and identity. Smith does assert the differences between pre-modern and post-modern culture and thus rejects the perennialists’ point of view, by describing modern nations as ‘mass nations’ which are different from the ‘small elite groupings known as “nations” in antiquity and the middle ages.’ He also acknowledges the modern nation as a ‘legal political’ community as well as a ‘historical culture-community.’ Smith also describes modern nations as ‘legitimated through the universally applicable ideology of nationalism’ whilst they are all part of a wider international system related to each other by common ideas and practices. Thus, for Smith, the nation in the modern world is ’a named human population which shares myths and memories, a mass public culture, a designated homeland, economic unity and the equal rights and duties of all its members.’# However, crucially, Smith asserts that we find ethnies in pre-modern epochs, and that we need to locate the different routes by which pre-modern ethnies gave rise to the modern nation. An ethno history, argues Smith, is characteristic of most cultural communities, whilst scholarly dispassionate history is a ‘minority phenomenon.’ Such ethno-histories have concentrated on key figures and stories of origin which serve to glorify an ‘ethnie’s’ past, with certain events and heroes elevate

Some topics in this essay:
Era’ Smith, Industrial Revolution, Furthermore Gellner, Celtic Basque, Treaty Versailles, Twentieth Century’, Romaneasca’ Romania, Africa Gellner, Nationalism’ Gellner, BNP Britain, modern world, print capitalism, late eighteenth, modern nation, ethnic nationalisms, nations nationalisms, rise nationalism, force modern world, nationalism day, eighteenth century, believed print, nationalism modern world, powerful modern world, late eighteenth century, nationalism powerful force,