After Independence: Making And Protecting the Nation in Postcolonial And Postcommunist States - Brossura

Brossura

ISBN 10: 0472068989 ISBN 13: 9780472068982

Casa editrice: Univ of Michigan Pr, 2006

Riassunto

The majority of the existing work on nationalism has centered on its role in the creation of new states. After Independence breaks new ground by examining the changes to nationalism after independence in seven new states. This innovative volume challenges scholars and specialists to rethink conventional views of ethnic and civic nationalism and the division between primordial and constructivist understandings of national identity.

"Where do nationalists go once they get what they want? We know rather little about how nationalist movements transform themselves into the governments of new states, or how they can become opponents of new regimes that, in their view, have not taken the self-determination drive far enough. This stellar collection contributes not only to comparative theorizing on nationalist movements, but also deepens our understanding of the contentious politics of nationalism's ultimate product--new countries."
--Charles King, Chair of the Faculty and Ion Ratiu Associate Professor, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service

"This well-integrated volume analyzes two important variants of nationalism-postcolonial and postcommunist-in a sober, lucid way and will benefit students and scholars alike."
--Zvi Gitelman, University of Michigan


Lowell W. Barrington is Associate Professor of Political Science, Marquette University.

Su questo libro

Informazioni sull'autore

Lowell W. Barrington is Associate Professor of Political Science, Marquette University.

Visit Lowell Barrington's website

Estratto. © Ristampato con autorizzazione. Tutti i diritti riservati.

AFTER INDEPENDENCE

MAKING AND PROTECTING THE NATION IN POSTCOLONIAL & POSTCOMMUNIST STATES

THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN PRESS

Copyright © 2006University of Michigan
All right reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-472-06898-2

Contents

Preface & Acknowledgments..........................................................................................................viiI. INTRODUCTION1. Nationalism & Independence LOWELL W. BARRINGTON................................................................................3II. POSTCOLONIAL NATIONALISM2. Nationalism in Postcolonial States JOSHUA B. FORREST...........................................................................333. From Malay Nationalism to a Malaysian Nation? DIANE K. MAUZY...................................................................454. Rwanda: Tragic Land of Dual Nationalisms JOHN F. CLARK.........................................................................715. From Irredentism to Secession: The Decline of Pan-Somali Nationalism PETER J. SCHRAEDER........................................107III. POSTCOMMUNIST NATIONALISM6. The Post-Soviet Nations after Independence IAN BREMMER.........................................................................1417. Nationalism in Post-Soviet Lithuania: New Approaches for the Nation of "Innocent Sufferers" TERRY D. CLARK.....................1628. Kravchuk to the Orange Revolution: The Victory of Civic Nationalism in Post-Soviet Ukraine TARAS KUZIO.........................1879. Post-Soviet Armenia: Nationalism & Its (Dis)contents RAZMIK PANOSSIAN..........................................................22510. Georgia: Nationalism from under the Rubble STEPHEN JONES......................................................................248IV. CONCLUSION11. Nationalism, Nation Making, & the Postcolonial States of Asia, Africa, & Eurasia RONALD GRIGOR SUNY...........................279Contributors.......................................................................................................................297Index..............................................................................................................................301

Chapter One

Nationalism & Independence

LOWELL W. BARRINGTON

Nationalism was arguably the most powerful force in international politics in the twentieth century. Its ideas revolutionized international politics, affecting everything from trade to the number of states in the international system itself. It aided in the collapse of the central, eastern, and southeastern European empires; it contributed significantly to the events of World War II and its horror; it led to the end of colonialism; and it played a crucial role in the breakup of three federal Communist states: the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia. Many politicians in the successor countries to these three states quickly abandoned their Communist Party roots for nationalist movements. Even in the liberal democratic West, nationalists pushing for protection of the homeland and national culture against outsiders had electoral success in the latter part of the century.

Scholars have linked nationalism to everything from the French and American revolutions to the worst atrocities committed against ethnic minorities. The large number of phenomena that have been attached to the label nationalism indicates that it is a complex, multifaceted concept. Yet it is possible to define nationalism to allow one to include different events under its heading, while at the same time not defining it in such a broad way as to be meaningless. The definition proposed in this chapter, based in part on a survey of definitions in the nationalism literature, indicates that no matter what variant of nationalism one is discussing, nationalism is about two things: the nation and control over territory-specifically, the perceived national "homeland."

Because of its emphasis on territorial control, nationalism's power as a maker (and destroyer) of states is well recognized. And no one can deny the mobilizing power of nationalist ideas over the last two centuries. Although nationalism is elite driven, the masses have often enthusiastically followed nationalist leaders. But what happens to these nationalists and their ideas after they have achieved their ultimate goal of the creation of a new state? What happens to nationalism after independence? This is the central question of this book, a work that brings together analyses of a variety of postcolonial and postcommunist cases to help us understand how independence affects the ideas of nationalism and the fate of its movements and political parties.

Nations and Nationalism: What They Are & Are Not

Nation

The starting point for any discussion of nationalism is an understanding of the concept of nation. This is especially true of the definition of nationalism in this chapter, since nation is included within it. As discussed in this section, there are a number of different ways that scholars of nationalism have discussed the nation. Yet there is some overlap, and in the case of both nation and nationalism, it is possible to bring together many of these ideas into a single working definition.

There are two particular things that nations are not, which are, unfortunately, associated with the term in everyday language and even by some scholars: states and ethnic groups. The misuse of nation by equating it with "state" or "country" appears in a large number of political science works, including many textbooks, though it is not generally a problem for those who specialize in the study of nationalism. A state is the principal political unit in the international political system corresponding to a territory, a relatively permanent population, and a set of ruling institutions. A country is the territorial component of the state. Nigeria is a state (and a country); it is not a nation.

The second misuse of nation, and one that some nationalism scholars are guilty of, is the intermixing of the term nation with "ethnic group" or "ethnicity." Nations can evolve from ethnic groups, but a nation is more than an ethnic group. In an era where the effects of ethnic nationalism receive international attention, it is perhaps not surprising that many people would think of ethnic groups and nations in similar ways. This is certainly the case for many journalists, though some nationalism scholars have also fallen into the trap of defining nations in such a way as to make them indistinguishable from ethnic groups. For Tamir, for example, a nation is a "community whose members share feelings of fraternity, substantial distinctiveness, and exclusivity, as well as beliefs in a common ancestry and continuous genealogy." While this would be a good definition of an ethnic group, the definition lacks a way to differentiate between nations and ethnic groups. Likewise, Connor's definition of nation would be better suited as a definition of ethnic group. He uses the two terms almost interchangeably, stating that the only real difference is that a nation must be self-defined, while an ethnic group can be "other defined." Chinn and Kaiser's definition, while adding important criteria to distinguish ethnic groups from nations, still indicates that nations only come from ethnic groups. Most scholars, however, understand that, while nations can come from ethnic groups, they often do not; they are something more than, and can be something quite different from, such groups.

Even assuming that nationalism scholars generally agree on what nations are not, the nationalism literature indicates that agreeing on what they are is no simple task. As Hutchinson and Smith put it, "Perhaps the central difficulty in the study of nations and nationalism has been the problem of finding adequate and agreed definitions of the key concepts, nation and nationalism." While the various definitions of nation differ in many ways, arguably the most significant division among nationalism scholars is between "subjective" and "objective" ideas of national identity. The subjective concept of the nation is based on the notion that nations are constructed around ideas, and the key to national identity is that the people have come to believe that they are a nation. Emerson, for example, claims that the most basic thing that can be said about a nation "is that it is a body of people who feel that they are a nation." Hobsbawm adds, "As an initial working assumption, any sufficiently large body of people whose members regard themselves as members of a 'nation,' will be treated as such." Perhaps the best example of the subjective view of the nation is the statement of Renan that a nation

is a grand solidarity constituted by the sentiment of sacrifices which one has made and those that one is disposed to make again. It supposes a past, it renews itself especially in the present by a tangible deed: the approval, the desire, clearly expressed, to continue the communal life. The existence of a nation (pardon this metaphor!) is an everyday plebiscite; it is, like the very existence of the individual, a perpetual affirmation of life.

Objective definitions of the nation focus on a list of observable, concrete characteristics, some or all of which all nations share. One such list is contained in Joseph Stalin's definition: "A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture." For Stalin, all of these characteristics had to be present in order for a nation to exist. Of course, at least some of the traits that Stalin mentions are far from objective, a criticism that those who favor the subjective approach level against all objective definitions.

Yet this valid criticism by subjectivists should not be taken to mean that one should ignore which characteristics tend to be emphasized by nationalist elites. Is it important that nations consider themselves nations? Of course. Is it possible to find a list of easily measurable characteristics that apply to every group considered by scholars to be a nation? No. But it is also important that there are certain characteristics that have a tendency to be used to link members of the nation together. It is inconceivable to think that a nation could exist without shared cultural features, such as common myths, values, and customs, and a prevailing single language is something found in most nations. In other words, to say that nations are groups that consider themselves nations, without considering the kinds of things that make people feel that they are nations, is not a fruitful approach to defining the term. No other concept in the social sciences is defined by saying that it exists when people think it exists.

While shared cultural features are a necessary part of national identity, there is more to being a nation than having such mutual features. Members of a nation are also linked by a belief in the right of the group to territorial self-determination. The importance of this belief for the group is a central part of many definitions of nation in the nationalism literature, and it provides an important criterion for differentiating between nations and other social categories. Nodia, for example, states that "a nation is a community of people organized around the idea of self-determination." Some take this idea of self-determination to mean control of an independent state, though not all feel that the nation must pursue its own state. Haas is one who does, defining the nation as "a socially mobilized body of individuals, believing themselves to be united by some set of characteristics that differentiate them (in their own minds) from outsiders, striving to create or maintain their own state."

How can one bring together these various ideas about the nation to form a working definition? First, a nation is a collective of people. This is a necessary part of the definition, but obviously one that does not differentiate between nations and other groups in society. What makes nations different from other groups is that they are collectives united by shared cultural features (such as language, myths, and values) and the belief in the right to territorial self-determination. Put another way, they are groups of people linked by unifying cultural characteristics and the desire to control a territory that is thought of as the group's rightful homeland. "Culture" here includes a range of traits and beliefs, and the particular ones stressed by one nation may differ from those stressed by another. Likewise, while the belief in the right to territorial control is common to all nations, the particular type of territory and even the degree of control will vary from case to case.

Both of these elements-culture and the belief in territorial control-play powerful unifying roles in national identity. But the belief in territorial self-determination is the key to understanding the difference between nations and other social collectives. Many groups have shared myths, values, and symbols (e.g., religious groups, ethnic groups, or even professional associations). But nations are not just unified by culture; they are also unified by a particular-and particularly powerful-sense of purpose: controlling the territory that the members of the group believe belongs to them.

It should now be clear why the term nation cannot be used interchangeably with ethnic group. Nations differ from ethnic groups because of a nation's belief in its right to territorial control, or what Richmond calls its "territorial referent." Also, nations need not even be based on a certain ethnic identity. The cultural features used to unite the nation may privilege one ethnic group over another, even in civic nations (English-speaking ethnic groups that immigrated to the United States and became Americans, for example). But ethnicity does not necessarily determine national identity. Thus, the words "shared cultural features" in the preceding definition of nation should not be read as "shared ethnic identity." What are called "civic" or "political" nations in the nationalism literature have shared cultural features but are multiethnic in their makeup.

Nationalism

As with the term nation, there are differences and divisions in the nationalism literature over the meaning of nationalism itself. But, also like nation, it is possible to bring together certain parts of the definitions of nationalism scholars into a broadly acceptable working definition. Before introducing that definition, it is useful to consider what most nationalism scholars believe nationalism is not.

Just as nations are related to, yet distinct from, states and ethnic groups, there are three things that nationalism is not, yet which some think it to be: patriotism, ethnic politics, and ethnic conflict. The most basic misapplication of nationalism is to equate it with patriotism. Just as a nation is a group of people and not a state, nationalism is first and foremost about the nation, and not necessarily about an existing state. Because nationalism includes the pursuit of territorial control, and because the idea of the nation-state still dominates the international state system, it is easy to fall into the trap of associating nationalism with loyalty to an existing state. While pride in or loyalty to one's state is not a bad definition of patriotism, it is a bad definition of nationalism. Likewise, pride in or loyalty to one's nation is not patriotism and for that matter is, at best, only a part of nationalism.

A second misuse of the term nationalism is to equate it with "ethnic politics." Rutland, for example, defines nationalism as a "statement of claims on behalf of an ethnic group." Ethnic politics-the political mobilization of people based on ethnicity-can be a starting point for something that becomes nationalism, but it alone is not nationalism. Richmond makes clear the difference between nationalism and the political mobilization of ethnic groups:

An ethnic group when politically mobilized can have different goals. These may include the right to franchise, the use of the ethnic vote to swing results in marginal constituencies, the achievement of special status for particular languages or religions (especially in education), the removal of injustices and the enforcement of human rights codes, affirmative action programs, compensation for past deprivation, the restitution of property, or the recognition of special treatment such as exemption from military service. "Nationalist" movements may also establish such claims but go further in seeking to achieve self-government within a given geographic area.... The politicization of ethnicity is not the same thing as ethnic nationalism although it may lead to it where a historical claim to a particular territory can be established.

In addition, the problem with labeling nationalism as something better labeled ethnic politics is the same as the problem with mixing up nations and ethnic groups: it assumes that the nation is ethnic. A definition of nationalism from Gellner, "a theory of political legitimacy, which requires that ethnic boundaries should not cut across political ones," is representative of this problem. Such a definition leaves no room for "civic" nations or nationalism.

What is true of the difference between ethnic politics and nationalism is also true of ethnic conflict and nationalism. Ethnic conflicts, including those that turn quite violent, may emerge over many things (affirmative action policies, language laws, etc.). National conflicts, on the other hand, must involve disputes over territory to be truly "national." While territorial control often emerges as an issue in ethnic disputes, such disputes need not be national at the start, and some do not evolve into territorial-control conflicts at all.

(Continues...)

Excerpted from AFTER INDEPENDENCE Copyright © 2006 by University of Michigan . Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Dettagli dell'edizione

• Editore: Univ of Michigan Pr
• Data di pubblicazione: 2006
• Lingua: Inglese
• ISBN 10: 0472068989
• ISBN 13: 9780472068982
• Rilegatura: Copertina flessibile
• Numero di pagine: 306
• Redattore: Barrington Lowell W.
• Contatto del produttore: non disponibile
• Persona responsabile: non disponibile