Nations and Nationalism

Gellner charged that nationalism `is not the awakening of an old latent, dormant force,' but is rather `the general imposition of a high culture on society, where previously low cultures had taken up the lives of the majority.' As a result, any nationalist ideology that claims to defend local and folk cultures simply inverts reality. Access to education ensures the means to succeed in the industrial society and thus `buys off social aggression with material enhancement.' He argued that conflict arises only `in those cases where `ethnic' are visible and accentuate the differences in educational access and power, and, above all, when they inhibit the free flow of personnel across the loose lines of social stratification.' For the conversion of the agrarian-literate polity to an industrial society, the state must create a fluid labor force by a monopoly of education. The driving force of an industrial society is perpetual growth. To achieve this goal, the state must start by creating a division of labor that is fluid and pliable. After wrestling control of exclusive education from the localities, the state requires a long period of generic training that is exo-educational as individuals are trained by many specialists before any advancement to specialized professional activity. Consequently, `a fully developed agrarian society actually has a more complex division of labor' but its `specialists are incapable of self-sufficiency;' whereas, in the industrial society, the `educational system is least specialized' though probably more numerous. The new system is fluid because any retraining process from one specialism to another does not waste too much time. The labor force can respond to new demands with alacrity. It is also gelded like the eunuchs from courts, dependents of the state which has effectively absorbed the entire society. His theory of nationalism entails the imposition of the culture of the political center to create a homogenized population. In an industrial society, Gellner posited that `every high culture wants a state.' One step is the `political penetration of previously inward-turn communities.' The other aspect of education control is to inculcate manifestations of the high culture, such as the federal language, idiom, national ethos, etc. This resultant high culture holds together `an anonymous, impersonal society, with mutually substitutable atomized individuals.' The overall results are a culture of `social mobility, diminution of social distance and convergence of life-styles' and features the key traits of `homogeneity, literacy and anonymity.' Gellner claimed that the industrial society must embodies an entropy quality - a degree of `systematic randomness' to ensure labor mobility and membership fluidity. Entropy-resistant traits can splinter the cohesion of the industrial society. If a certain group with identifiable traits `captures either too much or too few of the advantages available in the society

Start with Benedict Anderson's "Imagined Communities" to understand the contingency of modern nations, but then read Gellner. This is a master opus and the most elegant treatment of nationalism in print.

A densely-written and concise book, as befitting Gellner's style, which is not usual in English writing. There is for example, a paucity in examples, unlike (say) Benedict Anderson's "The Imagined Community", another modern work on nationalism.As an Irishman, I can see that parts of Gellner's thesis does fit Ireland. I can see how Irish Nationalism developed in the last century from the aspirations of working-class and middle-class townsmen adopting a metropolitan culture, and shifting away from their former communal and rural bonds. However, I am less sure that some historical memory did not play any part in this, the struggles of post-Reformation Ireland to maintain some independence from the English crown in the 17th century must have had its own influence. However, the arrival of French Revolutionary ideology at the end of the 18th century set the stage definitely for Nationalism, which at the time allied itself with democracy/ republicanism, possibly because as national communities were majorities in their own territories, these ideologies lent themselves to the nationalist case.This is a facinating subject, and this book is a major contribution.

Truly one of the most important books ever written about nationalism, this is also one of the few modernist accounts of nationalism that ages well. While this book was published in 1983, it is basically an expanded version of a chapter from Gellner's earlier _Thought and Change_ (1964) with some alterations. However, even 36 years later his thesis is still as strong as ever: nationalism is a result of the transformation from agrarianism to industrialization. I'll try to summarize his thesis briefly.Gellner describes the agrarian society as one where power is concentrated at the top with a complex division of labor and an emphasis on informality and intimacy. Basically each group lives in their own happy little world cut off from the rest.But then things begin to change. The transformation to modernity involves a huge number of changes in society: the peasants have to pick up and move to the city for work. There mobility, formality (the 'Diploma Disease') and a universalised high culture replace intimacy, informality and various low cultures, and the peasants feel alienated (a touch of Marx?). The intelligentsia of the peasant group then decide to save their low culture by turning it into a high culture, which can only survive through state-supported education. Thus the peasant people decide to return home, seceed to form a new state and - presto - they've become a nation. This part of the story is obviously the violent part: Gellner claims that things will get better in late industrialism, where we'll have 'muted nationalism' after all those secessions have taken place.While simplistic, there is a lot of truth to this story, which is well documented in the large number of nations which emerged in this way, especially in eastern Europe. However, Gellner neglects several things, most importantly what basis these peasants have for feeling like they have something in common besides their class. He also relies too much on the structural changes in society - nothing is left up to individuals or even groups, since nationalism is socially, not ideologically determined. Therefore the peasants themselves have no say in any of this: they're just riding the wave of history (Marx again?).Yet for its faults, this book is still a classic: it has influenced all other writers on nationalism and will continue to do so for quite some time. Definitely a worthy read.

Though Anthoney D. Smith and others have attacked Gellner's classic work, it still remains THE book explaining the birth of nations. In brief, Gellner's theory holds that the rise appearance of capitalism made national formations necessary. When people from radically different "low cultures" came together in the new industrial cities of Europe, a cultural bond became necessary. Grouping society into national units served this need by creating "high cultures". Smith, who provides the principle opposition to Gellner's theory argues that nations "have navels"--that is, they are created from previously existing "ethnae." Unfortunately for Smith, historical evidence actually suggests that nations do not, in fact, have navels. Thus, Gellner's theory is correct. Well written and accessible to the non-academic, Nations and Nationalism is a must read for anybody concerned with the creation of the most important political ideology in the world today.