The Concept of Nationalism

This research will examine the concept of nationalism, and then discuss how nationalism as a political theory can be applied to the United States. What must be understood first of all about the concept of nationalism is that it is not necessarily to be seen simply as the equivalent of a nation-state enclosed by fixed territorial boundaries, nor is it a simple concept per se. As Renan explains (41ff), nationalism seems to be a clear term but lends itself to dangerous misunderstandings. That is because it is complex in origin, implication, and application, a fact shown by historical example and by modern theory.

These factors make it difficult to define nationalism once and for all. As Smith points out (106-7), there is not universal agreement among experts about whether to conceive nationalism in political, social, or cultural terms. Smith's own definition of a nation (107) is helpful in constructing a definition of nationalism: "a named community of history and culture, possessing a settled territory, economy, mass education system and common legal rights." Nationalism, as a "back-formation" of this definition, would be defined at its most basic as the sense of belonging, identity, or community held by those who can credibly claim access or entitlement to the rights, education, and economic system, while also claiming physical protection within the boundaries of the territory.

But to form a definition of nationalism out of a definition of nation seems almost too easy an exerc

as armies, clergy, and royal dynasties. Smith cites the Norman conquest of France and England, plus the Persian conquest of Asia, as examples (111-112). But such conquest "never really reached far down the social scale" (111), and one aspect of modern nationalism that Smith emphasizes is the fact that it reaches across all social levels, from the most aristocratic to the most humble. This leads to discussion of vertical ethnies, which do reach into all social levels, even though the actual control of territory and a community of rights may not be very big. The examples here include the Jews, Greeks, Armenians, Irish, Basques, Serbs, which "are as stratified as any other, but the strata all share in a common heritage and culture, and in the common defense. Hence the ethnic bond is more exclusive and intensive" (Smith 112). Smith explains the conflicts of nationalism when lateral ethnies try to expand into territories where vertical ethnie identity is very strong, which "has occurred, not only in Eastern Europe, but in the Middle East, southeast Asia and parts of Africa," where there have been "ready-made bases for political movements of autonomy" (113). But the ethnies alone are not the same as nationalism. They are really the bas