Comparison of A.D. Smith and E. Gellner's Approaches to Ethnicity & Nationalism, Slides of International relations

Download Comparison of A.D. Smith and E. Gellner's Approaches to Ethnicity & Nationalism and more Slides International relations in PDF only on Docsity! Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations, Vol.1, No.1, (Spring 2002) 1 TWO PERSPECTIVES ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF ETHNICITY TO NATIONALISM: COMPARING GELLNER AND SMITH Huseyin ISIKSAL* “There can be no society which does not feel the need of upholding and reaffirming at regular intervals the collective sentiments and the collective ideas which make its unity and its personality.” Emile Durkheim Introduction The ethnic root of nationalism felt into the agenda of international relations theory, particularly since the 1970s, when resurgence of ethnic nationalism has witnessed in many parts of the world. Today, it is widely acknowledged that ethnicity plays a crucial role in nationalism, especially after the recent ethnic based conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and in the former Soviet Union. However, there are few detailed studies that focus on the relationship between ethnicity and nationalism and especially among the comparison of Anthony D. Smith and Ernest Gellner, as two distinctive scholars on these concepts. In this article I simply sought to bridge this gap. Accordingly, ethnicity and nationalism are highly inter-related but what is the relationship between them? This analysis attempts to shed some light on this issue by considering the works of two aforementioned authors who made considerable contributions in developing of theories relating ethnicity to nationalism. It is worth stressing that it is not the purpose of this essay to analyse and focus on the causes and consequences of the recent ethnic conflicts in particular parts of the world. Therefore, the reader of this essay will not find a particular analysis related with ethnic conflicts that are caused by nationalism. The unique aim of this paper is Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations, Vol.1, No.1, (Spring 2002) 2 to compare and contrast the literature of Smith and Gellner and analyse the role of ethnicity on nationalism. Ultimately it will be argued that Ernest Gellner’s modernist approach fails to account for contemporary trends in ethnicity and nationalism in some respects and therefore, Anthony Smith provided comparatively better explanation on ethnic root of nationalism. This paper initially sets out to define exactly what each author means by ‘ethnicity’ and ‘nation’. In both cases Smith’s definitions would be considered more valid. After conceptualisation of the key concepts, the discussion then addresses the arguments of A. D. Smith and Ernest Gellner on ethnicity related to ‘nationalism’ that are the core issue at the sake of this paper. Specifically, Smith’s ethno-centric approach will be compared to Gellner’s modernist approach. It will be shown that Smith’s theory has better explanatory power of the relationship of ethnicity to nationalism, as there are several other weaknesses to Gellner’s modernist approach that would be also presented in the final section. Ethnicity and Nation Ethnicity is a very recent term. Its earliest dictionary appearance was in Oxford English Dictionary in 1972.1 However, as stressed by many scholar the meaning of this new term is still not clear. It could mean kinship, group solidarity and common culture, as well as “foreign barbarians” and “outsiders” as used to characterise non-Romans and Greeks during the ancient times. Nevertheless, there are some common points that led scholars to agree in similar terms on definition of the ethnic groups. For instance Schermerhorn defined ethnic group as: A collectivity within a larger society having real or putative common ancestry, memories of a shared historical past, and a cultural focus on one or more symbolic elements defined as the epitome of their peoplehood.2 Smith explains the examples of such symbolic elements as kinship patterns, physical contiguity, religious affiliation, language or dialect forms, tribal affiliation, nationality, phenotypical features, or any combination of these.3 In his survey of the field, Smith gave a special focus to the emotional intensity and historical heritage of ethnies. Smith believed that nationalism derives its force from “inner” sources like history and culture.4 According to Smith, ethnicity mainly relies on myth, values, memories and symbol where myths are tales that Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations, Vol.1, No.1, (Spring 2002) 5 that only in several exceptional cases, have states formed nations without an immediate antecedent ethnie. The United States of America, Argentina and Australia could be examples of this category. In these countries, there was the elite class who began a process of nation formation because of the absence of distinctive ethnie. To sum up, Smith argued that ethnicity is the most influential origin of the nation-states. Smith based this argument on three main reasons: First of all first nations were formed on the basis of pre-modern ethnic cores. Therefore “being powerful and culturally influential, they provided models for subsequent cases of the formation of nations in many parts of the globe”.11 Secondly, ethnic model of the nation has become popular because “it sat so easily on the pre-modern demotic kind of community that had survived into the modern era in so many parts of the world”.12 Finally, ethnic unity is a necessary condition for the national survival and unity because it would be very hard for a community to survive without a coherent mythology, symbolism of history and culture. Contrary to Smith, Gellner defined nations as “groups which will themselves to persist as communities.”13 Crystallisation of these groups could be by “will, voluntary identification, loyalty and solidarity, as well as fear, coercion, and compulsion.”14 Gellner suggests that ethnicity is neither a prerequisite nor a required element in the formation of nations. Gellner argues that the nation depends upon political and intellectual elite imposing a shared culture on the whole population in a territory particularly through the national education system. In this way, all the members of the nation have minimum flexibility to fulfill a variety of roles. Kohn15, like Gellner, argued that only nation-states could form the ideal form of political organisation as the source of all creative cultural energy and of economic well being. Therefore the supreme loyalty of man is to his nationality rather then his ethnicity. To sum up, Gellner suggests that nations are not a universal necessity like states. In other words Gellner has argued that states emerged without the help of the nations and therefore nations could not be prerequisite for the state. After, comparing the different perspectives of Gellner and Smith, this article suggests that Smith’s definition is more cohesive. For instance Smith suggests that the first modern states, namely Britain and France, had Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations, Vol.1, No.1, (Spring 2002) 6 founded around a dominant ethnie. Thus, because Britain and France were the dominant colonialist powers, they influenced their colonies as well as other communities with their Anglo-French state-nation model. In other words, as Smith argued, accordingly, historical priority of the Anglo-French state-nation model presented a basic model for the rest of the world how a national society and national state should be formed and sustained. Given the legacies of colonialism, this is a convincing argument. Moreover, the necessity of ethnic unity for the national survival is proved by the Yugoslavia example. Different ethnic communities without a coherent mythology, symbolism of history, culture and religion, could not form a national identity and unity under one state. Similarly the separation of the Republics into two different territories both by peaceful or militarily terms such as Cyprus and Czechoslovakia (that have two major different ethnic groups within one country) further supports this argument. Nationalism Having identified, conceptualised and compared the ethnicity and nation within the analysis of Smith and Gellner, now we are in a position to probe in greater detail the concept of “nationalism”. Arguably, Kohn’s definition of nationalism satisfies a good departure point on the conceptualisation of the term. Kohn defined nationalism as an idea that fills a man’s brain and heart with new thoughts and new sentiments, and drives him to translate his consciousness into deeds of organised action.16 Kohn argued that the growth of nationalism is the process of integration of the masses of the people into a common politicized form. Nationalism therefore presupposes the existence, in fact or as an ideal, of a centralised form of government. In his survey of discipline, Gellner’s diagnosis of nationalism seems quite different from Smith’s diagnosis. For instance, Gellner focus on specialism within society, rather than its ethnic roots, as the basis of the nationalism. The key assumptions of Gellner’s paradigm suggest three stages of the human history:17 1. Pre-agrarian society where hunting and gathering bands were too small to allow the kind of political divisions. 2. Agrarian society where only a minority of the population were specialists on military economic, political or religious. Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations, Vol.1, No.1, (Spring 2002) 7 3. Industrial society where and the state is the protector of the community and there are distinctive factors such as mobility, universal literacy and individualism. Gellner argued that in pre-agrarian and agrarian societies nationalism could not develop mainly because of the small size of the society where ethnic differences were neither visible nor thought of as the ideal political boundary and states. Moreover, cultural or political homogeneity did not represent any importance, because people were struggling with poverty and starvation during that period. Nevertheless, the transition to industrial society, could be also the transition to nationalism, because the violent readjustments in political and cultural boundaries could lead nationalism. In other words, according to Gellner, industrialisation created a culturally homogenous society that had egalitarian expectations and aspirations, which were not possible before industrialisation. Ultimately Gellner suggests that in the industrial age only high cultures will survive. This high culture will like and resemble each other more than ethnic cultures because cultural differences will diminish with globalisation, economic interdependence and co-operation and extended international communication systems. To epitomise, Gellner’s main assumption is that both nations and nationalism are inherently modern phenomena that emerged after the French revolution. Thus, modern conditions like industrialism, literacy, education systems, mass communications, secularism and capitalism shaped the nations and nationalism. Eventually, all the pre-modern eras, will end at modernity simply because industrial society is an inescapable phenomenon, whose productive system is based on cumulative science and technology. Therefore, Gellner argued that nationalism is the “new form of social organisation, that is based on deeply internalised, education-dependent high cultures each protected by its own state”. 18 Consequently, Gellner maintains that the new homogeneity that is created by the industrialisation and nationalism will reduce the chance of ethnic revival within the nation mainly because of the ‘strength’ and advanced organisational capabilities of new form of social organisation that stressed above. In contrast to Gellner, Smith defined nationalism as:19 An ideological movement for attaining and maintaining autonomy, unity and identity on behalf of a population deemed by some of its members to constitute an actual or potential nation. Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations, Vol.1, No.1, (Spring 2002) 10 that when a nation faced resistance from ethnic groups within the country, it could cope with it either by destroying them or granting them a degree of autonomy. Guibernau concluded “if state fails to do either of these, ethnies themselves may develop in the direction of ethnic nationalism, seeking to establish their own states”.25 Gellner like Smith does not deny the importance of ethnicity in nationalism. However according to Gellner the formation of new social organizations, where social life has an economic base and depends on high culture, is more important in the formation of nationalism than ethnicity. Another basic difference between two theorists is their preconditions for the development of nationalism. On one hand, Gellner stresses the importance and the necessity of the political and cultural proximity of the ethnic groups as the cause of nationalism, on the other, Smith stressed the importance of the pre-existing ethnies on nationalism. Some Contradictory Points of Gellner and Smith on Education, Violence and History So far, this article tried to elucidate the different analysis of Gellner and Smith on the relationship of ethnicity to nationalism. Thus what are the some other major points of contention between these two authors? In this section I will try to present some of the other major contradictions between Gellner and Smith related to nationalism, its origins and means. Three unit of analysis will limit this section: Education, violence and history. The first main contradiction between two authors is on their different approaches to ‘education’. Gellner defined the function of the education system as that entrusts loyal and competent members to the society whose occupancies will not be hampered by factional loyalties to sub groups within the total community.26 Gellner believed that identity of the individual is shaped by their education and by the culture. For instance he stated that “modern man is not loyal to a monarch or a land or a faith, whatever he may say, but to a culture”.27 In contrast, Smith argues that dominant literate culture could not assimilate ethnic groups by education system because these groups can survive only through maintaining the network of ethnic and tribal loyalties. One other contradiction between two authors is on their explanation of ‘violence’ that is caused by nationalism. Gellner argued that the most violent phase of nationalism could happen in early industrialism. The sharp political, economic and educational inequalities between ethnic groups could “impel new emerging units Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations, Vol.1, No.1, (Spring 2002) 11 to place themselves under ethnic banners”.28 Therefore Gellner argued that ethnic groups that industrialised earlier than the others could cause conflict if they try to implement their culture as a dominant culture. Gellner claims that during the industrialisation almost everyone feels unjustly treated for certain periods. At this stage if the ones who benefit more or early from industrialism, accept and help the ones who suffer from the industrialism; than as a consequence, nationalism could emerge. However, according to Smith violence is the product of demands for political recognition that stem from ethnic nationalism and from vice versa. Their different understanding of ‘history’ and myths also differentiates Gellner and Smith. Gellner attacks less importance to the common history and myth of ethnicity. Gellner asserts that the real history of a nation starts when they became a state. Therefore he argues that pre-state period is actually pre- historical. Conversely, Smith stresses the importance of myths and symbols for the unification of a population. Smith contends that myths and history, are the essential vehicles for the nation building. Critical Analysis of the Modernist Theory: What are the Weaknesses of Gellner’s Modernist Theory? In the previous sections this article have sought to clarify the key concepts on the relationship of ethnicity to nationalism, such as nation and ethnicity by comparing and contrast Ernest Gellner’s modernist approach to Anthony Smith’s ethno-centric approach. Simply it has been implied that Smith provides a better theoretical explanation of the relationship between ethnicity and nationalism. In this section, I will provide further evidence to supplement this argument. Nevertheless, it should be noted that this chapter supplements the previous argument. Therefore, although, it should be more analytical to examine the criticisms of Smith’s approach, such analysis is beyond the scope of this paper mainly because of the limited space available in this article. Initially, Gellner argued that nationalism and the sovereign nation-state system is a comparatively new phenomenon that emerged in the late eighteenth century after the French revolution. However, this implies that Gellner and other modernists generally ignore the period in which communities transform to modernity. They overlook ethnic social and cultural elements in the formation of nations. As Smith argues, it is also possible to see the growth of national sentiments that transcend ethnic ties back to the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. For instance, as Archer stressed, the Peace of Westphalia (1648), that ended the Thirty Years Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations, Vol.1, No.1, (Spring 2002) 12 War, and Treaty of Utrecht in 1713, laid the basis for the sovereign state system in Europe, that extended to the rest of the world.29 In other words, the ‘Westphalia conception’ includes the idea that national governments are the basic source of order in international society. Thus as emphasised by Smith most modernists fail to understand and explain the relevance of pre-modern ethnic ties and sentiments in providing a base for the nation. Secondly, Gellner advances that industrialisation will create a culturally homogenous society. Moreover Gellner claimed that men would like this new culture because now they ‘perceive’ a cultural atmosphere instead of taking it for ‘granted’. Therefore, pre-existing cultures would gradually disappear during the process of the formation of a nation-state. This paper has argued that the establishment of the new institutions (or as Smith defined it, “national myth” of the dominant ethnie) does not necessarily mean the abolition of the pre-modern cultures and traditions. In contrast, it could promote an ethnic culture like the strong revival of Catalan culture and the expose of Catalan language publications during Franco’s repression. Thirdly, Gellner claims that ethnic nationalism can not revive in industrially advanced countries. However, as Smith highlights, ethnic nationalism could occur in a less violent form even in most advanced industrial societies like Quebec of Canada and Catalina of Spain. Recently, devolution in Scotland and Wales of the United Kingdom is another example. Gellner’s theory fails to explain these ethnic-based movements that developed independently from modernity and industrialisation along with the recent escalation of ethnic nationalism in Germany (that is one of the most advanced industrial country of the world) especially against Turkish and other ethnic groups. Fourthly, Gellner support that with modernity, there will be better socio-economic living standards for the nation. For instance there will be greater access to education, jobs, better housing, and health care. Furthermore, the cultural differences between nations will ease with globalisation, international economy, economic co-operation and extended communication systems. Therefore, nationalism will not be able to develop because ethnic, political and cultural differences will ‘disappear’ as the great majority of citizens in developed countries increasingly gain access to the modern-global ‘high culture.’ However, arguably, it is highly debatable whether the ‘majority of the citizens’ in developed countries will have (equal) access to all that facilities that Gellner stressed. Moreover, Gellner ignored the fact that what will happen, if discrimination is exercised against poorer and less educated ethnic communities. What will happens if an industrialised class