theories of nationalism.
i'm not sure where to post this thread, since there are no existing subforums dedicated to sociology or anthropology.
to the point; since this is a nationalist forum, i thought it was about time that we discuss the theories of nationalism. i was not able to find a thread on the subject, which i find quite absurd considering the core and scope of the forum. i had in mind discussing the legitimity of nationalism, the consequences, the origins of nationalism and of course the various models and paradigms scholars have created. i presume everyone on the forum are well-acquainted with the theories since 95% of the users tend to call themselves nationalists.
anyways, here is a quick summarization;
on one side are the "modernist" theories developed by ernest gellner, eric hobsbawm, benedict anderson etc. nationalism is a consequence of modernity, the nation-state is construced and the concept of nationalism is invented for political (mis)use.
and on the other side are the perennialists and primordialists advocating a view of nationalism as rooted in ancient traditions and a shared destiny. i'm not sure how many scholars advocate this view (aviel roshwald?). this view is controversiel and i can only presume that most of the users on this forum identify with these theories.
the ethnosymbolist anthony d. smith places himself in the middle and argues that nationalism is primarily a modern invention but has some ancient roots and traditions.
personally, i'm not sure what to think. i don't consider myself an expert on the subject, so please contribute and discuss if you have any ideas, thoughts and views and most likely we'll all benefit from it.
|