We have talked of ‘nations’ but what then of ‘nationalism’? Again, we have
competing understandings of nationalism:
It is a theory of political legitimacy, which requires that ethnic boundaries should
not cut across political ones, and in particular, that ethnic boundaries within a
given state... should not separate the power holders from the rest.
(Ernest Gellner, 1983: 1)
Nationalism is a doctrine invented in Europe at the beginning of the nineteenth
century. It pretends to supply the criterion for the determination of the unit of
population proper to enjoy a government exclusively of its own, for the legitimate
exercise of power in the state and for the right organisation of a society of states.
Briefly, the doctrine holds that humanity is naturally divided into nations, that
nations are known by certain characteristics which can be ascertained, and that
the only legitimate type of government is national self-government.
(Elie Kedourie, 1993: 9)
By nationalism I mean the sentiment of belonging to a community whose members
identify with a set of symbols, beliefs and ways of life and have the will to decide
upon their common political destiny.
(Montserrat Guibernau, 1996: 47)
Whereas the term ‘nation’ refers to some kind of entity, ‘nationalism’ would
appear to be a body of doctrine, theory or beliefs about the nation, its historical
significance and moral importance.
Political theorists, who tend to operate with universalistconcepts such as human
nature, freedom, equality and justice, have found it difficult to explain nationalism,
which is, essentially, particularist– that is, it assumes that national boundaries are
morally significant. At best, nationalism has been incorporated into other ideologies,
such as liberalism or socialism, as a derivative concern. For example, liberals or
socialists may argue that all human beings are equally worthy of moral concern,
but the world is a better place if it is organised into nations – world government
would be inefficient, or dangerous, because it would concentrate rather than disperse
power. It might be possible to reconcile nationalism and universalism if we
distinguish the appropriate level at which universal treatment should hold. Rather
than argue that all individuals should be equal citizens under some kind of world
regime we could advocate universal nationalism: the world is divided up into nation-
states, each of which carries a significant level of responsibility for its citizens, but
all nations have equal standing in the world. We might seek to limit the powers of
individual states by maintaining that individuals have rights simply in virtue of being
human (universal human rights), and furthermore that there are some duties to
redistribute wealth between states (global justice).
As a starting point to the debate in political theory over nationalism we can say
that all nationalisms have three characteristics: they imply a relationship of an
individual to the collective that is in significant ways non-voluntary; they entail
partiality; and they involve exclusion. So, you may be free to leave your country
but you never chose to be a citizen of your country, unless you are a naturalised
citizen. And, as a citizen you stand in a special relationship to your country:
nationalism implies you arepermittedto be ‘partial’ to your compatriots (some
types of nationalism may entail a requirementto show partiality). Finally, although262 Part 2 Classical ideologies