172 The Nature of Political Theoryan inherently irrationalist doctrine. Both liberal and democratic socialist theories,
particularly, self-consciously developed more internationalist stances. The second
approach dates originally from the early nineteenth century. This sees a positive value
to nationalism. In nineteenth century writers, such as Mazzini, Renan, Herder, and
J. S. Mill, amongst others, there was a strong sense of liberation attached to nation-
alism. Nationalism implied the emancipation of cultures. Yet, the later nineteenth
century and early twentieth century also saw the growth of authoritarian, conservat-
ive, and later fascist forms of nationalism. This latter development, in many ways,
delivered a body blow to the ‘liberal’ patina of nationalist ideas. Liberation and self-
determination were still embedded in the argument, but the focus had shifted to
something more ominous.
However, two additional factors in recent years have highlighted the profile of
nationalism. Paradoxically, most current positive arguments for nationalism now
acknowledge that it embodies a heterogeneous cluster of perspectives. In this sense,
it is accepted that there are vicious and unpleasant variants of nationalism, as well as
sympathetic liberal forms.^1 This was not envisaged by the early nineteenth century
nationalist writers. Thus, nationalism appears as a much more varied pattern of
thought than previously imagined. Second, many have also seen a conceptual link
between forms of nationalism and liberal values such as freedom, democracy, and
popular sovereignty. Consequently, since the collapse of the Berlin wall in 1989, and
the changing political landscape of international and domestic politics, there has
been once again a surge of theoretical and practical interest in nationalism. Not only
are vast amounts being written about it by the academy, from both empirical and
normative perspectives, but also it has once again become an important player in
world politics.
Post-1945 liberal theory (up to 1989) tended to take a dim view of nationalism,
fortuitously a view shared with Marxist internationalism. The only exceptions to this
were the socially acceptable liberationist and secessionist anti-colonial nationalisms.
For liberals, like Hayek, collectivities such as states, which can be juridically ration-
alized, are problematic enough, but collectivities such as nations, which often appear
to play upon irrationalism, are beyond the pale. The most that classical liberal writers
have usually been prepared to admit is that collectivities, such as nations, are fictional
aggregates of individuals which, occasionally, could be said to have some form of
wholly artificial identity.
By way of introduction, there are two further issues to mention briefly. One is
that academic writing about nationalism is very different from its usage in political
practice. It is an oft noted point that nationalism, over the last century, has often
been theoretically naïve, but immensely powerful in political practice. Thus, theoret-
ical incoherence is combined with political power.^2 The second, related point (which
expands and explains the first) is that the concept of the nation and the doctrine of
nationalism may not, in fact, be theorizable. This latter point encompasses issues con-
cerning, for example, the irrationality of nationalism. Both nationalists and scholars
of nationalism have contributed to this latter account. The roots of the ‘untheorizable’
idea lie in nineteenth and early twentieth century romantic, vitalist, and intuitivist