Ernest Gellner - Nationalism

Nationalism

In 1983, Gellner published Nations and Nationalism. For Gellner, "nationalism is primarily a political principle that holds that the political and the national unit should be congruent". Nationalism only appeared and, Gellner argues, became a sociological necessity in the modern world. In previous times ("the agro-literate" stage of history) rulers had little incentive to impose cultural homogeneity on the ruled. But in modern society, work becomes technical. One must operate a machine, and as such one must learn. There is a need for impersonal, context-free communication and a high degree of cultural standardisation.

Furthermore, industrial society is underlined by the fact that there is perpetual growth - employment types vary and new skills must be learned. Thus, generic employment training precedes specialised job training. On a territorial level, there is competition for the overlapping catchment areas (e.g. Alsace-Lorraine). To maintain its grip on resources, and its survival and progress, the state and culture must for these reasons be congruent. Nationalism therefore is a necessity.

Criticisms of Gellner's theory:

• It is too functionalist. Critics charge that Gellner explains the phenomenon with reference to the eventual historical outcome—industrial society could not 'function' without nationalism. (Tambini 1996)
• It misreads the relationship between nationalism and industrialization. (Smith 1998)
• It accounts poorly for national movements of ancient Rome, Greece, etc. claiming an alum type argument; insisting that nationalism is tied in 'modernity' and cannot exist without a clearly defined modern industrialization. (Smith 1995)
• It fails to account for nationalism in non-industrial society and resurgences of nationalism in post-industrial societies. (Smith 1998)
• It cannot explain the passions generated by nationalism. Why should anyone fight and die for his country? (Connor 1993)
• It fails to take into account the role of war and the military in fostering both cultural homogenization and nationalism, ignoring in particular the relationship between militarism and compulsory education. (Conversi 2007)