Liberal nationalism: An irresponsible compound?

Political Studies

Volumn 45, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 275-295

  Vincent, Andrew ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0010017818     PISSN: 00323217     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1467-9248.00081     Document Type: Article

References (108)

1. I would like to thank all my referees on this article for their liberal and open-minded responses.
2. One of the more popular theories, which is widely quoted in the recent literature, is by Miroslav Hroch. He sees three definite historical phases. First, nationalism is embodied in nineteenth-century folklore, custom and the like. This is essentially a cultural idea, fostered by the middle and upper classes, with little or no political implication. Secondly, nationalism is pursued as a political campaign. It is usually connected with and fostered by political parties. Finally, nationalism becomes translated into mass support and mass movements. Each of these phases is linked by Hroch to economic and cultural changes, see Miroslav Hroch, Social Preconditions of National Revival in Europe: a Comparative Analysis of the Social Composition of Patriotic Groups among Smaller European Nations (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1985).
3. Lord Acton in the nineteenth century distinguished between two forms - French and English, see Lord Acton, Essays on Freedom and Power (Boston, Beacon, 1948), pp. 183-4. The earliest and most influential twofold classification was Hans Kohn's Western and Eastern nationalisms, Hans Kohn, Idea of Nationalism: a Study in its Origins and Background (New York, Macmillan, 1945); John Plamenatz follows roughly in the same path in 'Two Types of Nationalism' in E. Kamenka (ed.), Nationalism: the Evolution of an Idea (London, Edward Arnold. 1976), pp. 22-36. Friedrich Meinecke distinguished Staatsnation and Kulturnation, see Meinecke, Cosmopolitanism and the Nation State (New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1970); see also Kenneth Minogue, Nationalism (London, Batsford, 1969), p. 13; Anthony D. Smith distinguishes 'territorial' from 'ethnic' nations in The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford, Blackwell, 1986), pp. 134-8. In many of the twofold classifications there is usually a fierce desire to keep Western, more liberal-minded nationalism distinct from the nationalism associated with Fascism and national socialism, see Kohn, Idea of Nationalism, p. 351; Yael Tamir, Liberal Nationalism (New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1993). p. 90; A. D. Smith, Theories of Nationalism (London and New York, Torchbooks Library, 1971), p. 7 and Nationalism in the Twentieth Century (Canberra, Australian National University Press, 1979), pp. 83-5. This twofold classification will form the key theme of this paper. There are threefold typologies in Kellas who distinguishes ethnic, social and official nationalism, Kellas, Politics of Nationalism and Ethnicity (New York, St. Martin's Press, 1991), p. 52; Peter Alter's Risorgimento, integral and reform nationalisms. Alter, Nationalism (London, Edward Arnold, 1989). There are fourfold classifications, see L. Snyder, The Meaning of Nationalism (New Brunswick and New Jersey, Rutgers University Press, 1954). ch. 5. Carlton Hayes uses a fivefold classification: Jacobin; liberal; traditionalist; economic protectionist; and integral totalitarian, see Hayes, Essays in Nationalism (New York, Macmillan, 1926) and The Historical Evolution of Modern Nationalism (New York, Macmillan, 1949).
4. Lord Acton in the nineteenth century distinguished between two forms - French and English, see Lord Acton, Essays on Freedom and Power (Boston, Beacon, 1948), pp. 183-4. The earliest and most influential twofold classification was Hans Kohn's Western and Eastern nationalisms, Hans Kohn, Idea of Nationalism: a Study in its Origins and Background (New York, Macmillan, 1945); John Plamenatz follows roughly in the same path in 'Two Types of Nationalism' in E. Kamenka (ed.), Nationalism: the Evolution of an Idea (London, Edward Arnold. 1976), pp. 22-36. Friedrich Meinecke distinguished Staatsnation and Kulturnation, see Meinecke, Cosmopolitanism and the Nation State (New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1970); see also Kenneth Minogue, Nationalism (London, Batsford, 1969), p. 13; Anthony D. Smith distinguishes 'territorial' from 'ethnic' nations in The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford, Blackwell, 1986), pp. 134-8. In many of the twofold classifications there is usually a fierce desire to keep Western, more liberal-minded nationalism distinct from the nationalism associated with Fascism and national socialism, see Kohn, Idea of Nationalism, p. 351; Yael Tamir, Liberal Nationalism (New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1993). p. 90; A. D. Smith, Theories of Nationalism (London and New York, Torchbooks Library, 1971), p. 7 and Nationalism in the Twentieth Century (Canberra, Australian National University Press, 1979), pp. 83-5. This twofold classification will form the key theme of this paper. There are threefold typologies in Kellas who distinguishes ethnic, social and official nationalism, Kellas, Politics of Nationalism and Ethnicity (New York, St. Martin's Press, 1991), p. 52; Peter Alter's Risorgimento, integral and reform nationalisms. Alter, Nationalism (London, Edward Arnold, 1989). There are fourfold classifications, see L. Snyder, The Meaning of Nationalism (New Brunswick and New Jersey, Rutgers University Press, 1954). ch. 5. Carlton Hayes uses a fivefold classification: Jacobin; liberal; traditionalist; economic protectionist; and integral totalitarian, see Hayes, Essays in Nationalism (New York, Macmillan, 1926) and The Historical Evolution of Modern Nationalism (New York, Macmillan, 1949).
5. Lord Acton in the nineteenth century distinguished between two forms - French and English, see Lord Acton, Essays on Freedom and Power (Boston, Beacon, 1948), pp. 183-4. The earliest and most influential twofold classification was Hans Kohn's Western and Eastern nationalisms, Hans Kohn, Idea of Nationalism: a Study in its Origins and Background (New York, Macmillan, 1945); John Plamenatz follows roughly in the same path in 'Two Types of Nationalism' in E. Kamenka (ed.), Nationalism: the Evolution of an Idea (London, Edward Arnold. 1976), pp. 22-36. Friedrich Meinecke distinguished Staatsnation and Kulturnation, see Meinecke, Cosmopolitanism and the Nation State (New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1970); see also Kenneth Minogue, Nationalism (London, Batsford, 1969), p. 13; Anthony D. Smith distinguishes 'territorial' from 'ethnic' nations in The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford, Blackwell, 1986), pp. 134-8. In many of the twofold classifications there is usually a fierce desire to keep Western, more liberal-minded nationalism distinct from the nationalism associated with Fascism and national socialism, see Kohn, Idea of Nationalism, p. 351; Yael Tamir, Liberal Nationalism (New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1993). p. 90; A. D. Smith, Theories of Nationalism (London and New York, Torchbooks Library, 1971), p. 7 and Nationalism in the Twentieth Century (Canberra, Australian National University Press, 1979), pp. 83-5. This twofold classification will form the key theme of this paper. There are threefold typologies in Kellas who distinguishes ethnic, social and official nationalism, Kellas, Politics of Nationalism and Ethnicity (New York, St. Martin's Press, 1991), p. 52; Peter Alter's Risorgimento, integral and reform nationalisms. Alter, Nationalism (London, Edward Arnold, 1989). There are fourfold classifications, see L. Snyder, The Meaning of Nationalism (New Brunswick and New Jersey, Rutgers University Press, 1954). ch. 5. Carlton Hayes uses a fivefold classification: Jacobin; liberal; traditionalist; economic protectionist; and integral totalitarian, see Hayes, Essays in Nationalism (New York, Macmillan, 1926) and The Historical Evolution of Modern Nationalism (New York, Macmillan, 1949).
6. Lord Acton in the nineteenth century distinguished between two forms - French and English, see Lord Acton, Essays on Freedom and Power (Boston, Beacon, 1948), pp. 183-4. The earliest and most influential twofold classification was Hans Kohn's Western and Eastern nationalisms, Hans Kohn, Idea of Nationalism: a Study in its Origins and Background (New York, Macmillan, 1945); John Plamenatz follows roughly in the same path in 'Two Types of Nationalism' in E. Kamenka (ed.), Nationalism: the Evolution of an Idea (London, Edward Arnold. 1976), pp. 22-36. Friedrich Meinecke distinguished Staatsnation and Kulturnation, see Meinecke, Cosmopolitanism and the Nation State (New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1970); see also Kenneth Minogue, Nationalism (London, Batsford, 1969), p. 13; Anthony D. Smith distinguishes 'territorial' from 'ethnic' nations in The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford, Blackwell, 1986), pp. 134-8. In many of the twofold classifications there is usually a fierce desire to keep Western, more liberal-minded nationalism distinct from the nationalism associated with Fascism and national socialism, see Kohn, Idea of Nationalism, p. 351; Yael Tamir, Liberal Nationalism (New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1993). p. 90; A. D. Smith, Theories of Nationalism (London and New York, Torchbooks Library, 1971), p. 7 and Nationalism in the Twentieth Century (Canberra, Australian National University Press, 1979), pp. 83-5. This twofold classification will form the key theme of this paper. There are threefold typologies in Kellas who distinguishes ethnic, social and official nationalism, Kellas, Politics of Nationalism and Ethnicity (New York, St. Martin's Press, 1991), p. 52; Peter Alter's Risorgimento, integral and reform nationalisms. Alter, Nationalism (London, Edward Arnold, 1989). There are fourfold classifications, see L. Snyder, The Meaning of Nationalism (New Brunswick and New Jersey, Rutgers University Press, 1954). ch. 5. Carlton Hayes uses a fivefold classification: Jacobin; liberal; traditionalist; economic protectionist; and integral totalitarian, see Hayes, Essays in Nationalism (New York, Macmillan, 1926) and The Historical Evolution of Modern Nationalism (New York, Macmillan, 1949).
7. Lord Acton in the nineteenth century distinguished between two forms - French and English, see Lord Acton, Essays on Freedom and Power (Boston, Beacon, 1948), pp. 183-4. The earliest and most influential twofold classification was Hans Kohn's Western and Eastern nationalisms, Hans Kohn, Idea of Nationalism: a Study in its Origins and Background (New York, Macmillan, 1945); John Plamenatz follows roughly in the same path in 'Two Types of Nationalism' in E. Kamenka (ed.), Nationalism: the Evolution of an Idea (London, Edward Arnold. 1976), pp. 22-36. Friedrich Meinecke distinguished Staatsnation and Kulturnation, see Meinecke, Cosmopolitanism and the Nation State (New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1970); see also Kenneth Minogue, Nationalism (London, Batsford, 1969), p. 13; Anthony D. Smith distinguishes 'territorial' from 'ethnic' nations in The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford, Blackwell, 1986), pp. 134-8. In many of the twofold classifications there is usually a fierce desire to keep Western, more liberal-minded nationalism distinct from the nationalism associated with Fascism and national socialism, see Kohn, Idea of Nationalism, p. 351; Yael Tamir, Liberal Nationalism (New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1993). p. 90; A. D. Smith, Theories of Nationalism (London and New York, Torchbooks Library, 1971), p. 7 and Nationalism in the Twentieth Century (Canberra, Australian National University Press, 1979), pp. 83-5. This twofold classification will form the key theme of this paper. There are threefold typologies in Kellas who distinguishes ethnic, social and official nationalism, Kellas, Politics of Nationalism and Ethnicity (New York, St. Martin's Press, 1991), p. 52; Peter Alter's Risorgimento, integral and reform nationalisms. Alter, Nationalism (London, Edward Arnold, 1989). There are fourfold classifications, see L. Snyder, The Meaning of Nationalism (New Brunswick and New Jersey, Rutgers University Press, 1954). ch. 5. Carlton Hayes uses a fivefold classification: Jacobin; liberal; traditionalist; economic protectionist; and integral totalitarian, see Hayes, Essays in Nationalism (New York, Macmillan, 1926) and The Historical Evolution of Modern Nationalism (New York, Macmillan, 1949).
8. Lord Acton in the nineteenth century distinguished between two forms - French and English, see Lord Acton, Essays on Freedom and Power (Boston, Beacon, 1948), pp. 183-4. The earliest and most influential twofold classification was Hans Kohn's Western and Eastern nationalisms, Hans Kohn, Idea of Nationalism: a Study in its Origins and Background (New York, Macmillan, 1945); John Plamenatz follows roughly in the same path in 'Two Types of Nationalism' in E. Kamenka (ed.), Nationalism: the Evolution of an Idea (London, Edward Arnold. 1976), pp. 22-36. Friedrich Meinecke distinguished Staatsnation and Kulturnation, see Meinecke, Cosmopolitanism and the Nation State (New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1970); see also Kenneth Minogue, Nationalism (London, Batsford, 1969), p. 13; Anthony D. Smith distinguishes 'territorial' from 'ethnic' nations in The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford, Blackwell, 1986), pp. 134-8. In many of the twofold classifications there is usually a fierce desire to keep Western, more liberal-minded nationalism distinct from the nationalism associated with Fascism and national socialism, see Kohn, Idea of Nationalism, p. 351; Yael Tamir, Liberal Nationalism (New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1993). p. 90; A. D. Smith, Theories of Nationalism (London and New York, Torchbooks Library, 1971), p. 7 and Nationalism in the Twentieth Century (Canberra, Australian National University Press, 1979), pp. 83-5. This twofold classification will form the key theme of this paper. There are threefold typologies in Kellas who distinguishes ethnic, social and official nationalism, Kellas, Politics of Nationalism and Ethnicity (New York, St. Martin's Press, 1991), p. 52; Peter Alter's Risorgimento, integral and reform nationalisms. Alter, Nationalism (London, Edward Arnold, 1989). There are fourfold classifications, see L. Snyder, The Meaning of Nationalism (New Brunswick and New Jersey, Rutgers University Press, 1954). ch. 5. Carlton Hayes uses a fivefold classification: Jacobin; liberal; traditionalist; economic protectionist; and integral totalitarian, see Hayes, Essays in Nationalism (New York, Macmillan, 1926) and The Historical Evolution of Modern Nationalism (New York, Macmillan, 1949).
9. Lord Acton in the nineteenth century distinguished between two forms - French and English, see Lord Acton, Essays on Freedom and Power (Boston, Beacon, 1948), pp. 183-4. The earliest and most influential twofold classification was Hans Kohn's Western and Eastern nationalisms, Hans Kohn, Idea of Nationalism: a Study in its Origins and Background (New York, Macmillan, 1945); John Plamenatz follows roughly in the same path in 'Two Types of Nationalism' in E. Kamenka (ed.), Nationalism: the Evolution of an Idea (London, Edward Arnold. 1976), pp. 22-36. Friedrich Meinecke distinguished Staatsnation and Kulturnation, see Meinecke, Cosmopolitanism and the Nation State (New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1970); see also Kenneth Minogue, Nationalism (London, Batsford, 1969), p. 13; Anthony D. Smith distinguishes 'territorial' from 'ethnic' nations in The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford, Blackwell, 1986), pp. 134-8. In many of the twofold classifications there is usually a fierce desire to keep Western, more liberal-minded nationalism distinct from the nationalism associated with Fascism and national socialism, see Kohn, Idea of Nationalism, p. 351; Yael Tamir, Liberal Nationalism (New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1993). p. 90; A. D. Smith, Theories of Nationalism (London and New York, Torchbooks Library, 1971), p. 7 and Nationalism in the Twentieth Century (Canberra, Australian National University Press, 1979), pp. 83-5. This twofold classification will form the key theme of this paper. There are threefold typologies in Kellas who distinguishes ethnic, social and official nationalism, Kellas, Politics of Nationalism and Ethnicity (New York, St. Martin's Press, 1991), p. 52; Peter Alter's Risorgimento, integral and reform nationalisms. Alter, Nationalism (London, Edward Arnold, 1989). There are fourfold classifications, see L. Snyder, The Meaning of Nationalism (New Brunswick and New Jersey, Rutgers University Press, 1954). ch. 5. Carlton Hayes uses a fivefold classification: Jacobin; liberal; traditionalist; economic protectionist; and integral totalitarian, see Hayes, Essays in Nationalism (New York, Macmillan, 1926) and The Historical Evolution of Modern Nationalism (New York, Macmillan, 1949).
10. Lord Acton in the nineteenth century distinguished between two forms - French and English, see Lord Acton, Essays on Freedom and Power (Boston, Beacon, 1948), pp. 183-4. The earliest and most influential twofold classification was Hans Kohn's Western and Eastern nationalisms, Hans Kohn, Idea of Nationalism: a Study in its Origins and Background (New York, Macmillan, 1945); John Plamenatz follows roughly in the same path in 'Two Types of Nationalism' in E. Kamenka (ed.), Nationalism: the Evolution of an Idea (London, Edward Arnold. 1976), pp. 22-36. Friedrich Meinecke distinguished Staatsnation and Kulturnation, see Meinecke, Cosmopolitanism and the Nation State (New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1970); see also Kenneth Minogue, Nationalism (London, Batsford, 1969), p. 13; Anthony D. Smith distinguishes 'territorial' from 'ethnic' nations in The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford, Blackwell, 1986), pp. 134-8. In many of the twofold classifications there is usually a fierce desire to keep Western, more liberal-minded nationalism distinct from the nationalism associated with Fascism and national socialism, see Kohn, Idea of Nationalism, p. 351; Yael Tamir, Liberal Nationalism (New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1993). p. 90; A. D. Smith, Theories of Nationalism (London and New York, Torchbooks Library, 1971), p. 7 and Nationalism in the Twentieth Century (Canberra, Australian National University Press, 1979), pp. 83-5. This twofold classification will form the key theme of this paper. There are threefold typologies in Kellas who distinguishes ethnic, social and official nationalism, Kellas, Politics of Nationalism and Ethnicity (New York, St. Martin's Press, 1991), p. 52; Peter Alter's Risorgimento, integral and reform nationalisms. Alter, Nationalism (London, Edward Arnold, 1989). There are fourfold classifications, see L. Snyder, The Meaning of Nationalism (New Brunswick and New Jersey, Rutgers University Press, 1954). ch. 5. Carlton Hayes uses a fivefold classification: Jacobin; liberal; traditionalist; economic protectionist; and integral totalitarian, see Hayes, Essays in Nationalism (New York, Macmillan, 1926) and The Historical Evolution of Modern Nationalism (New York, Macmillan, 1949).
11. Lord Acton in the nineteenth century distinguished between two forms - French and English, see Lord Acton, Essays on Freedom and Power (Boston, Beacon, 1948), pp. 183-4. The earliest and most influential twofold classification was Hans Kohn's Western and Eastern nationalisms, Hans Kohn, Idea of Nationalism: a Study in its Origins and Background (New York, Macmillan, 1945); John Plamenatz follows roughly in the same path in 'Two Types of Nationalism' in E. Kamenka (ed.), Nationalism: the Evolution of an Idea (London, Edward Arnold. 1976), pp. 22-36. Friedrich Meinecke distinguished Staatsnation and Kulturnation, see Meinecke, Cosmopolitanism and the Nation State (New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1970); see also Kenneth Minogue, Nationalism (London, Batsford, 1969), p. 13; Anthony D. Smith distinguishes 'territorial' from 'ethnic' nations in The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford, Blackwell, 1986), pp. 134-8. In many of the twofold classifications there is usually a fierce desire to keep Western, more liberal-minded nationalism distinct from the nationalism associated with Fascism and national socialism, see Kohn, Idea of Nationalism, p. 351; Yael Tamir, Liberal Nationalism (New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1993). p. 90; A. D. Smith, Theories of Nationalism (London and New York, Torchbooks Library, 1971), p. 7 and Nationalism in the Twentieth Century (Canberra, Australian National University Press, 1979), pp. 83-5. This twofold classification will form the key theme of this paper. There are threefold typologies in Kellas who distinguishes ethnic, social and official nationalism, Kellas, Politics of Nationalism and Ethnicity (New York, St. Martin's Press, 1991), p. 52; Peter Alter's Risorgimento, integral and reform nationalisms. Alter, Nationalism (London, Edward Arnold, 1989). There are fourfold classifications, see L. Snyder, The Meaning of Nationalism (New Brunswick and New Jersey, Rutgers University Press, 1954). ch. 5. Carlton Hayes uses a fivefold classification: Jacobin; liberal; traditionalist; economic protectionist; and integral totalitarian, see Hayes, Essays in Nationalism (New York, Macmillan, 1926) and The Historical Evolution of Modern Nationalism (New York, Macmillan, 1949).
12. Lord Acton in the nineteenth century distinguished between two forms - French and English, see Lord Acton, Essays on Freedom and Power (Boston, Beacon, 1948), pp. 183-4. The earliest and most influential twofold classification was Hans Kohn's Western and Eastern nationalisms, Hans Kohn, Idea of Nationalism: a Study in its Origins and Background (New York, Macmillan, 1945); John Plamenatz follows roughly in the same path in 'Two Types of Nationalism' in E. Kamenka (ed.), Nationalism: the Evolution of an Idea (London, Edward Arnold. 1976), pp. 22-36. Friedrich Meinecke distinguished Staatsnation and Kulturnation, see Meinecke, Cosmopolitanism and the Nation State (New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1970); see also Kenneth Minogue, Nationalism (London, Batsford, 1969), p. 13; Anthony D. Smith distinguishes 'territorial' from 'ethnic' nations in The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford, Blackwell, 1986), pp. 134-8. In many of the twofold classifications there is usually a fierce desire to keep Western, more liberal-minded nationalism distinct from the nationalism associated with Fascism and national socialism, see Kohn, Idea of Nationalism, p. 351; Yael Tamir, Liberal Nationalism (New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1993). p. 90; A. D. Smith, Theories of Nationalism (London and New York, Torchbooks Library, 1971), p. 7 and Nationalism in the Twentieth Century (Canberra, Australian National University Press, 1979), pp. 83-5. This twofold classification will form the key theme of this paper. There are threefold typologies in Kellas who distinguishes ethnic, social and official nationalism, Kellas, Politics of Nationalism and Ethnicity (New York, St. Martin's Press, 1991), p. 52; Peter Alter's Risorgimento, integral and reform nationalisms. Alter, Nationalism (London, Edward Arnold, 1989). There are fourfold classifications, see L. Snyder, The Meaning of Nationalism (New Brunswick and New Jersey, Rutgers University Press, 1954). ch. 5. Carlton Hayes uses a fivefold classification: Jacobin; liberal; traditionalist; economic protectionist; and integral totalitarian, see Hayes, Essays in Nationalism (New York, Macmillan, 1926) and The Historical Evolution of Modern Nationalism (New York, Macmillan, 1949).
13. Lord Acton in the nineteenth century distinguished between two forms - French and English, see Lord Acton, Essays on Freedom and Power (Boston, Beacon, 1948), pp. 183-4. The earliest and most influential twofold classification was Hans Kohn's Western and Eastern nationalisms, Hans Kohn, Idea of Nationalism: a Study in its Origins and Background (New York, Macmillan, 1945); John Plamenatz follows roughly in the same path in 'Two Types of Nationalism' in E. Kamenka (ed.), Nationalism: the Evolution of an Idea (London, Edward Arnold. 1976), pp. 22-36. Friedrich Meinecke distinguished Staatsnation and Kulturnation, see Meinecke, Cosmopolitanism and the Nation State (New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1970); see also Kenneth Minogue, Nationalism (London, Batsford, 1969), p. 13; Anthony D. Smith distinguishes 'territorial' from 'ethnic' nations in The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford, Blackwell, 1986), pp. 134-8. In many of the twofold classifications there is usually a fierce desire to keep Western, more liberal-minded nationalism distinct from the nationalism associated with Fascism and national socialism, see Kohn, Idea of Nationalism, p. 351; Yael Tamir, Liberal Nationalism (New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1993). p. 90; A. D. Smith, Theories of Nationalism (London and New York, Torchbooks Library, 1971), p. 7 and Nationalism in the Twentieth Century (Canberra, Australian National University Press, 1979), pp. 83-5. This twofold classification will form the key theme of this paper. There are threefold typologies in Kellas who distinguishes ethnic, social and official nationalism, Kellas, Politics of Nationalism and Ethnicity (New York, St. Martin's Press, 1991), p. 52; Peter Alter's Risorgimento, integral and reform nationalisms. Alter, Nationalism (London, Edward Arnold, 1989). There are fourfold classifications, see L. Snyder, The Meaning of Nationalism (New Brunswick and New Jersey, Rutgers University Press, 1954). ch. 5. Carlton Hayes uses a fivefold classification: Jacobin; liberal; traditionalist; economic protectionist; and integral totalitarian, see Hayes, Essays in Nationalism (New York, Macmillan, 1926) and The Historical Evolution of Modern Nationalism (New York, Macmillan, 1949).
14. Lord Acton in the nineteenth century distinguished between two forms - French and English, see Lord Acton, Essays on Freedom and Power (Boston, Beacon, 1948), pp. 183-4. The earliest and most influential twofold classification was Hans Kohn's Western and Eastern nationalisms, Hans Kohn, Idea of Nationalism: a Study in its Origins and Background (New York, Macmillan, 1945); John Plamenatz follows roughly in the same path in 'Two Types of Nationalism' in E. Kamenka (ed.), Nationalism: the Evolution of an Idea (London, Edward Arnold. 1976), pp. 22-36. Friedrich Meinecke distinguished Staatsnation and Kulturnation, see Meinecke, Cosmopolitanism and the Nation State (New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1970); see also Kenneth Minogue, Nationalism (London, Batsford, 1969), p. 13; Anthony D. Smith distinguishes 'territorial' from 'ethnic' nations in The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford, Blackwell, 1986), pp. 134-8. In many of the twofold classifications there is usually a fierce desire to keep Western, more liberal-minded nationalism distinct from the nationalism associated with Fascism and national socialism, see Kohn, Idea of Nationalism, p. 351; Yael Tamir, Liberal Nationalism (New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1993). p. 90; A. D. Smith, Theories of Nationalism (London and New York, Torchbooks Library, 1971), p. 7 and Nationalism in the Twentieth Century (Canberra, Australian National University Press, 1979), pp. 83-5. This twofold classification will form the key theme of this paper. There are threefold typologies in Kellas who distinguishes ethnic, social and official nationalism, Kellas, Politics of Nationalism and Ethnicity (New York, St. Martin's Press, 1991), p. 52; Peter Alter's Risorgimento, integral and reform nationalisms. Alter, Nationalism (London, Edward Arnold, 1989). There are fourfold classifications, see L. Snyder, The Meaning of Nationalism (New Brunswick and New Jersey, Rutgers University Press, 1954). ch. 5. Carlton Hayes uses a fivefold classification: Jacobin; liberal; traditionalist; economic protectionist; and integral totalitarian, see Hayes, Essays in Nationalism (New York, Macmillan, 1926) and The Historical Evolution of Modern Nationalism (New York, Macmillan, 1949).
15. Lord Acton in the nineteenth century distinguished between two forms - French and English, see Lord Acton, Essays on Freedom and Power (Boston, Beacon, 1948), pp. 183-4. The earliest and most influential twofold classification was Hans Kohn's Western and Eastern nationalisms, Hans Kohn, Idea of Nationalism: a Study in its Origins and Background (New York, Macmillan, 1945); John Plamenatz follows roughly in the same path in 'Two Types of Nationalism' in E. Kamenka (ed.), Nationalism: the Evolution of an Idea (London, Edward Arnold. 1976), pp. 22-36. Friedrich Meinecke distinguished Staatsnation and Kulturnation, see Meinecke, Cosmopolitanism and the Nation State (New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1970); see also Kenneth Minogue, Nationalism (London, Batsford, 1969), p. 13; Anthony D. Smith distinguishes 'territorial' from 'ethnic' nations in The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford, Blackwell, 1986), pp. 134-8. In many of the twofold classifications there is usually a fierce desire to keep Western, more liberal-minded nationalism distinct from the nationalism associated with Fascism and national socialism, see Kohn, Idea of Nationalism, p. 351; Yael Tamir, Liberal Nationalism (New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1993). p. 90; A. D. Smith, Theories of Nationalism (London and New York, Torchbooks Library, 1971), p. 7 and Nationalism in the Twentieth Century (Canberra, Australian National University Press, 1979), pp. 83-5. This twofold classification will form the key theme of this paper. There are threefold typologies in Kellas who distinguishes ethnic, social and official nationalism, Kellas, Politics of Nationalism and Ethnicity (New York, St. Martin's Press, 1991), p. 52; Peter Alter's Risorgimento, integral and reform nationalisms. Alter, Nationalism (London, Edward Arnold, 1989). There are fourfold classifications, see L. Snyder, The Meaning of Nationalism (New Brunswick and New Jersey, Rutgers University Press, 1954). ch. 5. Carlton Hayes uses a fivefold classification: Jacobin; liberal; traditionalist; economic protectionist; and integral totalitarian, see Hayes, Essays in Nationalism (New York, Macmillan, 1926) and The Historical Evolution of Modern Nationalism (New York, Macmillan, 1949).
16. Lord Acton in the nineteenth century distinguished between two forms - French and English, see Lord Acton, Essays on Freedom and Power (Boston, Beacon, 1948), pp. 183-4. The earliest and most influential twofold classification was Hans Kohn's Western and Eastern nationalisms, Hans Kohn, Idea of Nationalism: a Study in its Origins and Background (New York, Macmillan, 1945); John Plamenatz follows roughly in the same path in 'Two Types of Nationalism' in E. Kamenka (ed.), Nationalism: the Evolution of an Idea (London, Edward Arnold. 1976), pp. 22-36. Friedrich Meinecke distinguished Staatsnation and Kulturnation, see Meinecke, Cosmopolitanism and the Nation State (New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1970); see also Kenneth Minogue, Nationalism (London, Batsford, 1969), p. 13; Anthony D. Smith distinguishes 'territorial' from 'ethnic' nations in The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford, Blackwell, 1986), pp. 134-8. In many of the twofold classifications there is usually a fierce desire to keep Western, more liberal-minded nationalism distinct from the nationalism associated with Fascism and national socialism, see Kohn, Idea of Nationalism, p. 351; Yael Tamir, Liberal Nationalism (New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1993). p. 90; A. D. Smith, Theories of Nationalism (London and New York, Torchbooks Library, 1971), p. 7 and Nationalism in the Twentieth Century (Canberra, Australian National University Press, 1979), pp. 83-5. This twofold classification will form the key theme of this paper. There are threefold typologies in Kellas who distinguishes ethnic, social and official nationalism, Kellas, Politics of Nationalism and Ethnicity (New York, St. Martin's Press, 1991), p. 52; Peter Alter's Risorgimento, integral and reform nationalisms. Alter, Nationalism (London, Edward Arnold, 1989). There are fourfold classifications, see L. Snyder, The Meaning of Nationalism (New Brunswick and New Jersey, Rutgers University Press, 1954). ch. 5. Carlton Hayes uses a fivefold classification: Jacobin; liberal; traditionalist; economic protectionist; and integral totalitarian, see Hayes, Essays in Nationalism (New York, Macmillan, 1926) and The Historical Evolution of Modern Nationalism (New York, Macmillan, 1949).
17. Lord Acton in the nineteenth century distinguished between two forms - French and English, see Lord Acton, Essays on Freedom and Power (Boston, Beacon, 1948), pp. 183-4. The earliest and most influential twofold classification was Hans Kohn's Western and Eastern nationalisms, Hans Kohn, Idea of Nationalism: a Study in its Origins and Background (New York, Macmillan, 1945); John Plamenatz follows roughly in the same path in 'Two Types of Nationalism' in E. Kamenka (ed.), Nationalism: the Evolution of an Idea (London, Edward Arnold. 1976), pp. 22-36. Friedrich Meinecke distinguished Staatsnation and Kulturnation, see Meinecke, Cosmopolitanism and the Nation State (New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1970); see also Kenneth Minogue, Nationalism (London, Batsford, 1969), p. 13; Anthony D. Smith distinguishes 'territorial' from 'ethnic' nations in The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford, Blackwell, 1986), pp. 134-8. In many of the twofold classifications there is usually a fierce desire to keep Western, more liberal-minded nationalism distinct from the nationalism associated with Fascism and national socialism, see Kohn, Idea of Nationalism, p. 351; Yael Tamir, Liberal Nationalism (New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1993). p. 90; A. D. Smith, Theories of Nationalism (London and New York, Torchbooks Library, 1971), p. 7 and Nationalism in the Twentieth Century (Canberra, Australian National University Press, 1979), pp. 83-5. This twofold classification will form the key theme of this paper. There are threefold typologies in Kellas who distinguishes ethnic, social and official nationalism, Kellas, Politics of Nationalism and Ethnicity (New York, St. Martin's Press, 1991), p. 52; Peter Alter's Risorgimento, integral and reform nationalisms. Alter, Nationalism (London, Edward Arnold, 1989). There are fourfold classifications, see L. Snyder, The Meaning of Nationalism (New Brunswick and New Jersey, Rutgers University Press, 1954). ch. 5. Carlton Hayes uses a fivefold classification: Jacobin; liberal; traditionalist; economic protectionist; and integral totalitarian, see Hayes, Essays in Nationalism (New York, Macmillan, 1926) and The Historical Evolution of Modern Nationalism (New York, Macmillan, 1949).
18. My own favoured typology reflects the way in which nationalism crosses over the territory of other ideologies. The first type is liberal Risorgimento nationalism; secondly, there is a more traditionalist conservative nationalism - which might be more generally associated with the conservative ideological tradition; thirdly, there is integral nationalism, which is the form most closely associated with Fascism and national socialism. There are also other possible variants like socialist nationalism and anti-colonial nationalism. Romantic nationalism has strayed across all these forms. However, in my reading, all of these latter categories either overlap or form sub-aspects within the major categories above. For expansion on these points see Andrew Vincent, Modern Political Ideologies, (Oxford, Blackwell, 2nd ed., 1995), ch. 9.
19. See Kohn, Idea of Nationalism. The distinction itself is extremely questionable, but it would take a more historically based inquiry to justify this point. As Andrzej Walicki remarks, 'It would not be too difficult for a critic of Kohn's theory to demonstrate that all the characteristics which he regards as specific to Central and Eastern European nationalism could also be found in Western Europe', see Walicki, The Enlightenment and the Birth of Modern Nationhood: Polish Political Thought from Noble Republicanism to Tadeusz Kosciuszko (Notre Dame IN, University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), pp. 5ff. The other point to note here is that Eastern (ethnic) nationalism is occasionally also associated with the notion of cultural nationalism. Yet both the ethnic (or Eastern) nationalism and civic liberal nationalism have cultural components. Also the ethnic or Eastern nationalism is often seen to be inward-looking, excluding immigrants. Yet it is clear that groups like the Québécois or Flemish, despite their strong cultural and ethnic emphasis, are prepared to accept immigrants, as long as they learn the language and culture. Similarly, the USA requires immigrants to learn the English language and American history in schools.
20. See Kohn, Idea of Nationalism. The distinction itself is extremely questionable, but it would take a more historically based inquiry to justify this point. As Andrzej Walicki remarks, 'It would not be too difficult for a critic of Kohn's theory to demonstrate that all the characteristics which he regards as specific to Central and Eastern European nationalism could also be found in Western Europe', see Walicki, The Enlightenment and the Birth of Modern Nationhood: Polish Political Thought from Noble Republicanism to Tadeusz Kosciuszko (Notre Dame IN, University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), pp. 5ff. The other point to note here is that Eastern (ethnic) nationalism is occasionally also associated with the notion of cultural nationalism. Yet both the ethnic (or Eastern) nationalism and civic liberal nationalism have cultural components. Also the ethnic or Eastern nationalism is often seen to be inward-looking, excluding immigrants. Yet it is clear that groups like the Québécois or Flemish, despite their strong cultural and ethnic emphasis, are prepared to accept immigrants, as long as they learn the language and culture. Similarly, the USA requires immigrants to learn the English language and American history in schools.
21. A recent form is in terms of 'civic' and 'ethnic' nationalism, see, for example, Michael Ignatieff, Blood and Belonging: Journeys into the New Nationalism (New York, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1993).
22. Plamenatz, 'Two Types', pp. 23ff.
23. Plamenatz, 'Two Types', p. 27.
24. Hayes, Historical Evolution, p. 135.
25. '... international Risorgimento nationalism had no blue-print to hand for avoiding the growing number of situations in which the competing aims of different nationalisms were hopelessly at loggerheads', Alter, Nationalism, p. 33.
26. In fact, a similar distinction appears in many other writers of the same period like Isaiah Berlin. As one commentator remarks on Berlin. 'It is important to stress that Berlin's sympathy with nationalism is sympathy with the nationalism of the Risorgimento and with the European revolutionaries of 1848; it is sympathy with the nationalism of Verdi and Clemenceau, not with the nationalism of Treitschke and Barrès', Stuart Hampshire 'Nationalism' in Edna and Avishai Margalit (eds), Isaiah Berlin: a Celebration (London, Hogarth, 1991), p. 132.
27. The theme of the book contends that 'the liberal tradition, with its respect for personal autonomy, reflection and choice, and the national tradition, with its emphasis on belonging, loyalty and solidarity ... Can indeed accommodate one another', Tamir, Liberal Nationalism, pp. 6 and 10.
28. See David Hume, 'Of National Characters', in Knud Haakonssen's edition of Hume's Political Essays (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1994).
29. MacCormick, despite writing about nationalism in the early 1980s, also claims to have been influenced by Yael Tamir's work (as well as Plamenatz's writings) whilst examining her doctoral thesis in 1989. Tamir's doctoral thesis was transformed into the 1993 book Liberal Nationalism, see Neil MacCormick, 'Of self-determination and other things', Bulletin of the Australian Society of Legal Philosophy, 15, nos 54-5 (1990), p. 12. Tamir's views are thus equally instructive on liberal nationalism, on very similar grounds to MacCormick.
30. Miller does have a book on nationalism about to come out. However, I have not been able to obtain it before this article went to press. I have therefore relied upon his articles.
31. David Miller, 'The ethical significance of nationalism', Ethics, 98 (1988), p. 658, and 'The Nation State: A Modest Defence' in Brown (ed.) Political Restructuring in Europe (London, Routledge, 1994), p. 136.
32. David Miller, 'The ethical significance of nationalism', Ethics, 98 (1988), p. 658, and 'The Nation State: A Modest Defence' in Brown (ed.) Political Restructuring in Europe (London, Routledge, 1994), p. 136.
33. Miller, 'Ethical significance', p. 648.
34. Miller, 'Nation State', p. 141.
35. N. MacCormick 'Is Nationalism Philosophically Credible?' in W. Twining (ed.) Issues in Self-Determination (Aberdeen, Aberdeen University Press, 1991), p. 13. He says in another piece, 'The truth about human individuals is that they - we - are social products, not independent atoms capable of constituting society through a voluntary coming together', Neil MacCormick, 'Of self-determination', p. 14.
36. N. MacCormick 'Is Nationalism Philosophically Credible?' in W. Twining (ed.) Issues in Self-Determination (Aberdeen, Aberdeen University Press, 1991), p. 13. He says in another piece, 'The truth about human individuals is that they - we - are social products, not independent atoms capable of constituting society through a voluntary coming together', Neil MacCormick, 'Of self-determination', p. 14.
37. N. MacCormick, Legal Rights and Social Democracy: Essays in Legal and Political Philosophy (Oxford, Clarendon, 1982), p. 247.
38. MacCormick, Legal Rights, p. 251.
39. MacCormick, Legal Rights, p. 247; see also MacCormick, 'Of self-determination , pp. 14-15.
40. MacCormick, Legal Rights, p. 247; see also MacCormick, 'Of self-determination , pp. 14-15.
41. MacCormick, Legal Rights, p. 251.
42. MacCormick, Legal Rights, p. 252.
43. MacCormick, Legal Rights, p. 252.
44. For Benedict Anderson, see Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London, Verso, 1983).
45. David Miller, Market State and Community: Theoretical Foundations of Market Socialism (Oxford, Clarendon, 1989), p. 244.
46. As Miller states: 'a belief that belongs together with the rest; that this association is neither transitory nor merely instrumental, but stems from a long history of living together which (it is hoped and expected) will continue into the future; that the community is marked off from other communities by its members' distinctive characteristics . . .', Miller, Market State and Community, p. 238.
47. See J. G. Fichte, Addresses to the German Nation (transl. R. F. Jones and G. H. Turnbull) (Westport CT, Greenwood, 1979), see the second address.
48. Miller, 'Socialism and Toleration' in Susan Mendus (ed.), Justifying Toleration (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1988) p. 253.
49. An unease that he shares with the conservative writer Roger Scruton. Scruton comments on multiculturalism that 'Experience ought to warn us against such a society: experience not only of Lebanon, but also of Cyprus, and India. If we are interested in the survival of the liberal state, then we should be doing our best to preserve the loyalties which sustain the liberal jurisdiction', 'In Defence of the Nation' in Scruton, The Philosopher on Dover Beach (London, Carcanet, 1990), p. 325. There are also some parallel sentiments without the nationalist emphasis, developed from a more classical liberal perspective by Chandran Kukathas in Kukathas (ed.), Multicultural Citizens: the Philosophv and Politics of Identity (Canberra, The Centre for Independent Studies Readings 9, 1993), see pp. 29-30.
50. An unease that he shares with the conservative writer Roger Scruton. Scruton comments on multiculturalism that 'Experience ought to warn us against such a society: experience not only of Lebanon, but also of Cyprus, and India. If we are interested in the survival of the liberal state, then we should be doing our best to preserve the loyalties which sustain the liberal jurisdiction', 'In Defence of the Nation' in Scruton, The Philosopher on Dover Beach (London, Carcanet, 1990), p. 325. There are also some parallel sentiments without the nationalist emphasis, developed from a more classical liberal perspective by Chandran Kukathas in Kukathas (ed.), Multicultural Citizens: the Philosophy and Politics of Identity (Canberra, The Centre for Independent Studies Readings 9, 1993), see pp. 29-30.
51. As MacCormick puts it, 'A part of the odium philosophicum attaching to nationalism ... lies precisely in its failure to universalize and treat essentially like claims in like manner. But this in itself can no more discredit the legitimate claims of reasonable nationalism than the rampant selfishness and non-universalism of some individualistic persons discredits of itself universalistic doctrines of political individualism', MacCormick, 'Of self-determination', p. 18.
52. Miller, 'Nation State', p. 142.
53. Miller, 'Ethical significance, p. 662.
54. 'All evidence suggests that people give greater weight to [the principle of distribution according to need as a requirement of social justice] to the extent that they see themselves as bound to the beneficiaries of the principle by common ties. The more communal the relationship, the more need displaces merit (in particular) as a criterion of justice. Thus the kind of underpinning for a welfare state that socialists will look for can only be provided through a widespread sense of common membership throughout the society in question ... It is ... worth stressing that this common identity must exist at the national level', see Miller, 'Socialism and Toleration', p. 243.
55. See I. Kant's Anthropology from a Pragmatic View (transl. Mary J. Gregor) (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff, 1974), see Part 2, 'Anthropological Characterizations'. See MacCormick, Legal Rights, p. 261.
56. See I. Kant's Anthropology from a Pragmatic View (transl. Mary J. Gregor) (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff, 1974), see Part 2, 'Anthropological Characterizations'. See MacCormick, Legal Rights, p. 261.
57. See I. Kant's Anthropology from a Pragmatic View (transl. Mary J. Gregor) (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff, 1974), see Part 2, 'Anthropological Characterizations'. See MacCormick, Legal Rights, p. 261.
58. Quotations from MacCormick, Legal Rights, pp. 261-2. As in MacCormick, for Tamir the justification of national self-determination is that membership of a nation is a 'constitutive factor of personal identity'. In addition, peoples should be able to protect their identity. There should be, in other words, a right to preserve national identity which would allow groups the opportunity 'to express this identity, both privately and publicly'. All such expressions of identity, for Tamir, 'however restricted, merit respect and support'. There is a need for a shared public space for 'ensuring the preservation of a nation as a vital and active community'. National self-determination implies a domain for both individual interests and communal identity; thus 'The ability to conceive of certain social and political institutions as representing a particular culture and as carriers of the national identity is at the heart of the yearning for national self-determination'. Finally, the right to national self-determination 'can be fully realized only if the national group is recognized by both members and non-members as an autonomous source of human action and creativity, and if this recognition is followed by political arrangements enabling members of the nation to develop their national life with as little external interference as possible', see Tamir, Liberal Nationalism, pp. 73-4.
59. Quotations from MacCormick, Legal Rights, pp. 261-2. As in MacCormick, for Tamir the justification of national self-determination is that membership of a nation is a 'constitutive factor of personal identity'. In addition, peoples should be able to protect their identity. There should be, in other words, a right to preserve national identity which would allow groups the opportunity 'to express this identity, both privately and publicly'. All such expressions of identity, for Tamir, 'however restricted, merit respect and support'. There is a need for a shared public space for 'ensuring the preservation of a nation as a vital and active community'. National self-determination implies a domain for both individual interests and communal identity; thus 'The ability to conceive of certain social and political institutions as representing a particular culture and as carriers of the national identity is at the heart of the yearning for national self-determination'. Finally, the right to national self-determination 'can be fully realized only if the national group is recognized by both members and non-members as an autonomous source of human action and creativity, and if this recognition is followed by political arrangements enabling members of the nation to develop their national life with as little external interference as possible', see Tamir, Liberal Nationalism, pp. 73-4.
60. MacCormick, "Nationalism Philosophically Credible", p. 14.
61. MacCormick, 'Nationalism Philosophically Credible', p. 15.
62. '... self-determination in a dual sense meaning that there has to be scope both for individual self-determination inside a political community and for collective self-determination of the community without external domination', MacCormick, 'Of self-determination', p. 16.
63. MacCormick, "Nationalism Philosophically Credible", p. 17. MacCormick also thinks that 'liberty in a free country requires schemes of redistribution, welfare provision and educational support', MacCormick, 'Of self-determination', p. 15. See also Tamir, Liberalism Nationalism, pp. 16-17.
64. MacCormick, "Nationalism Philosophically Credible", p. 17. MacCormick also thinks that 'liberty in a free country requires schemes of redistribution, welfare provision and educational support', MacCormick, 'Of self-determination', p. 15. See also Tamir, Liberalism Nationalism, pp. 16-17.
65. MacCormick, "Nationalism Philosophically Credible", p. 17. MacCormick also thinks that 'liberty in a free country requires schemes of redistribution, welfare provision and educational support', MacCormick, 'Of self-determination', p. 15. See also Tamir, Liberalism Nationalism, pp. 16-17.
66. MacCormick, "Nationalism Philosophically Credible", p. 11. He remarks elsewhere that 'some form of democratic self-determination has to be considered both justifiable and valuable ... Some form of collective self-constitution, some kind of active participation in shaping and sustaining the institutions of social or communal government whose aim is to advance liberty and autonomy, seems to be a necessary part of the whole ensemble of conditions in which the autonomy of the contextual individual could be genuinely constituted and upheld', MacCormick, 'Of self-determination', p. 15.
67. MacCormick, "Nationalism Philosophically Credible", p. 11. He remarks elsewhere that 'some form of democratic self-determination has to be considered both justifiable and valuable ... Some form of collective self-constitution, some kind of active participation in shaping and sustaining the institutions of social or communal government whose aim is to advance liberty and autonomy, seems to be a necessary part of the whole ensemble of conditions in which the autonomy of the contextual individual could be genuinely constituted and upheld', MacCormick, 'Of self-determination', p. 15.
68. MacCormick, Legal Rights, p. 262 and 'Of self-determination', pp. 18-9. Tamir also is suspicious of sovereignty.
69. MacCormick, Legal Rights, p. 262 and 'Of self-determination', pp. 18-9. Tamir also is suspicious of sovereignty.
70. Tamir also sees some hope in Lijphart's model of consociational democracy, Tamir, Liberal Nationalism, p. 156.
71. Miller, 'Nation State', p. 143. This is, of course, a very traditional nationalist belief.
72. Miller, 'Nation State', p. 144.
73. Miller, 'Nation State', p. 145.
74. Miller, 'Nation State', p. 156. find myself perplexed by Miller's somewhat easy distinction between ethnic and national allegiance. Some scholars see ethnicity as a very old idea rooted in kinship, and nationalism is just another way of speaking about such ethnic identity. In this context, even liberal nationalism would be ethnically-based. In other words, nationalism and ethnicity are virtually identical as pre-modern forms of natural allegiance. As one recent sociobiologically-influenced writer remarks, 'we have in nationalism a combination of biological ethnocentrism, psychological ingroup/outgroup hostile propensities, and cultural and political differences', Kellas, Politics of Nationalism, p. 13; see also V. Reynolds et al., The Sociobiology of Ethnocentrism: Evolutionary Dimensions of Xenophobia, Discrimination, Racism and Nationalism (London, Croom Helm, 1987). Other scholars (like Ernest Gellner and Benedict Anderson) are adamant modernists who see nationalism (and ethnicity to some degree) as distinctly modern inventions. Alternatively, ethnicity will sometimes be seen as more 'natural' as opposed to the invented artifice of nationalism. Anthony Smith takes a via media position; although seeing ethnicity and nationalism as distinct, nonetheless, he argues that all nationalism is traceable back to ethnic communities. He identifies his position as intermediate between the modernists and primordialists. He remarks that 'Nationalism, both as an ideology and movement, is a wholly modern phenomenon, even if, ... the "modern nation" in practice incorporates several features of pre-modern ethnie and owes much to the general model of ethnicity', Smith, Ethnic Origins, p. 18. Thus Miller's deployment of the distinction between nationalism and ethnicity, as though it were obvious, looks highly questionable.
75. Miller, 'Nation State', p. 156. find myself perplexed by Miller's somewhat easy distinction between ethnic and national allegiance. Some scholars see ethnicity as a very old idea rooted in kinship, and nationalism is just another way of speaking about such ethnic identity. In this context, even liberal nationalism would be ethnically-based. In other words, nationalism and ethnicity are virtually identical as pre-modern forms of natural allegiance. As one recent sociobiologically-influenced writer remarks, 'we have in nationalism a combination of biological ethnocentrism, psychological ingroup/outgroup hostile propensities, and cultural and political differences', Kellas, Politics of Nationalism, p. 13; see also V. Reynolds et al., The Sociobiology of Ethnocentrism: Evolutionary Dimensions of Xenophobia, Discrimination, Racism and Nationalism (London, Croom Helm, 1987). Other scholars (like Ernest Gellner and Benedict Anderson) are adamant modernists who see nationalism (and ethnicity to some degree) as distinctly modern inventions. Alternatively, ethnicity will sometimes be seen as more 'natural' as opposed to the invented artifice of nationalism. Anthony Smith takes a via media position; although seeing ethnicity and nationalism as distinct, nonetheless, he argues that all nationalism is traceable back to ethnic communities. He identifies his position as intermediate between the modernists and primordialists. He remarks that 'Nationalism, both as an ideology and movement, is a wholly modern phenomenon, even if, ... the "modern nation" in practice incorporates several features of pre-modern ethnie and owes much to the general model of ethnicity', Smith, Ethnic Origins, p. 18. Thus Miller's deployment of the distinction between nationalism and ethnicity, as though it were obvious, looks highly questionable.
76. Miller, 'Nation State', p. 156. find myself perplexed by Miller's somewhat easy distinction between ethnic and national allegiance. Some scholars see ethnicity as a very old idea rooted in kinship, and nationalism is just another way of speaking about such ethnic identity. In this context, even liberal nationalism would be ethnically-based. In other words, nationalism and ethnicity are virtually identical as pre-modern forms of natural allegiance. As one recent sociobiologically-influenced writer remarks, 'we have in nationalism a combination of biological ethnocentrism, psychological ingroup/outgroup hostile propensities, and cultural and political differences', Kellas, Politics of Nationalism, p. 13; see also V. Reynolds et al., The Sociobiology of Ethnocentrism: Evolutionary Dimensions of Xenophobia, Discrimination, Racism and Nationalism (London, Croom Helm, 1987). Other scholars (like Ernest Gellner and Benedict Anderson) are adamant modernists who see nationalism (and ethnicity to some degree) as distinctly modern inventions. Alternatively, ethnicity will sometimes be seen as more 'natural' as opposed to the invented artifice of nationalism. Anthony Smith takes a via media position; although seeing ethnicity and nationalism as distinct, nonetheless, he argues that all nationalism is traceable back to ethnic communities. He identifies his position as intermediate between the modernists and primordialists. He remarks that 'Nationalism, both as an ideology and movement, is a wholly modern phenomenon, even if, ... the "modern nation" in practice incorporates several features of pre-modern ethnie and owes much to the general model of ethnicity', Smith, Ethnic Origins, p. 18. Thus Miller's deployment of the distinction between nationalism and ethnicity, as though it were obvious, looks highly questionable.
77. Miller, 'Nation State', p. 156. find myself perplexed by Miller's somewhat easy distinction between ethnic and national allegiance. Some scholars see ethnicity as a very old idea rooted in kinship, and nationalism is just another way of speaking about such ethnic identity. In this context, even liberal nationalism would be ethnically-based. In other words, nationalism and ethnicity are virtually identical as pre-modern forms of natural allegiance. As one recent sociobiologically-influenced writer remarks, 'we have in nationalism a combination of biological ethnocentrism, psychological ingroup/outgroup hostile propensities, and cultural and political differences', Kellas, Politics of Nationalism, p. 13; see also V. Reynolds et al., The Sociobiology of Ethnocentrism: Evolutionary Dimensions of Xenophobia, Discrimination, Racism and Nationalism (London, Croom Helm, 1987). Other scholars (like Ernest Gellner and Benedict Anderson) are adamant modernists who see nationalism (and ethnicity to some degree) as distinctly modern inventions. Alternatively, ethnicity will sometimes be seen as more 'natural' as opposed to the invented artifice of nationalism. Anthony Smith takes a via media position; although seeing ethnicity and nationalism as distinct, nonetheless, he argues that all nationalism is traceable back to ethnic communities. He identifies his position as intermediate between the modernists and primordialists. He remarks that 'Nationalism, both as an ideology and movement, is a wholly modern phenomenon, even if, ... the "modern nation" in practice incorporates several features of pre-modern ethnie and owes much to the general model of ethnicity', Smith, Ethnic Origins, p. 18. Thus Miller's deployment of the distinction between nationalism and ethnicity, as though it were obvious, looks highly questionable.
78. Miller, 'Nation State', p. 145.
79. Miller, 'Nation State', pp. 150-2.
80. 'Our sense of identity arises from our experience of belonging within significant communities, such as families, schools, workplace communities, religious communities ... and also nations, conceived as cultural communities endowed with political relevance', MacCormick, 'Of self-determination', p. 17.
81. '... nations are quite real and quite identifiable as some among the types of community constitutive of people', MacCormick, 'Of self-determination', p. 17.
82. MacCormick, Legal Rights, pp. 254-5.
83. I am not denying that it is possible to make an argument for ranking, however as yet it remains undeveloped by liberal nationalist writers.
84. 56 Admittedly MacCormick and Tamir do not favour this association. It is also important to note that my arguments are not directed at the state, but rather the compound term 'nation state'.
85. Unless, of course, one presupposed a distinction between ethnie and 'nationals', then one could link nationalism with the state and reduce everyone else to ethnie. However, such a strategy is presupposed upon a profoundly dubious distinction between ethnicity and nationalism, and also assumes that 'a' substantive nationalism can be clearly identified.
86. This argument can be found stated in Bob Goodin's notion of the 'assigned responsibility model', see Bob Goodin, 'What is so special about our fellow countrymen?', Ethics, 98 (1988), pp. 678ff. Goodin's argument hangs on the Hartian distinction between general and special duties. The purportedly classical nationalist argument denies general duties and emphasizes the place of special duties to our conationals. Goodin doubts the significance of special duties in practice, arguing, alternatively, for the idea of special duties as 'distributed general duties'. Thus special duties are viewed as 'merely devices whereby the moral community's general duties get assigned to particular agents' (p. 678). Special duties thus derive their moral force from universal general duties (underpinned in Goodin's case by utilitarianism). Goodin concludes from this that special duties -read national imperatives - can be overridden by general duties. Goodin therefore suggests that our fellow countrymen 'are not so very special after all' (p. 679). It also leads him to doubt the significance of nationalism, discrete state-oriented citizenship, state boundaries and presumably state independence or sovereignty. Goodin thus remarks, somewhat alarmingly, 'If some states prove incapable of discharging their responsibilities effectively, then they should either be reconstituted or assisted' (p. 685).
87. Sovereignty has always been regarded as a tricky issue by liberals particularly, but this is primarily due to its association with the absolutist tradition on sovereignty. The idea that sovereignty could be shared has thus always been a puzzle within this perspective, which identifies sovereignty with unitary absolute power. See Andrew Vincent, Theories of the State (Oxford, Blackwell, 4th reprint, 1994), pp. 32-7, 51-60, 109-11.
88. Tamir, Liberal Nationalism, p. 139.
89. For List, liberalism, as a consequence of its blindness to commercial history, neglected the fact that it rested upon the pre-existence of the nation. There was always, therefore, a residual suppressed statism and nationalism implicit in all liberal thought. States and nations formed the essential backdrop to successful liberal markets. The framework of national law, national defence, national well-being, national aims and the national state was the secure, virtually unconscious background for the market, see Friedrich List, The National System of Political Economy (New York, Augustus M. Kelley, 1966). As Hobsbawm more recently remarked '... no economist of even the most extreme liberal persuasion could overlook or fail to take account of the national economy. Only liberal economists did not like to, or quite know how to, talk about it', E. J. Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since 1870: Programme, Myth and Reality (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed., 1992), p. 28.
90. For List, liberalism, as a consequence of its blindness to commercial history, neglected the fact that it rested upon the pre-existence of the nation. There was always, therefore, a residual suppressed statism and nationalism implicit in all liberal thought. States and nations formed the essential backdrop to successful liberal markets. The framework of national law, national defence, national well-being, national aims and the national state was the secure, virtually unconscious background for the market, see Friedrich List, The National System of Political Economy (New York, Augustus M. Kelley, 1966). As Hobsbawm more recently remarked '... no economist of even the most extreme liberal persuasion could overlook or fail to take account of the national economy. Only liberal economists did not like to, or quite know how to, talk about it', E. J. Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since 1870: Programme, Myth and Reality (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed., 1992), p. 28.
91. To some extent the liberal nationalist 'embedded' claim can be read, ironically, through the dimensions of Goodin's argument mentioned in footnote 58. The national culture, for liberal nationalists, is acceptable in so far as it embodies commitments to autonomy and self-determination by individuals. This allows them to demand that respect for national identity is intimately connected to the personal identity. Thus - reading this through Goodin's spectacles - the special duties that we owe and feel toward our conationals are really general duties that humanity owes to itself in totality. General duties of respect for human autonomy, for example, are embedded in the supposedly special duties of those who live in liberal nation states. Ironically, whereas Goodin uses this argument to provide succour for a denial of the significance of nationalism and particularism, the liberal nationalists use it to provide salvation for nationalism. Both, of course, ultimately desire justice across boundaries - although Goodin is undoubtedly more convinced of this than liberal nationalists, who see more obstacles. Goodin achieves his aim by emphasizing the generality of the duty and undermining the local character of circumstances. Liberal nationalists achieve it by down playing the general duties when they wish to emphasize the particularity and the converse when they wish to stress the salve of more universal commitments. If anyone is being more duplicitous here it looks like the liberal nationalist. However, it is clear from this discussion that the argument from embeddedness certainly does not necessarily aid the case for liberal nationalism. On the other hand, Goodin's position can be questioned again by reversing the argument, namely, by asking from whence the distinction between general and special duties, and the arguments for the universality of, say, liberal utilitarianism derives? It would be fairly easy to show that such a distinction derives from a historically situated or embedded liberalism. Liberalism does not stand god-like with a view from nowhere assessing the political scene. Thus, liberal nationalism could easily be seen as the socially embedded premise from which such interesting distinctions (like general and special duties) derive. Special duties and nationalist concerns never have a chance of a look in from the beginning of the argument.
92. Quotations from MacCormick, Legal Rights, pp. 261-2. He states in another work: 'a sense of nationality is for many people constitutive in part of their sense of identity and even of selfhood, then respect for this aspect of their selfhood is as incumbent as respect for any other, up to a certain point', MacCormick, 'Of self-determination', p. 18. The 'point' that MacCormick notes is where nationalist practices become destructive of others. However there is a dilemma here, from a nationalist perspective, as to how one would recognize 'destructive' practices. What 'objective' criteria could be adopted to condemn a practice as destructive - surely nationalist argument per se appears to intrinsically limit any clear judgment on this issue? It is not clear at what point respect stops and condemnation begins. Also, does this 'destructiveness' include internal destructives or does it only imply external destructiveness, i.e. if cruelty is being exercised only upon a domestic population is this cruelty to be respected, or is it only when one nationalism attempts to destroy another? This whole area appears remarkably blurred.
93. Quotations from MacCormick, Legal Rights, pp. 261-2. He states in another work: 'a sense of nationality is for many people constitutive in part of their sense of identity and even of selfhood, then respect for this aspect of their selfhood is as incumbent as respect for any other, up to a certain point', MacCormick, 'Of self-determination', p. 18. The 'point' that MacCormick notes is where nationalist practices become destructive of others. However there is a dilemma here, from a nationalist perspective, as to how one would recognize 'destructive' practices. What 'objective' criteria could be adopted to condemn a practice as destructive - surely nationalist argument per se appears to intrinsically limit any clear judgment on this issue? It is not clear at what point respect stops and condemnation begins. Also, does this 'destructiveness' include internal destructives or does it only imply external destructiveness, i.e. if cruelty is being exercised only upon a domestic population is this cruelty to be respected, or is it only when one nationalism attempts to destroy another? This whole area appears remarkably blurred.
94. That is, unless one were to argue a Gierke 'Germanist' type of thesis about groups and associations in relation to the law and the state, see, for example, Andrew Vincent, 'Can groups be persons?', Review of Metaphysics, 42 (1989), 687-715.
95. The principle of subsidiarity states that in 'areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community'. See Art. 3b, Treaty of the European Union.
96. Some thus see subsidiarity 'as meaningless and misleading gobbledegook designed to disguise the actual increase in central powers at the expense of national rights ... Indeed it is seen by some as a spur to "centralizing federalism" and not a barrier to it. Other Articles, like 5 and 235, are held to rob it of real effect', Clive Church and David Phinnemore, European Union and European Community: a Handbook and Commentary on the Post-Maastricht Treaties (New York and London, Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1994), p. 68.
97. Church and Phinnemore, European Union, p. 70.
98. See Church and Phinnemore, European Union, pp. 72-3, and R. Dehousse, 'Community Competences: are there Limits to Growth?' in S. Bronitt, F. Burns and D. Kinley (eds), Principles of European Law: Commentary and Materials (Sydney, Law Book, 1995), p. 126.
99. See Church and Phinnemore, European Union, pp. 72-3, and R. Dehousse, 'Community Competences: are there Limits to Growth?' in S. Bronitt, F. Burns and D. Kinley (eds), Principles of European Law: Commentary and Materials (Sydney, Law Book, 1995), p. 126.
100. The 1992 Edinburgh agreement, among other things, more explicitly linked decision-making to local sub-national levels. However, it has also 'compounded [Maastricht's] contradictions by making [subsidiarity] a matter of democracy as well as of federal balance and execution of power', Church and Phinnemore, European Union, p. 74.
101. 'National self-determination and individual self-determination were declared part of the historical self-deliverance of mankind from ignorance and tyranny', M. Keens-Soper, 'The liberal state and nationalism in post-war Europe', History of European Ideas, 10, 6 (1989), p. 702.
102. Some critics find the idea of 'self' totally mythical in this sense, see Richard T. DeGeorge 'The Myth of the Right of Collective Self-Determination' in Twining (ed.), Self-Determination, pp. 1-4. Other theorists appear quite unfussed by the moral rights of nation states to be self-determining entities, see Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars (New York, Basic, 1977) and 'The Moral Standing of States' in Charles Beitz et al. (eds), International Ethics (New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1985).
103. Some critics find the idea of 'self' totally mythical in this sense, see Richard T. DeGeorge 'The Myth of the Right of Collective Self-Determination' in Twining (ed.), Self-Determination, pp. 1-4. Other theorists appear quite unfussed by the moral rights of nation states to be self-determining entities, see Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars (New York, Basic, 1977) and 'The Moral Standing of States' in Charles Beitz et al. (eds), International Ethics (New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1985).
104. Some critics find the idea of 'self' totally mythical in this sense, see Richard T. DeGeorge 'The Myth of the Right of Collective Self-Determination' in Twining (ed.), Self-Determination, pp. 1-4. Other theorists appear quite unfussed by the moral rights of nation states to be self-determining entities, see Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars (New York, Basic, 1977) and 'The Moral Standing of States' in Charles Beitz et al. (eds), International Ethics (New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1985).
105. Yet if one adopted arguments about self-determination by the 'higher self' or more 'communally-orientated self', then the salve of democracy might well lose its efficacy. Individuals could still identify themselves with national policies, but it would not necessarily imply representative liberal democracy. In other words, there are no necessary grounds for adopting orthodox liberal individual liberty or representative democracy.
106. 73 Singapore, for one, in recent years has made a point of denying the significance of democracy and individual rights to the development of their nation. In fact, they have taken to lecturing other states, like Australia, on the virtues of this position for a healthy economy.
107. I should emphasize that this is not an argument against representative democracy.
108. One response to this could be that if there is no ethical argument involved in nationalism, how could one limit or criticize it in any way? Surely my argument cuts away the ground from any rational assessment of nationalism? How could one therefore ensure that it corresponds with liberal intuitions? My response to this is to argue, firstly, that this paper is, in itself, a critical commentary on the inchoate nature of nationalist ethical arguments. It is an argument which, thus, denies that we should seriously entertain the ethical character of nationalism. It is this sceptical stance which should be taken to all ethical nationalist claims. It is accepted, though, that nationalism is a pragmatic fact Moderate nationalism, which corresponds with liberal intuitions, is even socially tolerable. However, conversely giving an ethical gloss to nationalism should be avoided because of its inchoateness, brutal history and political unpredictability.