Compare and Contrast Western and Eastern Nationalisms.

Authors Avatar

                February 2002

THE OTHER EUROPE: East-Central Europe – Empires Nations and Societies

c. 1774-1918  

Question: Compare and Contrast Western and Eastern Nationalisms

In the years following the French Revolution nationalist ideas of ‘popular sovereignty’, ‘liberty’ and ‘equality’ were diffused throughout the whole of Europe. There effects were first seen in the West, where the rise of nationalism was, according to Hans Kohn, ‘a political occurrence (which was) preceded by the formation of the future nation state’ In contrast, East and Central European ‘nationalism not only arose later but also generally at a more backward stage of political and social development: the frontiers of an existing state and of a rising nationality coincided.’ Some scholars, such as Gale Stokes argue that this situation was brought about by a power-hungry Western world, which was prepared to impose ideologies incompatible with Eastern European social and political realities in order to increase its influence. This essay will examine the role of the West in shaping national movements in East and Central Europe, in an effort to determine whether or not its influence was a deliberate attempt to extend its sphere of influence or an organic consequence of French revolutionary theory, readily entered into by the East. It will also look at the different forms that nationalisms took within Eastern Europe, in order to illustrate the difficulty of mapping West against East in the study of nationalism, since vicissitudes of approach complicate both categories.

One of the most fundamental differences between Western European countries, such as France, England, Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands and Sweden, and the countries of Eastern Europe is their contrasting socio-political situations. Miroslav Hroch highlights this claiming that, in the West ‘the early modern state developed under the domination of one ethnic culture, either in absolutist form or in a representative-estate system (which assimilated most of the native minorities)...In most of Central and Eastern Europe, on the other hand, an ‘exogenous’ ruling class dominated (but, as a rule, didn’t try concertedly to assimilate) ethnic groups which occupied a compact territory but lacked ‘their own’ nobility, political unit or continuous literary tradition.’ This distinction essentially entailed that, through revolution or gradual reform Western Europe could form nations with relative ease around the resident ethnic group, whereas the East had to set up national boundaries that cut through rather than worked around ethnic groups. In consequence the latter has become associated with the plight of the non-dominant ethnic group and the West continues to look on with horror, as men like Slobodan Milosevic use tactics such as ethnic cleansing to achieve the elusive Western nation state ideal.

Another difference between the two regions can be seen in their economic situations. Stokes points out that, after 1500, the centre of European political and economic strength shifted away from the Mediterranean, towards the northwest. This was caused by several factors, primarily the discovery of the new world, which enriched Spain during the sixteenth century and allowed the Netherlands and England to capitalise on trade opportunities and become economically dominant in the seventeenth century. At the same time France, under Louis XVI, became the prevailing political force. In the context of there trade ties with America, Britain and the Holland became spearheads of the new economic and social system – capitalism. In Britain this economic development, in conjunction with improvements in agriculture paved the way for the Industrial Revolution, which increased the contrast between Western Europe and the Ottoman Empire. Although the Ottomans realised the need for trade and were successful to a certain degree in this area, Stokes argues that they failed to develop economically due to the insecurity of property rights (which were fiercely guarded in Holland and Britain): ‘In the final analysis all property belonged to the Sultan, and he did not hesitate on occasion to exercise his right, to the sudden and complete ruin of even the most powerful commercial or political figures.’ 

Join now!

The Ottoman Empire also suffered from a balance of trade problem in its dealings with the West. It exported primary goods such as wool, cotton and silk and received in return finished products such as cloth. In addition, by the middle of the eighteenth century, the Ottoman relied on France for between fifty and sixty per cent of her imports and yet accounted for only twenty per cent of France’s total trade. Stokes argues that, ‘by the time of the French Revolution, at the very latest, the Ottoman Empire had changed from a free standing economic system into a peripheral ...

This is a preview of the whole essay