Of course, as already mentioned, in recent years there have been numerous counter-arguments presented in response to this modernist view. One historian who is explicit in his disagreement with modernism is Adrian Hastings who, in reaction to the words of Hobsbawm that “The nation is a very recent newcomer in human history” describes this view as “absolutely misleading” and if we assume the rightful place of the nation to be exclusively in the modern period, we will “undermine an understanding not only of nations and nationalism but also of a millennium of European history”.
So therefore, if we accept Hasting’s assertion that nationalism does not belong exclusively to the post-French Revolution era, we must wonder, in what period should nationalism be rightly placed? One theory which has been suggested is that nationalism dates back as far as the middle-ages and even the mediaeval period. John Hale describes the condition of nationalism during the sixteenth century. Although much of it could be summed up as simply national sentiment and ethnic stereotyping, the significance of this is recognised when these attitudes of stereotyping during this period were transmitted into the political life of Europe by “attempts of governments to weld local loyalties and patriotic sentiments into a manipulable awareness of nationhood.” I feel that, although Hale does make a valid point, it is important that one does not confuse his discussion of “national characterizations” with nationalism, as an ideology.
However, Hale is most certainly not the only historian to be of the opinion that nationalism stems from long before the late eighteenth century. Koenigsberger and Mosse remark on the “pre-mediaeval, ancient traditions of nationalism”, and make numerous references to “nations”. They put forward the notion that the nationalism of this period was more to do with the fear of domination by another entity and subsequently a desire to protect their own. In light of this, one could argue that nationalism did exist before the late eighteenth century. However, one would also have to consider, in my opinion, if we believe what Koenigsberger and Mosse say, can this earlier form of nationalism be effectively compared with the same political ideology of nationalism to which the modernists refer? I would be unconvinced that it is possible.
Arguments against the theory of the modernists are not confined to historians of the mediaeval period. Derek Sayer, in his article discussing the impact of the Czech language on nationalism, makes important references to some early points in Czech history. He believes that these are essential if the historian is to gain a greater understanding of the development of nationalism in this particular country as “that history was to become central to the ‘revival’ of nationhood in the nineteenth century.” Not only does Sayer wish to emphasise the importance of pre-eighteenth century developments of the nation, but he also goes as far to say that “A sense of Czech nationhood is not an exclusively modern phenomenon.” However, I would once again draw attention to the fact that Sayer does not overtly discuss nationalism as an ideology and so perhaps the implications of this article for the arguments of modernists is much less significant than first thought.
Having discussed the various “pre-modernist” arguments for nationalism being in existence before the late eighteenth century, I will briefly return to the reasoning of the modernist. Hobsbawm himself quotes the words of K. Renner, that “The birthday of the political idea of the nation and the birth-year of this new consciousness is 1789, the year of the French Revolution.” Although he describes this particular opinion as “an exercise in programmatic mythology”, as one reads on, it can be observed that his own view is not so far from Renner’s, that is to say, he would agree that nationalism did not exist before the late eighteenth century. However, Hobsbawm actually goes further than this, suggesting that even this early form of so-called “nationalism” was not nationalism at all but rather a step towards the development of a later movement, as he states, “this populist cultural renaissance provided the foundation for many a subsequent nationalist movement” and he refers to the phases of Hroch who Hobsbawm claims did not believe that this period of national feeling contained “any political aspiration or programme.” (Hobsbawm, 1992, 104). Hobsbawm insists that nationalism can only be considered as such when it acquires “at least some of the mass support that nationalists always claim they represent” and therefore his work is, for the most part, concerned with the nineteenth century as he describes the late eighteenth century as being “swept by the romantic passion for the pure, simple and uncorrupted peasantry”.
On evaluation of the various arguments which I have discussed in my essay, I would be inclined to conclude that nationalism, as a political movement, did not exist before the late eighteenth century. This is due to the fact that the “pre-modernist” arguments which have been presented seem to concentrate on the existence of national sentiment and national consciousness, but there does not seem to be much evidence of nationalism as an active political movement. However, as with every debate, the ultimate decision is left to the interpretation of the individual and how they themselves would define the phenomenon that is nationalism.
Bibliography
P.Alter, Nationalism, 1989, First Edition, 1989, Arnold.
E. Gellner, Nations and Nationalism, First Edition, 1993, Blackwell.
J. Hale, The Civilization of Europe in the Renaissance, 1994.
-
Hastings, Nationhood and the Nation State: England and Germany.
E.J. Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism Since 1780, Second Edition, 1992, Cambridge.
H.G. Koenigsberger and G.L. Mosse, Europe in the Sixteenth Century, Second Edition, 1969, Longman.
D. Sayer, The Language of Nationality and the Nationality of Language: Prague 1780-1920, Past and Present, 1996.
A. Smith, Nations and History, Understanding Nationalism, edited by Montserrat Guibernau and John Hutchinson.
E.J. Hobsbawm. Nations and Nationalism Since 1780. Second Edition. Pg 104.
P. Alter. Nationalism. First Edition. Pg 55.
E. Gellner. Nations and Nationalism. First Edition. Ch 1.
J. Breuilly, cited by A. Smith. “Nations and History”.
A. Hastings. Nationhood and the Nation-State: England and Germany.
J. Hale. The Civilization of Europe in the Renaissance. Ch 2, Pg 8-9.
H.G. Koenigsberger and G.L. Mosse. Europe in the Sixteenth Century; “Nationalism in the Sixteenth
Century”. Second Edition. Pg 213
D. Sayer. The Language of Nationality and the Nationality of Language: Prague 1780-1920. Pg 14.
K. Renner. Staat und Nation. Pg 89, cited by E.J. Hobsbawm. Nations and Nationalism Since 1780.
Second Edition. Pg 101.