Nationalism: Identity, Belonging, and Conflict

Why are millions of people willing to die for a piece of land they have never visited, among people most of them will never meet? This is the puzzle of nationalism — the most powerful political force of the modern world. Nationalism is the belief that humanity is divided into distinct nations, each with a right to self-government, and that loyalty to one’s nation overrides other allegiances. It has inspired liberation movements and genocide, democratic revolutions and ethnic cleansing, cultural renaissance and xenophobic panic. Understanding nationalism is essential to understanding the modern world — its wars, its borders, its identities, and its deepest conflicts.

What Is a Nation?

Before we can analyze nationalism, we need to understand what a nation is. This is surprisingly controversial. Political theorists disagree about whether nations are ancient or modern, natural or constructed, ethnic or civic.

Primordialism

Primordialists argue that nations are natural, ancient communities rooted in shared blood, language, religion, and territory. On this view, the French nation existed before the French state, and German identity stretches back to the forests of Tacitus’s Germania. Nations are not chosen; they are inherited. They are the extended families into which we are born.

Primordialism has intuitive appeal. National identities feel ancient and natural. But critics argue that this feeling is an illusion — a product of nationalist ideology that projects contemporary identities backward in time. What we now call “France” was, before the French Revolution, a patchwork of regions with different languages, customs, and allegiances. The idea that the people of these regions were all “French” was an invention of revolutionary nationalism.

Modernism

Modernists argue that nations are modern creations, emerging with industrialization, mass literacy, and the modern state. Ernest Gellner’s Nations and Nationalism (1983) argues that industrial society requires a homogeneous, literate, mobile workforce that shares a common language and culture. The state creates this homogeneity through standardized education, official languages, and national media. Nations are not the raw material of nationalism; they are its product.

Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities (1983) offers a complementary account. Nations are “imagined” not because they are false but because members of a nation will never know most of their fellow members yet still feel a deep bond of solidarity. This imagined community became possible, Anderson argues, with the rise of “print capitalism” — newspapers and novels that circulated in vernacular languages, creating a shared reading public that came to see itself as a nation.

Ethnosymbolism

Between primordialism and modernism lies ethnosymbolism, associated with Anthony D. Smith. Smith argues that while modern nations are indeed modern, they are often built on premodern ethnic cores — shared myths, memories, symbols, and traditions that give national identity its emotional depth and staying power. The modern nation is not an ancient survival, but it is not a pure invention either. It is a selective reconstruction of preexisting cultural materials.

For a deeper understanding of how national identity connects to sovereignty and state authority, read Sovereignty and Legitimacy: Foundations of Authority.

The History of Nationalism

Nationalism as a political ideology emerged in the late eighteenth century and has developed through several phases.

The American and French Revolutions

The American Declaration of Independence (1776) declared that “one people” had the right to dissolve political bands with another. This was a nationalist claim: the American colonists constituted a distinct people entitled to self-government. The French Revolution (1789) went further, declaring that sovereignty resides in the nation, not in the king. The nation was now the source of legitimate political authority.

These revolutions created the template for modern nationalism: a people, defined by shared citizenship and common political values, claims the right to govern itself. This is “civic nationalism” — nationhood based on shared political principles and territory, open in principle to anyone who adopts those principles.

Nineteenth-Century Romantic Nationalism

The nineteenth century saw a different kind of nationalism emerge in Central and Eastern Europe, where national boundaries did not correspond to state boundaries. The German and Italian unification movements sought to bring scattered populations into single states. Romantic intellectuals like Johann Gottfried Herder and Johann Gottlieb Fichte argued that each nation has a unique spirit (Volksgeist) expressed in its language, folklore, and culture.

This “ethnic nationalism” defined the nation by descent and culture rather than by citizenship and territory. It was more exclusive than civic nationalism — you could not simply choose to become German or Polish. You had to be born into the nation.

Anti-Colonial Nationalism

In the twentieth century, nationalism became the ideology of anti-colonial liberation. Leaders like Gandhi, Nehru, Nkrumah, and Ho Chi Minh mobilized national identities to challenge colonial rule. Anti-colonial nationalism often combined civic and ethnic elements: it demanded equal citizenship within an independent state while drawing on indigenous cultural traditions to distinguish the nation from its colonizers.

Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth (1961) offers a powerful analysis of anti-colonial nationalism. Fanon argues that national consciousness is an essential stage in liberation, but it must be transcended — nationalism can easily degenerate into the tyranny of a postcolonial elite. The true goal is not simply national independence but human liberation.

Types of Nationalism

Political theorists distinguish several forms of nationalism, each with different political implications.

Civic vs. Ethnic

The most basic distinction is between civic and ethnic nationalism. Civic nationalism defines the nation by shared territory, laws, and political values. Anyone who accepts these can become a member. Ethnic nationalism defines the nation by shared descent, culture, and language. Membership is inherited, not chosen.

In practice, most nations blend both elements. France is the classic example of civic nationalism, but French citizenship laws have historically favored ethnic French over immigrants. Germany was long the classic example of ethnic nationalism (citizenship by blood), but reforms in 2000 made it easier for long-term residents to naturalize.

Liberal vs. Illiberal

Liberal nationalists argue that nationalism can be compatible with liberal values — individual rights, democracy, toleration. They claim that national identity provides the social cohesion necessary for democratic institutions to function. Without a shared national identity, citizens will not accept the sacrifices that democracy requires — paying taxes, serving in the military, supporting welfare programs.

Illiberal nationalism, by contrast, treats national identity as overriding individual rights and democratic procedures. It targets minorities, suppresses dissent, and demands unquestioning loyalty. The rise of right-wing populism in the twenty-first century — in Hungary, Poland, Turkey, India, and the United States — has made illiberal nationalism one of the most pressing political challenges of our time.

To see how nationalism interacts with broader ideological frameworks, explore Political Ideologies: Competing Visions.

Post-Nationalism and Cosmopolitanism

Some theorists argue that nationalism is becoming obsolete. Globalization, migration, and supranational institutions like the European Union are creating post-national identities. Jurgen Habermas advocates for “constitutional patriotism” — loyalty to democratic institutions and universal rights rather than to any particular national culture.

Cosmopolitanism goes further, arguing that our ultimate loyalty should be to humanity as a whole, not to any particular nation. Martha Nussbaum defends cosmopolitan education that cultivates concern for all human beings, regardless of national boundaries.

But nationalism has shown remarkable resilience. The Brexit vote, the rise of populist parties across Europe, and the resurgence of great-power competition suggest that national identity remains the most potent source of political mobilization in the twenty-first century.

FAQ

Is nationalism good or bad?

Nationalism is morally ambiguous. It has inspired liberation movements that overthrew colonialism and expanded democracy. It has also fueled genocide, ethnic cleansing, and aggressive war. Most political theorists distinguish between benign civic nationalism and dangerous ethnic nationalism, but critics argue that all nationalism tends toward exclusion and conflict.

What is the difference between a nation and a state?

A state is a political entity with a government, territory, and monopoly on legitimate force. A nation is a group of people who share a common identity, culture, and sense of belonging. A nation-state is a state whose population is composed predominantly of a single nation. Many states are multinational (Canada, India, Belgium) and many nations are stateless (the Kurds, the Palestinians, the Catalans).

Can nationalism be compatible with democracy?

Yes, in principle. Liberal nationalism holds that national identity provides the social trust and solidarity that democracy requires. But nationalism can also undermine democracy when it treats national loyalty as overriding democratic procedures and minority rights. The tension between nationalism and democracy is a central theme of contemporary political theory.

What causes nationalism?

Nationalism arises from multiple factors: the need for cultural belonging, the demands of industrial modernity, the spread of print media and education, the mobilization of populations for war, and the political interests of elites who use national identity to secure power. No single theory explains all cases.

What is the difference between patriotism and nationalism?

Patriotism is love of one’s country and its institutions, compatible with criticism and reform. Nationalism is loyalty to the nation as a cultural or ethnic community, often involving claims of superiority and demands for political self-determination. Critics argue that patriotism is benign attachment while nationalism is dangerous chauvinism, but the line is often blurred in practice.

Is nationalism in decline?

Not significantly. Despite predictions of cosmopolitan globalization, nationalism remains the most powerful source of political identity and mobilization worldwide. The twenty-first century has seen a resurgence of nationalist politics in established democracies and emerging powers alike.