Nationalism chez Gellner

The central distinguishing feature of Ernest Gellner's most important treatment of nationalism is the proposition that nationalism is necessary for industrial society. Relatively little attention has been paid to the philosophical dimension of this proposition. The question of necessity in social explanation, however, is a complicated philosophical problem and must be dealt with directly if this proposition is to be endorsed. I argue that Gellner's argument is philosophically flawed. The ‘ordinary prose’ of Nations and Nationalism fails to deliver what Gellner claims to have delivered: the demonstration of a necessary connection between nationalism and industrial society. This result is of particular relevance given Gellner's philosophical interests.     

Ernest Gellner as Critic of Social Thought: Nationalism,Closed Systems and the Central European Tradition

Book reviewed: Gellner, Ernest, Language and Solitude: Wittgenstein, Malinowski, and the Habsburg dilemma.     

The Ernest Gellner Nationalism Lecture: The Soviet Union,self‐determination,and the creation of the postwar human rights system

The USSR played a key role in the establishment of the post‐World War II human rights system despite its repressive and even murderous domestic record. It forged an alliance with the countries of the Global South in support of decolonization, self‐determination, and social and economic rights, policies opposed by liberal states like the United States, Great Britain, and France. These positions were deeply rooted in the socialist tradition. Moreover, when a human rights movement emerged in the mid‐1960s, its members—in its origins overwhelmingly from the intelligentsia—called not for the overthrow of the Soviet Union but for the fulfilment of Soviet law. The language of rights, proclaimed with such flourish in the 1936 constitution and its successor in 1977, served as the weapon hurled by dissidents as they called on the Soviet government to respect freedom of speech and assembly, and national rights, including the right to emigrate. In turn, the international human rights movement developed from the 1960s to the 1990s largely through support for the Soviet dissident movement, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch prime examples. The Soviet experience is critical to any global history of human rights.     

Racism and Nationalism

Abstract. The article seeks to define the relationship between nationalism and racism in modem times. First, it defines racism as one of the principal nineteenth-century ideologies, sharply focused and centred upon the human body itself as its most potent symbol. Then it discusses nationalism as a much more loosely constructed faith which made alliances with most nineteenth-century ideologies such as liberalism, conservatism and socialism. When nationalism allied itself with racism it made racism operative -for example, within the integral nationalist movements from the end of the nineteenth century onwards. The article discusses how this alliance came about, and its consequences. It concludes that racism was never an indispensable element of nationalism. Moreover, it was not merely a form of discrimination, but a determinate way of looking at men and women which presented a total picture of the world. If nationalism made racism a reality, racism came to dominate nationalism once an alliance between the two movements had been consummated.     

Nationalism and Historicity

Abstract. In this article the nation is shown to be a historical subject. As such, it is constructed and constantly reconstructed by discursive practices of power and knowledge. The author argues that the symbiotic interlinkage between nationalism and the organising knowledge principle of historicity, is an example of a power practice in the modern state. Throughout the article, it is shown that this practice is produced by interaction between the institutionally represented, sovereign or objective state and intellectual knowledge and its institutionalisation within the state as an academy, which acquires sovereignty in the production of objective truth. This peculiar discursive representation of making what really is personal interactions and struggles into official institutions has managed to produce the subject of the historical nation. The empirical case of Sweden is briefly discussed. During the age of great power, an exclusivist discourse of noble genealogical distinction of the ‘Goths’ was established. In modem Sweden, this genealogical myth is transformed to a popular national myth of exclusivity, a myth with great power potentials in the ‘national projects’ of modem politics.