Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Globalization and Nationalism

 | 
Natalie Sabanadze

Chapter 1. Introduction

Texte intégral

  • 1 Ian Clark (1997) Globalization and Fragmentation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 4.
  • 2 Michael Ignatieff (1994) Blood and Belonging, London: Vintage, p. 2.
  • 3 Stuart Hall (1992) “The Question of Cultural Identity” in Modernity and Its Futures, Stuart Hall, (...)
  • 4 Anthony Smith (1995) Nations and Nationalism in a Global Era, Cambridge: Polity Press, p. 116.

1Globalization and nationalism have often been evoked as the two defining features of the modern world. The former represents rising deterritorialization, integration and universal interconnectedness while the latter arguably represents fragmentation, localization and isolation. The coexistence of these two, arguably opposing, tendencies became particularly problematic in the aftermath of the Cold War, when the world seemed to be struggling with the contradictory processes of nationalist fragmentation on the one hand and global integration on the other. As Ian Clark observed: “the 1990s displayed marked tendencies in both directions at the same time; if anything the economic dimensions of globalization have grown vigorously but they coexist with the unforeseen resurgence of nationalism, which has ruptured the international community, as well as some of its constituent states.”1 The simultaneous rise of nationalistic and globalizing tendencies came to be seen as one of the central paradoxes of the past decade taking many observers by surprise. According to Michael Ignatieff, “with blithe lightness of mind, we assumed that the world was moving irrevocably beyond nationalism, beyond tribalism, beyond the provincial confines of the identity inscribed in our passports towards a global market culture which was to be our new home. In retrospect, we were whistling in the dark. The oppressed has returned and its name is nationalism.”2 Similarly Stuart Hall has characterized the resurgence of nationalism alongside globalization as a “remarkable reversal, a most unexpected turn of events.”3 The sense of paradox, according to Anthony Smith, has been heightened by the fact that in the Western half of Europe the national state appeared to be divesting itself of its powers while in the Eastern half it was eagerly reappropriating those same powers “after the long Soviet winter of political passivity.”4

  • 5 Malcolm Anderson (2000) States and Nationalism in Europe since 1945, London: Routledge, p. 64. And (...)

2The collapse of communist regimes in Eastern Europe provoked a major reappraisal of nationalism and its political significance. Suddenly, nationalism became the elemental force to be reckoned with in the post-Cold War world order, challenging its stability by reshaping boundaries, unleashing wars and disintegrating multinational states. The Western world also appeared to have succumbed to the reinvigorated appeal of nationalist politics. Minorities and non-state peoples of Western Europe such as the Basques and Catalans, Scots and Welsh have reasserted their rights to national autonomy and, in some cases, national independence. Extreme right wing political parties have been gaining political support and popularity, claiming nationalism as their core ideology. In the words of Malcolm Anderson, “a demon of extreme and aggressive nationalism, which may in the stable Western democracies be believed dead, was unleashed… The 20th century had commenced with ‘an age of nationalism’ and was terminating with a resurgence of nationalism, with destabilizing consequences.”5

3Understanding the relationship between globalization and nationalism is the main purpose of this work. In doing so it tries to address the following main questions: What is the link between globalization and nationalism? How does it translate into reality and what empirical evidence supports the existence of such a relationship? And what does it tell us about the nature of contemporary nationalism? There is a vast literature dealing with globalization and nationalism both separately and in connection with each other. A majority of commentators perceive the strength and resilience of nationalism in the era of globalization as a paradox of a world that is simultaneously coming together and coming apart. In this view globalization and nationalism are contradictory processes, the two opposites that are deeply connected through dialectical or causal links. Globalization is arguably generating nationalist backlash in response to and as a counter-reaction against those globalizing tendencies that appear to threaten local cultures and identities. Nationalism appears to have found a renewed sense of purpose and meaning in the context of globalization, which is one of the reasons behind the “surprising” nationalist revival taking place around the world.

4The basic question that has guided this work is whether the presumed clash between forces of globalization and nationalism is the only type of relationship that exists today and defines contemporary political life. Does it present a complete picture of the existing links and interconnections between globalization and nationalism or does a different relationship exist that can be uncovered through critical analysis and empirical research? The reasons for trying to identify different aspects of the relationship that could connect globalization and nationalism are both analytical and practical. Analytically, understanding the links between these two tendencies can help us better comprehend the nature of contemporary globalization and nationalism separately. It can tell us how different, if at all, contemporary nationalism is from nationalist movements of previous epochs. The different links and attitudes to globalization developed by different forms of contemporary nationalism can tell us what distinguishes different national doctrines and movements and what they have in common. By identifying the way nationalist actors perceive and engage with globalization, we may better understand how much of a challenge contemporary globalization is to the core values of nationalism and to the international system of sovereign states that nationalism underpins and upholds.

5In practical terms, it will help to know what the sources of nationalist conflicts in the era of globalization are and what leverages are available for better addressing and preventing them. If globalization itself is the underlying cause of nationalist upheavals, discontent and ethnonational confrontations, then what policy choices are available for dealing with globalization-induced tensions and challenges? If, however, the relationship between globalization and nationalism is not exclusively that of backlash and confrontation, then globalization may present new opportunities and instruments for global actors to positively influence local conflicts and even effectively contain and de-radicalize nationalist politics. In this context, global actors such as international organizations may be tasked with effective conflict prevention and conflict resolution activities. Treating globalization as an ungovernable, impersonal force that is ever-present and ever so powerful makes it an easy scapegoat and a convenient cause of all current problems for which nobody in particular could be blamed. All the above shows that there is much at stake in trying to better understand both globalization and nationalism separately and in connection with each other in order to make adequate normative judgments and policy decisions.

  • 6 Erica Benner (2001) “Is There A Core National Doctrine?” Nations and Nationalisms, 7:2, pp. 155–17 (...)

6This book critically examines existing literature on globalization and nationalism and puts to empirical test some of the main claims and assumptions that underpin the conventional wisdom on the subject. It then develops an alternative narrative on the relationship between globalization and contemporary nationalism and argues that forces of nationalism tend to develop pragmatic relationship with globalization that serves political and security interests of a national community. In this view, globalization and nationalism are not contradictory but complementary processes and their coexistence is neither surprising nor necessarily confrontational. This—at first sight counterintuitive—view is based on two main assumptions: the first has to do with the nature of contemporary nationalism and the second with the impact of globalization on the system of nation-states to which nationalism is inextricably connected. I argue that nationalism is neither cultural nor exclusively defensive and isolationist force. Its relevance is specific to the modern, pluralistic system of sovereign states where it has fulfilled the function of a founding ideology or a kind of “master doctrine.”6 It provides reasons and means for any community to survive and achieve political power and recognition in the existing system. Because nationalism is deeply connected to the specific international environment it has an inherently outward-looking, internationalist dimension, which precludes it from becoming a force of isolation and closure. The interests of security and political competition explain why forces of nationalism engage and often promote globalization, which they see not as threatening but rather as furthering their objectives. Such relationship between globalization and nationalism in turn points to the fact that globalization is not such a threat to the nation-state as it is often presumed and neither does it amount to the fundamental transformation of the international system which these states constitute. The rest of this introductory chapter further outlines the structure and central arguments put forward in this book. It also looks at its theoretical and methodological underpinnings and introduces the two case studies that have formed an important part of the research.

1.1 Central Arguments

7The first part of the book is concerned with putting together the socalled globalization hypothesis on the basis of the reviewed literature. As mentioned above, much has been written on how globalization is involved in generating various types of nationalistic responses but the arguments that constitute this hypothesis are spread throughout the literature on both globalization and nationalism and tend to have a variety of different authors. Chapter 2 reviews most of these arguments identifying what the main causal mechanisms are that link globalization and nationalism in this particular way and what they tell us about the nature of contemporary nationalism. Chapter 3 takes issue with some of the main assumptions of the globalization hypothesis as it emerges from the literature and engages in the critique of both its causal links to nationalism and to the understanding and interpretation of contemporary nationalism that it offers. Main tenants of the globalization hypothesis are then further tested on the cases of Georgian and Basque nationalisms.

8Chapters 4 and 5 represent case studies of two “really existing” nationalisms from both Eastern and Western Europe. The first is the case of Georgian nationalism, which is taken as an example of resurgent, post-communist nationalisms that have arguably resurfaced with great vigor in the post-Cold War era. The second is the case of Basque nationalism, which represents nationalism of Europe’s stateless nations that have long historic roots but have arguably been experiencing a particular revival in the context of globalization. The main reason behind selecting these two different types of nationalism is to have wideranging material for observation and analysis, and for exploring links between globalization and nationalism under two very different sets of circumstances. This chapter returns to a more detailed discussion of the selection of cases and methodology used in the case studies later.

9In both Georgian and Basque cases, the causes of nationalism were largely linked to historic and endogenous processes and less to globalization and its influences. At the same time, the two coexist simultaneously not in contradiction to each other but rather in a mutually beneficial and complementary manner. In both Georgia and the Basque Country, nationalism emerges as a force promoting and reinforcing rather than resisting globalization. Engaging with globalization forms an integral part of the very nationalist action and discourse. Contrary to the popular globalization hypothesis, therefore, this book argues that contemporary nationalism can serve as one of the major globalizing forces. Chapter 6 reflects findings of the case studies and explains why such a relationship is possible and what its practical and normative implications are.

10Exploring the links between globalization and nationalism also points to the diversity of contemporary nationalism—different manifestations of nationalism engage in different relationships with forces of globalization. This study highlights how firmly nationalism is entrenched in the existing international system and argues that on the mere example of its radical varieties, nationalism cannot be discarded as a generally anti-system phenomenon which mainly aims at fragmentation, isolation and disintegration of states. In the context of the current international system, nationalism enjoys unrivalled relevance because it is linked to the very set up and nature of its constituent political communities, i.e. states. It is important to not only constitute oneself as a nation to have a legitimate claim on statehood but also to be recognized as such by other nations—members of the international community. Nationalism, therefore, is not simply about the preservation of national culture and identity but it is equally about seeking recognition for this very culture and identity by others, a process that requires interaction, not isolation. In this sense, relevance of nationalism is contingent on the specific international context and a degree of internationalism is inherent to its nature.

  • 7 See Benjamin Barber (1996) Jihad vs. McWorld, New York: Ballentine Books.

11Such an interpretation of nationalism also makes its coexistence with globalization less puzzling. The “paradox” of nationalism in the era of globalization is based on the assumption that nationalism is, by definition, a force of isolation and protection that is incompatible with globalization and its integrationist tendencies. However, if we are to accept the existence of more political, pragmatic, outward looking, and internationalist elements of nationalism, then there is no reason to present them in binary contradiction whereby one is expected to prevail over the other. This is the picture of the world struggling between the forces of Jihad and McWorld, but there also exists a different picture in which forces of nationalism and globalization engage in an alliance which is mutually advantageous and is largely overlooked against the prevailing view of the two axial forces clashing with each other at every point.7

1.2 Theoretical Underpinnings and Methodology

  • 8 Andrew Hurrell (2007) On Global Order, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 19.

12The theoretical framework used in this book represents a combination of positivism and constructivism. It implies belief that causal relationships exist and uncovering them has a significant explanatory value. At the same time, however, it admits discourse as a variable and acknowledges social constructions of non-observable, underlying structures. This broadly constructivist approach reflects a number of theoretical commitments. First, it does not take existing international structures as given or “natural” but sees them as defined by specific social practices and embedded in specific knowledge and intersubjective meanings shared by social actors. Second, in explaining certain political actions, policy choices and calculations, it pays attention to an actor’s identity, values and ideological commitments. Concepts such as prestige, legiti macy, dignity, recognition and respect are taken as significant in understanding the “rationality” of nationalist actors or leaders of revisionist states (“value rational” behavior in Weber’s terms). Third, it follows that this theoretical approach accepts the role of ideas in explaining and understanding political action. For instance, this work shows how ideational and discursive aspects of globalization have come to play an important role in generating reactions and responses. As Andrew Hurrell points out “even if we suspect that appeals to political ideas, to legal principles, and to moral purposes are no more than rationalizations of self-interest, they may still affect political behavior because of the powerful need to legitimate action.”8

13In light of the above, this work relies on an in-depth, qualitative analysis, using the case study method. Such an approach is particularly well suited for exploring links between globalization and nationalism that are hard to measure and quantify. It also allows for the combined use of solid, “scientific” data such as statistical indicators, election results and polling figures with impressions from the field created through field visits, open-ended interviews, media reports, discourse and content analysis.

  • 9 For the discussion of “most likely” and “least likely” cases, see Harry Eck stein (1975) “Case Stu (...)

14The selection of Georgian and Basque cases responds to the two different streams in the globalization literature: One that argues for post-communist nationalism as the main evidence for the resurgence of nationalism in the context of globalization; and the other, which suggests the reinvigoration of traditional nationalist movements such as the Basque, Catalan and Québecois through the processes of globalization. In addition, both Georgia and the Basque Country can be treated as the “most likely cases” for those who argue for the growing strength and power of nationalism under the influences of globalization.9 The Georgian case exemplifies post-communist nationalism that experienced a dramatic upsurge with violent consequences following the downfall of the Soviet Union and accompanying slow integration into global processes. Georgia’s transition to the market economy and in corporation into global economic and political processes has been both dramatic and painful; its state-building project is still underway and the country faces the threat of further fragmentation under both external pressures and internal ones from competing minority nationalisms. In addition, Georgia is a good example of a fluctuating nationalist mobilization before and after the Soviet collapse, which could shed some light on how the popular support and political importance of nationalism can vary in relation to globalization.

  • 10 Philip Spencer and Howard Wollman (2002) Nationalism: A Critical Introduction, London: SAGE, p. 15 (...)

15The Basque case responds to another claim that globalization is involved not only in the production of new cradles of nationalism such as those of Eastern Europe, but also in the reinvigoration of old, minority nationalisms in the developed, Western world. As Philip Spencer and Howard Wollman observed, francophones in Québec, Basques and Catalans, Scots and Welsh, as well as many ethnic and national movements in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union provide just some of the examples of groups asserting their national rights or demanding independence in the global era.10 The origins and root causes of Basque nationalism date back to the end of the 19th century and long predate globalization. However, its intensification and militarization occurred after Spain embarked on the process of democratization, opening up to foreign influences and engaging in global integrative processes. The Basque case, therefore, also appears to confirm the globalists’ main assumption that with increasing globalization nationalism tends to intensify, assuming a more virulent and uncompromising character. In general, the Basque case represents a fascinating case for uncovering the sources of continuous nationalist appeal in the contemporary world. Basque nationalism has shown a remarkable vitality. It lived through the years of repression and democratization, poverty and prosperity, underdevelopment and rapid industrialization, isolation and European integration, and not once has it demonstrated any signs of abating.

  • 11 Rogers Brubaker (1996) Nationalism Reframed, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 1.
  • 12 Mary Kaldor (1996) “Cosmopolitanism vs. Nationalism” in Europe’s New Nationalism, Richard Caplan a (...)
  • 13 Kevin Robins (2000) “Encountering Globalization” in Global Transformations Reader, David Held and (...)

16The two cases, therefore, are both relevant for this study but in two different ways. The main problem with this selection is its European bias that warrants further justification. This work started out by questioning some of the commonly held views on the relationship of globalization and nationalism which I have described as globalization hypothesis and which explains arguably “paradoxical” persistence of nationalism in today’s world with globalization and its influences. The perception of paradox was further intensified by its European context as it was going against the expectation that Europe was moving beyond supposedly passé tendencies of parochial nationalism and towards frontier-free, integrated space. As Rogers Brubaker pointed out, “Europe was the birthplace of the nation-state and modern nationalism at the end of the eighteenth century, and it was supposed to be their grave-yard at the end of the twentieth.”11 In addition, many proponents of the globalization hypothesis argue that nationalist resurgence is a European phenomenon. Thus according to Mary Kaldor, in other parts of the world, forms of particularism may vary and take the form of religious communalism, tribalism, clanism and so forth.12 Similarly, Kevin Robins stressed the resurgence of national, ethnic, and territorial attachments both in Eastern and Western Europe. He noted that, “in Eastern Europe we have witnessed the growth of neo-nationalism in its most militant forms, but it has also been a feature of Western Europe, with the assertion of Basque, Breton or Scottish identities.”13 In other words, the European bias is to a certain extent an integral part of the globalization thesis, which this book takes as a starting point for its exploration of the relationship between globalization and nationalism.

1.3 Different Approaches to Contemporary Nationalism

  • 14 Rogers Brubaker (1998) “Myths and Misconceptions in the Study of Nationalism” in National Self-Det (...)

17A globalization-based explanation of contemporary nationalism is one among various approaches elaborated in response to an ongoing revival of nationalism and its increasing relevance in the post-Cold War international order. As Rogers Brubaker has observed, the resurgence of nationalism in Eastern Europe and elsewhere in the last decade has sparked an equally strong resurgence in the study of nationalism.14 A number of theories have been elaborated, aimed at explaining and understanding the origins, causes, and attractions of nationalism to both the public and elites.

  • 15 For a classical exposition of the above argument see Richard Kaplan (1992) Balkan Ghosts: A Journe (...)
  • 16 See Jack Snyder (2000) From Voting to Violence, New York: W.W. Norton & Co. Snyder argues that dem (...)
  • 17 See Barry Posen (1993) “The Security Dilemma and Ethnic Conflict,” Survival, 35:1. Also see David (...)
  • 18 See Anthony Smith (1998) Nationalism and Modernism, London: Rout ledge. Also Anthony Smith (1995) (...)

18We may single out five main approaches among the latest attempts at theorizing nationalism. In the beginning of the 1990s, it was common to speak about the return of ancient hatreds and deep-seated animosities in explaining the eruption of ethnic conflicts following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the speed with which ethnocentric nationalism became a dominant political force among the former communist countries.15 Later the focus shifted on the process of democratic transition as a possible explanation for the rise of nationalism. In this view the crucial role was played by interested political entrepreneurs and national elites who take advantage of the window of opportunity created by the early stages of democratization rather than ancient animosities, deep-rooted rivalries and historical legacies.16 Similar emphasis on elite manipulation has been placed by followers of the realist school in explaining the rise of contemporary nationalism. In contrast, however, realists have focused specifically on conditions of uncertainty and insecurity accompanying state failure and anarchy. In this view, nationalism thrives under conditions of fear and insecurity, mobilizing and fracturing groups along ethnic fault lines.17 Instrumentalist approaches to nationalism have come under criticism from an ethnosymbolist school of thought, proponents of which argued that theories of elite manipulation fail to explain why people follow nationalist leaders and respond positively to their manipulations. Ethnosymbolists believe that political resilience, popular appeal, and the power of nationalism derive from their connection to ethnic heritage and its constituent myths, symbols, rituals, and collective memories. It is premodern ethnic ties and cultural roots that sustain nationalist politics and explain its appeal for ordinary citizens.18 Such an approach also explains why nationalism has been displaying surprising vitality in the context of globalization.

  • 19 Philip Spencer and Howard Wollman (2002) Nationalism: A Critical Introduction, London: SAGE, p. 17 (...)

19The globalization approach to nationalism, however, shifts focus from intrinsic, self-perpetuating elements of nationalism onto globalization and its influences in explaining the strength and continuous appeal of nationalism in the global era. Nationalism, in this view, appears as a reaction and a response to the economic, political, cultural and psychological effects of globalization on contemporary societies. These effects include the reduction of state power and its allegedly declining capacity to provide social and economic security for its citizens and generate an overarching sense of loyalty and belonging; structural adjustments, changes in the traditional economies and rising volatility of employment accompanied by diminishing social provisions from the state; increasing cultural interchanges and exposure to foreign cultures; as well as an intensified psychological need to belong to a greater and tangible community in a world of increasingly atomized individuals. As summarized by Spencer and Wollman, “it has become a widely held view that the insecurities attached to globalizing processes have engendered a variety of essentialist and fundamentalist reactions.”19

  • 20 Smith, Nationalism in a Global Era; see also Smith, Nationalism and Modernism.
  • 21 Gerard Delanty and Patrick O’Mahony (2002) Nationalism and Social Theory, London: SAGE, p. 158.

20It is the globalization approach that is the main focus of this book. Its significance lies not in the fact that it is a new and well-developed theory, which it is not, but rather in its attempt to bring together nationalism and globalization and explain how the two can be interconnected. It builds on the existing nationalism theories, borrowing elements such as consequences of the weakening of the state and an emotional appeal of cultural ties and ethnic roots, while at the same time emphasizing the role of globalization in reactivating and reinvigorating powers of nationalism and identity politics. In addition, the globalization approach has gained significant popularity among both academics and practitioners with some of its underlying assumptions acquiring almost a status of conventional wisdom. Even proponents of alternative theories of nationalism agree on the revitalizing influences which globalization has been exercising on contemporary nationalism. Thus, Anthony Smith, while maintaining his allegiance to ethnosymbolism, accepts the globalization thesis and suggests that global processes if anything strengthen national consciousness and further intensify nationalist tendencies.20 Similarly, Delanty and O’Mahony, while not denying the validity of other approaches to nationalism, point out that the globalization approach is the most favorable since there can be little doubt that contemporary nationalism has assumed the powers it has because of globalization, “which has opened up many spaces for ethnicization, indigenization and localization.”21

  • 22 This view represented the reinstatement of modernization theories of the 1950s, which argued that (...)
  • 23 See Francis Fukuyama (1992) The End of History and the Last Man, London: Hamish Hamilton.
  • 24 Eric Hobsbawm (1990) Nations and Nationalisms since 1780, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p (...)

21It should be noted that the globalization approach to nationalism represents a dramatic shift in the debate on globalization and nationalism that took place throughout the 1990s. Immediately after the end of the Cold War, it used to be popular to speak about the imminent demise of nationalism as a political force in the context of growing globalization. It was expected that technological advances, the expansion of the capitalist system, democratization and socioeconomic development would encourage liberal universalism to triumph over traditional attachments of ethnicity and nationality.22 Expanding economic relations promote greater worldwide integration and a breakdown of national barriers, rendering the politics of nationalism increasingly outmoded and irrelevant. For some scholars, this has meant the final universalization of liberal, Western values, bringing about the “end of history” as an endpoint of human ideological evolution.23 For others, the demise of nationalism was simply associated with the loss of its functional importance in the era of globalization. Thus, according to Eric Hobsbawm, globalization and the international division of labor deprived nationalism of its traditional functions of building states and establishing territorially bounded “national economies.” In addition, technological advances in the field of communication and increasing international migration have further undermined the possibility of territorially homogenous nation states. Nationalism, therefore, was becoming irrelevant to most contemporary economic and social developments. Recalling Hegel’s owl of Minerva, Hobsbawm concluded: “The owl of Minerva which brings wisdom, said Hegel, flies out at dusk. It is a good sign that it is now circling around nations and nationalism.”24

22Since expectations about the onset of the postnational era failed to materialize with growing evidence pointing to the opposite, it became common to argue that nationalism and identity politics not only were not disappearing but on the contrary, were revitalized by the very processes of globalization that were presumed to be rendering them obsolete.25 The picture of universal, postnational peace has been replaced by that of the clash between tribal and primordial loyalties and forces of globalization, generating conflicts that appear to be particularly destructive and difficult to settle. This shift in the debate from one polar opposite to another seemed to have been provoked by the apparent resurgence of nationalism in post-communist Eastern Europe and other parts of the world alongside the intensification of global processes. Now that enough time has passed since the dramatic changes of the past decade, it is a good opportunity to once again reevaluate some of the commonly held views and question their underlying assumptions. Understanding the nature of contemporary nationalism and its relationship with globalization is essential for grasping ongoing political processes in all their complexity and for making adequate policy choices.

Notes

1 Ian Clark (1997) Globalization and Fragmentation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 4.

2 Michael Ignatieff (1994) Blood and Belonging, London: Vintage, p. 2.

3 Stuart Hall (1992) “The Question of Cultural Identity” in Modernity and Its Futures, Stuart Hall, David Held and Anthony McGrew (eds.), Cambridge: Polity Press, p. 314.

4 Anthony Smith (1995) Nations and Nationalism in a Global Era, Cambridge: Polity Press, p. 116.

5 Malcolm Anderson (2000) States and Nationalism in Europe since 1945, London: Routledge, p. 64. Anderson also suggested that in the past decades, nationalism has been revived in the so-called “advanced” parts of Europe manifesting itself in two main ways: first, through the increasing assertiveness of stateless nations such as the Scots, Catalans and others; and second, through the growing hostility to “supranational Europe.” He concluded that it was “no longer possible to dismiss nationalism as an aberration of backward societies.” Ibid., p. 8.

6 Erica Benner (2001) “Is There A Core National Doctrine?” Nations and Nationalisms, 7:2, pp. 155–174.

7 See Benjamin Barber (1996) Jihad vs. McWorld, New York: Ballentine Books.

8 Andrew Hurrell (2007) On Global Order, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 19.

9 For the discussion of “most likely” and “least likely” cases, see Harry Eck stein (1975) “Case Study and Theory in Political Science” in Handbook of Political Science (Vol. 1.) Fred Greenstein and Nelson Polsby (eds.), Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

10 Philip Spencer and Howard Wollman (2002) Nationalism: A Critical Introduction, London: SAGE, p. 157.

11 Rogers Brubaker (1996) Nationalism Reframed, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 1.

12 Mary Kaldor (1996) “Cosmopolitanism vs. Nationalism” in Europe’s New Nationalism, Richard Caplan and John Feffer (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 43.

13 Kevin Robins (2000) “Encountering Globalization” in Global Transformations Reader, David Held and Anthony McGrew (eds.), Cambridge: Polity Press, p. 200.

14 Rogers Brubaker (1998) “Myths and Misconceptions in the Study of Nationalism” in National Self-Determination and Secession, Margaret Moore (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 233.

15 For a classical exposition of the above argument see Richard Kaplan (1992) Balkan Ghosts: A Journey Through History, New York: St. Martin’s Press.

16 See Jack Snyder (2000) From Voting to Violence, New York: W.W. Norton & Co. Snyder argues that democratization gives rise to nationalism because it serves the interests of national elites and powerful groups who seek to strengthen their hold on political authorities. For a more nuanced exposition of the correlation between democratization and rise of nationalism, see Neil MacFarlane (1997) “Democratization, Nationalism and Regional Security in the Southern Caucasus,” Government and Opposition, 32:3. MacFarlane argues that democratization creates permissive conditions for nationalist conflicts to emerge and escalate.

17 See Barry Posen (1993) “The Security Dilemma and Ethnic Conflict,” Survival, 35:1. Also see David Lake and Donald Rothchild (1998) The International Spread of Ethnic Conflict, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

18 See Anthony Smith (1998) Nationalism and Modernism, London: Rout ledge. Also Anthony Smith (1995) Nations and Nationalism in the Global Era, Cambridge: Polity Press.

19 Philip Spencer and Howard Wollman (2002) Nationalism: A Critical Introduction, London: SAGE, p. 170.

20 Smith, Nationalism in a Global Era; see also Smith, Nationalism and Modernism.

21 Gerard Delanty and Patrick O’Mahony (2002) Nationalism and Social Theory, London: SAGE, p. 158.

22 This view represented the reinstatement of modernization theories of the 1950s, which argued that technological advances and increasing world wide communication would reduce national differences and divisions along the lines of parochial loyalties and attachments. See the discussion of modernization theory in Chapter Five.

23 See Francis Fukuyama (1992) The End of History and the Last Man, London: Hamish Hamilton.

24 Eric Hobsbawm (1990) Nations and Nationalisms since 1780, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 183. 25 Smith, Nationalism and Modernism, p. 215.

© Central European University Press, 2010

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540