nationalism pros and cons essay

Understanding the Constructive and Destructive Natures of Nationalism

Nationalism can unify diverse societies. But when taken to extremes, it can also fuel violence, division, and global disorder.

A man rides his bicycle past volunteers of the Hindu nationalist organisation Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) taking part in the "Path-Sanchalan", or Route March, during celebrations to mark the Vijaya Dashmi or Dussehra in Mumbai, India, on October 11, 2016.

Source: Shailesh Andrade/Reuters

Countries are the building blocks of the modern world. Nearly two hundred make up the globe today. They vary in population and size: China and India are home to more than one billion people. Meanwhile, Vatican City and Monaco are smaller than a single square mile.

The world also comprises a large number of nations.

While the terms country and nation are often used interchangeably, they have subtle, but important, differences. Nations are groups of people united by ethnic, linguistic, geographic, or other common characteristics. Countries, on the other hand, refer to places with governments that are internationally recognized and have the power to oversee what happens within their borders.

Like countries, nations come in different shapes and sizes. But unlike countries, nations are not always reflected in borders on a map. Some nations span multiple countries, such as the Kurdish nation , whose approximately  thirty million people live in Armenia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. The Kurds, importantly, do not have a country of their own and are a minority in all the countries that they inhabit. 

Source: GeoEPR dataset.

Other nations exist primarily within one country. Belgium, for example, is largely made up of two different groups of people—the Flemings and Walloons—which have distinct languages and cultural identities. Few members of these two nations live outside Belgium. Sometimes, a nation neatly overlaps with the borders of a country. For example, in Japan, 98 percent of citizens are of the same ethnicity and nearly all speak Japanese and share national traditions.

Groups of people working to advance the interests of their nation, country, or would-be country is known as nationalism . Often, nationalism is invoked by groups pushing for independence, especially when they are ruled by perceived outsiders. But nationalism doesn’t always mean being pro-independence. It can also entail people promoting their culture, asserting their religious beliefs, or organizing for greater political power. 

In certain contexts, nationalism can serve as a basis for unity, inclusion, and social cohesion for a country. But when taken to extremes, nationalism can fuel violence, division, and global disorder.

When is nationalism positive?

Rarely do all people in a country look, speak, and pray the same way. Even in Japan—one of the world’s most homogeneous societies—more than two million citizens are ethnic minorities. 

In reality, most countries comprise a diverse tapestry of unique identities. When that’s the case, how do countries create a common national identity amid so many internal differences? Let’s take a look at Indonesia.

The sprawling southeast Asian archipelago has around six thousand inhabited islands. It’s the world’s fourth most populous country. Indonesia has more than 260 million citizens who speak over seven hundred languages and practice a half dozen official religions. Its existence today as one country is the result of three centuries of colonization, during which mostly European empires drew borders. These colonial boundaries had little regard for any national, economic, or internal political criteria.

So how has Indonesia stuck together since gaining independence, and what does it now mean to be Indonesian?

Rather than build a national identity based on geography, language, religion, or ethnicity, Indonesia’s founding father, Sukarno, forged one through ideas. In 1945, just weeks before his country achieved independence, Sukarno laid out a vision known as Pancasila —meaning Five Principles—for an Indonesian identity. This philosophy was intended to unite the diverse and soon-to-be independent country. An iteration of Sukarno’s Pancasila would ultimately appear in the preamble of the country’s constitution. To be Indonesian meant adhering to the following:

• belief in the One and Only God
• just and civilized humanity
• the unity of Indonesia
• democratic rule that is guided by the strength of wisdom resulting from deliberation/representation
• social justice for all the people of Indonesia

An Indonesian government poster showcasing “Pancasila,” the political philosophy on which Indonesia was founded. The five principles of pancasila are a belief in God, a just and civilized humanity, unity of Indonesia, democracy led by collective wisdom, and social justice for all Indonesians.

Source: Government of Indonesia

Pancasila is an example of how a belief in shared ideas and values can unify diverse groups of people. It encourages social cohesion and contributes to pride in one’s country, often referred to as patriotism. Moreover, national identities built solely around characteristics like ethnicity, language, or religion exclude those who do not meet these narrow criteria. As a result, a national identity based on ideas (as well as shared history and common experience) is more accepting.

Throughout the world, liberal countries build unity around common ideas such as freedom and equality. Like Pancasila, liberal principles are often enshrined in countries’ laws and constitutions.

But just because a country lays out a vision for one, all-inclusive national identity doesn’t mean that its citizens are always treated equally. In Indonesia, people have been imprisoned for not adhering to one of the country’s six official religions. And in the United States—a country that prides itself on its diversity—discrimination is still a major issue. This issue was especially evident during the countrywide protests for social justice and against police violence targeting Black Americans following the death of George Floyd .

When is nationalism negative?

Like ideologies or technology, nationalism can be a positive or a negative force. Narrow or aggressive forms of nationalism can be highly divisive. Such nationalism calls for advancing the interests of one group above all else—even at the expense of others. Extreme nationalism is illiberal and intolerant. It doesn’t accept those outside the narrowly defined nation as equal. This “us versus them” mentality, often rooted in ideas of racial and national superiority, can lead to dangerous and violent ends.

What are some instances in which nationalism fuels conflict and global disorder?

Extreme nationalism (hyper-patriotism) :  Aggressively advancing one country’s or nation’s interests can have consequences that reverberate around the world. 

Such strident nationalism precipitated World War I. Shortly thereafter, the world witnessed perhaps the most dramatic example of extreme nationalism fueling global disorder: Nazi Germany. There, a belief in Aryan (essentially white Germanic) racial superiority—a manifestation of what is known as ethnocentric nationalism—led to World War II. Extreme Nationalism unleashed the deadliest conflict in human history, which included horrific campaigns of identity-based violence. Particularly, the Nazi government perpetrated the Holocaust, a systematic killing of over six million Jews.

A propaganda image depicting an idealized “Aryan” family, from the Nazi Party’s Racial Policy Office calendar during the Holocaust, circa 1938.

Source: Museum fur Kunst und Gewerbe/U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum

Since the end of World War II, European leaders have sought to promote regional security and prosperity over solely national interests by binding countries together through political and economic institutions like the European Union (EU). But recently, a rising tide of nationalism has led countries to once again question such partnerships. Most notably, nationalism fueled the United Kingdom’s decision in 2016, known as Brexit , to leave the EU.

A propaganda poster using an image of immigrants and refugees to advocate for the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU (Brexit), shared by Nigel Farage of the United Kingdom Independence Party in 2016, via Twitter.

Source: UK Independence Party via Twitter

Elsewhere in Europe, identity and exclusive nationalism have led to an aggressive foreign policy that threatens world order. For instance, the Russian government has pursued a multi-year campaign to occupy land in the neighboring nation of Ukraine, partially under claims about its support for ethnic Russians living in the country. However, such justifications are undermined by at least one poll showing that the majority of ethnic Russians in Ukraine oppose Russia's land grab.

Source: Institute for the Study of War; American Enterprise Institute.

Exclusive nationalism : This is the idea that only people who meet certain criteria are citizens and those who are not part of this group can never be equal. In Saudi Arabia, for instance, Islam is the official religion, and non-Muslims cannot become citizens. Even then, not all Saudi Muslims are treated equally. In the majority-Sunni society, adherents of Shia and other minority denominations face prejudice.

Strict definitions of who is and is not part of the nation can lead to economic and political discrimination or even violence as governments attempt to forcibly assimilate minority groups.

In China, the government has forced over one million Uighur Muslims into detention centers , where detainees are made to learn Mandarin, renounce Islam, and pledge loyalty to the Chinese government.

A propaganda mural painted next to a mosque in the western Chinese province of Xinjiang, where internment camps for Uighur and other Muslim minorities facing religions persecution are located.

Source: Courtesy of BBC News

In Iran, minorities often face government persecution; for instance, Baha’is—adherents of a small religious group—are barred from attending universities. In India, Hindu nationalists, who have gained power in recent years, reject the country’s founding vision as a secular, multicultural society. They have increasingly advocated for preferential treatment for Hindus. At this times this has come at the expense of the rights of some two hundred million Muslim Indians.

A political advertisement ahead of India’s 2014 elections depicts Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whose platform is based on Hindu nationalism, the idea that Hindu faith and culture should shape the diverse country’s politics.

Source: Indranil Mukherjee/AFP via Getty Images

In the most extreme cases, nationalism has led to genocide , the targeted mass killing of a specific group of people. In the predominantly Buddhist Myanmar, Muslim Rohingya have faced decades of persecution . Tensions spiked in 2017 when the government carried out a violent and brutal campaign against the ethnic Muslim minority. This violence forced hundreds of thousands of Rohingya to flee into neighboring Bangladesh.

Protesters hold signs objecting to the word "Rohingya" as an aid ship headed for Rohingya refugee camps docks in Myanmar in 2017. The Rohingya are a marginalized Muslim ethnic group, who have been denied citizenship and subjected to ethnic cleansing in Myanmar.

Source: Lauren DeCicca/Getty Images

Economic nationalism : This form of nationalism promotes domestic control of the economy, usually to protect jobs and minimize imports. Economic nationalists also tend to oppose free international trade. To shore up local industries against foreign competition, governments often implement protectionist policies , including tariffs , subsidies, and import quotas.

On the surface, a policy that purports to put the nation’s economic interests first seems fine. However, such policies can actually hurt that country’s citizens. Tariffs increase the prices of imported goods, and consumers must bear the additional cost if the goods are not produced domestically. When one country imposes tariffs on goods from another, it usually faces retaliatory tariffs. These tariffs make it difficult for industries to sell their products at competitive prices abroad.

In today’s global era, international trade is essential. No country is entirely self-sufficient—it cannot rely solely on what it produces within its borders. Whether it’s importing fuel, food, electronics, or face masks during a pandemic , a country needs international trade to function. Some experts even argue that increased trading makes the world a safer place, as countries that are economically interdependent are less likely to go to war.

Nationalism in a Global Era

At the end of World War II, countries sought ways to ensure the world would never again break down into such horrific conflict. Leaders created new global institutions—including the United Nations, World Bank , and International Monetary Fund . These governing bodies form  the backbone of what is called the liberal world order. For decades, this liberal world order has tried to guard against the most violent impulses of nationalism. They create forums for international cooperation designed to promote collective security and economic growth. And while certainly not always successful, it has contributed to a largely peaceful and prosperous era for many. 

But around the world, nationalism is on the rise again, often along with populism—the movement when large groups of people believe the ruling elites are not addressing their concerns. This combination of sentiments has led to the emergence of new leaders who claim to represent “the people,” alongside efforts to oust existing elites.

Numerous factors account for these developments, including stagnating wages, rising income inequality, and job losses. While such losses in the labor market are mostly associated with technological innovation, they are often attributed to global factors, such as the 2008 global financial crisis , and the COVID-19 pandemic . This is also happening—somewhat paradoxically—as the world grows increasingly interconnected: globalization has enabled people, ideas, money, goods, data, drugs, weapons, greenhouse gasses , viruses, and more to move around the world at unprecedented speeds. 

In a time when so much travels across borders so quickly—including today’s greatest threats—the world requires more cooperation. No country can deal successfully with global challenges on its own; countries fare better when they join forces with like-minded partners.

EducationalWave

Pros and Cons of Nationalism

Nationalism can foster unity , pride, and common identity among citizens, promoting social cohesion and inclusivity. It can inspire positive contributions to society, preserve cultural heritage , and strengthen resilience during challenges. However, nationalist sentiments may also lead to negative divisions , conflicts, and marginalization within society. Excluding certain groups and fostering competition can hinder social harmony and diversity. Understanding both the advantages and drawbacks of nationalism is essential for fully grasping its impact on societies and individuals.

Table of Contents

• Fosters unity, pride, and shared identity among citizens.
• Promotes social cohesion and common goals.
• Preserves cultural heritage and traditions.
• Strengthens resilience to overcome challenges.
• Creates negative group divisions and heightens conflicts.

Benefits of Nationalism

Nationalism, when harnessed positively, can foster a sense of unity , pride, and shared identity among citizens within a nation. This shared national identity can create a cohesive society where individuals feel a sense of belonging and loyalty to their country.

Nationalism often serves as a unifying force , bringing together people from diverse backgrounds under a common flag and shared values. It can promote social cohesion by emphasizing common goals, traditions, and cultural heritage that bind citizens together.

Furthermore, nationalism can inspire citizens to work towards the betterment of their nation. When individuals feel a strong sense of national pride , they are more likely to contribute positively to their society, whether through civic engagement, community service, or economic productivity. This collective sense of purpose and responsibility can drive progress and development within a country.

Sense of Identity and Belonging

A strong sense of identity and belonging is often cultivated within a nation through the promotion of nationalism. Nationalism fosters a shared cultural heritage, history, traditions, and values that create a cohesive national identity among its citizens. This sense of identity instills pride in one's nation and strengthens the feeling of belonging to a larger community, fostering unity and a common purpose among individuals.

Unity and Patriotism

Fostering a collective spirit of loyalty and devotion towards one's country, unity and patriotism play pivotal roles in shaping a nation's cohesion and strength. Unity, derived from a shared sense of purpose and belonging, binds individuals together under a common identity , transcending differences for the greater good of the nation.

This unity cultivates a sense of solidarity among citizens, promoting cooperation and collaboration towards common goals. Patriotism, on the other hand, fuels a deep love and pride for one's country, instilling a sense of responsibility to contribute positively to its progress and well-being.

Through unity and patriotism, a nation can overcome internal divisions and external threats, standing strong in the face of challenges. These values inspire citizens to work towards the betterment of their country, fostering a spirit of national pride and resilience.

Additionally, unity and patriotism serve as foundations for social harmony , political stability, and economic prosperity, laying the groundwork for a flourishing and resilient nation.

Drawbacks of Nationalism

The drawbacks of nationalism are evident in the negative group divisions it can create within a society, leading to tensions and conflicts among different groups.

Additionally, nationalism has the potential to heighten the chances of conflicts, as it often fosters a sense of superiority and competition between nations.

Lastly, nationalism's tendency to be exclusionary can result in marginalized groups feeling alienated or discriminated against within their own country.

Negative Group Division

One significant consequence of nationalism is the exacerbation of social and ethnic divisions within a country. While nationalism can foster a sense of unity and pride among a specific group of people, it often does so at the expense of creating negative group divisions . This can lead to increased tensions between different ethnic, cultural, or religious groups within a nation.

Nationalism tends to promote an 'us versus them' mentality, where those who do not fit into the dominant national identity are marginalized or discriminated against . This can manifest in various forms, such as discrimination in employment opportunities, unequal access to resources, or even violent conflicts between different groups .

In extreme cases, nationalism can fuel ethnic nationalism , leading to segregation, persecution , or even genocide. Moreover, the emphasis on national identity can overshadow the diversity and richness of multicultural societies, further alienating minority groups.

This can hinder social cohesion , weaken the fabric of society, and impede progress towards equality and inclusivity. Therefore, while nationalism can promote a sense of belonging for some, it often comes at the cost of deepening negative group divisions within a country.

Heightened Conflict Potential

Heightened conflict potential is a prominent drawback associated with nationalist ideologies, often resulting in increased tensions and hostilities between different groups within a nation. This negative consequence can lead to various detrimental effects on society, including:

• Violence : Nationalism has the potential to fuel violent confrontations between groups with differing nationalist views, escalating conflicts to dangerous levels.
• Discrimination : Nationalist ideals sometimes lead to discrimination against minority groups within a nation, fostering inequality and injustice.
• Polarization : Nationalism can polarize communities, creating an 'us versus them' mentality that hinders unity and cooperation.
• Isolation : Excessive nationalism may isolate a country on the global stage, leading to strained international relations and diminishing opportunities for collaboration and progress.

These outcomes highlight the destructive nature of heightened conflict potential associated with nationalist ideologies, emphasizing the importance of fostering unity and understanding among diverse groups within a nation.

Exclusionary Tendencies Displayed

Exhibiting exclusionary tendencies , nationalism often promotes the prioritization of one group's interests over others within a nation. This exclusionary behavior can lead to the marginalization or discrimination of minority groups, ethnicities, or immigrants who do not fit the dominant national identity . Such exclusion can create divisions within society, fostering resentment , animosity , and social unrest. This can further exacerbate existing inequalities and perpetuate prejudices , hindering social cohesion and unity.

Moreover, nationalism's exclusionary tendencies can also manifest in policies that restrict immigration, promote protectionist economic measures , or limit cultural diversity. By favoring one group over others, nationalist ideologies can hinder the integration of diverse perspectives, hindering innovation and progress. This narrow focus on a singular national identity can stifle creativity, limit tolerance, and impede the exchange of ideas essential for societal development.

Divisions and Exclusion

Examining the impact of nationalism on social identity and the challenges it poses to cultural diversity brings to light the inherent divisions and exclusions that can arise within a society.

The emphasis on national identity can sometimes overshadow the diverse backgrounds and beliefs of individuals, leading to a sense of exclusion among minority groups .

As nationalism strengthens a sense of unity among certain groups, it simultaneously creates barriers that can isolate others, potentially hindering inclusivity and understanding.

Social Identity Impact

Nationalism can often lead to the reinforcement of social divisions and the exclusion of certain groups within a society. This impact on social identity can have far-reaching consequences, affecting how individuals perceive themselves and others, as well as shaping the dynamics of a nation.

The following points illustrate the divisive nature of nationalism:

• Loss of Belonging :

Nationalism can create an 'us vs. them' mentality, causing individuals who do not fit the dominant national identity to feel excluded and marginalized.

• Heightened Tensions :

The emphasis on national pride can escalate tensions between different social groups, fueling conflicts and deepening existing divisions.

• Undermining Diversity :

Nationalism often prioritizes a singular national identity, overshadowing the richness of cultural, ethnic, and social diversity present within a society.

• Inequality and Discrimination :

Certain groups may face discrimination or unequal treatment based on their perceived lack of alignment with the nationalist ideology, leading to social injustices and disparities.

Cultural Diversity Challenge

The challenge of cultural diversity within nationalist movements often manifests through divisions and exclusion of minority groups. Nationalism, while promoting a sense of unity and pride in one's nation, can lead to the marginalization of individuals who do not fit the dominant cultural or ethnic group. This exclusionary aspect of nationalism can create tensions and hinder social cohesion within a country.

To further illustrate this point, let's consider the following table showcasing the potential impacts of cultural diversity challenges within nationalist movements:

Addressing these challenges requires a delicate balance between promoting national identity and respecting the diversity that exists within a country's population. Failure to navigate this balance can exacerbate divisions and perpetuate exclusionary practices.

Potential for Conflict

Nationalism's propensity to ignite tensions within diverse societies has been a subject of scholarly debate. While nationalism can foster a sense of unity and pride among a group of people, it also carries the potential to spark conflicts that can have far-reaching consequences.

Here are some reasons why nationalism can lead to conflict:

• Us vs. Them Mentality : Nationalism often emphasizes differences between 'us', the nationals, and 'them', those outside the nation, creating an environment of hostility towards perceived outsiders.
• Historical Grievances : Nationalistic sentiments rooted in historical events or territorial disputes can fuel animosity and lead to conflicts between nations or within multicultural societies.
• Xenophobia and Discrimination : Extreme nationalism can breed xenophobia and discriminatory attitudes towards minority groups, escalating tensions and potentially resulting in violence.
• Competing Nationalisms : When multiple nationalist movements exist within a region, each vying for dominance, clashes over cultural identity and political power can erupt, exacerbating conflicts.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can nationalism lead to positive globalization?.

Nationalism can potentially foster positive globalization by promoting a sense of national pride and unity that encourages collaboration and cooperation on a global scale. When harnessed constructively, nationalism can contribute to a more interconnected and prosperous world.

How Does Nationalism Impact Cultural Diversity?

Nationalism can impact cultural diversity by promoting a sense of unity and identity within a specific group, potentially leading to the preservation and celebration of unique cultural traditions. Conversely, it may also foster exclusion and conflict with other cultures.

Is Nationalism Compatible With Multicultural Societies?

Nationalism and multicultural societies can present challenges due to potential conflicts between national identity and diverse cultural backgrounds. Balancing pride in one's nation with respect for cultural differences is essential for harmony.

What Role Does Social Media Play in Nationalism?

Social media plays a significant role in shaping nationalist sentiments by providing a platform for amplifying nationalist ideologies, spreading propaganda, and fostering a sense of unity among like-minded individuals, ultimately influencing public opinion and political discourse.

Can Nationalism Promote Economic Growth Sustainably?

Nationalism can potentially promote economic growth sustainably by fostering a sense of unity and pride among citizens, which can lead to increased productivity, innovation, and investment in national industries. However, it also raises concerns about protectionism and global cooperation.

In conclusion, nationalism can provide individuals with a sense of identity and belonging, as well as foster unity and patriotism within a nation.

However, it also has the potential to create divisions and exclusion among different groups, leading to conflicts.

It is important for societies to carefully consider the implications of nationalism and strive to promote unity and inclusivity while recognizing and celebrating cultural diversity .

Related Posts:

• Pros and Cons of Ethnocentrism
• Pros and Cons of Pluralism
• Pros and Cons of Open and Closed Groups

Related posts:

• Pros and Cons of Monarchy
• Pros and Cons of the War of 1812

Educational Wave Team

• Communication
• Recreational

Pros and Cons of Nationalism

• Post author: admin
• Post published: June 22, 2019
• Post category: Government
• Post comments: 0 Comments

Image source: Ekantipur.com

Nationalism is a system created by people who believe their nation is superior to all others. Most often this sense of superiority has its roots in shared ethnicity. Other countries build nationalism around a shared language, religion, and culture or a set of social values.

A nation emphasizes shared symbols, folklore, and mythology. Shared music, literature, and spots may further strengthen Nationalism.

Nationalists work towards a self-governing state. Their government controls aspects of the economy in order to promote the nation’s self-interests. It sets policies that strengthen the domestic entities that own the factors of production.

Here are the 10 pros and cons of Nationalism. If you want to read the short form of 5 Pros and Cons of Nationalism .

1. It develops the infrastructure of the nation . National pride means careering for what is yours. When there is a strong sense of nationalism, then there are programs put in place to care for roads bridges, and other needed infrastructure items.

2. It inspires people to succeed. The American dream is an example of nationalism. The idea that someone can come to the US from anywhere and pursue their own version of happiness or achieve what they want to achieve in life is an effort many wish to have access to.

3. It gives a nation a position of strength . One should always negotiate from a position of strength. A nation can be as strong as it can possibly be as a community and this can give it global negotiating power.

4. Nationalism brings about Patriotism . This is the feeling of love, devotion, a sense of attachment to a homeland, and alliance with others. This is all caused by the nationalism of the citizens in the country.

5. Brings about the duty to the nation above all . If the rights of the nation spring from its obligations, then it is principally from those that relate to itself and above all. This singularity manly brave the adventurous character of the nation.

6. Unity in the group even in diversity. The challenge of achieving unity in diversity even through basic knowledge regarding suitable language or nonverbal is brought by nationalism.

7. Leads to pride in belonging to the nation . As a citizen of the country, nationalism will bring about the pride of being part of the nation or belonging to the nation.

8. Working together for the motherland even when living in a different country . Some of the citizens work together with their country or nation despite being away from their nation this is all caused by nationalism.

9. Working for the all-around development of the nation. Nationalism ensures that the involved participant works all round to the development of the nation.

10. Bring justice and rule of law . Nationalism could bring about justice in a nation and a better rule of law.

1. It often leads to separation and loneliness . Nationalism superiority often causes a country to not only be independent of the rest of the world but also separated from the rest of the world. Treaties can become more difficult to form. It can also become difficult to have a strong export/import market.

2. It can lead to socioeconomic cliques . Nationalism doesn’t occur at the community level. It only occurs at the individual level thus, creating separation among people based on the labels they create on their own.

3. It can lead to war . When two nations focused on nationalism clash in their ideas, both will feel that they are right and the other is wrong. If either feels like their values are under attack, then nationalism can also become the foundation of war.

4. In some cases going to extreme left/right fringes in the name of security of the nation . Extreme fingers caused by nationalism may lead in the name of the secure ring, then the security of the country involved is affected.

5. The intolerance that may lead to hatred . Sometimes creating intolerance for their countries may bring extreme hatred for people of another country.

6. May lead to insults and hurting. One can insult and hurt others’ nationalities, religions,s or social cultures due to nationalism.

7. Have prejudice about others. Prejudice is having an effective feeling for others in the nation. This reasonable feeling or opinion about others is a result of nationalism.

8. One thinks for only one’s nation. In nationalism, one only thinks about his/her own nation without any concern for the country he is actually living in as well as others.

9. Weighing majority and minority concerns . In a nation, nationalism may bring about problems as a result of weighing the majority and the minority concerns.

10. Human abuses of power . Nationalism leads to abuses of power, hence there would be no accountability or any justice in the nation.

You Might Also Like

Pros and cons of constitution

Pros and Cons of Collecting Unemployment

Pros and cons of Versailles treaty

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Nationalism Essay: Topics, Examples, & Tips

A nationalism essay is focused on the idea of devotion and loyalty to one’s country and its sovereignty. In your paper, you can elaborate on its various aspects. For example, you might want to describe the phenomenon’s meaning or compare the types of nationalism. You might also be interested in exploring nationalism examples: in various countries (South Africa, for instance), in international relations, in government, in world history, or even in everyday life.

This article by our custom-writing experts will help you succeed with your assignment. Here, you will find:

• Definitions and comparisons of different types of nationalism;
• A step-by-step nationalism essay writing guide;
• A number of nationalism examples;
• A list of 44 nationalism essay topics.
• 🔝 Top 10 Topics
• ❓ Definition
• ✔️ Pros & Cons
• 📜 Nationalism Essay Structure
• 🌐 44 Nationalism Topics
• 📝 Essay Prompts & Example
• ✏️ Frequent Questions

🔝 Top 10 Nationalism Essay Topics

• Irish nationalism in literature
• Cultural nationalism in India
• Can nationalism promote peace?
• The politics of contested nationalism 
• How does religion influence nationalism?
• Does globalization diminish nationalism?
• Does nationalism promote imperialism?
• Nationalism in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
• How liberalism leads to economic nationalism
• Link between national identity and civic nationalism

❓ Nationalism Essay: What Is It About?

Nationalism is an idea that a nation’s interests are above those of other countries or individuals. It implies identifying with a nation and promoting its independence. In particular, nationalism ascribes value to a nation’s culture, traditions, religion, language, and territory.

In fact, “nationalism” is a very complicated term. It has many types and gradations that are exciting to explore. Besides, it has a long and varied history. In countries such as India and France nationalism helped to achieve democracy and independence. At the same time, in it extreme forms it led to wars and terrorism. Any of these aspects can be the focus of your nationalism essay.

Types of Nationalism

As we’ve mentioned before, nationalism is a complicated notion. It varies a lot from country to country as well as historically. That’s why scholars proposed a classification of nationalism types. It helps to reflect these differences. Check out some of the most popular forms of nationalism in the list below.

• Cultural nationalism. This type is centered on a nation’s culture and language. In the 1800s, it became a popular idea in Europe and postcolonial states. Cultural nationalism is reflected in the celebration of folklore and local dialects. For example, in Ireland it led to an increased interest in the Gaelic language. We can still find ideas related to this ideology today. A prominent example is Americans’ appreciation of their cultural symbols, such as the flag.
• Civic nationalism. Civic nationalism’s definition is an idea of belonging through common rights. According to this ideology, the interests of a state are more important than those of a single nation. Civic nationalism is based on modern ideas of equality and personal freedom. These values help people achieve common goals. Nowadays, civic nationalism is closely associated with liberal Western countries.
• Ethnic nationalism. This type is focused on common ethnicity and ancestry. According to ethno-nationalists, a country’s homogenous culture allows sovereignty. This ideology is considered controversial due to its association with racism and xenophobia. Ethnic nationalism’s pros and cons can be illustrated by its effects on culture in Germany. On the one hand, it influenced the art of the Romantic era. On the other, its extreme form led to the rise of Nazism.
• Economic nationalism. A simple definition of economic nationalism is the idea that a government should protect its economy from outside influences. It leads to the discouragement of cooperation between countries. Such an approach has its benefits. However, it is often counterproductive. Scholars point out many failures throughout the history of economic nationalism. The Great Depression, for example, was prolonged due to this approach.
• Religious nationalism. The fusion of politics and religion characterizes this ideology. Its proponents argue that religion is an integral part of a national identity. For instance, it helps to unite people. The rise of religious nationalism often occurs in countries that fight for independence. Notable examples are India, Pakistan, and Christian countries like Poland.

The Globalism vs Nationalism Debate

One of the fiercest debates concerning nationalism is focused on how it relates to globalism. These two attitudes are often seen as opposed to each other. Some even call globalism and nationalism “the new political divide.” Let’s see whether this point of view is justified.

Nowadays, communities around the world are becoming more and more homogenous. This unification and interconnectedness is called globalization , while an ideology focused on its promotion is known as globalism.

Naturally, these tendencies have their pros and cons . Want to learn more? Have a look at the table below.

As you can see, both notions have their strong and weak aspects. But can globalism and nationalism coexist? In fact, many scholars say “ yes, they can .” Instead of choosing either option, people can combine their best traits. This way, we will promote effective communication and collaboration.

Nationalism vs. Patriotism

You may be wondering: Is nationalism a synonym for patriotism? The answer is that both words denote pride and love for one’s country. However, there is an important distinction to be made. While patriotism has a generally positive meaning, nationalism has a negative one.

The main difference lies in the attitude towards other nations:

• Patriotism doesn’t imply that one’s nation is superior to others. Generally, this term refers to how the state approaches its ideals, values, and culture. In this case, a patriot of a particular country can represent any nation, regardless of their origin.
• In contrast, nationalism implies an idea of a nation’s sovereignty. This means that a country’s interests are viewed separately from the rest of the world. It also focuses on the importance of nation’s culture and ethnicity. In extreme situations, these values may result in an idea of supremacy.

In short, nationalism is patriotism taken to the extreme. With this in mind, let’s have a look at positive and negative effects of nationalism. An essay on any of the following points will surely be a success.

✔️ Nationalism Pros and Cons

If you have to write an essay on “why nationalism is good”, here are some of its key benefits for you to consider:

But what about the concept’s drawbacks? After all, nothing can be 100% beneficial. For a credible investigation, it’s necessary to examine both sides of the topic. Here are some disadvantages to consider for a paper on nationalism:

As you can see, nationalism can lead both to prosperity and destruction. Now you know why keeping the balance is crucial to a nation’s well-being. Think about it when you write your argumentative essay on nationalism.

📜 Nationalism Essay Structure

Now, let’s take a closer look at the essay structure. When writing your paper on nationalism, follow this outline:

So, was the writing process as hard as you expected? Nationalism essays indeed require a little bit more time and research than other papers. Nonetheless, you can only benefit from this experience.

🌐 Nationalism Essay Topics

Don’t know which nationalism essay topic to choose? Try one of the ideas below:

• How do nationalism and patriotism differ? The former is linked to acquiring territories perceived as the homeland. The latter means taking pride in the nation’s achievements. Scholars sometimes consider patriotism a form of nationalism.
• How does nationalism affect the distribution of the Sars-CoV-2 vaccine? Determine whether the countries with nationalist tendencies are more successful in getting their population vaccinated.
• Nationality politics in the Soviet Union. Under the rule of Stalin, the USSR transformed into a totalitarian state. But before that, Lenin took care to enact extensive ethnicity laws. What happened when Stalin slammed the brakes on the program?
• Perceiving nationalism as bad: why is it common? For many, the word itself evokes negative associations. For a person who considers themselves a liberal, it may seem like a great evil. Where does this perception come from? What benefits does nationalism have for liberals?
• Nationalist ideology and its many categories. In nationalism studies, the main distinction is between its ethnic and civic types. But there are many other categories that you can explore. Use this prompt to give an overview of such concepts.
• Religious nationalism: Crusades vs. Jihad. In the Middle Ages, Christians tried to stop Islam’s expansion via bloody crusades. In modern times, the call to jihad is used to mobilize extremist Muslims. What are the major differences between these types of holy war?
• What role does nationalism play in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Israel and Palestine have been fighting for decades over what they believe to be a holy land. The dispute appears to be unsolvable. What arguments do both parties bring forth? How does Arab nationalism come into play here?
• The development of nationalism over time . The French Revolution was the result of nationalist thinking. However, what we perceive as nationalist today is different from what it was back then. In your essay, trace the origins and evolution of the term “nationalism” and its meaning.
• Prominent dictators then and now: a comparison. Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco are well-known names. But how do they compare to modern authoritarian leaders? When answering this question, evaluate the role of nationalist ideology.
• What are some political disadvantages of nationalism? Populist leaders are often unpopular with other politicians. Some examples are Poland’s PiS party and Donald Trump. Discuss how a nationalist stance can affect domestic policies.
• Arab nationalism and its influence on the world economy.
• Nationalism vs. liberalism.
• German nationalism and the World Wars.
• Economic nationalism: pros and cons.
• European nationalism in the 20th century.
• Globalism vs. nationalism: how do they differ ?
• Jewish nationalism and its influence on the formation of the Israeli state.
• Relationship between nationalism and religion.
• Nationalism in Orwell’s novels.
• The French Revolution: how nationalism influenced the political system change.
• Is nationalism objectively good or bad?
• Nationalism, transnationalism, and globalism: differences and similarities.
• Russian nationalism in the 21st century and its impact on the world political system.
• Nationalism as a catalyst for war.
• Liberal nationalism and radical nationalism: benefits and disadvantages.
• Evaluate the significance of national identity.
• What is the difference between race and ethnicity?
• How can love of a country positively impact a state’s healthcare system?
• What fueled the rise of nationalism in the post-socialist space?
• Trace the connection between nationalist ideology and morality.
• What countries are considered nationalizing?
• Compare the conflicts where nationalism hinders solution.
• Choose five aspects of neo-nationalism and analyze them.
• Nationalist expressions in art .
• Nationalism in Ukraine: consequences of the Crimean annexation.
• Revolution and nationalism in South America.
• Examine the significance of street names to spread nationalist views.
• Why do people grow attached to a specific territory?
• The political power of nationalist language and propaganda.
• What does the feminist theory say about chauvinism?
• What makes post-colonial nationalism unique?
• Assess the difference between Western and non‐Western nationalism.
• Sex and gender in nationalism.
• Civic and ethnic forms of nationalism: similarities and differences.

📝 Nationalism Examples & Essay Prompts

Want more ideas? Check out these additional essay prompts on some of the crucial nationalism topics!

Nationalism in South Africa Essay Prompt

South African nationalism is a movement aimed at uniting indigenous African peoples and protecting their values. An essay on this topic can consist of the following parts:

• The factors that led to the rise of African nationalism. These include dissatisfaction with colonial oppression, racial discrimination, and poor living conditions.
• Effects of African nationalism. One significant achievement is indigenous peoples regaining their territories. They also improved their status and revived their culture that was distorted by colonialism.
• Conclusion of African nationalism. With time, the struggle for autonomy evolved into an idea of Pan Africanism. This concept refers to the unification of indigenous South African peoples.

Nationalism in India Essay Prompt

Nationalism in 19 th -century India was a reaction against British rule. One of its defining characteristics is the use of non-violent protests. Your essay on this topic may cover the following aspects:

• Mahatma Gandhi and Indian nationalism. Gandhi was a pioneer of non-violent civil disobedience acts. His adherence to equality inspired many human rights activists.
• Cultural nationalism in India. Pride rooted in national heritage, language, and religion played a crucial role in Indian nationalism. One of the most important figures associated with this movement is Bengal poet Rabindranath Tagore.

Nationalism in the Philippines Essay Prompt

Nationalism in the Philippines has a unique chronological pattern. It’s also closely related to the Philippino identity. You can explore these and other aspects in your essay:

• The rise of Filipino nationalism in the 19 th century. Discuss the role of José Rizal and the Propaganda Movement in these events.
• Nationalism and patriotism in the Philippines. Compare the levels of patriotism at different points in the country’s history.
• Is there a lack of nationalism in the Philippines? Studies show that Filipinos have a relatively weak sense of nationhood and patriotism. What is your perspective on this problem?

How Did Nationalism Lead to WWI?: Essay Prompt

Nationalism is widely considered to be one of the leading causes of WWI. Discuss it with the following prompts:

• Militarism and nationalism before WWI. Militarism is a belief in a country’s military superiority. Assess its role in countries such as the British and Russian Empires before the war.
• How did imperialism contribute to WWI? Imperialism refers to a nation’s fight for new territories. It fuelled the rivalry between the world’s leading countries before the war.
• Nationalism in the Balkans and the outbreak of WWI. Write a persuasive essay on the role of the Balkan crisis in Franz Ferdinand’s assassination. How did this event lead to the outbreak of war?

Want to see what a paper on this topic may look like? Check out this nationalism essay example:

Now you have all you need to write an excellent essay on nationalism. Liked this article? Let us know in the comment section below!

You might also be interested in:

• Canadian Identity Essay: Essay Topics and Writing Guide
• Human Trafficking Essay for College: Topics and Examples
• Essay on Corruption: How to Stop It. Quick Guide
• Murder Essay: Top 3 Killing Ideas to Complete your Essay
• Student Exchange Program (Flex) Essay Topics
• Gun Control Essay: How-to Guide + 150 Argumentative Topics
• Transportation Essay: Writing Tips and 85 Brilliant Topics

✏️ Nationalism Essay FAQ

You can define nationalism as the identification with nation and support of its interests. Nationalism is aimed at protecting a nation from foreign influences. This idea is important because it helps a country be strong and independent.

Most specialists highlight religious, political, and ethnic nationalism. Different classifications suggest various types of nationalism. It can be positive and negative, militant, extreme, etc. The phenomenon is complex and multidimensional. You can find it in most societies.

Nationalism is a complex phenomenon. It has positive and negative sides. Because of this, it’s crucial to write about it objectively. In any academic text on nationalism you should provide relevant arguments, quotes, and other evidence.

A nationalism essay focuses on the concept’s principles, advantages, and disadvantages. You can find numerous articles and research papers about it online or in your school’s library. Beware of copying anything directly: use them only as a source of inspiration.

🔗 References

• A New Dawn in Nationalism Studies? European History Quaterly
• The SAGE Handbook of Nations and Nationalism: Google Books
• Nationalism Studies Program: 2-year MA Student Handbook (CEU)
• Nationalism: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Nationalism is back: The Economist
• Working-class Neo-Nationalism in Postsocialist Cluj, Romania: Academia
• Nationalism: Encyclopedia Britannica
• Nationalism: Definition, Examples, and History: The Balance
• The Problem of Nationalism: The Heritage Foundation
• Effects of Nationalism: LearnAlberta
• The Difference Between Patriotism and Nationalism: Merriam-Webster
• Varieties of American Popular Nationalism: Harvard University
• Not So Civic: Is There a Difference between Ethnic and Civic Nationalism?: Annual Review
• Globalism and Nationalism: Which One Is Bad?: Taylor & Francis Online
• African Nationalism and the Struggle for Freedom: Pearson Higher Education
• Share to Facebook
• Share to LinkedIn
• Share to email

Is globalization a beneficial process? What are the pros and cons of a religious upbringing? Do the drawbacks of immigration outweigh the benefits? These questions can become a foundation for your advantages and disadvantages essay. And we have even more ideas to offer! There is nothing complicated about writing this...

This time you have to write a World War II essay, paper, or thesis. It means that you have a perfect chance to refresh those memories about the war that some of us might forget. So many words can be said about the war in that it seems you will...

Would you always go for Bill Nye the Science Guy instead of Power Rangers as a child? Were you ready to spend sleepless nights perfecting your science fair project? Or maybe you dream of a career in science? Then this guide by Custom-Writing.org is perfect for you. Here, you’ll find...

A satire essay is a creative writing assignment where you use irony and humor to criticize people’s vices or follies. It’s especially prevalent in the context of current political and social events. A satirical essay contains facts on a particular topic but presents it in a comical way. This task...

Your mood leaves a lot to be desired. Everything around you is getting on your nerves. But still, there’s one thing that may save you: music. Just think of all the times you turned on your favorite song, and it lifted your spirits! So, why not write about it in a music essay? In this article, you’ll find all the information necessary for this type of assignment: And...

Not everyone knows it, but globalization is not a brand-new process that started with the advent of the Internet. In fact, it’s been around throughout all of human history. This makes the choice of topics related to globalization practically endless. If you need help choosing a writing idea, this Custom-Writing.org...

In today’s world, fashion has become one of the most significant aspects of our lives. It influences everything from clothing and furniture to language and etiquette. It propels the economy, shapes people’s personal tastes, defines individuals and communities, and satisfies all possible desires and needs. In this article, Custom-Writing.org experts...

Early motherhood is a very complicated social problem. Even though the number of teenage mothers globally has decreased since 1991, about 12 million teen girls in developing countries give birth every year. If you need to write a paper on the issue of adolescent pregnancy and can’t find a good...

Human rights are moral norms and behavior standards towards all people that are protected by national and international law. They represent fundamental principles on which our society is founded. Human rights are a crucial safeguard for every person in the world. That’s why teachers often assign students to research and...

Global warming has been a major issue for almost half a century. Today, it remains a topical problem on which the future of humanity depends. Despite a halt between 1998 and 2013, world temperatures continue to rise, and the situation is expected to get worse in the future. When it...

Have you ever witnessed someone face unwanted aggressive behavior from classmates? According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, 1 in 5 students says they have experienced bullying at least once in their lifetime. These shocking statistics prove that bullying is a burning topic that deserves detailed research. In this...

Recycling involves collecting, processing, and reusing materials to manufacture new products. With its help, we can preserve natural resources, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and save energy. And did you know that recycling also creates jobs and supports the economy? If you want to delve into this exciting topic in your...

Hi. Can you please help me out in getting a simple topic to discuss/write for my final essay in my masters programme pertaining to nationalism. I’m new to this field of study and would want to enjoy reading and writing this final essay. Thanks in advance for your help.

Thanks to historians all over the world!

I have to write a 3000-word essay on the following topic: “Is it possible to imagine nationalism without the nation”? I find the readings difficult to understand and would greatly appreciate any help you could give me. Thank you. Noreen Devine

Hi Noreen, We’d be happy to help you with this task. Don’t hesitate to place an order with our writing company. Our best writer will help you understand the readings and create a great paper.

To Whom it May Concern, Thank you so much for your help. This morning I was reading your tips on how to write an essay about nationalism, and I find that it’s so helpful. I will contact you soon for help.

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Nationalism

The term “nationalism” is generally used to describe two phenomena:

• the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their national identity, and
• the actions that the members of a nation take when seeking to achieve (or sustain) self-determination.

(1) raises questions about the concept of a nation (or national identity), which is often defined in terms of common origin, ethnicity, or cultural ties, and specifically about whether an individual’s membership in a nation should be regarded as non-voluntary or voluntary. (2) raises questions about whether self-determination must be understood as involving having full statehood with complete authority over domestic and international affairs, or whether something less is required.

Nationalism came into the focus of philosophical debate three decades ago, in the nineties, partly in consequence of rather spectacular and troubling nationalist clashes. Surges of nationalism tend to present a morally ambiguous, and for this reason often fascinating, picture. “National awakening” and struggles for political independence are often both heroic and cruel; the formation of a recognizably national state often responds to deep popular sentiment but sometimes yields inhuman consequences, from violent expulsion and “cleansing” of non-nationals to organized mass murder. The moral debate on nationalism reflects a deep moral tension between solidarity with oppressed national groups on the one hand and repulsion in the face of crimes perpetrated in the name of nationalism on the other. Moreover, the issue of nationalism points to a wider domain of problems related to the treatment of ethnic and cultural differences within democratic polity, arguably among the most pressing problems of contemporary political theory.

In the last two decades, migration crisis and the populist reactions to migration and domestic economic issues have been the defining traits of a new political constellation. The traditional issue of the contrast between nationalism and cosmopolitanism has changed its profile: the current drastic contrast is between populist aversion to the foreigners-migrants and a more generous, or simply just, attitude of acceptance and Samaritan help. The populist aversion inherits some features traditionally associated with patriotism and nationalism, and the opposite attitude the main features of traditional cosmopolitanism. One could expect that the work on nationalism will be moving further on this new and challenging playground, addressing the new contrast and trying to locate nationalism in relation to it.

In this entry, we shall first present conceptual issues of definition and classification (Sections 1 and 2) and then the arguments put forward in the debate (Section 3), dedicating more space to the arguments in favor of nationalism than to those against it in order to give the philosophical nationalist a proper hearing. In the last part we shall turn to the new constellation and sketch the new issues raised by nationalist and trans-nationalist populisms and the migration crisis.

1.1 The Basic Concept of Nationalism

1.2 the concept of a nation, 2.1 concepts of nationalism: classical and liberal, 2.2 moral claims, classical vs. liberal: the centrality of nation, 3.1 classical and liberal nationalisms, 3.2 arguments in favor of nationalism, classical vs. liberal: the deep need for community, 3.3 arguments in favor of nationalism: issues of justice, 3.4 populism and a new face of nationalism, 3.5 nation-state in global context, 4. conclusion, introduction, other internet resources, related entries, 1. what is a nation.

Although the term “nationalism” has a variety of meanings, it centrally encompasses two phenomena: (1) the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their identity as members of that nation and (2) the actions that the members of a nation take in seeking to achieve (or sustain) some form of political sovereignty (see for example, Nielsen 1998–9: 9). Each of these aspects requires elaboration.

• raises questions about the concept of a nation or national identity, about what it is to belong to a nation, and about how much one ought to care about one’s nation. Nations and national identity may be defined in terms of common origin, ethnicity, or cultural ties, and while an individual’s membership in the nation is often regarded as involuntary, it is sometimes regarded as voluntary. The degree of care for one’s nation that nationalists require is often, but not always, taken to be very high: according to such views, the claims of one’s nation take precedence over rival contenders for authority and loyalty. [ 1 ]
• raises questions about whether sovereignty requires the acquisition of full statehood with complete authority over domestic and international affairs, or whether something less than statehood suffices. Although sovereignty is often taken to mean full statehood (Gellner 1983: ch. 1), [ 2 ] possible exceptions have been recognized (Miller 1992: 87; Miller 2000). Some authors even defend an anarchist version of patriotism-moderate nationalism foreshadowed by Bakunin (see Sparrow 2007).

There is a terminological and conceptual question of distinguishing nationalism from patriotism. A popular proposal is the contrast between attachment to one’s country as defining patriotism and attachment to one’s people and its traditions as defining nationalism (Kleinig 2014: 228, and Primoratz 2017: Section 1.2). One problem with this proposal is that love for a country is not really just love of a piece of land but normally involves attachment to the community of its inhabitants, and this introduces “nation” into the conception of patriotism. Another contrast is the one between strong, and somewhat aggressive attachment (nationalism) and a mild one (patriotism), dating back at least to George Orwell (see his 1945 essay). [ 3 ]

Despite these definitional worries, there is a fair amount of agreement about the classical, historically paradigmatic form of nationalism. It typically features the supremacy of the nation’s claims over other claims to individual allegiance and full sovereignty as the persistent aim of its political program. Territorial sovereignty has traditionally been seen as a defining element of state power and essential for nationhood. It was extolled in classic modern works by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau and is returning to center stage in the debate, though philosophers are now more skeptical (see below). Issues surrounding the control of the movement of money and people (in particular immigration) and the resource rights implied in territorial sovereignty make the topic politically central in the age of globalization and philosophically interesting for nationalists and anti-nationalists alike.

In recent times, the philosophical focus has moved more in the direction of “liberal nationalism”, the view that mitigates the classical claims and tries to bring together the pro-national attitude and the respect for traditional liberal values. For instance, the territorial state as political unit is seen by classical nationalists as centrally “belonging” to one ethnic-cultural group and as actively charged with protecting and promulgating its traditions. The liberal variety allows for “sharing” of the territorial state with non-dominant ethnic groups. Consequences are varied and quite interested (for more see below, especially section 2.1 ).

In its general form, the issue of nationalism concerns the mapping between the ethno-cultural domain (featuring ethno-cultural groups or “nations”) and the domain of political organization. In breaking down the issue, we have mentioned the importance of the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their national identity. This point raises two sorts of questions. First, the descriptive ones:

Second, the normative ones:

This section discusses the descriptive questions, starting with (1a) and (1b) ;the normative questions are addressed in Section 3 on the moral debate. If one wants to enjoin people to struggle for their national interests, one must have some idea about what a nation is and what it is to belong to a nation. So, in order to formulate and ground their evaluations, claims, and directives for action, pro-nationalist thinkers have expounded theories of ethnicity, culture, nation, and state. Their opponents have in turn challenged these elaborations. Now, some presuppositions about ethnic groups and nations are essential for the nationalist, while others are theoretical elaborations designed to support the essential ones. The definition and status of the social group that benefits from the nationalist program, variously called the “nation”, “ethno-nation”, or “ethnic group”, is essential. Since nationalism is particularly prominent with groups that do not yet have a state, a definition of nation and nationalism purely in terms of belonging to a state is a non-starter.

Indeed, purely “civic” loyalties are often categorized separately under the title “patriotism”, which we already mentioned, or “constitutional patriotism”. [ 4 ] This leaves two extreme options and a number of intermediates. The first extreme option has been put forward by a small but distinguished band of theorists. [ 5 ] According to their purely voluntaristic definition, a nation is any group of people aspiring to a common political state-like organization. If such a group of people succeeds in forming a state, the loyalties of the group members become “civic” (as opposed to “ethnic”) in nature. At the other extreme, and more typically, nationalist claims are focused upon the non-voluntary community of common origin, language, tradition, and culture: the classic ethno-nation is a community of origin and culture, including prominently a language and customs. The distinction is related (although not identical) to that drawn by older schools of social and political science between “civic” and “ethnic” nationalism, the former being allegedly Western European and the latter more Central and Eastern European, originating in Germany. [ 6 ] Philosophical discussions centered on nationalism tend to concern the ethnic-cultural variants only, and this habit will be followed here. A group aspiring to nationhood on this basis will be called an “ethno-nation” to underscore its ethno-cultural rather than purely civic underpinnings. For the ethno-(cultural) nationalist it is one’s ethnic-cultural background that determines one’s membership in the community. One cannot choose to be a member; instead, membership depends on the accident of origin and early socialization. However, commonality of origin has become mythical for most contemporary candidate groups: ethnic groups have been mixing for millennia.

Sophisticated, liberal pro-nationalists therefore tend to stress cultural membership only and speak of “nationality”, omitting the “ethno-” part (Miller 1992, 2000; Tamir 1993,2013; Gans 2003). Michel Seymour’s proposal of a “socio-cultural definition” adds a political dimension to the purely cultural one: a nation is a cultural group, possibly but not necessarily united by a common descent, endowed with civic ties (Seymour 2000). This is the kind of definition that would be accepted by most parties in the debate today. So defined, the nation is a somewhat mixed category, both ethno-cultural and civic, but still closer to the purely ethno-cultural than to the purely civic extreme.

Let us now turn to the issue of the origin and “authenticity” of ethno-cultural groups or ethno-nations. In social and political science one usually distinguishes two kinds of views, but there is a third group, combining element from both. The first are modernist views that see nationalism as born in modern times, together with nation-states. [ 7 ] In our times the view was pioneered by Ernst Gellner (see his 1983). [ 8 ] Other modernist choose similar starting points with century or two of variation. [ 9 ] The opposite view can be called, following Edward Shils (1957) “primordialist”. According to it, actual ethno-cultural nations have either existed “since time immemorial”.

The third, quite plausible kind of view, distinct from both primordialism-ethno-symbolism and modernism, has been initiated by W. Connor (1994). [ 10 ] A nation is a politicized and mobilized ethnic group rather than a state. So, the origins of nationalism predate the modern state, and its emotional content remains up to our times (Conversi 2002: 270), but the actual statist organization is, indeed, modern. However, nation-state is a nationalist dream and fiction, never really implemented, due to the inescapable plurality of social groups. So much for the three dominant perspectives on the origin of nationalism.

Indeed, the older authors—from great thinkers like Herder and Otto Bauer to the propagandists who followed their footsteps—took great pains to ground normative claims upon firm ontological realism about nations: nations are real, bona fide entities. However, the contemporary moral debate has tried to diminish the importance of the imagined/real divide. Prominent contemporary philosophers have claimed that normative-evaluative nationalist claims are compatible with the “imagined” nature of a nation. [ 11 ] They point out that common imaginings can tie people together, and that actual interaction resulting from togetherness can engender important moral obligations.

Let us now turn to question (1c) about the nature of pro-national attitudes. The explanatory issue that has interested political and social scientists concerns ethno-nationalist sentiment, the paradigm case of a pro-national attitude. Is it as irrational, romantic, and indifferent to self-interest as it might seem on the surface? The issue has divided authors who see nationalism as basically irrational and those who try to explain it as being in some sense rational. Authors who see it as irrational propose various explanations of why people assent to irrational views. Some say, critically, that nationalism is based on “false consciousness”. But where does such false consciousness come from? The most simplistic view is that it is a result of direct manipulation of “masses” by “elites”. On the opposite side, the famous critic of nationalism Elie Kedourie (1960) thinks this irrationality is spontaneous. A decade and a half ago Liah Greenfeld went as far as linking nationalism to mental illness in her provocative 2005 article (see also her 2006 book). On the opposite side, Michael Walzer has offered a sympathetic account of nationalist passion in his 2002. Authors relying upon the Marxist tradition offer various deeper explanations. To mention one, the French structuralist Étienne Balibar sees it as a result of the “production” of ideology effectuated by mechanisms which have nothing to do with spontaneous credulity of individuals, but with impersonal, structural social factors (Balibar & Wallerstein 1988 [1991]). [ 12 ]

Some authors claim that it is often rational for individuals to become nationalists (Hardin 1985). Can one rationally explain the extremes of ethno-national conflict? Authors like Russell Hardin propose to do so in terms of a general view of when hostile behavior is rational: most typically, if an individual has no reason to trust someone, it is reasonable for that individual to take precautions against the other. If both sides take precautions, however, each will tend to see the other as increasingly inimical. It then becomes rational to start treating the other as an enemy. Mere suspicion can thus lead by small, individually rational steps to a situation of conflict. (Such negative development is often presented as a variant of the Prisoner’s Dilemma; see the entry on prisoner’s dilemma ). It is relatively easy to spot the circumstances in which this general pattern applies to national solidarities and conflicts (see also Wimmer 2013).

Finally, as for question (1d) , the nation is typically seen as an essentially non-voluntary community to which one belongs by birth and early nurture and such that the belonging is enhanced and made more complete by one’s additional conscious endorsement. Not everyone agrees: liberal nationalists accept the idea of choice of one’s national belonging and of possibility for immigrants to become nationals by choice and intentional acculturation.

2. Varieties of Nationalism

We pointed out at the very beginning of the entry that nationalism focuses upon (1) the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their national identity, and (2) the actions that the members of a nation take when seeking to achieve (or sustain) some form of political sovereignty. The politically central point is (2): the actions enjoined by the nationalist. To these we now turn, beginning with sovereignty and territory, the usual foci of a national struggle for independence. They raise an important issue:

The classical answer is that a state is required. A more liberal answer is that some form of political autonomy suffices. Once this has been discussed, we can turn to the related normative issues:

Consider first the classical nationalist answer to (2a) . Political sovereignty requires a state “rightfully owned” by the ethno-nation (Oldenquist 1997). Developments of this line of thought often state or imply specific answers to (2b) , and (2c) , i.e., that in a national independence struggle the use of force against the threatening central power is almost always a legitimate means for bringing about sovereignty. However, classical nationalism is not only concerned with the creation of a state but also with its maintenance and strengthening.

Classical nationalism is the political program that sees the creation and maintenance of a fully sovereign state owned by a given ethno-national group (“people” or “nation”) as a primary duty of each member of the group. Starting from the assumption that the appropriate (or “natural”) unit of culture is an ethno-nation, it claims that a primary duty of each member is to abide by one’s recognizably ethno-national culture in all cultural matters.

Classical nationalists are usually vigilant about the kind of culture they protect and promote and about the kind of attitude people have to their nation-state. This watchful attitude carries some potential dangers: many elements of a given culture that are universal or simply not recognizably national may fall prey to such nationalist enthusiasms. Classical nationalism in everyday life puts various additional demands on individuals, from buying more expensive home-produced goods in preference to cheaper imported ones to procreating as many future members of the nation as one can manage (see Yuval-Davies 1997, and Yack 2012).

Besides classical nationalism (and its more radical extremist cousins), various moderate views are also now classified as nationalist. Indeed, the philosophical discussion has shifted to these moderate or even ultra-moderate forms, and most philosophers who describe themselves as nationalists propose very moderate nationalist programs.

Nationalism in this wider sense is any complex of attitudes, claims, and directives for action ascribing a fundamental political, moral, and cultural value to nation and nationality and deriving obligations (for individual members of the nation, and for any involved third parties, individual or collective) from this ascribed value. The main representative of this group of views is liberal nationalism , proposed by authors like Miller, Tamir, and Gans (see below).

Nationalisms in this wider sense can vary somewhat in their conceptions of the nation (which are often left implicit in their discourse), in the grounds for and degree of its value, and in the scope of their prescribed obligations. Moderate nationalism is less demanding than classical nationalism and sometimes goes under the name of “patriotism.” (A different usage, again, reserves “patriotism” for valuing civic community and loyalty to state, in contrast to nationalism, centered on ethnic-cultural communities).

Let us now turn to liberal nationalism, the most discussed kind of moderate nationalism.

Liberal nationalists see liberal-democratic principles and pro-national attitudes as belonging together. One of the main proponents of the view, Yael Tamir, started the debate in her 1993 book and in her recent book talks about the nation-state as “an ideal meeting point between the two” (2019: 6). Of course, some things have to be sacrificed: we must acknowledge that either the meaningfulness of a community or its openness must be sacrificed to some extent as we cannot have them both. (2019: 57). How much of each is to give way is left open, and of course, various liberal nationalists take different views of what precisely the right answer is.

Tamir’s version of liberal nationalism is a kind of social liberalism, in this respect similar to the views of David Miller who talks about “solidaristic communities” in his 1999 book Principles of Social Justice and also takes stance in his 1995 and 2008 books. They both see the feeling of national identity as a feeling that promotes solidarity, and solidarity as means for increased social justice (Tamir 2019, in particular ch.20; compare Walzer 1983, Kymlicka 1995a, 2001, and Gans 2003, 2008).

Liberal nationalists diverge about the value of multiculturalism. Kymlicka takes it as basic for his picture of liberalism while Tamir dismisses it without much ado: multicultural, multiethnic democracies have a very poor track record, she claims (2019: 62). Tamir’s diagnosis of the present day political crisis, with politicians like Trump and Le Pen coming to the forefront, is that “liberal democrats were paralyzed by their assumed victory” whereas “nationalists felt defeated and obsolete” (2019: 7).

Tamir lists two kinds of reasons that guarantee special political status to nations. First kind, that no other political entity “is more able than the state to promote ideas in the public sphere” (2019: 52), and the second kind that nation needs continuous creative effort to make it functional and attractive.

The historical development of liberalism turned it into a universalistic, anti-communitarian principle; this has been a fatal mistake that can be and should be corrected by the liberal nationalist synthesis. Can we revive the unifying narratives of our nationality without sacrificing the liberal inheritance of freedom and rights? Liberal nationalism answers in the affirmative. From its standpoint, national particularism has primacy: “The love of humanity is a noble ideal, but real love is always particular…” (2019: 68).

Interestingly, Tamir combines this high regard of nation with an extreme constructivist view of its nature: nations are mental structures that exist in the minds of their members (2019: 58).

Is liberal nationalism implemented anywhere in the present world, or is it more of an ideal, probably end-state theory, that proposes a picture of a desirable society? Judging by the writings of liberal nationalists, it is the latter, although presented as a relatively easily reachable ideal, combining two traditions that are already well implemented in political reality.

The variations of nationalism most relevant for philosophy are those that influence the moral standing of claims and of recommended nationalist practices. The elaborate philosophical views put forward in favor of nationalism will be referred to as “theoretical nationalism”, the adjective serving to distinguish such views from less sophisticated and more practical nationalist discourse. The central theoretical nationalist evaluative claims can be charted on the map of possible positions within political theory in the following useful but somewhat simplified and schematic way.

Nationalist claims featuring the nation as central to political action must answer two crucial general questions. First, is there one kind of large social group that is of special moral importance? The nationalist answer is that there certainly is one, namely, the nation. Moreover, when an ultimate choice is to be made, say between ties of family, or friendship, and the nation, the latter has priority. Liberal nationalists prefer a more moderate stance, which ascribes value to national belonging, but don’t make it central in this way. Second, what are the grounds for an individual’s obligations to the morally central group? Are they based on voluntary or involuntary membership in the group? The typical contemporary nationalist thinker opts for the latter, while admitting that voluntary endorsement of one’s national identity is a morally important achievement. On the philosophical map, pro-nationalist normative tastes fit nicely with the communitarian stance in general: most pro-nationalist philosophers are communitarians who choose the nation as the preferred community (in contrast to those of their fellow communitarians who prefer more far-ranging communities, such as those defined by global religious traditions). [ 13 ]

Before proceeding to moral claims, let us briefly sketch the issues and viewpoints connected to territory and territorial rights that are essential for nationalist political programs. [ 14 ] Why is territory important for ethno-national groups, and what are the extent and grounds of territorial rights? Its primary importance resides in sovereignty and all the associated possibilities for internal control and external exclusion. Add to this the Rousseauian view that political attachments are essentially bounded and that love —or, to put it more mildly, republican civil friendship—for one’s group requires exclusion of some “other”, and the importance becomes quite obvious. What about the grounds for the demand for territorial rights? Nationalist and pro-nationalist views mostly rely on the attachment that members of a nation have to national territory and to the formative value of territory for a nation to justify territorial claims (see Miller 2000 and Meisels 2009). This is similar in some respects to the rationale given by proponents of indigenous peoples’ rights (Tully 2004, but see also Hendrix 2008) and in other respects to Kolers’ 2009 ethno-geographical non-nationalist theory, but differs in preferring ethno-national groups as the sole carriers of the right. These attachment views stand in stark contrast to more pragmatic views about territorial rights as means for conflict resolution (e.g., Levy 2000). Another quite popular alternative is the family of individualistic views grounding territorial rights in rights and interests of individuals. [ 15 ] On the extreme end of anti-nationalist views stands the idea of Pogge) that there are no specific territorial problems for political philosophy—the “dissolution approach”, as Kolers calls it.

We now pass to the normative dimension of nationalism. We shall first describe the very heart of the nationalist program, i.e., sketch and classify the typical normative and evaluative nationalist claims. These claims can be seen as answers to the normative subset of our initial questions about (1) pro-national attitudes and (2) actions.

We will see that these claims recommend various courses of action: centrally, those meant to secure and sustain a political organization for the given ethno-cultural national community (thereby making more specific the answers to our normative questions (1e) , (1f) , (2b) , and (2c) ). Further, they enjoin the community’s members to promulgate recognizable ethno-cultural contents as central features of the cultural life within such a state. Finally, we shall discuss various lines of pro-nationalist thought that have been put forward in defense of these claims. To begin, let us return to the claims concerning the furthering of the national state and culture. These are proposed by the nationalist as norms of conduct. The philosophically most important variations concern three aspects of such normative claims:

• The normative nature and strength of the claim: does it promote merely a right (say, to have and maintain a form of political self-government, preferably and typically a state, or have cultural life centered upon a recognizably ethno-national culture), or a moral obligation (to get and maintain one), or a moral, legal, and political obligation? The strongest claim is typical of classical nationalism; its typical norms are both moral and, once the nation-state is in place, legally enforceable obligations for all parties concerned, including for the individual members of the ethno-nation. A weaker but still quite demanding version speaks only of moral obligation (“sacred duty”).
• The strength of the nationalist claim in relation to various external interests and rights: to give a real example, is the use of the domestic language so important that even international conferences should be held in it, at the cost of losing the most interesting participants from abroad? The force of the nationalist claim is here being weighed against the force of other claims, including those of individual or group interests or rights. Variations in comparative strength of nationalist claims take place on a continuum between two extremes. At one rather unpalatable extreme, nation-focused claims take precedence over any other claims, including over human rights. Further towards the center is the classical nationalism that gives nation-centered claims precedence over individual interests and many needs, but not necessarily over general human rights (see, for example, MacIntyre 1994, Oldenquist 1997). On the opposite end, which is mild, humane, and liberal, the central classical nationalist claims are accorded prima facie status only (see Tamir 1993, Gans 2003, and Miller 2013; and for applications to Central Europe Stefan Auer 2004).

Universalizing nationalism is the political program that claims that every ethno-nation should have a state that it should rightfully own and the interests of which it should promote.

Alternatively, a claim may be particularistic, such as the claim “Group X ought to have a state”, where this implies nothing about any other group:

Particularistic nationalism is the political program claiming that some ethno-nation should have its state, without extending the claim to all ethno-nations. It claims thus either by omission (unreflective particularistic nationalism), or by explicitly specifying who is excluded: “Group X ought to have a state, but group Y should not” (invidious nationalism).

The most difficult and indeed chauvinistic sub-case of particularism, i.e., (B), has been called “invidious” since it explicitly denies the privilege of having a state to some peoples. Serious theoretical nationalists usually defend only the universalist variety, whereas the nationalist-in-the-street most often defends the egoistic indeterminate one.

The nationalist picture of morality traditionally has been quite close to the dominant view in the theory of international relations called “realism”. Put starkly, the view is that morality ends at the boundaries of the nation-state; beyond there is nothing but anarchy. [ 16 ] It nicely complements the main classical nationalist claim about the nation-state, i.e., that each ethno-nation or people should have a state of its own, and suggests what happens next: nation-states enter into competition in the name of their constitutive peoples.

3. The Moral Debate

Recall the initial normative question centered around (1) attitudes and (2) actions. Is national partiality justified, and to what extent? What actions are appropriate to bring about sovereignty? In particular, are ethno-national states and institutionally protected (ethno-) national cultures goods independent from the individual will of their members, and how far may one go in protecting them? The philosophical debate for and against nationalism is a debate about the moral validity of its central claims. In particular, the ultimate moral issue is the following: is any form of nationalism morally permissible or justified, and, if not, how bad are particular forms of it? [ 17 ] Why do nationalist claims require a defense? In some situations they seem plausible: for instance, the plight of some stateless national groups—the history of Jews and Armenians, the historical and contemporary misfortunes of Kurds—lends credence to the idea that having their own state would have solved the worst problems. Still, there are good reasons to examine nationalist claims more carefully. The most general reason is that it should first be shown that the political form of the nation-state has some value as such, that a national community has a particular, or even central, moral and political value, and that claims in its favor have normative validity. Once this is established, a further defense is needed. Some classical nationalist claims appear to clash—at least under normal circumstances of contemporary life—with various values that people tend to accept. Some of these values are considered essential to liberal-democratic societies, while others are important specifically for the flourishing of creativity and culture. The main values in the first set are individual autonomy and benevolent impartiality (most prominently towards members of groups culturally different from one’s own). The alleged special duties towards one’s ethno-national culture can and often do interfere with individuals’ right to autonomy.

Liberal nationalists are aware of the difficulties of the classical approach, and soften the classical claims, giving them only a prima facie status. They usually speak of “various accretions that have given nationalism a bad name”, and they are eager to “separate the idea of nationality itself from these excesses” (Miller 1992, 2000). Such thoughtful pro-nationalist writers have participated in an ongoing philosophical dialogue between proponents and opponents of the claim. [ 18 ] In order to help the reader find their through this involved debate, we shall briefly summarize the considerations which are open to the ethno-nationalist to defend their case (compare the useful overview in Lichtenberg 1997). Further lines of thought built upon these considerations can be used to defend very different varieties of nationalism, from radical to very moderate ones.

For brevity, each line of thought will be reduced to a brief argument; the actual debate is more involved than one can represent in a sketch. Some prominent lines of criticism that have been put forward in the debate will be indicated in brackets (see Miscevic 2001). The main arguments in favor of nationalism will be divided into two sets. The first set of arguments defends the claim that national communities have a high value, sometime seen as coming from the interests of their individual member (e.g., by Kymlicka, Miller, and Raz) and sometimes as non-instrumental and independent of the wishes and choices of their individual members, and argues that they should therefore be protected by means of state and official statist policies. The second set is less deeply “comprehensive”, and encompasses arguments from the requirements of justice, independent from substantial assumptions about culture and cultural values.

The first set will be presented in more detail since it has formed the core of the debate. It depicts the community as the source of value or as the transmission device connecting its members to some important values. For the classical nationalist, the arguments from this set are communitarian in a particularly “deep” sense since they are grounded in basic features of the human condition.

The general form of deep communitarian arguments is as follows. First, the communitarian premise: there is some uncontroversial good (e.g., a person’s identity), and some kind of community is essential for acquisition and preservation of it. Then comes the claim that the ethno-cultural nation is the kind of community ideally suited for this task. Then follows the statist conclusion: in order for such a community to preserve its own identity and support the identity of its members, it has to assume (always or at least normally) the political form of a state. The conclusion of this type of argument is that the ethno-national community has the right to an ethno-national state and the citizens of the state have the right and obligation to favor their own ethnic culture in relation to any other.

Although the deeper philosophical assumptions in the arguments stem from the communitarian tradition, weakened forms have also been proposed by more liberal philosophers. The original communitarian lines of thought in favor of nationalism suggest that there is some value in preserving ethno-national cultural traditions, in feelings of belonging to a common nation, and in solidarity between a nation’s members. A liberal nationalist might claim that these are not the central values of political life but are values nevertheless. Moreover, the diametrically opposing views, pure individualism and cosmopolitanism, do seem arid, abstract, and unmotivated by comparison. By cosmopolitanism we refer to moral and political doctrines claiming that

• one’s primary moral obligations are directed to all human beings (regardless of geographical or cultural distance), and
• political arrangements should faithfully reflect this universal moral obligation (in the form of supra-statist arrangements that take precedence over nation-states).

Confronted with opposing forces of nationalism and cosmopolitanism, many philosophers opt for a mixture of liberalism-cosmopolitanism and patriotism-nationalism. In his writings, B. Barber glorifies “a remarkable mixture of cosmopolitanism and parochialism” that in his view characterizes American national identity (Barber 1996: 31). Charles Taylor claims that “we have no choice but to be cosmopolitan and patriots” (Taylor 1996: 121). Hilary Putnam proposes loyalty to what is best in the multiple traditions in which each of us participates, apparently a middle way between a narrow-minded patriotism and an overly abstract cosmopolitanism (Putnam 1996: 114). The compromise has been foreshadowed by Berlin (1979) and Taylor (1989, 1993), [ 19 ] and in the last two decades it has occupied center stage in the debate and even provoked re-readings of historical nationalism in its light. [ 20 ] Most liberal nationalist authors accept various weakened versions of the arguments we list below, taking them to support moderate or ultra-moderate nationalist claims.

Here are then the main weakenings of classical ethno-nationalism that liberal, limited-liberal, and cosmopolitan nationalists propose. First, ethno-national claims have only prima facie strength and cannot trump individual rights. Second, legitimate ethno-national claims do not in themselves automatically amount to the right to a state, but rather to the right to a certain level of cultural autonomy. The main models of autonomy are either territorial or non-territorial: the first involves territorial devolution; the second, cultural autonomy granted to individuals regardless of their domicile within the state. [ 21 ] Third, ethno-nationalism is subordinate to civic patriotism, which has little or nothing to do with ethnic criteria. Fourth, ethno-national mythologies and similar “important falsehoods” are to be tolerated only if benign and inoffensive, in which case they are morally permissible despite their falsity. Finally, any legitimacy that ethno-national claims may have is to be derived from choices the concerned individuals are free to make.

Consider now the particular pro-nationalist arguments from the first set. The first argument depends on assumptions that also appear in the subsequent ones, but it further ascribes to the community an intrinsic value. The later arguments point more towards an instrumental value of nation, derived from the value of individual flourishing, moral understanding, firm identity and the like.

• The Argument From Intrinsic Value . Each ethno-national community is valuable in and of itself since it is only within the natural encompassing framework of various cultural traditions that important meanings and values are produced and transmitted. The members of such communities share a special cultural proximity to each other. By speaking the same language and sharing customs and traditions, the members of these communities are typically closer to one another in various ways than they are to the outsiders.
• The Argument from Flourishing . The ethno-national community is essential for each of its members to flourish. In particular, it is only within such a community that an individual can acquire concepts and values crucial for understanding the community’s cultural life in general and the individual’s own life in particular. There has been much debate on the pro-nationalist side about whether divergence of values is essential for separateness of national groups.

The Canadian liberal nationalists Seymour (1999), Taylor, and Kymlicka pointed out that “divergences of value between different regions of Canada” that aspire to separate nationhood are “minimal”. Taylor (1993: 155) concluded that it is not separateness of value that matters.

• The Argument from Identity . Communitarian philosophers emphasize nurture over nature as the principal force determining our identity as people—we come to be who we are because of the social settings and contexts in which we mature. This claim certainly has some plausibility. The very identity of each person depends upon his/her participation in communal life (see MacIntyre 1994, Nielsen, 1998, and Lagerspetz 2000). Given that an individual’s morality depends upon their having a mature and stable personal identity, the communal conditions that foster the development of personal identity must be preserved and encouraged. Therefore, communal life should be organized around particular national cultures.
• The Argument from Moral Understanding . A particularly important variety of value is moral value. Some values are universal, e.g., freedom and equality, but these are too abstract and “thin”. The rich, “thick” moral values are discernible only within particular traditions; as Charles Taylor puts it, “the language we have come to accept articulates the issues of the good for us” (1989: 35). The nation offers a natural framework for moral traditions, and thereby for moral understanding; it is the primary school of morals.

The ‘physiognomies’ of cultures are unique: each presents a wonderful exfoliation of human potentialities in its own time and place and environment. We are forbidden to make judgments of comparative value, for that is measuring the incommensurable. (1976: 206)

Assuming that the (ethno-)nation is the natural unit of culture, the preservation of cultural diversity amounts to institutionally protecting the purity of (ethno-)national culture. The plurality of cultural styles can be preserved and enhanced by tying them to ethno-national “forms of life”.

David Miller has developed an interesting and sophisticated liberal pro-national stance over the course of decades from his work in 1990 to the most recent work in 2013. He accepts multicultural diversity within a society but stresses an overarching national identity, taking as his prime example British national identity, which encompasses the English, Scottish, and other ethnic identities. He demands an “inclusive identity, accessible to members of all cultural groups” (2013: 91). miller claims such identity is necessary for basic social solidarity, and it goes far beyond simple constitutional patriotism. A skeptic could note the following. The problem with multicultural society is that national identity has historically been a matter of ethno-national ties and has required sameness in the weighted majority of cultural traits (common language, common “history-as-remembered”, customs, religion and so on). However, multi-cultural states typically bring together groups with very different histories, languages, religions, and even quite contrasting appearances. Now, how is the overarching “national identity” to be achieved starting from the very thin identity of common belonging to a state? One seems to have a dilemma. Grounding social solidarity in national identity requires the latter to be rather thin and seems likely to end up as full-on, unitary cultural identity. Thick constitutional patriotism may be one interesting possible attitude that can ground such solidarity while preserving the original cultural diversity.

The arguments in the second set concern political justice and do not rely on metaphysical claims about identity, flourishing, and cultural values. They appeal to (actual or alleged) circumstances that would make nationalist policies reasonable (or permissible or even mandatory), such as (a) the fact that a large part of the world is organized into nation-states (so that each new group aspiring to create a nation-state just follows an established pattern), or (b) the circumstances of group self-defense or of redressing past injustice that might justify nationalist policies (to take a special case). Some of the arguments also present nationhood as conducive to important political goods, such as equality.

• The Argument from the Right to Collective Self-determination . A group of people of a sufficient size has a prima facie right to govern itself and decide its future membership, if the members of the group so wish. It is fundamentally the democratic will of the members themselves that grounds the right to an ethno-national state and to ethno-centric cultural institutions and practices. This argument presents the justification of (ethno-)national claims as deriving from the will of the members of the nation. It is therefore highly suitable for liberal nationalism but not appealing to a deep communitarian who sees the demands of the nation as independent from, and prior to, the choices of particular individuals. [ 22 ]
• The Argument from the Right to Self-defense and to Redress Past Injustices . Oppression and injustice give the victimized group a just cause and the right to secede. If a minority group is oppressed by the majority to the extent that almost every minority member is worse off than most members of the majority simply in virtue of belonging to the minority, then nationalist claims on behalf of the minority are morally plausible and potentially compelling. The argument establishes a typical remedial right, acceptable from a liberal standpoint (see the discussion in Kukathas and Poole 2000, also Buchanan 1991; for past injustices see Waldron 1992).
• The Argument from Equality . Members of a minority group are often disadvantaged in relation to the dominant culture because they have to rely on those with the same language and culture to conduct the affairs of daily life. Therefore, liberal neutrality itself requires that the majority provide certain basic cultural goods, i.e., granting differential rights (see Kymlicka 1995b, 2001, and 2003b). Institutional protections and the right to the minority group’s own institutional structure are remedies that restore equality and turn the resulting nation-state into a more moderate multicultural one.
• The Argument from Success . The nationstate has in the past succeeded in promoting equality and democracy. Ethno-national solidarity is a powerful motive for a more egalitarian distribution of goods (Miller 1995; Canovan 1996, 2000). The nation-state also seems to be essential to safeguard the moral life of communities in the future, since it is the only form of political institution capable of protecting communities from the threats of globalization and assimilationism (for a detailed critical discussion of this argument see Mason 1999).

Andreas Wimmer (2018) presents an interesting discussion of the historical success of nation-state (discussed in Knott, Tolz, Green, & Wimmer 2019).

These political arguments can be combined with deep communitarian ones. However, taken in isolation, their perspectives offer a “liberal culturalism” that is more suitable for ethno-culturally plural societies. More remote from classical nationalism than the liberal one of Tamir and Nielsen, it eschews any communitarian philosophical underpinning. [ 23 ] The idea of moderate nation-building points to an open multi-culturalism in which every group receives its share of remedial rights but, instead of walling itself off from others, participates in a common, overlapping civic culture in open communication with other sub-communities. Given the variety of pluralistic societies and intensity of trans-national interactions, such openness seems to many to be the only guarantee of stable social and political life (see the debate in Shapiro and Kymlicka 1997).

In general, the liberal nationalist stance is mild and civil, and there is much to be said in favor of it. It tries to reconcile our intuitions in favor of some sort of political protection of cultural communities with a liberal political morality. Of course, this raises issues of compatibility between liberal universal principles and the particular attachments to one’s ethno-cultural nation. Very liberal nationalists such as Tamir divorce ethno-cultural nationhood from statehood. Also, the kind of love for country they suggest is tempered by all kinds of universalist considerations, which in the last instance trump national interest (Tamir 1993: 115; 2019: passim, see also Moore 2001 and Gans 2003). There is an ongoing debate among philosophical nationalists about how much weakening and compromising is still compatible with a stance’s being nationalist at all. [ 24 ] There is also a streak of cosmopolitan interest present in the work of some liberal nationalists (Nielsen 1998–99). [ 25 ]

In the last two decades, the issues of nationalism have been increasingly integrated into the debate about the international order (see the entries on globalization and cosmopolitanism ). The main conceptual link is the claim that nation-states are natural, stable, and suitable units of the international order. A related debate concerns the role of minorities in the processes of globalization (see Kaldor 2004). Moreover, the two approaches might ultimately converge: a multiculturalist liberal nationalism and a moderate, difference-respecting cosmopolitanism have a lot in common. [ 26 ]

“Populism” is an umbrella term, covering both right-wing and left-wing varieties. This section will pay attention to right-wing populist movements, very close to their traditional nationalist predecessors. This corresponds to the situation in the biggest part of Europe, and in the US, where nationalist topics are being put forward by the right-wing populist. [ 27 ]

However, it has become quite clear that nationalism is only one of the political “isms” attracting the right-wing populists. The migration crisis has brought to the forefront populist self-identification with linguistic-cultural communities (“we, French speaking people” for the former, “we Christians” for the later) that goes beyond nationalism.

Jan-Werner Müller (2016) and Cas Mudde (2007) note that the form common to all sorts of populism is quite simple and describe it as “thin”. Mudde explains: “Populism is understood as a thin-centered ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, ‘the pure people’ versus ‘the corrupt elite’, and which argues that politics should be an expression of the volonté générale (general will) of the People” (2007: 23). Populism, so defined, has two opposites: elitism and pluralism. First, there is the elite vs. people (“underdog”) contrast. Second, it is possible to distinguish two ways of characterizing “the people”: either in terms of social status (class, income-level, etc.) or in terms of ethnic and/or cultural belonging (see also de Cleen 2017).

The second, horizontal dimension distinguishes the predominantly left-wing from the predominantly right-wing populisms and leaves a place for a centrist populist option. Take classical strong ethnic nationalism. The relation between right-wing populism and such a nationalism is very tight. This has led some theoreticians (Taguieff 2015) to present “nationalist populism” as the only kind of populism. The term captures exactly the synthesis of populism and the strong ethnic nationalism or nativism. From populism, it takes the general schema of anti-elitism: the leader is addressing directly the people and is allegedly following the people’s interest. From nationalism, it takes the characterization of the people: it is the ethnic community, in most cases the state-owing ethnic community, or the ethno-nation. In his work, Mudde documents the claim that purely right-wing populists claim to represent the true people who form the true nation and whose purity is being muddied by new entrants. In the United States, one can talk about populist and reactionary movements, like the Tea Party, that have emerged through the recent experience of immigration, terrorist attacks, and growing economic polarization. We have to set aside here, for reasons of space, the main populist alternative (or quasi-alternative) to national populism. In some countries, like Germany, some populist groups-parties (e.g., German AfD party (Alternative for Germany)), appeal to properties much wider in their reach than ethno-national belonging, typically to religious affiliations. Others combine this appeal with the ethno-national one. This yields what Riva Kastoryano (2006) calls “transnational nationalism”.

Interestingly, liberal nationalism is not very attractive to the populists. On the theoretical side one can note that Tamir (2019) sees her liberal nationalism as a good recipe against the threat of demagogues like Trump and Boris Johnson (she avoids the use of the label “populist”, e.g., 2019: 31).

The rise of populism is changing the political playfield one must work with. The tolerant (liberal nationalist or anti-nationalist) views are confronting new problems in the populist age marked by migration crisis, etc. The dangers traditionally associated with military presence are gone; the national populists have to invent and construct a presumed danger that comes into the country together with foreign families, including those with children. In short, if these conjectures hold, the politicians and theoreticians are faced with a change. The traditional issue of the contrast between patriotism/nationalism and cosmopolitanism has changed its profile: the current drastic contrast is between the populist aversion to the foreigners-migrants and a more generous attitude of acceptance and Samaritan help. Finally, the populist understanding of “our people” (“we-community”) encompasses not only nationalist options but also goes way beyond it. The important element is the promiscuous character of the populist choices. It is probable that the future scholarship on nationalism will mainly focus on this new and challenging playfield, with an aim to address the new contrast and locate kinds of nationalism in relation to it. [ 28 ]

The migration crisis has made the nation-state in global context the central political topic concerning nationality. Before moving on to current events, the state of art before the crisis should be summarized. First, consider the debates on territory and nation and issues of global justice.

Liberal nationalists try to preserve the traditional nationalist link between ethnic “ownership” of the state and sovereignty and territorial control, but in a much more flexible and sophisticated setting. Tamar Meisels thus argues in favor of “taking existing national settlements into account as a central factor in demarcating territorial boundaries” since this line “has both liberal foundations” (i.e., in the work of John Locke) and liberal-national appeal (2009: 159) grounded in its affinity with the liberal doctrine of national self-determination. She combines it with Chaim Gans’ (2003: Ch. 4) interpretation of “historical right” claims as “the right to formative territories”. She thus combines “historical arguments, understood as claims to formative territories”, with her argument from settlement and insists on their interplay and mutual reinforcement, presenting them as being “most closely related to, and based on, liberal nationalist assumptions and underlying ideas” (Meisels 2009: 160). She nevertheless stresses that more than one ethnic group can have formative ties to a given territory, and that there might be competing claims based on settlement. [ 29 ] But, given the ethno-national conflicts of the twentieth century, one can safely assume that culturally plural states divided into isolated and closed sub-communities glued together merely by arrangements of modus vivendi are inherently unstable. Stability might therefore require that the pluralist society envisioned by liberal culturalists promote quite intense intra-state interaction between cultural groups in order to forestall mistrust, reduce prejudice, and create a solid basis for cohabitation.

But where should one stop? The question arises since there are many geographically open, interacting territories of various sizes. Consider first the geographical openness of big continental planes, then add the modern ease of interaction (“No island is an island any more”, one could say), and, finally and dramatically, the substantial ecological interconnectedness of land and climate. Here, the tough nationalistic line is no longer proposed seriously in ethical debates, so the furthest pro-national extreme is in fact a relatively moderate stance, exemplified by Miller in the works listed. Here is a typical proposal of his concerning global justice based on nation-states: it might become a matter of national pride to have set aside a certain percentage of GDP for developmental goals—perhaps for projects in one particular country or group of countries (2013: 182).

This brings us to the topic of migrations, and the heated debate on the present scene. [ 30 ] In Europe immigration is probably the main topic of the present day populist uproar, and in the United States it is one of the main topics. So, immigration plus the nationalist-populist reactions to it are in the current decade the main testing ground for nationalist and cosmopolitan views.

Let’s look at the pro-national side in the debate. Liberal nationalists, in particular Miller, have put forward some thoughtful pro-nationalist proposal concerning immigration. Miller’s proposal allows refugees to seek asylum temporarily until the situation in their country of origin improves; it also limits economic migration. Miller argues against the defensibility of a global standard for equality, opportunity, welfare, etc., because measures of just equality are context-bound. People do have the right to a minimum standard of living, but the right to migrate only activates as a last resort after all other measures within a candidate-migrant’s country of origin have been tried. However, he also (particularly in his book on “Strangers in our midst”, 2016), claims that national responsibility to accept immigrant refugees is balanced by considerations of the interest of would-be immigrants and the interests that national communities have in maintaining control over their own composition and character.

If we agree with the liberal nationalists on the positive side, we can ask about the dynamics of the help required for the immigrants. Distinguish at least three stages, first, the immediate emergency (starvation, freezing, urgent medical problems) and catering to it, second, settlement and learning (on the host and the immigrant newcomer side), and third, the stage of (some kind of) citizenship, of relatively stable life in the host country.

In the first phase, the immediate help comes first, both normatively and causally: just accept the would-be refugees (indeed, the would-be refugees should be helped in leaving their countries and travelling to the host country). In longer term, staying should involve opportunity for work and training.

But there is more. The Samaritan obligation can and should function as a preparation for wider global activity. [ 31 ] So, we have two theoretical steps, first, accepting Samaritanism and second, agreeing with deeper trans-national measure of blocking distant causes, like poverty and wars in the Third world. Let us call this “Samaritan-to-deeper-measures model”. The model is geared to the dramatically changed playground in which the nationalism issues are played out in the context of populism and refugee crisis, raising issues that were not around two decades ago.

In presenting the claims that the pro-nationalists defend, we have proceeded from the more radical towards more liberal nationalist alternatives. In examining the arguments for these claims, we have presented metaphysically demanding communitarian arguments resting upon deep communitarian assumptions about culture, such as the premise that the ethno-cultural nation is the most important community for all individuals. This is an interesting and respectable claim, but its plausibility has not been established. The moral debate about nationalism has resulted in various weakenings of culture-based arguments, typically proposed by liberal nationalists, which render the arguments less ambitious but much more plausible. Having abandoned the old nationalist ideal of a state owned by a single dominant ethno-cultural group, liberal nationalists have become receptive to the idea that identification with a plurality of cultures and communities is important for a person’s social identity. They have equally become sensitive to trans-national issues and more willing to embrace a partly cosmopolitan perspective. Liberal nationalism has also brought to the fore more modest, less philosophically or metaphysically charged arguments grounded in concerns about justice. These stress the practical importance of ethno-cultural membership, ethno-cultural groups’ rights to have injustices redressed, democratic rights of political association, and the role that ethno-cultural ties and associations can play in promoting just social arrangements.

The events in the current decade, the refugee crisis and the rise of right-wing populism, have dramatically changed the relevant practical and theoretical playground. The traditional nationalism is still relevant, but populist nationalism attracts much more attention: new theories are being produced and debated, coming to occupy the center stage. On the other hand, migration crisis has replaced the typical cosmopolitan issue of solidarity-with-distant-strangers with burning issues of helping refugees present at our doors. Of course, the causes of the crisis are still the same ones that cosmopolitans have been worrying about much earlier: wars and dramatically unequal global distribution of goods, and of threats, like illnesses and climate disasters. The task of the theory is now to connect these deeper issues with the new problems occupying the center-stage of the new playground; it is a challenge now formulated in somewhat different vocabulary and within different political conceptual frameworks than before.

This is a short list of books on nationalism that are readable and useful introductions to the literature. First, two contemporary classics of social science with opposing views are:

• Gellner, Ernest, 1983, Nations and Nationalism , Oxford: Blackwell.
• Smith, Anthony D., 1991, National Identity , Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Three presentations of liberal nationalism, two of them by the same author, Yael Tamir, offer the best introduction to the approach:

• Miller, David, 1995, On Nationality , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0198293569.001.0001
• Tamir, Yael, 1993, Liberal Nationalism , Press, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 2019, Why Nationalism , Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Two short and readable introductions are:

• Özkirimli, Umut, 2010, Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction , second edition, London: Palgrave Macmillan. First edition is 2000; third edition is 2017.
• Spencer, Philip and Howard Wollman, 2002, Nationalism, A Critical Introduction , London: Sage.

The two best anthologies of high-quality philosophical papers on the morality of nationalism are:

• McKim, Robert and Jeff McMahan (eds), 1997, The Morality of Nationalism , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Couture, Jocelyne, Kai Nielsen, and Michel Seymour (eds.), 1998, Rethinking Nationalism , Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Supplement Volume 22, Calgary, AB: University of Calgary Press.

The debate continues in:

• Miscevic, Nenad (ed), 2000, Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict: Philosophical Perspectives , La Salle and Chicago: Open Court.
• Dieckoff, Alain (ed.), 2004, The Politics of Belonging: Nationalism, Liberalism, and Pluralism , Lanham: Lexington.
• Primoratz, Igor and Aleksandar Pavković (eds), 2007, Patriotism, Philosophical and Political Perspectives , London: Ashgate.
• Breen, Keith and Shane O’Neill (eds.), 2010, After the Nation? Critical Reflections on Nationalism and Postnationalism , London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230293175

A good brief sociological introduction to nationalism in general is:

• Grosby, Steven, 2005, Nationalism: A Very Short Introduction , Oxford: Oxford University Press.

and to the gender-inspired criticism of nationalism is:

• Yuval-Davis, Nira, 1997, Gender & Nation , London: Sage Publications.
• Heuer, Jennifer, 2008, “Gender and Nationalism”, in Herb and Kaplan 2008: vol. 1, 43–58.
• Hogan, Jackie, 2009, Gender, Race and National Identity: Nations of Flesh and Blood , London: Routledge.

The best general introduction to the communitarian-individualist debate is still:

• Avineri, Shlomo and Avner de-Shalit (eds.), 1992, Communitarianism and Individualism , Oxford: Oxford University Press.

For a non-nationalist defense of culturalist claims see:

• Kymlicka, Will (ed.), 1995a, The Rights of Minority Cultures , Oxford: Oxford University Press.

A very readable philosophical defense of very moderate liberal nationalism is:

• Gans, Chaim, 2003, The Limits of Nationalism , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511490231

And for application to Central Europe see:

• Auer, Stefan, 2004, Liberal Nationalism in Central Europe , London: Routledge.

A polemical, witty and thoughtful critique is offered in:

• Barry, Brian, 2001, Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism , Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

And a more recent one in

• Kelly, Paul, 2015, “Liberalism and Nationalism”, in The Cambridge Companion to Liberalism , Steven Wall (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 329–352. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139942478.018

Interesting critical analyses of group solidarity in general and nationalism in particular, written in the traditions of rational choice theory and motivation analysis, are:

• Hardin, Russell, 1985, One for All, The Logic of Group Conflict , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Yack, Bernard, 2012, Nationalism and the Moral Psychology of Community , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

There is a wide offering of interesting sociological and political science work on nationalism, which is beginning to be summarized in:

• Motyl, Alexander (ed.), 2001, Encyclopedia of Nationalism , Volumes I and II, New York: Academic Press.

A fine encyclopedic overview is:

• Herb, Guntram H. and David H. Kaplan, 2008, Nations and Nationalism: a Global Historical Overview , four volumes, Santa Barbara, CA: ABC Clio.

A detailed sociological study of life under nationalist rule is:

• Billig, Michael, 1995, Banal Nationalism , London: Sage Publications.

The most readable short anthology of brief papers for and against cosmopolitanism (and nationalism) by leading authors in the field is:

• Cohen, Joshua (ed.), 1996, For Love of Country: Debating the Limits of Patriotism , Martha Nussbaum and respondents, Boston, MA: Beacon Press
• Anderson, Benedict, 1983 [2006], Imagined Communities , London: Verso; revised edition, 2006.
• Aron, Raymond, 1962, Paix et guerre entre les nations , Paris: Calmann-Levy. Translated as Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations , Richard Howard and Annette Baker Fox (trans), Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965.
• Balibar, Etienne and Immanuel Wallerstein, 1988 [1991], Race, nation, classe: les identités ambiguës , Paris: Editiones La Découverte; translated as Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities , Chris Turner (trans.), London-New York: Verso.
• Barber, Benjamin R., 1996, “Constitutional Faith”, in J. Cohen (ed.) 1996: 30–37.
• –––, 1996, Jihad Vs. McWorld: How Globalism and Tribalism are Reshaping the World , New York: Ballantine Books.
• Barry, Brian, 1999, “Statism and Nationalism: a Cosmopolitan Critique”, in Shapiro and Brilmayer 1999: 12–66.
• –––, 2001, Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism , Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
• Bauböck, Reiner, 2004, “Territorial or Cultural Autonomy for National Minorities?”, in Dieckoff 2004: 221–258.
• Bechhofer, Frank and David McCrone (eds.), 2009, National Identity, Nationalism and Constitutional Change , London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230234147
• Bell, Duncan (ed.), 2008, Political Thought and International Relations: Variations on a Realist Theme , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Berlin, Isaiah, 1976, Vico and Herder: Two Studies in the History of Ideas , London: The Hogarth Press.
• –––, 1979, “Nationalism: Past Neglect and Present Power”, in Against the Current: Essays in the History of Ideas , London: Hogarth Press, 333–355.
• Betts, Alexander and Paul Collier, 2017, Refuge: Transforming a Broken Refugee System , London: Penguin.
• –––, 2017, “Banal Nationalism and the Imagining of Politics”, in Everyday Nationhood: Theorising Culture, Identity and Belonging after Banal Nationalism , Michael Skey and Marco Antonsich (eds.), London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 307–321. doi:10.1057/978-1-137-57098-7_15
• Blake, Michael, 2013, Justice and Foreign Policy , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199552009.001.0001
• Breuilly, John, 2001, “The State”, in Motyl (ed.) 2001: Volume 1.
• –––, 2011, “On the Principle of Nationality”, in The Cambridge History of Nineteenth-Century Political Thought , Gareth Stedman Jones and Gregory Claeys (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 77–109. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521430562.005
• Breuilly, John, John Hutchinson, and Eric Kaufmann (eds), 2019, special issue on populism and nationalism in Nations and Nationalism , 25(1): 1–400.
• Brubaker, Rogers, 2004, “In the Name of the Nation: Reflections on Nationalism and Patriotism1”, Citizenship Studies , 8(2): 115–127. doi:10.1080/1362102042000214705
• –––, 2013, “Language, Religion and the Politics of Difference”, Nations and Nationalism , 19(1): 1–20. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8129.2012.00562.x
• –––, 2015, Grounds for Difference , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Buchanan, Allen, 1991, Secession: The Morality of Political Divorce from Fort Sumter to Lithuania and Quebec , Boulder: Westview Press.
• –––, 2004, Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-Determination: Moral Foundations for International Law , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0198295359.001.0001
• Buchanan, Allen and Margaret Moore (eds.), 2003, States, Nations and Borders: The Ethics of Making Boundaries , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511613937
• Butt, Daniel, Sarah Jane Fine, & Zofia Stemplowska (eds), 2018, Political Philosophy, Here and Now: Essays in Honour of David Miller , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Calhoun, Craig, 2007, Nations Matter. Culture, History, and the Cosmopolitan Dream , London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203960899
• Canovan, Margaret, 1996, Nationhood and Political Theory , Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
• –––, 2000, “Patriotism Is Not Enough”, British Journal of Political Science , 30(3): 413–432. doi:10.1017/S000712340000017X
• –––, 2001, “Sleeping Dogs, Prowling Cats and Soaring Doves: Three Paradoxes in the Political Theory of Nationhood”, Political Studies , 49(2): 203–215. doi:10.1111/1467-9248.00309
• Carens, Joseph H., 2013, The Ethics of Immigration , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Casertano, Stefano, 2013, Our Land, Our Oil! Natural Resources, Local Nationalism, and Violent Secession , Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. doi:10.1007/978-3-531-19443-1
• Chatterjee, Deen K. and B. Smith (eds.), 2003, Moral Distance , special issue of The Monist , 86(3): 327–515.
• Christiano, Thomas, 2008, “Immigration, Community and Cosmopolitanism”, in San Diego Law Review , 933(Nov–Dec): 938–962.
• –––, 2012, “The Legitimacy of International Institutions”, in The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Law , Andrei Marmor (ed.), London: Routledge, pp. 380–394.
• Christiano, Thomas and John Christman (eds.), 2009, Contemporary Debates in Political Philosophy , Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781444310399
• Cohen, Joshua (ed.), 1996, For Love of Country? (Martha C. Nussbaum with respondents), Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
• Colm Hogan, Patrick, 2009, Understanding Nationalism: On Narrative, Cognitive Science and Identity , Ohio: Ohio State University Press.
• Connor, Walker, 1994, Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Conversi, Daniele, 2002, Ethnonationalism in the Contemporary World: Walker Connor and the Study of Nationalism , London: Routledge.
• –––, 2018, “Introduction: Why a State Is Not a Nation – and Whether Economics Really Matters. Walker Connor 50 Years On”, Nations and Nationalism , 24(3): 497–505. doi:10.1111/nana.12441
• Crowley, Brian Lee, 1987, The Self, the Individual and the Community , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Dagger, Richard, 2009, “Individualism and the Claims of Community”, in Christiano and Christman 2009: 303–332. doi:10.1002/9781444310399.ch17
• de Cleen, Benjamin, 2017, “Populism and Nationalism”, in Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser, Paul Taggart, Paulina Ochoa Espejo, and Pierre Ostiguy (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Populism , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• de Lange, Deborah E., 2010, Power and Influence: The Embeddedness of Nations , New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. doi:10.1057/9780230115545
• De Schutter, Helder and Ronald Tinnevelt (eds.), 2011, Nationalism and Global Justice: David Miller and His Critics , London: Routledge.
• Delanty, Gerard, John Hutchinson, Eric Kaufmann, Umut Özkirimli, and Andreas Wimmer, 2008, “Debate on John Hutchinson’s Nations as Zones of Conflict ”, Nations and Nationalism , 14(1): 1–28. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8129.2008.00306.x
• Delanty, Gerard and Krishan Kumar (eds.), 2006, The SAGE Handbook of Nations and Nationalism , Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Derks, Tom and Nico Roymans (eds.), 2009, Ethnic Constructs in Antiquity: The Role of Power and Tradition , Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press.
• –––, 2017, Nationalism and the Multination State , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Edensor, T., 2002, National Identity, Popular Culture and Everyday Life , Oxford: Berg.
• Eisenberg, Avigail and Jeff Spinner-Halev (eds.), 2005, Minorities within Minorities: Equality, Rights and Diversity , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511490224
• Farris, Sara R., 2017, In the Name of Women’s Rights: The Rise of Femonationalism , Durham: Duke University Press.
• Feltham, Brian and John Cottingham (eds), 2010, Partiality and Impartiality: Morality, Special Relationships, and the Wider World , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199579952.001.0001
• Fine, Sarah and Lea Ypi (eds.), 2016, Migration in Political Theory: The Ethics of Movement and Membership , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199676606.001.0001
• Fox, Jon E., 2017, “The Edges of the Nation: A Research Agenda for Uncovering the Taken-for-Granted Foundations of Everyday Nationhood”, Nations and Nationalism , 23(1): 26–47. doi:10.1111/nana.12269
• Frost, Catharine, 2006, Morality and Nationalism , London: Routledge.
• –––, ,2017, “Citizenship and Nationhood”, in Rainer Baubock et al. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Citizenship , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Gat, Azar and Alexander Yakobson, 2013, Nations: The Long History and Deep Roots of Political Ethnicity and Nationalism , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139047654
• Giddens, Anthony, 1985, The Nation-state and Violence (Volume 2), Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Glenn, John, 1997, “Nations and Nationalism: Marxist Approaches to the Subject”, Nationalism and Ethnic Politics , 3(2): 79–100. doi:10.1080/13537119708428503
• Goetze, David, 2001, “Evolutionary Theory”, in Motyl (ed.) 2001: Volume 1.
• Goodin, Robert E., 2006, “Liberal Multiculturalism: Protective and Polyglot”, Political Theory , 34(3): 289–303. doi:10.1177/0090591705284131
• Greenfeld, Liah, 2001, The Spirit of Capitalism: Nationalism and Economic Growth , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2005, “Nationalism and the Mind”, Nations and Nationalism , 11(3): 325–341. doi:10.1111/j.1354-5078.2005.00207.x
• –––, 2006, Nationalism and the Mind: Essays Modern Culture . London: Oneworld.
• Habermas, Jürgen, 1992 [1996], Faktizität und Geltung: Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Translated as Between Facts and Norms: Contribution to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy , Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996.
• –––, 1996 [1998], Die Einbeziehung des Anderen: Studien zur politischen Theorie , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Translated as The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory , Ciaran Cronin and Pablo De Greiff (eds), Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1998.
• Haidt, Jonathan, 2016, “When and Why Nationalism Beats Globalism”, The American Interest , 12(1): 10 July 2016. URL = < available online >.
• Hale, Henry E., 2008, The Foundations of Ethnic Politics: Separatism of States and Nations in Eurasia and the World , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511790669
• Harris, Erika, 2016, “Why Has Nationalism Not Run Its Course?”, Nations and Nationalism , 22(2): 243–247. doi:10.1111/nana.12185
• Hastings, Adrian, 1997, The Construction of Nationhood: Ethnicity, Religion and Nationalism , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511612107
• Hazony, Yoram, 2018, The Virtue of Nationalism , New York: Basic Books.
• Hearn, Jonathan, 2018, “Power, Culture, Identity, and the Work of Anthony Smith”, Nations and Nationalism , 24(2): 286–291. doi:10.1111/nana.12407
• Hearn, Jonathan, Chandran Kukathas, David Miller, and Bernard Yack, 2014, “Debate on Bernard Yack’s Book Nationalism and the Moral Psychology of Community ”, Nations and Nationalism , 20(3): 395–414. doi:10.1111/nana.12074
• Hechter, Michael, 2001, Containing Nationalism , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/019924751X.001.0001
• Helbling, Marc, Tim Reeskens, and Matthew Wright, 2016, “The Mobilisation of Identities: A Study on the Relationship between Elite Rhetoric and Public Opinion on National Identity in Developed Democracies”, Nations and Nationalism , 22(4): 744–767. doi:10.1111/nana.12235
• Held, David, 2003, “Cosmopolitanism: Globalisation Tamed?”, Review of International Studies , 29(4): 465–480. doi:10.1017/S0260210503004650
• Hendrix, Burke A., 2008, Ownership, Authority, and Self-Determination: Moral Principles and Indigenous Rights Claims , University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
• Hobsbawm, E. J., 1990, Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Second edition 2012. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107295582
• Hutchinson, John, 2005, Nations as Zones of Conflict , London: Sage; see also the debate on this book in Delanty et al. 2008.
• –––, 2017, Nationalism and War , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198798453.001.0001
• –––, 2018, “Bringing the Study of Warfare into Theories of Nationalism”, Nations and Nationalism , 24(1): 6–21. doi:10.1111/nana.12364
• Ichijo, Atsuko and Ronald Ranta, 2016, Food, National Identity and Nationalism: From Everyday to Global Politics , London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. doi:10.1057/9781137483133
• Ichijo, Atsuko, Jon E. Fox, Arthur Aughey, David McCrone, and Frank Bechhofer, 2017, “Debate on Understanding National Identity by David McCrone and Frank Bechhofer”, Nations and Nationalism , 23(3): 441–462. doi:10.1111/nana.12314
• Ingram, James D., 2017, “Populism and Cosmopolitanism”, in Oxford Handbook of Populism , Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser, Paul Taggart, Paulina Ochoa Espejo,and Pierre Ostiguy (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 644–660.
• Iyall Smith, Keri E. and Patricia Leavy (eds.), 2008, Hybrid Identities: Theoretical and Empirical Examinations , Leiden: Brill.
• Jaramillo Torres, Angel and Marc Benjamin Sable (eds.), 2018, Trump and Political Philosophy: Leadership, Statesmanship, and Tyranny , Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-74445-2
• Joppke, Christian and Steven Lukes (eds.), 1999, Multicultural Questions , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/019829610X.001.0001
• Kaldor, Mary, 2004, “Nationalism and Globalisation”, Nations and Nationalism , 10(1–2): 161–177. doi:10.1111/j.1354-5078.2004.00161.x
• Kastoryano, Riva, 2006, “Vers un Nationalisme Transnational. Redéfinir la Nation, le Nationalisme et le Territoire”, Revue Française de Science Politique , 56: 533–553.
• Kaufmann, Eric, 2019, “Ethno‐traditional Nationalism and the Challenge of Immigration”, Nations and Nationalism , 25(2): 435–448. doi:10.1111/nana.12516
• Kedourie, Elie, 1960, Nationalism , London: Hutchison.
• Kim, Sung Ho, 2002, “Max Weber’s Liberal Nationalism”, History of Political Thought , 23(3): 432–457.
• Kleinig, John, 2014, On Loyalty and Loyalties: The Contours of a Problematic Virtue , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Knott, Eleanor, Vera Tolz, Elliott Green, and Andreas Wimmer, 2019, “Debate on Andreas Wimmer’s Nation Building: Why Some Countries Come Together While Other Fall Apart” Nation and Nationalism , 25(1): 82–103.
• Kohen, Marcelo G. (ed.), 2006, Secession: International Law Perspectives , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511494215
• Kohn, Hans, 1965, Nationalism: Its Meaning and History , revised edition, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
• Kolers, Avery, 2009, Land, Conflict, and Justice: A Political Theory of Territory , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511575709
• Kostagiannis, Konstantinos, 2018, Realist Thought and the Nation-State: Power Politics in the Age of Nationalism , (The Palgrave Macmillan History of International Thought), Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-59629-7
• Kukathas, Chandran, 2003, The Liberal Archipelago: A Theory of Diversity and Freedom , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/019925754X.001.0001
• Kukathas, Chandran and R. Poole, Ross, (eds.), 2000, Australasian Journal of Philosophy (Special Issue on Indigenous Rights), Volume 78, Issue 3.
• Kuran Burcoglu, Nedret (ed.), 1997, Multiculturalism: Identity and Otherness , Istanbul: Bogazici University Press.
• –––, 1995b, Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0198290918.001.0001
• –––, 2001, Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism, and Citizenship , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0199240981.001.0001
• –––, 2003a, “Conclusion: The Futures of Nationalism”, in Nationalism and Its Futures , Umut Özkırımlı (ed.), London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 145–151. doi:10.1057/9780230524187_8
• –––, 2003b, “Liberal Theories of Multiculturalism”, in Rights, Culture and the Law: Themes from the Legal and Political Philosophy of Joseph Raz , Lukas H. Meyer, Stanley L. Paulson, and Thomas W. Pogge (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 229–252.
• –––, 2004, “Justice and Security in the Accommodation of Minority Nationalism”, in Dieckoff 2004: 127–154.
• –––, 2007a, “Community and Multiculturalism”, in A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy (Volume 2), second edition, Robert E. Goodin, Philip Pettit, and Thomas Pogge (eds.), Oxford: Blackwell, 463–477.
• –––, 2007b, Multicultural Odysseys: Navigating the New International Politics of Diversity , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2016 “Defending Diversity in an Era of Populism: Multiculturalism and Interculturalism Compared” in Multiculturalism and Interculturalism: Debating the Dividing Lines , Nasar Meer, Tariq Modood and Ricard Zapata-Barrero (eds.), Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 158–177.
• Kymlicka, Will and Alan Patten (eds.), 2004, Language Rights and Political Theory , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Lægaard, Sune, 2007, “Liberal Nationalism and the Nationalisation of Liberal Values”, Nations and Nationalism , 13(1): 37–55. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8129.2007.00269.x
• Lagerspetz, Olli, 2000, “On National Belonging” in Miscevic 2000: 57–74.
• Laitin, David, 2001, “Political Science and Nationalism”, in Motyl (ed.) 2001: Volume 1.
• –––, 2007, Nations, States, and Violence , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Laitin, David D. and Rob Reich, 2004, “A Liberal Democratic Approach to Language Justice”, in Kymlicka and Patten 2004: 80–104.
• Laitin, David D., James T. Watkins IV, and Elise V. Watkins, 1998, Identity in Formation: The Russian-Speaking Populations in the Near Abroad , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Lecours, André and Luis Moreno (eds.), 2010, Nationalism and Democracy: Dichotomies, Complementarities, Oppositions , London: Routledge.
• Leoussi, Athena S. and Steven Grossby (eds.), 2007, Nationalism and Ethnosymbolism: History, Culture and Ethnicity in the Formation of Nations , Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Levy, Jacob T., 2000, Multiculturalism of Fear , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0198297122.001.0001
• –––, 2004, “National Minorities without Nationalism”, in Dieckoff 2004: 155– 174.
• Lichtenberg, Judith, 1997, “Nationalism, For and (Mainly) Against”, in McKim & McMahan 1997: 158–175.
• MacCormick, Neil, 1982, Legal Right and Social Democracy: Essays in Legal and Political Philosophy , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• MacIntyre, Alasdair, 1984“Is Patriotism a Virtue?”, The Lindley Lecture, Lawrence: The University of Kansas, available online .
• Malešević, Siniša, 2011, “The Chimera of National Identity”, Nations and Nationalism , 17(2): 272–290. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8129.2010.00479.x
• –––, 2013, Nation-States and Nationalisms: Organization, Ideology and Solidarity , Cambridge: Polity.
• –––, 2018, “The Rise and Rise of Grounded Nationalisms”, Ethnopolitics , 17(5): 553–557. doi:10.1080/17449057.2018.1532636
• Malešević, Siniša and Mark Haugaard (eds.), 2007, Ernest Gellner and Contemporary Social Thought , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511488795
• Malešević, Siniša, 2017, The Rise of Organized Brutality , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Margalit, Avishai, 1997, “The Moral Psychology of Nationalism”, in McKim and McMahan 1997: 74–88.
• Margalit, Avishai and Joseph Raz, 1990, “National Self-Determination”, Journal of Philosophy , 87(9): 439–461. doi:10.2307/2026968
• Markell, Patchen, 2000, “Making Affect Safe for Democracy?: On ‘Constitutional Patriotism’”, Political Theory , 28(1): 38–63. doi:10.1177/0090591700028001003
• Mason, Andrew, 1999, “Political Community, Liberal‐Nationalism, and the Ethics of Assimilation”, Ethics , 109(2): 261–286. doi:10.1086/233896
• McCabe, David, 1997, “Patriotic Gore, Again”, The Southern Journal of Philosophy , 35(2): 203–223. doi:10.1111/j.2041-6962.1997.tb00834.x
• Meadwell, Hudson, 2012, “Nationalism Chez Gellner”, Nations and Nationalism , 18(4): 563–582. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8129.2012.00544.x
• –––, 2014, “Gellner Redux?”, Nations and Nationalism , 20(1): 18–36. doi:10.1111/nana.12029
• Meinecke, Friedrich, 1924 [1965], Die Idee der Staatsräson in der neueren Geschichte , Munich and Berlin: R. Oldenbourg. Translated as Machiavellism , Douglas Scott (trans.), New York: Praeger, 1965.
• Meisels, Tamar, 2009, Territorial Rights , second edition, (Law and Philosophy Library 72), Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9262-6
• Miller, David, 1990, “The Resurgence of Political Theory”, Political Studies , 38(3): 421–437.
• –––, 1992, “Community and Citizenship”, in Avineri and de Shalit 1992: 85–100.
• –––, 1995, On Nationality , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0198293569.001.0001
• –––, 1999, Principles of Social Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2000, Citizenship and National Identity , Oxford: Blackwell.
• –––, 2005a, “Crooked Timber or Bent Twig? Isaiah Berlin’s Nationalism”, Political Studies , 53(1): 100–123. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2005.00519.x
• –––, 2005b, “Immigration: The Case for Limits”, in Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics , Andrew I. Cohen and Christopher Heath Wellman (eds.), Oxford; Blackwell, 193–206.
• –––, 2007, National Responsibility and Global Justice , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199235056.001.0001
• –––, 2008, “Immigrants, Nations, and Citizenship”, Philosophy, Politics & Society (Special Issue), 4 (December): 371–390.
• –––, 2013, Justice for Earthlings: Essays in Political Philosophy , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139236898
• –––, 2016, Strangers in Our Midst: The Political Philosophy of Immigration , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Miller, David Lee and Sohail H. Hashmi (eds.), 2001, Boundaries and Justice: Diverse Ethical Perspectives , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Miscevic, Nenad (ed.), 2000, Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict. Philosophical Perspectives , La Salle and Chicago: Open Court.
• –––, 2001, Nationalism and Beyond , Budapest, New York: Central European University Press.
• –––, 2019, “Populism and nationalism”, in New Politics of Decisionism , Violeta Besirevic (ed.), The Hague: Eleven International Publishing.
• Moore, Margaret (ed.), 1998, National Self-Determination and Secession , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0198293844.001.0001
• –––, 2001, “Normative Justifications for Liberal Nationalism: Justice, Democracy and National Identity”, Nations and Nationalism , 7(1): 1–20. doi:10.1111/1469-8219.00001
• –––, 2009, “Liberalism, Communitarianism and the Politics of Identity”, in Christiano and Christman 2009: 322–342. doi:10.1002/9781444310399.ch18
• Morgenthau, Hans, 1946, Scientific Man versus Power Politics , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Motyl, Alexander (ed.), 2001, Encyclopedia of Nationalism: Volume 1: Fundamental Themes , New York: Academic Press.
• Mudde, Cas, 2007, Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511492037
• Müller, Jan-Werner, 2016, What is Populism , Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Nation and Nationalism , 2019, thematic issue on migration, 25(2): 401–751.
• Nielsen, Kai, 1998, “Liberal Nationalism, Liberal Democracies and Secession”, University of Toronto Law Journal , 48(2): 253–295. doi:10.2307/825982
• –––, 1998–99, “Cosmopolitanism, Universalism and Particularism in the age of Nationalism and Multiculturalism”, Philosophical Exchange , 29(1): art. 2 (3–34). [ Nielsen 1998–99 available online ]
• O’Neill, Onora, 2000, Bounds of Justice , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511605734
• Okin, Susan Moller, 1999, “Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?” and “Response”, in Boston Review , 1997; reprinted with some revisions in Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? Joshua Cohen, Matthew Howard, and M. Nussbaum (eds.), Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 2002, “‘Mistresses of Their Own Destiny’: Group Rights, Gender, and Realistic Rights of Exit”, Ethics , 112(2): 205–230. doi:10.1086/324645
• –––, 2005, “Multiculturalism and Feminism: No Simple Question, No Simple Answers”, in Eisenberg and Spinner-Halev 2005: 67–89. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511490224.004.
• Oldenquist, Andrew, 2002, “Ethnicity and Sovereignty”, Studies in East European Thought , 54(4): 271–284.
• Orgad, Liav, 2015, The Cultural Defense of Nations: A Liberal Theory of Majority Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199668687.001.0001
• Orwell, George, 1945 [2000], “Notes on Nationalism”, first published: Polemic. May 1945, London; reprinted in his Essays , Bernard Crick (ed.), London: Penguin, 2000.
• Özkirimli, Umut, 2003, “The Nation as an Artichoke? A Critique of Ethnosymbolist Interpretations of Nationalism”, Nations and Nationalism , 9(3): 339–355. doi:10.1111/1469-8219.00100
• –––, 2010, Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction , second revised edition, London: Palgrave Macmillan. First edition is 2000; third edition is 2017.
• Patten, Alan, 2003, “Liberal Neutrality and Language Policy”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 31(4): 356–386. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2003.00356.x
• Pavković, Aleksandar and Peter Radan (eds.), 2007, Creating New States: Theory and Practice of Secession , London: Ashgate.
• Pogge, Thomas W., 1997, “Group Rights and Ethnicity”, in Shapiro and Kymlicka 1997: 187–221.
• –––, 2001, “Rawls on International Justice”, The Philosophical Quarterly , 51(203): 246–253. doi:10.1111/j.0031-8094.2001.00228.x
• –––, 2002, World Poverty and Human Rights , Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Primoratz, Igor, 2017, “Patriotism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/patriotism/ >.
• Putnam, Hilary, 1996, “Must We Choose Between Patriotism and Universal Reason?”, in Cohen 1996: 91–97.
• Rawls, John, 1999, The Law of Peoples , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Renan, Ernest, 1882, “Qu’est-ce qu’une nation?”, lecture delivered at the Sorbonne, 11 March 1882. Translated by Martin Thom as “What is a nation?”, in Nation and Narration , Homi K. Bhabha (ed.), London: Routledge, 1990, 8–22; reprinted in part in Nationalism , John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994, 17–18.
• Risse, Mathias, 2012a, “Global Justice” in The Oxford Handbook of Political Philosophy , David Estlund (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 457–489
• –––, 2012b, On Global Justice , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Roshwald, Aviel, 2006. The Endurance of Nationalism: Ancient Roots and Modern Dilemmas , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Sardoč, Mitja (ed.), 2017–, Handbook of Patriotism , Springer International Publishing AG (some chapters available on the web from 2017 on). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-30534-9
• Satz, Debra and Rob Reich (eds.), 2009, Toward a Humanist Justice: The Political Philosophy of Susan Moller Okin , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/Acprof:Oso/9780195337396.001.0001
• Scruton, Roger, 2004, England and the Need for Nations , London: Civitas: Institute for the Study of Civil Society.
• Searle-White, Joshua, 2001, The Psychology of Nationalism , New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. doi:10.1057/9780312299057
• Seymour, Michel, 1999, La nation en question , Montreal: L’Hexagone.
• –––, 2000, “On Redefining the Nation”, in Miscevic 2000: 25–56.
• Shapiro, Ian and Lea Brilmayer (eds.), 1999, Global Justice , (Nomos, Volume XLI), New York: New York University Press.
• Shapiro, Ian and Will Kymlicka (eds.), 1997, Ethnicity and Group Rights , (Nomos, Volume XXXIX), New York: New York University Press.
• Simmons, A. John, 2001, “On The Territorial Rights of States”, Philosophical Issues , 11: 300 –326. doi:10.1111/0029-4624.35.s1.12
• –––, 2016, Boundaries of Authority , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190603489.001.0001
• Shils, Edward, 1957, “On The Territorial Rights of StatesPrimordial, Personal, Sacred and Civil Ties: Some Particular Observations on the Relationships of Sociological Research and Theory”, The British Journal of Sociology , 8(2): 130– 145.
• Smith, Anthony D., 1991, National Identity , Penguin, Harmondsworth.
• –––, 2001, Nationalism , Cambridge: Polity Press.
• –––, 2003, “The Poverty of Anti-Nationalist Modernism”, Nations and Nationalism , 9(3): 357–370. doi:10.1111/1469-8219.00101
• –––, 2008a. The Cultural Foundations of Nations: Hierarchy, Covenant and Republic , Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
• –––, 2008, “Opening Remarkts to the Debate on Aviel Roshwald’s The Endurance of Nationalism”, Nations and Nationalism , 14(4): 637–663. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8129.2008.00355.x
• –––, 2009, Ethno-Symbolism and Nationalism: a Cultural Approach , London: Routledge.
• –––, 2011, “National Identity and Vernacular Mobilisation in Europe”, Nations and Nationalism , 17(2): 223–256. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8129.2011.00491.x
• Sober, Elliott, and David Sloan Wilson, 1998, Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Sparrow, Robert, 2007, “For the Union Makes Us Strong: Anarchism and Patriotism”, in Primoratz and Pavkovic 2007: 201–218.
• Spinner-Halev, Jeff, 2008, “Democracy, Solidarity and Post-Nationalism”, Political Studies , 56(3): 604–628. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00708.x
• Steiner, Hillel, 1999, “Just Taxation and International Redistribution”, in Shapiro and Brilmayer 1999: 171–191.
• Stiltz, Anna, 2016, “The Value of Self-Determination”, Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy 2 , David Sobel, Peter Vallentyne, and Steven Wall (eds), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 98–127. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198759621.003.0005
• Stone, John and Ioanna Christodoulaki, 2018, “Nebulous Nationalism: Walker Connor in an Era of Rising Populism”, Nations and Nationalism , 24(3): 513–518. doi:10.1111/nana.12443
• Storm, Eric, 2018, “A New Dawn in Nationalism Studies? Some Fresh Incentives to Overcome Historiographical Nationalism”, European History Quarterly , 48(1): 113–129. doi:10.1177/0265691417741830
• Tan, Kok-Chor, 2004, Justice without Borders: Cosmopolitanism, Nationalism, and Patriotism , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511490385
• –––, 2011, “Nationalism and Global Justice: A Survey of Some Challenges”, in Sovereign Justice: Global Justice in a World of Nations , Diogo P. Aurélio, Gabriele De Angelis, and Regina Queiroz (eds.), Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 9–24. doi:10.1515/9783110245745.1.9
• –––, 2012, Justice, Institutions, and Luck: The Site, Ground, and Scope of Equality , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199588855.001.0001
• Taguieff, Pierre-André, 2015, La revanche du nationalisme: Néopopulistes et xénophobes ? l’assaut de l’Europe , Paris: Presses Universitaires De France.
• Tajfel, Henri, 1981, Human Groups and Social Categories , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2019, Why Nationalism, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Taylor, Charles, 1989, Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 1993, Reconciling the Solitudes , Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
• –––, 1996, “Why Democracy Needs Patriotism”, in Cohen 1996: 119–121.
• Tilly, Charles (ed.), 1975, The Formation of National States in Western Europe , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Tonkiss, Katherine, 2013, Migration and Identity in a Post-National World , London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. doi:10.1057/9781137309082
• Tully, James, 1994, An Approach to Political Philosophy: Locke in Contexts , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511607882
• –––, 2004, “Recognition and dialogue: the emergence of a new field”, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy , 7(3): 84–106.
• Twining, William (ed.), 1991, Issues of Self-determination , Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press.
• Vick, Brian, 2007, “Of Basques, Greeks, and Germans: Liberalism, Nationalism, and the Ancient Republican Tradition in the Thought of Wilhelm von Humboldt”, Central European History , 40(4): 653–681. doi:10.1017/S0008938907001070
• Vincent, Andrew, 2001, “Political Theory”, in Motyl (ed.) 2001: Volume 1, 589–599.
• Waldron, Jeremy, 1992, “Superseding Historic Injustice”, Ethics , 103(1): 4–28. doi:10.1086/293468
• Walker, R.B.J., 2001, “Postmodernism”, in Motyl (ed.) 2001: Volume 1, 611–630.
• Walzer, Michael, 1983, Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality , New York: Basic Boooks.
• –––, 2002, “Passion and Politics”, Philosophy & Social Criticism , 28(6): 617–633. doi:10.1177/019145370202800602
• –––, 2004, Arguing about War , New Haven & London: Yale University Press.
• Weber, Max, 1924, “Diskussionsrede zum Vortrag von P. Barth ‘Die Nationalitit in ihrer soziologischer (1912) Bedeutung’ auf dem zweiten Deutschen Soziologentag in Berlin 1912”, in Max Weber, Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Soziologie und Sozialpolitik , Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), S. pp. 484–486.
• Wellman, Christopher Heath, 2005, A Theory of Secession: The Case for Self- Determination , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511499265
• Williams, Michael C., 2007, “Morgenthau Now: Neoconservatism, National Greatness, and Realism”, in Realism Reconsidered: The Legacy of Hans Morgenthau in International Relations , Michael C. Williams (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 216–240.
• Wimmer, Andreas, 2013, Waves of War: Nationalism, State Formation, and Ethnic Exclusion in the Modern World , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139198318
• –––, 2018, Nation Building: Why Some Countries Come Together While Others Fall Apart, Princeton: Princeton University Press
• Wright, Sue, 2016, Language Policy and Language Planning: From Nationalism to Globalisation , second revised edition, London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. doi:10.1007/978-1-137-57647-7
• –––, 2018, “Nationalism’s Grip on Democracy: Good News and Bad”, in Reimagining Nation and Nationalism in Multicultural East Asia , Sungmoon Kim and Hsin-Wen Lee (eds.), London: Routledge, chapter 1.
• Ypi, Lea, 2011, Global Justice and Avant-Garde Political Agency , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199593873.001.0001
• Yuval-Davis, Nira, 1997, Gender and Nation , New York: Sage Publications.
• Žižek, Slavoj, 2015, “In the Wake of Paris Attacks the Left Must Embrace Its Radical Western Roots”, In These Times , 16 November 2015, available online .
• –––, 2017, The Incontinence of the Void , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Nussbaum, Martha C. 2002, “ Beyond the Social Contract: Toward Global Justice ”, Tanner Lecture, Australian National University.
• Waldron, Jeremy, 2005, “ Proximity as the Basis of Political Community .”
• Nationalism – A Bibliography , compiled by Peter Rasmussen. A good collection of links and bibliographies, but no longer maintained.
• The Warwick Debates , debate between Ernest Gellner and Anthony D. Smith at the London School of Economics, 1995.
• ARENA: Centre for European Studies ; ARENA is a research centre at the University of Oslo studying the dynamics of the evolving European systems of governance. This site contains a good selection of papers on ethics of international relations.
• Global Policy Forum , has papers on the future of nation-states.
• Academy of European Law , at the European University Institute.
• Territory and Justice network: repository of pre-publication papers .

communitarianism | cosmopolitanism | globalization | identity politics | liberalism | prisoner’s dilemma | secession | war

Copyright © 2020 by Nenad Miscevic

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

• Search Search Please fill out this field.
• US & World Economies
• Economic Theory

What Is Nationalism?

Comparing Nationalism and Patriotism

Erika Rasure is globally-recognized as a leading consumer economics subject matter expert, researcher, and educator. She is a financial therapist and transformational coach, with a special interest in helping women learn how to invest.

Definition and Examples of Nationalism

How does nationalism work, nationalism vs. patriotism, the history of nationalism, how economic nationalism is different, frequently asked questions (faqs).

Nationalism is the idea that your nation is superior to all others. This sense of superiority often has its roots in a shared ethnicity. 

Nationalism is the idea that your nation, often identified by a shared ethnicity or set of values, is better than all other nations. Nationalism can be—and oftentimes is—expressed as aggression toward other nations. 

Nationalism is built around a shared language, religion, culture, or set of social values. A nation will emphasize shared symbols, folklore, and mythology.

Nationalism can impact foreign and domestic political policies and typically has economic implications.

A nationalist is someone who believes their nation is better than all others. Nationalist politicians have gained favor across parts of the world in recent years.

Examples of nationalism in the 21st century are spread across the globe.

In 2014, India elected Hindu nationalist Narendra Modi. In 2015, Vladimir Putin rallied Russians to invade Ukraine to "save" ethnic Russians. In 2016, the United Kingdom voted in favor of Brexit, the British exit from the EU.

Closer to home, the United States elected populist Donald Trump to the presidency in 2016. In 2018, President Trump declared at a Texas rally that he was a nationalist, though many felt that was already evident from his protectionist policies. He and his former advisor Steve Bannon had often advocated for economic nationalism.

Nationalists demand to be independent of other countries. They don't join global organizations or collaborate with other countries on joint efforts. If the people are part of another nation, then they will want freedom and their own state.

Because they believe in the superiority of their shared attribute, nationalists often stereotype different ethnic, religious, or cultural groups. The resultant prejudice keeps their nation unified.

Intolerance can lead to a desire to rid the country of those deemed as "different." In an extreme form, it can lead to ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Nationalists work toward a self-governing state. Their government controls aspects of the economy to promote the nation’s self-interest. 

Nationalism sets policies that strengthen the domestic entities that own the four factors of production. These four factors are:

• Capital goods
• Entrepreneurship
• Natural resources

Different types of Nationalists may disagree on whether the government or private businesses should own the factors, however, they are generally happy as long as these factors singularly make the nation more insular or stronger in their eyes.

Nationalist trade policy is based on protectionism . It subsidizes domestic industries that are deemed to be of national interest. It also includes tariffs and quotas on foreign imports. If it escalates to a trade war , it reduces international trade for all parties.

For example, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 reduced global trade by at least 60% and worsened the Great Depression.

Nationalists believe that their shared interests supersede all other individual or group interests. They oppose globalism and empires. They also rally against any philosophy, such as religion, that supersedes national loyalties. They are not necessarily militaristic, but they may quickly become so if threatened.

Nationalists' feeling of superiority differentiates their nationalism from patriotism. Patriotism equates to pride in one's country and a willingness to defend it.

Nationalism, on the other hand, extends that to arrogance and potential military aggression. Nationalists believe they have a right to dominate another nation because of their superiority. They may feel that they are doing the conquered a favor. This attitude can encourage militarism.

Nationalism, as we understand it today, didn't arise until the 17th century. Before that, people focused on their local town, kingdom, or even religion. The idea of nation-states can be said to have begun in 1658 with the Treaty of Westphalia. It ended the 30 Years' War between the Holy Roman Empire and various German groups.

Industrialization and capitalism strengthened the need for a self-governing nation to protect business rights, and merchants partnered with national governments to help them beat foreign competitors.

The government supported this mercantilism, because the merchants paid them in gold. The steam-powered printing press helped enable nations to promote unity within and prejudice against outsiders.

In the late 18th century, the American and French revolutions formalized large nations that were free of a monarchy. They ruled by democracy and endorsed capitalism. In 1871, Otto von Bismarck created the nation of Germany from different tribes. By the 20th century, the North American and European continents were governed by sovereign nations.

The Great Depression created economic conditions so harsh that many countries adopted nationalistic policies and mindsets as a defense, which often made the economic conditions worse.

Fascist leaders such as Adolf Hitler in Germany and Benito Mussolini in Italy used nationalism to override individual self-interest, subjugating the welfare of the general population to achieve social goals.

Nationalism under fascism works within existing social structures rather than destroying them. It focuses on "internal cleansing and external expansion," according to Professor Robert Paxton in  The Anatomy of Fascism . This thinking attempts to justify violence as a way to rid society of minorities and opponents.

World War II convinced the Allied nations to endorse global cooperation. The World Bank , the United Nations, and the World Trade Organization were just three of many global groups. In the 1990s, Europe's nations formed the European Union.

Economic nationalism is a form of nationalism that specifically prioritizes domestic businesses. It seeks to defend them against multinational corporations that benefit from globalism. It advocates protectionism and other trade policies that protect local industries. President Trump espoused economic nationalism when he announced tariffs on steel and Chinese imports.

Economic nationalism also prefers bilateral trade agreements between two countries. It says that multilateral agreements benefit corporations at the expense of individual nations. It would even adopt unilateral agreements where the stronger nation forces a weaker one to adopt trade policies that favor the stronger country.

After the stock market crash of 1929, countries began adopting protectionist measures in a desperate attempt to save jobs. Instead, those efforts helped to send the world economy down by 60%. As a result, those measures likely prolonged the Great Depression.

To compensate for less trade, economic nationalism advocates increased fiscal policies to help businesses, including increased government spending on infrastructure and tax cuts for businesses.

Economic nationalism might oppose illegal immigration, arguing that it takes jobs away from domestic workers. President Trump's immigration policies followed nationalism when he built a wall on the border with Mexico.

Key Takeaways

• Nationalism is an ideology that a person's nation is superior to all others. The root of nationalism is often based on shared ethnicity.
• An example of nationalism can be seen in much of Adolf Hitler's rhetoric.
• The difference between nationalism and patriotism is the feeling of superiority. Nationalists think their country is better than all other countries, while patriots have pride in their country.

Is nationalism on the rise?

Yes, according to some experts. This is due to several factors including economic instability, various refugee crises, and the ongoing pandemic. It is not unusual to see a rise in nationalism during a crisis in a country.

Where did nationalism get its start?

Modern nationalism got its start in England in the 17th century during the Puritan revolution.

How did nationalism cause World War I?

Nationalism led to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, the Archduke of Austria, which in turn led to World War I, along with several other important factors.

Ziya Öniş Mustafa Kutlay. " The Global Political Economy of Right-Wing Populism: Deconstructing the Paradox ,"  The International Spectator .

Eric Helleiner. " The Diversity of Economic Nationalism ," New Political Economy .

Samuel MacIsaac, Buck C. Duclos. " Trade And Conflict: Trends in Economic Nationalism, Unilateralism and Protectionism ," Canadian Foreign Policy Journal .

U.S Congressional Research Service. " U.S. Trade Debates: Select Disputes and Actions ," Page 1.

Muchkund Dubey. “ The Nationalism Debate: Past and Present ,” Indian Journal of Public Administration .

Jan-Otmar Hesse. “ Financial Crisis and the Recurrence of Economic Nationalism ," Journal of Modern European History .

Robert O. Paxton. “ The Anatomy of Fascism ,” Pages 216-220. Penguin Random House, 2004.

Abu NM. Waheeduzzaman. “ Repositioning Globalization Under Nationalism ,” Journal of Competitiveness Studies .

European Union. " History of the European Union 1990-99 ."

NCBI, U.S. National Library of Medicine. " From Crisis to Nationalism? "

Britannica. " Nationalism ."

Norwich University Online. " Six Causes of WWI ."

• Corrections

Globalization vs. Nationalism: What Is the Difference?

What is the distinction between Globalization and Nationalism, and how does this dichotomy affect political theory?

What is globalization? What is nationalism? How can we understand the theory of politics in light of this dichotomy? This article begins with an attempt to clarify the relationship between globalization (as a process) with nationalism (as a theoretical position). It then moves on to discuss the relationship between globalization and nationalism in democratic politics. The questions of rhetoric and whether there are material disagreements to correspond to the strictly discursive confrontation are addressed. The relationship between this dichotomy and the field of political aesthetics is then considered, before an attempt is made to distinguish various defenses of globalization and nationalism from one another, however partially.

Characterizing The Debate Between Defenders of Globalization and Nationalism

How best can we characterize the dichotomy between globalization and nationalism? It is worth beginning with an attempted clarification of some confused terminology. Whereas globalization is a process, albeit one of which the terms are severely disputed. The term which might be best for designating those who roughly hold globalization to be a “good thing” is globalism. Yet globalism has acquired such specific, negative connotations in recent times that the term feels odd, although it will crop up periodically in this article.

The philosophical discussion of globalization and nationalism is a new one. Indeed, this way of characterizing developments in economics, politics, and culture is itself quite new. One of the first questions to address is how we should define these two opposing ideologies. A balanced definition will be as free as possible from pejoratives, from misrepresentation, allows a conversation to take place, and thereby justifies our use of these two, opposing terms as the frame for productive discourse about contemporary political problems.

Let’s start with a provisional definition. globalization stands for a defense of the increased fluidity of goods, wealth, people, and culture across borders. The perspective of globalization is one in which we are arbitrarily restricted by national boundaries (and indeed other exclusionary forms of identification) in such a way that our lives are more difficult, and many opportunities for collaboration on shared problems are thereby lost.

Get the latest articles delivered to your inbox

Please check your inbox to activate your subscription.

The nationalist perspective, in contrast, holds that national boundaries are not wholly arbitrary, and indeed whatever the status of their origins, there is value in preserving them.

The Democratic Context

To go further, it is necessary to separate off certain subjects and consider if and how far discourse within them can be developed with reference to the confrontation of globalization and nationalism.

Let us start with politics, and specifically democratic, electoral politics. It is important to account for the irrationality of democracy as we attempt to analyze it. There is, after all, no reason to think that the way a democratic political campaign pans out has much to do with material states of affairs and not an accumulation of accidents of persuasion.

Framing the latter in terms of a confrontation between globalization and nationalism is often extremely helpful. Indeed, globalization and nationalism can be understood in this context as two opposing political aesthetics .

Globalization might, for instance, express a certain kind of confidence towards new, as yet unrealized forms of politics, the possibility of politics surpassing its current theatre of national governance. On the other hand, nationalism might make appeals to conserving what we presently have, to the instability of the world beyond the known, national border. These are common ways in which stances with respect to globalization correspond to broader political perspectives. However, it is the very slipperiness of these terms with respect to the political “big picture” (that is, with respect to ideologies as such) that makes an analysis of globalization and nationalism so difficult and so interesting.

Rhetorical Devices? 

The aforementioned way of conceiving of the difference between globalization and nationalism (globalization as expressing optimism about new ways of doing politics, nationalism as conserving existing structures of political stability) might appear to constitute them as, in some sense, rhetorical devices rather than rational concepts by which political action can be structured (outside of whatever attempts are being made to alter public perception).

Certainly, both nationalism and globalization are powerful rhetorical tools. There is a totemic significance to referring to someone as a “nationalist” or “globalist,” independently of any particular policy that might be associated with these terms.

The discursive force is, if anything, heightened by the very formlessness of the political aesthetic associated with these terms. Take the binary we discussed above, for instance, in which nationalism stands for stability and globalization for unrealized possibilities. We can imagine, of course, a conservative globalization that emphasizes the pre-existing relationships between economies and cultures. On the other hand, nationalism can also be conceived as radical and seeking to remodel societies, a nationalism that thrives on—rather than oppose—instability.

Political Aesthetics 

Here is where attempting to demarcate the relationship between nationalism and globalization turns into a problem of political aesthetics. What is political aesthetics? What is the relationship between the political and aesthetics?

Roughly, we can conceive of political aesthetics as the study of politics, its systems, and processes in terms of its aesthetic elements. The very idea of “political theater,” or of the political “text” (be it a work of political theory, a constitutional document, or a policy statement) implies an aesthetic dimension to politics. Understanding the aesthetic dimension of politics means understanding where in politics it is the aesthetic component that is doing the most work.

Given the lack of any strict definition of the globalization-nationalism dichotomy in terms of practical political change, we might turn to the realm of aesthetics to explain the appeal of these categories. The range of aesthetic qualities which can be ascribed to something and, even more broadly, the aesthetic judgments which can be made of it, are extremely broad. There is a cluster of aesthetic qualities which appear to group themselves around the categories of globalization and nationalism in a given political environment and manifest in forms of political expression as an undercurrent.

The Point of Political Aesthetics

Yet that isn’t to say that globalization and nationalism represent their own, respective, mobile army of aesthetic signifiers. There is a sense in which the dichotomy between globalization and nationalism constitutes a dispute over the value of political aesthetics itself.

Nationalisms, in general, tend to place more emphasis on the symbolic elements of politics. Nazi Germany is almost inevitably the first case study for any attempt to relate aesthetics to politics. Nationalism’s attachment to its aesthetic goes beyond a kind of instrumentalization of aesthetic features, but an independent attachment. The idea of doing things for symbolic purposes, the idea that the independence of the nation-state is a symbolic act, is peculiar to nationalism.

Indeed, the dichotomy between globalization and nationalism can be conceived of as an extension of the problem of constructing politics itself. Certain theories of politics hammer this point home more explicitly than others. Carl Schmitt , for instance, held that politics begins just as the point where we can draw distinctions between our friends and our enemies, and the debate over globalization and nationalism is nothing if not an attempt to draw that very distinction.

Forms of Nationalism and Globalism

Although this article has so far attempted to draw out the differences between nationalism and globalization, it is important to stress that modern confrontations between these two ways of thinking are partly defined by their very fluidity.

Liberal forms of nationalism tend to emphasize the pragmatic value of thinking of politics in terms of the nation-state, rather than any deep ethnic or otherwise intrinsic “right.” Similarly, insofar as globalism is often posited as a pragmatic political position, it is also best understood as receptive to nationalism within certain, clearly prescribed limits. After all, globalization is a process that, at least on a globalist account of things, cannot be stopped (or at least, cannot be stopped without other severe trade-offs). Given that, the persistence of certain forms of national organization isn’t problematic per se for those who favor globalization , even if these are largely expected to ebb away in the long term.

Here we can draw the distinction between forms of nationalism/globalism that are more or less “pragmatic” positions, and those which express some other, more absolute commitment. We can also attempt to distinguish nationalisms and globalisms that understand their respective ideology to be an observation of historical inevitability, against those who take their ideology to be a stance against, in spite of, regardless of history.

Antonio Canova and His Influence on Italian Nationalism

By Luke Dunne BA Philosophy & Theology Luke is a graduate of the University of Oxford's departments of Philosophy and Theology, his main interests include the history of philosophy, the metaphysics of mind, and social theory.

Frequently Read Together

Hip Hop’s Challenge to Traditional Aesthetics: Empowerment and Music

Is Modern Art Dead? An Overview of Modernism and its Aesthetics

Carl schmitt: the most influential nazi philosopher.

13+ Pros and Cons of Nationalism [Powerful Facts & Quotes]

There might be affiliate links on this page, which means we get a small commission of anything you buy. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Please do your own research before making any online purchase.

Therefore, today, we bring you the pros and cons of nationalism.  So you can better understand this style of society and culture.

Table of Contents

So what does nationalism do? Nationalism promotes a nation’s self-interest. It sets policies that strengthen the domestic groups that own the factors of production. For many nationalism also means keeping anyone else out and possibly even persecuting those with different ideas than the norm for the culture of your country.

Pros and Cons Of Nationalism

1. pros of nationalism- it develops infrastructure, 2. pros of nationalism- brings endless job opportunities.

Likewise Globalization, nationalism also bring endless job opportunities. People get an inspiration to do more and succeed in their lives. They can move from place to place and settle where ever they deem correct for pursuing their careers and dreams. 

Here, The American dream is an example of nationalism. The idea that someone can come to the US from anywhere and pursue their version of happiness or achieve what they want is the outcome of nationalism. Therefore, this benefit of nationalism stands as the most authentic one among the pros and cons of nationalism. 

3. Pros and Cons Of Nationalism-It Gives Strength To A Nation

For instance, the US has a strong sense of nationalism as it performs with adequate strength and knowledge of the issue on international platforms. 

4. Pros and Cons Of Nationalism- Patriotism

For instance, The US stands as one on every international soapbox. That means it has different identities existing, but they can merge into one when there is a need to do that. Plus, this develops more love of the country in their hearts.

5. Sense Of Duty To The Nation

Arguably one of the most positive benefits among the pros and cons of nationalism is the sense of duty. That means that If the rights of the nation spring from its obligations, then people need to fulfill them as well. And above all, this aspect fortifies the courageous element of the nation. 

6. Emphasizes Justice and Rule of Law

Therefore, this is one of the most significant benefits among the pros and cons of nationalism. 

Cons of Nationalism- Pros And Cons Of Nationalism

1. it leads to isolation, 2. a rise in socio-economic clans .

The scholars against nationalism say that it can give a rise in the birth of different socio-economic sects. Why? Because as much as this concept brings a nation together , it can also divide it. 

It can create separation among people based on the labels they create on their own. Therefore, it is a dangerous aspect of nationalism when one analyses the pros and cons of nationalism.

3. Pros And Cons Of Nationalism – It can Lead To War

When two nations clash in their ideas, both will feel that they are right, and the other is wrong . If either thinks like their values are under attack, then nationalism can lead to war. Therefore, it also poses a threat to security when we analyze the pros and cons of nationalism. 

4. Pros and cons Of Nationalism- Develops Prejudice

An extreme sense of nationalism can give rise to prejudice and hatred for other nations. One can insult and hurt different nationalities. It also leads to intolerance and hatred for other communities.

5. The majority and Minority Concerns

Nationalism brings out the majority and minority differences on the surface. Many problems occur as a result of majority and minority issues.

For instance, the Muslims in the state of Jammu and Kashmir in India to give proper rights. The government of India has failed to provide its people with standard life necessities. Similarly, Christians in the Middle East find themselves struggling to get a good life. Why? Because the majority rues out there.

6. Pros and Cons of Nationalism- Abuse Of Power

For instance, In Vietnam, there exists a history of war and violence. Therefore, nationalism results in abuse of power and other rights over there. 

Young democracies are also at a higher risk of violent nationalism. In these states, ambitious leaders might pursue risky strategies — such as to boost immature patriotism of their people for their motives. Nationalism also leads to racism and xenophobia. 

According to Prof. Morgenthau, “ After the integration of several states, minorities are absorbed, and the majority rules over other nationalities. Afterward, the unit becomes a hub of racial conflicts. Why? Because Russia was dominant of all the 15 states of the former USSR. The land in USSR demanded to be independent because they wanted their identification. “

7. Cons Of Nationalism- Exercise Of Supreme Power

The most dangerous aspect of nationalism among its pros and cons is that it brings in the exercise of supreme power. For instance, at the beginning of the 20th century, Hitler of Germany used his supreme skills against the whole world. Why? Because he wanted to satisfy his nationalistic needs. 

They exist in a world where war is expensive, borders are large, and the actions of nations usually abide by some moral code. As a result, nationalism today often leads citizens to look inward and focus their energies destroying other countries.

How To Eliminate The Cons Of Nationalism?

If social science wants to gain relevance today, it must help derive policies that make the most of a country’s assets. With nationalism, this is not happening. What’s worse, instead of seeing its potential for progress, scholars widely regard nationalism as an ill.

To be sure, the deep relationships outlined here ought to be further divided.

Perhaps nationalism does not matter much when we account for a host of other factors, such as educational advantages and natural resources. A debate could be about whether nationalism is helpful or utterly harmless. Regardless of the frequency of the pros and cons of nationalism.

At the very least, we must move past the concept that nationalism is only dangerous. The pros among the pros and cons of nationalism can be more in number if the country sets down an equal set of rules for everyone.  Nationalism in limited doses is patriotism, which can be a great thing. We simply need to work to curb the excesses of nationalism.

A country can promote the positive aspects of nationalism by following these guidelines

These guidelines are the recommendations by Prof Morgenthau, and he believes that if a state works on these for the long term then there will be fewer disadvantages of nationalism on board.

However, the cons will remain, but the overall effect can be curbed. Social Scientists are hopeful that they will get a better picture of nationalism if they get the correct implications of these strategies. 

FAQs on Pros And Cons Of Nationalism:

What is nationalism.

Nationalism is a way of think that your own country is better than other countries and sometimes it will not let you work with other nations.

What are the main causes of nationalism?

What are the upsides of nationalism.

Pros of nationalism include the building of the infrastructure and bring jobs to the country, give strength to the nation, and emphasizes justice.

What are some downsides of Nationalism?

Cons of nationalism are the following. It causes the isolation of a nation, rises to socio-economic clans, create majority & minority concerns and can lead to the war.

Conclusion – What Are the Pros and Cons of Nationalism:

Popular Posts on TLV:

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

What Is Nationalism? Definition and Examples

Samuel Corum/Getty Images

• The U. S. Government
• U.S. Foreign Policy
• U.S. Liberal Politics
• U.S. Conservative Politics
• Women's Issues
• Civil Liberties
• The Middle East
• Race Relations
• Immigration
• Crime & Punishment
• Canadian Government
• Understanding Types of Government

Nationalism is an ideology expressed by people who fervently believe that their nation is superior to all others. These feelings of superiority are often based on shared ethnicity, language, religion, culture, or social values. From a purely political standpoint, nationalism aims to defend the country’s popular sovereignty —the right to govern itself—and to protect it from the political, social, and cultural pressures posed by the modern global economy. In this sense, nationalism is seen as the antithesis of globalism .

Key Takeaways: Nationalism

• Politically, nationalists strive to protect the nation's sovereignty, the right to govern itself.
• Nationalists’ feelings of superiority are usually based on shared ethnicity, language, religion, culture, or social values.
• Extreme nationalists believe that their country has the right to dominate other nations through military aggression if necessary.
• The ideologies of nationalism are contrary to those of globalism and the modern globalization movement. 
• Economic nationalism strives to protect a nation’s economy from foreign competition, often through the practice of protectionism.
• Carried to its extremes, nationalism can lead to authoritarianism and the exclusion from the society of certain ethnic or racial groups.

Today, nationalism is generally recognized as a shared sentiment that because of the extent to which it influences public and private life, serves as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, determining factors of modern history.

History of Nationalism

Despite the common feeling that people who believe their country is the “best” have always existed, nationalism is a relatively modern movement. While people have always felt an attachment to their native land and the traditions of their parents, nationalism did not become a widely recognized sentiment until the end of the 18th century.

The 18th century American and French revolutions are often considered to have been the first impactful expressions of nationalism. During the 19th century, nationalism penetrated the new countries of Latin America and spread throughout central, eastern, and southeastern Europe. During the first half of the 20th century, nationalism arose in Asia and Africa.

Pre-20th Century Nationalism

The first true expressions of nationalism occurred in England during the Puritan Revolution of the middle 1600s.

By the end of the 17th-century, England had assumed a reputation as the world leader in science, commerce, and the development of political and social theory. After the English Civil War of 1642, the Puritan work ethic of Calvinism merged with the optimistic ethics of humanism .

Influenced by the Bible, an expression of English nationalism emerged in which the people equated their perceived mission to that of the people of ancient Israel . Swollen with pride and confidence, the English people began to feel that it was their mission to usher in a new age of reformation and individual liberty throughout the world. In his classic 1667 work “Paradise Lost,” English poet and intellectual John Milton described the English peoples’ efforts to spread what had by then become "England’s vision of liberty as being “celebrated for endless ages as a soil most genial to the growth of liberty,” to all the corners of the earth.

The nationalism of 18th century England, as expressed in the “ social contract ” political philosophy of John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau would influence American and French nationalism during the rest of the century.

Influenced by ideas of liberty put forth by Locke, Rousseau, and other contemporary French philosophers, American nationalism arose among the settlers of the North American British colonies . Stirred to action by current political thoughts expressed by Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine , the American colonists began their struggle for liberty and individual rights during the late 1700s. Similar to the aspirations of 17th century English nationalism, 18th-century American nationalism envisioned the new nation as humanity’s guiding light to liberty, equality, and happiness for all. Culminating with the American Revolution in 1775 and the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the influence of the new American nationalism was clearly reflected in the French Revolution of 1789.

In America as well as in France, nationalism came to represent a universal adherence to the progressive idea of a future of freedom and equality rather than the authoritarianism and inequality of the past. The new belief in the promise of “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and “Liberty, equality, fraternity” following the American and French revolutions inspired new rituals and symbols, such as flags and parades, patriotic music, and national holidays, that remain the common expression of nationalism today.

20th Century Movements

Beginning in 1914 with the onset of World War I , and ending in 1991 with the dissolution of Communism in Central-Eastern Europe, the 20th century saw the emergence of new forms of nationalism shaped largely by World War I and World War II .

After World War I, Adolf Hitler based a new brand of fanatical nationalism in Germany on racial purity, authoritarian rule, and the mythical glories of Germany’s pre-Christian past. After the Second World War, most new forms of nationalism were driven by independence movements in the wake of decolonization. As they struggled to free themselves from their European colonizers, people created national identities to distinguish themselves from their oppressors. Whether based on race, religion, culture, or the political entanglements of the Cold War in Europe , all of these new nationalistic identities were in some way connected with the drive for independence.

World War I proved to be a triumph of nationalism in central and Eastern Europe. New nation-states of Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, and Romania were built from the remains of the Habsburg, Romanov, and Hohenzollern Russian empires. Budding nationalism in Asia and Africa produced charismatic revolutionary leaders like Kemal Atatürk in Turkey, Mahatma Gandhi in India, and Sun Yat-sen in China.

After World War II, the establishment of multinational economic, military, and political organizations such as the United Nations (UN) in 1945 and NATO in 1949 led to a general reduction of the spirit of nationalism across Europe. However, the policies pursued by France under Charles de Gaulle and the bitter Communism versus democracy division of East and West Germany until 1990 proved the appeal of nationalism remained very much alive.

Nationalism Today

It has been argued that at no time since Words War I has the power of nationalism been as evident as it is today. Especially since 2016, there has been a significant increase in nationalist sentiment across the world. For example, it was a nationalism-driven desire to regain lost national autonomy that led to Brexit, the controversial withdrawal of Great Britain from the European Union . In the United States, presidential candidate Donald Trump rode nationalistic appeals to “Make America Great Again” and “America First” to the White House.

In Germany, the nationalist-populist political party Alternative for Germany (AfD), known for its opposition to the European Union and immigration, has become a major opposition force. In Spain, the self-proclaimed conservative right-wing Vox party won seats in the Spanish parliament for the first time in the April 2019 general election. Nationalism forms the basis for Chinese President Xi Jinping’s efforts to make China a world economic leader. Similarly, nationalism is a common theme among right-wing politicians in France, Austria, Italy, Hungary, Poland, the Philippines, and Turkey.

Economic Nationalism

Most recently characterized by the reaction to the global financial crash of 2011, economic nationalism is defined as a set of policies and practices designed to create, grow, and most of all, protect national economies in the context of world markets. For example, a 2006 proposal to sell port management businesses in six major U.S. seaports to Dubai Ports World based in the United Arab Emirates was blocked by political opposition motivated by economic nationalism.

Economic nationalists oppose, or at least critically question the advisability of globalization in favor of the perceived safety and stability of protectionism . To economic nationalists, most of not all revenue from foreign trade should be used for what they consider to be essential national interests such as national security and building military power, rather than for social welfare programs. In many ways, economic nationalism is a variant of mercantilism—the zero-sum theory that trade generates wealth and is stimulated by the accumulation of profitable balances, which the government should encourage through protectionism.

Based on an often unfounded belief that it steals jobs from domestic workers, economic nationalists oppose immigration. For example, President Trump’s Mexican border security wall followed his nationalistic immigration policies. In convincing Congress to allocate funds to pay for the controversial wall, the President claimed the loss of American jobs to undocumented immigrants . 

Issues and Concerns

Today, developed nations are typically made up of multiple ethnic, racial, cultural, and religious, groups. This recent increase in anti-immigration, exclusionary brand of nationalism could become dangerous to groups considered to be outside the politically favored group, especially if taken to extremes, as it was in Nazi Germany . As a result, it is important to examine the potential negative aspects of nationalism.

First of all, nationalism’s sense of superiority differentiates it from patriotism . While patriotism is characterized by pride in one’s country and a willingness to defend it, nationalism extends pride to arrogance and potential military aggression. Extreme nationalists believe that their country’s superiority gives them the right to dominate other nations. They justify this by the belief that they are “liberating” the people of the conquered nation.

As it did in Europe during the 19th and early 20th centuries, nationalism was used to justify imperialism and colonization . Under the shield of nationalism, western nations overtook and controlled countries in Africa and Asia, the crippling economic and social consequences of which linger today. During World War II, Adolf Hitler mastered nationalistic propaganda to rally the German people to rationalize his tactics of ethnic Aryan supremacy as being in the best interest of Germany. When used in this manner to establish one group to be the only rightful citizens of a country, nationalism can be extremely dangerous in an increasingly globalized world.   

At several times throughout history, nationalistic fervor has led nations into prolonged periods of isolationism —the stifling and potentially dangerous doctrine of playing no role in the affairs of other nations. For example, widely supported isolationism during the late 1930s played a significant role in preventing the United States from becoming involved in World War II until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

Nationalism inevitably creates a competitive “us” vs. “them” or “love it or leave it” attitude among the people. As George Orwell put it in his 1945 essay Notes on Nationalism, “A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige… his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations.”

Nationalism can also contribute to domestic division and unrest. By demanding that the people decide who is and isn’t truly part of the nation, it encourages discrimination against anyone within the nation’s borders who is identified as part of “them” instead of “us.”

• “ Nationalism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , September 2, 2020, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nationalism/.
• Sraders, Anne. “What is Nationalism? Its History And What It Means in 2018. The Street , 2018, https://www.thestreet.com/politics/what-is-nationalism-14642847.
• Galston, William A. “Twelve Theses on Nationalism.” Brookings , August 12, 2019, https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/twelve-theses-on-nationalism/.
• Pryke, Sam. “Economic Nationalism: Theory, History and Prospects.” Global Policy , September 6, 2012, ttps://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/articles/world-economy-trade-and-finance/economic-nationalism-theory-history-and-prospects.
• Walt, Stephen M. “The most powerful force in the world.” Forbes , July 15, 2011, https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/07/15/the-most-powerful-force-in-the-world/.
• Holmes, Ph.D., Kim R. “The Problem of Nationalism.” Heritage Foundation , December 13, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/the-problem-nationalism.
• Orwell, George. 1945. “ Notes on Nationalism .” Penguin UK, ISBN-10:‎ 9780241339565.
• Manfred Jonas. “Isolationism in America 1933-1941.” Cornell University Press, 1966, ISBN-10: 187917601
• What Is Jingoism? Definition and Examples
• What Is Autocracy? Definition and Examples
• Regionalism: Definition and Examples
• What Is Appeasement? Definition and Examples in Foreign Policy
• What Is a Military Dictatorship? Definition and Examples
• What Is Populism? Definition and Examples
• National Security Definition and Examples
• Constitutional Law: Definition and Function
• What Is Foreign Policy? Definition and Examples
• National Supremacy and the Constitution as Law of the Land
• Classified Information: Definition, Examples, and Laws
• What Is a National Emergency?
• Whistleblower: Definition and Examples
• Definition and Examples of Fraud
• Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker
• What the National Security Council Does

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

The False Dichotomy Between Globalism and Nationalism

• David A. Waldman
• Mansour Javidan

There’s an upside to both outlooks.

Synonyms for globalism include development, growth, and maturation, and multinational executives are routinely encouraged to have a global mindset. Nationalism is often linked to negative things like bigotry, protectionism, and xenophobia. But it also carries positive connotations, such as patriotism and good citizenship, and it is on the rise. This has led some executives to ask themselves personally defining questions: “Am I a globalist or a nationalist? Can I be both?” The answer to the second question is yes, with a deliberately integrative approach. Before making any major decision that seems to juxtapose a globalist view against a nationalist view, take thefollowing steps. First, recognize and explain to your team that it is not only okay, but actually important, to take both perspectives into account even if we naturally lean toward one side or the other. Second, ask three questions: 1) What criteria would a pure nationalist decision-maker who focuses on clear benefits to national stakeholders use?; 2) What criteria would a pure globalist decision-maker who focuses on benefits to the global corporation and the broader world use?; and 3) How can we integrate at least some of the two sets of criteria in making the final decision?

For years, government officials, business school professors, and executives have espoused the benefits of globalization, supporting their arguments with sound evidence. For example, the United Nations has reported that globalization and economic interdependence among nations helped world GDP to increase from $50 trillion in 2000 to $75 trillion in 2016. Another important metric is rising employment opportunities across borders: in 2017, migrant workers sent an estimated $466 billion to their families in home countries. Synonyms for globalism include development, growth, and maturation, and multinational executives are routinely encouraged to have a global mindset.

• David A. Waldman is a professor of leadership at W. P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University.
• Mansour Javidan is Garvin Distinguished Professor and Director of Najafi Global Mindset Institute at Thunderbird School of Global Management, Arizona State University.

Partner Center

• A-Z Publications

Annual Review of Political Science

Volume 24, 2021, review article, open access, nationalism: what we know and what we still need to know.

• Harris Mylonas 1 , and Maya Tudor 2
• View Affiliations Hide Affiliations Affiliations: 1 Elliott School of International Affairs and Department of Political Science, George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052, USA; email: [email protected] 2 Blavatnik School of Government, St. Hilda's College, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 6GG, United Kingdom; email: [email protected]
• Vol. 24:109-132 (Volume publication date May 2021) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-041719-101841
• Copyright © 2021 by Annual Reviews. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See credit lines of images or other third-party material in this article for license information

Amid the global resurgence of nationalist governments, what do we know about nationalism? This review takes stock of political science debates on nationalism to critically assess what we already know and what we still need to know. We begin by synthesizing classic debates and tracing the origins of the current consensus that nations are historically contingent and socially constructed. We then highlight three trends in contemporary nationalism scholarship: ( a ) comparative historical research that treats nationalism as a macropolitical force and excavates the relationships between nations, states, constitutive stories, and political conflict; ( b ) behavioral research that uses survey data and experiments to gauge the causes and effects of attachment to nations; and ( c ) ethnographic scholarship that illuminates the everyday processes and practices that perpetuate national belonging. The penultimate section briefly summarizes relevant insights from philosophy, history, and social psychology and identifies knowledge gaps that political scientists are well-positioned to address. A final section calls for more comparative, cross-disciplinary, cross-regional research on nationalism.

Article metrics loading...

Full text loading...

Literature Cited

• Abizadeh A. 2012 . On the demos and its kin: nationalism, democracy, and the boundary problem. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 106 : 4 867– 82 [Google Scholar]
• Acharya A , Lee A. 2018 . Economic foundations of the territorial state system. Am. J. Political Sci. 62 : 4 954– 66 [Google Scholar]
• Ahram AI. 2019 . Break All the Borders: Separatism and the Reshaping of the Middle East Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Ahram AI , Köllner P , Sil R 2018 . Comparative Area Studies: Methodological Rationales and Cross-Regional Applications New York/Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Aktürk Ş 2012 . Regimes of Ethnicity and Nationhood in Germany, Russia, and Turkey New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Anderson B. 1983 . Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism London: Verso [Google Scholar]
• Appiah KA. 2018 . The Lies That Bind: Rethinking Identity. Creed, Country, Colour, Class, Culture London: Profile Books [Google Scholar]
• Appiah KA. 2019 . The importance of elsewhere: in defense of cosmopolitanism. Foreign Aff 28 : 2 20– 26 [Google Scholar]
• Arendt H. 1945 . Imperialism, nationalism, chauvinism. Rev. Politics 7 : 4 441– 63 [Google Scholar]
• Balcells L. 2013 . Mass schooling and Catalan nationalism. Nationalism Ethn. Politics 19 : 4 467– 86 [Google Scholar]
• Bar-Tal D. 1993 . Patriotism as fundamental beliefs of group members. Politics Indiv 3 : 45– 62 [Google Scholar]
• Bar-Tal D , Staub E 1997 . Patriotism in the Lives of Individuals and Nations Chicago: Nelson-Hall [Google Scholar]
• Beissinger MR. 2002 . Nationalist Mobilization and the Collapse of the Soviet State Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Bendix R 1964 . Nation-Building and Citizenship: Studies of Our Changing . Social Order New York/London/Sydney: Wiley [Google Scholar]
• Bertoli AD. 2017 . Nationalism and conflict: lessons from international sports. Int. Stud. Q. 61 : 4 835– 49 [Google Scholar]
• Besley T , Reynal-Querol M. 2014 . The legacy of historical conflict: evidence from Africa. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 108 : 2 319– 36 [Google Scholar]
• Bieber F. 2020 . Global nationalism in times of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nationalities Pap https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2020.35 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
• Billig M. 1995 . Banal Nationalism London: Sage [Google Scholar]
• Bloemraad I. 2006 . Becoming a Citizen: Incorporating Immigrants and Refugees in the United States and Canada Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
• Blouin A , Mukand SW. 2019 . Erasing ethnicity? Propaganda, nation building, and identity in Rwanda. J. Political Econ. 127 : 3 1008– 62 [Google Scholar]
• Bonikowski B. 2016 . Nationalism in settled times. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 42 : 427– 49 [Google Scholar]
• Bonikowski B , Zhang Y. 2020 . Populism as dog-whistle politics: anti-elite discourse and sentiments toward out-groups. SocArXiv June 30. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/m29kf [Crossref]
• Brancati D. 2006 . Decentralization: fueling the fire or dampening the flames of ethnic conflict and secessionism. ? Int. Organ. 60 : 3 651– 85 [Google Scholar]
• Brand LA. 2014 . Official Stories: Politics and National Narratives in Egypt and Algeria Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Breuilly J 2013 . The Oxford Handbook of the History of Nationalism Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Brewer MB. 1991 . The social self: on being the same and different at the same time. Person. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1 : 5 475– 82 [Google Scholar]
• Brewer MB. 1999 . The psychology of prejudice: ingroup love or outgroup hate. ? J. Soc. Iss. 55 : 429– 44 [Google Scholar]
• Brubaker R. 1992 . Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Brubaker R. 1996 . Nationalism Refrained: Nationhood and the National Question in the New Europe Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Brubaker R. 2004 . Ethnicity without Groups Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Brubaker R , Feischmidt M , Fox J , Grancea L 2006 . Nationalist Politics and Everyday Ethnicity in a Transylvanian Town Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Brubaker R , Kim J. 2011 . Transborder membership politics in Germany and Korea. Eur. J. Sociol. 52 : 1 21– 75 [Google Scholar]
• Buhaug H , Cederman LE , Rød JK 2008 . Disaggregating ethno-nationalist civil wars: a dyadic test of exclusion theory. Int. Organ. 62 : 3 531– 51 [Google Scholar]
• Bulutgil Z. 2016 . The Roots of Ethnic Cleansing in Europe New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Bunce V. 2001 . The postsocialist experience and comparative politics. PS: Political Sci. Politics 34 : 4 793– 95 [Google Scholar]
• Bunce V. 2005 . The national idea: imperial legacies and post-communist pathways in Eastern Europe. East Eur. Politics Soc. 19 : 3 406– 42 [Google Scholar]
• Canovan M. 1996 . Nationhood and Political Theory Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar [Google Scholar]
• Carter D , Goemans HE. 2011 . The making of the territorial order: new borders and the emergence of interstate conflict. Int. Organ. 65 : 2 275– 309 [Google Scholar]
• Cederman LE , Warren TC , Sornette D 2011 . Testing Clausewitz: nationalism, mass mobilization, and the severity of war. Int. Organ. 65 : 4 605– 38 [Google Scholar]
• Centeno M. 2002 . Blood and Debt: War and the Nation-State in Latin America University Park: Pa. State Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Chandra K 2012 . Constructivist Theories of Ethnic Politics Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Chapman T , Roeder PG. 2007 . Partition as a solution to wars of nationalism: the importance of institutions. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 101 : 4 677– 91 [Google Scholar]
• Charnysh V , Lucas C , Singh P 2014 . The ties that bind: national identity salience and pro-social behavior toward the ethnic other. Comp. Political Stud. 48 : 3 267– 300 [Google Scholar]
• Coggins B. 2011 . Friends in high places: international politics and the emergence of states from secessionism. Int. Organ. 65 : 3 433– 67 [Google Scholar]
• Colantone I , Stanig P. 2018 . The trade origins of economic nationalism: import competition and voting behavior in Western Europe. Am. J. Political Sci. 62 : 4 936– 53 [Google Scholar]
• Coleman JS. 1954 . Nationalism in tropical Africa. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 48 : 2 404– 26 [Google Scholar]
• Connor W. 1972 . Nation-building or nation-destroying. ? World Politics 24 : 3 319– 55 [Google Scholar]
• Cooper F. 2014 . Africa in the World: Capitalism, Empire, Nation-State Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Csergő Z , Goldgeier JM. 2004 . Nationalist strategies and European integration. Perspect. Politics 2 : 1 21– 37 [Google Scholar]
• Dach‐Gruschow K , Hong YY. 2006 . The racial divide in response to the aftermath of Katrina: a boundary condition for common ingroup identity model. Anal. Soc. Issues Public Policy 6 : 1 125– 41 [Google Scholar]
• Dahl R. 1989 . Democracy and Its Critics New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Dalton J. 2018 . Emmanuel Macron warns of “dangers” of nationalism in Armistice speech aimed at Trump and Putin. Independent Nov. 11. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/remembrance-day-emmanuel-macron-speech-nationalism-patriotism-trump-putin-war-arc-de-triomphe-armistice-a8628856.html [Google Scholar]
• Darden K. 2022 . Resisting Occupation in Eurasia: Mass Schooling and the Creation of Durable National Loyalties New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Darden K , Grzymała-Busse A. 2006 . The great divide: literacy, nationalism, and the communist collapse. World Politics 59 : 1 83– 115 [Google Scholar]
• Darden K , Mylonas H. 2016 . Threats to territorial integrity, national mass schooling, and linguistic commonality. Comp. Political Stud. 49 : 11 1446– 79 [Google Scholar]
• De Cremer D , van Dijk E 2002 . Reactions to group success and failure as a function of identification level: a test of the goal-transformation hypothesis in social dilemmas. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 38 : 5 435– 42 [Google Scholar]
• De Cremer D , Van Vugt M 1999 . Social identification effects in social dilemmas: a transformation of motives. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 29 : 871– 93 [Google Scholar]
• de Figueiredo R , Elkins Z 2003 . Are patriots bigots? An inquiry into the vices of ingroup pride. Am. J. Political Sci. 47 : 171– 88 [Google Scholar]
• de Tocqueville A 2000 (1835) . Democracy in America transl. HC Mansfield, D Winthrop Chicago, IL: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
• Depetris-Chauvin E , Durante R , Campante F 2020 . Building nations through shared experiences: evidence from African football. Am. Econ. Rev. 110 : 5 1572– 602 [Google Scholar]
• Deutsch K. 1953 . Nationalism and Social Communication: An Inquiry into the Foundations of Nationality Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
• Deutsch K. 1961 . Social mobilization and political development. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 55 : 3 493– 514 [Google Scholar]
• Deutsch K. 1969 . Nationalism and Its Alternatives New York: Alfred A. Knopf [Google Scholar]
• Druckman D. 1994 . Nationalism, patriotism, and group loyalty: a social psychological perspective. Mershon Int. Stud. Rev. 38 : 43– 68 [Google Scholar]
• Elkins Z , Sides J. 2007 . Can institutions build unity in multiethnic states. ? Am. Political Sci. Rev. 101 : 4 693– 708 [Google Scholar]
• Emerson R. 1960 . From Empire to Nation: The Rise to Self-Assertion of Asian and African Peoples Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Farage N. 2020 . Coronavirus has shown we are all nationalists now: Does Boris Johnson realise that. ? Daily Telegraph Mar. 12. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/03/12/coronavirus-has-shown-nationalists-now-does-boris-johnson-realise/ [Google Scholar]
• Fouka V. 2019 . How do immigrants respond to discrimination? The case of Germans in the US during World War I. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 113 : 2 405– 22 [Google Scholar]
• Fouka V. 2020 . Backlash: the unintended effects of language prohibition in U.S. schools after World War I. Rev. Econ. Stud. 87 : 1 204– 39 [Google Scholar]
• Fukuyama F. 1989 . The end of history. ? Natl. Interest 16 : 3– 18 [Google Scholar]
• Fukuyama F. 2018 . Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux [Google Scholar]
• Gagnon VP. 1994 . Ethnic nationalism and international conflict: the case of Serbia. Int. Secur. 19 : 3 130– 66 [Google Scholar]
• Gandhi R. 1997 . The Good Boatman: A Portrait of Gandhi Delhi: Penguin [Google Scholar]
• Gat A. 2013 . Nations: The Long History and Deep Roots of Political Ethnicity and Nationalism New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Geertz C. 1963 . Old Societies and New States: The Quest for Modernity in Asia and Africa London: Free Press of Glencoe [Google Scholar]
• Gellner E. 1996 . Do nations have navels. ? Nations Nationalism 2 : 3 366– 70 [Google Scholar]
• Gellner E. 2006 (1983) . Nations and Nationalism Oxford, UK: Blackwell. , 2nd. ed. [Google Scholar]
• Gidron N , Hall PA. 2017 . The politics of social status: economic and cultural roots of the populist right. Br. J. Sociol. 68 : S57– S84 [Google Scholar]
• Goode JP. 2020 . Guest editor's introduction: “everyday nationalism in world politics: agents, contexts, and scale. Nationalities Pap 48 : 6 974– 82 [Google Scholar]
• Gorski PS. 2000 . The mosaic moment: an early modernist critique of modernist theories of nationalism. Am. J. Sociol. 105 : 5 1428– 68 [Google Scholar]
• Gorski PS. 2003 . The Disciplinary Revolution: Calvinism and the Rise of the State in Early Modern Europe Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
• Green E. 2020 . Ethnicity, national identity and the state: evidence from SSA. Br. J. Political Sci. 50 : 2 757– 79 [Google Scholar]
• Greenfeld L. 1992 . Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Griffiths R. 2015 . Between dissolution and blood: how administrative lines and categories shape secessionist outcomes. Int. Organ. 69 : 3 731– 51 [Google Scholar]
• Gruffydd-Jones J. 2017 . Dangerous days: the impact of nationalism on interstate conflict. Secur. Stud. 26 : 4 698– 728 [Google Scholar]
• Grzymała-Busse A. 2015 . Nations Under God: How Churches Use Moral Authority to Influence Policy Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Haas EB. 1997 . Nationalism, Liberalism and Progress . Vol. 1: The Rise and Decline of Nationalism Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Haas EB. 2000 . Nationalism, Liberalism and Progress .Vol. 2: The Dismal Fate of New Nations Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Habermas J. 1996 . Between Facts and Norms: Contribution to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy Cambridge, UK: Polity [Google Scholar]
• Haidt J. 2016 . When and why nationalism beats globalism. Policy J. Public Policy Ideas 32 : 3 46– 53 [Google Scholar]
• Hale HE. 2008 . The Foundations of Ethnic Politics: Separatism of States and Nations in Eurasia and the World Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Harari YN. 2014 . Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind New York: Random House [Google Scholar]
• Hastings A. 1997 . The Construction of Nationhood: Ethnicity, Religion and Nationalism Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Hechter M. 2000 . Containing Nationalism Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Hechter M , Levi M. 1979 . The comparative analysis of ethnoregional movements. Ethn. Racial Stud. 2 : 3 260– 74 [Google Scholar]
• Hobsbawm E. 1990 . Echoes of the Marseillaise London: Verso [Google Scholar]
• Hobsbawm E. 1996 . The Age of Capital, 1848–1875 London: Vintage Books [Google Scholar]
• Hobsbawm E , Ranger T 1983 . The Invention of Tradition Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Horowitz D. 1985 . Ethnic Groups in Conflict Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
• Hroch M. 2000 (1968) . Social Preconditions of National Revival in Europe: A Comparative Analysis of the Social Composition of Patriotic Groups among the Smaller European Nations New York: Columbia Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Huddy L , Khatib N. 2007 . American patriotism, national identity, and political involvement. Am. J. Political Sci. 51 : 1 63– 77 [Google Scholar]
• Huntington SP. 2004 . Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity New York: Simon & Schuster [Google Scholar]
• Isaacs R , Polese A. 2015 . Between “imagined” and “real” nation-building: identities and nationhood in post-Soviet Central Asia. Nationalities Pap 43 : 3 371– 82 [Google Scholar]
• Isaacson W. 2007 . Einstein: His Life and Universe New York: Simon & Schuster [Google Scholar]
• Jenne EK. 2007 . Ethnic Bargaining: The Paradox of Minority Empowerment Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Kaufman E. 2018 . Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration, and the Future of White Majorities London: Allen Lane [Google Scholar]
• Kedourie E. 1960 . Nationalism London: Hutchinson [Google Scholar]
• King ML Jr 1953 . False god of nationalism . Unpublished sermon, Jul. 12, Atlanta, GA. Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project, Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA
• Knott E. 2016 . Everyday nationalism. State Nationalism https://stateofnationalism.eu/article/everyday-nationalism/ [Google Scholar]
• Kohn H. 1944 . The Idea of Nationalism: A Study in Its Origins and Background New York: Macmillan [Google Scholar]
• Koopmans R , Michalowski I. 2016 . Why do states extend rights to immigrants? Institutional settings and historical legacies across 44 countries worldwide. Comp. Political Stud. 50 : 1 41– 47 [Google Scholar]
• Kopstein SJ , Wittenberg J. 2010 . Beyond dictatorship and democracy: rethinking national minority inclusion and regime type in interwar Eastern Europe. Comp. Political Stud. 43 : 8–9 1089– 118 [Google Scholar]
• Kosterman R , Feshbach S. 1989 . Toward a measure of patriotic and nationalistic attitudes. Political Psychol 10 : 257– 74 [Google Scholar]
• Koter D. 2019 . Presidents’ ethnic identity and citizens’ national attachment in Africa. Natl. Ethn. Politics 25 : 2 133– 51 [Google Scholar]
• Koter D. 2020 . Accidental nation-building Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association Aug. 29–Sep. 1 Washington, DC: [Google Scholar]
• Krastev I. 2017 . After Europe Philadelphia: Penn Press [Google Scholar]
• Kuo K , Mylonas H. 2019 . Nation-building and the role of identity in civil wars. Ethnopolitics https://doi.org/10.1080/17449057.2019.1684095 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
• Kyriazi A , vom Hau M 2020 . Textbooks, postcards, and the public consolidation of nationalism in Latin America. Qual. Sociol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-020-09467-8 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
• Laitin D. 1998 . Identity in Formation: The Russian-Speaking Populations in the Near Abroad Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Laitin D. 2007 . Nations, States, and Violence Oxford/New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Lawrence A. 2013 . Imperial Rule and the Politics of Nationalism: Anti-Colonial Protest in the French Empire New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Lepore J. 2018 . These Truths: A History of the United States New York: W.W. Norton [Google Scholar]
• Li Q , Brewer MB. 2004 . What does it mean to be an American? Patriotism, nationalism, and American identity after 9/11. Political Psychol 25 : 5 727– 39 [Google Scholar]
• Lieberman ES. 2003 . Race and Regionalism in the Politics of Taxation in Brazil and South Africa Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Lieberman ES , Singh P. 2017 . Census enumeration and group conflict: a global analysis of the consequences of counting. World Politics 69 : 1 1– 53 [Google Scholar]
• Lipset SM. 1967 . The First New Nation: The United States in Historical and Comparative Perspective New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction [Google Scholar]
• Liu A. 2015 . Standardizing Diversity: The Political Economy of Language Regimes Philadelphia: Penn Press [Google Scholar]
• Levin S , Sidanius J. 1999 . Social dominance and social identity in the United States and Israel: ingroup favoritism or outgroup derogation. ? Political Psychol 20 : 1 99– 126 [Google Scholar]
• Machiavelli N. 1996 (c. 1517) . Discourses on Livy Transl. HC Mansfield, N Tarcov Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press From Italian [Google Scholar]
• Malešević S. 2013 . Nation-States and Nationalisms: Organization, Ideology and Solidarity Cambridge, UK: Polity [Google Scholar]
• Mandela N. 2018 . The Prison Letters of Nelson Mandela New York: Liveright [Google Scholar]
• Marinthe G , Falomir-Pichastor JM , Testé B , Kamiejski R 2020 . Flags on fire: consequences of a national symbol's desecration for intergroup relations. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 23 : 5 744– 60 [Google Scholar]
• Markell P. 2000 . Making affect safe for democracy? On “constitutional patriotism. .” Political Theory 28 : 1 38– 63 [Google Scholar]
• Martin C. 2018 . Imagine all the people: literature, society, and cross-national variation in education systems. World Politics 70 : 3 398– 442 [Google Scholar]
• Marx A. 2005 . Faith in Nation: Exclusionary Origins of Nationalism New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Mason A. 1999 . Political community, liberal-nationalism, and the ethics of assimilation. Ethics 109 : 2 261– 86 [Google Scholar]
• Mazucca S 2021 . Latecomer State Formation: Political Geography and Capacity Failure in Latin America . New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Mearsheimer JJ. 2018 . The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities New Haven/London: Yale Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Miguel T. 2004 . Tribe or nation? Nation building and public goods in Kenya v. Tanzania. World Politics 56 : 3 327– 62 [Google Scholar]
• Mill JS. 1861 . Of nationality, as connected with representative government. Considerations on Representative Government 287– 97 London: Parker, Son, and Bourn [Google Scholar]
• Miller D. 1995 . On Nationality Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Miller D. 2000 . Citizenship and National Identity Cambridge, UK: Polity [Google Scholar]
• Miller-Idriss C. 2018 . The Extreme Gone Mainstream: Commercialization and Far Right Youth Culture in Germany Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Miscevic N. 2018 . Nationalism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/nationalism/ [Google Scholar]
• Monbiot G. 2005 . The new chauvinism. Guardian Aug. 9. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/aug/09/july7.britishidentity [Google Scholar]
• Mylonas H. 2012 . The Politics of Nation-Building: Making Co-Nationals, Refugees, and Minorities New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Mylonas H. 2020 . Nation-building. Oxford Bibliographies https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199743292/obo-9780199743292-0217.xml [Google Scholar]
• Mylonas H , Kuo K. 2018 . Nationalism and foreign policy. Oxford Encyclopedia of Foreign Policy Analysis CG Thies pp. 223– 42 New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Mylonas H , Shelef N. 2014 . Which land is our land? Domestic politics and change in the territorial claims of stateless nationalist movements. Secur. Stud. 23 : 4 754– 86 [Google Scholar]
• Mylonas H , Shelef N. 2017 . Methodological challenges in the study of stateless nationalist territorial claims. Territ. Politics Gov. 5 : 2 145– 57 [Google Scholar]
• Myrdal G , Sterner R , Rose A 1944 . An American Dilemma 2 vols New York: Harper [Google Scholar]
• Nodia G. 2017 . The end of the postnational illusion. J. Democr. 28 : 2 5– 19 [Google Scholar]
• Norris P , Inglehart R. 2019 . Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit, and Authoritarian Populism Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Orbán V. 2018 . Ceremonial speech on the 170th anniversary of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, Mar. 15. http://abouthungary.hu/speeches-and-remarks/orban-viktors-ceremonial-speech-on-the-170th-anniversary-of-the-hungarian-revolution-of-1848/
• Pickus N. 2005 . True Faith and Allegiance: Immigration and American Civic Nationalism Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Posen B. 1993 . Nationalism, the mass army and military power. Int. Secur. 18 : 2 80– 124 [Google Scholar]
• Posner D. 2003 . The colonial origins of ethnic cleavages: the case of linguistic divisions in Zambia. Comp. Politics 35 : 2 127– 46 [Google Scholar]
• Posner D. 2005 . Institutions and Ethnic Politics in Africa New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Reeskens T , Wright M. 2010 . Beyond the civic-ethnic dichotomy: investigating the structure of citizenship concepts across thirty-three countries. Nations Nationalism 16 : 4 579– 97 [Google Scholar]
• Reeskens T , Wright M. 2012 . Nationalism and the cohesive society: a multilevel analysis of the interplay among diversity, national identity, and social capital across 27 European societies. Comp. Political Stud. 46 : 2 153– 81 [Google Scholar]
• Renan E. 1995 (1882) . What is a nation?. The Nationalism Reader O Dahbour, MR Ishay 143– 55 Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities [Google Scholar]
• Richerson P , Baldini R , Bell AV , Demps K , Frost K et al. 2016 . Cultural group selection plays an essential role in explaining human cooperation: a sketch of the evidence. Behav. Brain Sci. 39 : e30 . https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X1400106X [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
• Robinson A. 2014 . National versus ethnic identification: modernization, colonial legacy, and the origins of territorial nationalism. World Politics 66 : 4 709– 46 [Google Scholar]
• Rokkan S. 1971 . Nation-building: a review of models and approaches. Curr. Sociol. 19 : 3 7– 38 [Google Scholar]
• Rosenblatt PC. 1964 . Origins and effects of group ethnocentrism and nationalism. J. Confl. Resolut. 8 : 2 131– 46 [Google Scholar]
• Roshwald A 2006 . The Endurance of Nationalism: Ancient Roots and Modern Dilemmas . New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Ross L , Nisbett R. 2011 . The Person and the Situation: Perspectives of Social Psychology New York: McGraw Hill [Google Scholar]
• Rotberg RI. 1962 . The rise of African nationalism: the case of East and Central Africa. World Politics 15 : 1 75– 90 [Google Scholar]
• Roy A 2006 . An Ordinary Person's Guide to Empire New Delhi: Penguin [Google Scholar]
• Rustow D 1970 . Transitions to democracy. towards a dynamic model. Comp. Politics 2 : 3 337– 63 [Google Scholar]
• Saideman S , Ayres WR. 2008 . For Kin or Country: Xenophobia, Nationalism, and War New York: Columbia Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Sambanis N , Schulhofer-Wohl J. 2009 . What's in a line? Is partition a solution to civil war. ? Int. Secur. 34 : 2 82– 118 [Google Scholar]
• Sambanis N , Shayo M. 2013 . Social identification and ethnic conflict. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 107 : 2 294– 325 [Google Scholar]
• Sambanis N , Skaperdas S , Wohlforth W 2015 . Nation-building through war. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 109 : 2 279– 96 [Google Scholar]
• Sapiie MA. 2018 . Jokowi wants Pancasila to be nation's “way of life. .” Jakarta Post June 1. https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2018/06/01/jokowi-wants-pancasila-to-be-nations-way-of-life.html [Google Scholar]
• Schildkraut D. 2011 . Americanism in the Twenty-First Century: Public Opinion in the Age of Immigration New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Sealey KF. 2020 . Creolizing the Nation Evanston, IL: Northwestern Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Sewell W. 1996 . Historical events as transformations of structures: inventing revolution at the Bastille. Theory Soc. 25 : 6 841– 81 [Google Scholar]
• Shelef N. 2016 . Unequal ground: homelands and conflict. Int. Organ. 70 : 1 33– 63 [Google Scholar]
• Shevel O. 2010 . The post-communist diaspora laws: beyond the “good civic versus bad ethnic” nationalism dichotomy. East. Eur. Politics Soc. 24 : 1 159– 87 [Google Scholar]
• Shils E. 1957 . Primordial, personal, sacred and civil ties: some particular observations on the relationships of sociological research and theory. Br. J. Sociol. 8 : 2 130– 45 [Google Scholar]
• Shoup P. 1962 . Communism, nationalism and the growth of the communist community of nations after World War II. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 56 : 4 886– 98 [Google Scholar]
• Shulman S. 2002 . Challenging the civic/ethnic and west/east dichotomies in the study of nationalism. Comp. Political Stud. 35 : 5 554– 85 [Google Scholar]
• Singh P , vom Hau M 2016 . Ethnic diversity and public goods provision. Comp. Political Stud. 49 : 10–11) Spec. Iss 1303– 40 [Google Scholar]
• Siroky D , Hale CW. 2017 . Inside irredentism: a global empirical analysis. Am. J. Political Sci. 61 : 1 117– 28 [Google Scholar]
• Smith AD. 1986 . The Ethnic Origins of Nations Oxford, UK: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
• Smith AD. 1991 . National Identity . Vol. 11 Reno: Univ. Nevada Press [Google Scholar]
• Smith AD. 1995 . Gastronomy or geology? The role of nationalism in the reconstruction of nations. Nations Nationalism 1 : 1 3– 23 [Google Scholar]
• Smith R. 1997 . Civic Ideals: Conflicting Visions of Citizenship in U.S. History New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Smith R. 2003 . Stories of Peoplehood: The Politics and Morals of Political Memberships Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Smith R. 2015 . Political Peoplehood: The Roles of Values, Interests, and Identities Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
• Sniderman P , Hagendoorn L , Prior M 2004 . Predisposing factors and situational triggers: exclusionary reactions to immigrant minorities. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 98 : 1 35– 49 [Google Scholar]
• Snyder J. 2000 . From Voting to Violence New York: W.W. Norton [Google Scholar]
• Spruyt H. 1994 . The Sovereign State and Its Competitors: An Analysis of Systems Change Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Stepan A , Linz J , Yadav Y 2011 . Crafting State-Nations: India and Other Multinational Democracies Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Straus S. 2015 . Making and Unmaking Nations: War, Leadership, and Genocide in Modern Africa Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Suny R. 1993 . The Revenge of the Past: Nationalism, Revolution, and the Collapse of the Soviet Union Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Tagore R. 2020 . Nationalism: Political and Philosophical Essays New Delhi: General Press [Google Scholar]
• Tajfel H , Turner JC. 1979 . An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations WG Austin, S Worchel 33– 47 Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole [Google Scholar]
• Tamir Y. 1993 . Liberal Nationalism Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Tamir Y. 2019 . Not so civic: Is there a difference between ethnic and civic nationalism. ? Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 22 : 419– 34 [Google Scholar]
• Theiss-Morse E. 2009 . Who Counts as an American? The Boundaries of National Identity New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Thies CG. 2009 . National design and state building in sub-Saharan Africa. World Politics 61 : 4 623– 69 [Google Scholar]
• Tilly C. 1990 . Coercion, Capital and European States, AD 990–1992 Oxford, UK: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
• Tilly C 1975 . The Formation of National States in Western Europe Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Toft MD. 2006 . Issue indivisibility and time horizons as rationalist explanations for war. Secur. Stud. 15 : 1 34– 69 [Google Scholar]
• Transue J. 2007 . Identity salience, identity acceptance, and racial policy attitudes: American national identity as a uniting force. Am. J. Political Sci. 51 : 1 78– 91 [Google Scholar]
• Trivedi L. 2003 . Visually mapping the “nation”: Swadeshi politics in Nationalist India, 1920–1930. J. Asian Stud. 62 : 1 11– 41 [Google Scholar]
• Trudeau J. 2017 . Common Ground: A Political Life Toronto: Oneworld [Google Scholar]
• Tudor M. 2013 . The Promise of Power: The Origins of Democracy in India and Autocracy in Pakistan New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Tudor M. 2018 . India's nationalism in historical perspective: the democratic dangers of ascendant nativism. Indian Politics Policy 1 : 108– 32 [Google Scholar]
• Tudor M , Slater D. 2020 . Nationalism, authoritarianism, and democracy: historical lessons from South and Southeast Asia. Perspect. Politics. In press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S153759272000078X [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
• Valls A. 2010 . A liberal defense of black nationalism. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 104 : 3 467– 81 [Google Scholar]
• Viroli M. 1995 . For Love of Country: An Essay on Patriotism and Nationalism Oxford, UK: Clarendon [Google Scholar]
• vom Hau M. 2009 . Unpacking the school: textbooks, teachers, and the construction of nationhood in Mexico, Argentina, and Peru. Latin Am. Res. Rev. 44 : 3 127– 54 [Google Scholar]
• vom Hau M. 2019 . The developmental state and the rise of popular nationalism: cause, coincidence, or elective affinity?. State and Nation Making in Latin America and Spain . Vol. II: Rise and Fall of the Developmental State M Centeno, A Ferraro 317– 45 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Wallerstein I , Hechter M. 1970 . Social rank and nationalism: some African data. Public Opin. Q. 34 : 3 360– 70 [Google Scholar]
• Walter B. 2006 . Building reputation: why governments fight some separatists but not others. Am. J. Political Sci. 50 : 2 313– 30 [Google Scholar]
• Weber E. 1976 . Peasants into Frenchmen: The Modernization of Rural France, 1870–1914 Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Wedeen L. 2008 . Peripheral Visions: Publics, Power, and Performance in Yemen Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
• Weldon S. 2006 . The institutional context of tolerance for ethnic minorities: a comparative, multilevel analysis of Western Europe. Am. J. Political Sci. 50 : 2 331– 49 [Google Scholar]
• Wimmer A. 2002 . Nationalist Exclusion and Ethnic Conflict: Shadows of Modernity Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Wimmer A. 2012 . Waves of War: Nationalism, State Formation, and Ethnic Exclusion in the Modern World New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Wimmer A. 2013 . Ethnic Boundary Making: Institutions, Power, Networks New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Wimmer A. 2017 . Power and pride. World Politics 69 : 4 605– 39 [Google Scholar]
• Wimmer A. 2018 . Nation Building: Why Some Countries Come Together While Others Fall Apart Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Wimmer A , Glick Schiller N 2002 . Methodological nationalism and beyond: nation-state building, migration and the social sciences. Glob. Netw. 2 : 4 301– 34 [Google Scholar]
• Wimmer A , Min B. 2006 . From empire to nation-state: explaining wars in the modern world, 1816–2001. Am. Sociol. Rev. 71 : 6 867– 97 [Google Scholar]
• Wise N. 2014 . Socially constructing contexts and imaginations through filmic simulacra—the case of Invictus . Glob. Media J.–Afr. Ed 8 : 1 146– 55 [Google Scholar]
• Wright M , Citrin J , Wand J 2012 . Alternative measures of American national identity: implications for the civic‐ethnic distinction. Political Psychol 33 : 4 469– 82 [Google Scholar]
• Yashar DJ. 1998 . Contesting citizenship: indigenous movements and democracy in Latin America. Comp. Politics 31 : 1 23– 42 [Google Scholar]
• Young C. 1976 . The Politics of Cultural Pluralism Madison: Univ. Wisc. Press [Google Scholar]
• Young C. 2012 . The Postcolonial State in Africa: Fifty Years of Independence, 1960–2010 Madison: Univ. Wisc. Press [Google Scholar]
• Zaslove A. 2008 . Exclusion, community and a populist political economy: the radical right as an anti-globalization movement. Comp. Eur. Politics 6 : 2 169– 89 [Google Scholar]
• Zhao S. 2004 . Nation State by Construction Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Article Type: Review Article

Most Read This Month

Most cited most cited rss feed, framing theory, discursive institutionalism: the explanatory power of ideas and discourse, historical institutionalism in comparative politics, the origins and consequences of affective polarization in the united states, political trust and trustworthiness, public attitudes toward immigration, what do we know about democratization after twenty years, what have we learned about the causes of corruption from ten years of cross-national empirical research, economic determinants of electoral outcomes, public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: a review of the empirical literature.

• Featured Essay The Love of God An essay by Sam Storms Read Now
• Faithfulness of God
• Saving Grace
• Adoption by God

Most Popular

• Gender Identity
• Trusting God
• The Holiness of God
• See All Essays

• Best Commentaries
• Featured Essay Resurrection of Jesus An essay by Benjamin Shaw Read Now
• Death of Christ
• Resurrection of Jesus
• Church and State
• Sovereignty of God
• Faith and Works
• The Carson Center
• The Keller Center
• New City Catechism
• Publications
• Read the Bible
• TGC Pastors

U.S. Edition

• Arts & Culture
• Bible & Theology
• Christian Living
• Current Events
• Faith & Work
• As In Heaven
• Gospelbound
• Post-Christianity?
• The Carson Center Podcast
• TGC Podcast
• You're Not Crazy
• Churches Planting Churches
• Help Me Teach The Bible
• Word Of The Week
• Upcoming Events
• Past Conference Media
• Foundation Documents
• Regional Chapters
• Church Directory
• Global Resourcing
• Donate to TGC

To All The World

The world is a confusing place right now. We believe that faithful proclamation of the gospel is what our hostile and disoriented world needs. Do you believe that too? Help TGC bring biblical wisdom to the confusing issues across the world by making a gift to our international work.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Christian Nationalism

A baptist perspective, more by patrick schreiner.

What is Christian Nationalism? Maybe this is a tired question, and you’re weary of reading about the topic. But in some ways, our perspective on the issue is clearer now than it was in the weeks and months and years since the phrase came into the national spotlight. The dust has somewhat settled, and the time for hot takes has ended.

“Christian Nationalism” has become a junk box into which everyone piles his own conceptions. But it’s not monolithic. Three dominant perspectives on Christian Nationalism have arisen over the past several years. Some equate Christian Nationalism with rioting at the U.S. Capitol on January 6. Others say it’s any attempt to enforce God’s law in a country. Others claim it’s advocating for Christian values on issues such as abortion. How you view the movement depends almost entirely on your circles.

To maintain the unity established by the Spirit, Christians must ask what a person means by a phrase before we jump to judgment. We want to be quick to listen and slow to speak (James 1:9). We should hear out three different forms of Christian Nationalism and evaluate each one.

Although different Christian traditions view the church-state relationship dissimilarly, my analysis comes from a Baptist perspective. Baptists have long advocated for religious freedom and the separation of church and state. Baptists have been wary of theonomy, but have supported governments instituted by God while engaging in political dissent as needed.

Good: Influence of Christianity in American Civil Life

For some, Christian Nationalism simply means that Christianity has influenced and should continue to influence the nation . They argue America was founded on transcendent Christian principles. The Declaration of Independence affirms “all men are created equal” and “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Such a principle is worthy of Christian advocacy alongside a biblical view of issues like marriage, sexuality, and abortion. Our nation would be improved by affirming the goodness of natural law principles.

In the best sense, this form of Christian Nationalism doesn’t attempt to dominate the political process or to make the nation completely Christian but seeks instead to bring change by persuasion. Rather than trying to overthrow the government, adherents advocate their cause by supporting laws, electing candidates, podcasting, writing, and developing think tanks. They won’t force their opinions, but they also won’t back down from arguing for them.

Religion will always have a place in politics . Everyone has a “religion” she promotes. The best form of Christian Nationalism advocates for Christian principles just like secular nationalism advocates for secular principles.

Religion will always have a place in politics. Everyone has a ‘religion’ she promotes.

If a Christian Nationalist is someone who believes that as citizens our views should influence our nation, then surely every Christian falls under that label. But this isn’t what most people mean by Christian Nationalism.

Bad: Fusion of Christianity and American Civil Life

Some view Christian Nationalism as a fusion of Christianity with American civil life . Although this might not sound different from the above, a fusion means Christianity and American life should coalesce. The political process should be overhauled to serve God. The laws of the United States should be explicitly Christian.

The fusion view is flawed in at least three ways. First, it contradicts the Christian philosophy of witness. Christ’s kingdom is to be advocated by persuasion, not power . Conversion must be a free choice, not instituted by command—compelled by the Spirit rather than instituted by human law. According to John in Revelation, Christians follow Christ in his victory primarily by witnessing to the reign of Christ, not by enacting laws. We follow a politic of persuasion all the way down. Revelation 12:11 says we conquer by the “word of [our] testimony.” We imitate Christ’s victory through suffering. This is our main political witness. We conquer not by fighting the culture war but by embodying Jesus’s cross-shaped victory. His blood declares him the King of the universe, and our blood speaks to our solidarity with him. We continue to speak of and demonstrate Jesus’s cross in our own lives and so remain faithful in a pagan society.

Second, the fusion view doesn’t respect the temporal distinction between this age and the age to come. We live in the gap between Christ’s resurrection and his second coming. In this time, religious freedom, diversity, and pluralism are blessings to God’s people who wish to live a “peaceful and quiet life” (1 Tim. 2:2). In this age, we can’t institute or codify God’s law in totality. That day will come, but it will be done by Christ himself––the true King. As citizens of the kingdom of God, we point forward to the kingdom but never forget the age we inhabit. We live in the age of choice. God has honored humans enough to give them time to repent. This doesn’t mean neglecting the natural order God created for humanity’s good, but it also doesn’t mean seeking to establish the theocratic state.

Third, this form of Christian Nationalism goes against key features of the American experiment, mainly pluralism and religious liberty. The First Amendment of the Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Although America does have a distinctly Christian past, this form of Christian Nationalism overlooks the pluralism and religious liberty for which many founding fathers advocated. Eliminating all dissent might sound attractive, and it certainly would allow governing authorities to get things done more quickly. But squashing dissent violates human liberty, equality, and the vision of the founding fathers. It requires coercion of and change from those who dissent. If taken to its logical conclusion, this Nationalism undermines the foundation of a free society. Should such a fusion dominate American civil life, it would divide the nation rather than unify it. Uniformity in some aspects of national life isn’t all bad, but that must always exist beside diversity.

For all these reasons, this form of Christian Nationalism is unbiblical, idealistic, and philosophically unsound. Yet this view remains “bad” and not “ugly” because they’re not trying to overthrow the government. Our critiques of the fusion view, then, should sound different than our rebuke of a darker form of Christian Nationalism.

Ugly: Dominion of Christianity over American Civil Life

Christian Nationalism can also turn ugly. It can become a cultural framework that idealizes and advocates for a fusion of Christianity with American civil life and does so by dominion . This is the type of Christian Nationalism exhibited by some on January 6. This is the complete conflation of God and country and advocating for it by force or violence when deemed necessary.

The critiques of the second position apply here as well, but the phrase “Christian Nationalism” is, at its core, a confusion of categories. Although we can affirm and even celebrate the role Christianity has played in America as a nation, America can’t ever be described as a “Christian nation.” No nation-state can be a Christian nation-state, because Christianity doesn’t work that way.

As Lee Camp and I have suggested , Christianity and nation-states are two vastly different entities. In terms of access, people enter Christianity by voluntary intention (faith and baptism) but usually enter nation-states by arbitrary historical accident (being born in the region). Geographically, Christianity is transnational and bounded by no lines, but all nation-states are defined by borders.

Nation-states defend their borders by using military might and building walls, but Christianity breaks down ethnic barriers and crosses borders to welcome all who repent and believe. Unlike nation-states where the citizens are largely monocultural, Christianity encourages diversity and multiformity.

Nation-states are interested in their own agendas, but Christians put others before themselves. Nation-states see their own shortcomings as not living up to their ideals and potential, but Christians recognize their shortcomings stem from their corrupt nature. The hope of nation-states is utopia by their own ingenuity, but Christianity says utopia will only be brought by another.

The following table summarizes these differences:

To claim America is a Christian nation confuses categories.

It’s wrongheaded to try to enforce the fusion by force . Jesus explicitly said his kingdom is not of this world. If it were, his servants would fight (John 18:36). We advocate for the end of abortion, but we don’t kill doctors who perform abortions. We can march and protest, but we don’t form mobs of destruction. We work to elect candidates of integrity and conviction, but we don’t harass public officials at town halls or school board meetings.

When Jesus was arrested, his disciples asked him, “Shall we strike with the sword?” (Luke 22:49). Then Peter struck the high priest’s servant and cut off his right ear. But Jesus said, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matt. 26:52). No biblical view of Christian political engagement can include violence as endorsed by the dominion view.

More Definition, Not Less

To speak of “Christian Nationalism” is to open the door to disagreement. We must define what we mean by our terms. John Wilsey is right to say Christian Nationalism “has often been articulated in ways that pervert Christianity’s message. But we should work to understand it, and when we condemn it, we should do it in precise terms.”

By using these three categories for understanding Christian Nationalism and critiquing each one on its own terms, we can remain hopeful for change and clarity as we continue to discuss the relationship of Christianity to politics .

Why Do So Many Young People Lose Their Faith at College?

New Testament professor Michael Kruger is no stranger to the assault on faith that most young people face when they enter higher education, having experienced an intense period of doubt in his freshman year. In Surviving Religion 101 , he draws on years of experience as a biblical scholar to address common objections to the Christian faith: the exclusivity of Christianity, Christian intolerance, homosexuality, hell, the problem of evil, science, miracles, and the Bible’s reliability.

TGC is delighted to offer the ebook version for FREE for a limited time only. It will equip you to engage secular challenges with intellectual honesty, compassion, and confidence—and ultimately graduate college with your faith intact.

Patrick Schreiner teaches New Testament at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City, Missouri. He is the author of several books including Political Gospel: Public Witness in a Politically Crazy World , Acts: The Christian Standard Commentary , The Mission of the Triune God: A Theology of Acts , and The Visual Word: Illustrated Outlines of The New Testament Books . Y ou can connect with him on Twitter .

Now Trending

1 quality christian music: 15 artists to watch, 2 how one liberal theologian found jesus, 3 darby, dispensationalism, and the rise of evangelical antisemitism, 4 olympic gold to missionary sacrifice: eric liddell’s legacy at 100, 5 the 11 beliefs you should know about jehovah’s witnesses when they knock at the door.

How Hellion Teenagers Sparked Revival in a Small West Virginia Town

In the summer of 1999, a handful of party boys got saved. Then they got ahold of the keys to the church.

How the GOP Became Pro-Choice

Think Biblically About Relational Boundaries

Don’t Fear the Marks in Revelation

Pastoral Prayer After the Failed Assassination of President Trump

What Does the Bible Teach About Divorce and Remarriage?

‘Of the Civil Magistrate’: How Presbyterians Shifted on Church-State Relations

Latest Episodes

Trevin wax on reconstructing faith.

Salvation and Assurance in Christ: 1 John 5:4–21

Examining the Current and Future State of the Global Church

David Brooks Explores the Amazing Power of Truly Seeing Others

Welcome and Witness: How to Reach Out in a Secular Age

Introducing Season 4 and the Center for Gospel Culture

Gaming Alone: Helping the Generation of Young Men Captivated and Isolated by Video Games

It Takes a Church to Disciple Kids

Faith & Work: How Do I Glorify God Even When My Work Seems Meaningless?

Let’s Talk Reunion: The Blessings of Bible Study with Friends

Getting Rid of Your Fear of the Book of Revelation

Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places: A Sermon from Julius Kim

Introducing The Acts 29 Podcast