Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:01:07.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Nation” and “Nationalism”: The Misuse of Key Concepts in Political Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Lowell W. Barrington
Lowell W. Barrington*
Affiliation:
Marquette University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the essential atarting points of any branch of science is a consistent, broadly understood terminology. Generally accepted definitions of key terms within a discipline are important in order to judge claims by scholars about a given topic. Fortunately, among those who work on the topic of nationalism, there is a growing convergence of definitions of “nation” and “nationalism.” Unfortunately, both terms are often still misused, used loosely, or used inconsistently, especially among those in political science who discuss these terms in passing. Authors of introductory textbooks, who are careful in their usage of other terms, often use these two words in varying—and even contradictory—ways in different parts of the same book. Because of their importance for the discipline, however, political scientists should be very mindful of their use of the terms “nation” and “nationalism.”

In this article, definitions for “nation” and “nationalism” are proposed, with each definition followed by sections on common ways the terms are misemployed in political science. I provide examples of both misuses and “loose uses.” While the line between misuse and loose use is somewhat fuzzy (a point reinforced below in the discussion of nations vs. ethnic groups), I consider a misuse to be one in which the term is used in a way that is completely outside how the term is used by nationalism scholars. A loose use is one in which the author has captured only part of the concept or has stretched the meaning of the term to an extreme degree.

Type
Research Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , December 1997 , pp. 712 - 716
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Special thanks to Mark Beissinger, Alexander Motyl, Ronald Suny, and Raju G. C. Thomas for their helpful comments on this article.

References

Almond, Gabriel, and Powell, G. Bingham. 1996. Comparative Politics Today: A World View. 6th ed. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Beissinger, Mark. 1996. “How Nationalisms Spread: Eastern Europe Adrift and Tides and Cycles of Nationalist Contention.” Social Research 63(1): 97–146.Google Scholar
Brass, Paul. 1991. Ethnicity and Nationalism. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Brubaker, Rogers. 1992. Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connor, Walker. 1978. “A Nation is a Nation, is a State, is an Ethnic Group, is a….” Ethnic and Racial Studies 1(4): 379–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connor, Walker. 1990. “When is a Nation?” Ethnic and Racial Studies 13(1): 92–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gellner, Ernest. 1983. Nations and Nationalism. Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Gellner, Ernest. 1992. “Nationalism in the Vacuum.” In Thinking Theoretically about Soviet Nationalities, ed. Motyl, Alexander. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Haas, Ernst. 1986. “What is Nationalism and Why Should We Study It?” International Organization 40(3): 707–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ignatieff, Michael. 1993. Blood and Belonging: Journeys into the New Nationalism. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.Google Scholar
Kaiser, Robert. 1994. The Geography of Nationalism in Russia and the USSR. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mayer, Lawrence, Burnett, John, and Ogden, Suzanne. 1996. Comparative Politics: Nations and Theories in a Changing World. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Mellor, Roy. 1989. Nation, State, and Territory: A Political Geography. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Motyl, Alexander. 1991. Sovietology, Rationality, Nationality: Coming to Grips with Nationalism in the USSR. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Motyl, Alexander. 1992. “The Modernity of Nationalism: Nations, States and Nation-States in the Contemporary World.” Journal of International Affairs 45(2): 307–23.Google Scholar
Nodia, Ghia. 1994. “Nationalism and Democracy.” In Nationalism, Ethnic Conflict, and Democracy, ed. Diamond, Larry and Plattner, Marc F.. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Richmond, Anthony. 1987. “Ethnic Nationalism: Social Science Paradigms.” International Social Science Journal 111:3–18.Google Scholar
Roskin, Michael, and Berry, Nicholas. 1997. IR: The New World of International Relations. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Rutland, Peter. 1994. “State Failure and State Building in Post-Socialist Europe: Implications for Theories of Nationalism.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York.Google Scholar
Shively, W. Phillips. 1993. Power and Choice: An Introduction to Political Science. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Smith, Anthony. 1991. National Identity. London: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
Stalin, Joseph. 1994. “The Nation.” In Nationalism, ed. Hutchinson, John and Smith, Anthony D.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Suny, Ronald. 1990. “Revenge of the Past: Socialism and Ethnic Conflict in Transcaucasia.” New Left Review 184:5–34.Google Scholar
Tamir, Yael. 1995. “The Enigma of Nationalism.” World Politics 47(3): 418–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar