See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/333390549

Book Review: Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality
by E.J. Hobsbawm

Article · January 2018

CITATION READS

1 9,991

1 author:

Tural Ismayilzada
Middle East Technical University
5 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Tural Ismayilzada on 26 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 HACETTEPE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF ECONOMIC AND ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCES
DEPARTMENT OF PEACE AND CONFLICT STUDIES

PCS 602
CRITICAL THINKING AND WRITING

Book Review :
Nations and Nationalism since 1780: programme, myth, reality
E.J. Hobsbawm

Lecturer:
Assoc. Prof. Muammer KAYMAK

Presented by:
Tural ISMAYILZADA
N16122153

ANKARA
JANUARY 2018
 Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 2

Emergence of nationalism .............................................................................................. 3

Nationalism as a popular phenomenon ........................................................................ 5

Transformation of nationalism ..................................................................................... 8

The peak and after.......................................................................................................... 9

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 10

References ..................................................................................................................... 11

1
Introduction
E.J. Hobsbawm is accepted to be one of the thinkers to refer to when exploring nations
and nationalism. As a historian and philosopher, he took a Marxist approach to aforementioned
notions in order to explain. It is also noteworthy to explore his bibliography and sequence of
works he came up with in a sense that how Hobsbawm reacted changing world order. As far
as I found out after a review of literature on the topic, most works were released around the
World War II and in the aftermath of it when nationalism in the modern sense saw its climax.
However, Hobsbawm, turned to this topic in mid-80’s. This is when the Cold War approached
to an end, and nations included to the Soviet Union began to strive for independence as an
outcome of the weakening of the empire. Hobsbawm’s work is brilliant in terms of references
included as they are analyzed deeply in a laconic manner. One can come across with numerous,
sometimes contradicting standpoints in a single paragraph of Hobsbawm’s text. This is what
makes his book valuable as the reader is familiarized with nearly all literature until Hobsbawm.
Taking a proponent and critical attitude, the author, like mostly all others, starts arguing
that the notion has still not found its thorough and universal definition. Some prominent
literature is listed to be used as reference while going deep in the topic. Then he turns to
elaborate on definitions given by diverse thinkers. Stalin’s definition is suggested to be the
most prominent, however, still insufficient. The question whether a single factor such as
language or ethnic root is enough to call a group nation, or multiple factors should be
considered. What is more, these criteria, in some cases, seem to be misleading or intentionally
transformed into what is needed for propaganda or mobilization. After discussing these
objective definitions, Hobsbawm underlines subjective ones that include conscious choice of
belonging to certain nation. This kind of definitions also criticized in terms of being pragmatist
or opportunist, and that leading to more contradictions. To understand Hobsbawm’s
explanation to the nations and nationalism in the shortest and simplest way could be to see
those notions as a production of top-down policies and interiorization of those policies by
grassroots. ‘Myth’ is what explains Hobsbawm’s approach as he finds nationalism is a product
of constructivism rather than being what created nation states. Hobsbawm maintains that
objective or subjective approaches to nationalism might be misleading, so that it is suggested
to hold an agnostic stance while elaborationg on nation and nationalism.
Although the scope of this paper is Hobsbawm’s work as a basic source to review,
another reading on this topic could be that of E.H. Carr. Carr (Nationalism and After, 1968)
suggests connection between the emergence of international law, and formation and evolution
of nations in the modern sense. Nation as a concept has had diverse perceptions by rulers and

2
subjects through the periods Carr distinguishes. This distinction is primarily based on actual
conditions of those time periods. Although Carr mentions some important historical events as
the frontiers of the periods, he avoids to put barriers between them. This is because Carr sees
history as a dialectic cause-effect relationship, rather than chronological order of events.

Emergence of nationalism
In academic circles, the starting point to study nationalism is universally accepted to be
the French Revolution. We cannot deny that different forms of nationalism had been found
place in the previous phases of the history, however with the modern understanding of the term,
nationalism was manifested following the Revolution (Symmons-Symonolewicz, 1968). It is
important to note that Hobsbawm also takes a look at the evolution of the concepts during last
two centuries insofar as he suggests that these concepts are quite new in their modern meaning.
This historical approach includes comparative study on England and French where the very
first nation states emerged rather than the nations such as the Irish and the Polish who were
suppressed. Here author’s purpose is likely to underline that only those nations, which were
economically and politically superior have been considered while studying nationalism.
In the first chapter author initially searches for usages of the concept ‘nation’ in different
European languages. It is found that in no language did concept have existence with its
contemporary meaning before nineteenth century. Its modern understanding is completely
different from its use in late medieval ages. This is what makes author endeavor find the answer
for his question about the nature and historical evolution of the concept in the time period
starting from the “Age of Revolution” (Hobsbawm, 1990, p. 18), when the term started to be
used in its political meaning. Hobsbawm refers to Pierre Vilar to clarify “what characterized
the nation-people as seen from below was precisely that it represented the common interest
against particular interests, the common good against privilege…” (Hobsbawm, 1990, p. 20)
Before analyzing the nature of Marxist approach to the nation and nationalism, Glenn employs
the definition given by Seton-Watson that “a nation exists when a significant number of people
consider themselves to form a nation, or behave as if they formed one” (1997, p. 80).
Hobsbawm’s discussion on what makes up nation be it whether a piece of land controlled by a
group of people or a group of people sharing commonalities such as language, culture and
history, is in the core of the book. This discussion makes way for the conclusion that “the basic
characteristic of the modern nation and everything connected with it is its modernity.”
(Hobsbawm, 1990, p. 14) Here is the reason: in the Medieval Europe the empires were made
up of multiple groups of people who spoke different languages, held different cultural and

3
historical backgrounds, while after the emergence of nation states those groups with the same
ethnicity were divided by boundaries. Pettman also agrees that nationalism “is a modern
political identity” (1998, p. 152). In forming this identity Pettman puts particular emphasis on
the role of history writing as it is crucial in memory formation, which convince people that
they have common history. When it comes to those commonalities that are pointed as a basis
of being a part of nation Hobsbawm discusses the use of French during French Revolution. It
is shown that for revolutionist it was not important to speak French but “willingness to acquire
this, among the other liberties, laws and common characteristics of the free people of France”
(Hobsbawm, 1990, p. 22)
Following this revolutionist approach, Hobsbawm argues that in liberal nationalism it is
nothing but economy that divides people into nations according to their differing economic
systems. This argument brought about the question again what makes a group of people nation.
Self-determination principle was accepted to include only those nations which were considered
to be “viable” (Hobsbawm, 1990, p. 32). In this sense, Hobsbawm says that there are three
criteria for being considered as a nation, which are as follows: “historic association with a
current state or one with a fairly lengthy and recent past” (p. 37); “existence of a long-
established cultural elite, possessing a written national literary and administrative vernacular”
(p. 37); and “a proven capacity of conquest” (p. 38). These criteria are taken from historical
experience of post-revolution nation states which were mostly colonists. Hobsbawm’s
observation and interpretation is purely Marxist approach. Although Hobsbawm demonstrates
a realistic picture of liberal nationalism in the aftermath of the French revolution, the criteria
seem vague. First of all, it is not certain what is meant by ‘fairly lengthy’ and ‘recent’. Is it a
century or decade? What is more, it is also questionable that if people included in nation-states
saw themselves as a part of nation or a whole nation. Hobsbawm seems skeptical in this sense,
as well, and concludes the liberal nationalism with a quote from Colonal Pilsudski “It is the
state which makes the nation and not the nation the state.” (Hobsbawm, 1990, pp. 44-45). This
is an instrumentalist Marxist approach, as nationalism largely serves the ruling elite, particular
class in the society. In this regard, nationalism is calculated to be tool which is used as “a means
to an end” (Glenn, 1997, p. 80). Despite the strong character of the imperialist states, “there
were the beginnings of nationalist consciousness in the colonized parts of the world, including
most of Asia.” (Desai, 2008, p. 411) This is when Hobsbawm’s criteria for being considered
as a nation faced an opposition by relatively smaller and suppressed nations. These
insurgencies, particularly in Europe made the way for the World War and e new era in the
course of nationalism.

4
 On the other hand, Carr suggests three periods of international relations in relation to
nationalism. The first period is accepted to be between the French Revolution and the beginning
of the Congress of Vienna (Carr, 1968, p. 2). During this period, long-lasting medieval empires
in Europe started to collapse and national states and national churches came to the stage.
However, Carr equalizes nation to ruler insofar as the people used to be seen as the subjects or
possessions of rulers. Here Carr sets aside nations colonized by European powers.
Mercantilism as the economic policy of the period served the interests of the ruler since trade
was accepted as the source of state power.

Nationalism as a popular phenomenon

In the following chapter, Hobsbawm tries to answer the question how nationalism, which
was seen as a tool of political elites, became popular among ordinary people. Two underlying
causes are discussed in this sense. Firstly, Hobsbawm suggests that “there are supra-local forms
of popular identification” (1990, p. 46), which are present beyond the area where individuals
spend most of their lives. Secondly, “political bonds” (1990, p. 47) are proposed to be another
factor that fueled popular proto-nationalism.
One, and probably the most important element of supra-local forms is language.
However, this is not to say that nationalism is built on language, or language has been the very
driving factor of nationalism. Rather, linguistic unification followed political unification. In
some cases, political authorities promoted a dialect as a national language that other dialects
got undermined. This is to say that grassroots adopted what political elites presented as a
national language, rather than what they started speaking as a mother tongue. As an extreme
situation, Hobsbawm highlights:
National languages are therefore almost always semi-artificial constructs and
occasionally, like modern Hebrew, virtually invented. They are the opposite of what
nationalist mythology supposes them to be, namely the primordial foundations of
national culture and the matrices of the national mind. (1990, p. 54)

These national languages were aimed to provoke masses and make them believe that the
language they were told to be their national language had historically been so. Glenn argues
that while constructing national languages some elements of local culture, folklore and other
unique attributes were taken into account so “the mobilization of the masses was spoken in the
language of nationalism” (1997, p. 84). These discussions are of importance to show the role
of language as a part of nationalism, but Hobsbawm believes that it should not be considered
as an imperative.

5
 Another element of supra-national forms is ethnicity. Initially what makes up ethnicity is
discussed. Hobsbawm concludes that this cannot be either blood or language, instead ethnicity
is more about common history and culture. However, Hobsbawm gives specific place to the
race as he underlines that physical differences are “too obvious to be overlooked and have too
often been used to mark or reinforce distinctions between ‘us’ and ‘them’, including national
ones” (1990, p. 65) Examining race as a tool of nationalism, Hobsbawm lists three main
characteristics of it. First of all, races historically divided societies horizontally, as well as
vertically. To be clearer, ruling elites claimed that they are superior in relation to the people
under that rule. We have seen examples of this in the USA, South Africa, Rwanda and in many
others. Secondly, race defines who are not included a group, rather than who are included. This
is named as the negative nature of race in nationalism. Finally, this negative nature of racism
has been effective only in those circumstances where it had a prior and long-lasting tradition.
Otherwise it had not relation with proto-nationalism. Religion is accepted to be a supra-national
form, as well. Considering that Islam or Christianity includes numerous nations under one
umbrella, it seems opaque to talk about religion as an aspect of nationalism. However,
Hobsbawm draws a connection given the fact that this connection had been possible only in
some societies, such as Russia.
Turning to the political bonds, Hobsbawm puts emphasis on the long-lasting tradition of
statehood and people-state relations in which people regard themselves as a part of the state. In
this case Hobsbawm observes a two-way interaction: people associate them with the state, at
the same time the political elites see the people as the core of the state. This is what convince
the author to see “the consciousness of belonging or having belonged to a lasting political
entity” as “the most decisive criterion of proto-nationalism” (Hobsbawm, 1990, p. 73).
Hobsbawm sees not language, ethnicity, shared culture or religion, but government as the
driving force of nationalism. The transformation of the nature of the state after the French
revolution brought about numerous advances for political elites. Above all, nation states had
defined borders and people inside these borders understood that they are citizens of a specific
state. Secondly, the government ruled the citizens directly, rather than through other secondary
institutes. Thirdly, rule of law, consistent institutions and a system were embedded. Last, but
not least, the demand for democracy forced the ruling elites to consider what the grassroots
asked for. Governments understood that they need people not only for the taxes to support the
state financially, but as the man power. Hobsbawm makes a comparison between nationalism
and patriotism. Although he avoids to draw a concrete barrier between them, patriotism is
accepted as admiration or attachment to existing state, while nationalism is that to ‘imagined

6
community’. State patriotism was generally created through the so-called “inventing traditions”
(Hobsbawm, 1990, p. 92).
Carr’s second period, which is suggested to last until 1870 (Carr, 1968, p. 6), and is
mentioned to serve nations in order to empower them. Despite more divisions following the
dissolution of multinational unities, this period displayed more stable relations among actors.
Nationalism and internationalism were developing abreast. Carr uses the term
“democratization” discussing to what extent it is identical to its modern use. Of course, it is not
possible to talk about social or mass democracy in that time period. However, showing wider
participation in governing bodies could be expressed as democracy. It was in this period that
the middle class gained strength as a result of control over property. Having property, to be
exact, land was the main criterion to claim political rights and participation. Friendly relations
among bourgeoisie of Europe was one of the reasons behind pacific nationalism and stability
according to Carr. The second is accepted to be newly emerged economic order that had
replaced mercantilism. Stronger trade ties contributed international peace to a great extent. In
society there was a belief that the economy and trade is not interfered by the states of that time,
which is named laissez-faire in economic jargon. When mercantilism was present, each state
used to endeavor to increase its own production and trade. On the contrary, world society
understood that it is more beneficial to achieve an increase in the global economy in the second
period. Another noticeable feature of this period was free movement of people, or in other
words, labor. This migration was triggered by laissez-faire economy that working class chose
to move and work where the highest wages are paid. This freedom of movement was another
factor that inhibited conflicts based on economic issues. Instead of fighting for money, working
class preferred to move to another country.
Carr suggests that two features of the economic situation in the second period was
misunderstood or was presented differently than what reality was. Firstly, the economy has
never been absolutely out of state control. Here the British power and control over global
economy and trade is emphasized. The second illusion was, Carr mentions, the perceived
division between political and economic power. It should be understood that since international
trade became the main source of state income, state power had relied upon financial gains from
trade. Exaggeration of the British power and undermining other colonial powers implicitly
demonstrate Carr’s classical realistic and somehow nationalistic attitude.

7
Transformation of nationalism
Hobsbawm sees nationalism as a dynamic phenomenon, therefore when comparing the
period between 1870 and 1914 to the Liberal nationalism period right after the French
revolutions he finds three main differences. First of all, nationalism was not the “threshold
principle” (Hobsbawm, 1990, p. 102) anymore, as a group of people sharing commonalities
would claim for self-determination, recognition and sovereignty over the territory they live on,
without needing anyone to convince them to be a nation. Secondly, ethnicity and language,
which had been seen as a top-down imposition before, began to play the central role for being
recognized as a nation. Finally, increasing demand for “political right of nation and flag”, which
was actual for those nations that had established their states.
This period overlaps with the third period in Carr’s work. Carr also observes shifts in
nationalism and divides the third period of nationalism in his work. Carr underlines the rise of
nationalism, while internationalism started to fall. This trend was brought about by three sub-
trends (Carr, 1968, p. 18): Firstly, the driving population of nationalism altered from the middle
class to the masses. Its underlying reasons were sharp industrial development, rising
organization of workers, and most importantly promising changes in human development in
terms of education, social provision and political awareness. Carr names this process as
“socialization of the nation” (1968, p. 18) to emphasize the shift from limited group to wide
masses. However, international nature of socialism turned local and country-specific.
Secondly, the economic sphere came to the fore as a result of rising dependence of political
power on economy and nationalistic aspirations toward economic gains. As nationalism
movements became more overt, economic individualism replaced single global economy, thus,
national economies started to engage in rivalry. Nation states had to terminate large scale
immigration as a response to the demand by domestic workforce. This process of socialization
of nations brought economic and social policies together under the name “planned economy”
(1968, p. 23), Carr highlights. Finally, a rapid rise in the number of nation states in the global
political arena was another fostering factor. Following the World War I, many entities faced
dissolution and subjects got the chance of self-determination. Since Carr seeks a close relation
between economic and social order, while classifying these three periods he gives specific
consideration to the evolution of global economic order. In the second period, while production
was concentrated in some limited points and others were merely supplier of raw materials and
food, in the third period the weak started to claim for the change in favor of themselves.
Although, both sides used to benefit from international trade, having comparative advantage in

8
production and high prices of final goods had brought more and more power to the developed
ones. This inequality provoked others to fight for domestic production.

The peak and after

Hitherto written works on nations and nationalism have pointed out that nationalism
reached its peak, particularly between two World Wars. This trend was provoked by several
factors and changes, particularly in Europe. Above all, the World War I and the Russian
Revolution gave rise to independence movements of national groups relying on self-
determination principle. There is no doubt that when Woodrow Wilson proposed his 14 points
it was aimed to weaken European powers and Russian Empire giving chance of independence
to nations under their rules. Moreover, national economies went under the central government
control in order to guarantee the place in the world economy. In the aftermath of the war the
main aim of nation-states in economic realm was “securing economic advantages for the victor
and inflicting economic disabilities on the defeated” (Carr, 1968, p. 28).
While Wilson’s points were seen promising for small nations, the Europe became
“prisons of nations” (Hobsbawm, 1990, p. 133). After the collapse of the empires, the small
nations striving for self-determination became minorities in newly emerged states. Both
Hobsbawm and Carr suggest that the climax of nationalism was when minorities were forced
to move from one country to another in order to make “homogenous national units” (Carr,
1968, p. 33). However, another important development was the fact that in some cases a group
of people chose to be a part of a political entity where people speak another language, rather
than where their language was spoken. What is more surprising was the nature of new
nationalist movements, particularly in colonies and ex-colonies, where the language and
methods that nationalist leader used were an analogue of that in Europe.
According to Hobsbawm in this era nationalism and national identification propaganda
became easier to implement thanks to two main factors: First, fast development of mass media
allowed the ruling class to not only change the public opinion collectively, but also enter their
private life and become a part of their lives in the form of symbols and images. This let elites
create and manipulate the imagined communities. Second, sport was used as a platform for
“expression of national struggle” where sportsmen demonstrated “expressions of imagined
communities” (Hobsbawm, 1990, p. 143). Following the rise of fascism, nationalism saw a
division. To be clearer, the left antifascist nationalism began to follow different direction from
the right.

9
 Coming to the end of the twentieth century, Hobsbawm presents a comparison of
developments at the end and in the aftermath of the WWI and those following the end of cold
war. The point is that the national movements for independence at the end of twentieth century
were the continuation of suppressed strives before. However, there were some differences, as
well. The author discusses that reunification of Germany after the Cold War was not something
that subjects from any side were interested in before. On the contrary, the unification in 1871
was a long-awaited and somewhat natural process. In terms of the collapse of the Soviet Union,
the author suggests that its dissolution was not expected on the basis of national independence
movements, but economic difficulties. It is important to note that perestroika and glasnost
brought about blossom of national tensions.

Conclusion
Above all, it must be noted that the book presented by Hobsbawm is a brilliant work not
only for bringing a new approach to the topic, but revising previous works in a critical means.
Even without reading those works from the primary sources the reader gets the big picture
thanks to thorough, but still laconic description. What is more, being an historian Hobsbawm
traces historical events and connects them socio-political tendencies at the time. This
illustration of interaction lets the reader grasp cause and effect relationship.
Hobsbawm sees nationalism as a dynamic, changing and modern phenomena which is
constructed in the direction top-down, but evolved by grassroots. It is seen as an ideology that
brings together the political and national units in a congruent construction. This is to say that
nationalism came to the fore not merely because the political elites wanted it to, but because of
the fact that there have always been some national sentiments based linguistic, ethnic, religious
or iconic factors. However, political bonds had been the driving force.
The only point I would argue that Hobsbawm undermines is the strength of national
movements in the USSR, and their roles in the collapse of the union. These tensions had been
present throughout the existence of the Soviet Union in different forms. During Stalin’s rule
the movements were mostly clandestine, but still prominent. Following the death of Stalin, in
the republics included in the union national movement took a new start, not only against the
central rule. Soviet rule incited those nations against each other, and avoided them for long,
but not forever. Consequently, as the union lost its power to keep all subjects under control
these movements came to the surface.

10
 References

Carr, E. H. (1968). Nationalism and After. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Desai, R. (2008). Introduction: nationalisms and their understandings in historical perspective.

Third World Quarterly, 29(3), 397-428. doi:10.1080/01436590801931413

Glenn, J. (1997). Nations and nationalism: Marxist approaches to the subject. Nationalism and
Ethnic Politics, 3(2), 79-100. doi:10.1080/13537119708428503

Hobsbawm, E. J. (1990). Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality.
Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press.

Pettman, J. J. (1998). Nationalism and After. Review of International Studies, 24, 149-164.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20097566

Symmons-Symonolewicz, K. (1968). Modern Nationalism: Towards a Consensus in Theory.

New York: The Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences in America, Inc.

11

View publication stats