Ernest Gellner's theory of nationalism: some definitional and methodological issues

Abstract

Nationalism and industrialisation A standard criticism of Gellner's theory of nationalism is that he tries to establish too contiguous a link between industrialisation and nationalism, whereas in fact the two phenomena are not always very closely linked. It is quite possible to have industrialisation without nationalism (for example, the proto-industrialisation of several regions in western Europe), or nationalism without industrialisation (as in the nationalist movements of the Balkans and Latin America in the nineteenth century). Gellner has replied to this criticism in two ways. First, he has stressed that he uses the term industrialisation in a broad sense: which includes the earlier commercialisation of society, which only becomes ‘industrial’ in a narrower sense (power machinery, large scale production) later, thereby however allowing the social changes already initiated by commercialisation to be preserved, extended, and to become entrenched. Secondly, he has pointed out that his theory focuses on the emergence rather than the subsequent diffusion of nationalism. Once nationalism is seen as rooted in the industrialised west, its adoption in several nonindustrial parts of the globe does not create any special problems for his theory. Both these points of defence present certain difficulties. The problem with the first is that the motor force that brought about a special type of social structure which, according to Gellner, ‘requires’ a nationalist ideology might have to do less with industry or the market than with the development of the state.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 14 citations exist upstream.