The Ethnic Origins of Nations

The thesis of The Ethnic Origins of Nations is relatively simple. Smith argues that nations are not particularly new phenomena, and that they have a long history in what he calls the ethnie. Depending on your theoretical commitments, this may seem an obvious truth or nonsensical drivel. For those not devoted to a fundamentalist position on the matter, Smith provides a broad display of examples documenting the existence of a stable ethnie throughout history.Smith positions himself in the crossfire between between two competing views in the literature on nationalism. On the one hand, there are the ‘modernists,’ who conceive of the nation instrumentally, as a contingent entity with its roots in the 18th century. On the other hand, there are the ‘primordialists’ who argue that nations are long-standing, naturally existing entities, and that the modern-day nation is an expression of this fact. Smith’s own argument attempts to achieve a middle ground between the two camps, although it often appears closer to that of the primordialists. On this point, Smith must be commended for avoiding the sociobiological and demographic pitfalls that have typically plagued such treatments of nationalism. Smith focuses on one particular element of ethnic consciousness, which he finds in the “myths, memories, values and the symbols” characteristic of certain historical configurations of populations (15). Curiously, Smith’s most explicit formulation of what his core concept of ethnicity entails comes nearly 100 pages into the book. It is worth quoting at length:The approach adopted here defines ethnie as clusters of the population with similar perceptions and sentiments generated by, and encoded in, specific beliefs, values and practices. Here the demographic element is important, but secondary. For ethnie are viewed as consisting in: 1) symbolic, cognitive and normative elements common to a unit of population; 2) practices and mores that bind them together over generations, and; 3) sentiments and attitudes that are held in common and which differentiate them from other populations. (97)Smith’s ethnie is particularly useful for investigating a very specific form of ethno-religious community, but one that must be counted as a rare example in recorded history. For most scholars of nationalism, as well as those concerned with matters of ethnicity, Smith’s definition will appear deficient on at least two counts. First, Smith gives short shrift to the role of language, and in particular to the role of living, colloquial languages in the formation of national and ethnic groups. Second, the role of societal organization is only tangentially recognized in his account. Smith contends that language is often irrelevant or divisive in the study of ethnicity (1986:27). If it is, in fact, divisive as Smith contends, then it would seem that language would be particularly useful in helping to identify the division between two ethnicities. If it is irrelevant, we must wonder about those communities where multilingualism is the basis of an ethnic consciousness, as it is among Colombia’s Vaupés.Smith’s focus on the ethnie is part of a larger argument about ethno-symbolism and collective cultural identity. Myths, memories, values, symbols, and traditions become powerful elements in the fate of an ethnic community and are central to his analysis of ethnicity. However, this approach leaves untouched questions of the political, and this reviewer wonders whether it is possible to treat topics such as nationalism and ethnicity while ignoring the political elements that both of these concepts play in the formation of national identity. This points to one potential criticism of Smith: the narrow focus on cultural elements of nations and nationalism remains insufficient if we ignore the processes through which nations come to be recognized as such by others. In fairness to Smith, we should note that the ethnie is not necessarily a political entity – proving that a community has pre-modern roots and its culture has maintained a certain degree of continuity are and have been important objectives for political elites.Smith’s ethno-symbolist approach tends to conflate nation and state. Although Smith recognizes that nation and state are not necessarily isomorphic (1986:138), it is the failure to address certain issues related to the spread of a common cultural element among the ethnie which he examines that poses the greatest threat to his theory of nationalism. Those in the so called ‘modernist’ camp, in particular Ernest Gellner, directly address the issue of the spread of a ‘mass’ national culture beyond a small elite. Gellner writes:In the characteristic agro-literate polity, the ruling class forms a small minority of the population, rigidly separate from the great majority of direct agricultural producers, or peasants below the horizontally stratified minority at the top, there is another world, that of the laterally separated petty communities of the lay members of the society . . . Even if the population of a given area starts from the same linguistic base line – which very often is not the case – a kind of culture drift soon engenders dialectal and other differences. [Gellner 1983: 10]Because Smith does not deal with the spread of ‘mass’ culture, this allows him to claim that nations, in the form of ethnies, existed in the pre-modern era, while sidestepping an investigation into the extent to which a ‘public’ or ‘mass’ culture may have existed. But how does this play out in Smith’s account? Smith writes that:The Catalans are undoubtedly a nation today, just as they were an ethnie in the pre-modern world. Not only do they inhabit their historic territory (more or less), they are now able to teach in their own language and fund a mass, public, standardized education system in Catalan and in Catalonia. [166]Should we understand nations recover and re-establish themselves in different periods, or do they remain in the nation during periods of intense upheaval? What Smith does not mention is that between 1936 in 1975 it would have been very difficult to identify anything resembling the Catalan ethnie under the Franco regime. Further, if a nation’s members should enjoy ‘common legal rights and duties’ (166), do we class the Catalans as Catalonian or Spanish? The problem here seems to be one of scale. Do all Spanish citizens, who enjoy ‘common legal rights and duties’ constitute a nation? If so, are the ‘common legal rights and duties’ shared by the Catalans contingent on their membership in a larger nation? Are French Catalans, who by virtue of their French citizenship share a different set of ‘common legal rights and duties,’ to be considered members of the Catalan ethnie?The distinction between nation and state is fundamental to account for cases like the Catalan. Smith’s inability to make such a distinction obscures how nations that lose their political autonomy may survive, as well as how such nations function under conditions of colonialism. Does an ethnie continue to exist if it’s culture, like that of the Catalans, is effectively made illegal and banned from the public sphere? Do we assume that the constituent elements of the ethnie continue to exist in the privacy of one’s kitchen or in ‘hidden-transcripts’? If Smith were to address the distinction between nation in state, the Catalan case – and many others – might be resolved is a case of a nation without a state. Those with limited time to devote to Smith’s book should focus on the first chapter. It is here where Smith makes his theoretical contribution to the study of ethnicity and nationalism. It is also in this chapter that Smith demonstrates his firm command of the literature on nationalism. Smith is at his best here, providing cogent and balanced summaries of the main literature on nationalism.Smith’s book is perhaps best considered as an example of how scholars take the existence of ethnic identity for granted, and impose ethnic classificatory schemes on to certain artifacts and evidence based upon the assumption that an ethnie - or whatever we may call it - existed in the past. The idea that the modern day nation-state appeared de novo is not something that even the most committed Gellnerian or Andersonian would assert. As the saying goes ‘there’s nothing new under the sun’: any successful national movement will necessarily make use of powerful and pre-existing ideological and material interests. Smith’s book forces scholars of ethnicity and nationalism to confront a critical question: to what extent do earlier histories, whether we conceive of them as ethnic or not, limit and shape the course of national movements in the modern era?

A comprehensive, nuanced, and ultimately very useful exploration of a topic largely shunned by most analysts of nationalism, who treat it as if the phenomenon of nationalism was born purely of the economics of capitalism and modernity.

Easy to find the needed part. The basic theories of ethnie and its transition to nation are explained in accessible language.

In this book Anthony Smith does exactly what he sets out to do, namely show how important ethnic groups have been for setting the foundation of modern nations. Neglected by such modernists as Anderson, Hobsbawm and Kedourie, ethnic groups have been around for as long as the written word: Smith digs into the past and comes out with gobs of them in the ancient Middle East alone, some of them quite obscure: you definitely deserve a prize if you've heard of the Arameans, Hurrians, Urartians and Amorites.Smith creates a whole typology about ethnic groups. He claims that all ethnic groups (or, as he calls them, 'ethnies', from the French for 'ethnic community') have several key aspects, including a name, common myth of descent, shared history and culture, territory and a sense of solidarity. They also fit into two main categories: lateral ethnies, which are based on an aristocracy and clerisy and rule over an indefinite but often large area, and the vertical ethnies, based on a urban, priestly or artisan class which rule over a small but clearly marked area.Smith discusses the development of nations in the context of the French Revolution, when the modern concept of citizenship entered the picture, and here his narrative lets up a bit. Devoting most of the book to ethnicity, when he comes to discussing the two main types of modern nations - territorial (or non-ethnic) and ethnic - he spends too much time on the latter and not enough on former. This is an important flaw, since he thereby almost dismisses those nations like the U.S. which do not have an ethnic foundation and thus do not fit his theory.Nonetheless this book is useful for the sole but important purpose of reinforcing the link between many nations and their ethnic pasts.

The item came on time and in good order and I will enjoy reading it.

Highly recommend