| Summary: | Thesis (MA (Political Science))--Stellenbosch University, 2008. === Nationalism is quite easy to understand, but somewhat difficult to explain. In
terms of understanding nationalism, we do not need to know anything more
about society and sentiment than what is taken for granted in everyday life.
An individual who ‘drops’ into a foreign culture may know absolutely nothing
about its people’s songs, rituals, amusements and traditions: why some
customs evoke tears, and others, bravado. This person would feel no sense
of collective awe or inspiration when touring historic battlefields and
monuments of an unfamiliar country. Nevertheless, he or she would likely
understand and appreciate that all of these things are steeped in meaning and
identity. These instances of meaning and identity may not be felt, shared or
even fully known, but their role as expressions of nationalism can be readily
appreciated. The global spread of nations entails an array of mutually
unfamiliar national identities, but the actual phenomenon nationalism is rarely
foreign to anyone. From an outsider’s perspective we do not know how
certain expressions are significant to a particular group, but we do understand
that they are expressions of national belonging.
Explaining nationalism is more difficult for the simple reason that experiencing
and recognizing a phenomenon is not sufficient to account for its existence.
Customs and rituals are two suggested properties of nationalism, but what is
the causal relationship between such properties and the end phenomenon
(how does custom actually lead to nationalism, if at all)? The answers to
these questions are still a matter of debate. The situation is only made worse
by the fact that most theories explaining nationalism seem to rest on a tower
of abstractions. For instance, it may seem uncontroversial for some to argue
that nationalism is an outgrowth of ethnic identity. However, this just begs the
question. What is ethnicity? The potential for regress to abstraction is a
major impediment to theory.
This thesis will examine the problem of explanation: the reasons why theories
of nationalism have struggled with explaining nationalism, and a discussion on
how to overcome these difficulties. Specifically, this thesis will show that:
1) The problem of explaining nationalism is due in part to the
‘classical’ problem found in the literature: whether nationalism is
an ‘ancient’ social phenomenon, or a ‘modern’ phenomenon
which can be dated (roughly) to the late eighteenth century.
2) Debates regarding the classical problem are closely affected by
philosophical issues in the social sciences.
3) The incorporation of a consilient methodology (i.e. a research
program that unifies theories of social science with theories of
natural science) can provide a new strategy for future theories of
nationalism and work to solve the classical problem.
|
|---|
