Gellner and Smith, the Warwick Debate - Essay Example

Introduction

In 1995, there was a debate which was called the “Warwick Debate on Nationalism” between two best-known proponents of nationalism. The debate was hosted by Edward Mortimer at the Warwick University. During the debate, various thoughts and approaches were shared by each of the speakers on the study of nationalism. The debate on nationalism by these two respected speakers brought about a prevalent assumption towards nationalism. For Ernest Gellner, modernist theory was his supposition towards nationalism. Anthony Smith’s assumption made to account for nationalism was based on primordial approach which suggests that an individual’s nationality is fixed at birth, therefore, at birth an individual becomes part of a particular nation or group. Various definitions were given during the debate. One of the definitions as presented by Smith suggests that nationalism refers to any ideological movement that has the tendency of achieving unity and sovereignty among a group of identified human population. The definition describes a named group of people who share a common culture, territory, memories and also offer common right and duties to its population. For this reason, Smith suggested that it is important that a clear distinction is drawn between the concepts of the nation from that of the state. Throwing more light on the concept of state, it is seen only as a legal and political concept with public institutions using physical or moral force or extraction within a recognized territory. The debate has provided an important contribution to intellectual life especially in the area of sociology, anthropology and philosophy. These areas of importance in intellectual life are used to further the study of nationalism.

Main points raised by speaker

Several important points were raised by both Gellner and Smith on the Warwick Debates. One of the key points raised in the Warwick Debate on ‘Nationalism’ is that nation and nationalism are modern phenomena (Anthony, 2004). The definition of nationalism suggests that, nationalism is characterized by doctrines or ideologies that is fundamental and gives citizens of a nation a sense of unity through a set of imposed identity. It is for this reason that in recent times migration and those dispersed from their original homogeneous entity create culture and social network that has the tendency of binding people across continents together (Roudometof, 2014). Nation and nationalism is described as a modern phenomenon due to the basic characteristic of the modern world including globalization which present a rise in the speed and impact of culture, economic and technological flow. A second point raised in the Warwick Debate presents the underlying sociological reality of nationalism (Anthony, 2004). This point debunks the assumption that the existence of a nation is only an imagination and for which reason a nation can be broken down into different segment. Ernest had a different opinion about what some people suggest that nations only exist in the imagination which can be destroyed. To him, nations and nationalism are characterized by realism but not imagination and both have powerful sociological phenomena even in situations where their reality is in contrast with what is said about them by nationalist. The third point raised in the debate on nationalism is that, the concept of nationalism is elusive and protean in its manifestations (Gellner, 1994). For this reason, Ernest suggests that it is very important to distinguish and classify the various beliefs and movements as a way of establishing progress in understanding the concept of nationalism.

Where I agree with arguments

I agree with Anthony Smith’s primordial approach which suggests that an individual’s nationality is fixed at birth, therefore, at birth an individual becomes part of a particular nation or group. This approach can be described as “ethno-symbolic” and offer a distinct study of nations and nationalism and also focuses on the role of symbols, traditions, ethnic myths and historical memories in the maintenance of a nation’s identity (Coakley, 2013). The concept of ethno-symbolic throws more light on the modernist theory and explains that modern political nationalism cannot be understood without first understanding the connection of the modernist theory to ethnic ties and memories. The ethno-symbolic approach is essential in providing understanding that explains the populations that are likely to give rise to a nationalist movement (Berent, 2015).

Although, given an explanation to which population are more likely to give rise to a nationalist movement will fall under certain condition; however, the approach provides a clue to what the content of their nationalism is likely to be. Again, ethno-symbolic approach provides understanding to why nationalism has become a powerful force. When a critical analysis is made to the definitions of nationalism by Anthony Smith, it is realized that the definitions are very important and explains the concept of the origins of primordial of nationalist movement. This is because nations as determined by the origin of primordial of nationalism represent a fulfillment of the needs presented in a nationalist movement (Anthony, 2004). For this reason, the primordial approach seeks to achieve unity, autonomy and identity of its nation and to fulfill these needs, Anthony Smith mentioned that the nation should share territory, economy, rights and duties for all its members (Coakley, 2013).

Where I disagree

I disagree with Ernest Gellner’s modernist theory on the concept of nation and nationalism as real and powerful sociological phenomena irrespective of whether their reality is quite different from what is been said by nationalist. This is based on the various theories of modernist and post-modernist on the count of how people see their nation in particular. According to the modernist and post-modernist theories, people see their nation to be continuing and beyond memory without any form of cessation (Gellner, 1994). Three things define people who appear to accept the modernist and post-modernist theories. To such people, they cannot imagine living in a world without nations. Again such people do not accept the assumption that their nation is regarded as recent creation. Finally, such people do not accept that their nation is a construct of those with social class or position. Anthony (2004) suggest that the concept of nation and nationalism has an unconscious influence on older generation of scholars to seek and find nations everywhere in all ages and continents. In the view of most scholars, the idea of nations is regarded as something which actively exists or remains throughout and it is a build up from people of ancient times (Roudometof, 2014). It can therefore be argued that nations and nationalism are considered as parts of modernization and feature of modernity.

In the view of Tom Nairn as mentioned by Coakley (2013), nationalism is defined by its products and how it responds to the uneven development of capitalism. According to Gellner (1994), a critical aspect of nationalism stem from materialism and the cultural processes of modernization which can be in the form of mobile society based on a pubic system of mass or a standardized literary educations. It is for this reason that I disagree with the assumption that nations are relatively recent and also a product of specifically modern conditions with an underlying sociological reality of nationalism which is seen as a real and powerful sociological phenomena even if the reality of both nation and nationalism are different from how it is been described. According to the modernists theory for which Ernest Gellner is part believe that, the world was formed at the end of the 18th century therefore all other things which happened before do not make any difference to the issues we face recently (Anthony, 2004).

Personal opinions

The debate shares the views of two respected speakers namely Anthony Smith and Ernest Gellner. Whiles Anthony Smith speaks on primordial approach to nationalism, Ernest Gellner emphasized on the modernist theory. Irrespective of the differences that exist between their presentations, they both provide important contributions to intellectual life especially in the study of anthropology, philosophy and sociology. When you critically analyze the issues presented by Anthony Smith, you realize that his primordial approach to nationalism enable us to understand and explain most of the key issues and concerns of nationalism in a given community as well as providing clues that again explains the possible development of a nation. With the knowledge of nationalism, it is difficult to side with the modernist theory which suggests that a nation is viewed by its population as continuing and beyond memory and without any form of cessation. In contrast to what the primordial approach view nationalism, it is characterized by a belief system that achieves and maintains unity, sovereignty and identity of the nation. The modernist theory’s definition of nationalism often includes political elements and agenda, however, the definitions provided by Smith’s primordial approach removes the political agenda that is often associated with nationalism. I belief that Anthony Smith’s primordial approach to nationalism outweigh Ernest Gellner’s modernist theory in the sense that nations represent a total fulfillment of the needs presented in a nationalist movement and this can be explained by the primordial origins of nationalism.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the debate presented the opinions of Ernest Gellner and Anthony Smith on issues of nationalism. Gellner applied the modernist theory of nationalism and explain that, people view their nation to be continuing, beyond memory and without cessation. Anthony Smith also applied the primordial approach to nationalism and explained that the nationality of a person is fixed at birth and through that an individual becomes a member of that particular nation. The analysis of “Warwick debate on nationalism” however identified various key points during the debate. First, nationalism is viewed as modern phenomena therefore cultural and social network is able to bind people across continents together. Second, the debate presents underlying sociological reality of nationalism which refutes the fact that nationalism is only an imagination. Third, the concept of nationalism is seen as elusive and protean in its manifestations. The outcome of the analysis has made it possible to classify the various belief systems relating to how we understand the concept of nationalism.

Reference

Anthony, D. (2004). The Warwick Debates on Nationalism Editor's Introduction. Nationality and Nationalism, 4, 425.

Berent, M. (2015). Does Israel Have a Navel? Anthony Smith and Zionism. Israel Studies Review, 30(2), 28-49.

Coakley, J. (2013). “Primordialism” and the Study Of Nationalism. The multicultural dilemma: Migration, ethnic politics and state intermediation.

Gellner (1994), in distinguishing between time-zones in the development of nationalism in different parts of Europe, does implicitly introduce contingent historical elements to supplement his general theory.

Roudometof, V. (2014). Nationalism, globalization and glocalization. Thesis Eleven, 122(1), 18-33.

Read More

Nation and nationalism is described as a modern phenomenon due to the basic characteristic of the modern world including globalization which present a rise in the speed and impact of culture, economic and technological flow. A second point raised in the Warwick Debate presents the underlying sociological reality of nationalism (Anthony, 2004). This point debunks the assumption that the existence of a nation is only an imagination and for which reason a nation can be broken down into different segment. Ernest had a different opinion about what some people suggest that nations only exist in the imagination which can be destroyed. To him, nations and nationalism are characterized by realism but not imagination and both have powerful sociological phenomena even in situations where their reality is in contrast with what is said about them by nationalist. The third point raised in the debate on nationalism is that, the concept of nationalism is elusive and protean in its manifestations (Gellner, 1994). For this reason, Ernest suggests that it is very important to distinguish and classify the various beliefs and movements as a way of establishing progress in understanding the concept of nationalism.

Where I agree with arguments

I agree with Anthony Smith’s primordial approach which suggests that an individual’s nationality is fixed at birth, therefore, at birth an individual becomes part of a particular nation or group. This approach can be described as “ethno-symbolic” and offer a distinct study of nations and nationalism and also focuses on the role of symbols, traditions, ethnic myths and historical memories in the maintenance of a nation’s identity (Coakley, 2013). The concept of ethno-symbolic throws more light on the modernist theory and explains that modern political nationalism cannot be understood without first understanding the connection of the modernist theory to ethnic ties and memories. The ethno-symbolic approach is essential in providing understanding that explains the populations that are likely to give rise to a nationalist movement (Berent, 2015).

Although, given an explanation to which population are more likely to give rise to a nationalist movement will fall under certain condition; however, the approach provides a clue to what the content of their nationalism is likely to be. Again, ethno-symbolic approach provides understanding to why nationalism has become a powerful force. When a critical analysis is made to the definitions of nationalism by Anthony Smith, it is realized that the definitions are very important and explains the concept of the origins of primordial of nationalist movement. This is because nations as determined by the origin of primordial of nationalism represent a fulfillment of the needs presented in a nationalist movement (Anthony, 2004). For this reason, the primordial approach seeks to achieve unity, autonomy and identity of its nation and to fulfill these needs, Anthony Smith mentioned that the nation should share territory, economy, rights and duties for all its members (Coakley, 2013).

Where I disagree

I disagree with Ernest Gellner’s modernist theory on the concept of nation and nationalism as real and powerful sociological phenomena irrespective of whether their reality is quite different from what is been said by nationalist. This is based on the various theories of modernist and post-modernist on the count of how people see their nation in particular. According to the modernist and post-modernist theories, people see their nation to be continuing and beyond memory without any form of cessation (Gellner, 1994). Three things define people who appear to accept the modernist and post-modernist theories. To such people, they cannot imagine living in a world without nations. Again such people do not accept the assumption that their nation is regarded as recent creation. Finally, such people do not accept that their nation is a construct of those with social class or position. Read More