Comparative Analysis of the Theories on Nationalism, Focusing on the Theories of Benedict Anderson and Paul Brass.

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE THEORIES ON NATIONALISM, FOCUSING ON THE THEORIES OF BENEDICT ANDERSON AND PAUL BRASS.

Submitted by: A. B.Tekkethil M.A Sociology- III Semester.

Human beings, in any given interaction with each other, attach to themselves and others various identities. This way, based on the situation, one can attach multiple identities to oneself, ranging from gender, religion, caste, class etc. In a survey of this kind today, one will find that the nationality of a person is one of the most vital of them. It is vital, because generally, possessing a nationality becomes the one way to endorse the existence of a person today. Further, this identity, represented in various documents like passports etc. determines the movement of people from one point on the globe to another. Thus, it is necessary today to have a nationality. Nationality has also become ways to arrange interaction at a world level as well, whether it be in fields like sports (e.g.: the Olympics) or politics (e.g.: The United Nations Organization.).

As much as this identity is so vital in our interactions today, pinning down its concrete existence or manifestation has been a theoretical problem for scholars for over two centuries now. How does one identify it? When did it come into existence, and how is it sustained? These are only a few of the questions that have plagued scholars and students of nationalism. This essay aims to trace the ideas of three important scholars in this fieldnamely, Benedict Anderson, Paul Brass and Anthony. D. Smith.

To begin with, the one notion that most scholars agree with today, is that nationalism and nations were not a phenomena that existed from time immemorial. They occurred at specific times in history, and they are modern concepts, which gained a firm footing with events like the French and American Revolutions and colonialism. The argument put forth by Hobsbawm is useful to illustrate the above point. He states, “Most [of this] literature has turned on the question: What is a (or the) nation? For the chief characteristics of this way of classifying groups of human beings is that, in spite of the claims of those who belong to it that it is in some ways primary and fundamental for the social existence, or even the individual identification, of its members, no satisfactory criterion can be discovered for deciding which of the many human collectivities should be labelled in this way. That is not in itself surprising, for if we regard ‘the nation’ as a very recent newcomer in human history, and the product of particular, and inevitably localized or regional, historical conjunctures, we could expect it to occur, initially as it

2

were, in a few colonies of settlement rather than in a population generally distributed over the world’s territory.”1

The three scholars above take very different approaches to the problem at hand. Benedict Anderson approaches the issue with an “anthropological spirit” to use his words. Paul Brass studies nationalism, in the backdrop of the various ethnic groups and their struggle to build themselves into a ‘nation’. And in Anthony Smith one can see elements of bothhe also turns to the study of ethnic groups and argues that one needs to turn to more “permanent cultural attributes of memory, value, myth and symbolism.2”

I first turn to review the ideas of Benedict Anderson. In his influential work, “Imagined Communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of Nationalism”, Anderson reviews briefly Marxist and other theories previously propounded on nationalism. He argues that the terms nation, nationality and nationalism- all have been problematic to define and that nationality, nation-ness and nationalism are “cultural artefacts of a particular kind.3” He also states that “the creation of these artefacts towards the end of the eighteenth century was the spontaneous distillation of a complex ‘crossing’ of discrete historical forces; but that, once created, they became ‘modular’, capable of being transplanted, with varying degrees of self-consciousness, to a great variety of social terrains, to merge and be merged with a correspondingly wide variety of political and ideological constellations.4” He also traces three paradoxes that theories of nationalism have faced so far. One is that while historians see nations as an exclusively modern phenomenon, the nationalists see it as an antiquity. Second, is the idea that like gender, everyone has to have a nationality, versus the idea of what he states as the “irremediable particularity of its concrete manifestations, such that, by definition, ‘Greek’ nationality is Sui generis”. The third paradox is while nationalism as a ‘political’ power is very immense, it is plagued by what Anderson calls a philosophical poverty. In other words, it has never had any grand thinkers who have explored the issues in all its depth.
1 2

Hobsbawm, E.J, 1992, pp:5 Smith, Antony. D, 1986, pp: 3. 3 Anderson, Benedict, 1983, pp: 4. 4 Ibid.

3

Having set this context, Anderson defines nations as imagined political communities-and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign. He argues that nations are imagined because anywhere, it is never likely that all members of a particular nation will ever know, meet or hear of their fellow- members. Yet, in the minds of each member of society and in the minds of other, lives the image of their communion. It is viewed as limited because each nation- big or small, have limited and tight boundaries, with other nations lying beyond it. It never speaks in the context that involves all of humanity. The term sovereign invokes its past in the Enlightenment and French Revolution. Anderson says that nations are sovereign because by the eighteenth century, the legitimacy of the divinely ordained rights of the king and the supremacy of one religion ontological claims became difficult to hold onto as they increasingly came into contact with other religions. Lastly, these are communities because, despite prevailing inequalities and conflicts within each nation, as it were, nations are always, Anderson states, “conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship.5”

Anderson elaborates on the conditions that made the ground fertile for the growth of nationalism. He states that before, but much like nationalism, it was religious communities and specific type of power arrangements or what he calls dynastic realms that were the major frames of reference in society. It was only after the erosion of these two frames of references, that nationalism could establish itself in their place.

Of religion, Anderson states that, people across the world could share a sense of community because; these religions used one truth- language or sacred language to gain access to the ontological expositions within it. Thus, for instance, because Islam’s sacred language was Arabic, a person from Indonesia with very unique, exclusive ways of life, could still belong to the ‘Islamic community’ along with another Muslim from Iran. This was true of Christianity and Buddhism as well. Anderson argues that this was because, unlike today, the signs of the language were not arbitrary and was an integral unchanging part of the religion as a whole. Further, since there was present only a small, elite group
5

Ibid, pp:7

4

who could interpret the sign to the rest of the community, it helped solidify the grip this frame of reference had over man’s life. Having stated this much however, Anderson does not provide sufficient explanation for the decline of this grip. He only mentions in brief that the explorations of the world in the middle Ages and the demotion of languages itself were responsible for this consequence6.

The second frame of reference is the dynastic realm. By this, Anderson refers to the monarchial form of rule. Here, he states that kingship is arranged around one supreme or high center. Further this legitimacy is derived from divinity. This is very different from the modern sovereign state which has very rigid borders and the legitimacy of the political system is derived from citizens and not subjects7. Here again, according to Anderson; for reasons not elaborated upon, the dynastic realm lost its grip on man’s life.

The third idea, which Anderson discusses in detail, is the spread of print capitalism, and the consequences of mass producing literary forms like novels and newspapers. These forms, unlike others help people think of time as being ‘homogeneous, empty 8time’, in which, “simultaneity is, as it were, transverse, cross- time, marked not by pre-figuring and fulfillment, but by temporal coincidence, and measured by clock and calendar.” This aspect essentially refers to the idea of the imagined community. It is because of this ability, that one is able to not know all her/his fellow-members but still share a sense of communion with them. Thus, the author argues that with the decline of the above, there was a need for a new way to link fraternity, power and time9.

He however, poses an important question: if a new form was needed to link the three facets, and this could be done using ‘homogeneous, empty time’, then why was it that only this one form called national become so popular amongst the forms available? In replying, Anderson argues a case for capitalism and specifically for what he refers to as print- capitalism. He states that publishing became one of the first capitalist ventures,
6 7

Ibid, pp: 14-15 Ibid, pp: 19. 8 Ibid, pp: 24 9 Ibid, pp: 36.

5

after the invention of the printing press and books, the first mass produced commodity. At first Latin works demanded by a small elite group were supplied and with the saturation of the elite market the industry began to publish books that were cheap, inexpensive editions in vernacular for the larger masses. This publishing in the vernacular, helped remove any regional variations in language. As Anderson writes: “print- capitalism gave a new fixity to language, which in the long run helped build that image of antiquity so central to the subjective idea of the nation.10” This point the author makes becomes important when one realizes that a vast majority of nations today are arranged along linguistic lines. It is these factors and more, that allow as pointed out earlier to help people imagine themselves as a community, despite not being physically in contact with one another.

Paul Brass on the other hand built his theory in the context of his study of ethic groups’ struggles to gain nationhood, so to say. He uses De Vos’ definition of ethnicity, which consists of: “subjective, symbolic or emblematic use by a group of people… of any aspect of culture, in order to differentiate themselves from other groups.” Brass adds that this is done in order to create a sense of internal cohesion as well. Thus, in summation, “ethnicity is an alternative form of social organization and identification to class, but it is a contingent and changeable status that, like class, may or may not be articulated in particular contexts or at particular times.11” Further, Brass sees nations as a type of ethnic community politicized, with recognized group rights in the political system. He also recognizes that these groups can consist of a homogeneous group or an amalgamation of diverse groups. However, no matter what kind it may be, he states that an “effort is made to give subjective and symbolic meanings to objective distinctions between peoples and to increase the number of attributes and symbolic referents that they have in common with each other and that distinguishes them from other groups.12”

Brass also sets out a definition for nationality formation which is when objective differences between ethnic groups increasingly acquire subjective and symbolic
10 11

Ibid, pp: 44 Brass, Paul. R, 1991, pp: 19. 12 Ibid, pp: 20.

6

significance, and this in turn translates into both a consciousness of and a desire for group solidarity and become the basis for successful political demand. He traces two important stages in the development of nationality: One is the movement from ethnic category to community and the other is the articulation and acquisition of social, economic and political rights for the members of the group or the group as a whole13.

Brass places a lot of emphasis on the role of the elites in the first stage of development. The symbolic aspects of culture like religion, language, a dress pattern etc are all choices that are made, and the elites are the ones that stand to gain from these choices. Thus, in most industrial and post- industrial societies, there is a competition and conflict to gain political power, economic benefits and social status between leaders of different ethnic groups and within the groups as well. However, this in itself does not produce a communal or national feeling. This feeling is enhanced and solidified under four circumstances: First, when a local aristocracy is attempting to maintain its privileges against an alien conqueror. The second is when there is a competition amongst religious elites from different ethnic groups. The third type of elite competition is intraethnic. This is when the native aristocracy collaborates with the alien or colonial authority without adopting the religion, but promotes alien culture in such a way that it threatens the authority of the indigenous religious leader. The fourth circumstance is the conflict between native religious elites and an alien aristocracy.

Brass states that it is these situations that set off the first stages of ethnic transformation and specifically, the latter two cases spark off movements of religious revivalism.

Brass lays a lot of emphasis on the role of inequality- both of power and scares resources in the development of communal and/or national feelings. However, he is critical of the
13

Ibid, pp: 22-23.

7

relative deprivation theory as propagated earlier, and states that by themselves inequality or relative deprivation cannot be precipitating factors to produce national consciousness. He places the rest of the argument as such: it is the “relative distribution of ethnic groups in the competition for valued resources and opportunities and in the division of labor in societies undergoing mobilization, industrialization and bureaucracy.” He also states that this potential for ethnic nationalism exists in any ethnic group with ethnic stratification, where one dominates over the others. More importantly, this is realized only when persons from one stratum try to move into economic niches occupied thus far by the rival ethnic groups. On facing constant resistance, failure and bitter experiences lead groups to protest against the system of stratification. This may end up as the mobilization of one community in the form of communalism or to nationalism and a more fundamental challenge to the whole division of labor, resources and power in society. Ultimately, Brass points out, nationalism is a political movement. In conclusion, to this part, he sees a few major factors that either make or break ethnic/nationalist movements. These include: a political organization that identifies itself and not just represents the ethnic group; further, one dominant political organization that represents the demands of the group; drawing up on resources especially a solid support base; the ability of social movements to effectively shape the identities of the group they lead; the government policies and how the government uses these policies to react to the movement; and lastly, a clear succession of leaders to see the movement through to the end14.

Thus, in his study of ethnic struggles of nationalism Brass provides useful insights into the process of nationalism. Brasses theory, unlike Andersons’ maybe able to better explain the various movements of nationalism around the world, like those in Sri Lanka, Punjab- India, or the various movements in many African nations.

Thus, on comparing Anderson and Brass, one can notice several differences and similarities. The one major notion they agree upon is that nations and nationalism are not of antiquity. They have very specific histories based from modernity. However, in approach, Anderson takes a view based in anthropology and culture. Brass on the other
14

Ibid, pp: 48-51.

8

hand looks at nations as arising out of many factors like competition amongst elites, politicization etc. His theory like mentioned above becomes more useful in trying to understand various ethnic- national struggles. Anderson’s theory on the hand becomes useful to understand how factors like the press and media help shape and sustain national identities. Thus, the two theories provide different but useful insights into the issue of nationalism.

Reference List:
1. Hobsbawm E. J; Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality2nd Edition; 1992; Canto Publications, UK. 2. Smith, Anthony D; The Ethnic origins of Nations; 1986; Blackwell Publishes Inc; Massachusetts, USA. 3. Anderson, Benedict; Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, 2nd Edition; 1983; Verso Publications, New York. 4. Brass, Paul. B; Ethnicity and Nationalism: Theory and Comparison;1991; Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd; New Delhi.

9