Daniele Conversi Globalization, ethnic conflict, and nationalism
Modernity, globalization, and nationalism
The idea that nationalist conflicts erupted as a consequence of social changes brought about by modernity has remained an incontrovertible paradigm in the study of ethnic conflict and nationalism. However, many also argue that nations as such could not exist before the modern age. This approach is often referred to as ‘modernism’ (Smith 1996, 1998, 2004). Some authors go as far as saying that nations are entirely ‘invented’ (Hobsbawm 1983, Gellner 2006) or ‘imagined’ (Anderson 1993) by modern elites and reading publics. The force of nationalism has spread well over the nineteenth century into the age of globalization. There are thus parallels between modernization and globalization as stimulating factors for nationalism and ethnic conflict. Although the reach of globalization is historically unprecedented, some of its features accompanied the rise of modernity and the advent of the modern nation state. In particular, both resulted in the demise of older boundaries and the construction of new ones. Whereas industrialization destroyed local and regional boundaries by superimposing national boundaries on them, globalization destroyed national boundaries by superimposing a plethora of supra-national and corporate networks on them, including mafias, organized crime, and multi-national corporations (MNCs), none of which are as easily identifiable on a political map as ‘sovereign’ countries still are. The adoption of planetary rules to comply with the standards set by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank has unsurprisingly resulted in global disempowerment, at least according to the perception of influential NGOs activists (Korten 2001).
Has all this also led to a decline in national identities? Not at all. Partly because national cultures have been seriously damaged or reshaped by globalization, we have seen a global intensification of ethnic belligerence. Moreover, the formation of new elites and the spread of capitalist wealth have led to nationalist self-assertion, while cultural impoverishment spurred a generalized need for compensatory ethnic assertiveness. Despite some divergence over the nature and time-span of modernity, modernism has continued to inform scholarly accounts of nationalism and ethnic conflict. On the other hand, longstanding assumptions of modernity as founded on a historical rupture have been challenged by the exploration of continuities with the past: Anthony D. Smith’s ethno-symbolic approach argues that, although nationalism is a modern phenomenon, nations are not necessarily modern creations and are indeed based on ancient, premodern ethnic roots which became re-activated by adapting to the new political climate (Smith 2004, Leoussi and Grosby 2006). The challenge of modernity constrained ancient ethnies or ethnic groups to find ways out to ensure their survival and protect their millennial identity. Only through nationalism could they find a new ‘security’, and via national mobilization could they hope to ensure their survival by attaining either powersharing or separate statehood. It should be noted that Smith’s ethno-symbolism emerged primarily as a critique of extreme forms of modernism postulating that nations are wholly fabricated (Gellner 2006) or that many institutions we often call ‘traditions’ are simply modern inventions (Hobsbawm 1983).
In general, both modernists and anti-modernists (of which, more later on) could not fail to recognize that modernity, however one defines it, provided the main incentive and stimulus for nationalist conflict. Therefore, both ‘modernists’ and ‘anti-modernists’ share the view that modernity was the catalyst, although the latter would not describe modernity as leading to ethno-genesis. In fact, given that their focus was on persistence and longue-duree, anti-modernists also anticipated the fact that globalization could not lead to the demise of nations and the erosion of nationalism (Leoussi and Grosby 2006). On the contrary, it would provide a further boost to ethno-national mobilizations (Smith 1996). Globalization has been described as either a deepening of modernity or as a wholly new departure, often celebrated as ‘postmodernity’. Whether one stresses continuity or rupture, the shared view is that both industrialization and globalization were characterized by massive change and the breakdown of ancient boundaries. In this way, the advent of industrialization contained and anticipated most of the problems faced in the era of globalization. Later on, the history of Basque nationalism provides a telling example to illustrate this relationship. If nationalism cannot be explained independently from the onset of modernity and modern state-making, both are enmeshed in the expansion of warfare. Nationalism manifested itself in an era of inter-state competition, the collapse of boundaries, economic expansion, mass migration, general insecurity, political centralization, obsessive law-making, societal policing, and drastic militarization, finally leading to war. In the meanwhile, the Pax Britannica ensuing Waterloo provided the impetus for colonial expansion while fomenting inter-imperial rivalries and competition (Conversi 2007).
Thus, just as Europe was accumulating wealth, power, and armaments in anticipation of the unprecedented conflagration, its global economic reach affected broader and broader areas of the world. Economic competition and destructive warfare were just being exported beyond European borders. Linda Colley notes: ‘the profit and the price of this hundred-year partial European peace was unprecedented Western, and especially British, freedom to concentrate on global empire. In 1800, the European powers, together with Russia and the United States, laid claim to some 35 percent of the globe’s total land area. By 1914 … [their] proportion of the globe … had risen to 84 percent’ (Colley 2002: 311). By 1914, the West had also accumulated enough economic wealth and weapons of mass destruction to unleash the greatest manslaughter in human history. The totalitarian era following the First World War has been described as the culmination of a pattern of mass dislocation founded on modernity (Arendt 1958; Bauman 1989). As we shall see later, the emergence of totalitarianism in Europe coincided with the first wave of ‘deep Americanization’, including the triumph of Hollywood, cigarette consumption, the car culture, and other US products meant for mass distribution.
Modernity, globalization, and nationalism
The idea that nationalist conflicts erupted as a consequence of social changes brought about by modernity has remained an incontrovertible paradigm in the study of ethnic conflict and nationalism. However, many also argue that nations as such could not exist before the modern age. This approach is often referred to as ‘modernism’ (Smith 1996, 1998, 2004). Some authors go as far as saying that nations are entirely ‘invented’ (Hobsbawm 1983, Gellner 2006) or ‘imagined’ (Anderson 1993) by modern elites and reading publics. The force of nationalism has spread well over the nineteenth century into the age of globalization. There are thus parallels between modernization and globalization as stimulating factors for nationalism and ethnic conflict. Although the reach of globalization is historically unprecedented, some of its features accompanied the rise of modernity and the advent of the modern nation state. In particular, both resulted in the demise of older boundaries and the construction of new ones. Whereas industrialization destroyed local and regional boundaries by superimposing national boundaries on them, globalization destroyed national boundaries by superimposing a plethora of supra-national and corporate networks on them, including mafias, organized crime, and multi-national corporations (MNCs), none of which are as easily identifiable on a political map as ‘sovereign’ countries still are. The adoption of planetary rules to comply with the standards set by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank has unsurprisingly resulted in global disempowerment, at least according to the perception of influential NGOs activists (Korten 2001).
Has all this also led to a decline in national identities? Not at all. Partly because national cultures have been seriously damaged or reshaped by globalization, we have seen a global intensification of ethnic belligerence. Moreover, the formation of new elites and the spread of capitalist wealth have led to nationalist self-assertion, while cultural impoverishment spurred a generalized need for compensatory ethnic assertiveness. Despite some divergence over the nature and time-span of modernity, modernism has continued to inform scholarly accounts of nationalism and ethnic conflict. On the other hand, longstanding assumptions of modernity as founded on a historical rupture have been challenged by the exploration of continuities with the past: Anthony D. Smith’s ethno-symbolic approach argues that, although nationalism is a modern phenomenon, nations are not necessarily modern creations and are indeed based on ancient, premodern ethnic roots which became re-activated by adapting to the new political climate (Smith 2004, Leoussi and Grosby 2006). The challenge of modernity constrained ancient ethnies or ethnic groups to find ways out to ensure their survival and protect their millennial identity. Only through nationalism could they find a new ‘security’, and via national mobilization could they hope to ensure their survival by attaining either powersharing or separate statehood. It should be noted that Smith’s ethno-symbolism emerged primarily as a critique of extreme forms of modernism postulating that nations are wholly fabricated (Gellner 2006) or that many institutions we often call ‘traditions’ are simply modern inventions (Hobsbawm 1983).
In general, both modernists and anti-modernists (of which, more later on) could not fail to recognize that modernity, however one defines it, provided the main incentive and stimulus for nationalist conflict. Therefore, both ‘modernists’ and ‘anti-modernists’ share the view that modernity was the catalyst, although the latter would not describe modernity as leading to ethno-genesis. In fact, given that their focus was on persistence and longue-duree, anti-modernists also anticipated the fact that globalization could not lead to the demise of nations and the erosion of nationalism (Leoussi and Grosby 2006). On the contrary, it would provide a further boost to ethno-national mobilizations (Smith 1996). Globalization has been described as either a deepening of modernity or as a wholly new departure, often celebrated as ‘postmodernity’. Whether one stresses continuity or rupture, the shared view is that both industrialization and globalization were characterized by massive change and the breakdown of ancient boundaries. In this way, the advent of industrialization contained and anticipated most of the problems faced in the era of globalization. Later on, the history of Basque nationalism provides a telling example to illustrate this relationship. If nationalism cannot be explained independently from the onset of modernity and modern state-making, both are enmeshed in the expansion of warfare. Nationalism manifested itself in an era of inter-state competition, the collapse of boundaries, economic expansion, mass migration, general insecurity, political centralization, obsessive law-making, societal policing, and drastic militarization, finally leading to war. In the meanwhile, the Pax Britannica ensuing Waterloo provided the impetus for colonial expansion while fomenting inter-imperial rivalries and competition (Conversi 2007).
Thus, just as Europe was accumulating wealth, power, and armaments in anticipation of the unprecedented conflagration, its global economic reach affected broader and broader areas of the world. Economic competition and destructive warfare were just being exported beyond European borders. Linda Colley notes: ‘the profit and the price of this hundred-year partial European peace was unprecedented Western, and especially British, freedom to concentrate on global empire. In 1800, the European powers, together with Russia and the United States, laid claim to some 35 percent of the globe’s total land area. By 1914 … [their] proportion of the globe … had risen to 84 percent’ (Colley 2002: 311). By 1914, the West had also accumulated enough economic wealth and weapons of mass destruction to unleash the greatest manslaughter in human history. The totalitarian era following the First World War has been described as the culmination of a pattern of mass dislocation founded on modernity (Arendt 1958; Bauman 1989). As we shall see later, the emergence of totalitarianism in Europe coincided with the first wave of ‘deep Americanization’, including the triumph of Hollywood, cigarette consumption, the car culture, and other US products meant for mass distribution.
Modernity, globalization, and nationalism
The idea that nationalist conflicts erupted as a consequence of social changes brought about by modernity has remained an incontrovertible paradigm in the study of ethnic conflict and nationalism. However, many also argue that nations as such could not exist before the modern age. This approach is often referred to as ‘modernism’ (Smith 1996, 1998, 2004). Some authors go as far as saying that nations are entirely ‘invented’ (Hobsbawm 1983, Gellner 2006) or ‘imagined’ (Anderson 1993) by modern elites and reading publics. The force of nationalism has spread well over the nineteenth century into the age of globalization. There are thus parallels between modernization and globalization as stimulating factors for nationalism and ethnic conflict. Although the reach of globalization is historically unprecedented, some of its features accompanied the rise of modernity and the advent of the modern nation state. In particular, both resulted in the demise of older boundaries and the construction of new ones. Whereas industrialization destroyed local and regional boundaries by superimposing national boundaries on them, globalization destroyed national boundaries by superimposing a plethora of supra-national and corporate networks on them, including mafias, organized crime, and multi-national corporations (MNCs), none of which are as easily identifiable on a political map as ‘sovereign’ countries still are. The adoption of planetary rules to comply with the standards set by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank has unsurprisingly resulted in global disempowerment, at least according to the perception of influential NGOs activists (Korten 2001).
Has all this also led to a decline in national identities? Not at all. Partly because national cultures have been seriously damaged or reshaped by globalization, we have seen a global intensification of ethnic belligerence. Moreover, the formation of new elites and the spread of capitalist wealth have led to nationalist self-assertion, while cultural impoverishment spurred a generalized need for compensatory ethnic assertiveness. Despite some divergence over the nature and time-span of modernity, modernism has continued to inform scholarly accounts of nationalism and ethnic conflict. On the other hand, longstanding assumptions of modernity as founded on a historical rupture have been challenged by the exploration of continuities with the past: Anthony D. Smith’s ethno-symbolic approach argues that, although nationalism is a modern phenomenon, nations are not necessarily modern creations and are indeed based on ancient, premodern ethnic roots which became re-activated by adapting to the new political climate (Smith 2004, Leoussi and Grosby 2006). The challenge of modernity constrained ancient ethnies or ethnic groups to find ways out to ensure their survival and protect their millennial identity. Only through nationalism could they find a new ‘security’, and via national mobilization could they hope to ensure their survival by attaining either powersharing or separate statehood. It should be noted that Smith’s ethno-symbolism emerged primarily as a critique of extreme forms of modernism postulating that nations are wholly fabricated (Gellner 2006) or that many institutions we often call ‘traditions’ are simply modern inventions (Hobsbawm 1983).
In general, both modernists and anti-modernists (of which, more later on) could not fail to recognize that modernity, however one defines it, provided the main incentive and stimulus for nationalist conflict. Therefore, both ‘modernists’ and ‘anti-modernists’ share the view that modernity was the catalyst, although the latter would not describe modernity as leading to ethno-genesis. In fact, given that their focus was on persistence and longue-duree, anti-modernists also anticipated the fact that globalization could not lead to the demise of nations and the erosion of nationalism (Leoussi and Grosby 2006). On the contrary, it would provide a further boost to ethno-national mobilizations (Smith 1996). Globalization has been described as either a deepening of modernity or as a wholly new departure, often celebrated as ‘postmodernity’. Whether one stresses continuity or rupture, the shared view is that both industrialization and globalization were characterized by massive change and the breakdown of ancient boundaries. In this way, the advent of industrialization contained and anticipated most of the problems faced in the era of globalization. Later on, the history of Basque nationalism provides a telling example to illustrate this relationship. If nationalism cannot be explained independently from the onset of modernity and modern state-making, both are enmeshed in the expansion of warfare. Nationalism manifested itself in an era of inter-state competition, the collapse of boundaries, economic expansion, mass migration, general insecurity, political centralization, obsessive law-making, societal policing, and drastic militarization, finally leading to war. In the meanwhile, the Pax Britannica ensuing Waterloo provided the impetus for colonial expansion while fomenting inter-imperial rivalries and competition (Conversi 2007).
Thus, just as Europe was accumulating wealth, power, and armaments in anticipation of the unprecedented conflagration, its global economic reach affected broader and broader areas of the world. Economic competition and destructive warfare were just being exported beyond European borders. Linda Colley notes: ‘the profit and the price of this hundred-year partial European peace was unprecedented Western, and especially British, freedom to concentrate on global empire. In 1800, the European powers, together with Russia and the United States, laid claim to some 35 percent of the globe’s total land area. By 1914 … [their] proportion of the globe … had risen to 84 percent’ (Colley 2002: 311). By 1914, the West had also accumulated enough economic wealth and weapons of mass destruction to unleash the greatest manslaughter in human history. The totalitarian era following the First World War has been described as the culmination of a pattern of mass dislocation founded on modernity (Arendt 1958; Bauman 1989). As we shall see later, the emergence of totalitarianism in Europe coincided with the first wave of ‘deep Americanization’, including the triumph of Hollywood, cigarette consumption, the car culture, and other US products meant for mass distribution.
Modernity, globalization, and nationalism
The idea that nationalist conflicts erupted as a consequence of social changes brought about by modernity has remained an incontrovertible paradigm in the study of ethnic conflict and nationalism. However, many also argue that nations as such could not exist before the modern age. This approach is often referred to as ‘modernism’ (Smith 1996, 1998, 2004). Some authors go as far as saying that nations are entirely ‘invented’ (Hobsbawm 1983, Gellner 2006) or ‘imagined’ (Anderson 1993) by modern elites and reading publics. The force of nationalism has spread well over the nineteenth century into the age of globalization. There are thus parallels between modernization and globalization as stimulating factors for nationalism and ethnic conflict. Although the reach of globalization is historically unprecedented, some of its features accompanied the rise of modernity and the advent of the modern nation state. In particular, both resulted in the demise of older boundaries and the construction of new ones. Whereas industrialization destroyed local and regional boundaries by superimposing national boundaries on them, globalization destroyed national boundaries by superimposing a plethora of supra-national and corporate networks on them, including mafias, organized crime, and multi-national corporations (MNCs), none of which are as easily identifiable on a political map as ‘sovereign’ countries still are. The adoption of planetary rules to comply with the standards set by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank has unsurprisingly resulted in global disempowerment, at least according to the perception of influential NGOs activists (Korten 2001).
Has all this also led to a decline in national identities? Not at all. Partly because national cultures have been seriously damaged or reshaped by globalization, we have seen a global intensification of ethnic belligerence. Moreover, the formation of new elites and the spread of capitalist wealth have led to nationalist self-assertion, while cultural impoverishment spurred a generalized need for compensatory ethnic assertiveness. Despite some divergence over the nature and time-span of modernity, modernism has continued to inform scholarly accounts of nationalism and ethnic conflict. On the other hand, longstanding assumptions of modernity as founded on a historical rupture have been challenged by the exploration of continuities with the past: Anthony D. Smith’s ethno-symbolic approach argues that, although nationalism is a modern phenomenon, nations are not necessarily modern creations and are indeed based on ancient, premodern ethnic roots which became re-activated by adapting to the new political climate (Smith 2004, Leoussi and Grosby 2006). The challenge of modernity constrained ancient ethnies or ethnic groups to find ways out to ensure their survival and protect their millennial identity. Only through nationalism could they find a new ‘security’, and via national mobilization could they hope to ensure their survival by attaining either powersharing or separate statehood. It should be noted that Smith’s ethno-symbolism emerged primarily as a critique of extreme forms of modernism postulating that nations are wholly fabricated (Gellner 2006) or that many institutions we often call ‘traditions’ are simply modern inventions (Hobsbawm 1983).
In general, both modernists and anti-modernists (of which, more later on) could not fail to recognize that modernity, however one defines it, provided the main incentive and stimulus for nationalist conflict. Therefore, both ‘modernists’ and ‘anti-modernists’ share the view that modernity was the catalyst, although the latter would not describe modernity as leading to ethno-genesis. In fact, given that their focus was on persistence and longue-duree, anti-modernists also anticipated the fact that globalization could not lead to the demise of nations and the erosion of nationalism (Leoussi and Grosby 2006). On the contrary, it would provide a further boost to ethno-national mobilizations (Smith 1996). Globalization has been described as either a deepening of modernity or as a wholly new departure, often celebrated as ‘postmodernity’. Whether one stresses continuity or rupture, the shared view is that both industrialization and globalization were characterized by massive change and the breakdown of ancient boundaries. In this way, the advent of industrialization contained and anticipated most of the problems faced in the era of globalization. Later on, the history of Basque nationalism provides a telling example to illustrate this relationship. If nationalism cannot be explained independently from the onset of modernity and modern state-making, both are enmeshed in the expansion of warfare. Nationalism manifested itself in an era of inter-state competition, the collapse of boundaries, economic expansion, mass migration, general insecurity, political centralization, obsessive law-making, societal policing, and drastic militarization, finally leading to war. In the meanwhile, the Pax Britannica ensuing Waterloo provided the impetus for colonial expansion while fomenting inter-imperial rivalries and competition (Conversi 2007).
Thus, just as Europe was accumulating wealth, power, and armaments in anticipation of the unprecedented conflagration, its global economic reach affected broader and broader areas of the world. Economic competition and destructive warfare were just being exported beyond European borders. Linda Colley notes: ‘the profit and the price of this hundred-year partial European peace was unprecedented Western, and especially British, freedom to concentrate on global empire. In 1800, the European powers, together with Russia and the United States, laid claim to some 35 percent of the globe’s total land area. By 1914 … [their] proportion of the globe … had risen to 84 percent’ (Colley 2002: 311). By 1914, the West had also accumulated enough economic wealth and weapons of mass destruction to unleash the greatest manslaughter in human history. The totalitarian era following the First World War has been described as the culmination of a pattern of mass dislocation founded on modernity (Arendt 1958; Bauman 1989). As we shall see later, the emergence of totalitarianism in Europe coincided with the first wave of ‘deep Americanization’, including the triumph of Hollywood, cigarette consumption, the car culture, and other US products meant for mass distribution.