Siniša Malešević The foundations of statehood: Empires and nation-states in the longue durée
Introduction
Until quite recently most scholars shared the view that empires and nation-states do not have much in common. Moreover, the general perception was that an imperial form of political rule was a thing of the past destined to be replaced by the only rational, legitimate and feasible type of territorial political organization – the nation-state. This early confidence has now been replaced by much more cautious assessments. Over the last decade or so several influential historians and historical sociologists have questioned this premise, arguing not only that nation-states and empires have more in common than previously thought but also that the imperial mode of governance is not dead and buried but remains an ever present possibility for rulers to pursue now and in the future (Burbank and Cooper, 2010; Kumar, 2010; Munkler, 2007). Nevertheless, while we now accept that empires and nation-states are not mutually exclusive forms of social organization preordained to replace one another in a strictly evolutionary fashion, it is not completely clear how they are similar and where exactly this resemblance comes from. Some scholars argue that the modern political, cultural and economic institutions that define a nation-state have deep cultural or biological roots. Hence Smith (1986, 2009) and Hutchinson (2005, 2017) analyse the transition from the pre-modern imperial order to the modern day world of nation-states through the prism of cultural continuity: in this view traditional ethnic identities gradually transform into politicized forms of nationhood. Gat (2012) and Van Den Berghe (1981) make the case that this long-term continuity between different forms of political and cultural organization has strong biological roots: they insist that our genetic propensity for survival drives major institutional innovations including the evolutionary shift from imperial to national modes of governance. In contrast other scholars emphasize economic, political and military factors as being crucial in making the transition from empire to nation-state possible (Arrighi, 1994; Tilly, 1992; Mann, 1986; Wallerstein, 1974). In this article I briefly articulate an alternative interpretation that explores the similarities and differences between these two types of polity. By zooming in on three longue durée processes – the cumulative bureaucratization of coercion, centrifugal ideologization and the envelopment of micro-solidarity – I aim to identify what exactly makes empires and nation-states similar and where this resemblance comes from.
Source:
https://www.academia.edu/32019945/The_Foundations_of_Statehood_Empires_and_Nation_States_in_the_Longue_Dur%C3%A9e
Introduction
Until quite recently most scholars shared the view that empires and nation-states do not have much in common. Moreover, the general perception was that an imperial form of political rule was a thing of the past destined to be replaced by the only rational, legitimate and feasible type of territorial political organization – the nation-state. This early confidence has now been replaced by much more cautious assessments. Over the last decade or so several influential historians and historical sociologists have questioned this premise, arguing not only that nation-states and empires have more in common than previously thought but also that the imperial mode of governance is not dead and buried but remains an ever present possibility for rulers to pursue now and in the future (Burbank and Cooper, 2010; Kumar, 2010; Munkler, 2007). Nevertheless, while we now accept that empires and nation-states are not mutually exclusive forms of social organization preordained to replace one another in a strictly evolutionary fashion, it is not completely clear how they are similar and where exactly this resemblance comes from. Some scholars argue that the modern political, cultural and economic institutions that define a nation-state have deep cultural or biological roots. Hence Smith (1986, 2009) and Hutchinson (2005, 2017) analyse the transition from the pre-modern imperial order to the modern day world of nation-states through the prism of cultural continuity: in this view traditional ethnic identities gradually transform into politicized forms of nationhood. Gat (2012) and Van Den Berghe (1981) make the case that this long-term continuity between different forms of political and cultural organization has strong biological roots: they insist that our genetic propensity for survival drives major institutional innovations including the evolutionary shift from imperial to national modes of governance. In contrast other scholars emphasize economic, political and military factors as being crucial in making the transition from empire to nation-state possible (Arrighi, 1994; Tilly, 1992; Mann, 1986; Wallerstein, 1974). In this article I briefly articulate an alternative interpretation that explores the similarities and differences between these two types of polity. By zooming in on three longue durée processes – the cumulative bureaucratization of coercion, centrifugal ideologization and the envelopment of micro-solidarity – I aim to identify what exactly makes empires and nation-states similar and where this resemblance comes from.
Source:
https://www.academia.edu/32019945/The_Foundations_of_Statehood_Empires_and_Nation_States_in_the_Longue_Dur%C3%A9e
Introduction
Until quite recently most scholars shared the view that empires and nation-states do not have much in common. Moreover, the general perception was that an imperial form of political rule was a thing of the past destined to be replaced by the only rational, legitimate and feasible type of territorial political organization – the nation-state. This early confidence has now been replaced by much more cautious assessments. Over the last decade or so several influential historians and historical sociologists have questioned this premise, arguing not only that nation-states and empires have more in common than previously thought but also that the imperial mode of governance is not dead and buried but remains an ever present possibility for rulers to pursue now and in the future (Burbank and Cooper, 2010; Kumar, 2010; Munkler, 2007). Nevertheless, while we now accept that empires and nation-states are not mutually exclusive forms of social organization preordained to replace one another in a strictly evolutionary fashion, it is not completely clear how they are similar and where exactly this resemblance comes from. Some scholars argue that the modern political, cultural and economic institutions that define a nation-state have deep cultural or biological roots. Hence Smith (1986, 2009) and Hutchinson (2005, 2017) analyse the transition from the pre-modern imperial order to the modern day world of nation-states through the prism of cultural continuity: in this view traditional ethnic identities gradually transform into politicized forms of nationhood. Gat (2012) and Van Den Berghe (1981) make the case that this long-term continuity between different forms of political and cultural organization has strong biological roots: they insist that our genetic propensity for survival drives major institutional innovations including the evolutionary shift from imperial to national modes of governance. In contrast other scholars emphasize economic, political and military factors as being crucial in making the transition from empire to nation-state possible (Arrighi, 1994; Tilly, 1992; Mann, 1986; Wallerstein, 1974). In this article I briefly articulate an alternative interpretation that explores the similarities and differences between these two types of polity. By zooming in on three longue durée processes – the cumulative bureaucratization of coercion, centrifugal ideologization and the envelopment of micro-solidarity – I aim to identify what exactly makes empires and nation-states similar and where this resemblance comes from.
Source:
https://www.academia.edu/32019945/The_Foundations_of_Statehood_Empires_and_Nation_States_in_the_Longue_Dur%C3%A9e
Introduction
Until quite recently most scholars shared the view that empires and nation-states do not have much in common. Moreover, the general perception was that an imperial form of political rule was a thing of the past destined to be replaced by the only rational, legitimate and feasible type of territorial political organization – the nation-state. This early confidence has now been replaced by much more cautious assessments. Over the last decade or so several influential historians and historical sociologists have questioned this premise, arguing not only that nation-states and empires have more in common than previously thought but also that the imperial mode of governance is not dead and buried but remains an ever present possibility for rulers to pursue now and in the future (Burbank and Cooper, 2010; Kumar, 2010; Munkler, 2007). Nevertheless, while we now accept that empires and nation-states are not mutually exclusive forms of social organization preordained to replace one another in a strictly evolutionary fashion, it is not completely clear how they are similar and where exactly this resemblance comes from. Some scholars argue that the modern political, cultural and economic institutions that define a nation-state have deep cultural or biological roots. Hence Smith (1986, 2009) and Hutchinson (2005, 2017) analyse the transition from the pre-modern imperial order to the modern day world of nation-states through the prism of cultural continuity: in this view traditional ethnic identities gradually transform into politicized forms of nationhood. Gat (2012) and Van Den Berghe (1981) make the case that this long-term continuity between different forms of political and cultural organization has strong biological roots: they insist that our genetic propensity for survival drives major institutional innovations including the evolutionary shift from imperial to national modes of governance. In contrast other scholars emphasize economic, political and military factors as being crucial in making the transition from empire to nation-state possible (Arrighi, 1994; Tilly, 1992; Mann, 1986; Wallerstein, 1974). In this article I briefly articulate an alternative interpretation that explores the similarities and differences between these two types of polity. By zooming in on three longue durée processes – the cumulative bureaucratization of coercion, centrifugal ideologization and the envelopment of micro-solidarity – I aim to identify what exactly makes empires and nation-states similar and where this resemblance comes from.
Source:
https://www.academia.edu/32019945/The_Foundations_of_Statehood_Empires_and_Nation_States_in_the_Longue_Dur%C3%A9e