Siniša Malešević War, State Formation, and Nationalism
Abstract
Since the end of the WWII, nationalism has mostly been associated with disorder and violence. Initially nationalist ideologies were blamed for the rise of fascist movements that brought about the most destructive war ever fought on this planet.With the collapse of the imperial order in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, the anti-colonial nationalisms were held responsible for the disarray and protracted brutal conflicts witnessed throughout Asia and Africa. The violent collapse of communist federations in 1990s and genocide in Rwanda firmly established the popular perception of nationalism as an extremist and violence-prone ideology. More recently the global rise of nativist and populist movements defined by pronounced hostility to immigrants has reinforced this image of nationalism as a force of darkness. However, nationalism is rarely if ever a direct cause of violence. More often than not nationalism emerges as an indirect consequence of larger structural changes including the making, breaking, and reshuffling of states. In this chapter, I explore how warfare shapes state formation and what role nationalism plays in this relationship. The first part of the paper offers a review of the classical and contemporary bellicit theories of state formation. These theories interpret nationalism through the prism of warfare and geopolitics while largely neglecting the internal social dynamics of nationhood. Hence, in the second part of the paper, I provide a critical analysis of the bellicist approach and also offer a brief outline of an alternative explanation that centers on the historical development of grounded nationalisms and its relationship with war and state making. The final two parts of the paper explore the strength of the main argument using the nineteenth- and twentieth-century Balkans as a case study.
Source: www.academia.edu
Abstract
Since the end of the WWII, nationalism has mostly been associated with disorder and violence. Initially nationalist ideologies were blamed for the rise of fascist movements that brought about the most destructive war ever fought on this planet.With the collapse of the imperial order in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, the anti-colonial nationalisms were held responsible for the disarray and protracted brutal conflicts witnessed throughout Asia and Africa. The violent collapse of communist federations in 1990s and genocide in Rwanda firmly established the popular perception of nationalism as an extremist and violence-prone ideology. More recently the global rise of nativist and populist movements defined by pronounced hostility to immigrants has reinforced this image of nationalism as a force of darkness. However, nationalism is rarely if ever a direct cause of violence. More often than not nationalism emerges as an indirect consequence of larger structural changes including the making, breaking, and reshuffling of states. In this chapter, I explore how warfare shapes state formation and what role nationalism plays in this relationship. The first part of the paper offers a review of the classical and contemporary bellicit theories of state formation. These theories interpret nationalism through the prism of warfare and geopolitics while largely neglecting the internal social dynamics of nationhood. Hence, in the second part of the paper, I provide a critical analysis of the bellicist approach and also offer a brief outline of an alternative explanation that centers on the historical development of grounded nationalisms and its relationship with war and state making. The final two parts of the paper explore the strength of the main argument using the nineteenth- and twentieth-century Balkans as a case study.
Source: www.academia.edu
Abstract
Since the end of the WWII, nationalism has mostly been associated with disorder and violence. Initially nationalist ideologies were blamed for the rise of fascist movements that brought about the most destructive war ever fought on this planet.With the collapse of the imperial order in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, the anti-colonial nationalisms were held responsible for the disarray and protracted brutal conflicts witnessed throughout Asia and Africa. The violent collapse of communist federations in 1990s and genocide in Rwanda firmly established the popular perception of nationalism as an extremist and violence-prone ideology. More recently the global rise of nativist and populist movements defined by pronounced hostility to immigrants has reinforced this image of nationalism as a force of darkness. However, nationalism is rarely if ever a direct cause of violence. More often than not nationalism emerges as an indirect consequence of larger structural changes including the making, breaking, and reshuffling of states. In this chapter, I explore how warfare shapes state formation and what role nationalism plays in this relationship. The first part of the paper offers a review of the classical and contemporary bellicit theories of state formation. These theories interpret nationalism through the prism of warfare and geopolitics while largely neglecting the internal social dynamics of nationhood. Hence, in the second part of the paper, I provide a critical analysis of the bellicist approach and also offer a brief outline of an alternative explanation that centers on the historical development of grounded nationalisms and its relationship with war and state making. The final two parts of the paper explore the strength of the main argument using the nineteenth- and twentieth-century Balkans as a case study.
Source: www.academia.edu
Abstract
Since the end of the WWII, nationalism has mostly been associated with disorder and violence. Initially nationalist ideologies were blamed for the rise of fascist movements that brought about the most destructive war ever fought on this planet.With the collapse of the imperial order in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, the anti-colonial nationalisms were held responsible for the disarray and protracted brutal conflicts witnessed throughout Asia and Africa. The violent collapse of communist federations in 1990s and genocide in Rwanda firmly established the popular perception of nationalism as an extremist and violence-prone ideology. More recently the global rise of nativist and populist movements defined by pronounced hostility to immigrants has reinforced this image of nationalism as a force of darkness. However, nationalism is rarely if ever a direct cause of violence. More often than not nationalism emerges as an indirect consequence of larger structural changes including the making, breaking, and reshuffling of states. In this chapter, I explore how warfare shapes state formation and what role nationalism plays in this relationship. The first part of the paper offers a review of the classical and contemporary bellicit theories of state formation. These theories interpret nationalism through the prism of warfare and geopolitics while largely neglecting the internal social dynamics of nationhood. Hence, in the second part of the paper, I provide a critical analysis of the bellicist approach and also offer a brief outline of an alternative explanation that centers on the historical development of grounded nationalisms and its relationship with war and state making. The final two parts of the paper explore the strength of the main argument using the nineteenth- and twentieth-century Balkans as a case study.
Source: www.academia.edu