Liberal Nationalism: An Irresponsible Compound?
| Author | Andrew Vincent |
| Published date | 01 June 1997 |
| DOI | 10.1111/1467-9248.00081 |
| Date | 01 June 1997 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Liberal Nationalism: an Irresponsible
Compound?
ANDREW VINCENT
Australian National University
In this century there has been a deep concern about the dangers of nationalism.
Many of those who have expressed such concerns have been liberals. Yet, ironically,
in the last decade, there has been a resurgence of interest in the idea of nationalism
from within liberal thought ± thus giving rise to the compound term `liberal
nationalism'. Having situated liberal nationalism in a broader historical context, this
paper critically reviews the arguments of liberal nationalism in the work of Neil
MacCormick, David Miller and Yael Tamir. It concludes by drawing a distinction
between the pragmatic and ethical signi®cance of nationalism. This distinction
neither entails a denial of the role of nationalism nor a defence of liberalism. It
attempts to sever the connection between nationalism and ethics. Nationalism may be
inevitable for the present, but it is not a virtue to be promoted.
In the last decade, there has been a resurgence of interest in the idea of
nationalism within liberal thought. This paper places the interest in liberal
nationalism in a slightly longer time frame, reviews the arguments of some of
the recent enthused renderings of liberal nationalism, and then unpicks them in
critical vein. I conclude by drawing a distinction between the pragmatic and
ethical signi®cance of nationalism. Pragmatically, nationalism is unavoidable in
contemporary world politics. If it is to exist, then it is in®nitely preferable to
have a relatively innocuous form which accords with liberal intuitions. We
should hesitate, however, before accepting its ethical justi®cation. Thus, my
critique of the ethical arguments for liberal nationalism should neither be taken
as a dismissal of nationalism per se nor as a defence of liberalism against
nationalism. The argument rather tries to decouple ethics from nationalism.1
Nationalism in Context
Let us place the debates on liberal nationalism, ®rst, within a broader typology
and, second, in a wider historical setting. There are a number of distinct
typologies of nationalism. They can be premised upon political strategies,
historical phases or ideas. Strategies focus on the particular methods or
tactics used by nationalists. It is thus possible to distinguish `uni®catory' from
`secessionist' strategies, although the ideological complexion of, say, two
secessionist nationalisms might be diametrically opposed. Other theorists have
been attracted by the idea of categorizing historical phases in the growth of
1 I would like to thank all my referees on this article for their liberal and open-minded responses.
# Political Studies Association 1997. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main
Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
276
Liberal Nationalism
nationalism. Nationalism, in this context, can be charted historically in terms of
characteristic features, aliations and modes of operation.2 Thus, one could
argue that whereas early forms of nineteenth century nationalisms were integra-
tive and cosmopolitan, early twentieth century nationalisms were aggressive,
elitist and xenophobic. Typologies premised on ideas are in many ways
much less settled. Such typologies range from twofold to ®vefold classi®-
cations.3 Typologies of ideas classify forms of nationalism in terms of
characteristic values and intellectual themes.4 The focus of this article will be
on this latter form of typology.
Contemporary interest in nationalism, particularly in recent liberal theory,
has its roots in the discovery or rediscovery of civic or liberal nationalism. The
favoured typology here is a twofold `idea-based' classi®cation which distin-
guishes liberal and authoritarian types. Plamenatz was the most important
popularizer of this classi®cation, though his work drew upon Hans Kohn. For
2 One of the more popular theories, which is widely quoted in the recent literature, is by Miroslav
Hroch. He sees three de®nite historical phases. First, nationalism is embodied in nineteenth-century
folklore, custom and the like. This is essentially a cultural idea, fostered by the middle and upper
classes, with little or no political implication. Secondly, nationalism is pursued as a political
campaign. It is usually connected with and fostered by political parties. Finally, nationalism
becomes translated into mass support and mass movements. Each of these phases is linked by
Hroch to economic and cultural changes, see Miroslav Hroch, Social Preconditions of National
Revival in Europe: a Comparative Analysis of the Social Composition of Patriotic Groups among
Smaller European Nations (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1985).
3 Lord Acton in the nineteenth century distinguished between two forms ± French and English,
see Lord Acton, Essays on Freedom and Power (Boston, Beacon, 1948), pp. 183±4. The earliest and
most in¯uential twofold classi®cation was Hans Kohn's Western and Eastern nationalisms, Hans
Kohn, Idea of Nationalism: a Study in its Origins and Background (New York, Macmillan, 1945);
John Plamenatz follows roughly in the same path in `Two Types of Nationalism' in E. Kamenka
(ed.), Nationalism: the Evolution of an Idea (London, Edward Arnold, 1976), pp. 22±36. Friedrich
Meinecke distinguished Staatsnation and Kulturnation, see Meinecke, Cosmopolitanism and the
Nation State (New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1970); see also Kenneth Minogue, National-
ism (London, Batsford, 1969), p. 13; Anthony D. Smith distinguishes `territorial' from `ethnic'
nations in The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford, Blackwell, 1986), pp. 134±8. In many of the
twofold classi®cations there is usually a ®erce desire to keep Western, more liberal-minded
nationalism distinct from the nationalism associated with Fascism and national socialism, see
Kohn, Idea of Nationalism, p. 351; Yael Tamir, Liberal Nationalism (New Jersey, Princeton
University Press, 1993), p. 90; A. D. Smith, Theories of Nationalism (London and New York,
Torchbooks Library, 1971), p. 7 and Nationalism in the Twentieth Century (Canberra, Australian
National University Press, 1979), pp. 83±5. This twofold classi®cation will form the key theme of
this paper. There are threefold typologies in Kellas who distinguishes ethnic, social and ocial
nationalism, Kellas, Politics of Nationalism and Ethnicity (New York, St. Martin's Press, 1991),
p. 52; Peter Alter's Risorgimento, integral and reform nationalisms, Alter, Nationalism (London,
Edward Arnold, 1989). There are fourfold classi®cations, see L. Snyder, The Meaning of
Nationalism (New Brunswick and New Jersey, Rutgers University Press, 1954), ch. 5. Carlton Hayes
uses a ®vefold classi®cation: Jacobin; liberal; traditionalist; economic protectionist; and integral
totalitarian, see Hayes, Essays in Nationalism (New York, Macmillan, 1926) and The Historical
Evolution of Modern Nationalism (New York, Macmillan, 1949).
4 My own favoured typology re¯ects the way in which nationalism crosses over the territory of
other ideologies. The ®rst type is liberal Risorgimento nationalism; secondly, there is a more
traditionalist conservative nationalism ± which might be more generally associated with the
conservative ideological tradition; thirdly, there is integral nationalism, which is the form most
closely associated with Fascism and national socialism. There are also other possible variants like
socialist nationalism and anti-colonial nationalism. Romantic nationalism has strayed across all
these forms. However, in my reading, all of these latter categories either overlap or form sub-aspects
within the major categories above. For expansion on these points see Andrew Vincent, Modern
Political Ideologies, (Oxford, Blackwell, 2nd ed., 1995), ch. 9.
# Political Studies Association, 1997
ANDREW VINCENT
277
Kohn, nationalism largely stemmed from the eighteenth century and was
divided into two diametrically opposed types: Western and Eastern.5 This
distinction keeps reappearing ± in slightly dierent dress ± in contemporary
debate.6 The former, premised on Enlightenment values of reason and
universalist humanism, aimed at a more open, plural, outward-looking society.
It was also linked to democracy, liberalism and constitutional rule and its aim
was to liberate the individual. The latter was more overtly authoritarian, closed,
inward-looking, particularist, pathological, bellicose and xenophobic. Plame-
natz echoed this distinction. He distinguished, like Kohn, between an acceptable
`moderate' Western civic nationalism ± essentially the candidate for liberal
nationalism ± and a more bellicose East European cultural nationalism.7
Nationalism, in itself, should not therefore be equated with illiberalism; as
Plamenatz argued: `No doubt, nationalists have quite often not been liberals,
but that, I suggest, is largely because they have so often been active in conditions
unpropitious to freedom, as the liberal understands it. I see no logical repug-
nance between nationalism and liberalism'.8 By and large, the brutality
or unpleasantness was dependent upon the historical context. In Western
European societies nationalism was more than usually liberal. However,
Plamenatz was clear that this liberal form should be kept distinct from Eastern
cultural nationalism. Eastern nationalism was invariably illiberal in character
and also hostile to Western liberal nationalism. It is...
To continue reading
Request your trial