RECENT THEORIESOF NATIONALISMJosep R. LloberaUniversity College LondonWP núm. 164Institut de Ciències Polítiques i SocialsBarcelona 1999The Institut de Ciències Polítiques i Socials (ICPS) was created by the Universitat Autònoma deBarcelona and the Diputació de Barcelona in 1988. The ICPS is attached to the Universitat Autònoma deBarcelona.These "Working Papers" -thought of as subject for discussion- are the result of research work inprogress. Appearance in this series does not preclude further publication. This paper must not be reproducedwithout the author’s licence.© Josep R. LloberaDesign: Toni ViaplanaPrinter: A.bís c/ Leiva, 3, baixos. 08014 BarcelonaISSN: 1133-8962LD: B-13.751-99INTRODUCTIONThis paper has two major objectives: to create a typology of nationalist theories and to describe andassess the contributions of the major authors in this area. Theories of ethnicity have also been included in thesurvey. Generally speaking, only those authors who attempt to be explanatory have been included. The finalsection is largely a summary of my own theoretical approach. Smith (1998) provides the most comprehensivepanorama of the different theories of nationalism to date.I. PRIMORDIALIST AND SOCIOBIOLOGICAL THEORIESAmong the few universalist theories of nationalism one should mention the primordialist and thesociobiological perspectives. Primordialism assumes that group identity is a given. That there exist in allsocieties certain primordial, irrational attachments based on blood, race, language, religion, region, etc. Theyare, in the words of Clifford Geertz (1973), ineffable and yet coercive ties, which are the result of a longprocess of crystalisation. Modern states, particularly, but not exclusively, in the Third World, aresuperimposed on the primordial realities which are the ethnic groups or communities. Primordialists believethat ethnic identity is deeply rooted in the historical experience of human beings to the point of beingpractically a given. Sociobiologists take this perspective a step further and assert the biological character ofethnicity.Primordialist approaches contend that ethnic bonds are ‘natural’, fixed by the basic experiences thathuman beings undergo within their families and other primary groups. Edward Shils was the first to expressthis idea when he remarked that in family attachments there is a significant «relational quality» that can onlybe called primordial. And this is because there is an ineffable significance attributed to the ties of blood (Shils1957: 142).The primordialist position was further elaborated by C. Geertz (1973). Three major ideas followfrom his work:1) Primordial identities are natural or given.2) Primordial identities are innefable, that is, cannot be explained or analysed by referring to socialinteraction, but are coercive.3) Primordial identities deal essentially with sentiments or affections.Another contribution to primordialism that we will examine is that of Harold Isaacs. In his bookIdols of the Tribe (1975) he mentions the existence of a basic group identity which, for each individual, is theresult of being born into a group at a certain historical time. There are a number of elements which contributeto the basic identity of each person:a) The physical body (which includes skin colour, size, type of hair and facial traits).b) The person’s name (an individual name, a family name and a group name).c) The language one learns first to speak and with which one discovers the world.d) The religion one is indoctrinated into.e) The history and origins of the group one is born into.f) One’s nationality, or ethnic affiliation.g) The geography of the place of birth.h) The culture that one inherits.Primordialism has been subjected to extensive criticism. In particular, the three qualities emphasisedby Geertz -apriorism, innefability and afectivity- seem to preclude the possibility of sociological analysis.Furthermore, primordialism is unable to account for the origins, change and dissolution of ethnic groups, notto speak of the more modern processes of fusion of ethnic groups through intermarriage.Many of the problems associated with primordialism disappear if the term is understood in a moreflexible, less biologically-determined, way. Without rejecting the idea of primordial attachments, it is possibleto insist in their malleable character. These bonds are essential to human life, but the individuals of a groupconfer meanings to what they do in a symbolic way. For example, the passion and strong sense of loyalty thata person feels towards a socially constructed entity like an ethnic group or nation is often as powerful as thatfelt for a blood-based group like the family.The sociobiology of man is an evolutionary science which is concerned with the explanation ofhuman behaviour. In particular, human association is investigated by reference to three mechanisms: kinselection, reciprocity and coercion. Kin selection is the tendency to nepotism and it is a possible way bywhich individuals may maximise their reproductive success by indirect as well as direct means; ethnicity isproduced by the extension of kin selection to a wider sphere of individuals who are defined in terms of real orputative common descent. Reciprocity refers to mutually advantageous cooperation tending to augmentreproductive success. Cooperation takes place between kin, but can also be extended beyond this circle. As tocoercion, the term just means an imbalance of power occurring within an ethnic group or between ethnicgroups. At this stage it is important to emphasise that sociobiology does not suggest that ethnicity can beexplained solely in terms of these mechanisms, that is, without linking them with the results of the human andsocial sciences. The fact that some practitioners may have been carried away with excessive generalisations isto be expected, but not condoned, in a new discipline like sociobiology.The first important text which presented ethnicity in a sociobiological framework was Pierre van denBerghe’s The Ethnic Phenomenon (Elsevier, 1981). The book is an attempt to show how human sociality restson the mechanism of biological relatednes which expresses itself in nepotistic behaviour. Van den Berghe isnot saying that kin always cling together; just that holding other factors constant, the likelihood of conflict orcooperation can be predicted by reference to how closely related people are. In the absence of kinship