ABSTRACT

Why has the ‘nation’ and its ‘nationalism’ become so dominant and widespread throughout the world? Put simply, there are four kinds of answer in the literature, and they have given rise to four paradigms or grand narratives of nationalism. The first is usually termed ‘primordialism’. This theory holds that the nation is a primordial category, or one founded upon primordial attachments. These may be genetic, as socio-biologists like Pierre Van den Berghe (1995) insist, or they may be cultural, as Edward Shils (1957) and Clifford Geertz (1973) and their followers prefer. In the former case, ethnic ties and nationalisms are derived from the individual reproductive drives which find their expression in ‘nepotistic’ behaviour in order to maximise their ‘inclusive fitness’. The problem here is how far we can extrapolate from small kin groups to the much larger, and more extended, communities of the ethnie or nation; and how far these communities’ myths of presumed ancestry match actual biological ties of descent. In the latter case, the cultural ‘givens’ of kinship, language, religion, race and territory provide foci for overriding attachments, beyond the calculative nexus, and attest to a deep-seated need for emotional security and life-enhancement. Birth, territory and community are seen as bearers of life, and as such are accorded an awe and loyalty far beyond everyday considerations of interest. The problem here is that by emphasising their primordial character, there is a danger of neglecting the very considerable social and cultural changes to which such attachments are subject, and which so often transform the character of the communities which coalesce around them.2