ABSTRACT
Studies focused around the concept of nationhood perhaps have a natural tendency towards homogenisation. The point of departure for discussions of social movements and political formations operating under the ‘nation’ rubric has often been some version of Renan’s question, posed as long ago as 1882, ‘what is a nation?’1 The presuppositions involved in such questioning should be only too obvious-what is sought is a substantial entity, a thing which can be described, a sociographic form of being to which the name ‘nation’ can be satisfactorily (even ‘scientifically’) affixed. Influential variations on this theme have been contributed by figures as diverse as Josef Stalin and Ernest Gellner, without ever breaking out of the mould of thinking that has sought ‘nation’ in unifying forces of identity, that is in a shared sameness of historical experience, cultural world and political belonging. Whether emphasis is laid on the sites of language, ‘universal high culture’, or myth and memory; whether the key processes invoked are the shift from agrarian to industrial production, and from ‘mechanical’ to ‘organic’ solidarity, or the persistence of pre-modern ‘ethnie’ and its transformation into the modern ‘nation’, or again, the centralising and integrating power of a strong, state-led political project,2 such identity/sameness, and its function as the basis of a group identification on which legitimate political organisation in the modern world is held to be founded, has been a central focus of scholarly attention, particularly in recent years.
