ABSTRACT
Any discussion of populist nationalism has to consider the wider phenomenon of nationalism itself. While the election of Donald Trump in the United States, the push for Brexit in the United Kingdom, or the rise Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines have specific roots in their respective countries, these political forces manifest characteristics shared by nationalism in general. Thus while it is important to study individual cases of populist nationalism, we should keep in mind these broader features. I will argue that nationalism never really disappeared. Its purported death was a conceit of globalization theorists, cosmopolitans, and those who rejected nationalism as a relic of premodern identity. Enthused by free-trade deals, the Internet, and quick intercontinental travel, these theorists celebrated the dawn of an age without ethnicity. But nationalism was really there under their shoes. Nationalism, I maintain, is part of a dialectic tension between the individual and the general, between the local and the global that has defined societies for centuries. And rather than represent a push into antediluvian darkness, nationalism represents the attempt of people to be modern while holding on to what is important to them – their local identities. The more some promote cosmopolitanism and globalization, the more others will fear that there are losing out not only economically but also culturally. If we wish to comprehend nationalism, we have to understand the reasons for its appearance.
