Everyday Nationalism: Constructivism for the Masses*

Abstract

Objective. We argue that the "everyday nationalism" approach is both useful and necessary for improving existing constructivist approaches in the comparative study of nationalism and ethnic politics. Methods. A meta-analysis of existing studies reveals pervasive conceptual and methodological problems of contemporary constructivist approaches. We consider the implications of replacing individuals or groups with ethnic or nationalist practices as units of analysis. Results. Everyday nationalism promises to address the gap between constructivist theory and the methodological individualism of existing studies. This approach proceeds from ethnographic observation and utilizes methods reliant on observing societal interaction or relational meaning making for verification. We illustrate such a research strategy using examples of nationalist legitimation in authoritarian regimes and the ethnicization of economic development. Conclusion. The everyday nationalism approach promises to overcome the shortcomings in much contemporary constructivist work. The potential for developing qualitative data sets of nationalist or ethnic practices further promises to complement constructivist insights.Over the last 25 years, the comparative study of nationalism and ethnic politics in the social sciences witnessed something of a renaissance. A new generation of scholars advanced research agendas concerning nationalist mobilization (Stroschein, 2012). In decisively breaking with primordial assumptions about ethnicity and nationality as a function of descent, this new literature formed creative linkages with related work on social movements, social and political institutions, social psychology, cognitive science, and international relations. This intellectual ferment found infrastructural support for scholarship in the founding (and revival) of new academic journals, scholarly organizations, degree-granting programs, and inclusion in standard disciplinary curricula. Yet the depth and success of these efforts also cast into sharp relief the gaps, omissions, and opportunities in the field: in brief, the masses remain something of a mystery.That the study of ethnic and nationalist politics would be challenged by the incorporation of mass society into analysis is surprising, given the widespread scholarly acceptance of the constructivist paradigm. In broad terms, constructivists hold that power is both ideational *

Boundaries of belief: religious practices and the construction of ethnic identity in Hui Muslim communities

“…Through daily practices, individuals constantly reproduce, renegotiate, and maintain ethnic boundaries (Billig 1995;Brubaker et al 2006;Fox and Miller-Idriss 2008;Goode and Stroup 2015). Fox and Miller-Idriss propose that through talking, choosing, performing, and consuming the nation in their daily lives, members of the group engage in processes that maintain ethnic boundaries (Fox and Miller-Idriss 2008).…”

Ethnic boundaries and boundary-making in handicrafts: examples from northern Norway, Sweden and Finland

“…Based on our initial understanding that ethnic groups should not be taken as levels of analysis (Goode and Stroup 2015), we did not pre-select people based on ethnicity (Markwick 2001). Instead, we included a variety of people crafting and selling handicrafts in these areas and studied the ways in which ethnicity was talked about in relation to handicrafts.…”

“…Accordingly, "the central projects of ethnicity [are] the construction of boundaries and production of meaning" (Nagel 1994, 153). Discourses and practices thus draw ethnic boundaries, which divide and unify; they continually produce and reproduce a system of meaning -a "symbolic universe" that cannot be underestimated as an actual social force (Nagel 1994, 162;see also: Barth 1969;Goode and Stroup 2015;Wimmer 2013;Wimmer 2014). As noted, in discourses revolving around ethnicities in these areas, the most prevailing divide seems to exist between "Sámi" and "non-Sámi".…”

“…We approach this question by conducting extensive fieldwork and interviews with handicraft crafters/ sellers in these areas (35 interviewees). To clearly address the constitutive practices and discourses of ethnicity in relation to handicrafts, we avoid preselecting people based on their ethnicity or studying any ethnic group per se (Markwick 2001;Goode and Stroup 2015). Rather, we are aware that people with multiple ethnic backgrounds are part of our study, which is based on the ways in which ethnic talk comes into conversations about handicrafts.…”

Does conflict mediation research keep track with cultural theory?

“…Here, many studies do not equally focus on all aspects of essentialism vs. constructivism as a bipolar dimension. Instead, many of them concentrate on the assumption that individuals' essentialist notions impede intercultural understanding and that they may stimulate (culture-motivated) conflicts, instead (No et al 2008;Gregory et al 2010;Schraml 2014;Dervin & Machart 2015;Goode & Stroup 2015). Gregory et al (2010) present a qualitative theory-based enquiry on essentialist vs. constructivist understandings of culture among nursing students.…”