Nationalism chezGellner

Abstract

The central distinguishing feature of Ernest Gellner's most important treatment of nationalism is the proposition that nationalism is necessary for industrial society. Relatively little attention has been paid to the philosophical dimension of this proposition. The question of necessity in social explanation, however, is a complicated philosophical problem and must be dealt with directly if this proposition is to be endorsed. I argue that Gellner's argument is philosophically flawed. The ‘ordinary prose’ of Nations and Nationalism fails to deliver what Gellner claims to have delivered: the demonstration of a necessary connection between nationalism and industrial society. This result is of particular relevance given Gellner's philosophical interests.

Philosophic history and common culture in Gellner's theory of nationalism

“…Two arguments were presented in this piece, namely that Gellner limits nationalism to the experience of the politically dominated and, secondly, that Gellner is not able to make good his claim that nationalism is a principle of political legitimation. The present article considers some further implications of this critical examination of Gellner on nationalism (Meadwell , ), and addresses some issues not yet taken up. I begin, however, with some introductory comments.…”

“…In two recent articles, Gellner's central arguments about nationalism have been evaluated. In one of them (Meadwell ), I have proposed that the central claim of Nations and Nationalism (NN) (Gellner [1983] 2006) is not made good in the course of Gellner's argument. This claim is the proposition that nationalism is necessary for industrial society.…”

“…I have argued (Meadwell : 576 ff.) that Gellner is preoccupied with this necessary connection between nationalism and industrial society in the first part of NN, such that it is the leading edge of his argument.…”

“…Leaving aside the question of the objectivity of such a viewpoint, or the objectivity of practical necessity (cf. Meadwell : 575), this is not yet the argument of NN where nationalism is necessary for industrial society. By the time he wrote NN, Gellner had upped the intellectual ante considerably.…”

“…These earlier instances where a weak form of necessity was invoked, and the argument in NN, prompted Smith to argue that, for Gellner, nationalism was a sociological necessity in the modern world (Smith : 129). Meadwell () can be read as an analysis of some of the different meanings that necessity should be given, methodologically and philosophically, an analysis that no discussion of Gellner had provided. Minogue (: 124) acutely observed that, in NN, the ‘rhetoric of necessity is in overdrive’.…”