Weaving Iran Into the Tree of Nations

Abstract

Nationalism insists on the uniqueness of each nation. So, too, does the study of nationalism. For example, Ernest Renan, a cheerleader of nationalism, used the imagery of each nation "hold[ing] one note in the concert of humanity." Elie Kedourie, who abhorred the excesses of nationalism, similarly identified its essence as a commitment to "the excellence of diversity." Whether focused on political borders or social solidarity, the concept of the nation necessarily marks insiders with a special status, distinct from all others. 1 At the same time, scholars have long recognized the homogeneity implicit in the global multiplication of nationalisms: each nation is unique, just like all the others. A century ago, Gilbert Murray noted the irony that "in almost every nation in the world from the Americans to the Chinese and the Finns, the same whisper from below the threshold [of consciousness] sounds incessantly in men's ears. 'We are the pick and flower of nations: the only nation that is really generous and brave and just."' In recent years, scholars have begun to emphasize the shared qualities of nationalisms-not just the expression of local claims in "internationally recognizable terms," writes Craig Calhoun, but also the construction of each nation as "a token of a global type. .. equivalent to other nations." This equivalence is situated within a global framework, Michael Billig has argued: "if 'our' nation is to be imagined in all its particularity, it must be imagined as a nation amongst other nations. The consciousness of national identity normally assumes an international context, which itself needs to be imagined every bit as much as does the national community." 2 Studies of globalization, starting from contrary premises, have reached similar conclusions. One of the founding observations of the field was the rise of global cultural homogeneity-"elements of commonality," in the cautious phrase of Wilbert E. Moore, who helped to found this field. 3 Yet a number of recent theories of globalization have come to emphasize the contemporaneous, and seemingly paradoxical, rise of national and other particularistic identities worldwide. The two phenomena are related, these theorists argue, because the insistence on such identities is itself a product of globalization. 4 Despite the considerable theoretical attention devoted to the international isomorphism of particularistic identities, few studies have sought to explore evidence of the global within the national. 5 But it would it be a mistake to conclude from this oversight that the link is inherently implicit. In at least one country, Iran, references to the global