Why Has Interest in Nationalism Grown in the Last 30 Years?

Nationalism contributed to the emergence of strong nation states that bore a closer proximity to the national make up of their populations with the exception of the multi-ethnic empires of Russia, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Turks. It was the crumbling of the latter that destabilised the Balkans with fatal consequences prior to 1914. Nationalism certainly contributed to both the First and Second World Wars, but seemed to decline in importance with the advent of the Cold War and the process of de-colonisation. In fact, certainly in the context of Europe the study of contemporary nationalism was neglected by the mid-1970s. Since then the study of nationalism has grown due to various reasons that are discussed and outlined below. With 1974 as the starting point nationalism seemed to have passed its heyday although the Vietnamese were on the verge of defeating the United States, Irish Republicans and Basque separatists were involved in nationalist struggles.

Traditionally historians rather than political scientists have studied nationalism in greater depth. Perhaps this is because it is easier to study nationalism and nationalist movements with hindsight than explain more recent or contemporary nationalism. Nationalism is not the easiest ideology to define; this is maybe an often-repeated cliché but is for the most part valid. Nationalism can operate and have consequences that pull in differing directions or can be manipulated to do so. This has certainly been the case over the last 30 years, which partially explains the renewed interest in studying nationalism as a political ideology. Nationalism can lead to peaceful, positive and democratically enhancing changes. Examples of this include East Germany’s re-unification with West Germany without the revival of aggressive German nationalism and conversely the peaceful break up of Czechoslovakia.

On the other hand nationalism can be the cause or used as an excuse for aggressive or even evil acts such as the ethnic cleansing witnessed in Bosnia and Rwanda during the last decade or so. Thus nationalism can be a force for good or bad, it can create or it destroy but can only be ignored with peril. Griffin for one categorises nationalism as either liberal or illiberal, although that is simplifying a complicated picture. Nationalism remains distinctive due to its variety; there are certainly more nationalities than there are nation states with each claiming to have a unique identity.

Nationalism is a fluid changing ideology that like other ideologies has evolved at different times and places. It has been viewed in both positive and negative lights. A pertinent question would be has the interest in nationalism emerged in the last 30 years or was it already there? It could be argued that interest in nationalism has re-emerged as opposed to have emerged for the first time. Nationalists within those multi-ethnic states may have been contained or restrained by communism, but that did not stop former communists claiming to be nationalists all along. For instance, Yeltsin and Putin emerged in Russia.