International Relations: Nationalism Author Umut Ozkirimli Makes Term Paper

International Relations: Nationalism

Author Umut Ozkirimli makes an important point at the outset of his book: though nationalism has been around for more than two hundred years, serious scholarly examinations of the "origins and spread" of nationalism did not begin until the First World War, and began to seriously pick up momentum only after WWII. Why this is a fact is up for discussion, but perhaps, a naive reader might surmise, it could be that the fanatical nationalism put into play by Hitler - to brow-beat his nation into believing Aryan "master race" lies and that the mass slaughter of Jews was justified - stimulated a wealth of academic analysis into the field of nationalism. But a quick glance at the book's Index reveals that the name of "Hitler" does not appear in this book, and "Nazism" appears twice. And thus, one's narrow preconceptions of "nationalism" are severely amended through the reading of this very erudite, didactic, "in your face" tome.

What is clear (Chapter 4) is that Ozkirimli understands all the theories of nationalism; that he goes to great lengths to help the reader do the same, and he leaves no stone unturned in sharing his view of others'analysis. After summarizing (pp. 120-121) the approaches to nationalism of Breuilly (nationalism as a form of politics), and Brass (ethnic groups are but political resources "for elites who are engaged in an endless struggle for power and/or economic advantage"), and lastly, Hobsbawm (nationalism as "social engineering" invented by "ruling elites" who were threatened by "the incursion of the masses into politics"), Ozkirimli divides critiques into "general" and "specific" categories. And this is where the book shines: arguing his perspective, and bringing others' views to light, Ozkirimli offers high quality narrative and takes no prisoners. In his sub-head called "These Theories Cannot Explain Why So Many People Are Prepared to Die for Their Nations" (page 123), Ozkirimli addresses precisely the point this reader was thinking throughout all the intellectual twists and turns of theories presented. One can't help but agree with Ozkirimli (while he agrees with Anthony Smith): the failure to explain why so many millions go to their deaths in nationalistic movements "stems from the 'top-down' method..." Of analysis; the concentration "...on elite manipulation of 'the masses' rather than on the dynamics of mass mobilization."

Meanwhile, Anthony Smith's book seeks to separate "nationalism" from "national identity" - the former, mass citizen-nations, "can only emerge in the era of industrialism and democracy," and the latter featuring homeland, "common myths and…