June, 2015

Word Count: 3000

Anthony D. Smith's
contribution to the study of
Nationalism
Student: Nejra Hodi
Instructor: Matilde Fruncillo
Course: Nation and Nationalism

Contents
1. Background......................................................2
2. Ethnic vs. Civic Nationalism.............................3
3. Ethno-symbolism..............................................5
4. The Diffusion of Nationalism............................7
5. Conclusion........................................................9

REFERENCES..............................................10

1. Background
Anthony D. Smith has often been referred to as the most
authoritative European researcher on nationalism.

He is Professor

Emeritus at London School of Economics and Political Science as well as

Editor-in-Chief of the scholarly journal Nations and Nationalism of
Cambridge University Press (Nationalism Project, 2007). As a student of
Ernest Gellner he was devoted to overcoming the flaws of the
modernist theory of nationalism. Smith wrote numerous books on the
subject including his classic The Ethnic Origins of Nations (ibid). The
differentiation between civic and ethnic nationalism is important basis
for his theories because he starts from the assumption that the key
question in understanding nationalism is the manner in which the past
has shaped the present. What is more, he considers the nation and
national identity to be the characteristics of ancient, medieval and even
antique civilizations (The Ukrainian Week, 2012). Accordingly:
Nationalists have a vital role to play in the construction of
nations, not as culinary artists or social engineers, but as
political archaeologists rediscovering and reinterpreting the
communal past in order to regenerate the community. Their
task is indeed selective - they forget as well as remember
the past - but to succeed in their task they must meet certain
criteria. Their interpretations must be consonant not only with
the ideological demands of nationalism, but also with the
scientific evidence, popular resonance and patterning of
particular ethno-histories (Smith, 1994).
Hence, the underlying reason of existence of nationalism is to construct
nations from a historical perspective that also fits popular beliefs. Smith
argues in most of his works that this history is transformed in a sense of
common identity and shared ancestry (Guibernau, 2004). Historically
inaccurate interpretations are often plausible in this process or more

specifically they are not always academically valid. 1 In addition, Smith

claims that members of a constructed nation may not necessarily be equal
in order to belong to it, but rather intensively feel as belonging to the
respective nation and solidarity to its other members (ibid). Now that the
grounds of Smiths theories have been established, the paper will analyse
his stance upon differentiation between ethnic and civic nationalism, the
theory of ethno-symbolism and ultimately offer a brief overview of Smiths
article named The Diffusion of Nationalism.

2. Ethnic vs. Civic Nationalism

We have one doctrine, but many nationalisms (Nationalism Project,
2007) Smith stated during one of his interviews explaining the different
ideologies that may be fused with nationalism such as anti-colonialism and
liberalism. Nevertheless, this statement may be applied to a particularly
interesting distinction he makes between civic and ethnic nationalism.
Such difference is highly relevant even in modern world where many
conflicts are fought just because one group of people believes to be an
ethnic nation refusing to share civic nationality with the other groups on
the same territory. For example, most of the citizens of Bosnia and
Herzegovina do not feel the Bosnian nationality but express their own
ethnic nations such as Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs that are deeply
entrenched in the political system of the country. Also, the distinction
between Western and Eastern nations is closely related to this debate
where Western are considered to be more civic and Eastern more ethnic
(Schulman, 2002). In general, the focus of civic nationalism is the state
that advocates the belief in a society gathered around the concepts of
territoriality, citizenship, civic rights and legal codes distributed to all
members of the group (Nationalism project, 2007). What is very important
in this notion is that all members of this type of nation are equal citizens
1 For example, the Kosovo battle by Serb nationalism fits perfectly as an example
for manipulation of historical events to gain popular support for a nationalist
ideology that is easily fused with prevailing political regimes. Smith calls this
overly mythologising small, inaccurate parts of their history.

and equal before the law. The common bondage comes from mutual
characteristics not of the genealogical type but of shared language,
experiences, rules, law, food and education. As pointed out, civil
nationalism does not require common paternity but a closeness created
out of exposure to same elements that make up one society. The ideas of
the nation and nationalism in a civic sense arose within already existing
state structures that included relatively homogenous population. Such was
the case with the struggle of Western nations against dynastic rule that
were previously formed but only demanded equality and liberty in the
citizenship outlook (Schulman, 2002). On the other hand, nations in the
East consolidated around the common heritage of a people and the
abstract idea of the volk, instead of around the notion of citizenship (ibid).
This idea of ethnic nations emphasizes the elements of shared blood,
historical experiences, culture, language and religion that are not central
for common understanding of civic nation.
Smith poses an interesting question regarding the commonly-held
distinction

between

these

two

forms

of

nations/nationalisms.

He

investigates whether the community participation in civic nations is

present to an equal extent in those who share not only residence but
ancestry in the particular territory and those who do not (Nationalism
Project, 2007). For example, to obtain a British passport by someone who
is not born in Britain nor is a citizen it is necessary to prove that ones
grandparent is/was a British citizen, which accents the importance of
ancestry. In the birth of ethnic nationalism the mass is a less relevant actor
according to Smith. On the contrary, it is the elites that manipulate the
masses in order to mobilise them. However, the mobilisation must include
the elements of popular demands which are usually demands for progress
because of lack of political or economic instability. In such equation, the
tools used to manipulate the masses such as reference to shared history
and blood compensated for lack of other civic elements. Therefore the
uniqueness of the people is emphasized in a context of in and out group
differentiation. More specifically, the identity of one group (built upon
ethnicity) is formed by knowing what the group is not that is, the others.

According to Smith elite manipulation then serves to crystallise mass

discontent (1986). But such argument proves that it is difficult to make a
clear cut in civic-ethnic dichotomy. Although the civic elements motivate
people to unify, often the ethnic are catalysers. Therefore, Smith claims
that ethnic-civic framework would resemble more to a continuum with two
poles (such as political spectrum) than to a typology or classification
where nations would be settled closer of further away from one pole
(1991). Consequently, the civil and ethnic nations are not mutually
exclusive and it is Smiths point that: Every nationalism contains civic and
ethnic elements in varying degrees and different forms. Sometimes civic
and territorial elements predominate; at other times it is the ethnic and
vernacular components that are emphasized (1998). To dig further in the
doctrine of nationalism he devoted many of his texts to ethnical origins of
the nation and one of the theories he developed is ethno-symbolism.

3. Ethno-symbolism
The ethno-symbolist theory provides an insight into pre-modernist
forms of collective identity rooted in the culture or what Smith refers to as
ethnies (Guibernau, 2004). This theory lies between the modernist approach
of constructed nations and traditional perennial stance. Smith defines
ethnies as named human populations with shared ancestry myths,
histories and cultures, having an association with a specific territory, and a
sense of solidarity (1986). He claims that they are pre-modern origins of
national identities. Collective cultural identity circles around continuity of
ethnies and not their uniformity. This implies that the shared notions of
groups history, culture and ancestry do not necessarily coincide over the
generations to a full extent but they are adapted to each new generation
as to fit their demands (Smith, 1991). Nevertheless, their continued
existence is an obligatory element of a nation. Accordingly: there is a felt
filiation, as well as a cultural affinity, with a remote past in which a
community was formed, a community that despite all the changes it has
undergone, is still in some sense recognized as the same community
(Smith, 1991). Smiths work on the importance of the ethnic origins is
crucial for his percipience of why were particular nations created and why
are nationalisms varying in type although they are formally the same
ideology (Smith, 1998). He therefore explored the role of myths,
memories, beliefs, traditions and symbols, as powerful distinctions of one
communitys uniqueness and national identity. There are a number of
reasons for this. First, Smith asserts that these elements, individually and
in combination, play a crucial part in forming societal beliefs and
structures defining and legitimating the relationship between various
actors and institutions in community (2009). This further reflects on the
cohesion of society in times of instability and norms adaptation. Second,
these elements endue the community with specific symbolic support for
language, religion and customs that continue to separate that community
from other even similar groups. For example, Bosnians, Serbs, Croats and

Montenegrins accent the existence of their distinctive languages although

they differentiate only slightly in most of the linguistic aspects. 2
Nevertheless, these slight differences are sufficient to breed a whole
culture and consequently a different nation. Hence, both in the eyes of ingroup members and the outsiders there is a boundary shaping the
contours of one nation and the feelings of belonging to it as well as
feelings of divisions towards all other communities (Smith, 2009). Finally,
common values, memories, rituals and traditions contribute to upholding
the continuity with the past. Within a nation, there is generally a
widespread acceptance of national symbols such as flag, anthem or
national holiday (ibid). Although these can change overtime in content,
their form and the concept they illustrate remain inherently the same.
The symbolic realm of these values, as Smith calls it, allows the
entrance into the inner world of particular nation. The content of
nationalist ideologies and movements or the distinctive shape of nations is
only visible through the symbols they uphold (2009). Despite the
abstractness of the symbolic realm and the symbols themselves, they
materialize into a social reality by shaping behaviour of the group or in this
case a nation. Ethno-symbolist theory has been accused of leaning too
much towards subjective account of nation origin and existence due to
such factors (too focused on people and feelings/attitudes). However,
Smith explains that primarily it is not clear whether the old opposition of
subjective and objective factors has any explanatory value, given the fact
that many of the traits or elements included in any account partake of
both kinds of dimension and secondly that his theory is simultaneously
subjectivist and objectivist (2009). He concludes:
In

any

case,

ethno-symbolic

approaches

are

always

crossing the (arbitrary) line between them, and the concepts

they employ can be seen as simultaneously objective and
subjective. For ethno-symbolists, it is culture and culture
2 The examples of Balkan countries are not provided by Smith necessarily, but
they do illustrate his point of ethnic origin of nations well.

in relation to politics that is central, not subjective

attitudes or feelings. And by culture is meant far more than
ideas or ideals (Smith, 2009).
Ethno-symbolist theory remains a point of discussion among scholars of
nations and nationalism, but its overall contribution to the field as a fresh
and innovative approach that rejects both perennial and modernist school
of thought, but combines some of their features at the same time, stands
beyond dispute.

4. The Diffusion of Nationalism

Since the ethnic symbols come from past glories and events, one of
Smiths early works includes an article on some historical and sociological
perspectives of nationalism diffusion (1978). He starts by outlining three
common ways in which nationalism is understood. First, the term is used
to describe the genesis of a nation or the process of nation-building that
often correlates with state-building in Western literature (ibid). Second, it
refers to creation of national consciousness and sense of belonging to a
group of people and the common set of beliefs and practices. This
explanation is the mainstream one, favoured by many historians and
sociologists according to Smith.

The third way in which nationalism is

generally understood is as an ideological movement that aims at

establishing autonomy and statehood among populations differentiated by
common territory, culture, solidarity and so on. Nationalism is thereupon
often established as omnipresent and universally diffused
Smith questions this universality by looking into historical and
sociological argumentation behind it. In regards to social movements that
are mobilisers of political change, he claims that sociological theories lack
explanatory power. Diffusion model, on the other hand, where power of
ideas are stimulators of nationalism, is for Smith too secular in the sense

that they often overlook the ethnic element. He continues to separate two
levels of diffusion present in these studies: diffusion of ideas and
ideologies (more historical) and impact of one set of social and political
institutions on the others. Nevertheless, the first one is according to him
tautological and inadequate because it does not answer the question
why the particular idea would be strong enough to overthrow existing
norms. What we require to explainand what invocation of a universal
'need to belong' cannot explainis why men have chosen to transfer their
allegiances, activities and identity definitions from these other, often
competing, units to that of the nation-state; and why they have done so
only recently (Smith, 1978). The second one is rejected on a similar basis
asserting that nationalism cannot be picked up abroad by elites and
disseminated at home as well as an extensive reliance on the statements
of nationalists themselves when explaining the diffusion.
The alternative model of diffusion is offered by him and in order to be
successful it needs to encompass several elements. From the beginning,
the process of diffusing nationalism must be placed in both global and
local context and the role of externalities needs to be examined. Then, one
needs to look for the novelty in this occurrence that does not completely
defy the universal difussionist model but carries some originality of its
own. Smith further identifies modernization, capitalism and bureaucracy as
explanatory processes of such occurrences. Modernization suggests
transformation brought about through Western impact. For example, the
rise of African nationalism has inevitably been influenced by political,
cultural and economic factors coming from externity. Capitalism, on the
contrary, is not a very good alternative because as the example of early
twentieth-century Kazakhs or Arabs demonstrate, their economies were
not based upon the commodity market nor were they employing a large
force of wage-earning labourers, at a time when their nationalism emerged
(ibid). In contrast, bureaucracy seems to be a very plausible explanation
since the 'rational-legal' type of bureaucracy enhances the incorporation
of, and reliance upon, scientific methods and impersonal techniques of
organization through which the rising intelligentsia of societies importing

nationalism from the West sought to elevate their status (ibid).

Smith

concludes that it is possible to show that every case of nationalism, in the

sense of a movement for autonomy and identity of a unit claimed by some
of its members to constitute a 'nation', has been preceded by attempts to
make the relevant ruling bureaucracy more scientific and effective
(1978). Ultimately, he goes back to the ethnic roots of a nation claiming
that it is articulate, self-conscious and essentially historical even in places
where nationalism is a product of artificial territory created by colonial
bureaucracy because it forces the educated to invent the ethnicity.

5. Conclusion
Overall, this paper introduced the main assumptions and grasps of
Anthony D. Smiths theories and contributions to the study of nationalism.
First, the differentiation between ethnic and civic nationalisms was
established to ascertain Smiths position that lies between both of these.
Second, his theory of ethno-symbolism that claims each nation uses
symbols that stem from historical myths and values to create cohesive
sense of national identity. Last, the paper outlined major premises of
Smiths attitude upon diffusion of nationalism across the fields of sociology
and history as well as analysed his argument that only certain external
events may influence nation-formation, but that ethnicity is a crucial
element that must be created if it is non-existed. In the end, Smith is a
much respected author among the scholars of nationalism and his work is
extremely important for understanding the meaning of this concept or
doctrine as he refers to it in the modern world that is still torn by the
conflicts between different national identities.

REFERENCES
Guibernau, M., 2004. Anthony D. Smith on nations and national identity: a
critical
assessment.
Available
at:
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/herbert.preiss/files/Guibernau_Smith_on_
nations_and_national_identity.pdf. Accessed: 30 May 2015.

Nationalism Project, 2007. Anthony D. Smith: Nationalism and the

Reconstruction
of
Nations.
Available
at:
http://www.nationalismproject.org/what/smith1.htm. Accessed: 30 May
2015.

Schulman, S., 2002. Challenging the civic/ethnic and west/east

dichotomies in the study of nationalism. Available at:
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/journalism/stille/Politics%20Fall%
202007/readings%20weeks%206-7/Civic%20and%20Ethnic%20Nations
%20and%20Nation alism.pdf. Accessed: 30 May 2015.

Smith, A. D., 1978. The Diffusion of Nationalism: Some historical and

sociological perspectives. The British Journal of Sociology 29. No. 2: 234248.

Smith, A. D., 1986. The Ethnic Origin of Nations. Oxford: Blackwell.

Smith, A. D., 1991. National Identity. London: Penguin.

Smith, A. D., 1994. Gastronomy or geology? The role of nationalism in the

reconstruction of nations. Nations and Nationalism 1, no. 1: 3-23.

Smith, A. D., 1998. Nationalism and Modernism. London: Routledge.

Smith, A. D., 2009. Ethno-symbolism and Nationalism: A cultural approach.

London: Routledge.

The Ukrainian Week, 2012. Backgrounds of Nations: Anthony D. Smith on

the
Past
and
Present
of
Nationalism.
Available
at:
http://ukrainianweek.com/Politics/57600. Accessed: 30 May 15.