What do you think?
Rate this book
Nations Before Nationalism
In search of an explanation of how a sense of ethnic identity evolves to create the concept of nation, Armstrong analyzes Islamic and Christian cultures from antiquity to the nineteenth century. He explores the effects of institutions--the city, imperial polity, bureaucratic imperatives of centralization, and language divisions--on the development of ethnicity. Political science furnishes the focus, anthropology and sociology provide the conceptual framework, and history affords the evidence.
Originally published 1982.
A UNC Press Enduring Edition -- UNC Press Enduring Editions use the latest in digital technology to make available again books from our distinguished backlist that were previously out of print. These editions are published unaltered from the original, and are presented in affordable paperback formats, bringing readers both historical and cultural value.
Originally published 1982.
A UNC Press Enduring Edition -- UNC Press Enduring Editions use the latest in digital technology to make available again books from our distinguished backlist that were previously out of print. These editions are published unaltered from the original, and are presented in affordable paperback formats, bringing readers both historical and cultural value.
447 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1982
5 people are currently reading
171 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
October 2, 2019
'Nations Before Nationalism' is a dense, but important contribution to the study of nationalism. His work attempts to fill in many gaps left by the seminal scholars like Gellner and Anderson. But the work is incredibly dense, largely inaccessible to the average reader - even one versed in nationalist theory - which somewhat obscures its strengths. Furthermore, it suffers from sourcing issues that render it partly outdated, and from often confusing writing.
Armstrong defines nationalism as an ideology that presupposes the 'right of individuals to choose the state to which they belong, that is, to establish territorial political structures corresponding to their consciousness of group identity' (p.4). His analysis, he stresses, examines the millennium preceding the rise of nationalism, in which 'persistent group identity did not ordinarily constitute the overriding legitimization of polity formation' (p.4).
Armstrong, along with Anthony D. Smith, is often categorised as a "primordial" scholar (in contrast to "modernists" like Gellner, Anderson, and Hobsbawm), but as the above quote shows this is far from accurate. In fact, I would argue this greatly misunderstands both Smith and Armstrong's works. Indeed, 'Nations before Nationalism' is not a study of the rise of nationalism like Gellner or Anderson's studies, rather it is an examination on the nature of pre-modern identity. Armstrong accepts the notion that nationalism is a modern phenomenon, but where he and Smith differ from the "modernist" scholars is in their assertion that features/symbols/tropes of modern national identity and consciousness can be traced (not directly reflected) to pre-modern 'ethnies'.
This is not to say pre-modern ethnies are equivalent to modern nations. Building on the work of Fredrik Barth -who posited ethnic identity did not constitute a fixed "character", but were built on various perceptions of its members which distinguished them from other groups (p.4) - Armstrong is quick to point out how these ethnic groups (ethnies) differs significantly from nationalism, not least in the nationalist assumption that "essences" of national character remain permanent, in contrast to the reality of the 'fundamental but shifting significance of boundaries for human identity' (p.4). He continues, 'ethnicity is a bundle of shifting interactions rather than a nuclear component of social organization [...] [O]ne must recognize that the phenomenon of ethnicity is part of a continuum of social collectivities, including, notably, classes and religious bodies' (p.6).
To anyone left in doubt about Armstrong's "modernist" credentials, his cautions of the 'peril, even for students of recent nationalist movements, of assuming that phenomena bearing the same names are truly similar' (p.10) should leave little room for doubt. This point is later expressed in his writing of the German 'stamm', which he criticises modern German nationalists for conflating with the term 'tribe', expounding upon this point by stating, '[e]quation of stamm [...] to "tribe" brings German popular opinion in line with a widespread misconception that "tribes" are well-defined, persistent ethnic identities, usually held together by biological ties. The first step towards understanding the complicated evolution of European ethnic identity after AD 400 is to dispel such notions' (p.28).
Gellner's work particularly leaves us with as many questions as answers, and Armstrong's work goes some of the way towards answering them - most particularly: quite how did pre-modern identity function? Armstrong grounds his answer in historical examples. The bulk of his book is a comparative study of late-medieval Christendom and the Islamic world, in which he identifies various "boundary-markers" present in various elite identities that flourished throughout the late centuries of the second millennium, like those mentioned in the above quote. His overarching assertion is that, in Europe, territorial identity eventually emerged as the predominant form of identity expression; while for most of the Middle East, the 'genealogical or pseudo-genealogical principle has continued to prevail' (p.12).
The work is an essential addition to the study of nationalism, but there are some problems with it. Firstly, its main comparative undertaking is remarkably dense, and rather unnecessarily so. It is written with a large bulk of assumed knowledge, drawing on a vast amount of scholarship from various fields.
Secondly, much of the analysis related to the Islamic world relies on outmoded, orientalist scholarship - often reflected in his choice of Arabic transliterations (eg. Koran, Moslim, Mohammed; not Qur'an, Muslim, Muhammad). Armstrong could be forgiven, writing as he does within just five years of Said's landmark 'Orientalism'. But the lack of reflectivity on this aspect renders the book a little outdated for the contemporary reader. Sometimes this is not a major problem, certainly not for the overall conclusions he draws - but it is somewhat annoying to see, for example, Ibn Khaldun's concept of asabiyyah equated solely with 'blood relationships' (p.45), or the somewhat imprecise (if not sloppy) quotation from a 'sympathetic writer' that '"Politics in Islam is neither a power concept nor power itself, nor a search for an organizing principle for society [...]; rather it is pure nostalgia for the primitive period plus a mobilizing force for defense"' (p.136)... I'm sorry, what..?
In another place, the orientalist influence is clear in his assertion that Islamic doctrine legitimised 'sexual conspicuous consumption' - a claim desperately needing further clarification.
Thirdly, in places the writing is just plainly confusing. While it is clear from the evidence provided that Armstrong's analysis focuses almost exclusively to elite conceptions of identity (that is, on how elites both perceived themselves and created narratives to reinforce their identity), the way the book is written sometimes obscures this fact. Furthermore, his own labels sometimes add to the confusion as to just what does constitute an ethnic identity. To take just one example, when Armstrong writes 'Germans founded thirty-eight towns in north-central Poland during the thirteenth century' (p.116), we are left to assume that by German he means Germanic-speaking groups (given his continued dismissal of persistent ethnic identities). Nonetheless, the absence of such a qualifier is liable to leave the reader with a somewhat confused picture of what exactly he *is* talking about - it might sound to some like he is implicitly referencing a self-described "German" group, when none such existed at the time.
The final problem with Armstrong's analysis is in its implicit functionalism - that the "longue durée" fostered the development of ethnic identities, which were to become the basis of nineteenth/twentieth-century national identities. As with Gellner, missing from this assumption, however, is any mention of the role of elites in appropriating civil society for the purpose of spreading nationalist rhetoric. No consideration is given to the possibility of another historical trajectory.
Overall, the book is important - not least because it led the way in the development of a new branch of nationalist scholarship, examining the impact of pre-modern ethnic identity. But its density, somewhat complex structure, confusing style, and reliance on outmoded scholarship render it a difficult read for contemporary scholars of nationalism. Anthony Smith's work appears a much more accessible introduction to the study of pre-modern ethnic identity.
Armstrong defines nationalism as an ideology that presupposes the 'right of individuals to choose the state to which they belong, that is, to establish territorial political structures corresponding to their consciousness of group identity' (p.4). His analysis, he stresses, examines the millennium preceding the rise of nationalism, in which 'persistent group identity did not ordinarily constitute the overriding legitimization of polity formation' (p.4).
Armstrong, along with Anthony D. Smith, is often categorised as a "primordial" scholar (in contrast to "modernists" like Gellner, Anderson, and Hobsbawm), but as the above quote shows this is far from accurate. In fact, I would argue this greatly misunderstands both Smith and Armstrong's works. Indeed, 'Nations before Nationalism' is not a study of the rise of nationalism like Gellner or Anderson's studies, rather it is an examination on the nature of pre-modern identity. Armstrong accepts the notion that nationalism is a modern phenomenon, but where he and Smith differ from the "modernist" scholars is in their assertion that features/symbols/tropes of modern national identity and consciousness can be traced (not directly reflected) to pre-modern 'ethnies'.
This is not to say pre-modern ethnies are equivalent to modern nations. Building on the work of Fredrik Barth -who posited ethnic identity did not constitute a fixed "character", but were built on various perceptions of its members which distinguished them from other groups (p.4) - Armstrong is quick to point out how these ethnic groups (ethnies) differs significantly from nationalism, not least in the nationalist assumption that "essences" of national character remain permanent, in contrast to the reality of the 'fundamental but shifting significance of boundaries for human identity' (p.4). He continues, 'ethnicity is a bundle of shifting interactions rather than a nuclear component of social organization [...] [O]ne must recognize that the phenomenon of ethnicity is part of a continuum of social collectivities, including, notably, classes and religious bodies' (p.6).
To anyone left in doubt about Armstrong's "modernist" credentials, his cautions of the 'peril, even for students of recent nationalist movements, of assuming that phenomena bearing the same names are truly similar' (p.10) should leave little room for doubt. This point is later expressed in his writing of the German 'stamm', which he criticises modern German nationalists for conflating with the term 'tribe', expounding upon this point by stating, '[e]quation of stamm [...] to "tribe" brings German popular opinion in line with a widespread misconception that "tribes" are well-defined, persistent ethnic identities, usually held together by biological ties. The first step towards understanding the complicated evolution of European ethnic identity after AD 400 is to dispel such notions' (p.28).
Gellner's work particularly leaves us with as many questions as answers, and Armstrong's work goes some of the way towards answering them - most particularly: quite how did pre-modern identity function? Armstrong grounds his answer in historical examples. The bulk of his book is a comparative study of late-medieval Christendom and the Islamic world, in which he identifies various "boundary-markers" present in various elite identities that flourished throughout the late centuries of the second millennium, like those mentioned in the above quote. His overarching assertion is that, in Europe, territorial identity eventually emerged as the predominant form of identity expression; while for most of the Middle East, the 'genealogical or pseudo-genealogical principle has continued to prevail' (p.12).
The work is an essential addition to the study of nationalism, but there are some problems with it. Firstly, its main comparative undertaking is remarkably dense, and rather unnecessarily so. It is written with a large bulk of assumed knowledge, drawing on a vast amount of scholarship from various fields.
Secondly, much of the analysis related to the Islamic world relies on outmoded, orientalist scholarship - often reflected in his choice of Arabic transliterations (eg. Koran, Moslim, Mohammed; not Qur'an, Muslim, Muhammad). Armstrong could be forgiven, writing as he does within just five years of Said's landmark 'Orientalism'. But the lack of reflectivity on this aspect renders the book a little outdated for the contemporary reader. Sometimes this is not a major problem, certainly not for the overall conclusions he draws - but it is somewhat annoying to see, for example, Ibn Khaldun's concept of asabiyyah equated solely with 'blood relationships' (p.45), or the somewhat imprecise (if not sloppy) quotation from a 'sympathetic writer' that '"Politics in Islam is neither a power concept nor power itself, nor a search for an organizing principle for society [...]; rather it is pure nostalgia for the primitive period plus a mobilizing force for defense"' (p.136)... I'm sorry, what..?
In another place, the orientalist influence is clear in his assertion that Islamic doctrine legitimised 'sexual conspicuous consumption' - a claim desperately needing further clarification.
Thirdly, in places the writing is just plainly confusing. While it is clear from the evidence provided that Armstrong's analysis focuses almost exclusively to elite conceptions of identity (that is, on how elites both perceived themselves and created narratives to reinforce their identity), the way the book is written sometimes obscures this fact. Furthermore, his own labels sometimes add to the confusion as to just what does constitute an ethnic identity. To take just one example, when Armstrong writes 'Germans founded thirty-eight towns in north-central Poland during the thirteenth century' (p.116), we are left to assume that by German he means Germanic-speaking groups (given his continued dismissal of persistent ethnic identities). Nonetheless, the absence of such a qualifier is liable to leave the reader with a somewhat confused picture of what exactly he *is* talking about - it might sound to some like he is implicitly referencing a self-described "German" group, when none such existed at the time.
The final problem with Armstrong's analysis is in its implicit functionalism - that the "longue durée" fostered the development of ethnic identities, which were to become the basis of nineteenth/twentieth-century national identities. As with Gellner, missing from this assumption, however, is any mention of the role of elites in appropriating civil society for the purpose of spreading nationalist rhetoric. No consideration is given to the possibility of another historical trajectory.
Overall, the book is important - not least because it led the way in the development of a new branch of nationalist scholarship, examining the impact of pre-modern ethnic identity. But its density, somewhat complex structure, confusing style, and reliance on outmoded scholarship render it a difficult read for contemporary scholars of nationalism. Anthony Smith's work appears a much more accessible introduction to the study of pre-modern ethnic identity.
December 9, 2019
Bu yıl okuduğum en doyurucu kitap diyebilirim.
July 12, 2024
Not an awfully deep book but it captures a good deal of the ethnic forming processes occurring in the Christian and Muslim forms of civilization. Great coverage of language and religion as boundary formation and good type definition as well. For me, the nomad vs sedentary was a bit poor, as were excessive claims tying Muslim society to Roman development. Still great coverage was done, especially within the diverse forms of Christendom, and the book improved as it went on.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews