Nationalism: Divisive or Beneficial

Introduction

Eric Hobsbawm points out that the link between nationalism and liberal economy is not at all contemplated by liberal theories of the nineteenth century which, however consider the nations and their centralized powers as obstacles to the development of a global economy that economists are calling for. Ernest Gellner shows that if an agrarian economy can be satisfied with a society where writing and knowledge are the privilege of a minority, and where the whole society is multiply partitioned, the industrial economy needs a population homogeneity and interchangeability of individuals (a "social entropy "), hence the need for a large share of the writing, knowledge of a common language and egalitarianism (Gellner).

Discussion & Analyses

From the historical point of view, nationalist claims were generated as a result of various technological, cultural, political and economic. Improvements in communication led to an increase cultural contacts beyond their village or province. The extension of vernacular education in disadvantaged groups allowed to see their features and feel members of a common cultural heritage shared with their neighbors, and began to identify with the historical continuity of the community. The introduction of national Constitutions and the struggle for political rights granted to the people the consciousness of its fate as a nation. At the same time, growth of trade and industry paved the way for the formation of larger economic units that traditional cities or provinces.

Many historians agree on the fact that nationalism can be seen as a desire to organize society according to principles in line with the market economy emerging in the sixteenth century. However, they refuse to consider it as a simple mechanical consequence of the economy, showing that its introduction, from one region to another world, was heavily influenced by local political dynamics and social functioning by specific diverse populations ...