Miroslav Hroch

We like to simplify, boil down, find the single reason for something. Miroslav Hroch shows us that is not the way of the world, at least not of Europe. In particular, nationalism was not the powder keg that blew Europe into numerous countries. Nationalism could be either a contributor or a result of statehood, with large effect or none at all. Hroch is an anti-reductionist. He delves into every conceivable aspect of nation building, from the invention of historical myths to national holidays and monuments, and demonstrates the effects with examples from numerous countries and communities at his fingertips. Some became independent states; many did not.

European Nations is part three of an inadvertent trilogy: one volume every 15 years. The first part came out in 1985; the second in 2000. This one is a tightly focused view from 50,000 feet up. The main point he returns to repeatedly is that any one factor is less impactful than we think. So, language is an obvious unifier and divider, but less than we assume. Modernization, the growth of government services and the consequent need for better educated workers, also contributes less than we assume. He even questions (with evidence) the prerequisite of literacy for nation building. Histories and myths were pulled together to unify the populace. The Church was the main means of transmission. But it was different in every case, as were the results.

There was a big change between proudly marching for your country and for your ruler. The idea of being country proud is not ancient; it is very recent. Your homeland tended to be your community within the realm, not the whole kingdom. As politics and social movements evolved, defenders of local homelands were reinvented as national heroic strugglers and nation builders. Failure was no barrier to national hero status. This sort of insight changes our perspective on probably most of the countries of Europe. Even Marx was too simplistic in his analysis by Hroch’s standards. Class struggle might have been a factor of greater or lesser import in some countries, but hardly all.

There is an entire chapter on definitions used by Hroch and his counterparts, whom he credits freely and criticizes as needed. The nuances of nationalism, national identity, national movement, nation, state-nation and nation-state give you idea of how granular this field has become.

There was nothing predestined or predictable about the outcome: whether an ethnic group became a country, if monarchies could merge into a country, how big or small a country would be. They were making it up as they went along. It was a bubbling cauldron of activity, and predicting where the next bubble would pop was foolish. Even hindsight is not obvious; it needs the reading of this book.

David Wineberg… (plus d'informations)