In this essay, we will dwell on the topic of creation of nation-states. It is a very controversial question because we have no facts or proves why a certain state was created. It is believed that people created their communities in order to survive, to produce themselves, and that was why they need to be shown as people and to be united under one nation-state. This essay will provide the analysis of some of the theories of different scientists.
Before we approach the main issue we should clearly differentiate between the notions such as ethnic group, state, nation, etc. According to Hutchinson and Smith, we can say that ethnic group possesses such qualities as its own name and territory, common cultural features (it can be various traditions, religion, etc.), it should have their own myth about their origin and historical background. Basically, it is very similar to what we call a nation. But ethnicity has its own and really useful role in forming the ideologies of nations. With its help, we can trace back the events that preceded the formation of a certain state or understand under which circumstances it was created.
So, the state is a territorial measurement of the world. The nation could not be differentiated so easy because there is no material object to this one. The definition is close to Anderson's one (is described further), it deals with a psychological image of people as a unity. What is even harder to define is what keep those people together. Here, different aspects take place (religion, history, territory, etc.) (Walker, 1994, p. 92)
For A. D. Smith people view on the nation and state is something usual, something they used to take for granted. In his book 'The Ethnic Origins of Nations' (1986), he dwells on the ideas of schools of modernists. One of them talks about so-called 'core' nation-states such as France, Britain, Holland, and Spain which understand their advantage among the other states. That was why they at that times of their prosperity they were exploiting some smaller state. And now we have the consequences of such a treatment (Scotland and its desire to dissociate themselves from Great Britain).
Also, he talks about primordialists who connect a creation of nation-states to the basic features of an ethnic group (language, religion, territory, etc.) and claim that they were created naturally during the coexistence of people during centuries (Smith, 1986, p. 12).
Ernest Gellner was an adherent of the modernist theory of nation's formation. He believed that nationalism is not a side effect of an already existing nation but a cause of its creation (Gellner, Thought, and Change,169).
The other scientist we would like to stop our attention is M. Billig and his 'Flagging and Homeland Daily' at the beginning of which he emphasizes that those have we who created nations and national identities. In this work Billig pays a lot of attention to the people as independent creators of the countries and nationalities. He supports the idea of Benedict Anderson (1998), that the creation of a nation was a psychological necessity of people which created the feeling of everlasting.
Benedict Anderson stated that all of the nations are 'imagined' because the majority of inhabitants won't ever get to know the other inhabitants (B. Anderson, 1998, p. 49). There are different prospects of this 'imagination':
Limitation - every other nationality has it end no matter how enormously big it is it has to end somewhere.
The nation has its sovereign. This point deals with religion. Long ago, people believed in the whole pack of gods which is not good for centralization but under the one God, it became easier to accomplish the dream of freedom.
Imagined community. All the people of a nation has to be gathered as a unity to stand for each other and to protect each other (B. Anderson, 1998, p.50).
Returning back to Billig theory, we want to mention the political way of his study. He believed that one of the points of the creation of nations was their 'representation'. This political way is a part of nations existence. He distinguished two sides of this 'representation':
the first one deals with people's primary need 'to stand for' something. If there is a community it needs to be protected and to have some representatives to speak for their needs (those are the authorities).
the second side is some kind of coexistence in the created state. Those who are chosen to speak for nation's interest have to be on the good terms with the people.
Taking into the consideration the example of the formation of the German nation, we can say that it was built upon the beliefs of people when it was a need to create a state (different externalities). Actually, they shared a common history, they speak one language but they self-defined themselves and excluded what they believed wasn't right (German Jews). At first, the idea was to create the country with the equality as the main idea but only 'right' people meant to be equal.
In a nutshell, we can say that a creation of states and nations is a doubtful question. There are a lot of views and theories due to this point but there is no direct answer. But, we should take into consideration that such a division has it pros and cons and can be considered from different perspectives.
Bibliography
Anderson, B. (1998). Imagined communities. London: Verso, pp. 48-59
Billig, M. (1995). Banal nationalism. London: Sage, pp. 97-99.
Connor, W. (n.d.). A nation is a nation, is a state, is an ethnic group, is a [S.l.]: [s.n.], pp. 90-113
Smith, A. (1986). The ethnic origins of nations. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 6-18.
