Suchergebnisse

This article is a response to growing recognition that the role of territory has been neglected in recent explorations of nationalism. To improve understanding of how and why territory has been significant to the development of nationalist thought, this article advances two closely related arguments. The first is that the ideology of nationalism is, itself, a product of attempts to merge two very different views about the value of territory and, consequently, two different practices of territoriality. Secondly, I argue that the main lines of division in explanations of nationalism reflect the differential privileging of one view of the significance of territory, and one practice of territoriality, over the other. To substantiate these assertions, the article begins by identifying the latent powers of space and outlining the process of territoriality that allows human beings to harness these powers. This is followed by a discussion of how nationalism – as part of the shift to modernity – contributed to a major transformation in the general significance of territory and territoriality. Drawing on both pre–modern and modern views, the article demonstrates how different understandings of the significance of territory and territoriality help to define the spectrum of nationalist thought that has emerged from the eighteenth–century work of Herder and Rousseau. Through this geographical lens, the article as a whole reveals the profoundly territorial quality of nationalism and thus confirms the view that neither nationalist ideology nor practice can be understood without reference to the spatial powers which it mobilises and creates.

Abstract.This article has three fundamental objectives. The first is to explore ways in which ideas about culture are relevant to nationalism. The second is to identify common 'cultural bases' which are called on to support secessionist and irredentist movements. The third, and perhaps most challenging objective, is to explore the character of these 'cultural bases' as well as the sources of their empowerment. To fulfil these goals the article is divided into five main sections. The first section introduces the argument that while the cultural bases of secessionist and irredentist movements are extremely influential motivators and legitimators of human actions, they are not, in themselves, 'natural' or immutable. This position is elucidated in the second section, where it is argued that the particularintellectual cultureof eighteenth‐century Western Europe gave rise to the concept of nation which, in turn, incorporatedspecific culturesinto its definition of the fundamental units of humanity. This discussion is used as a basis for advancing the argument that the powerful capacity for ideas about culture to stimulate and reinforce secessionist and irredentist movements stems from two main sources, one of whichisessential to human beings (i.e. theprocessof group formation) and one of which is constructedasessential (i.e. the concept of nation). In the fourth section the effectiveness of this combination is briefly illustrated by exploring shifts in the cultural bases which have been used over time to legitimise nationalist movements in Friesland, Quebec and Scotland. The concluding section uses the understanding of how 'cultural bases' are constituted and deployed to evaluate their impact and their 'desirability'. It also suggests ways in which an awareness of the factors and processes associated with the construction and empowerment of culture can open the door to deploying them differently to achieve alternative ends.