Nationalism and Social Theory: Modernity and the Recalcitrance of the Nation
Publication Year: 2002
Why has nationalism proved so durable? What are the roots of its appeal? This sharp and accessible book slices through the myths surrounding nationalism and provides an important new perspective on this perennial subject. The book argues that: nationalism is persistent, not merely because of its specific ideological appeal, but because it expresses some of the major conflicts in modernity; nationalism reflects and reinforces four key trends in western social development: state formation, democratization, capitalism and the rationalization of culture; the forms of nationalism can be organized into a comprehensive typology which is outlined in the course of this study; post-nationalism and cosmopolitanism are significant innovations in the debate about nation-states and nationalism; and that the new radical nationalisms have become powerful new movements in ...
- Front Matter
- Back Matter
- Subject Index
- Chapter 1: Modernity, Nationalism and Social Theory: A General Outline
- Chapter 2: Modernity and Nationalism: Transformation and Integration
- Chapter 3: Nationalism and Structure
- Chapter 4: Nationalism and Culture
- Chapter 5: Nationalism, Agency and Social Change
- Chapter 6: Towards a Typology of Forms of Nationalism
- Chapter 7: The New Radical Nationalisms: Globalization, Xenophobia and Cultural Violence
- Chapter 8: Debating the Limits of Nationalism: Possibilities for Postnationalism
BSA: New Horizons in Sociology[Page ii]
The British Sociological Association is publishing a series of books to review the state of the discipline at the beginning of the millennium. New Horizons in Sociology also seeks to locate the contribution of British scholarship to the wider development of sociology. Sociology is taught in all the major institutions of higher education in the United Kingdom as well as throughout North America and the Europe of the former western bloc. Sociology is now establishing itself in the former eastern bloc. But it was only in the second half of the twentieth century that sociology moved from the fringes of UK academic life into the mainstream. British sociology has also provided a home for movements that have renewed and challenged the discipline; the revival of academic Marxism, the renaissance in feminist theory, the rise of cultural studies, for example. Some of these developments have become sub-disciplines whilst yet others have challenged the very basis of the sociological enterprise. Each has left their mark. Now therefore is a good time both to take stock and to scan the horizon, looking back and looking forward.
© Gerard Delanty and Patrick O'Mahony 2002
First published 2002
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without permission in writing from the Publishers.
SAGE Publications Ltd 6
London EC2A 4PU
SAGE Publications Inc
2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, California 91320
SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd
32, M-Block Market
Greater Kailash – I
New Delhi 110 048
British Library Cataloguing in Publication data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 0 7619 5450 3
0 7619 5451 1
Library of Congress control number available
Typeset by SIVA Math Setters, Chennai, India
Printed in Great Britain by The Cromwell Press Ltd, Trowbridge, Wiltshire
Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrelsSamuel Johnson 
A nation is a group of persons united by a common error about their ancestry and a common dislike of their neighboursKarl Deutsch [Page vi]
It has often been repeated in recent scholarship that the study of nationalism had been neglected in the social sciences until the last 20 years or so. This viewpoint is coupled with the contention that the social sciences as theoretically oriented and practically applied to that point in time were not really equipped for the task of analysing nationalism. Perhaps, even more fundamentally, given their focus on other dimensions of social life assumed to have greater centrality to the study of social order, such as the differentiation of institutions or the interplay of social classes, it began to look in the eyes of many critics that the social sciences were not even equipped to notice such phenomena.
On the surface, this does indeed seem an extraordinary state of affairs. It could hardly be denied that the other objects of theory and research that social and political theorists did consider after World War Two were profoundly influenced by their embedding in national institutional orders and that these very orders themselves were susceptible to immense turbulence affecting every aspect of social life. A mere glance backwards at what were then very recent events, when the world was destroyed and reshaped by nationalism would have seemed to offer incontrovertible evidence of its centrality to social and political life.
Even though the circumstances of the First World War did make Emile Durkheim and Max Weber adopt patriotic stances on particular issues, they never incorporated nationalism into their respective theories of modernity. In the case of Weber, his concern with disenchantment as the central logic in European modernity led him to give only limited attention to forms of enchantment, like nationalism, that modernity itself creates. Aside from charisma there is little enchantment in the modern rationalization of life conduct. Durkheim, who was attentive to the powerful role of collective representations in modern society, did not address nationalism, believing that a civic morality based on citizenship would eventually become the dominant form of solidarity in modernity. He believed that the cosmopolitanism of Europe would override any narrow forms of collective identity, and that something like a European identity would emerge. To an extent, Parsons gave greater recognition to nationalism in the making of modernity. However, given the presuppositions of structural functionalism, he failed to recognize the tendency of nationalism to cause disintegration, seeing it as largely integrative and subordinate to what he called the [Page x]‘societal community’. It remained a fundamental assumption of Parsonian structural functionalism that societal differentiation was held in check by integrative structures, such as culture. That culture might be anarchic rather than a force of stability was rarely questioned in modern social and political thought from Matthew Arnold through Durkheim and Weber to Parsons.
It would take a full length study in itself to understand how it was that social and political theory did not take its departure pessimistically from the twentieth-century experience of war but instead proceeded optimistically, at least in the mainstream version of modernization theory, from the apparent stability of the post-war order.1 Without doubt this owed much to the fact that while the world wars of the twentieth century had been traumatic for all participants, and convulsed the entire world, there were, in the end, victors and losers. Not simply were there victors and losers but unprecedented moral blame could be attached to the losers for their actions of genocide. The victors, as theorized by modernization theory, saw the results of war as the triumph of their tolerant liberal and democratic civilization. This civilization was also organized into nations but these nations stood for greater civilizational values than those of nationality itself. The nation form could be seen as contingent, the values that some nations carried as enduring and fated to succeed on a global stage. The assumption, thus, was that nationalism was subordinated to the universalistic normative order of western civilization.
This standpoint was clearly reflected in the research programmes that came to prominence in the post-war United States, which in this period took over a certain leadership in social and political theory. These research programmes, whether in the form of research on political culture, research on media effects or in the progressive contribution of institutional differentiation, embodied a profound confidence in the values and social practices present in the civil society of the United States and other English-speaking countries. In the tradition of political culture research, for example, the values found to be present in the ‘civic cultures’ of the United States and other English-speaking countries were considered to account for the survival of democracy in those countries, in contrast to the findings from those countries in which liberal democracy had either failed or had not yet been instituted. In pivotal aspects of the social transitions created by the dislocations of war, structural disadvantage and revolution, the prescriptions of this optimistic reading of the cultural achievements of civil society and the structural differentiation which it supported could be applied. Examples include the post-war transitions to democracy in Germany, Italy and Japan, the modernization of the underdeveloped world and, most recently, the ‘catching-up’ processes unleashed by the fall of communism in Central and Eastern Europe.
[Page xi]In seeking to understand these developments, it may well be important that the theoretical frameworks and research programmes of this period ‘solved’ certain problem complexes of the social sciences in ways that were consistent with the professional aspiration of social scientists in the United States and, increasingly, in Europe. These frameworks and programmes were built, firstly, on the separation of the enduring organizational principles of a civilized society from the contingency of historical dynamics. The social sciences were concerned with the results of historical processes that could be teleologically reconstructed to tell the dominant western narrative of institutional differentiation, and the corresponding intermeshing of cultures and roles, within the framework of democratic regulation by the people. The social sciences could proceed to refine this standard, which was viewed as the historically confirmed outcome of modernization processes.
They were built, second, on the idea that the social sciences were not acting normatively, in the sense of partisans in arguments, but only normatively in the sense of demonstrating the ‘functional’ necessity of what had to be the case if all societies were to become both modern and democratic. Although this was a very strong normative – almost ideological – programme indeed, as its critics never ceased to point out, modernization theory could still convince itself that such a normative stance was not inconsistent with the aspiration to value neutrality by the social sciences. It could do this ultimately by recourse to an evolutionary account of modernization as the single correct way to get the desired result of a civilized society. The legitimacy of the modernization account of structural-functional theory was not attributed by its theorists to a normatively held conviction about the good life; it claimed to rest rather on the capacity to identify evolutionary trends and to explore their ramifications for social systems. Such a functionally cloaked normative stance attributed a role to culture as the binding glue of institutional stability rather than the contradictory, dynamic and malleable medium of conceptualizing change. This had the effect of inhibiting the exploration of cultural dynamics. Frameworks such as Parsons's pattern variables, documenting the transition from traditional to modern society, or Merton's fourfold account of the culture of modern science, appear as extremely strong idealizations that document a normatively desirable state of affairs rather than provide an account of actual practices. Even though such frameworks did contain substantial truth and orienting value, they normatively pre-decided issues that remained empirically open.
Finally, the frameworks and programmes of modernization theory that had diminished the significance of historical process, and normatively short-circuited culture, almost inevitably also diminished the potential of agency as a transforming or creative capacity. In functionalist theory, agency is on the whole reduced to the fulfillment of roles [Page xii]within a formal-rational institutional order. The institutional theoretic accomplishment of functionalism was used to delineate an almost stationary state theory of social order in which certain populations carry just those values and competencies required to maintain a complex and highly adapted institutional system that in turn incorporates just those preferences such a population would require. The assumptions about the stability of such a society render the question of action within systems of far greater relevance than actions that are intentionally or unintentionally oriented to changing them.
The chief academic rival of structural-functionalism from the late 1960s through to the early 1980s was a revitalized Marxism. In certain respects, the manifold theoretical currents of this academic movement did pose questions that lay beyond the framework of its rival. Its conception of class domination arising from control of the dominant form of structural differentiation, the division of labour, emphasized how the projects of collective actors mattered historically. The reciprocal concept of proletarian praxis also emphasized how system-transforming collective agency was possible and even explored how it worked or should work. Through its exploration of the relationship between ideology and social power, Marxism viewed norm building as a process of generalized deception and explored resistance to such assumed deception. In its theorization of historical change, the theory of the succession of modes of production, Marxism explored the dynamics of historical change, an exploration that could not assume some putative state of the ‘end of history’ since further transformation was required to reach the desired end state of a just, socialist order.
However much such Marxist theorizing normatively disagreed with the system-confirming assumptions of structural-functionalism, it shared with the latter theory tradition a set of assumptions that were highly restricting. Although it accorded more attention to the reciprocal dynamics of history and evolution, its account of historical processes could ultimately be led back to a theory of structural adaptation through the mode of production. Individual and collective agency were correspondingly subsumed within the functional roles required by this motor of historical development. The functional rendering of the categories of collective action – bourgeois elites and their proletarian opponents were alike derived from their position in the mode of production – did not lead, despite the dialectical ontology of Marxism, to an account of agency as a creative process.
The western Marxist tradition inherited the assumption of the ‘withering away of the state’, and this undertheorization of the state inevitably led to a neglect of national identity as well as of nationalism as a movement. For Marx, nationalism was the natural ally of socialism.2 The events of the first half of the twentieth century were to show [Page xiii]that nationalism was by no means a secondary force. The national question often overshadowed the social question, the rights of the nation, social rights and historical justice, and social justice. Although figures such as Lukacs and the Frankfurt School writers responded to the reification of class consciousness by national consciousness with a cultural critique of ideology, a theory of nationalism was not the result. Instead the focus for critical theory shifted to the study of political authoritarianism and fascism. With the emergence of new social movements in the 1970s and the subsequent redirection of critical theory by Habermas in this period, nationalism did not receive much attention.
The result of all this was that nationalism tended to be a marginal part of mainstream sociological theory and political science.3 As we have noted, Marxist sociology proved unable to offer a convincing account, and within mainstream sociology there were few signs of the recognition of nationalism as a potent force. In this, Raymond Aron, writing in 1968, was an exception: ‘During the final third of the 20th century, ethnic conflicts over social, political, or racial dominance – in turn or simultaneously – appear to be more likely than the continuation of the class struggle in the Marxist sense’ (Aron, 1968, p. 46). It is true, of course, that a significant body of literature in social and political science was written on nationalism by such authors as Ernst Gellner, Eugene Kamenka, Hans Kohn, Kenneth Minogue, Elie Kedourie, George Mosse, Hugh Seton-Watson and Anthony Smith, but nationalism was never central to the conception of modernity in social and political theory.4 As is best reflected in the seminal work of Ernst Gellner, the theory of nationalism was, at most, part of a broader theory of liberal modernity, but one that did not call into question some of the central assumptions of modernization theory that made nationalism appear derivative.
Thus when nationalism became a major international issue in the wake of the fall of communism from 1989 onwards, the dominant theoretical approaches were redundant. In any case, a whole range of new theoretical movements had arisen in the course of the 1980s, ranging from postmodernism, to globalization theory, new social movement theory, rational choice, systems theory, constructivism, postcolonialism and feminism. The result of these theoretical innovations – which were broadly products of a new cultural and historical turn in the social sciences – was a revitalization of social theory, which was not dominated by a narrow sociological theory but embraced wider theoretical developments in the social sciences, history and philosophy. It is in this tradition of the social theory of modernity that this book is written. However, it was apparent that most of the major social theories of the 1980s and 1990s did not fully address nationalism. Despite the salience of the topic, very few of the major works on modernity have given much [Page xiv]attention to it, despite the relatively large literature on the subject. This may be in part explained by the fact that in classical social theory, nationalism was of secondary importance. Another explanation is that much of recent social and political theory has been heavily influenced by new social movement theory and does not address other anti-systemic movements. Nationalist movements have not been central to new social movement theory, which has mostly focused on the ‘new’ movements in western societies, such as the peace movements, civil society movements, the environmental and feminist movement. Nationalism, if it figured at all, tended to be regarded as a residue of the old regional nationalism.5
As we argue in Chapter 1, neither classical nor modern social theory paid a great deal of attention to the role of violence in modernity. Aside from the theory of fascism in the early Frankfurt School, most of the major social theorists saw modernity in terms of the progressive institutionalization of modern structures of consciousness. Even though Parsons gave attention to German fascism and was actively involved in trying to get the United States into the war, it was never central to his sociological edifice. Of course, the violence of World War Two figured in the work of such figures as C.W. Mills and Alvin Gouldner, but never became central to post-war sociological theory which moved to different concerns. Habermas's theory of modernity in his major work, published in 1981, Theory of Communicative Action, while making some interesting suggestions about the formation of nationalism as a ‘second generation ideology’ of bourgeois society, clearly saw nationalism as subordinate and irrelevant to the new cosmopolitanism of such movements as feminism and the environmental movement (Habermas, 1987a, pp. 353–4). A theory of nationalism did not fit easily into a view of rosy modernity as a progressive unfolding of communicative rationalities. The central conflict in modernity was on the whole seen as one between instrumentalism and the defence of the life-world conducted by modern social movements. Nationalism thus did not figure in this construction of modernity, which tended not to question the nation-state as the geopolitical reference for the project of modernity.6 It is of course clear that Habermas has modified his neglect of nationalism in recent works, such as the Postnational Constellation and the essays from the late 1980s on the historians’ debate in Germany (Habermas, 1989c, 1994, 2001).
Anthony Giddens's writing on the nation-state and violence should also be mentioned in this context in an attempt to re-orientate sociology away from an exclusive concern with class power towards a focus on such issues as violence, militarism and surveillance in modernity (Giddens, 1985). However, Giddens's concern was more with the nation-state than with nationalism as such and cultural conceptions of nationhood did not figure. Nationalism in the more destructive sense of authoritarian [Page xv]communitarianism has also become more central to the later work of Alain Touraine (Touraine, 1995). It is the merit of S.N. Eisenstadt and Johann Arnason that they have attempted to redirect the study of nationalism as part of a wider and globally oriented conception of modernity (Arnason, 1990; Eisenstadt, 1999b).7
The analysis offered in this book follows Arnason and Eisenstadt's lead in theorizing nationalism as central to modernity, and not as an aberrant, inexplicable force. In many ways nationalism expressed some of the most powerful forces within the modern project, in particular it was an expression of the preoccupation with radical freedom in modernity. This received its most powerful expression in the Jacobin idea that modernity can endlessly transform itself through the actions of political elites, but it was also present in the republican vision of the self-determination of civil society. In one way or another these concepts of politics shaped the political project of modern nationalism in all its faces, liberal, romanticist and authoritarian. But the triumph of nationalism was ultimately not secured by the force of radical freedom and the triumph of the political, but by the ability of nationalism to combine the political and the cultural project of modernity in everyday life. Nationalism was the most successful major political discourse in modernity in this regard. Liberalism and other political ideologies – with the exception of communism – never set out to change the nature of everyday life. No modern political ideology has succeeded, to the extent nationalism has, in bringing the projects of political elites into everyday life, an expression of the intimate relationship between the appeal of nationalist ideology and the legitimation of political power in modernity.
Although nationalism has played a major role in modernity and has to be counted as one of the dominant forms of realizing collective identity, the idea of national identity is sometimes overextended. The identity marker of nationality is used to distinguish who should enjoy the privileges and responsibilities of belonging to a particular state. But the existential centrality of nationality in this fundamental sense does not mean, as is often suggested, that nationality is automatically the overarching identity of civil society. In this book we do not see national identity as the fundamental collective identity of modern society and therefore we disagree with the positions of writers on nationalism, such as Liah Greenfeld (1992) and Anthony Smith (1995). Neither do we see nationalism as a coherent ideology that has persisted because of its persuasive appeal. Nationalism is rather to be conceived as a semantic space, that expresses through manifold discourses the many kinds of projects, identities, interests and ideologies that make it up.8 In fact the history of nationalism can be viewed as one of the constant recombination of ever-shifting modalities of thinking and feeling about society. What has made it a recalcitrant force in modernity is the persistence of certain key problems. The most enduring of these are those of [Page xvi]conflicting expressions of nationhood and statehood. On the one side, the idea of the nation gave expression to the ideas of self-determination and of radical freedom while, on the other side, of the institutional reality of statehood frequently conflicted with the mobilizing thrust of nationhood. The first of these might be conceptualized in terms of Cornelius Castoriadis's notion of the ‘radical imaginary’ and the second in terms of the ‘institutional imaginary’, as outlined in his famous book, The Imaginary Institution of Society (Castoriadis, 1987). Nationhood gave expression to the open and radical idea of a society based on radical self-determination, while the institutional reality of the modern nation-state fostered a ‘conservative’ identification with the status quo. As a quintessentially modern form of dual collective identity based on radical and institutionalized imaginaries, we can thus see nationalism as having continued mobilizing appeal in the expression of nationhood as it also has institutional significance for statehood. This is an expression, continuing to the present day, of the most fundamental tension in modernity: the tension between the mobilizing power of collective agency and the quest for freedom and autonomy on the one side and, on the other, the institutional structures that modernity has created in which radical agency is tamed, although in the case of the recalcitrant phenomenon of nationalism, never entirely.
There are four aims in this book. Our most general aim is to situate nationalism in the context of the social transformations of modernity. Our second aim is to address nationalism from a comparative perspective. To achieve this the theorization of modernity must be capable of taking account of multiple modernities. Our third aim is to offer a critical synthesis of the existing literature on nationalism. The fourth aim is to relate nationalism to recent debates about cosmopolitanism. In this context, we ask the question whether nations without nationalism are possible. In Chapter 1 the basic ideas of a working social social theory of modernity are presented. The argument is that modernity can be best understood in terms of four dynamics, which we term: state formation, democratization, capitalism and the rationalization of culture. In Chapter 2, beginning from the logic of differentiation and integration contained in these four dynamics, we present nationalism as a form of dual collective identity, mobilizing and institutional. In the following three Chapters (3, 4 and 5), drawing from key texts on nationalism, structural, interpretive and mobilization theory, traditions and research are examined. In this exercise, the recalcitrance of nationalism as both a mobilizing and institutional force will be situated in the wider context of other movements and forces in modernity. In Chapter 6, a typology of nationalism is developed that leads into an account of the dominant eras of nationalism over the last two centuries. Chapter 7 deals with the rise of the new radical nationalisms, ranging from the new radical right in Western Europe and radical ethnic nationalisms in the former communist countries, to [Page xvii]radical religious nationalism in Asia. Chapter 8 looks at the limits and possibilities of cosmopolitanism as a viable alternative. In this context the question of nations without nationalism is discussed.Notes
1 The recent work of Hans Joas marks a move in this direction (see Joas, 2000). See the special issue of the European Journal of Social Theory on war and social theory (Delanty et al., 2001).
2 For a critical account of nationalism Marxism and classical sociology, see James (1996).
3 The rise of postcolonial theory, which to an extent put nationalism back on the agenda, tended to confine the discussion of nationalism to cultural studies, having only a marginal impact on social science.
4 An interesting exception is Tiryakian and Nevitte (1985).
5 See, for an example, Johnston (1994) who takes this view, but Melucci and Diani (1983) for whom new social movement theory is applied to the new regionalist nationalism. In the work of Manuel Castells (1997), nationalism has become much more emphasized (see Chapter 8).
6 In recent times there is more questioning of nationally specific disciplinary traditions (Delanty, 2001a); Levine, 1996).
7 See also Chapter 5 of Poole (1995).
8 See Wodak et al. (1999) for a similar conception of nationalism as discursively constructed.[Page xviii]
References[Page 188]1907) ‘Nationality’, in J. N.Figgis (ed.) The History of Freedom and Other Essays, London: Macmillan.(1995) ‘“Ethnic cleansing”: a metaphor for our time’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 18 (1): 1–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01419870.1995.9993851(1982) ‘Differentiation theory: problems and prospects’, in J.Alexander and P.Colomy (eds) Differentiation Theory and Social Change, New York: Columbia University Press.(1992) ‘Durkheim's problem and differentiation theory today’, in H.Haferkamp and N.Smelser (eds) Social Change and Modernity, Berkeley: University of California Press.(1995) Fin de Siècle Social Theory, London: Verso.(1995) State and Society in Western Europe, Cambridge: Polity.(1989) Nationalism, London: Edward Arnold.(1983) Imaginary Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London: Verso.(Anthias, F. and N.Yuval-Davis (eds) (1989) Woman-Nation-State, London: Macmillan.2000) ‘Globalisation and the need for a universalistic ethic’, European Journal of Social Theory, 3 (2): 137–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/13684310022224732(1993) ‘Patriotism and its futures’, Public Culture, 5 (3): 411–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/08992363-5-3-411(Archibugi, D. and Held, D. (eds) (1995) Cosmopolitan Democracy, Cambridge: Polity.Archibugi, D., Held, D. and Kogler, M. (eds) (1998) Re-Imagining Political Community: Studies in Cosmopolitan Democracy, Cambridge: Polity.1969) On Violence, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.(1982) Nations Before Nationalism, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.(1990) ‘Nationalism, globalization and modernity’, in M.Featherstone (ed.) Global Culture, London: Sage.(1993) The Future that Failed: Origins and Destinies of the Soviet Model, London: Routledge.(1997) Social Theory and Japanese Experience: The Dual Civilization, London: Kegan Paul International.(1968) Progress and Disillusion: The Dialectics of Modern Society, London: Pall Mall.(1989) Antisystemic Movements, London: Verso., and (1981) Sociology of the State, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.and (1996) Jihad vs. McWorld, New York: Ballantine Press.(1994) ‘The state and the nation: changing norms and the rules of sovereignty in international relations,’International Organization, 48 (1): 107–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300000837and (1969) Ethnic Groups and Boundaries, Boston: Little Brown.(1964) ‘The painter of modern life’, in The Painter of Modern Life and Other Essays, London: Phaidon.([Page 189]1987) Legislators and Interpreters: On Modernity, Postmodernity and Intellectuals, Cambridge: Polity.(1989) Modernity and the Holocaust, Cambridge: Polity.(1992) ‘Soil, blood and identity’, Sociological Review, 40: 675–701. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1992.tb00407.x(1994) Ecological Enlightenment: Essays on the Politics of Risk, New York: Humanities Press.(2000) What is Globalization?, Cambridge: Polity.(1996) ‘How nationalisms spread: Eastern Europe adrift the tides and cycles of nationalist contention’, Social Research, 63 (1): 97–147.(1998) ‘Nationalisms that bark and nationalisms that bite: Ernest Gellner and the substantiation of nations’, in J.Hall (ed.) The State of the Nation: Ernest Gellner and the Theory of Nationalism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1999) ‘Social and cosmopolitan liberalism’, International Affairs, 75 (3): 515–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.00091(1982) All That is Solid Melts into Air, New York: Simon & Schuster.(2001) Making Patriots, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1964) Nation-Building and Citizenship, New York: John Wiley.(1978) ‘Critique of violence’, Reflections: Essays, Aphorisms, Autobiographical Writings, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.(2000) ‘From elite to mass education – what is next?’, in C.Lindqvist and L.-L.Wallenius (eds) Globalization and its Impact: On Chinese and Swedish Society, Stockholm: Forskningradsnämnden.(1994) Radical Right-Wing Populism in Western Europe, London: Macmillan.(1990) Nation and Narration, London: Routledge.(1995) Banal Nationalism, London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446221648(1964) Feudal Society, vol. 2, Chicago: Chicago University Press.(1998) ‘The narcissism of minor differences’, European Journal of Social Theory, 1 (1): 33–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/136843198001001004(Bohman, J. and Lutz-Bachmann, M. (eds) (1997) Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant's Cosmopolitan Ideal, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1990) The Logic of Practice, Cambridge: Polity.(1977) Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture, London: Sage.and (1992) ‘National movements in Europe and social movement theory’. Paper delivered to the first European Conference on Social Movements, East European Movements and Social Movement Theory, Berlin.(1977) ‘A reply to Francis Robinson’, Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 15 (3): 230–4.(1979) ‘Elite groups, symbol manipulation and ethnic identity among the Muslims of South-East Asia’, in D.Taylor and M.Yapp (eds) Political Identity in South Asia, London: Curzon.(Brass, P. R. (ed.) (1985) Ethnic Groups and the State, London: Croom Held.1991) Ethnicity and Nationalism: Theory and Comparison, New Delhi: Sage.(1997) At Home in the World: Cosmopolitanism Now, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(2001) ‘Cosmopolitanism and internationalism’, New Left Review, 7, Jan/Feb: 75–84.(1982) Nationalism and the State, Manchester: Manchester University Press.(1994) ‘Sociological analysis of political culture: an introduction and assessment’, in F.Weil (ed.) Research on Democracy and Society, vol. 2, Political Culture and Political Structure, Theoretical and Empirical Studies, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.(1996) Nationalism Reframed, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511558764([Page 190]1998) ‘Myths and misconceptions in the study of nationalism’, in J.Hall (ed.) The State of the Nation: Ernest Gellner and the Theory of Nationalism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(2001) ‘Das neue Selbstverständnis der Berliner Republik’, Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 12 January.(1977) The Anarchical Society, London: Macmillan.(1995) Critical Social Theory, Oxford: Blackwell.(1997) Nationalism, Buckingham: Open University Press.(Calhoun, C. (ed.) (1992) Habermas and the Public Sphere, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Campbell, D. and Dillion, M. (eds) (1993) The Political Subject of Violence, Manchester: Manchester University Press.1996) Nationhood and Political Theory, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.(1996) The Rise of the Network Society, vol. 2, The Information Age, Oxford: Blackwell.(1997) The Power of Identity, vol. 2, The Information Age, Oxford: Blackwell.(1987) The Imaginary Institution of Society, Cambridge: Polity.(Cheah, P. and Robbins, B. (eds) (1998) Cosmopolitics: Thinking and Feeling Beyond the Nation, Minneapolis: Minnesota Press.1991) The Crisis of Leninism and the Decline of the Left: The Revolution of 1989, Seattle: University of Washington Press.(1999) Politics Without a Past: The Absence of History in Postcommunist Nationalism, Durham, NJ: Duke University Press.(2001) States of Denial: Knowing about Atrocities and Suffering, Cambridge: Polity.(1992) Britons: Forging the Nation, 1707–1837, New Haven: Yale University Press.(1993) ‘From tribe to nation’, History of European Ideas, 13 (1/2): 5–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-6599%2891%2990109-C(1985) The Great Arch: English State Formation as a Cultural Formation, Oxford: Blackwell.and (1956) The Functions of Social Conflict, New York: Free Press.(1933) ‘Nationalism in the Middle Ages’, Cambridge History Journal, 5, 14–40.(1999) Radical Conservatism and the Future of Politics, London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446217443(Dann, O. (ed.) (1986) Nationalismus in vorindustrieller Zeit, Munich: R. Oldenburg.1995) Inventing Europe: Idea, Identity, Reality, London, Macmillan. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230379657(1999) Social Theory in a Changing World: Conceptions of Modernity, Cambridge: Polity.(2000a) Modernity and Postmodernity: Knowledge, Power, and the Self, London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446218259(2000b) Citizenship in a Global Age: Culture, Society and Politics, Buckingham: Open University Press.(2000c) ‘Nationalism’, in G.Ritzer and B.Smart (eds) Handbook of Social Theory, London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848608351(2000d) ‘The resurgence of the city: the spaces of European integation’, in E.Isin (ed.) The Politics and the City, London: Routledge.(2001a) Challenging Knowledge: The University in the Knowledge Society, Buckingham: Open University Press.(2001b) ‘Cosmopolitanism and violence: the limits of global civil society’, European Journal of Social Theory, 4 (1): 51–42.(2002b) ‘The university and higher education’, in C.Calhoun, C.Rojek and B.Turner (eds) Handbook of International Sociology, London: Sage.(2002c) ‘Consumption, modernity and Japanese cultural identity: the limits of Americanization?’ in U.Beck, N.Sznaider and R.Winter (eds) Global America: The Cultural Consequences of Globalization, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.([Page 191]2002d) ‘The persistence of nationalism’, in G.Delanty and E.Isin (eds) Handbook of Historical Sociology, London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848608238(2002e) ‘The university and modernity: a history of the present’, in K.Robins and F.Webster (eds) The Virtual University? Information, Markets and Management, Oxford: Oxford University Press.(Delanty, G., Friese, H. and Wagner, P. (eds) (2001) ‘War and social theory: reflections after Kosovo’, special issue of European Journal of Social Theory, 4 (1).1996) ‘National identity, politics and democracy’, Social Science Information, 35 (3): 459–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/053901896035003004(1990) ‘Force of law: the “mystical foundations of authority”’, Carduzo Law Review, 11 (919): 927–45.(1953) Nationalism and Social Communication, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.(1969) Nationalism and its Alternatives, New York: Knopf.(Diaz-Andreu, M. and Champion, T. (eds) (1996) Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe, London: UCL Press.1989) ‘Patriotism’, in T.Ball, J.Farr and R.Hanson (eds) Political Innovation and Conceptual Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1999) Social Theory and Modernity, Cambridge: Polity.(1999) ‘Evolution, history and collective subjectivity’, Current Sociology, 47 (3): 1–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011392199047003002(1995) Rescuing History from the Nation: Questioning Narratives of Modern China, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1915) The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.(1985) Geschichte als Lernprozess? Zur Pathogenese politischer Modernität in Deutschland, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.(1993) The New Politics of Class: Social Movements and Cultural Dymamics in Advanced Industrial Societies, London: Sage.(Eisenstadt, S. N. (ed.) (1986) The Origins and Diversity of the Axial Age Civilizations, New York: SUNY Press.1990) ‘Modes of structural differentiation, elite structures and cultural vision’, in J.Alexander and P.Colomy (eds) Differentiation Theory and Social Change, New York: Columbia University Press.(1992) ‘A re-appraisal of theories of social change and modernization’, in H.Haferkamp and N.Smelser (eds) Social Change and Modernity, Berkeley: University of California Press.(1995a) Power, Trust and Meaning, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1995b) Japanese Civilization: A Comparative View, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1998) ‘The construction of collective identities’, European Journal of Social Theory, 1 (2): 229–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/136843198001002008(1999a) Paradoxes of Modernity, Fragility, Continuity and Change, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.(1999b) Fundamentalism, Sectarianism and Revolution: The Jacobin Dimension of Modernity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(2000a) ‘The civilizational dimension in sociological analysis’, Thesis Eleven, 62, 1–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0725513600062000002(2000b) Die Vielfalt der Moderne, Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft.(1995) ‘The construction of collective identity codes’, European Journal of Sociology, 26 (1): 72–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003975600007116and (Eisenstadt, S. N., Schluchter, W. and Wittrock, B. (eds) (2000) Public Spheres and Collective Identities, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.1978) The Civilizing Process, vol. 1, The History of Manners, New York: Pantheon.([Page 192]1982) The Civilizing Process, vol. 1, State Formation and Civilization, Oxford: Blackwell.(1992) Studien über die Deutschen, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.(Elshtain, J. (ed.) (1992) Just War Theory, Oxford: Blackwell.1994) Civil War, London: Granta.(1996) ‘Languages of racism within contemporary Europe’, in Nation and Identity in Contemporary Europe, London: Routledge.(1996) ‘The mass basis of the extreme right in contemporary Europe in a comparative perspective’, in Research on Democracy and Society, vol. 3: 41–61.and (1966) The Wretched of the Earth, New York: Grove.(Featherstone, M., Lash, S. and Robertson, R. (eds) (1995) Global Modernities, London: Routledge.2000) The Demoralisation of Western Culture: Social Theory and the Dilemmas of Modern Living, New York: Continuum.(1922) Addresses to the German Nation, Chicago: Open Court.(Flora, P., Kuhnle, S. and Urwin, D. (eds) (1999) State Formation, Nation-Building and Mass Politics in Europe: The Theory of Stein Rokkan, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Forde, S. L.Johnson and Murray, A. (eds) (1995) Concepts of National Identity in the Middle Ages, Leeds: University of Leeds Press.1979) ‘Governmentality’, Ideology and Consciousness, 6: 5–12.(1980) Power/Knowledge: Collected Interviews and Other Essays, 1972–1977, edited by ColinGordon, Brighton: Harvester.(1985) ‘Why war?’, Sigmund Freud: Civilization, Society and Religion, London: Penguin.(1994) Cultural Identity and Global Process, London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446222195(Friese, H. (ed.) (2002) Identities, Providence, RI: Berghahn.1986) Fragments of Modernity: Theories of Modernity in the Work of Simmel, Kracauer and Benjamin, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.(1990) ‘Cultural violence’, Journal of Peace Research, 27 (3): 291–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022343390027003005(1995) ‘Hiroshima, the Holocaust, and the politics of exclusion’, American Sociological Review, 60: 1–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2096342(1964) Thought and Change, London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.(1983) Nations and Nationalism, Oxford: Blackwell.(1987) Culture, Identity and Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1994) Encounters with Nationalism, Oxford: Blackwell.(1998) Language and Solitude: Wittgenstein, Malinowski and the Habsburg Dilemma, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612466(1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of a Theory of Structuration, Cambridge: Polity.(1985) The Nation-State and Violence, Cambridge: Polity.(1998) Intellectuals and the Nation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1993) The Black Atlantic: Modernity and its Double-Consciousness, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1981) Violence and the Sacred, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.(2001) ‘Bitter icons’, New Left Review, 7 Jan/Feb: 5–15.(2000) ‘The mosaic moment: an early modernist critique of modernist theories of nationalism’, American Journal of Sociology, 105 (5): 1428–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/210435(1992) Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1996) ‘Nationalism and modernity’, Social Research, 63 (1): 3–41.(1994) ‘Nationalism and aggression’, Theory and Society, 23 (1): 79–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00993674and ([Page 193]1993) ‘Why minorities rebel: a global analysis of communal mobilization and conflict since 1945’, International Political Science Review, 14: 161–201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019251219301400203(1984) The Theory of Communicative Action, vol. 1, Reason and the Rationalization of Society, London: Heinemann.(1987a) The Theory of Communicative Action, vol. 2, Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason, Cambridge: Polity.(1987b) The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.(1989a) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Cambridge: Polity.(1989b) ‘Modern and postmodern architecture’, in The New Conservatism: Cultural Criticism and the Historians’ Debate, Cambridge: Polity.(1989c) The New Conservatism: Cultural Criticism and the Historians Debate, Cambridge: Polity.(1991) ‘Yet again, German identity – a unified nation of angry DM-Burghers’, New German Critique, 12: 1–19.(1994) The Past as Future, Cambridge: Polity.(1996) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, Cambridge: Polity.(1998) The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.(1999a) ‘The European nation-state and the pressures of globalization’, New Left Review, 235: 46–59.(1999b) ‘The war in Kosovo: bestiality and humanity: a war on the border between legality and morality’, Constellations, 6 (3): 263–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.00145(2001) The Postnational Constellation, Cambridge: Polity.(1993) ‘Nationalisms: classified and explained’, Daedalus, 122 (3): 1–28.(1998) The State of the Nation: Ernst Gellner and the Theory of the Nation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511897559(2000) ‘Globalization and nationalism’, Thesis Eleven, 63, 63–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0725513600063000006(1992) ‘The question of cultural identity’, in S.Hall, D.Held and T.McGrew (eds) Modernity and its Futures, Cambridge: Polity.(1979) ‘The dynamics of ethnic boundaries in modern states’, in M.Hannan and J.Mayer (eds) National Development and the World System: Educational, Economic and Political Change 1950–1970, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1975) Internal Colonialism: The Celtic Fringe in British National Development, 1536–1966, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.(1995) Signs of Nation: Studies in the Political Semiotics of Self and Other, Aldershot: Dartmouth.(1999) ‘The nation-state meets the world: national identities in the context of transnationality and cultural globalization’, European Journal of Social Theory, 2 (1): 71–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/13684319922224310(1995) Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance, Cambridge: Polity.(1969) Herder and Social and Political Culture: A Selection of Texts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(2000) Becoming a Cosmopolitan, New York: Rowman and Littlefield.(1998) ‘Divide and rule: the international character of modern citizenship’, European Journal of Social Theory, 1 (1): 57–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/136843198001001005(1977) ‘Reflections on “The break-up of Britain”’, New Left Review, 105.(1983a) ‘Introduction: inventing traditions’, in E.Hobsbawm and T.Ranger (eds) The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1983b) ‘Mass-producing traditions: Europe 1870–1914’ in E.Hobsbawm and T.Ranger (eds) The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.([Page 194]1990) Nations and Nationalism since 1780, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1991) ‘The perils of the new nationalism’, The Nation, 4 November, pp. 555–6.(1994) ‘Barbarism: a user's guide’, New Left Review, 206: 46–7.(1996) ‘Ethnicity and nationalism in Europe today’, in G.Balakrishnan (ed.) Mapping the Nation, London: Verso.(Hobsbawm, E. and Ranger, T. (eds) (1983) The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1993) Free to Hate: The Right in Post-Communist Eastern Europe, London: Routledge.(2000) Integral Europe: Fast-Capitalism, Multiculturalism, Neofascism, Princeton: Princeton University Press.(Hooson, D. (ed.) (1994) Geography and National Identity, Oxford: Blackwell.1979) Dialectic of Enlightenment, London: Verso.and (1992) ‘Irredentas and secessions: adjacent phenomena’, International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 33 (1–2): 118–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002071529203300108(1985) Social Preconditions of National Revival in Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1993) ‘From national movement to the fully-formed nation’, New Left Review, 198: 1–20.(1959) Men and Ideas: History, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, New York: Free Press.(1986) Politics, Culture and Class in the French Revolution, London: Methuen.(1996) The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York: Simon & Schuster.(1987) The Dynamics of Cultural Nationalism: The Gaelic Revival and the Creation of the Irish Nation-State, London: Allen & Unwin.(1994) Modern Nationalism, London: Fontana.(1994) Blood and Belonging: Journeys into the New Nationalism, London: Chatto & Windus.(1997) ‘New challenges: postmaterialism and the extreme right’, in M.Rhodes, P.Heywood and V.Wright (eds) Developments in West European Politics, London: Macmillan.(1999) Citizenship and Identity, London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446218129and (1996) Nation Formation: Towards a Theory of Abstract Community, London: Sage.(1986) Feminism and Nationalism in the Third World, London: Zed.(1996) The Creativity of Action, Cambridge: Polity.(2000) Kriege und Werte: Studien zur Gewaltgeschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts, Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft.(1934) Boswell's Life of Johnson, vol. II, Oxford: Clarendon Press.(1994) ‘New social movements and old regional nationalisms’, in E.Larana, H.Johnson and J.Gusfield (eds) New Social Movements: From Ideology to Identity, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.(1999) Global Justice Defending Cosmopolitanism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1999) Nomadic Identities: The Performance of Citizenship, Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.(2001) ‘The disintegration of Yugoslavia: a critical review of explanatory approaches’, European Journal of Social Theory, 4 (1): 99–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/13684310122225037(1997) New Cold War? Religious Nationalism Confronts the Secular State, Berkeley: University of California Press.([Page 195]2001) Modernity and Exclusion, London: Sage.(1993) ‘Yugoslavia and the new nationalism’, New Left Review, 197: 96–112.(1976) Nationalism: The Nature and Evolution of an Idea, London: Arnold.(1993) ‘Nationalism: ambigious legacies and contingent futures’, Political Studies, XLI: 78–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1993.tb01805.x(1970) ‘Perpetual peace’, in H.Reiss (ed.) Kant: Political Writings, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1992) Balkan Ghosts: A Journey through History, New York: St Martin's Press.(2000) ‘Is patriotism a mistake?’, Social Research, 67 (4): 901–24.(2000) ‘Modernity and veiled women’, European Journal of Social Theory, 3 (2): 195–214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/13684310022224769(1996) Reflections on Violence, London: Verso.(1997) Postnationalist Ireland: Politics, Culture and Philosophy, London: Routledge.(Kearney, R. (ed.) (1988) The Irish Mind, Dublin: Wolfhound Press.1994) Nationalism,(4th edn, Oxford: Blackwell.1994) The Revenge of God: The Resurgence of Islam, Christianity and Judaism in the Modern World, Philadephia: Pennsylvania State University Press.(2002) ‘Nation, nature and natality: new dimensions of political action’, European Journal of Social Theory, 5 (1): 459–78.(1995) Inventing Ireland, London: Cape.(1986) ‘Political opportunity structures and political protest’, British Journal of Sociology, 16: 57–85.(1995) The Radical Right in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.(1995) Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.and (1944) The Idea of Nationalism, New York: Macmillan.(1955) Nationalism: Its Meaning and History, Princeton: Van Nostrand.(1996) ‘Explaining the rise of racist and extremme right violence in Western Europe: grievances or opportunities?’, European Journal of Political Research, 30: 185–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.1996.tb00674.x(1997) ‘Dynamics of repression and mobilization: the German extreme right in the 1990s’, Mobilization, 2: 149–64.(1993) ‘Arab nationalism: mistaken identity’, Daedalus, 122 (3): 171–206.(1993) Nations without Nationalism, New York: Columbia University Press.(1989) Liberalism, Community and Culture, Oxford: Clarendon.(1995) Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights, Oxford: Clarendon.(1999) ‘Cosmopolitanism, nation-states, and minority nationalism: a critical review of recent literature’, European Journal of Philosophy, 7 (1): 65–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0378.00074and (1995) ‘National revivals and violence’, European Journal of Sociology, 36 (1): 3–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003975600007098(1994) Organized Modernity, Oxford: Blackwell.(Leach, N. (ed.) (1999) Architecture and Revolution: Contemporary Perspectives on Central and Eastern Europe, London: Routledge.1986) The Political Forms of Modern Society, Cambridge: Polity.(1988) Democracy and Political Theory, Cambridge: Polity.(1970) ‘The right of nations to self-determination’, in V. I.Lenin, Questions of National Policy and Proletarian Internationalism, Moscow: Progress.([Page 196]1996) ‘Sociology and the nation-state in an era of shifting boundaries’, Sociological Inquiry, 66 (3): 253–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1996.tb00220.x(1989) ‘An evaluation of “does economic inequality breed political conflict” studies’, World Politics, 41: 431–470. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2010526(1998) The Transformation of Political Community, Cambridge: Polity.(1967) Party Systems and Voter Alignments, New York: Free Press.and (1909) The National Systems of Political Economy, London: Longmans, Green & Co.(1985) The Past is a Foreign Country, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1995) Social Systems, Stanford: Stanford University Press.(1998) Observations on Modernity, Stanford: Stanford University Press.(1984) The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, Manchester: Manchester University Press.(McAdam, D., McCarthy, J. D. and Zald, N. (eds) (1996) Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilising Structures and Cultural Framings, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO97805118039871998) The Sociology of Nationalism, London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203428856(1986) Poly-ethnicity in World History, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.(1994) Bosnia: A Short History, London: Macmillan.(1987) ‘Ruling class strategies and citizenship’, Sociology, 21 (3): 339–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0038038587021003003(1993) The Sources of Social Power, Volume II: The Rule of Classes and Nation-States, 1760–1914, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511570902(1999) ‘The dark side of democracy’, New Left Review, 235: 18–45.(1952) ‘Competition as a cultural phenomenon’ in K.Mannheim (1952) Essays in the Sociology of Knowledge, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.(1976) Sixteenth Century Nationalism, New York: Abaris.(1992) Citizenship and Social Class, London: Pluto.(1990) Nationalism and International Society, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511559099(1970) Cosmopolitanism and the Nation State, Princeton: Princeton University Press.(1995) ‘The process of collective identity’, in H.Johnson and B.Klandermans (eds) Social Movements and Culture, London: UCL Press.(1983) Nazioni Senza Stato, Turin: Loescher Editore.and (1994) The Balkanization of the West: The Confluence of Postmodernism and Postcommunism, London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203344644(1971) Considerations of Representative Government, London: Dent.(1993) ‘The nation-state: a modest defense’, in C.Brown (ed.) Political Restucturing in Europe, London: Routledge.(1995) On Nationality, Oxford: Oxford University Press.(2000) Citizenship and National Identity, Cambridge: Polity.(1967) Nationalism, London: Batsford.(2000) Moral Purity and Persecution in History, New Haven: Princeton University Press.(1975) The Nationalization of the Masses, New York: Fertig.(1985) Nationalism and Sexuality, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.(1987) ‘Interpretation in a complex institutional order’, in J.Alexander, B.Giesen, R.Münch and N.Smelser (eds) The Micro-Macro Link, Berkeley: University of California Press.(1998) National Trauma and Collective Memory, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.([Page 197]1985) ‘Towards a theory of ethnic solidarity in modern societies’, American Sociological Review, 50 (2): 133–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2095405(1996) On the Genealogy of Morals, Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1996) ‘Patriotism and cosmopolitanism’, in For Love of Country, Boston: Beacon.(1986) Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.and (1998; reissued 2001) Rethinking Irish History: Nationalism, Identity and Ideology, London: Macmillan.and (1996) Varieties of Transition: The East European and East German Experience, Cambridge: Polity.(1965) The Logic of Collective Action, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1992) The Dynamics of Ethnic Competition and Conflict, Stanford: Stanford University Press., (1997) Flexible Citizenship: The Cultural Logics of Transnationalism, Durham, NJ: Duke University Press.(1997) Ungrounded Empires: The Cultural Politics of Modern Chinese Transationalism, London: Routledge.and (Oommen, T. (ed.) (1997) Citizenship and National Identity: from Colonial to Globalization, London: Sage.2000) Theories of Nationalism, London: Macmillan.(2000) The Intellectual as Stranger, London: Routledge.(1992) ‘Cosmopolitanism and sovereignty’, Ethics, 103: 48–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/293470(1995) Morality and Modernity, London: Routledge.(1979) ‘Ethnic political mobilisation: the Welsh case’, American Sociological Review, 44 (4): 619–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2094591(Ranum, O. (ed.) (1975) National Consciousness, History and Political Culture in Early Modern Europe, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.2001) Identity, Mobilization and Nation: A Psychology of Mass Action, London: Sage.and (1990) ‘What is a nation?’, in H.Bhabbi (ed.) Nation and Narration, London: Routledge.(1992) Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture, London: Sage.(1977) ‘Nation formation: the Brass thesis and Muslim separatism’, Journal of Commonwealth Studies, 15 (3): 215–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14662047708447289(1979) ‘Islam and Muslim separatism’, in D.Taylor and M.Yapp (eds) Political Identity in South Asia, London: Curzon.(2000) Mega-Events and Modernity: Olympics and Expos in the Growth of Modernity, London: Routledge.(2000) ‘Expliquer le nationalisme: les contradictions d'Ernest Gellner’, Arch. Europ. Socio., XL1 (2): 189–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003975600007025(1975) ‘Dimensions of state formation and nation-building’, in C.Tilly (ed.) The Formation of National States in Western Europe, Princeton: Princeton University Press.(1998) Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1989) Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self, London: Routledge.(1995) ‘Pathological dimensions of domestic and international ethnicity’, Political Science Quarterly, 110 (1): 69–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2152051and (1999) ‘Nationalism, globalization, eastern orthodoxy: “unthinking” the “clash of civilizations” in southern Europe’, European Journal of Social Theory, 2 (2): 233–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/13684319922224428([Page 198]1968) The Social Contract, Harmondsworth: Penguin.(1972) The Government of Poland, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.(1993) ‘The fantasy structure of nationalist discourse’, Praxis International, 13: 213–23.(1992) The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo, Princeton: Princeton University Press.(1994a) Bloody Revenge: Emotions, Nationalism and War, Boulder, CO: Westview.(1994b) ‘Emotions and identity: a theory of ethnic nationalism’, in C.Calhoun (ed.) Social Theory and the Politics of Identity, Oxford: Blackwell.(1972) Ressentiment, New York: Schoken.(1985) The Rise of Western Rationalism: Max Weber's Developmental History, Berkeley: University of California Press.(1970) Political Theology, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.(1990) ‘In defense of the nation’, in The Philosopher on Dover Beach, Manchester: Carcanet.(1987) ‘Theory of action, dialectic and history: comment on Coleman’, American Journal of Sociology, 93, 166–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/228710(1963) Gladstone and the Bulgarian Agitation, 1876, London: Nelson.(1963) What is the Third Estate?, London: Pall Mall Press.(1991) Deconstructing the Nation: Immigration, Racism and Citizenship, London: Routledge.(1955) Conflict, Glencol, IL: The Free Press.(Smelser, N. and Alexander, N. (eds) (1999) Diversity and its Discontents: Cultural Conflict and Common Ground in Contemporary American Society, Princeton: Princeton University Press.1995) Nations and Nationalism in a Global Era, Cambridge: Polity.(1986) The Ethnic Origins of Nations, Oxford: Blackwell.(1992) ‘Master frames and cycles of protest’, in A. D.Morris and C.McClurgMueller (eds) Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.and (1950) Reflections on Violence, New York: Collier Books.(1994) Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and Postnational Membership in Europe, Chicago: Chicago University Press.(1987) In Other Words, London: Routledge.(1988) Nietzsche's Dance: Resentment, Reciprocity and Resistance in Social Life, Oxford: Blackwell.and (1987) ‘Collective learning: Habermas's concessions and their theoretical implications’, Philosophy and Social Criticism, 13 (3): 265–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019145378701300304(1999) ‘Triple contingency – the theoretical problem of the public in communication societies’, Philosophy and Social Criticism, 25 (2): 1–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019145379902500201(2000) Discourse and Knowledge: The Making of Enlightenment Sociology, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.(1982) Nationalism, Positivism and Catholicism: The Politics of Charles Mauras and French Catholics, 1890–1914, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511558610(1988) Communism and Nationalism: Karl Marx and Friederich List, Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1994) The Sociology of Social Change, Oxford: Blackwell.(2000) ‘Cultural trauma: the other face of social change’, European Journal of Social Theory, 3 (4): 449–66.(1994) Sur la Nouvelle Droit, Paris: Descartes & Cie.(1998) ‘Nationalism: a literature review,’European Journal of Social Theory, 1 (1): 137–155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/136843198001001010([Page 199]1993) Liberal Nationalism, Princeton: Princeton University Press.(1990) Sources of the Self, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1994) ‘The politics of recognition’, in A.Gutman (ed.) Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition, Princeton: Princeton University Press.(1998) ‘Nationalism and modernity’, in J.Hall (ed.) The State of the Nation: Ernest Gellner and the Theory of Nationalism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1987) Male Fantasies, Cambridge: Polity.(1984) Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.(1986) The Contentious French, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1990) Coercion, Capital and the European State, Oxford: Blackwell.(1994) ‘States and nationalism in Europe, 1492–1992’, Theory and Society, 23 (1): 131–146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00993675(1975) The Rebellious Century, 1830–1930, London: Dent., and (1992) ‘Dialectics of modernity: reenchantment and dedifferentiation as counter processes’, in H.Haferkamp and N.Smelser (eds) Social Change and Modernity, Berkeley: University of California Press.(Tiryakian, E. and Nevitte, N. (eds) (1985) New Nationalisms of the Developed West, London: Allen & Unwin.1993) On Human Diversity: Nationalism, Racism and Exoticism in French Thought, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1977) The Self-Production of Society, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1995) Critique of Modernity, Oxford: Blackwell.(1997) What is Democracy?, Oxford: Westview.(1983) ‘The invention of tradition: the Highland tradition of Scotland’, in E.Hobsbawm and T.Ranger (eds) The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1931) The Permanent Revolution, London: Pathfinder.(Turner, B. S. (ed.) (1990) Theories of Modernity and Postmodernity, London: Sage.2000) ‘Globalization, religion and cosmopolitan virtue’, European Journal of Social Theory3, 2.(2000) Sociology Beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-First Century, London: Routledge.(1999) The Rise and Decline of the State, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511497599(1983) ‘Class, race and ethnicity in Africa’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 6, 221–236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01419870.1983.9993409(1993) ‘Contested meanings: India's national identity, Hindu nationalism, and the politics of anxiety’, Daedalus, 122 (3): 227–261.(1995) For Love of Country: An Essay on Patriotism and Nationalism, Oxford: Claredon.(Vlastos, S. (ed.) (1998) Mirror of Identity: Invented Traditions of Modern Japan, Berkeley: University of California Press.Vries, H. de and Weber, S. (1997) (eds) Violence, Identity, and Self-Determination, Stanford: Stanford University Press.1991) ‘The causes of disintegration in the USSR and Yugoslavia’, Telos, 88: 120–40.and (1994) A Sociology of Modernity: Liberty and Discipline, London: Routledge.(2001) Theorizing Modernity, London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446217061(1977) Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations, New York: Basic Books.([Page 200]1990) From Provences into Nations, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.(1976) Peasants into Frenchmen: The Modernization of Rural France, 1877–1914, Standford: Stanford University Press.(1998) Economy and Society, vol. 1, Berkeley: University of California Press.(1994) ‘Collective identity formation and the international state’, American Political Science Review, 88 (2): 384–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2944711(1994) ‘The sociology of ethnic conflicts: comparative international perspectives’, Annual Review of Sociology, 20: 49–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.20.080194.000405(1998) ‘Early modernities: varieties and transitions’, Daedalus, 127 (3): 19–40.(1999) The Discursive Construction of National Identity, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press., , and (1994) The Problem of Social Order: What Unites and Divides Social Society, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1992) Cultural Nationalism in Contemporary Japan: A Sociological Inquiry, London: Routledge.(1999) ‘Rethinking theories of nationalism: market place perspectives’, in K.Yoshino (ed.) Consuming Ethics and Nationalism: Asian Explorations, Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Books.(1997) Gender and Nation, London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446222201(1997) Cosmopolis: Prospects for World Government, Cambridge: Polity.(1989) ‘Nations: old and new: comments on Anthony D. Smith's “The myth of the modern nation and the myths of nations”’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 12 (3): 329–339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01419870.1989.9993638(