(Source: http://ukrainianweek.com/Politics/57600, Oct. 14, 2012)
Anthony Smith’s ethnosymbolist approach stands as an example of the culturalist/ethnicist school of thought in nationalism studies, which aims to explain nations and nationalism by focusing on cultural factors and pre-modern continuities with what Smith terms the ‘ethnie’. Smith argues that the modernist paradigm pays insufficient attention to the long-term formation of national identities and, moreover, to the political power of the ‘myth-symbol complex‘ and of ‘myth-memories‘ in modern nations and nationalist movements: in particular, the myths of the ‘golden age’ and of ‘ethnic election‘, which he argues provide nationalists with powerful tools for mobilisation. He is, however, careful to allow for the obvious fact that many supposedly ancient nationalist myths are modern inventions. What counts is that such myths are on some level believed to be true. Smith paraphrases Rousseau in arguing this:
“A nation must have a navel, and if it has not got one, we must start by inventing one.”
For Smith, culture is central.
CHALLENGING ANTHONY D. SMITH
1. England: A Classic Example of a ‘Lateral’ Ethnie in Pre-Modernity?
Smith regards England as a classic example of ‘lateral’ or aristocratic ethnie in pre-modernity. He suggests that some lateral ethnies like England, Spain, France and Sweden were able to survive over many centuries through a process of ‘bureaucratic incorporation’. Using this process, they were able to bring other strata and regions of their society into the principal ethnic culture of the state. Smith argues that these states were able to utilize state apparatuses and processes to ‘disseminate and regulate’ the myths, values, traditions and symbols of the dominant ethnic core of the state. This process allowed for the redefinition of the cultural identity of the state. Such redefinition entailed a process of expansion and accommodation within the aforementioned cultural identity to incorporate “peripheral ethnic cultures” (1991, p. 55).
In the case of England, for Smith such accommodation played a key role. He suggests that, for a couple hundred years after the Norman Conquest, the Normans engaged in considerable redefinition of their cultural identity, incorporating aspects of Saxon culture while consolidating the state. By the end of this process, Smith suggests that common language and myths of common descent had emerged. Smith does not suggest that this means that and English nation existed as early as the 14th century, rather he suggests that these processes make the nation formation process ‘discernible’ in the English case. He argues that full formation as a nation only occurred later, during the Tudor era and reformation, when the nation emerged in a more comprehensive way (1991, pp. 55-57).
Smith’s exploration of the English case demonstrates how he believes ethnies can transform over time, evolving alongside state-building processes and eventually forming a nation. It also demonstrates how he believes how alien cultural elements can be integrated into a dominant ethnie’s cultural identity; a process which he believes helps ethnies survive over time.
Source: Smith, Anthony D., 1991. National Identity. Reno: University of Nevada Press.
♣ Do you find Smith’s narrative convincing or could an alternative story be told?
2. Macedonia: Competing Myths of Origin
The Republic of Macedonia makes for an interesting case concerning Smith’s ideas about ethno-symbolism. In the past few years, a discussion on the ethnic ‘origins’ of the Macedonian people has flared up within Macedonia. A view of the Macedonians as a Slavic people which entered the Balkans in the 7th century is confronted, quite literally, with, in Smith’s words, “the antiquity of nations”, the simple idea that the contemporary Macedonians are direct descendants of the Macedonians of the classical antiquity.
(Source: http://www.wikipedia.org)
The country’s current ruling party, VMRO-DPME, is in favour of the so called ‘antiquisation’ of the Macedonian nation, and shows this support quite overtly in the public space, placing a controversial and gigantic statue of Alexander the Great, the most famous of ancient Macedonian kings, in the country’s capital, Skopje.
(Source: http://turkeymacedonia.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/alexander-the-great-statue-giant.jpg, Oct. 14, 2012)
‘Is VMRO, as some claim, turning Skopje into a theme park?’
The fact that there’s a lively discussion about the sort of ethno-symbolism which is deemed to be ‘correct’ for the Macedonian people clearly shows the relevance of Smith’s ideas about the imagination of the ethnic past and the very real political power it holds. For instance, some argue that VMRO’s assertion of a more ancient past is a bid to forge a form of ethnic national unity, a bid which will exclude the large Albanian minority that is present in Macedonia. But it’s also interesting to see the conflict that arises out of the disputed origins of the Macedonian people is challenging Smith’s definition of the nation, of which one ingredient is: a shared myth of common origins. Thus, we would like to ask:
♣ If a nation is at a certain point sharply divided on the issue of its origin myths, especially when these
origins are ethnic in character, is it in danger of falling apart? In other words, is a shared common origin
myth crucial to the existence and continuous reproduction of a nation?
For a concise article about the current conflict between Slavic and ancient Macedonian origin, see:
http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/ghosts-of-the-past-endanger-macedonia-s-future
3. Response from the Academic Community:
Sinisa Malesevic defines Smith’s ethnosymbolist approach as ‘Durkhemian‘, and critiques it on those terms:
- Malesevic argues that ethnosymbolism tends to fall victim to ‘evolutionary historicism‘, and the view that the progression from ‘ethnie’ to ‘nation’ follows a set, linear path: there is, in his words, “too much coherence, and still too little contingency” in these narratives.
- Ethnosymbolism assigns too much agency to the group-as-entity and pays too little attention to the ways in which group identities are constructed and lived in practice. Ethnies and nations are too often described simply as homogeneous independent actors with a collective will. For example, Smith states that Kievan Rus is claimed by both “the Ukrainians” and “the Russians”. But do all Ukrainians and Russians do so? Or is the claim made by individuals and organizations in the name of these groups? Smith’s usage blurs this distinction.
- Ethnosymbolism takes an ‘idealist’ approach, and this de-emphasises the economic and political factors that drive competition between groups and thus encourage elites to invoke group identities in order to mobilise members of their societies and to paper over social divisions by contrast with the other.
♣ Do these criticisms of Smith’s method seem fair? And how do they play out in the ethnosymbolist interpretations of the cases presented above?
Ben, Michel, Regina & Thomas
Leave a comment