Modern Concept of the Nation-State

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I'm trying to track down the origins of the modern concept of the nation-state, but I'm having some trouble finding concrete information.

Can anybody point me in the right direction?

The closest thing I've found is something on LibCom saying it formalized around the time of the French Revolution in the late 18th century.

[Oswy]

I'm trying to track down the origins of the modern concept of the nation-state, but I'm having some trouble finding concrete information.

Can anybody point me in the right direction?

The closest thing I've found is something on LibCom saying it formalized around the time of the French Revolution in the late 18th century.

I studied this kind of thing a while back but have long since lost/abandoned my notes :blushing:

I think once you have a territory-defending government which claims to represent, imposes laws upon and seeks taxes from, the people within that territory, you've got the beginnings of a nation-state. As I remember some scholars place importance on the way the state seeks to inculcate loyalty and hence construct a 'nation' through appeals to 'national character', defence against 'others', flag-waving, love of the monarch, maybe common religion or common language and so on. Some have argued that the emergence of the national newspaper and, later, universal state-based education have been prominent mechanisms for generating a sense of common national identity and loyalty to the state.

[blake 3:17]

Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities is probably the best short(ish) Left thing on the topic. It appears that there are many free downloads of it.

The main thesis is that nation-state formation has required deliberate action.

[Rooster]

The concept of a nation state came about towards the wane of feudal landownership and monarchy, the rise of the bourgeois class and the centralisation of the nation into forms of government and institutions. From feudal realms to civil society. Previously, people just belonged to the land, the city they lived in, or the region. I'm sure that the pinnacle of this came about during and after the French revolution in an attempt to solidify the nation as a state. In France, the national unification came before cultural unification. Half of the population didn't speak French. So, the unification of society came through the centralised state over the course of a hundred years or so, and still continues with the suppression of certain dialects in France. It was probably a result of national capitalists trying to simplify the region, the removal of dialects and of local customs that inhibited trade, to make eduction more centralised and easier to manage. Then during the Third Republic, a much more concentrated nationalism emerged with mass conscription. In Germany and Italy, it was the other way around. You have a cultural unification first before a national unification. In Italy's case though, things were much more difficult due to it's long history of disunification.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities is probably the best short(ish) Left thing on the topic. It appears that there are many free downloads of it.

The main thesis is that nation-state formation has required deliberate action.
Thanks, I just grabbed a copy off of google!

Rooster: Interesting, as well. I was unaware of the cultural heterogeneity of France at the time.

[Bronco]

I think that we can trace it back to before the French Revolution actually, to the growth of Absolutism as a political system in Europe, particularly France under Louis XIV:


In France feudal social reations were dominant. Certainly the social structure was subject to severe strains and dislocation; the feudalism of the seventeenth century was not the classical feudalism of the twelfth... Faced with an internal financial and political crisis at the same moment that it had to meet the challenge of the [rival] maritime powers...the French monarchy could no longer afford to let part of the country's resources remain under the control of independent towns or allow it's resources to be distrained by the nobility. In response to the crisis the government undertook a political, military and economic offensive. Government policy included the recovery of the alienated Crown lands, the multiplication and extension of traditional taxes, the strengthening of the gilds, the creation of trading companies and of a navy... Yet the government sought not only to destroy but to recreate, to restore the monarchical regime in its former splendour. This is why its political and military offensive was accompanied by a vigorous idealogical campaign asserting the indivisibility of sovereignty and the necessity for Order within the monarchical state
- David Parker, The Social Foundation of French Absolutism 1610-1630

This was where we saw a real move towards a strong, centralised nation state, away from the regional power centres of the feudal era. Linked to this was the growth in Mercantilism, the economic doctrine that taught that the primary goal of economic policy should be to gain a favourable balance of payments. This is what led to competition between various nations and the need for a strong state that could regulate trade employing protectionist policies, and also raise a lot in tax, needed to cover increased expenditure. It was essentially a form of economic nationalism as trade would need to be conducted in such a way to form a favourable balance for the homeland, and to consolidate its superiority. It was flawed economically but it's not hard to see why a large nation state was now a necessity; global trade, a centralised economy, profit making, industrialisation, private enterprise, competition and foreign investment all suddenly became crucial and important factors, factors which a feudal system was hopelessly inadequate to deal with

[Blake's Baby]

The state, as I see it, emerged in England and France during the 100-year war. At the beginning, this was a dynastic struggle between the Capetins and the Plantagenets. By the end it was a national struggle between England and France.

It's closely tied up with the development of capitalism, particularly economic links between England and Flanders.

[Babeufist]

it formalized around the time of the French Revolution in the late 18th century

Yes, but origins of the nation-states you can find in X century. In this time most of contemporary national-states existed: Germany, France, Italy, England, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Bohemia, Hungary, Croatia...

[Blake's Baby]

The concept of a nation state came about towards the wane of feudal landownership and monarchy, the rise of the bourgeois class and the centralisation of the nation into forms of government and institutions. From feudal realms to civil society. Previously, people just belonged to the land, the city they lived in, or the region. I'm sure that the pinnacle of this came about during and after the French revolution in an attempt to solidify the nation as a state. In France, the national unification came before cultural unification. Half of the population didn't speak French. So, the unification of society came through the centralised state over the course of a hundred years or so, and still continues with the suppression of certain dialects in France. It was probably a result of national capitalists trying to simplify the region, the removal of dialects and of local customs that inhibited trade, to make eduction more centralised and easier to manage. Then during the Third Republic, a much more concentrated nationalism emerged with mass conscription. In Germany and Italy, it was the other way around. You have a cultural unification first before a national unification. In Italy's case though, things were much more difficult due to it's long history of disunification.


Hmm, I know I commented before but I'm going to expand.

I was taught that the first nation-state was Portugal, not because of the development of capitalism, but from the development of the unitary state during the middle ages that was established through war with the Moorish state of Al-Andalus.

England also seems to have come about as a state born in war, and I think France too, to an extent. The Hundred Years War began as a dynastic conflict but ended as a war between two nations which hardly existed in actuality before the the war. In both cases a national identity or even ideology was formed by the dynasties involved.

This was definitely at the beginings of capitalism - one of the causes of the war was a reaction by England to a move by France to restrict trade between England and Flanders (at that time, under French jurisdiction) - English wool merchants who sold their commodities in Bruges and Ghent to Flemish weavers, and imported the cloth back to England, petitioned the king to support the rebellious Flemings.

Portugal might be seen as an oddity then (because, though they're all connected by becoming nation-states through organisation in time of war, France and England are, if my general thrust is correct, coalescing as nation-states in the period of capitalism's development) but I'm not sure. What is 'early capitalism'? The Military Orders were involved in the 'reconquest' of Portugal and they were large, multinational bureacracies that set up banking and finance networks. They are at least 'mercantilist' if not exactly capitalist per se. It's probably not accidental the Portugal later led the exploration of the Atlantic and European exploration of Africa.

Just some stuff to think about.