Methodological nationalism and the politics of history-writing – Nations and Nationalism (2019) (original) (raw)
The aim of this article is to contribute a greater understanding of the processes by which nationalism passes by unnoticed in research and distorts knowledge about the past. It identifies four narrative practices typical of methodologically nationalist history-writing and explains why they should be rejected as dubious scholarship. These are: concept overstretch; selection bias; the misrepresentation of governing bodies; and the conflation of culture with identity. It is argued that each functions as a hidden authentication route, entrenching nation-centric understandings of the past as valid perspectives in scholarly discourses under the legitimating cover of scientific protocol. By increasing awareness around methodological nationalism in history-writing, this article serves at least two normative purposes. First, it emphasises the reflectiveness required for analysts to avoid co-option by ideology. Second, it functions as a critical vantage point for dispelling misunderstandings that fuel interstate disputes, interethnic tensions, and the oppression of minorities among populations understanding themselves as heirs to timelessly national property.
Sign up for access to the world's latest research.
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Related papers
2019
Right from the beginning of the renaissance of nationalism studies in the 1980s particular bodies of theory influenced conceptualizations of nation and nationalism in a major way. And yet, much historical work that was being produced during the last four decades did not reflect in a major way on the interconnection between specific bodies of theory and particular ways of framing both nation and nationalism. In this volume we would like to foreground bodies of theory that have had a major impact on nationalism studies in order to allow students of history to see that, depending on which theory you find most convincing, you will end up with quite different ideas about the meaning of nations and nationalism. This chapter introduces the volume, provides a short overview of the different chapters and concludes with a short reflection on the challenges for future research of which the denationalization of history writing is probably the most important.
Methodological nationalism: theory and history
Annual Conference of the International Association of …, 2008
This article seeks to contribute to furthering our understanding of what methodological nationalism actually is and offer some insights that point towards its possible overcoming. The critical side of its argument unravels the paradoxical constitution of the current debate on methodological nationalism; namely, the fact that methodological nationalism is simultaneously regarded as wholly negative and all-pervasive. I shall substantiate this by revisiting some of the most successful attempts at the conceptualisation of the nation-state that have sought to transcend methodological nationalism in five disciplines: sociology, nationalism studies, anthropology, social psychology and international relations. The positive side of the article's argument introduces a distinction between a theoretical and an historical form of methodological nationalism with the help of which it tries to address some of the problems most commonly found in the literature. Theoretically, methodological nationalism is associated with an explanatory reductionism as the rise and main features of the nation-state are used to explicate the rise and main features of modernity itself. Historically, it introduces the historical problem of its prevalence, that is, whether methodological nationalism a key if not the key feature of the history of the social sciences at large.
State of Mind: History and the Narrative of Nationalism
Mount Royal Undergraduate Humanities Review (MRUHR)
Nationalism, the belief in the existence of distinct and enduring connections between an ethnic group, their historical culture, and their homeland, and in the need for such a people to be self-governing, was a significant force behind nineteenth-century historical inquiry. This paper examines the work of two European historians of this era and persuasion in order to investigate the influence this notion had on their scholarship. It explores how these historians wrote about the nation, perceived the role of nationalism in their work, and responded to potential conflicts between historical realities their nationalist ends. Such a study contributes to the debate on the ultimate purpose of history, the relationship between fact and interpretation, and the position of the historian in his or her own historical context.
Scholarly Exploration of Nationalism: A Retrospective View
Social Science and Humanities Journal, 2024
The paper embarked on a scholarly exploration, seeking to unravel the intricate dimensions of nationalism and enhance our collective understanding. Through qualitative methodology—specifically contextual analysis—the study vividly examined the interpretations of influential thinkers regarding this complex concept. Topics spanned from “Nationalism and Its Relationship to a Nation” to “Theoretical Perspectives on Nationalism” and “Filipino Nationalism: Historical Context, Critical Issues, and Developments.” The analysis revealed that nationalism, as a subject, underwent extensive scholarly debate and analysis, reflecting its multifaceted nature and profound impact on nation-building and identity formation. In retrospect, the discourse surrounding nationalism encompassed diverse perspectives, ranging from its role in political and social transformation to its enduring influence on human history.
The Journal of Humanity and Society, 2016
Academic discussions of nationalism have been flourishing to such an extent that after 1980 some scholars began to publish important analyses of its various aspects from new perspectives. Still, topics such as culture, politics, ethnicity and race have not been focused on in terms of these two concepts. This article focuses on the relationship among “history,” “the past” and nationalism in the works of Eric J. Hobsbawm (1917-2012) and Anthony D. Smith (1939-2016) and the roles they attribute to them. I have selected these two scholars for the first one is a spokesman for modernism, whereas the second one supports ethno-symbolism. In addition, they are currently the most controversial names in the field. My main goal is to prove the existence of either “history” or “the past” in the frequently used ancient-modern contrast as regards discussions on nationalism, its justifications and related topics.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
Related papers
The American Historical Review, Volume 127, Issue 1, March 2022, Pages 311–371, , 2022