National identity and the “Kohn dichotomy”

Abstract

This article assesses the analytical value of the "Kohn dichotomy"-the notion that there are two types of nationalism, resting on civic values in the West and on ethnic values outside the West. It begins by outlining the intellectual history of this dichotomy since its origin in the 1860s and by analyzing its main features. It contrasts the state traditions of Central and Eastern Europe and Western Europe in three areas: the geopolitical evolution of the state, the state's perspective on its own population as reflected in efforts to measure "ethnic nationality" through such instruments as the population census, and divergences in citizenship law. It shows that data from recent programs of comparative survey research, and analysis of nationalist ideology, highlight the variety of forms that nationalism may take in the two parts of Europe. The article concludes that the "ethnic-civic" dichotomy is valuable as an ideal type with the capacity to shed light on the nature of ethnic affiliation, not as a categorical classification system. Different ethnonational groups comprise mixtures of people who use a combination of "ethnic" and "civic" reference points; they do not coincide with global territorial zones that may be identified with any level of clarity.

Distinguishing solidarity from identity in studies of nationhood: An alternative to the civic–ethnic dichotomy?

“…Moreover, since its inception scholars employed the civic–ethnic dichotomy to differentiate between “good” and “bad” forms of nationalism. A normative position discrediting the ethnic model gained much significance with the rise of Fascism and Nazism (Coakley, 2018).…”

“…Nationhood has been repeatedly studied in terms of a set of roughly overlapping binary dichotomies: voluntaristic versus organic, political versus cultural, liberal versus illiberal, and civic versus ethnic, with the latter gradually taking precedence in the scholarly literature (Nieguth, 1999). These dichotomies can be traced back to German political thought during the late-18th century and specifically to Friedrich Meinecke's (1970Meinecke's ( [1907) distinction between Staatsnation and Kulturnation (Coakley, 2018). These were reinforced by Kohn's (1944) historical analysis of the rise of nationalism in France and Germany.…”

Linguistic territoriality under stress

“…We need also to take into account the geopolitical context within which the language regime operates, notably relationships with adjacent polities, and the state tradition that marks its bureaucratic culture (Cardinal and Sonntag, 2015a, pp. 119-120), with varying degrees of emphasis on the individual and the group as basic actors (Coakley, 2018).…”

Kymlicka’s Alignment of Mill and Engels: Nationality, Civilization, and Coercive Assimilation

“…Within nationality studies—in which interpretations of Mill tend to focus on Considerations on Representative Government (1861) (1977a), especially chapter 16 titled “Of Nationality, as Connected with Representative Government”—Kymlicka is not alone in positing some kind of an affinity between Mill’s views on nationality and those of Engels (Coakley 2018, 254–255; Davidson 2001, 291–292; Hobsbawm 1992, 34–35; Jaskułowski 2010, 298–299). Nor is he alone in claiming that Mill defends coercive assimilation in 19th-century Europe (Martins 2012, 89–96; Rabow-Edling 2007, 376; see also Weinstock 2003, 253).…”