Nationalism and revolution: friends or foes?

Abstract

Nationalism and revolution have generally been held to go together. Many nation-states have had their origins in revolution, from the Americans in the 18th century to a host of Third World nation-states in the 20th century. Generally, both modern revolutions and modern nationalism have the same origins, in 18th century Enlightenment thought. But this paper argues that, despite this common origin, the principles of revolution and nationalism are divergent, and can set one against the other. Revolutions emphasise freedom and equality; nationalism emphasises integration and unification. These principles can clash, though not inevitably and not always. The paper examines the 1789 French Revolution, the 1848 revolutions and the 1917 Russian revolution. It shows that in the first two cases, revolutionary aspirations came up against and were eventually displaced by nationalist aims. In the case of 1917, revolution paradoxically, and unintentionally, institutionalised nationalism. These examples show that, though linked at some high level of modern thought, revolution and nationalism express different and at times divergent strands of modernity.

Revolution as a transition from empire to nation-state(s): Comparing the Soviet and Chinese paths

“…Scholars have found that revolution and nationalism, sharing common pursuits while emphasizing equality and integration respectively, can be either friends or foes, depending on the historical context. For example, Kumar’s (2015) agenda-setting work finds that revolution can foster nation-building, but at times has contradicted it: in the Revolution of 1848, counterrevolutionaries finally sided with romantic nationalism, waging the two movements against each other. Malesevic (2017: 177–88) articulates the mechanisms through which revolution and nationalism are mutually reinforcing: revolution was a mobilizational process whereby the penetration of ideology intensified and organizational capacity developed, which may have led to fervent nationalism.…”

Deconstruction of Natural Order. The Legacy of the Russian Revolution

“…The works claim that disorientation, dysregulation, disorganization, and the intensification of tensions increased the level of deviant and protest behavior (Mironov, 2015, p. 89;Rendle and Retish, 2017). Although the existing body of work plausibly identifies the structural factors that contributed to the Russian Revolution of 1917, it understudies how political subjects triggered off their revolutionary potential (Kumar, 2015). In other words, the substantive literature avoids scrutinizing Russian political consciousness shaped by the structural factors, perpetuated, distributed and redistributed over time (Rendle, 2005;Cracraft, 2010;Michael-Matsas 2016;Rendle and Lively, 2017).…”

“…Historically, national revolutions and uprisings have taken various shapes such as the activities of the Spanish Falanga, which successfully fought the internationalist Republic, the Nazi upheaval in the 1930s or the Kurdish revival in Iraq in the 2010s. The theoretical aspect of the topic may not have been studied sufficiently; however, some publications concerning the issue are recommended (Unwalla, 2015;Kumar, 2015). Russia can be described as a post-revolutionary country in at least two aspects.…”