The Relevance of Kohn's Dichotomy to the Russian Nineteenth‐Century Concept of Nationalism

Rabow-Edling, Susanna

doi:10.1111/j.1754-9469.2008.00036.x

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A comparative study of the attitudes of 12 ethnic minorities in Central and Eastern Europe showed the overwhelming dominance of hybrid identities rather than purely civic and ethnic ones (Cebotari 2016, 655-656). A study of Russian nationalist ideology identified both "civic" and "ethnic" tendencies, though in different levels of strength at different points in time (Rabow-Edling 2008). Competition between the two types was also detected in constitutional debates in Poland following the fall of Communism (Zubrycki 2001) and in political debate in the early years of interwar Latvia (Germane 2012).…”

Section: Survey Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

National identity and the “Kohn dichotomy”

Coakley

2018

Nationalities Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Survey Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

National identity and the “Kohn dichotomy”

Coakley

2018

Nationalities Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…- Rejai and Enloe (1969, p. 140) The first of the above epigraphs, penned by the historian Otto Pflanze in 1966, encapsulates the familiar contrast between Western "state-nations" and non-Western "nation-states" that pervades debates on the nature of nationalism. Within the academic field of nationalism studies, this typology is widely known as "Kohn's dichotomy" (e.g., Rabow-Edling, 2008) or "the Kohn dichotomy" (e.g., Coakley, 2018)-an homage to the Prague-born Jewish-American historian of nationalism Hans Kohn who helped popularise the schema. In this binary framework, Western nationalism is presented as an essentially political phenomenon centred on the legal institutions of the territorial state, as a form of patriotism or civic spirit compatible with the universal values of modern liberalism.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mind the gap: The nation form and the Kohn dichotomy

Heiskanen

2023

Nations and Nationalism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The dichotomy between civic Western nationalism and ethnic non‐Western nationalism (also known as “the Kohn dichotomy” after the historian of nationalism Hans Kohn) remains one of the most influential frameworks for understanding nationalism. It is also one of the most controversial: The binary schema has been criticised not only for its conceptual inconsistencies but also for entrenching an ethnocentric hierarchy that depicts Western nations as fountains of civic virtue. This article enriches these longstanding debates by excavating the neglected inverse side of the Kohn dichotomy. Since the late nineteenth century, the idealised Western nation is imagined not only as a civic polity united by common political traditions but also as an organic community blessed with natural boundaries. In short, Western nations are depicted as both civic and ethnic. Meanwhile, non‐Western nations are denied the privilege of being contradictory and deemed to suffer from a perennial mismatch between civic and ethnic elements: Non‐Western nations are depicted either as ethnic communities lacking civic traditions or as artificial political constructions lacking organic roots. Without taking into account this intricate dialectic between the civic and ethnic poles of the nation form, critics of the Kohn dichotomy will struggle to fully grasp its ideological functions or historical longevity.

show abstract

“…This article draws attention to the relationship between liberalism, nationalism and modernisation in Russia. Because nationalism in Russia has commonly been seen as cultural, conservative and utopian rather than political, liberal and progressive, its link to the emergence of liberalism in the 1850s has not attracted much attention (Greenfeld 1993;Ignatieff 1994;Kohn 1945;Malinova 2000;Plamenatz 1973;Rabow-Edling 2008;Smith 1991Smith , 1998Smith , 2001Sugar 1995).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Liberalism and nationalism in Russia. Boris Chicherin as a modernist nationalist

Rabow-Edling

2012

Nations and Nationalism

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article investigates the link between nationalism and liberalism in Russia by looking at the way the leading spokesman of early Russian liberalism, Boris Chicherin, combined liberal ideas with notions of nation‐building and the idea of the nation as a modernising phenomenon. The article argues that the young Chicherin, at least in the formative years of the 1850s, had an instrumental approach to liberalism. Liberalism served a specific purpose – to integrate the people and shape a community of active citizens so that Russia could modernise. Chicherin was concerned with the formation of a modern nation‐state rather than the establishment of popular rule or political rights. In this sense, his thinking fits well into what, in the context of the Ottoman Empire, has been called modernist nationalism.

show abstract

The Relevance of Kohn's Dichotomy to the Russian Nineteenth‐Century Concept of Nationalism

Cited by 3 publications

References 16 publications

National identity and the “Kohn dichotomy”

National identity and the “Kohn dichotomy”

Mind the gap: The nation form and the Kohn dichotomy

Liberalism and nationalism in Russia. Boris Chicherin as a modernist nationalist

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About