Reviews Nations and Nationalism Nations and Nationalism since 1780; Programme, myth, reality, Eric J. Hobsbawm, Cambridge University Press, 1990, $19.95. Startling questions, followed by probing analysis, sharp examples and surprising counterexamples mark this serial history of modem nationalism’s development. Hobsbawm’s approach is, as always, invigorating. The French Revolution Modem popular nationalism can first be seen in the form of social revolution in France, where patriotism spread widely through rebellion against nobility, and France’s inspired revolutionary troops shattered Europe’s professional military. This nationalism, however, was not ethnically chauvinistic, in fact liberation of those under monarchy was a major ideal - eventually substantially accomplished through inspiration by the French. French revolutionary nationalism could not be ethnically or linguistically exclusionary; France was far from homogeneous. This was tme also of the United States, where for decades politicians avoided the term Nation publicly, preferring the word Union and shying away from centralist rhetoric (the Federalists, who won the battle over national direction, wanted to centralize for primarily mercantilist, or state-led economic, reasons.) Most people in French territory did not speak French at home, they spoke patois, the general name for any of perhaps thousands of languages and dialects of German, Celtic, Latin and neolithic heritage. The revolutionary government was against ethnic snobbery; when they encouraged the speaking of French they intended that people should be bilingual, with French as a second, common language. Though some of the urbane leaders of the revolution might have been suspicious of mrals who didn’t speak French, there was serious social reasoning behind making the ability to speak French a citizenship requirement; “All members of the sovereign (people) may occupy all public posts; it is desirable that all should fill them in rotation, before returning to their agricultural or mechanical occupations. This state of affairs confronts us with the following alternative. If the posts are occupied by men incapable of expressing themselves in, or writing, the national language, how can the rights of the citizens be safeguarded by documents whose texts contain terminological errors, ideas lacking precision — in a word, all the symptoms ofignorance? If, on the other hand, such ignorance were to exclude men from public posts, we would soon see the rebirth of that aristocracy which once used patois as a sign ofprotective affability when speaking to those it insolently called ‘the lower orders’ [les petites gens]. Soon society would once again be in- fectedby ‘the right sortofpeople’ [de gens comme ilfaut]. Between two separated classes a sort of hierarchy will establish itself Thus ignorance of the language would put at risk social welfare, or it would destroy equality.’’ [Rapport, Abb6 Gr6goire] This extended communal patriotism was not yet the Nationalism we know today. Liberal Liberals were the prime organizers of national movements for most of the 19th century, especially when the revolutionary stage ended in Europe after 1848. Many envisaged their nation-states competing in the world-market, supported by increasingly centralized support for comBritannia and France offer cannonballs to China at teatime, opening more ports to their trading monopolies. As national governments competedfor more markets and overseas resources, the British press imprints the emerging masses with positive images of international bravado, helping to set the stage for the First World War. Punch, 1858. Page 30 Rain Winter/Spring 1992 Volume XIV, Number 2
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz