![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() It would be more exact to say that nationalism has proved an uncomfortable anomaly for Marxist theory and, precisely for that reason, has been largely elided, rather than confronted. Hugh Seton-Watson, author of far the best and most comprehensive English-language text on nationalism, and heir to a vast tradition of liberal historiography and social science, sadly observes: ‘Thus I am driven to the conclusion that no “scientific definition” of the nation can be devised yet the phenomenon has existed and exists.’ 4 Tom Nairn, author of the path-breaking The Break-up of Britain, and heir to the scarcely less vast tradition of Marxist historiography and social science, candidly remarks: ‘The theory of nationalism represents Marxism’s great historical failure.’ 5 But even this confession is somewhat misleading, insofar as it can be taken to imply the regrettable outcome of a long, self-conscious search for theoretical clarity. In contrast to the immense influence that nationalism has exerted on the modern world, plausible theory about it is conspicuously meagre. Nation, nationality, nationalism – all have proved notoriously difficult to define, let alone to analyse. But if the facts are clear, their explanation remains a matter of long-standing dispute. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |