ETHNOSYMBOLISM

lecture notes by Denis Bašić

based on Özkırımlı’s “Theories of Nationalism”
chapter 5
 Anthony Smith & Ethnosymbolism
Ethnosymbolism emerges from the
theoretical critique of modernism.

Broadly speaking, ethnosymbolism refers

to an approach which emphasizes the role of
myths, symbols, memories, values and
traditions in the formation, persistence
and change of ethnicity and nationalism.

The founder of the ethnosymbolist

perspective within nationalism studies and
the leading proponent of this approach was
Anthony D. Smith. 1939-2016
Ethnosymobolic Approach to Nationalism
According to Anthony Smith, an ethnosymbolic approach stresses
the need for an analysis of collective cultural identities over la tongue
durée, that is a time span of many centuries;
the importance of continuity, recurrence and appropriation as different
modes of connecting the national past, present and future;
the significance of pre-existing ethnic communities, or ethnies, in the
formation of modern nations;
the role of memories of golden ages, myths of origin and ethnic election,
cults of heroes and ancestors, the attachment to a homeland in the
formation and persistence of national identities;
the different kinds of ethnic groups that form the basis of various kinds
of nations; and
the special contribution of the modern ideology of nationalism to the
dissemination of the ideal of the nation.
Ethnosymobolism vs. Other Theories of
Nationalism
The ethnosymbolic approach, Smith argues, differs from
other approaches
in underlining the importance of subjective elements
in our understanding of ethnic groups and nations,
in the weight it gives to popular cultures and
practices and how these set limits to elite
understandings and strategies.

[Note how ethnosymbolists underplay the role of the

elites in the process of identity constructions. They
actually put the opposite stress.]
Homogeneity of Ethnosymobolism
Ethnosymbolists form a more homogeneous category
than both the primordialists and the modernists.
Guided by a common reverence for the past, they lay
stress on similar processes in their explanations of nations
and nationalism.
For ethnosymbolists, the emergence of today's
nations cannot be understood properly without taking
their ethnic forebears into account; in other words, the
rise of nations needs to be contextualized within the
larger phenomenon of ethnicity which shaped them.
Difference between Nations & Ethnies
The differences between modern nations and the
collective cultural units of earlier eras are of degree
rather than kind, according to Smith.
This suggests that ethnic identities change more slowly
than is generally assumed; once formed, they tend to be
exceptionally durable under 'normal' vicissitudes of history,
such as migrations, invasions, intermarriages, and do persist
over many generations, even centuries (Smith 1986: 16).
In short , the modern era is no tabula rasa (blank slate).

[Notice that ethnosymbolists go back to determinism in

identity, which is a form of fatalism.]
Ethnosymbolists vs. Their Opponents
Ethnosymbolists claim to reject the stark 'continuism' of
the perennialists and to accord due weight to the
transformations wrought by modernity.
On the other side, they also reject the claims of the
modernists by arguing that a greater measure of continuity
exists between 'traditional' and 'modern ', or 'agrarian ' and
'industrial' eras - hence the need for a wider theory of ethnic
formation that will bring out the differences and similarities
between contemporary national units and premodern ethnic
communities.

[NOTE: The ethnosymbolist use of the concept of “continuity”

has earned them the criticism of being “conceptually confused.”]
 Goals of Ethnosymbolism
Smith contends that ethnosymbolist approach is more
helpful than its alternatives in at least three ways:
First, it helps to explain which populations are likely to start
a nationalist movement under certain conditions and what
the content of this movement would be.
Second, it enables us to understand the important role of
memories, values, myths and symbols. Nationalism, Smith
argues, mostly involves the pursuit of symbolic goals such as
education in a particular language, having a TV channel in
one’s own language or the protection of ancient sacred sites.
Materialist and modernist theories of nationalism fail to
illuminate these issues, as they are unable to comprehend
the emotive power of collective memories.
Goals of Ethnosymbolism 2

Finally, the ethnosymbolist approach explains why and

how nationalism is able to generate such a widespread
popular support.
Most of all perhaps, an ethnosymbolic approach can help
us to understand both the durability and the
transformations of ethnicity in history and the
continuing power and persistence of nations and
nationalism at the start of the third millennium. This is
because it directs our gaze to the inner worlds of the
ethnie and the nation.
John Armstrong & Myth-Symbol Complexes
According to Anthony Smith, it was John Armstrong
who first underlined the significance of la longue
durée for the study of nationalism in his
'pathbreaking' Nations before Nationalism (1982) and
who embedded it within a larger inquiry into the pre-
modern bases of ethnicity.
Armstrong's stated aim is to explore 'the emergence of
the intense group identification that today we term a
"nation'" by adopting what he calls an 'extended
temporal perspective' that reaches back to antiquity.
Having examined ethnic groups in the course of their
long historical journey, he stops at the 'threshold of
nationalism', that is before the period when
nationalism becomes the dominant political doctrine, 1922-2010
the eighteenth century. He justifies this by noting that
he is more concerned with the persistence rather than
the genesis of particular patterns.
Ancient Ethnic Consciousness
For Armstrong, ethnic consciousness has a long history; it is
possible to come across its traces in ancient civilizations, for
example in Egypt and Mesopotamia.
In this sense, contemporary nationalism is nothing but the
final stage of a larger cycle of ethnic consciousness reaching
back to the earliest forms of collective organization.
The most important feature of this consciousness, according to
Armstrong, is its persistence. Hence the formation of ethnic
identities should be examined in a time dimension of many
centuries, similar to the longue durée perspective emphasized by
the Annales school of French historiography. Only an extended
temporal perspective can reveal the durability of ethnic
attachments and the 'shifting significance of boundaries for human
identity '.
Boundary Mechanisms : “Us” vs. “Them”

Adopting the social interaction model of the Norwegian

anthropologist Fredrik Barth, Armstrong argues that
'groups tend to define themselves not by reference to their
own characteristics but by exclusion, that is, by comparison
to "strangers"'.
It follows that there can be no fixed 'character' or 'essence'
for the group; the boundaries of identities vary according
to the perceptions of the individuals forming the group.
Thus, it makes more sense to focus on the boundary
mechanisms that distinguish a particular group from
others instead of objective group characteristics.
Barth’s Attitudinal Approach
For Armstrong, Barth's attitudinal approach affords many
advantages.
First, it makes room for changes in the cultural and the
biological content of the group as long as the boundary
mechanisms are maintained.
Second, it shows that ethnic groups are not necessarily
based on the occupation of particular, exclusive territories.
Third, the key to understanding ethnic identification is the
'uncanny experience of confronting others' who remained
mute in response to attempts at communication, whether oral
or through symbolic gestures. Inability to communicate
initiates the process of 'differentiation' which in turn brings a
recognition of ethnic belonging.
 Factors that ensure the persistence of
ethnic identification
Ways of life and the expectancies associated with them.
Two fundamentally different ways of life, the nomadic and the
sedentary, are particularly important in this context, because
the myths and symbols they embody - expressed, notably, in
nostalgia – create two sorts of identities based on incompatible
principles. Thus, the territorial principle and its peculiar
nostalgia ultimately became the predominant form in Europe,
while the genealogical or pseudo-genealogical principle has
continued to prevail in most of the Middle East.
The second factor, religion, reinforced this basic distinction. The
two great universal religions, Islam and Christianity, gave birth
to different civilizations and the myths-symbols associated with
them shaped the formation of ethnic identities in their own
specific ways.
 Factors that ensure the persistence of
ethnic identification 2
Armstrong's third factor is the city. The analysis of the effect of
towns on ethnic identification requires, Armstrong argues,
examination of a host of factors, ranging from the impact of town
planning to the unifying or centrifugal effects of various legal codes,
especially the Lubeck and Magdeburg law. Then he moves to the role
of imperial polities.
At this point, the central question is 'how could the intense
consciousness of loyalty and identity established through face-to-face
contact in the city-state be transferred to the larger agglomerations
of cities and countryside known as empires'? Here, Armstrong
stresses the diverse effects of the Mesopotamian myth of the
polity - what he calls 'mythomoteur' - as a reflection of heavenly
rule. This myth was used as a vehicle for incorporating city-state
loyalties in a larger framework. For him, this might constitute the
earliest example of 'myth transference for political purposes'.
 Factors that ensure the persistence of
ethnic identification 3
Finally, Armstrong introduces the question of language and
assesses it s impact on identity-formation in the pre-
nationalist era.

Contrary to commonsense assumptions, Armstrong concludes,

'the significance of language for ethnic identity is highly

contingent' in pre-modern eras. Its significance depended in
the long run on political and religious forces and
allegiances.

[Note: It appears that, according to Armstrong, the most

obvious characteristic of an ethnicity - its language - loses its
primacy to the politics, which is a modernist argument.]
Nations before Nationalism
While standing firm on his belief that nations did exist
before nationalism, Armstrong nevertheless agrees with
Anderson and Hobsbawm that, like other human
identities, national identity had been an invention.
The only remaining disagreement, Armstrong contends, is
'over the antiquity of some inventions and the
repertory of pre-existing group characteristics that
inventors were able to draw upon'.

{NOTE: The question is whether “the pre-existing

characteristics” were also “invented”, “manipulated”, and
“instrumentalized” by the previous generations of elites.]
 John Armstrong’s key contributions to
Ethnosymbolism
It can be argued that Armstrong's work, with its focus on
medieval European and Middle Eastern civilizations, offers
a more comprehensive overview of the process of ethnic
identification than other comparable studies in the field.
For Smith, Armstrong makes a strong case for grounding
the emergence of modern national identities on patterns of
ethnic persistence, and especially on the long term
influence of 'myth-symbol complexes'.
It was indeed Smith who explored these issues further and
elaborated the framework of analysis developed by
Armstrong.
 Anthony Smith & Ethnosymbolism
According to Smith, if we are to move beyond the sweeping
generalizations of both modernism and primordialism, we need to
formulate clear working definitions of key terms like 'nation' and
'nationalism', thereby breaking out of an impasse which continues to
bedevil progress in the field.
The problem with modernist theories, he argues, is that they provide
a definition, not of the nation per se, but of a particular kind of nation -
the modern nation. It reflects the characteristics of 18th and 19th-
century nations in Western Europe and America, hence it is partial and
Eurocentric.
What is needed is an ideal-typical definition of the nation, one that treats
it as a general analytic category, which can in principle be applied to all
continents and periods of history.
[NOTE: The problem is that modernist do not believe that “nation”
existed in pre-modern eras while premordialists & ethnosymbolist do.
The latter speak of “the nation before nationalism.” See John Armstrong.]
Anthony Smith’s definition of nation
Smith thus proposes the following definition of the
nation, derived to a large extent from the images and
assumptions held by most or all nationalists:

‘a nation is 'a named human population sharing an

historic territory, common myths and historical
memories, a mass, public culture, a common
economy and common legal rights and duties for all
members'.
Smith holds that such a definition reveals the complex and
abstract nature of national identity which is fundamentally
multidimensional.
Anthony Smith on the Origins of Nation
According to Smith, the origins of nations are as
complex as its nature. We might begin to look for a general
explanation by asking the following questions:
1. Who is the nation? What are the ethnic bases and
models of modern nations? Why did these particular
nations emerge?
2. Why and how does the nation emerge? That is, what
are the general causes and mechanisms that set in
motion the process of nation-formation from varying
ethnic ties and memories?
3. When and where did the nation arise?
 1. Who is the nation? What are the ethnic bases and models
of modern nations? Why did these particular nations emerge?
For Smith, the answer to the first question should be sought in earlier ethnic
communities (he prefers to use the French term ethnie) since pre-modern identities
and legacies form the bedrock of many contemporary nations. He posits six main
attributes for such communities:
a collective proper name, a myth of common ancestry, shared historical
memories, one or more differentiating elements of a common culture, an
association with a specific homeland, a sense of solidarity for significant
sectors of the population.
As this list reveals, most of these attributes have a cultural and historical content
as well as a strong subjective component. This suggests, contrary to the rhetoric
of nationalist ideologies, that the ethnie is anything but primordial. According to
Smith, as the subjective significance of each of these attributes waxes and wanes for
the members of a community, so does their cohesion and self-awareness.

[NOTE: It seems that ethnosymbolists advocate that cultural identities are

changeable. How are then ethnosymbolists different from “cultural modernists” in
this regard? Think of instrumentalism and constructionism of identities. The
question is if the changes are “natural” or ‘induced.”]
Why and how do ethnies emerge?
If the ethnie is not a primordial entity, then how does it come into being?
Smith identifies two main patterns of ethnie formation: coalescence and
division.

By coalescence he means the coming together of separate units, which in

turn can be broken down into processes of amalgamation of separate units
such as city-states and of absorption of one unit by another as in the
assimilation of regions.

By division he means subdivision through fission as with sectarian schism or

through 'pro-liferation' (a term he borrows from Horowitz}, when a part of the
ethnic community leaves it to form a new unit as in the case of Bangladesh.

Smith notes that ethnies, once formed, tend to be exceptionally durable.

However, this should not lead us to the conclusion that they travel across
history without undergoing any changes in their demographic composition
and/or cultural contents. In other words, we should try to eschew the polar
extremes of the primordialist-instrumentalist debate when assessing the
recurrence of ethnic ties and communities.
What can change an ethnic identity?
Smith admits that there are certain events that generate profound
changes in the cultural contents of ethnic identities. Among these, he
singles out war and conquest, exile and enslavement, the influx
of immigrants and religious conversion.
Nevertheless, what really matters is how far these changes reflect on
and disrupt the sense of cultural continuity that binds successive
generations together. For Smith, even the most radical changes
cannot destroy this sense of continuity and common ethnicity.
This is partly due to the existence of a number of external forces
that help to crystallize ethnic identities and ensure their persistence
over long periods. Of these, state-making, military mobilization
and organized religion are the most crucial.

[NOTE: Pay attention to the importance of “external forces” in

identity construction. “Internal” or “external” forces, critics say, imply
that the national/ethnic identities are constructed.]
 Four survival mechanisms of ethnic
communities
The first such mechanism is 'religious reform'.
The history of the Jews is replete with many instances of this.
Conversely, groups who fell prey to religious conservatism tried to
compensate for the failure to introduce reforms by turning to
other forms of self-renewal. This was the dilemma faced by the
Greeks at the beginning of the nineteenth century. When the
Orthodox hierarchy failed to respond to popular aspirations, the
Greek middle classes fumed to secular ideological discourses
to realize their goals.
The second mechanism is 'cultural borrowing', in the sense
of controlled contact and selective cultural exchange between
different communities. Here again, examples can be found from
Jewish history. The lively encounter between Jewish and Greek
cultures, Smith holds, enriched the whole field of Jewish culture
and identity.
 Four survival mechanisms of ethnic
communities

The third mechanism is 'popular participation'.

The popular movements for greater participation in the
political system saved many ethnies from withering away by
genera ting a missionary zeal among the participants of
these movements.
The fourth mechanism of ethnic self-renewal identified
by Smith is 'myths of ethnic election'.
According to Smith, ethnies that lack such myths tended to
be absorbed by others after losing their independence.
2. Why and how does the nation emerge?
The existence of pre-modem ethnic ties helps us to
determine which units of population are likely to become nations,
but it does not tell us why and how this transformation comes
about.
To answer the second general question raised above, that is,
'why and how does the nation emerge?', we need to specify the
main patterns of 'identity formation' and the factors that
triggered their development.
Smith begins by identifying two types of ethnic community,
the 'lateral' (aristocratic) and
the 'vertical' (demotic),
noting that these two types gave birth to different patterns
of nation formation.
“Lateral” vs. “Vertical” Ethnies
The 'lateral 'ethnies’ were generally composed of aristocrats and
higher clergy, though in some cases they might also include
bureaucrats, high military officials and richer merchants. Smith
explains his choice of the term ' lateral' by pointing out that these ethnies
were at once socially confined to the upper strata and geographically spread
out to form close links with the upper echelons of neighbouring lateral
ethnies. As a result, their borders were 'ragged', but they lacked social depth,
'and [their] often marked sense of common ethnicity was bound up with
[their] esprit de corps as a high status stratum and ruling class'.

On the contrary, 'vertical' ethnies were more compact and popular. Their
culture was diffused to other sections of the population as well. Social
cleavages were not underpinned by cultural differences; 'rather, a
distinctive historical culture helped to unite different classes around a
common heritage and traditions, especially when the latter were under
threat from outside'. As a result of this, the ethnic bond was more intense
and exclusive, and the barriers to admission were much higher.
 The First Route of Nation Formation:
Emerging Bureaucratic State
According to Smith, the primary vehicle in the process of nation formation
was the newly emerging bureaucratic state. Through a series of
'revolutions' in the administrative, economic and cultural spheres,
the state was able to diffuse the dominant culture down the social scale.

The major constituents of the 'administrative revolution' were the

extension of citizenship rights, conscription, taxation and the
building up of an infrastructure that linked distant parts of the realm.

The economic revolution comprehends the movement to a market

economy.

The cultural revolution means the decline of ecclesiastical

authority. The latter was particularly important in that it allowed the
development of secular studies and of university learning. This, in turn, led
to a 'boom' in popular modes of communication - novels, plays and
journals. An important role was played in these processes by the
intellectuals and professionals.
 The Second Route of Nation Formation:
Vernacular Mobilization
The second route of nation formation, what Smith calls 'vernacular
mobilization', set out from a vertical ethnie. The influence of the
bureaucratic state was more indirect in this case mainly because vertical
ethnies were usually subject communities. Here, the key mechanism of ethnic
persistence was organized religion. It was through myths of
chosenness, sacred texts and scripts, and the prestige of the clergy
that the survival of communal traditions was ensured.
But demotic communities had problems of their own, which surfaced at
the initial stages of the process of nation formation. To start with, ethnic
culture usually overlapped with the wider circle of religious culture and
loyalty, and there was no internal coercive agency to break the mould.
Moreover, the members of the community simply assumed that they
already constituted a nation, albeit one without a political roof.

[NOTE: The latter point attracts a lot of criticism. Since we do not have
the public opinion polls from this era, it is impossible to know what people
“in general” “assumed”.]
Religious vs. Historic Cultural Community
The primary task of the secular intelligentsia was to alter the basic
relationship between ethnicity and religion. In other words, the
community of the faithful had to be distinguished from the
community of historic culture. Smith identifies three different
orientations among the intellectuals confronted with this dilemma:
a conscious, modernizing return to tradition ('traditionalism');
a messianic desire to assimilate to Western modernity
(‘assimilation' or 'modernism'); and
a more defensive attempt to synthesize elements of the traditions
with aspects of Western modernity, hence to revive a pristine
community modelled on a former golden age ('reformist
revivalism').
Whatever the solution espoused, the main task of an ethnic intelligentsia
was "to mobilize a formerly passive community into forming a nation
around the new vernacular historical culture it has rediscovered'.
 The Third Route of Nation Formation:
Immigrant Nations

Smith identifies a third route of nation formation in his

later work, that of the immigrant nations which consist
largely of the fragments of other ethnies, particularly those
from overseas.
In countries like the United States, Canada and Australia,
colonist-immigrants have created a 'providentialist
frontier nationalism' and this has encouraged a 'plural'
conception of the nation, which accepts, even celebrates,
ethnic and cultural diversity within an overarching
political, legal, and linguistic national identity.
3. When and where did the nation arise?

This is where nationalism comes in. Nationalism, Smith

contends, does not help us determine which units of
population are eligible to become nations, nor why they do
so, but it plays an important part in determining when and
where nations will emerge. The next step, then, is to
consider the (political) impact of nationalism in a
number of particular cases. But this cannot be done
without clarifying the concept of nationalism itself.
Smith’s Definition of Nationalism
Smith begins by noting that the term 'nationalism' has
been used in five different ways:
1. the whole process of forming and maintaining
nations;
2. a consciousness of belonging to the nation;
3. a language and symbolism of the 'nation';
4. an ideology (including a cultural doctrine of
nations); and
5. a social and a political movement to achieve the
goals of the nation and realize the national will.
Smith’s Definition of Nationalism 2
Smith stresses the fourth and the fifth meanings in his own definition.
Hence,

nationalism is 'an ideological movement for attaining and

maintaining autonomy, unity and identity on behalf of a population
deemed by some of its members to constitute an actual or potential "
nation"'.
The key terms in this definition are autonomy, unity and identity.
Autonomy refers to the idea of self-determination and the collective
effort to realize the true, 'authentic', national will. Unity denotes the
unification of the national territory and the gathering together of all
nationals within the homeland. It also signifies the brotherhood of all
nationals in the nation. Finally, identity means 'sameness" that is, that
the members of a particular group are alike in those respects in which
they differ from non-members, but it also implies the rediscovery of
the 'collective self ' (or the 'national genius'
 Four Central Propositions of
the Core Doctrine of Nationalism
According to Smith, the 'core doctrine' of nationalism
consists of four central propositions:
1. The world is divided into nations, each with its own
peculiar character, history and destiny.
2. The nation is the source of all political and social
power, and loyalty to the nation has priority over all
other allegiances.
3. Human beings must identify with a nation if they
want to be free and realize themselves.
4. Nations must be free and secure if peace is to
prevail in the world.
Smith’s Types of Nationalism
Drawing on Kahn's philosophical distinction between a more
rational and a more organic version nationalist ideology, he
identifies two kinds of nationalism:
'territorial nationalism’ and
'ethnic' nationalisms.
These two types of nationalism are based on 'Western' =
civic-territorial, and 'Eastern' = ethnic-genealogical
models of the nation respectively.
Onthis basis, he constructs a provisional typology of
nationalisms, taking into account the overall situation in which
the movements find themselves before and after independence.
“Territorial” vs. “Ethnic” Nationalism
1. Territorial nationalisms
(a) Pre-independence movements based on a civic model of the nation will
first seek to eject foreign rulers, then establish a new state-nation on the old
colonial territory; these are 'anti-colonial' nationalisms.*
(b) Post-independence movements based on a civic model of the nation will
try to bring together often disparate ethnic populations and integrate them
into a new political community replacing the old colonial state; these are
'integration ' nationalisms.
2. Ethnic nationalisms
(a) Pre-independence movements based on an ethnic/genealogical model of
the nation will seek to secede from a larger political unit and set up a new
'ethno-nation' in its place; these are 'secession' and 'diaspora'
nationalisms.
(b) Post-independence movements based on an ethnic/genealogical model
of the nation will seek to expand by including ethnic kinsmen outside the
present boundaries and establish a much larger 'ethno-nation' through the
union of culturally and ethnically similar states; the se are ' irredentist' and
'pan' nationalisms.
SMITH’S REVISED
VIEWS
Smith’s Revised Definition of Nation
Smith’s old definition of nation:
‘a nation is 'a named human population sharing an historic territory,
common myths and historical memories, a mass, public culture, a common
economy and common legal rights and duties for all members'.
Smith’s new definition of nation:
the nation is 'a named and self-defined community whose members
cultivate common myths, memories, symbols and values, possess and
disseminate a distinctive public culture, reside in and identify with a historic
homeland, and create and disseminate common laws and shared
customs' (2005 : 98).
Differences between the two definitions:
The new definition emphasizes 'self-definition' and 'historicity' at the
expense of more objective factors such as 'a common economy' and
'common legal rights and duties for all members'. More importantly,
'agency', which was absent from the earlier definition, is now back: the
members of the nation do not simply 'share' certain characteristics, but
'cultivate', 'create' and 'disseminate' them.
Differences btw. Nations & Ethnies
Smith’ believes that nations and ethnies are both forms of
cultural community, which share a high degree of self-
definition and a fund of myths, symbols and memories. But
nations differ from ethnies in terms of:
the residence of many members of the community in a
particular historic territory or homeland;
the dissemination of a public culture to the members
(as opposed to elements of common culture);
the spread of standard laws and customs among the
members.
Similarities btw. Nations & Ethnies
However, according to Smith, the linkages between pre-modern
and modern types of cultural collectivities cannot be denied.
The most obvious form of linkage is that of 'continuity' -
particular nations can be traced back to the medieval epoch or
even to antiquity, writes Smith, and members of modern
nations often draw on the symbolic element s of earlier ethnies
to which they claim kinship or an ancestral relationship.

The second form of linkage is 'recurrence' of ethnicity and

the nation form; both ethnies and nations are forms of social
organization and cultural community that may be found in
every period and in every continent.

[NOTE: The use of the concept of “continuity” and “recurrence”

make Smith hardly distinguishable from perennialists.]
Similarities btw. Nations & Ethnies 2
The final form of linkage between nations and earlier
ethnic communities is provided through the 'discovery'
and 'appropriation' of ethnic history.
Typically, a new national community and polity is
elaborated by priests, scribes and intellectuals who select
for this purpose symbolic elements from earlier 'related'
ethnic and national cultures.
In the modern epoch, authenticity becomes their
guiding light, the need to discover and use all that is
genuine and indigenous, to construct national
communities that will be pure, original and unique.
 Smith’s Revised View on
the Ethnic Origin of Nation
The second revision in Smith's later work concerns the
ethnic origins of nations.

While continuing to hold firm to the belief that ethnicity

and ethnic ties play a key role in the formation of nations,
Smith now claims that a broader view of the cultural
foundations of nations is needed, with a view to
highlighting the importance of other kinds of political and
religious kinds of community – such as the cultural
traditions of 'hierarchy' and 'republic' emanating from
the ancient Near East and the classical world.
 Smith’s Revised View on
the Dating of the Ideology of Nationalism
The third revision relates to the dating of the ideology
of nationalism.
Smith still believes that nationalism, as a doctrine, emerged
in the 18th century.
However, he now adds, several of its elements emerged
considerably earlier and 'a certain kind of popular and
vernacular nationalism could be found in some 17th-
century states like England, Scotland, and the
Netherlands - and perhaps elsewhere too'.

[Note: Now it is even harder to figure out the difference

between Smith’s later works and perennialism.]
Smith on Religious Nationalism
A further aspect of Smith's later work is the stress he laid on the
'sacred foundations' of nations and their relationship to the older
beliefs, symbols and rituals of traditional religions, in explaining the
strength and durability of national identities.
These foundations, Smith maintains, can only be understood within
the framework of the binding commitments of religion; 'so it is in the
sphere of "religion" that we must seek primarily the sources of
national attachments'. This will also enable us to make sense of the
recent revival of 'religious nationalisms'.
It is clearly insufficient to argue that nations and nationalism arose out
of, and against, the great religious cultural systems of the medieval
world. We have to recognize the complexity of continuing relations
between religions and forms of the sacred, on the one hand, and
national symbols, memories and traditions, on the other hand.
 A CRITIQUE OF
ETHNOSYMBOLISM
How to understand Ethnosymbolism?

The easiest way to understand ethnosymbolism seems to

be through the study of its criticism.
A quick glance at the literature will reveal that
ethnosymbolists have had their fair share of criticisms.
Some of these criticisms relate to
the conceptual and methodological premises of
ethnosymbolist interpretations,
their theoretical prowess and explanatory value.
In what follows, we shall examine five objections to
ethnosymbolism:
 Ethnosymbolists are conceptually
confused
According to the proponents of this view, erhnosymbolist arguments
constitute a typical illustration of the 'terminological chaos' that
plagues the study of nationalism. Smith and Armstrong are accused
of falling into the trap of the interutilization of the terms
ethnicity, ethnic group and nation.

Ethnosymbolists are also charged with 'retrospective

nationalism' (a charge, as we have seen earlier, that was also
directed against perennialists). 'Retrospective nationalism' is the
tendency to project back onto earlier social formations the features
peculiar to modern nations and nationalism.
Smith rejects these charges, arguing that this is to confuse a concern
for la longue durée with perennialism. Armstrong may use the
term 'nation' for pre-modern ethnies, he says, but he clearly
differentiates modern nations from these earlier cultural formations.
Ethnosymbolists underestimate the difference btw.
modern nations & earlier ethnic communities
Modernists claim that national consciousness is mainly a mass, not an elite
phenomenon, and 'evidence of ethnic consciousness among the aristocracy or
the literati cannot be accepted as evidence of national consciousness without
evidence that it is shared across a broader spectrum of the putative nation'.
There is always a time lag between the appearance of national consciousness
among the elites and its extension to the masses; hence nation formation is a
process, not an occurrence or an event. Modernists claim that there is no
evidence of massive national affiliation in pre-modern eras.
For Smith, 'absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence’ and the
argument from silence is a double-edged sword, as this might be construed as
much one of masses taking their ethnic or national attachments for granted.
What is more, it is not possible to argue that elite conceptions did not extend to
the masses, because this suggests that we have more insight into the beliefs of
pre-modern masses than did their elite contemporaries who chronicled these
sentiments.

[NOTE: The number and authenticity of such chronicles is highly questionable.]

Impossibility of speaking about nations
in pre-modern eras
Modernists argue that Greeks in the classical period or Armenians in the 5th
century were not, and could not be, nations in the modern sense of the term.
Whatever their degree of cohesion and consciousness, these ethno-religious
formations did not make claims to territory, autonomy or independence, nor
could they, since these political claims were only authorized in the age of nationalism.
Modernists claim that there were only three kinds of collective sentiments in
the Middle Ages: religious, political and ethnic.
The religious sentiments contained loyalty to the church or to various heretic
movements;
the political sentiments included feudal, city-state, dynastic, monarchical and
imperial loyalties; and
the ethnic sentiments consisted of loyalty to the neighbourhood or the region.
Some of these loyalties faded away in time; others were replaced by new loyalties;
still others provided the 'bricks and mortar' out of which the cultural unity of the
future nation was built. However, it is not possible to know with certitude which of
these sentiments was dominant in a particular situation.
Ethnosymbolist analyses lack historical
detail and analytical rigour
Modernists maintain that Smith's analyses remain 'trapped in assumptions'.
Smith assumes, for instance, that most people are 'deeply attached' to their
ethnic communities or that they are willing to die for these communities. Yet he
'hardly reflects on whether the very assumptions that drive his research are true'.
Ethnosymbolists are accused of avoiding the evidence that does not prove their
point. Thus, for instance, Smith claims that nationalists are constrained by
historical facts and adds that '[t]heir interpretations must be consonant not
only with the ideological demands of nationalism, but also with the scientific
evidence, popular resonance and patterning of particular ethno-histories'. 'The
more factually based the ethnic history, the more powerful the nationalist
project'. For instance, the Zionist (Israeli nationalist) use of the Masada was
powerful because archaeological evidence proved that this legend was indeed
true.
Modernists criticize Smith for not considering any contradictory evidence.
Thus, for instance, ‘German nationalism under Nazi ideological guidance’ was no
less powerful though ‘its claims about Jews rested on outrageous pseudo-science'.
Ethnosymbolists reify nation
Smith claims that the myths, symbols, values and memories that form the
culture 'tend to be exceptionally durable under "normal" vicissitudes and to
persist over many generations, even centuries', setting limits to elite
attempts at manipulation.
The 'evolutionary historicism' that characterizes Smith's work, critics
maintain, is based on three ontological assumptions: determinism,
fatalism and finalism. In this perspective, history has clearly defined (and
predetermined) stages of development, and historical evolution is
perceived as having a mission; ethnies are destined to become nations,
hence become the principal actors in the drama of history, with 'a purpose
and a functional role in the Great Chain of Being'. There is little room for
contingency in this 'teleologically crafted narrative'.
Perhaps more importantly, Smith reifies nations (and here one might add
ethnies) by unproblematically accepting folk concepts and treating large-
scale social actors as if they have singular and recognizable wills.