Brown, David. "Why is the Nation-State so Vulnerable to Ethnic Nationalism?". Nations and Nationalism, Vol. 4, No.1 (1998): 1-15.

Brown, David. "Why is the Nation-State so Vulnerable to Ethnic Nationalism?". Nations and Nationalism, Vol. 4, No.1 (1998): 1-15.

• The author argues that resurgent nationalism is a symptom of declining faith in state power and the ability of political elites. Dr. Brown posits that unifying nationalism is just the ideology constructed by the contemporary political order, and when faith in those institutions fails, people lose faith in dominant nationalism and turn to other ideologies, like those of alternative nationalisms based on ethnolinguistic groups (2).
• Nationalism was constructed by states, especially following World War II, to replace older failing forms of legitimacy like divine right or civilizing mission. Elites select certain historic symbols to construct a narrative of a natural community based on the contemporary state, which serves to legitimate the state as 'natural' or 'organic' (2-3).
• Although modernist and primordialist views of nationalism are contradictory, both fields agree that nationalism in the modern period was partially constructed and mobilized by state elites to legitimate the state (3, 5).
• The modernist approach to nationalism contains three strands of thought, the first being the diffusionist theory. This states that common language and culture are developed organically and facilitated by elites during periods of economic growth and industrialization -- which require common language and customs for trade of goods and persons. They then say that this transformative process is put into a selective narrative by contemporary elites (3-4).
• The Marxist strand of the modernist nationalist school holds that class conflict is the true driver behind all divisions, and that nationalism is just a cause created to mobilize one class against another. Normally, but not exclusively, this refers to the use of nationalism by dominant bourgeoisie to control other classes (4).
• The school of 'uneven development' within modernist strands of nationalist theory claims that since nationalism is constructed by and alongside political centralization and industrialization, the domination or lack of development in certain peripheral areas leads to the creation of a common nationalist identity opposed to the identity offered by the metropole (4).
• Very often debates about nationalism and its development center around discussions of distinguishing 'real' nationalism from political propaganda, yet the later appears to be far more common. Rather than the general belief that a nation has nationalism, the historical norm seems to be for nationalist propaganda to create -- rather than 'awaken' -- nationalist sentiment in a community (5).
• Prior to the 20th Century, the primary legitimacy of the state depended on Hobbesian claims to be the sole or primary guarantor of security, but following World War II the expanse of state responsibility has widened to include demands for the state to be responsible for social and economic development. Originally present in the Communist East, social democratic governments in Europe also began promoting these values (6).
• As the state became expected to supply economic and social development, the nationalism and symbology of the state also had to shift and reflect its new expressions of state power. This transition meant that the legitimacy of the state and nationalism now depended on both security and its ability to guarantee equitable social and economic development (6).
• "The ‘invented ideological myth of the nation-state resonated with the ‘imagining’ of civil society, as the impact of industrialization and colonialism disrupted the face to face communities of family and locality. Individuals sought imagined communities which could mimic the kinship group in offering a sense of identity, security and authority. The promises of state elites to provide development in the vision of the social justice nation seemed to fulfill these societal needs" (7).
• The strength of the nation-state depends on the resonance of the nationalist ideology within the contemporary civil society. In the industrialized and atomized society described, the nation-state is strong, but would be weak where familial ties exist and do not require replacement (7).
• The strength of nationalism was in its ability to mimic the relationships of the family, by providing a paternalistic community in the nation. The ability to invoke a paternal relationship of dependency was heightened by providing the moral and economic security otherwise provided by the family -- through justice and social programs (7-8).
• "From the late 1960s onwards, disparities between the developmental promises of state elites and their performances began to engender disillusionment, so that state elites began to be seen increasingly as the source of insecurity and disruption. In these circumstances individuals began to look for alternative imagined kinship communities able to offer security in the form of social just ice" (8-9).
• The claims by nation-state governments, particularly in the 3rd World, to be able to supply physical, economic, and social security are clearly ridiculous and a vast overestimation of governmental capacity. This has resulted in a widening gap between state capacity and societal expectations, leading to disillusionment with the nation-state (9).
• The actually capacity of the state to supply societal goods does not actually have to have declined for disillusionment to take place, the state simply needs to fail to meet the expectation of society, which are likely to increase over time (9-10).
• A loss of popular faith in the legitimacy and ability of the state will also led to a decline in the public belief and support for the corresponding nationalism. Since state power and nationalist ideology are spread by the same state elites, the decline of trust in state officials also damages nationalism. Furthermore, these failures were heightened in periods of mismanagement, when the state was viewed in an actively negative light (10-11).
• Growing public consciousness of existing or evolving inequalities between regions or peoples within the state lead to counter-claims against the supposed neutrality or unity of the nation-state, prompting the formation of sub-national identities along economic and/or social divides (10).
• Originally, a strong nation-state was largely immune from threats of nationalism or sectarianism, since the popular image of the state as neutral allowed it to dismiss ethnic movements are destructive to unity and representing private interests, counter to the public interests represented by the state (11).
• Part of the reason why opposition and separatist movements based around ethnicity have become successful in recent years has been their co-opting of the same language as the nation-state. They claim to create the same communitarian nation based on common ancestry as the state, but appeal as an alternative to disadvantaged minorities within the state (11).
• The marginalization of minority groups which sparks ethnic nationalist conflict is frequently a direct result of the forms of assimilation and majoritarianism employed in the consolidation of larger nation-states, which depend on the assimilation of regional languages and identities as part of the nation-building process (12).
• In the modern area of rising ethnic nationalism, the nation-state is forced to either confront the opposition nationalism head-on, leading to violent confrontation, or accept a series of decentralizing initiatives. These latter policies require the replacement of the assimilation narrative of nationalism with a multicultural narrative, which takes time to construct and may feel disingenuous to certain groups (13).
• The implementation of affirmative action or decentralization programs leaves the state even more exposed to claims of favoritism and violation of neutrality between ethnic groups by providing additional areas of explicit ethnic competition and requiring strict neutrality (13-14).
• "Nation-states have been weakened by the failure of state elites to deliver the promised social justice community, the nation. But the inequities of development have exacerbated the need of individuals for an imagined community which could provide a sense of identity, security and authority, and the ethnic community is increasingly replacing the state in this role because of the capacity of ethnicity to portray itself as the authentic kinship community, and because of the promises by ethnic elites to provide social justice" (14).