Is Nation ‘One of the Most Puzzling and Tendentious Items in the Political Lexicon’?

Abstract

AbstractThe aim of this paper is to clarify the meaning of the concept of nation, which has often been described as a puzzling concept. I propose first to analyse various definitions of nation, focusing on whether they imply that nations exist and what this means if so, or in what sense they exist. I distinguish four ways of approaching this. I evidence the shortcomings of each approach, and argue that the best one is that proposed by Brubaker: to focus on nationalization as a process and on nationness as a variable, rather than on ‘nations’ as discrete groups. Second, I show how this approach can benefit from Rosch's theory of categorization, Gellner's definition of nationalism, and Mann's theory of the centralization of the state. Finally, I argue that what Gellner called the ‘weakness of nationalism’ explains the puzzle of ‘nations’: although nationalization contributes to shaping society according to the principle of nationalism, it only succeeds to a certain degree, leaving nations always unfinished and impossible to identify clearly.