As is often the case, the first thing one must do when discussing an issue is to delimit that issue, often beginnnng by defining the very words that name it. This has been my experience in considering the issues of nationalism from so many different perspectives that have been offered through this conference: I have needed to rethink what is meant by the word ‘nation’, and in particular, how its meaning differs from that of state and ofculture. It seems we area11 familiar with the problems of the fine line between state and nation, but that there is perhaps an equally fine line between nation and culture. In this context, I think of two ideas I heard during this conference; one came out in Anthony Pym’s lecture on Tuesday in which he pointed out that the word ‘nation’ and the French ‘naitre’ have the same entymological root, linking the concept of the nation with that ofa natural emergence rather than a human construct. A link was also established between ‘nation’ and ‘tribe’ in a discussion with Anver Ben-Amos after this lecture in which he mentioned bonds such as that of collective memory as being the basis of nationhood. Collective memory evokes cultural products such as histories and myths, and qualifies the strict connection to land. Mr Ben-Amos himselfinsisted upon the connection with land as an essential element of modern nationhood, but I’m not sure I agree that we today are bound to observe this aspect of the definition. In fact, definitions, like everything else, need to be always changing to be kept alive. Anthony Pym made the statement that a nation needs a ‘space’in which to establish itself; I prefer this terminology because it is not limited to physical space and yet retains the notion of a field of play separate from the players, the members of the given nation. It also offers a connection to land that is not based upon finite borders. I think of the term ‘nation’as applied, as it often is, to native North Americans, who were associated with certain geographical areas, but ones without finite borders, allowing for their relatively nomadic lifestyle based upon interaction with rather than exploitation of the lands that they passed through. Both of these definitions of nation bring the word much closer to the context of culture than to that of state-a shift of position that I enjoyed and that seemed to bring up many possibilities. One of these is to view nation as the site of intersection of state and culture. Another is to see nation as a fulcrum on which is balanced the continuum whose extremes are represented by state (characterised by extrinsic order and reasoning) on the one hand, and culture (characterised by intrisic order and reasoning) on the other. I don’t mean to imply that ‘states’ are necessarily imposed from outside the populations over which they preside (though of course they often are), but that the structures and manifestations of ‘state’ are a ‘supradecision’one made by that extra bit that is more than the sum of a group’s components and not directly attributable to any individual member,