Cultural Nationalism
Generally, cultural nationalism refers to practices and ideas that relate to the intended revival of a purported culture of a national community. If political nationalism is based on achieving political autonomy, cultural nationalism is focused on cultivating the nation. In this respect, the vision of the nation is not based on a political organization, but rather a moral community. As such, cultural nationalism sets out to provide the framework and vision of the destiny, history, and identity of the nation. The most vital agents of cultural nationalism include artists and intellectuals, who seek to communicate their vision of the country to the broader society and community.
In most cases, the need to express and articulate such a vision is felt more significantly during the times of political, cultural, and social conflict, resulting from embracing or encountering modernity. Cultural nationalism is synonymous with early phases of a national movement- sometimes before an explicit political nationalism occurs. This literature review systematically and empirically evaluates current research information on the subject of cultural nationalism.
Cultural Nationalism: An Empirical Analysis
Woods (2014) explains that the history of cultural nationalism started in the late 18th -century Europe. Many developments in the areas of politics, culture, and ideas converged during this period, which include the rise of Romanticism in the arts and literature and an increasing commitment to constitutional politics and the concept of the rule by the people. The period also included the emergence of Indo-European linguistics and historicism (Zhiqiang & Yiqun, 2018). According to Reza and Aswirna (2017) and Gerson ad Rubin (2015), Johann Gottfried Herder, who lived between 1744 and 1803, is frequently associated or attributed to the most significant individual responsibility for elucidating the practice and ideology of cultural nationalism. The authors explain that he presented the European world as the primordial environment from which the most outstanding and significant human endeavor associate its provenance, and which hence obliged its cultivation through the celebration and recovery of its culture and history (Bevir, 2019; Gerson & Rubin, 2015). From the most exciting framework, Herder was as much as he was an intellectual as he was a practitioner. While searching for the right character and reflection of the nation through the rural peasantry of Central Europe, Gerson and Rubin (2015) explain that he played a massive role in developing several ideas, ideologies, and practices that would later become linked with the cultural nationalism of the 19th century, like the collection of myths, folk songs, philosophy, and history.
A lot has been written on the debate about the character of cultural nationalism and its relation to political nationalism. According to Bevir (2019) and Reza and Aswirna (2017), Hans Kohn (1944 and 1967) shaped the conversation on the relationship between cultural nationalism and political nationalism. He distinguished between the political forms of nationalism that are associated with the Netherlands, Britain, France and the United States, and the cultural nationalisms that were suggested to be representative of eastern and central Europe, and those former colonies of the West. As clearly articulated by Glebov and Semyonov (2012) and Reza and Aswirna (2017), not only has Kohn’s dichotomy and understanding proved vital and influential in how social research is conducted, but the way he valued political and cultural nationalism have significantly impacted the shaping of nationalism as it is known today.
While Kohn characterized political nationalism as being attributable to the idea of Rousseau that political communities are actively willed into being, he breaks from this perspective by taking the opposite view of cultural nationalism, which he characterized as severely influenced by Herder’s obsession with a unique character of the nation (Reza &Aswirna, 2017).
However, the dichotomy that was presented by Kohn has been significantly criticized, especially in the recent past. Most of the critics explain that that dichotomy fails on empirical grounds, and therefore should be abandoned because all national movements tend to contain both cultural and political attributes (Hutchinson, 2015; Gerson & Rubin; 2015; Glebov & Semyonov, 2012; Woods, 2014). Other people have questioned how Kohn characterized cultural nationalism as anti-enlightenment or ethnic ideology, stating, on the contrary, that it can be defended from a liberal perspective. Indeed, some analysts have distinguished cultural nationalism from civic and ethnic nationalism, arguing that focusing on culture and language is different from adhering to the rights of the citizens and believing in a common ancestry. A significant portion of historical sociologists, highlighted by Woods (2014) and Zhiqiang and Yiqun (2018), have also criticized the characterization of cultural nationalism as being anti-modern. They suggest that when cultural nationalists look at the past, it is to find ways to accommodate their purported national communities.
Notwithstanding these normative and historical debates, the concept of cultural nationalism has proved significant and fruitful among social researchers employing it as an ideal type while realizing and affirming that, in reality, it can take several perspectives. Miroslav Hroch created a vital and outstanding example of the approach in 1986. As explained and confirmed by Zhiqiang and Yiqun (2018) and Hutchinson (2015), Hroch embedded cultural nationalism with a processual model which describes the route through which national movements among many stateless nations of Europe achieved institutionalization. Based on the approach adopted and advanced by Hroch, cultural nationalism is typical of the first stage of the formation of a country, when the practices and ideas linked with the national community are created and disseminated by intellectuals and artists. Glebov and Semyonov (2012) explain that the view of cultural nationalism adopted by Hroch as an essential component in the process, which leads to the emergence of nations, has provided a great platform on which subsequent debate and research on cultural nationalism is being conducted.
Zhiqiang and Yiqun (2018) and Hutchinson (2015), the earliest works of Anthony Smith, contributed immensely to the scholarship in cultural nationalism. For him, all nationalism must have some form of cultural perspective or dimension; and therefore, he insisted that cultural nationalism is a political movement and not a mere political movement. In several decades, Smith demonstrated the trans-generational stickiness of the culture of countries or nations. According to Glebov and Semyonov (2012) and supported by Bevir (2019), Smith argued that national perceptions are shaped through a process of rediscovery and reinterpretation instead of being just viewed as a mere intervention. Lately, Smith has focused more clearly and solely on cultural nationalism (Smith, 2013).
According to Smith (2013) and Bevir (2019), the study of postcolonial nationalism in Africa and Asia has significantly contributed to the understanding of cultural nationalism. Glebov and Semyonov (2012) and Reza and Aswirna (2017) explain that David Kopf’s initial historical studies of the intellectual ferment of the College of Fort William of Bengal lay the foundation and illuminates the challenge of unifying modernity with culture. This dynamic approach has become significant. Aswirna’s (2017) suggestion that what comes out is an unstable mixed identity which is neither indigenous or European, and has significantly improved the field of research. The problem of constructing different national identities also characterized settler nationalism (Glebov & Semyonov, 2012; Zhiqiang & Yiqun, 2018).
Cultural Nationalism and Globalization
A significant research area that prompts questions about the persistence of cultural nationalism in the field of globalization of culture. For many political scientists and research professionals, globalization is an undermining factor for nationalism. Until in the recent past, the perspective that American cultural dominance is leading to the cultural homogenization of the globe was increasingly becoming common. Others, like Hutchinson (2015) and Smith and Cordell (2013), have indicated that globalization produces paradoxical simultaneous movement, which shifts from the nation towards large-scale continental and regional identities and much smaller, local characters. Against the notions that nationalism and globalization are inimical, Hutchinson (2015) and Smith and Cordell (2013) have created a significant and impressive alternative perspective. They have taken a long-view of globalization as a process that has been going on for several years.
Hutchinson (2015) and Smith and Cordell (2013) suggest that nationalism and ethnicity have been endangered by globalization. Smith (2013) is convinced that the recent globalization of different cultures and national systems should be considered or treated as a period of internationalizing nationalism. According to Smith (2013), nationalism has a demonstrative impact in which different waves of nationalism have immersed successive regions, putting in danger new claims and making similar demands. Looking at the realm of culture and cultural values or the way people have conducted themselves in the perspective of nationalism, Smith (2013) explains that the world is seeing an increasing role for cultural nationalism. He explains that if the conditions for entering the global community of national states were at first territorial jurisdiction and political sovereignty, they would include a demonstration of cultural solidarity and unity, and hence clearly show some level of cultural uniqueness.
The impact of globalization on cultural nationalism has been discussed widely from the perspective of cinema and film. Globalization of cultures has created distrust between countries and communities- where people are becoming worried about the activities or the intentions of neighboring countries, Smith explains. Woods (2014) and Spencer (2014) tell that the world is at a point of escalating distrust. Whether within countries, trade deals, or international union of states, the world, and its people are growing increasingly suspicious of that others are free-riding and not holding up their end of the bargains.
Conclusion
For nearly a century, the contrast between a political and cultural form of nationalism has been kept. At the beginning of the 20th century, Fredrich Meinecke, as outlined by Spencer (2014) and Bevir (2019), differentiated between the political nation based on its shared constitution and political history and the cultural nation based on the shared cultural history and heritage. The most significant difference between the two is that while membership in political nationalism is voluntary, membership in cultural nationalism cannot be based on choice. It is based on a collective objective identity. Woods (2014) and Spencer (2014) state that while political nationalism is derived from the concept of the sovereignty of the country and the idea of self-determination, cultural nationalism, on the other hand, aims to achieve national individuality.
Recently, scholars, political scientists, and researchers have been questioning the dichotomy between political and cultural nationalism. However, they have primarily focused on criticizing how it justifies political nationalism by clearing it of cultural components and elements. Researchers hold that for the existence of a cultural component, must also be included in political nationalism. These two are both vital in understanding the political and cultural structure of a society.