1. Introduction
Theories of nationalism have not paid significant attention to the development of Kurdish nationalism, despite the fact that the Kurds represent a unique case in the study of contemporary nationalism. Most of the studies adopt an essentialist approach focusing on the primordial character of Kurdish identity and overlooking the modern social reconstruction of Kurdish identity and its features. The emergence of the Kurdish national identity did not occur under an industrialised context according to most modernisation theories while no Kurdish state existed to facilitate the establishment of a national identity. Thus, the idea that nations possess primordial elements which precede all social and political interactions, seems strong in the Kurdish case. It is evident that the Kurds are considered a nation due to possessing certain distinctive characteristics i.e. language, culture, history, social structure, demarcated territory. However, their remarkable case of ethno-nationalistic delay and resistance to the ideology of nationalism generates the need for a revised approach which will encompass the effects of social and political factors to account for the gradual development of Kurdish nationalism and the context of its growth.
The nationalism debate
The concepts of nation and nationalism have been subject to various definitions by scholars and have taken different forms across different chronological periods. Nationalism and ethnicity studies usually tend to explain them through the consideration of elements such as language, culture, ethnicity, state institutions and territory. However, different strands comprise the academic field, with each embodying a unique interpretation of the concepts. Smith (2001, p. 11) formulates this complexity by mentioning: “definitions of the concept of the nation range from those that stress ‘objective’ factors, such as language, religion and customs, territory and institutions, to those that emphasise purely ‘subjective’ factors such as attitudes, perceptions and sentiments”.
Three academic approaches dominate the field of nationalism studies. Primordialism is based on a strong belief in the antiquity and naturalness of nations (i.e. that nations have roots which go back to the history of humanity) and assumes that the nations are identified through their distinctive way of life, their attachment to a particular territory and their struggle towards political autonomy (Storey, 2001). Hearn (2006) mentions that primordialism assumes the organic development of ethnic groups into nations, with national identity attaining value through the existence of a shared ancestry, common language and territorial roots. Ethno-symbolism assigns particular emphasis to the exchange of ideas between people and elites and appreciates the importance of ethnic past and long-standing social and cultural trends (Smith, 2001). Both approaches however, contend that nations possess an essential a priori core and have existed before the modern era.
On the other hand, modernism is characterised by a strong conviction in the modernity of nations and nationalism and assumes that nations constitute modern constructions of modernisation processes used to mobilise and unite populations in order to cope with modern conditions. Therefore, nation and nationalism are assumed to be contingent and dependent on historical, political and economic circumstances (Hearn, 2006). Traits such as ethnicity, identity or culture are considered consequences of modern capitalism, industrialisation and state-formation, or as tools used by states or elites, to impose their ideology on the population (Gellner, 1983; Anderson, 1991).
Modernism assumes that nations and nationalism emerged for the first time in Europe between the sixteenth and eighteenth century, due to the rise of the industrial society that resulted to the unequal distribution of wealth (Gellner, 1983). The establishment of the modern state was accompanied by constitutional advancements in legislation, regulations and citizenship while the educational advancements and the expansion of common languages, facilitated the development of a mass culture and a common national consciousness (Hearn, 2006).
2. Ernest Gellner
Ernest Gellner (1983) constitutes one of the main academic contributors to the modernist school of thought, due to his rejection of primordialism and his claim that whether nations possess ethnic pasts or not cannot promote an understanding of modern nations, since their emergence emanates from modernisation processes rather than assumed givens of social existence. He criticises the character of the nationalist theory as self-evident and self-generating, since it “owes its plausibility and compelling nature only to a very special set of circumstances, which do indeed obtain now, but which were alien to most of humanity and history” (Gellner, 1983, p. 126).
Gellner (1983) notes the existence of a close link between a nation and a state, claiming that they have a contingent character and can emerge independently from each other. Nationalism does not increase national awareness, but instead, helps engender a nation-state; thus, nationalism must pre-date the creation of a nation-state. Gellner (1983, p. 129) also criticises Marxism’s ‘Wrong Address Theory’ which claims that nationalism was supposed to deliver a message to classes, but due to a postal error the message was delivered to nations. He argues that conflict occurs “where ethnic (cultural or other diacritical marks) are visible and accentuate the differences in educational access and power, and, above all, when they inhibit the free flow of personnel across the loose lines of social stratification” (Gellner, 1983, p. 96).
Definition of nationalism
Gellner (1983, p. 1) defines nationalism as primarily “a political principle which holds that the political and the national units should be congruent” and as “a theory of political legitimacy” which requires a clear distinction between ethnic and political boundaries. Ethnic boundaries should not result in a separation between the power-holders and the rest of a population. Gellner (1983, p. 2) often refers to the nationalist doctrine often used by nationalists to justify this assumption: “let all nations have their own political roofs”.
Two men are considered to belong to the same nation only if two criteria are satisfied. Firstly, they have to share the same culture i.e. “a system of ideas and signs and associations and ways of behaving and communicating” (Gellner, 1983, p. 7). Secondly, they have to recognise each other as belonging to the same nation, since nations are understood as “the artefacts of men’s convictions and loyalties and solidarities” (Gellner, 1983, p. 7). According to this assumption, a category of people constitutes a nation only if certain rights and duties are recognised among the members due to their shared membership. This shared recognition outweighs any shared attributes in determining members and non-members.
Gellner (1983, p. 38-51) suggests that history of humanity culminates in the discovery of modernity and the transition from the agrarian to the industrial society, with nationalism acting as a key functional element. He argues that there is a high compatibility between nationalism and industrialisation; nationalism filled the ideological gap left due to the disappearance of the agrarian society and the political and economic system of feudalism which it legitimised. Gellner supports his heretic interpretation of nationalism by claiming that this transition is responsible for the holistic societal transformation in terms of political structure to adapt to the needs of industrialisation. He assigns specific emphasis to the human need for knowledge and in accordance with most modernist scholars, suggests that if knowledge exceeds a certain level, then it becomes standardised as a ‘high culture’ and establishes itself as an essential component towards achieving industrialisation (Gellner, 1983, p. 57).
The need for skilled labour requires the development of standardised, education-based and cultivated ‘high cultures’ and promotes the popularisation of education and unification of language. Gellner assumes that only the nation-state is the entity to possess the legitimate authority to establish and maintain qualities of ‘high culture’ for the labour force during the process of moving away from the agrarian society. However, often the conditions of industrialisation are uneven across different places and disproportionately affect multinational entities or Empires of Megalomania. The constant development and evolution of the division of labour in modern industrial societies necessitates developed and enhanced communications among the members of the society; thus, the ‘high culture’ promotes the development of a society characterised by national homogeneity through education, national labour markets and improved communication and mobilisation as a result of urbanisation (Gellner, 1983, p. 48-62).
This process does not favour large numbers of people (mainly peasants), known as Ruritanians, who did not possess a prior incentive or capability of adapting to a standardised language. However, the irreversible process of homogeneity forces them to come into closer contact with the dominant culture through labour migration and bureaucratic employment. Their interaction with the Megalomanian culture and other cultures generates the consciousness of being different and the perception that culture matters significantly; gradually the sense of distinguishing the hostility of the Megalomanian culture from the friendliness of their co-nationals, is developed. Some, being subject to discrimination, decide to assimilate to the dominant culture while others remain loyal to their Ruritanian background and attempt to resist cultural assimilation and defend their unique culture and language. Policies of exclusion compel the reaction, through the framing of a Ruritanian national programme, to the top-down homogenisation promoted by the Empire of Megalomania, in order to protect the group’s will and culture. This is only possible through the gradual transformation into a ‘high culture’ which will possess legitimate authority, rendering the creation of a Ruritanian state as the absolute nationalist objective; this process is performed by the most educated and capable people within this powerless section of the society (Gellner, 1983, p. 48-62).
Nationalism as a sentiment
Gellner (1983, p. 1) argues that nationalism constitutes a powerful sentiment which is necessary for the transition from an agrarian to an industrial society; an industrial society requires a politically defined state able to develop feelings of belonging and shared culture appreciation. The nationalist sentiment is determined by the extent of perceived violation or fulfilment of the congruency principle between the political and national unit. In the former case it is accompanied by feelings of anger while in the latter case it is accompanied by feelings of satisfaction. Regardless of its potential form, such a sentiment can encourage the formation and rise of nationalist movements.
The principle can be violated if a state fails to include all of the nation’s members within its political boundaries or if it includes a significant number of non-nationals. The most extreme violation is the case of division of a nation across multiple states which leads to the absence of any perception regarding a single state being the national one. However, according to Gellner, the sentiment is particularly sensitive to a specific form of the principle’s violation; when the rulers of the political unit do not belong to the same nation, as the majority of the population. This is possible either through the incorporation of a national territory within the territories of a larger empire or through the local domination of a minority group (Gellner, 1983, p. 1).
Gellner (1983) refers also to the nationalist doctrine which is supported through reference to the importance of preserving cultural diversity and the plurality which characterises the international system. He asserts that “not all nationalisms can be satisfied, at any rate at the same time” (Gellner, 1983, p. 2) and assumes that the large number of potential nations on earth is much larger than the number of possible viable states. Thus, the satisfaction of certain nations will always presuppose the frustration of others. In non-homogeneous states, any attempts towards ethnic homogeneity will always require killing, expelling or assimilating every non-national. However, the reaction from the nation subject to homogenisation is often an expressed unwillingness to suffer any of the options, rendering the peaceful implementation of the nationalist doctrine difficult (Gellner, 1983, p. 2).
Critical Review
The most common understanding of nationalism is inevitably related to the concept of political will of a nation; this understanding reveals the absence of a single political unit responsible for the representation of a coherent political will. However, Gellner decided not to encompass it within the definition of nationalism; instead, he consciously decided to employ the term ‘principle’. Political units are composed of numerous political entities with each characterised by a unique bundle of ideas and values, reflecting the diversity in terms of needs and interests of the division of labour. Nationalism constitutes the representation of one of those bundles with which certain political parties decide to attach in order to ascribe their political will. Thus, nationalism is primarily the will of a political entity rather than a principle and the tool to meet the ends demanded by certain segments of the society due to the division of labour.
Moreover, division of labour requires a society with diverse professions; either homogeneous or heterogeneous. In the case of homogeneity, it is patriotism that is used as a tool to provide legitimisation to the state’s political authority. The state develops and maintains patriotism through education to gain legitimacy and then evolve this patriotism into a nationalistic component of its societal ‘high culture’. In the case of heterogeneity, nationalism overpowers patriotism. Different nations exist with each being characterised by distinct societal characteristics due to their unique output of the division of labour. Such nations within modern states such as Spain and Belgium, possess strong nationalist sentiments which remarkably deviate from the political will of the legitimate state. Thus, despite those states not being involved often in international conflicts, internal disintegration dangers always pose a challenge.
Another important limitation is the absence of any reference to developments which marked history such as the 1648 Peace of Westphalia or the rise of European nationalism. As Minogue (1967, p. 25-28) argues, nationalism occurs through three distinct stages; national reaction due to foreign oppression, fight for independence and consolidation. Gellner decides deliberately to avoid discussing any of these stages. He fails to account for national movements of Ancient Rome and Greece that existed before industrialisation or nationalist reactions to foreign oppression within the Middle East region, due to his overreliance on the idea that nationalism is tied to modernity and cannot exist in the absence of the modern industrial society. Moreover, no effort is made to explain the presence of nationalism in non-industrial and post-industrial societies in Europe during the 16th century. His whole approach lies on the assumption that “stateless societies cannot experience nationalism” (Gellner, 1983, p. 4). But, the end of the Cold War was marked by a sudden rise of ethnic nationalism that came to fill the ideological gap that Marxism had left behind, leading to the disintegration of certain nation-states. This reveals the lack of validity of Gellner’s claim that nationalism is not a prior to a state.
Even his differentiation with regards to nationalism is characterised by extraordinary simplicity i.e. whether a group has access to power or not, whether a group has access to modern ‘high culture’ or not, whether the state is culturally homogeneous or not (Gellner, 1983, p. 93-94). He claims that conflict can occur “where ethnic (cultural or other diacritical remarks) are visible and accentuate the differences in educational access and power, and, above all, when they inhibit the free flow of personnel across the loose lines of social stratification” (Gellner, 1983, p. 96). No effort is made to explain interstate conflicts emanating from nationalist incentives or the presence of nationalism between two educated ‘high-culture’ groups. Instead, nationalism is assumed to emanate from a conflict between the educated power-holders of a ‘high culture’ and the uneducated powerless groups of a low culture.
Certain arguments of Gellner regarding the relationship between nationalism and modernity are based on reasonable grounds. But his overemphasis on industrialisation remains problematic, rendering his whole approach excessively functionalist. He explains the phenomenon by referring to the eventual historical outcome; an outcome that rendered the industrial society unable to function without nationalism. At the same time, he underestimates the importance of nationalism saying that it is a simple representation of myths and superstitions which generate false consciousness (Gellner, 1983, p. 129).
Gellner’s framework could potentially provide a useful tool for the examination of certain aspects of Kurdish nationalism. However, there is great uncertainty whether Ruritanians could survive within the Empire of Megalomania without sacrificing certain aspects of their background and whether ethnic identities are characterised by mutual exclusivity or whether political identities could co-exist within a political organisation. At the same time, his overreliance on industrialisation leaves little space for the role of state institutions in the formation or alteration of the Kurdish identity. Especially in this case, nationalist groups claim that state discriminatory policies constitute the root of their own nationalistic development.
2018-4-4-1522838244