After a brief assessment of mainstream theories of nationalisms, the article focuses on those that stress boundary mechanisms. The classical division of theories of nationalism into primordialist and instrumentalist approaches is rejected, arguing that at least three more approaches can bring a distinctive contribution to the field: homeostatic, transactionalist and ethno‐symbolist. The article defines nationalism as a process of border creation and/or maintenance. Boundaries are needed to ensure a distinction between two or more groups, or the spaces they inhabit. Hence, in all processes of nationality formation, as well as in all ethnic conflicts, political leaders give a prominent place to the boundaries which define ‘their’ national community. Finally, violence is used to reinforce ethnic boundaries when the latter are particularly weak or under threat.
Reassessing current theories of nationalism: Nationalism as boundary maintenance and creation
Reprints and Corporate Permissions
Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?
To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:
Academic Permissions
Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?
Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:
If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.
Related Research Data
Related research
People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.
Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.
Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.