Good and bad nationalisms: A critique of dualism

Abstract

A constant theme running through much of the literature on nationalism is the dualistic attempt to make clear and sharp distinctions between two kinds of nationalism, one progressive and benign, the other reactionary and malign. Examples include attempts to distinguish between Western and Eastern, political and cultural, civic and ethnic, liberal and illiberal types. This article examines the roots of these dualistic approaches and subjects their claims to critical scrutiny, arguing that apparently fundamental differences may be better understood as differences of degree and emphasis rather than principle. It suggests that all forms of nationalism have to confront and may be vitiated by the fundamental difficulty of what to do about the other, in relation to which the nation has to be both defined and constructed.