Understating the (nationalist) state: a response to my reviewers

ABSTRACT

I first set out my general perspective on nationalism as, above all, a form of politics related to modern statehood. This feeds into the response to each reviewer. First responding to Sandelind, I dispute the contention that I overstate nationalism’s political dimension. The dominance of nationalism as a political ideology in the contemporary world is, I argue, much more important than Sandelind suggests, in terms of framing both statehood and the politics of immigration. Turning to Antonsich’s review, I query the extent to which the mundane social practices analysed through the ‘everyday nationhood’ agenda are fruitful for analysing nationalism without also clearly taking into account the relatively unmoving and enduring modern state. This endurance, related to prevalent and seemingly secure frameworks of public power and authority, shapes my response to Valluvan’s optimism for an anti-racist, post-national politics, and my more pessimistic conclusion that nationalism retains a seemingly inescapable grip over present and potential collective political identifications and agency in Britain and beyond.

KEYWORDS:

• Nationalism
• Racism
• The state
• Everyday nationhood
• National identity

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. The only criticism from the reviews I categorically refute is Antonsich’s suggestion that I conflate ‘minorities and immigrants’. Any conflation of these categories in the book is firmly from the perspective of the nationalist views articulated by participants, something I am careful to clarify and build into my analysis at different points in the text (e.g. Leddy-Owen 2019, 84; 129; 142–3).

2. As I quipped in a short speech at the launch of my book, at which Valluvan was present, ‘If you’re going to buy one book on nationalism this year, make it The Clamour of Nationalism; but if you’re going to buy two …’