<論文>近代のなかのネーション/ネーションのなかの前近代 : ネーション-ステイト研究における近代主義と永続主義

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to clarify the differences of two major approaches in the study of nation-states and nationalism--a modernist approach and a perennialist approach. The modernist approach, which is a dominant and fashionable paradigm in the study of nation-states and nationalism today, holds that nations and national identities were invented by the intelligentsia in the process of modernization which brought about the dynamic change of social structures, This perspective emphasizes that nations are a modern phenomenon, whichj is mainly produced by numerous modern dimensions of social and cultural change caused by industrialism, capitalism, bureaucracy and secularism. As argued by modernists like E. Gellner, B. Anderson and E. Hobsbawm, only in the era of modernization was there any possibility of unifying disparate populations. In contrast to what modernists argued, people in daily life tend to believe their roots of national identities simply because they are originated from pre-modern past. That is, people treat nationality as somehow naturally given. In most conflict, people claim their rights of self-determination on territory, law, economy and education referring to their ancient ties and pre-modern sentiments. It is true that nations are the products of modernization, but modernists fail to explain why many people believe in the continuity from pre-modern ethnic solidarities to modern nations. Perennialist as represented by A.D. Smith suggests that there are ethnic roots called 'ethnies', the term coiled by Smith. 'Ethnies' determine, to some degree, nature and frames of modern nations. It goes without saying that as the strategy of nation-building, it is the national history and culture that the intelligentsia and elites utilized, as the modernists pointed out. But in order to attain their goals, they had to mobilize the basis of pre-existing collective identities which bring about people's strong attachment. The perennialists concentrate their attention on the pre-existing conditions, which determine both goals and means for each nation in the manipulation of modern nationalists. The modernist approach can't explain sufficiently why ethnic conflicts broke out frequently in many part of the world after the cold war. Thus, as the perennialists tried to show the reasons for these ethnic conflicts, we came to pay attention to genealogies of modern nations. It is not until we use these two approaches that we could understand more deeply the complex and controversial problems of nations and nationalism.