Review of Warwick Debates on Nationalism
On October 24th, 1995, two of the best-known scholars of nationalism participated in what has now become known as the “Warwick Debate on Nationalism” under the host of Edward Mortimer at the Warwick University. Each respected speaker presented thoughts and approaches to the study of nationalism that have laid the foundation for two separate, yet prevalent suppositions toward nationalism: Anthony Smith’s primordial approach and Ernest Gellner’s modernist theory. When reviewing the discussions of intellectual masters, it is important to establish the strengths and weaknesses of their arguments before determining a superior concept. Without having any previous knowledge of nationalism, one could easily understand Anthony Smith’s well-organized and cleanly explained argument as he begins with clear definitions of nationalism, nation, and state. Each definition is important as they highlight the fundamental difference between primordialism and modernism: when nationalism began. Smith’s definition of nationalism is an ideological movement that achieves and maintains sovereignty, unity, and the identity of a human population. His definition of a nation is a named population that shares a territory, myths, culture, memories, and offers an economy, common rights, and duties for its population. And his definition of a state is a legal and political concept that is a public institution of coercion and extraction within a territory. Smith’s definitions are essential to his argument of primordial origins of nationalism because the nation represents a fulfillment of the needs presented in a nationalist movement. According to these definitions, a nationalist movement, or nationalism, would be seeking the autonomy, unity, and identity of its community. Thus, this ‘need’ could be fulfilled in Smith’s definition of a nation being a community that shares a historic territory, single economy, common rights, and duties for all members. These definitions take away the political