Theories in Nationalism

Theories in patriotismIntroductionNationalism, a term which has been protrudelined in various appearances and still continues to entertain the debate some it, is matchless of the haleest forces in the hu valet humannesss as we know it today. Despite its strong entice during the defy centuries, it has remained long neglected by academia (Hutchinson metal operate virtuosor 1994 3). One of the prototypal scholars to address this academic shortcoming was Elie Kedourie, a British scholar of the center East, who offered a conservative challenging hypothesis against patriotism in his thought-provoking watchword entit account Nationalism. In this sense, it is safe to take that closely scholars concerned with this field of study draw been influenced, to some extent, by the work of Kedourie and have taken issue with it.Kedourie has dealt with patriotism in a number of books, presenting his passionate dissent against the overspread of topicism as an govern workforcetal orientation in europium. His book Nationalism identifies patriotism as a precept invented in Europe at the ascendant of the ordinal blow (1960 9) that divides benevolence into separate and distinct nations (1960 73). As a scholar who spent a large proportion of his life teaching, Kedourie emphasized the importance of understanding the philosophy of history and the value of its practice, and criticized academics for meddling with political affairs (Kedourie, 1998a 51 Minogue, 2008). A fervent advocate of strong, long-lasting empires, he argued, that patriotism as an political orientation had caused world(a) wars, destruction, and great misery (Sieff 2006).The objective of this paper is to critically tax Kedouries contri entirelyion to the study of patriotism. For this purpose, this essay is structured as follows firstly, it sets the context by briefly introducing the life and working of Elie Kedourie. This is great as, growing up an Iraqi Jew, Kedourie individual(pren ominal)ly experienced the negative impacts of Arab nationalism which caused him as most some other(a) Jews to flee his home country. Kedourie blamed British policy for the rise of nationalism in the Middle East, a policy he later criticized in his works. The essay frankincense proceeds to identify and explain his imagination of, and occupations against nationalism next, it explores Elie Kedouries dialogue with three theorizers who were influenced by and developed Kedouries ideas and finally, it presents a critique of his supposition and theorys. In summary, this paper demonstrates Kedouries unique attitude towards and his innovative theory of nationalism, provided also the disfigurements in his theory based on which led some of his pursuit and critics to charge him with mind determinism (Lawrence 2005 132).Kedourie and His WorksKedourie was undoubtedly a macrocosm of great achievement. An Iraqi-Jew, he was born in Baghdad on January 25, 1926, precisely migrated to Gr eat Britain as part of the post-1948 Jewish mass departure from the Arab world (Minogue 2008). In his doctoral thesis, England and the Middle East (1956), which he wrote at Oxford University, he, for the first time, systematically criticized the British foreign policy and its inter-war role in Iraq (Kramer 1999). harmonizely, his controversial thesis was non only much debated, just now Kedourie was asked to change it. However, Kedourie entangle so strongly ab turn up his writings that preferably than modify it, he withdrew it Throughout his life, Kedourie offered a seminal summary that expounded the secernate of world affairs and exposed the evil of nationalism. Although he published his most important book entitled Nationalism decades ago, Kedouries ideas still resonate today and be being studied by a number of critics and theorists of nationalism.Kedourie was brought back into academia by his colleague Michael Oakeshott, and consequently held a chair in Politics at the cap ital of the United Kingdom School of Economic for 40 years. He was an expert on Middle easterly history, founder and editor of the journal Middle Eastern Studies (1964), and the author and editor of many outstanding books, especially on the Middle East. In contrast to many other scholars of and on the Middle East, Kedourie was open to see it in a wider world context ( humanitygo 1993 375). This interest led him from Arab nationalism to his study of nationalism as a universal phenomenon. The meaning of this, was that it changed the traditionalistic thinking of nationalism and brought to aw areness its disastrous influence and its major(ip) potential in threatening world order.Besides the book Nationalism, his published works also include Afghani and Abduh An Essay on spectral Unbelief and Political Activism in Islam (1966), the famous The Chatham House Version (1970), Nationalism in Asia and Africa (1970), and Arabic Political Memoirs and Other Studies (1974). Among his later book s are In the Anglo-Arab Labyrinth (1980), The Crossman Confessions (1984), Politics in the Middle East (1992), and Hegel and Marx Introductory Lectures, his late book published in 1995. Kedourie im promoteed with his sharp intellect and his rather eloquent, clear and coherent writing style. Although English was his third linguistic communication, his works were create verbally in an excellent English style worthy of one of the superior orientalists and scholars of our time (Moreh 1998 2). Especially in his book Nationalism, he manages to draw a clear and red line from the sometimes very abstract explorations of the foundations, on which he then builds his theory, to the explanation of his approach itself.In addition, Kedouries personality stood out in academia. As opposed to many academics, Kedourie neither locked himself in the alleged(prenominal) academic ivory tower, nor did he fall into the circle of self-adoration. Kedourie, more(prenominal) than anything else, was a ment or and father figure to his students (Salibi 1994) Although he was sometimes referred to as wishful thinkeric, most of his students and scholars alike remember Kedourie as humble, dignified, kind, and a generous scholar with repose and gentle courtesy which one could always count on (Salibi 1994).Kedouries fancy and Critique of NationalismAfter the 2 World Wars, a pigeonholing of independent states created the United Nations and other international bodies, much(prenominal) as the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) or theEuropean Economic Community (EEC), and big multilateral treaties (for example Treaty of Paris, NATO, Warsaw Pact) to sustain peace and world-wide cooperation in the hope of preventing another planetary conflict. Kedourie believed that many calamitous global events, such as war, destruction, poverty, famine and genocide, were caused by a precept of nationalism, which confirm the portion of nations. Kedourie (1993b xiii) viewed nationalism as an poli tical orientation and believed that it had been make a unreal religion by governments to justify their fulfills and to maintain their so-called re impress to national self-determination (Kelidar 1993 5-6).Kedourie laid out his controversial theory against the nationalism doctrine in his book Nationalism. In the first chapter, Politics in a New Style, he explains his pessimism about ideologic and constitutional politics, which presupposes nationalism as an effective force to strengthen and pre mete out the identity and authority of a nation (Spencer Wollman 2002 49). In the following chapters, he tackled the concept of self-determination, which the intellectuals, particularly Immanuel Kant, brandished as the supreme political good (Kedourie 1993a 22) the relation of state and individual, wherein he criticized the influence of Kant on modern thinkers and the effects of dangerous political ideas on individuals diversity, which spread the world over as a result of the denotation of nationalism and national self-determination, which has caused the division of states into nations, disorders and wars. In the last two chapters, he communicate the relationship among nationalism and politics and its negative consequences. Kedourie was the first theorist who addressed nationalism systematically and identified it as (an historically erroneous) doctrine. His path-breaking theory introduced new standards to the traditional studies of the phenomenon which saw in granting self-determination the only delicious way to deal with nationalism.Kedourie relied on historical accounts of global events and on this alkali identified three strong arguments against nationalism. Firstly, he claimed that nationalism as a political ideology was impotent and had no significance to reality. Secondly, he assert that the divisive vulcanized fiber of nationalism caused and go forth continue to cause wars and synthetic catastrophes. Finally, he saw nationalism as being about the enshri nement of the concept of sovereignty or self-determination as the fundamental force of global order (Kedourie 1993b xvi).With regards to his first argument, nationalism was seen as being a political ideology referable to its extensive relation to politics. He observed that the doctrine was first conceived and then propagated in Europe in the last century (Deol, 2000 12). It was an era when nationalism was systematically turned into kind of religion to stir up the commonwealth and make them believe that they had a duty and responsibility to serve their homeland.According to Kedourie, the purpose of ideological politics was to impose political culture, healthy prescripts and moral standards on people by means of force (1986 47-48). When a government seeks to establish an ideology, it can only do so with the use of force and arbitrary powers. He identified the platonic character of this strategy, which posits that a state or society has to eliminate the ideology of the people so as to impose its experience political culture or ideology (Kedourie 1993b xiv).Kedouries argument is clear ideological politics in the last century has caused many horrific events because of the ideologists attempt to change the status quo and to practice their own ideology on the masses. As an example he mentioned the fibre of Yugoslavia. Following its creation after the First World War, Yugoslavia sought to cook unity in order to establish an independent state, only such a national ambition was waylaid when the Yugoslavs fell into the oppressive hands of the Hungarians, Austrians and Ottomans. other argument he made against ideological politics was that a state that espoused nationalism caused the division of its individual subjects and separation between the government and the governed. Kedourie asseverate that a society that adopted certain kinds of principles deprived the people of their rights. A group of people treated as mere ciphers by their rulers would be led to tr eat their fellow men in the same way. good turn to his second argument nationalism will lead to war and manmade disasters- Kedourie explained that nationalism supports the division of humanity into a number of states and thus also supports the division of men in terms of race, tradition, religion, and political ideology (1986 71-73). Since nations are shared into many categories, Kedourie argues that wars and disasters are inevitable. He argued that conflicts and chaos ravaged the whole of Europe between 1848 and the end of World War II because of the concept of nationalism (Kedourie 1993b xvi).However, he spurned the argument that poverty is somehow linked to nationalism. Since most poor countries have prevalent nationalist ideology, he believed that poor stinting conditions expertness bring about social displeasure, which may lead to the propagation of nationalism (Kedourie 1974c 19). However, he claimed that the rise of nationalism in Czechoslovakia and Italy was not due to e vident poverty. Furthermore, Kedourie believed that the development of nationalism in Asia and Africa was basically a chemical reaction to invasion and foreign occupation (1974 21).Lastly, he criticized socialism as an ideological obsession that caused great destruction in the last century. He states (1993b xvii) that socialism has produced not happiness or spiritual fulfilment, or even tangible prosperity, but, on the contrary, unparalleled oppression and misery, and it has sunk by the weight of its own misconceived ideals. Moreover, he suggested that the collapse of Soviet Russia in 1991 had led to a uneasy disproportion of power among its former constituents and their neighbours. Hence, he warned that this power vacuum could lead to war. He concluded that nationalist ideology did not evidently ensure stinting success or honest and responsible government.Kedouries condemnation of nationalism and by extension his path-breaking theory, was seen by many theorists on nationalism th at followed as a milestone in the evolution of the theoretical debate (Ozkirimli 2000 32). As a consequence, the vast majority of these theorists took issue with his theory in one way or another.Kedouries Influence on other Theorists of NationalismKedouries passionate arguments against nationalism gained two the admiration and support of a coterie of loyal followers but also drew some harsh criticism. Undoubtedly, he contributed tremendously to the great debate about the origins and spirit of nationalism. As a man of exceptional intellectual reputation with exacting standards in his thinking and scholarship, Kedourie was vastly influential on many modern scholars and his students alike (Salibi 1994 4) and thus, achieved to transform and overrule the understanding of nationalism (Minogue 2008 Kelidar 1993 5-6).Three distinguished theorists of nationalism who admired Kedourie, but took issue with his ideas are Ernest Gellner, Anthony Smith, and Benedict Anderson. All of these the orists built on the works of Kedourie, and this made for a great contribution to the debate about the nature and roots of nationalism that dominated the European community in the nineteenth century (Gellner 1996 xix). Smith openly elaborated on the intellectual abstrusity of Kedouries seminal arguments against the concept of nationalism, saying that the latters works continue to exert a wide influence on modern thinkers like him (2007 213). Similarly, Gellner credited Kedouries work but also attributed a lot of critique to Kedouries ideas (Gray 2004). This paper will now examine in more depth some of these issues in order to provide a critical evaluation of the strengths as come up as limits of Kedouries arguments.Anthony D. SmithFor his part, Smith agreed with Kedouries concept of nationalism as an ideological crusade that seeks the achievement and maintenance of national sovereignty, harmony, and distinctiveness, on behalf of a particular group of inhabitants (2007 214). Smith r eiterated Kedouries argument that although nationalism was sparked by the novel of the French Revolution, this ideological movement was shake up by Kant, which then in turn influenced Johann Gottlieb Fichte. Smith claimed that the main proponent of nationalism was Fichte, a Kantian, who, in his Addresses to the German Nation (1808), established an agenda for the creation of a German national education (Choueiri 2000 6).Smith concurred with Kedourie that this secular ideological movement was inspired by the declaration of independence, which states that sovereignty resides exclusively in the state. Smith (2007a 217) also regarded nationalism as a secular form of religion, and concluded that traditional religions like Judaism preserve their character and that they contribute to the propagation of nationalism by serving as agents of collective sentiments. Smith thus supported Kedouries competition that Judaism is a religion that accentuates the value of land and dustup and nationa l step (1993b 76) and suggested that in that respect are cultural similarities between modern nationalism and scriptural Israel and its covenant. This being said, in his Theories of Nationalism, Smith criticized Kedourie for selecting only the organic features of nationalism, thus ascendant the civilizing and empowering influence of the doctrine (Jinadu 1972 646).Benedict AndersonIn his Imagined Communities Reflection on the Origins and send of Nationalism, Benedict Anderson, a modernist theorist like Kedourie, identifies the rise of capitalism at the beginning of industrialization era as the main reason for the increment of nationalism peoples literacy level increased due to the emergence of printing press capitalism. No longer were they dependent on the church for getting information. As a result, member of various communities became aware of each other and and then it helped them imagine the nation and the feeling of being a nation (Capmack 2005).In complete contrast to Ke douries hostility to the idea of nationalism, Anderson posits that nationalism contributes to a expose society and encourages good behaviour You follow the laws because they are your laws (2005). However, he agrees with Kedourie on the importance of history, arguing that such doctrines as nationalism or nationality are like cultural relics that can only be understood by tracing their historical roots, nature and motivations (1991 4). He thus stated that ordinal century Europe was not simply marked by the beginning of nationalism but by the end of apparitional forms of thought.Changes in the religious community, according to Anderson, gave rise to the belief that nationalism was a secular resolvent to the indecision of continuity that had been answered previously by religious faith. He wrote What I am proposing is that nationalism has to be understood by aligning it, not with self-consciously-held political ideologies, but with the large cultural systems that preceded it- out of which, as advantageously as against which- it came into being (1991 11). Hence, in many ways, Anderson simply complements the arguments raised by Smith and Kedourie that the form of nationalism that dominates the world today is a combining of traditional religions and of secular political ideologies based on national self-determination.another(prenominal) similarity arises by looking at their views on nationalism and language. Anderson suggested that language could be used as a cohesive force to nurture peoples love of their country. For example, songs, poetry, and national anthems are used as effective agents of nationalism (1991 145). Accordingly, the use of language is a evidentiary reason for the emergence of independent, divided states and the proliferation of print-word (Mar-Molinero Smith 1996 70). Similarly, though more pessimistic and with almost sad undertones, Kedourie elaborates that language is a strong expression of ones individuality and thus the most important c riterion for a nation to be recognized and to exist (1986 64). The dialect on language with regards to nations, and by extension of states, has had many negative side-effects among which language has been transformed into a political issue for which men are falsify to kill and exterminate each other (1985 71).Ernest GellnerGellners Nations and Nationalism was a direct response to Elie Kedouries theory, which Gellner believed lacked any real comprehension of the reality of nationalism, as a result of its overly intellectual focus (Gellner 1983). He dissented on the idealist argument of Kedourie that nationalism was the consequence of a historical anomaly and intellectual blunders, and suggested that it was rather an unavoidable by-product of economic and technical progress (Gray 2004).Moreover, Gellner rejected the premise that the concept of nationalism was based on the philosophy of Kant, and then spread by inept philosophers and intellectuals. He defended Kant, maintaining that t here is no relationship, other than a verbal one, between individual self-determination and national self-determination, and that Kant was a very model for that allegedly bloodless, cosmopolitan, emaciated ethic of the Enlightenment which romanticistic nationalists detested (OLeary 1997 198).Similar to Kedouries pessimistic view, Gellner perceived nationalism as the strongest principle of political legitimacy in the modem world and stated that nations should be together with and freely institutionally expressed, and ruled by its co-nationals.Nationalism invents nations where they do not exist. (1964 168). asunder from nationalism, Gellner (1985 1) believed that reformism and industrialization were the two enormous forces that were changing the world. This was his main departure from the concept suggested by Kedourie.Gellners derisive arguments against nationalism perturbed secular wiseists, socialists, and conservatives. He agreed with Kedourie that nationalism presupposes that such important concepts as social justice, material progress, utility and reason, rational principles and law are merely consequential doctrines in supporting and lordly an established and justifiable socio-political order, thus inciting unrelenting denunciation from socialists and liberals for about two centuries (OLeary 1997 192)Although it appears that Gellner presented similar views to those expressed by Kedourie, he did, however, criticize Kedourie for omitting the sociological analysis in his study of nationalism. Gellner believed that nationalism became a sociological necessity in the modern world, whereas Kedourie rejected any sociological explanation as a form of reductionist economism (Kramer 1999 637-638), and maintained that history has no depths to be plumbed or main lines to be traced out, and that history does not need explanatory principles, but only words to tell how things were (Kramer 1993).I believe that the differences between Gellner and Kedourie are rather o f an epistemological nature than of a fundamental one. Although they dissent on origins of nationalism and on the type of their analysis, the basic concepts of their theories, however, do have significant similarities. For instance, they both recognize nationalism as a modern doctrine. Moreover, they both share a pessimistic view of nationalism and point out its dangerous consequences. Perhaps the similar nature between Gellners and Kedouries theories might be attributed to the significant influence that Kedourie had on Gellner. Lawrence (2005 132) supports this idea when he writes his focus on the links between nationalism and modernization certainly inspired later theorists such as Gellner and Hobsbawm.Critique / ConclusionKedouries basic contention was one of enormous skepticism and suspicion especially vis--vis third world nationalism, which he perceived as a reaction to European nationalism (1974 1-153). It appears that his personal experiences greatly influenced his pessimism towards nationalism in general, and more specifically his rather unconnected attitude toward a nations self-determination, leading to one of the main flaws in Kedouries theory. He was certain that the idea of national self-determination was not only absurd, but also destructive, immoral and could only lead to violence and discord in domestic politics (Minogue, 2008).Kedourie further postulated that the origins of self-determination were the Age of Enlightenment, which led men to discover the law of nature and rational principles, and its philosophical corollary-the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen. This declaration states that a nation must exercise autonomy and that no man or group of men can go beyond the ambit of the law. Kedourie (1993 xiv) wrote The law was universal, but this did not mean that there were no differences between men it meant rather that there was something common to them all which was more important than any differences. While taking this rather skeptical stance, Kedourie failed to truly develop his arguments on this particular issue any further, and thus odd himself open to criticism based on philosophical and historical concerns.He successfully presented a path-breaking theory against the perils of nationalism. historic events tell us that extreme nationalism has caused global disasters, wars, and massive poverty in the past. He was right in arguing that both conservative and socialist governments subscribed to the ideology of nationalism to achieve their national goals. Kedourie and other nationalist critics exposed nationalism as a dangerous political ideology that must be rejected. Smith, Anderson, and Gellner developed Kedouries theory by presenting the causes, historical origins, and consequences of nationalism. Furthermore, today one might argue that some collectivist countries like North Korea, China, Cuba, among others have made nationalism a secular religion. However, Kedouries theory was not flawless as the s ection above has to some extent already shown.Kedourie may have raised valid arguments against nationalism however, as Smith pointed out, the relationship between ideology and nationalism is not always a negative one. In fact, for example, in the case of the periphery countries of the former Soviet Union, history has shown that a nationalist ideology enabled and mobilized people to free themselves from factors which enslaved them. Kedouries somewhat one-sided and hostile portrait of nationalism ignores its constructive aspects and its vital role in creating, as easy as controlling, social and political change.Another major flaw in his work is of epistemological nature. Throughout his book one mind repeatedly comes to mind How does he know that? For instance, looking at the question of origin, he connects nationalism with the French revolution as mentioned above. However, why, accordingly to Kedourie, was there no nationalism before the modern era? He does not take issue with this and thus fails to give sufficient evidence for his argument and against more primordial views on nationalism.Moreover, Kedourie perceives nationalism as a (secular) form of religion and thus he suggests that it may substitute the traditional religions. According to him, the religious origins of nationalism are used merely for political purposes. However, he neglects the relationship between religion and pre-modern ethnic identities in many areas of the world and then overlooks religious and secular roots of modern nationalism and, thus over-simplifies the relation between religion and modern nationalism (Hutchinson Smith 1994 70).Finally, it appears that his views on ideology and nationalism were heavily influenced by his personal experiences, as well as the British academic attitudes of that time, which were fundamentally skeptical of any ideology per se (personal conversation with lecturer). For instance, Michael Oakeshott, a mentor and colleague of Kedourie, doubted the politic al action and questioned the assertions made in defence of political ideology (Kedourie 1998a 111). Kedourie was exposed to the teachings of first British scholars like Oakeshott who dismissed the notion of a science of politics. This is one of the reasons behind his pessimistic view on ideology and his scorn of the academics prophylactic device in politics.In the final analysis, however, I agree with Kedouries skeptical contention as, looking at the world today and how nationalism as pictured by Kedourie has infected and affected many countries towards the negative, his warning proved to be valid.BibliographyAnderson, B.R 1991 Imagined Communities Reflections on the Origin and Spread ofNationalism, London VersoAnderson, B.R 2005, I standardised Nationalisms Utopian Elements Interview with Lorenz Khazaleh, CULCOM,Online, Dec. 15, Available at http//www.culcom.uio.no/english/news/2005/anderson.html Accessed 19 November 2009Choueiri, Y.M 2000 Arab Nationalism Nation and State in th e Arab World, New York Wiley-BlackwellDeol, H 2000, godliness and Nationalism in India The Case of Punjab, London RoutledgeGellner, E 1985, Islamic Dillemas Reformers, Nationalists, and Industrialization, Berlin Walter De GruyterGellner, E 1964, Thought and Change, London Weidenfeld and NickolsonGray, J 2004, phonograph recording Review, Online,Available at http//www.lse.ac.uk/collections/gellner/Gray.html Accessed 18 November 2009Hearn, J I 2009,Discussion on Kedourie and nationalism, Conversation (Personal communication, 1 December 2009)Hutchinson, J. Smith,D.A. 1994, Nationalism, Oxford Oxford University PressJinadu, L.A 1972, Book Review, The Journal of Modern African Studies, Online, Dec., 10(4), pp. 645-648,Kedouri, S 1998a, Elie Kedouri CBA, FBA, 1926-1992 level, Philosophy, Politics, New York Routledge. 1993b, Nationalism, Fourth, Expanded Edition. London Wiley. 1974c, Nationalism in Asia and Africa. London Routledge . (1960d) Nationalism. First Edition. London Hutchinso n . (1984e) The Crossman Confessions and Other Essays in Politics, History, and Religion. London Mansell PublishingKedourie, E., Gammer, M., Kostner, J., and Shemesh, M 2003 Political Thought and Political History Studies in Memory of Elie Kedourie, London RoutledgeKelidar, A 1993, Elie Kedourie An Appreciation, Journal of Contemporary History, 28(1), pp. 5-6Kramer, M 1993, Arab Nationalism Mistaken Identity, Daedalus, Online, Summer 1993, pp. 171-206, Available athttp//sandbox.blog-city.com/arab_nationalism_mistaken_identity.htm Accessed 17 November 2009 . (1999) Elie Kedourie,Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writing, Online, 1, pp. 637-638, Available at http//sandbox.blog-city.com/elie_kedourie.htm Accessed 17 November 2009Lawrence, P 2005, Nationalism history and theory, Harlow PearsonMango, A 1993, Elie Kedourie An Appreciation, Middle Eastern Studies, Online, Jul., 29(3), pp. 373-376,Mar-Molinero, C., Smith, A 1996, Nationalism and the Nation in the Iberian Peninsula, Basingstoke Berg PublishingMinogue, K, 2008, Elie Kedourie, Standpoint, Online, Aug.,Available at http//www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/291/full Accessed 16 November 2009Moreh, S 1998, A Tribute to Elie Kedourie, In Kedourie S. eds. ELIE KEDOURIE, CBE., FBA 1926-1992, Online, London, Portland-Oregon Frank Cass Publishers , p. 132Available at http//www.dangoor.com/74006.html Accessed 18 November 2009OLeary, B 1997, On the Nature of Nationalism An Appraisal of Ernest Gellners literary productions on Nationalism, British Journal of Political Science, Online, Apr., 27(2), pp. 191-222, Ozkirimli, U 2000, Theories of Nationalism A Critical Introduction, Palgrave MacmillanSalibi, K 1994, Edie Kedourie A Tribute, Middle Eastern Studies, 30, Thirty mickle Index 1964-1994, pp. 1-5Sieff, M 2006, Isaiah Berin and Elie Kedourie Recollections of Two Giants, Covenant, internet, Nov., 1(1),Available at http//www.covenant.idc.ac.il/en/vol1/issue1/sieff.html Accessed 16 November 2009Smith, D.A 2007a, Nation and Covenant The Contribution of Ancient Israel to Modern Nationalism, Proceedings of the British Academy, 151, pp. 213-255Smith, D.A 1971b, Theories of Nationalism, Michigan DuckworthSpencer, P. Wollman, H 2002, Nationalism A Critical Introduction, California able Publishing