Description
The civic/ethnic dichotomy is no doubt the most influential conceptual framework for making sense of nationalism. It is associated with such illustrious names as Karl Marx, Ernest Renan, Friedrich Meinecke, Hans Kohn, and Ernest Gellner. Yet a proper understanding of the emergence and development of this dichotomy is still lacking. By reconstructing a critical genealogy of the civic/ethnic dichotomy, this paper makes three contributions. First, it problematises the widespread view that the civic/ethnic dichotomy has been a longstanding feature of nationalism studies. In fact, none of the aforementioned scholars refer to “civic” or “ethnic” nationalism. While dualistic conceptions of nationalism have a long history, the civic/ethnic dichotomy itself is a product of the late Cold War. Second, the paper problematises the assumption that civic nationalism has been seen as the “good” kind of nationalism and that ethnic nationalism has been seen as the “bad” kind. Instead, I show that the polarity of the civic/ethnic dichotomy has always been doubled, such that each pole functions as both cure and poison for the other. Third, the paper recasts the recent critiques of the civic/ethnic dichotomy as part of the history of that dichotomy. Rather than emanating from an entirely detached vantage point, the critiques of the civic/ethnic framework are a response to a particular historical moment: the disorientation of the Eurocentric international order.
