"Whenever you hear the term "greater Greece," or "greater Serbia," or "greater Germany," or greater anything, look out. What that means is that in the imaginary, in the view of nationalists, particularly aggressive nationalists, parts of the territories that have large percentages of a certain ethnic group or even in some cases only minorities, but in other cases majorities, should be included, come what may, in the greater state of that particular ethnic group.
...national identities are constructed. They're invented. They're, in a way, imaginary. One of the most interesting sort of historical things you could do as an historian is to try to figure out, from where do these identities come? Language plays a lot of it... like most people talking about nationalism, I'm drawing on some of the thinking of Benedict Anderson, and his concept that nationalism and the construction of national self-identity represents "imagined communities."
It's states and large-scale economic change that are the two driving forces in the construction of national identities.
(...)
Language is important in all of this, though not always. Basically, in the case of Russian and German nationalism, and French nationalism and even Spanish nationalism, because of the dominance of Castille, one looks back to the time when national languages, which already existed, are used and become identified with this self-identity of national people. Now, Latin was the language. Latin was the language of science, of diplomacy, of everything. Part of what's intriguing and important about the scientific revolution is that vernacular languages begin to be used as a way of communicating scientific discoveries.
...Certainly, language is closely tied to national self-identity. One of the ways when nationalism is most aggressive and most vulgar is when very ordinary people who are whipped up, egged on or in some ways urged on by elites began identifying people who don't speak the same language is somehow not part of this imagined community.
...development of these languages, and the use of the languages and their identity with this imagined community is obviously a very important part of this as well. With the development is the concept of being a citizen. This is one of the many reasons the French Revolution is so important. You were no longer the subject of the king, you were a citoyen, or if you're a female you're a citoyenne. Citizenship takes on this kind of linguistic aspect as well.
The case of France, which I know more about, is equally fascinating because of the time of the French Revolution half the French population did not speak French. There was a lot of bilingualism, but they did not speak French.
But yet when we think of nationalism, we think of these languages as being motors for elites, first, and then ordinary people to demand that the borders of states be drawn in a way that reflects their ethnicity."
© John Merriman
Yale Lectures on European Civilization, 1648-1945 (2008)
[link]
...national identities are constructed. They're invented. They're, in a way, imaginary. One of the most interesting sort of historical things you could do as an historian is to try to figure out, from where do these identities come? Language plays a lot of it... like most people talking about nationalism, I'm drawing on some of the thinking of Benedict Anderson, and his concept that nationalism and the construction of national self-identity represents "imagined communities."
It's states and large-scale economic change that are the two driving forces in the construction of national identities.
(...)
Language is important in all of this, though not always. Basically, in the case of Russian and German nationalism, and French nationalism and even Spanish nationalism, because of the dominance of Castille, one looks back to the time when national languages, which already existed, are used and become identified with this self-identity of national people. Now, Latin was the language. Latin was the language of science, of diplomacy, of everything. Part of what's intriguing and important about the scientific revolution is that vernacular languages begin to be used as a way of communicating scientific discoveries.
...Certainly, language is closely tied to national self-identity. One of the ways when nationalism is most aggressive and most vulgar is when very ordinary people who are whipped up, egged on or in some ways urged on by elites began identifying people who don't speak the same language is somehow not part of this imagined community.
...development of these languages, and the use of the languages and their identity with this imagined community is obviously a very important part of this as well. With the development is the concept of being a citizen. This is one of the many reasons the French Revolution is so important. You were no longer the subject of the king, you were a citoyen, or if you're a female you're a citoyenne. Citizenship takes on this kind of linguistic aspect as well.
The case of France, which I know more about, is equally fascinating because of the time of the French Revolution half the French population did not speak French. There was a lot of bilingualism, but they did not speak French.
But yet when we think of nationalism, we think of these languages as being motors for elites, first, and then ordinary people to demand that the borders of states be drawn in a way that reflects their ethnicity."
© John Merriman
Yale Lectures on European Civilization, 1648-1945 (2008)
[link]
No comments:
Post a Comment