Common Origin, Common Power, or Common Life: The Changing Landscape of Nationalisms


Socio-territorial psychic constructs, such as national identities, are perhaps the most important psychic phenomena for political science, with their strength so consequential for wars and inter-ethnic conflicts. The construction of the EU has faced scholars and practitioners with two identity-related problems: (i) whether the socio-territorial identities can be conceptualized as being multi-layered (nested, hyphenated, with non-conflictual relationships among the components), and (ii) whether the higher levels of these identity constructs can be confined to civic aspects (e.g. to a Habermasian constitutional patriotism), as opposed to traditional nationalisms relying on assumptions of common origin, and shared culture. The most entrenched classification of nationalisms relies on an obvious difference between the kinds of nationalisms endorsed by the Irish and Germans, on one hand, and the French and white immigrant countries like the US, on the other hand. These versions are generally labeled “ethnocultural,” involving the consciousness of a shared ancestry and history, and “civic”, relying on the idea of belonging to the same state. My argument is that a schism within the “civic” approach to nationalism can theoretically be expected and empirically supported on the basis of the ISSP 2003, Eurobarometer 57.2 and 73.3 surveys. These datasets confirm the existence of three principal components of nationalism, which can be labeled “ethnocultural”, “great-power-civic” and “welfare-civic”. While the great-power-civic approach is concerned with and takes pride in the country’s military strength, international influence, sovereignty, and national character, the welfare-civic approach takes a more civilian stance and it is concerned with common rights, fair treatment of groups, social security, and welfare within the country. In addition, support has been found for the assumption that people tend to construct their supra-national identity layer according to the molds for their national identity.

Share and Cite:

Koos, A. (2012) Common Origin, Common Power, or Common Life: The Changing Landscape of Nationalisms. Open Journal of Political Science, 2, 45-58. doi: 10.4236/ojps.2012.23006.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Brown, D. (2000). Contemporary nationalism: Civic, ethnocultural, and multicultural politics. London: Routledge.
[2] Brubaker, R. (1992). Citizenship and nationhood in France and Germany. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511558764
[3] Brubaker, R. (1996). Nationalism reframed: Nationhood and the national question in the New Europe. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
[4] Caporaso, J. (1996). The European Union and forms of state: Westphalian, regulatory or post-modern? Journal of Common Market Studies, 34, 29-52. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5965.1996.tb00559.x
[5] Chandra, K. (2001). Introduction: Constructivist findings and their non-incorporation. Symposium: Cumulative Findings in the Study of Ethnic Politics, 12, 7-11.
[6] Glendening, M. (2005): Post-modernism & the silent revolution. European Journal, 2005.
[7] Greenfeld, L. (1992). Nationalism: Five roads to modernity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[8] Greenfeld, L., & Eastwood, J. (2007). National identity. In C. Boix, & S. Stokes (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative politics, New York: Oxford.
[9] Habermas, J., & Derrida, J. (2003). February 15, or what binds Europeans together: A plea for a common foreign policy, beginning in the core of Europe, Constellations: An International Journal of Critical & Democratic Theory, 10, 291-298. doi:10.1111/1467-8675.00333
[10] Herb G. H., & Kaplan D. H. (1999). Nested identities, nationalism, territory, and scale. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
[11] Koos, A. K. (2007). Utilitarian explanations of support for the European Union. Paper presented at the midwestern political science association’s annual conference in Chicago.
[12] Kra, P. (2002). The concept of national character in 18th century France. Cromohs, 7, 1-6.
[13] Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.
[14] Medrano, J. D., & Gutiérrez, P. (2001). Nested identities: national and European identity in Spain. Ethnic & Racial Studies, 24, 753-780. doi:10.1080/01419870120063963
[15] Nikolas, M. M. (1999). False opposites in nationalism: An examination of the dichotomy of civic nationalism and ethnic nationalism in modern Europe.
[16] ?zkirimli, Umut (2000). Theories of nationalism. London: Macmillan Press.
[17] Reicher, S., & Hopkins, N. (2001). Self and nation: Categorization, contestation and mobilization. New York: Sage Publishers.
[18] Risse, T. (2005). Neofunctionalism, European identity, and the puzzles of European integration. Journal of European Public Policy, 12, 291-309.
[19] Robyn, R. (2005). The changing face of European identity. London: Routledge.
[20] Smith, A. D. (1998). Nationalism and modernism: A critical survey of recent theories of nations and nationalism. London: Routledge.
[21] Spiering, M. (1999). The future of national identity in the European Union. National Identities, 1, 151-159. doi:10.1080/14608944.1999.9728108
[22] Tilly, C. (1990). Coercion, capital, and European states, AD 990-1990. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
[23] Van Evera, S. (2001). Primordialism lives! APSA-CP: Newsletter of the Organized Section in Comparative Politics of the American Political Science Association, 12, 20-22.
[24] Walzer, M. (1990). What it means to be an American. Social Research, 57, 591-614.
[25] Yashar, D. (2005). Contesting citizenship in Latin America: Indigenous movements and the postliberal challenge. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511790966

Copyright © 2021 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.