Ernest Gellner’s Nationalism Essay Example

to satisfy the new nationalist imperative which now, for the first time, was making itself felt. Gellner was clearly making a connection between the rise of industrialization and the emergence of nationalism. Gellner also described what caused nationalism to emerge the way it did. He uses the example of “agrarian society” to describe nationalism.

He says that in agrarian society, literacy is a necessity to nationalism. However he admits that the resources are not available to fully implement a system to provide full literacy to its citizens (17). He believed that the industrial society strengthened the boundaries between nations. He said that only prior to the rise of industrialization was there any horizontal differentiation within society (12). Gellner separates culture as high (literary) culture and folk culture.

The former is what links industrialization and nationalism. The latter is what nationalism uses for disguise and legitimacy.Bend on proving culture is not a real foundation of nationalism. However, sometimes contradicting with himself throughout the book: “admittedly” culture was used to form nation, culture distance was used to counter economic exploitation (55).

Gellner breaks world history down to three stages (Hunting-gathering, agrarian, and the industrial. ) and constantly barks against Marx. But the whole nationalism and industrialization study can be said to prove the super-structure theory. So is the way to view history according to productive methods (114).Gellner obviously has passionate views on this subject and uses some decently convincing arguments to strengthen his case. I thought the book was very well written and can give someone who may not be familiar with the idea of nationalism and its relationship with the rise of industrialism a good base of

knowledge.

Gellner used language that was easy to understand and it was a very interesting read. However I do believe that there are some flaws in Gellners theory. I thought that the idea of nationalism just appearing as a result of the advancement of industrial technology was rather simple and kind of hard to believe.This is especially true when you see that Gellner did not account for societies without advanced industry that have a rampant level of nationalism. To me, the entire idea of nationalism as a result of industrialism is far too simple. Nationalism at its definition existed before the industrial revolution and it also exists now in places in which the revolution did not effect.

Gellners views and beliefs are remembered and revered as the first major thoughts on the idea of nationalism, and they should be because they are indeed innovative. But it certainly is not the only explanation for the emergence of nationalism.