State of Mind : History and the Narrative of Nationalism

Nationalism, the belief in the existence of distinct and enduring connections between an ethnic group, their historical culture, and their homeland, and in the need for such a people to be self-governing, was a significant force behind nineteenth-century historical inquiry. This paper examines the work of two European historians of this era and persuasion in order to investigate the influence this notion had on their scholarship. It explores how these historians wrote about the nation, perceived the role of nationalism in their work, and responded to potential conflicts between historical realities their nationalist ends. Such a study contributes to the debate on the ultimate purpose of history, the relationship between fact and interpretation, and the position of the historian in his or her own historical context.

Mount Royal Undergraduate Humanities Review, Vol. 4 customs, languages, and historical legends to manufacture a modern identity and false history.This fictional identity would become a self-fulfilling prophecy as willing people were moulded into this national image through education, reform, and political activism.
Nation-states were in fact political entities based on inventions from the minds of intellectuals, literally "states of mind".
Nationalism has been conceived in a variety of ways.Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm 1 asserted that nationalism was shaped by the bourgeoisie in order to preserve economic interests, 2 and states and regimes intent on creating political unity. 3 He emphasized both the importance of advancements in society, technology and economy in making possible these national movements, 4 and the novelty of national conditions and traditions as part of this modern construction. 5While Benedict Anderson, in his influential work Imagined Communities, agreed that nationalism was the product of a historical process, he examined the change in ideas, in addition to economy, as a critical factor in this development. 6Anderson's nationalism was not purely invented but rather formed itself by "misremembering the past." 7The idea that national identity was a modern creation was contested by Anthony D. Smith, who asserted that it was drawn from ancient ethnic identities similar to their product but without a political end. 8Although these scholars differed in their opinions of the source of nationalistic ideas, they all observed the role intellectuals played in constructing historical interpretation for political ends. 9 was precisely this issue that historian Patrick Geary stressed in The Myth of Nations. 10 Geary asserted that modern history was founded upon nationalistic goals, and that because "official or quasi-official historians" obscure critical historical periods in order to support nationalistic priorities, history has become a "poisoned landscape." 11Guided by politically-motivated searches for national identity and territories of "primary acquisition," historians in Geary's estimation fed nationalistic claims in spite of the fact that "nothing in the historical record justifies them." 12He concluded that ethnicity (and, by extension, nationalism) could not be mapped because it "exists first and last in people's minds," with descendent political movements becoming dangerous and destructive forces "impervious to mere rational disproof." 13In order to evaluate this dismal assessment of history, an examination of nationalism, and its relationship with history, is needed.
Many scholars agree that nationalism as it is known today has origins in the French Revolution. 14Even if ethnic identities, as Smith proposed, existed prior to the concept of nationalism, the state structure required to organize the dissemination of a common language and national awareness was definitely a modern invention. 15On a more pragmatic level, the French Revolution became an example to those wishing to attain political autonomy in the form of statehood. 16However, the concept of nationalism was to be refined by German romantics who described the nation as an organic and historical entity naturally defining all those living within it. 17Admission into a nation was contingent upon historical and ethnic connection. 18As this idea spread to Central and Eastern Europe, where state borders did not correspond with the aggregation of perceived nations, national movements became characterized by demands to shape political realities around nationalistic interests. 19The connection between shared ethnic history and statehood was further cemented following the First World War.During what Hobsbawm termed "the apogee of nationalism," nation-states proliferated under the Wilsonian principle of national self-determination. 20The eventual discovery that attempts to draw out complex ethnic borders could not satisfy all would-be nations, and the sobering connection between national interests of Nazi Germany and the ethnic cleansing of the holocaust, did not signal the end of nationalism. 21Scottish and Quebecois separatism, disputes over "homeland" in Palestine and Israel, and xenophobia in nations of Western Europe carry with them old assumptions of nationalism. 22r the purposes of this essay, nationalism will be defined as an ideology with two key assumptions: (1) that there exist primordial, objective nations defined by shared descent, history, customs, and language; and (2) that these nations have a right or a need for self-government in their conceived homeland, usually in the form of the modern state.
Nationalism is, according to this definition, a process of history in two ways.First, national identity is seen to be determined, in part, by a shared history which gives meaning to customs and draws a people together in a common narrative. 23Second, presentations of the fixed nature of a nation in history may be seen to legitimize claims for autonomy and continued possession of homeland.The historian, then, plays a key role in the conception and development of national awareness.
Miroslav Hroch divided nationalist movements into three phases: In Phase A, a small group of intellectuals defines the nation.Phase B occurs when these ideas spread through "concerted agitation" among a small number of devotees.Finally, the apogee of Phase C, sees the mass adoption and advocacy of these nationalistic priorities. 24The historian is at the core of the movement, instigating and giving direction to nationalistic revolutionary activity.First, the identity of the nation is contingent upon its interpretation of history.
"Communal history," wrote Smith, involving "foundation and liberation myths and [...] a cult of heroes" was used by intellectual-educators to explain "who we are, whence we came and why we are unique." 25A nationalistic interpretation of the past provided a people with a sense of context and meaning, their own identity becoming woven into "a seamless, mythic entity [...] of history, religion, language, and customs." 26National history, linking a people to its past, could then serve as a model for a supposed cultural restoration.Thus, the discovery of a Celtic "golden age" guided revolutionaries who used this history as a model of "what was authentically 'ours' and therefore what 'we' must do to be 'ourselves' once again." 27tempts at national re-creation are observed most clearly in the second task of the nationalist historian, identification of an ancient homeland to reclaim.German nationalists popularized the use of philology, the study of ancient languages, in order to trace back geographical heritage and determine early territory. 28This development has been paralleled by ethno-archaeology, which classifies artifacts based on "ethnic markers."Scholars, in mapping this historical territory, are not simply engaging in disinterested research, but are drawing as well potential borders for nation-states, for, as Smith put it, a nation "needs before all else a national territory or homeland [which is] an historic home." 30ose historians contributing to national movements were distinctly forwardfacing: their research has very direct implications for the present day.Though, as Hroch noted, their initial audiences would be small groups of fellow-intellectuals, their work would eventually, if successful, feed a massive national movement.As such, presentation of their research was intended to spark nationalistic sentiments.Depictions of an ancestral homeland were "historical poetry" or a "modern romantic historiography," instilling a sense of rootedness and attachment in loyal patriots. 31The national history was presented as a "continuous narrative of national progress," 32 "the seamless connection between past, present and future." 33The myth of national origin lacked only the final chapters, in which the motivated masses successfully achieve self-actualization in the form of statehood."History means interpretation," wrote E.H. Carr, "by and large, the historian will get the kinds of facts he wants." 34National history is no exception.Geary boldly asserted that "claims that 'we have always been a people' actually are appeals to become a peopleappeals not grounded in history but, rather, attempts to create history." 35Smith is gentler in his judgement of intellectuals attempting to "undercut earlier definitions of the community," admitting to "selective readings of an ethnic past" though maintaining that the selection "can only take place within [...] pre-existing myths, symbols, customs and memories" of their communities. 36If the role of nationalist historians is indeed to find national continuity through history, they will be required to fit their findings into the narrative of national unity.Furthermore, when involved in creative processes such as advocacy for autonomy or novel definition of national language, the historian is involved in a sort of reversed research, projecting onto the future rather than probing the past.
We have examined, up to this point, the historian as a shaper in national movements.Yet is it not possible that these historians themselves are being shaped, directed, even blinded, by the dream of the nation?Does their engagement in current political movements limit or prohibit their essential "capacity to rise above the limited vision of [their] own situation," or is such a standpoint an inevitable consequence of the historian being a part of history, even a means of illuminating "the past [...] by insights into the problems of the present"? 37Implicit in such questions is the purpose of history itself, and the extent to which academic disciplines should involve themselves in current affairs.
We shall begin in France, the birthplace of nationalism.France had for centuries been a unified monarchy, but this long history was interrupted by revolutionaries attempting to re-make their nation on the foundation of liberty, equality, and brotherhood. 38The metamorphic French Revolution and its aftermath were intended to "make a tabula rasa of the past," and many French historians of the nineteenth century rejected the idea that their Gaulish ancestors constituted a nation. 39Symbols of national unity such as the tricolore and La Marseillaise were unapologetically modern, inspired by a decided removal from past identity. 40Historian Jules Michelet was born into the aftermath of the French Revolution, and throughout his life witnessed manifold movements of fragmented agitators vying to redefine France after their own interests. 41At a time when, in the words of one historian, "the urge to reduce French diversity into unity [had] proven implausible," French historian Jules Michelet attempted to make sense of this protean and fractured past, and to reconcile the diversity of his nation into a unifying whole. 42 accomplishing this end, Michelet found the political, rational Western nationalism of the French Revolution insufficient. 43He readily adopted organic descriptions of the nation, with its myths of origin, attachment to homeland, and perception of enduring national solidarity.In his introduction to World History, he connected ancient territory to primeval, racial attributes, stating that "powerful local influences [...] make a man one with the land" and "the land is reflected in him." 44The diverse races Michelet identified as the forbearers of the French nation, products of their environment, would in turn shape France.The democratic interests and eloquent prose of France were of Gaulish origin, the nation inherits a style of ingenuity from the South, and a love of history could be traced back to Flemish ancestors. 45As through the ages this diverse mix of peoples steeped, they attained a "marvelous unity" which allowed them to adopt principles of liberty and equality. 46Thus the French Revolution was not a grand departure from tradition, but a continued expression of enduring French spirit.Far from the citoyen who defines himself and his country, Michelet's child of France was a product of his climate and ancestry.
Michelet readily bent historical findings to his nationalistic ends, yet he was equally willing to shape himself according to them.The nation, he felt, was far more than a means to a political end, but a worthy cause in itself.Reflecting on his life's work, Michelet declared "beloved France [...] I worked for you." 47He maintained that such a noble cause as his motherland justified subjectivity, even disregard for facts. 48However, the idea that France was a distinct entity, its own creature, even a religion, lent a form of self-conceived objectivity to his work.In an account bordering on mysticism, Michelet described his "discovery" of this personage: "A great light appeared, and I perceived France.[...] I was the first to perceive her as a soul and as a person." 49He would later address this being in a prayer of sorts, saying "you must take the place of God." 50 Michelet, an unashamed nationalist historian, consciously fashioned his work after the image of the great, unified, historical nation he envisioned France to be.

Reil 42
Mount Royal Undergraduate Humanities Review, Vol. 4 While France had pre-existing political autonomy and needed only a national character to enliven it, Czech historian Frantisek Palacky was involved in both the intellectual and political foundations of his nation.Bohemia had been part of vast empires and multinational states since the Middle Ages, and at the time of Palacky's birth had been in Habsburgian control for over four hundred years. 51However, a history of relative autonomy within the Habsburg Empire, an unsuccessful Hussite revolt engraved in the Bohemian memory, and flourishing interest in Czech language, music, and art in the eighteenth century, provided Palacky with ample material for a national revival. 52 a strong defender of Czech identity against German culture, it is ironic that Palacky was raised and educated in a German environment, and did not develop any attachment to his native language until his adolescence. 53In fact, it was likely during his studies at the Pressburg Grammar School, which has been described as "a small replica of Protestant German universities," that Palacky was introduced to the German idea of nationalism which would influence much of his work. 54Prior even to his selection of history as a means to study it, young Palacky aspired to somehow devote his life to the benefit of his country. 55He would later rise to prominence as a Czech historian, heading such organizations as the Royal Bohemian Society of Sciences and the Matice česká, and being selected as the official historiographer of the Bohemian Estates.It was in this position that he was commissioned to write what would become his definitive work, a history of Bohemia. 56Unlike Michelet, Palacky had no desire to quietly support his nationalist cause from behind a desk.Rather, he involved himself directly in two of Bohemia's major political agitations.In the failed Revolution of 1848, he chaired the Slavonic Congress of Prague and helped draft two proposals for a revised Austrian constitution. 57He returned to politics in the 1860s, becoming a member of the Imperial and Bohemian Diet and presiding over the National Party, helping in negotiations between the Czechs and Vienna. 58At Palacky's death in 1876, the Czechs "mourned him like a prince, or [...] like a father."Though he did not live to see the independence of his homeland, his scholarship and activism in promoting Czech nationhood led to his recognition as the "Father of the Nation." 59lacky's work is characterized by the creation of a "nation myth," the eternal animosity he draws between Czechs and Germans, and the transparent political implications of his research.In a statement curiously similar to that of Michelet, a young Palacky promised that "my life and all my endeavours will be devoted to my country." 60In his monumental History of the Czech Nation, he "defended [and] glorified the Czech past," 61 and consequently "the objectivity and scholarly detachment of his writing unquestionably suffered." 62He accepted the idea that the division of humanity into nations with distinctive characters and customs occurred "at the very beginning of the historical age," making the nation something of a timeless entity. 63Not only did he provide an explanation for the current circumstances of the Czech people based on their national character, but he justified their subjugation because of positive attributes he gave them. 64However, their most defining feature is perhaps the fact that they are not German, their history being "a ceaseless battle" with this "predatory nation." 65It is no surprise that Palacky considered the Hussite rebellion, a fierce Bohemian insurrection against Austrian Habsburg, to be the point at which "our nation reached the zenith of its historical importance." 66His history was more than a praise of his nation's virtues, as it also had unmistakable political undertones.
History of the Czech Nation was written for Palacky's own day.Much of it was completed after the 1848 defeat, during which time Palacky was under police surveillance. 67For all the German influences in Palacky's history, he clearly emulated the rhetoric of the French Revolution when he asserted that "freedom and equality of all citizens [...] were principle features of ancient Slav society." 68If the history of the Czech nation was a Hegelian battle between Bohemians and Germans, its future could be not so much a synthesis as a long-needed separation between two irreconcilable entities.
The driving force behind Palacky's work was the idea that his Czech nation needed to go through a process of self-realization that could only be undertaken once the foreign Germanic element was removed.Unlike Michelet, Palacky did not consider national inspiration and glorification to be the end of his work; rather, the patriotic love his writing instilled in others was to result in political action.Without the assurance of pre-existing political protection, the nationalist intellectual's work changed, and success was achieved only with the realities of borders and governance.Palacky's freedom-loving Czech nation, as much as Michelet's unified France, was not so much a historical presence as a future for which he yearned.
If the purpose of history is indeed, as Ranke proposed, to "show how it really happened," the national historians examined have done very poorly. 69Their presentation of the facts was selective and subjective, acceptable only when it depicted their respective nations according to their own perceptions.Their writings were successful not when they illuminate readers to the true conditions of the past, but when they sparked political action, feelings of unity and kinship, or even hatred towards opposing groups.On broader terms, distinction between past and present was blurred as nations attempt to create themselves based on these manipulated histories.Neither Michelet nor Palacky has provided an impartial, fact-based history because both prioritized national causes over objective research.Consequently, these historians have not enhanced understanding of the world or of individual identity, as both are contingent upon accurate rendition of the past.
It is possible, however, that history has a greater cause than strict representation.
History could also become a means to further what Michelet has termed "a cause of right and truth." 70History as advocacy requires certain conclusions, and thus specific interpretations, which, as Carr argued, are "the lifeblood of history." 71It could be argued that, because historians must inevitably be selective with facts and present them according to some perspective, it makes little difference if they do so in a with an eye to a nationalistic end.Carr, however, has justly observed that "it does not follow that, because interpretation plays a necessary part in establishing the facts of history, and because no existing interpretation is wholly objective, one interpretation is as good as another." 72Though historians may never, has Carr has said, create a "wholly objective" interpretation, a flagrant sacrifice of facts on the altar of the national cause is a good way of ensuring that conclusions will be very distant from objectivity. 73t it is possible that nationalist historians, as with the rest of us, are not fully conscious of their own intentions.There are probably few, if any, scholars who have not at some time disregarded evidence which seems anomalous according to their present conceptions.Or, put another way, can nineteenth-century nationalist historians be evaluated based on what is known about nationalism in the twenty-first century?Indeed, these historians were influenced by strong currents of ideas about the nature of politics and humanity.However, to conclude that they, the victims of such ideologies, could not help but study history in the way they did, is to imply that the historian is incapable of Reil 45 Mount Royal Undergraduate Humanities Review, Vol. 4 stepping out of contemporary outlooks and examining the past on its own terms."The historian who is most conscious of his own situation is also most capable of transcending it," wrote Carr. 74Paradoxically, such self-awareness necessary for historical research can be achieved by the study of history itself, insofar as it produces understanding of other ways of thinking, and of the influences shaping one's own perspective.Gaddis wrote that with empathy, and a mind open to the impressions of those studied, allow us to "view the past from its own perspective as well as our own." 75Firstly, this means that while studying history, one must be willing to entertain perspectives contrary to one's own.Secondly, by extension, this procedure can assist historians in seeing the present from these multiple perspectives.Although a perfect understanding of historical contexts, one's own and those of others, may not be accessible, such an understanding may be deepened through an empathetic and perceptive study of the past.
The nationalist historians were correct, then, in their assumption that a study of history is the key to greater understanding of oneself.The type of inquiry to attain such understanding, however, necessarily involves temporary suspension of one's own preconceptions, rather than marching forward determined to prove them.Instead of using history to justify political or social goals, or selecting and romanticizing a choice collection of information based on a fixed interpretation of the past, the historian must search the past for the comprehension to more wisely define such ends.Amidst the cacophony of opinions and questions, those who have truly acquainted themselves with the perspectives of the past may more readily make sense of the current world, and more readily distinguish reality from invention.
Ibid., 27.In the words of another historian regarding such advocacy: "The passion with which you make your case can, at times, overtake the patience needed to establish the case."John Lewis Gaddis, The Landscape of History (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 146.