The dispute over civic and cultural nationalism has been going on for at least a century. Hans Kohn, a distinguished American historian of nationalism, was the first to highlight this distinction, which significantly impacted Western studies of nationalism.
Kohn believed that in Ancient Greek and Jewish civilizations, national identities formed around cultural qualities such as
“the notion of the chosen people, the stress on a shared history and destiny, national messianism, and absolute allegiance to the political community.”
In his opinion, the European Enlightenment-era resulted in a profound transition, preparing the way to develop nation-states founded on the notion of civic or constitutional nationalism.
Kohn’s significant works were released during World War II. Scholars erroneously labeled Hitler and Mussolini’s fascism as “nationalist excesses.” Without adequate vetting, Kohn’s opinions were quickly accepted.
Cultural nationalism was derided as Hitlerian and fascist, and a call for an ill-defined civic nationalism grew to dominate the conversation.
Hitler was not a civic or cultural nationalist. He was a racist with an imperialist outlook. He referred to Germany’s Holy Roman Empire’s “Third Reich.”
Hitler sought to raise this race to a “dominant position,” allowing them to be “master people” and “queen of the world” in his autobiography.
Mein Kampf, Hitler explicitly rejects national identities as “misbegotten monstrosities” and declares his mission to be the
” gathering and keeping the most precious stores of fundamental racial characteristics” to “preserve and promote a society of physically and psychically homogenous animals.”
Many scholars later criticized Kohn’s civic nationalism thesis for oversimplifying the nationalism debate.
A vigorous discussion about the definition and importance of nationalism continues in the academic realm, occasionally punctuated by ugly interjections from Left-Liberal apologists and closet communalists.
Edited By- Kritika Kashyap
Published By- Satheesh Kumar
