Ernest Gellner

Ernest Gellner is widely seen as one of the most important theorists in the
study of nationalism. Gellner was introduced to nationalism and identity
politics during his youth. As a Jewish Czech, Gellner was forced to leave his
home in 1939, fleeing Prague for England in the wake of Hitlers takeover of
Czechoslovakia. Upon his return to Prague after the war, he found a much
changed city that had lost most of its multiculturalism. Not feeling at home,
Gellner went back to England to pursue an academic career.

From his

experience as an outsider, he develops his first thoughts on identity politics

and nationalism. For Gellner, nationalism is the imposition of a high culture
on society replacing local, low cultures and most multiculturalism. His most
prominent theory on the origin of nationalism starts by regarding the
transformation of society from an agrarian based economy and social
structure to one centered around industrialism. For Gellner, society before
industrialism, was vertically bound with over 80 percent of the population
being peasant farmers. There was strict boundaries between communities
as well as between classes.
These separate communities while bound under the state do not
necessarily share common language, memories, myths, religion or ancestry.
Peasants were born as farmers and died as farmers with no possibilities of
economic mobility or social advancement due to lack of a standardized
education.

Therefore, these communities did not wish to impose their

language or culture on neighboring communities.

There was also no

imposition of a high culture due to a lack of standardized education.

According to Gellner, this changes with the rise of industrialism. In industrial
society the barriers between communities are broken due to a standardized,

mass education which allows for economic and social mobility. Gellner notes
that industrialization does not spread evenly among all of the communities
within

the

state.

Therefore,

individuals

in

the

community

which

industrialized later lack the opportunities that those in the already

industrialized community possess.

According to Gellner, there are two

possibilities, assimilation or lack of assimilation. If both communities share

language and culture, (ethnicity) then assimilation is possible through
standardized education. However, if there is not a shared ethnicity, then
assimilation will not occur but rather are excluded from society. In this case,
Gellner argues that nationalism will emerge as the excluded ethnicity
pushes for political sovereignty.
Gellner believes that nationalism strives for one culture or ethnicity under
one roof, or state. For Gellner, this is the most important principle of
successful states. He argues that the worst case is when the ruler of a state
is not a member of the ethnic majority within the boundaries of the state. In
this case, Gellner states that nationalism will inevitably occur because
members of the nation will want to strive for advancement by attempting to
gain control of the state.
As one of the main protagonists in the study of nationalism, Gellner and his
theory has come in for a fair bit of criticism. J.A. Hall mentions the main
criticism: that Gellners argument is too functionalist.

Meadwell also

mentions several criticisms of Gellner. First that Gellner never proves the
nationalism is necessary for industrial society. In addition, Gellner says that
nationalism is only available to the dominated, yet this is clearly not always
the case as the case studie below will show.
China
Gellner claims that the social organization of agrarian society, however, is
not at all favorable to the nationalist principle, to the convergence of political

and cultural units, and to the homogeneity and school-transmitted nature of

culture within each political unit (Gellner, 1983, 38-39). China is a complex
country which, on some points, seems to break away from Gellners
conception of an industrial nation. On the one hand, China has a state-run
education system, has managed to converge the national with the political
and has experienced unprecedented industrial economic growth.
Yet, there is an argument to be made that the structure of Chinese society
remains largely familial and rural. As well, the increasing income gap
between the average Chinese citizen and members of the elite class has led
some to question whether Chinese society is returning to a pseudofeudalistic structure. Thus, despite Gellners belief that the social makeup of
an agrarian society is incompatible with an industrial society, is it possible
that China manages to successfully incorporate elements of both?

Summary: This is Gellner's classic modernization argument explaining the

origin of nations. The author argues that nations are completely modern
constructions borne of nationalism which is "primarily a political principle,
which holds that the political and national unit should be congruent" (1).
Nations were the result of pressures created by the demands of the industrial
revolution. As soon as people from widely different backgrounds began to
converge on cities, it was necessary to create some form of common identity
for them. Perhaps more importantly, the demands of capitalism, specifically
the need for constant retraining, demanded that there be a common
language among workers. These demands were met by creating a common
past, common culture (created by turning "low" folk cultures into "high" state
cultures)

and

requiring

common

language.

With

these

common

experiences as a motive, workers were more willing to work hard, not only

for their own good, but for the good of their country. Further, it became
possible to quickly retrain and move workers around the nation - after all,
whether in Paris or Nice, Berlin or Dresden, London or Liverpool, a common
culture, language and history united the newly mobile workforce. Finally, it is
worth noting that Gellner saw this book as a reaction to Elie Kedourie's
theory which Gellner believed lacked any real comprehension of the reality of
nationalism as a result of its overly intellectual focus. [E. Zuelow]

Criticisms
Gellner's theory has been subject to various criticisms:

It

is

too functionalist.

Critics

charge

that

Gellner

explains

the

phenomenon with reference to the eventual historical outcome

industrial society could not 'function' without nationalism.

It misreads the relationship between nationalism and industrialization.

It accounts poorly for national movements of ancient Rome, Greece,

etc.; insisting that nationalism is tied to 'modernity' and cannot exist
without a clearly defined modern industrialization.

It fails to account for nationalism in non-industrial society and

resurgences of nationalism in post-industrial societies.

It fails to account for nationalism in sixteenth-century Europe

It cannot explain the passions generated by nationalism. Why should

anyone fight and die for his country?

It fails to take into account the role of war and the military in fostering
both cultural homogenization and nationalism, ignoring in particular the
relationship between militarism and compulsory education

It has been compared to technological determinism, and criticized for

disregarding the views of individuals (agency).