Not usually a sucker for epidemical blog-fillers, I fell in love with the ‘p. 123, book meme’ through Hala‘s site, and 7aki Fadi before her.

Grabbing the closest book while working in a library would doubtless prove an interesting, if not eternal exercise, so I am opting for the nearest personal book, for which I apologise in advance.

While my book munching ordinarily comprises a varied diet of fantasy, humour, wit, biography, and of course my recent Iran-kick, this week (and doubtless the coming eight) hold a veritable torpor of academic tomes.

Today’s stale slice of page 123 comes from Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction, by Umut Özkιrιmlι.

Convoluted, unnecessarily polysyllabic, and sometimes trite, I will concede that it is a worthy appraisal of the theory of nationalism, though this is in part due to the fact my external examiner was unnaturally amiable and refrained from beating me about the head with it.

Instead, for my sinful omission of Anthony D. Smith and his posse of intellectualists, I have been sentenced to read Özkιrιmlι.

Without further ado, here is a glimpse of my page…

ages and milieux’. This past acts as a constraint on the manipulations of elites, hence on invention (ibid.: 358). ‘New’ traditions will be accepted by the masses in so far as they can be shown to be continuous with the living past. Lieven makes a similar point, arguing that from a practical, non-academic point of view ‘it is of secondary importance where nationalist ideas…came from, how “genuine” or “artificial” they may be, or how recently they were generated’. The real test is: do they work? In other words, do they succeed in mobilizing the people to which they appeal? Do they make them willing to fight and die? (1997: 16)

The Theories Cannot Explain Why So Many People are Prepared to Die for Their Nations

Another criticism voiced by ethno-symbolist writers concerns the instrumentalism of these theories. For them, such accounts are unable to explain why millions of women and men have sacrificed their lives for their nations. Smith argues that this failure stems from the ‘top-down’ method employed by most modernist theorists: ‘They concentrate, for the most part, on elite manipulation of “the masses” rather than on the dynamics of mass mobilisation per se‘ (1995: 40). As a result of this, they do not pay enough attention to the needs, interests, hopes and longings of ordinary people. They fail to notice that these needs and interests are differentiated by class, gender, religion and ethnicity (ibid.). This also applies to Hobsbawm who criticizes Gellner for ignoring ‘the view from below’. Koelble notes that Hobsbawm ‘does not himself provide much of an analysis of the effects of modernization on the lower classes.’ (1995: 78). As I have alluded to earlier, for ethno-symbolist writers the answer lies in the subjective ‘ethno-history’ which continues to shape our identity and helps to determine our collective goals and destinies. Thus, they prefer to focus on the ways in which these groups have been mobilized by their own cultural and political traditions, their memories, myths and symbols (Smith 1991b: 358).

Strikingly enough, Breuilly expresses a similar complaint about the instrumentalist approach. He argues that this approach cannot explain why – and how – nationalism convinces those who have no interest – or those who actually go against their own interests – in supporting it (1993b: 21). Actually, all these criticisms revolve

At this final point, I would like to thank the previous user of this book for their pejoration of the text.

Why, oh why, my dear fellow student, did you feel the need to not only cover every line with pencil comments and lines, but also circles and random scribblings?

As the match-sticks propping my eyes open bow and creak under the strain of abject boredom, your frenetic lead additions spin my mind in circles and lead to the ultimate conclusion, as uttered in the immortal words of Rhett Butler: “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.”