However, the ethnic theory of the nation quickly spread to Germany and Eastern Europe.
Renner wrote: "A nation is a union of people who think alike and talk alike. It is a cultural community …"
In general, according to the author, the most widespread culturological theory of the nation has gained in German-language literature, where a special term "cultural nation" has buy comparative essay online been used for a long time and to this day.
However, our analysis of Western literature shows that some British and American scholars were ardent supporters of the nation's culturological theory: F. Hertz, E. Kedori, G. Cohn, K. Geyes, G. Seton-Watson, and others. Carlton Geyes, for example, considered a nation to be a large group of people with a common culture who come together for "mutual protection and prosperity."
However, he usually called such a group of people not a "cultural nation" but a "cultural nationality". Explaining his choice, he noted that the use of the term "cultural nationality" precludes the possibility of identifying this group with the state. 132 Hugh Seton-Watson, on the other hand, used the term "cultural nation." "A cultural nation," he stressed, "is a community united by language or religion, or historical mythology, or other cultural ties."
Thus, the considered culturological theory bases the understanding and interpretation of the nation mainly on the cultural sphere of its life, diversity and features of its cultural development.
Historical and economic theory of the nation
In the former Soviet social sciences, this theory was associated exclusively with the names of the classics of Marxism – Leninism, in particular K. Marx, F. Engels, VI Lenin and I. Stalin. This approach, in the opinion of the author, is not correct enough. After all, according to the vast majority of Western scholars, the classics of Marxism-Leninism did not deal with the problems of the theory of the nation. For them, concerned with the problems of classes, the class struggle, and the world proletarian revolution, the questions of the nation have always, except in a few isolated cases (under the pressure of certain circumstances), been a secondary, superfluous, and often harmful affair. Although some opinions on national issues, they expressed and sometimes quite valid.
But the founders of scientific communism never developed a coherent complete theory of the nation. For K. Marx and especially F. Engels, the nation was a historical category that arises as a result of the development of capitalism. The main condition for the formation of the nation, its main features were considered to be common economic ties and common class interests. They also attributed territorial integrity and a common literary language to the characteristics of the nation. Moreover, only the proletariat could win political domination, rise to the position of the national class, and be constituted as a nation.
In short, for the founders of Marxism, the nation was not a national community but a national class community. If we add to this their infamous false statements about the existence of so-called. "historical" and "non-historical" nations, as well as the extremely incorrect division of nations into "revolutionary" and "reactionary", it becomes clear why Western ethnopolitics is so skeptical and ironic about the Marxist historical and economic theory of the nation …
In the West, the historical and economic theory of the nation, developed by the famous German Social Democrat Karl Kautsky, became more widespread. According to this theory, a nation is a "very mobile social formation," a "product of social development," "one of the most powerful factors of social progress." A nation is formed by a group of people who, first, speak the same language "regardless of their character and social status." Secondly, they live in the same area. And third, they have strong, "everyday economic relations."
It should be noted that, summarizing the works of K. Kautsky, VI Lenin in one of his essays wrote: "Kautsky. Language and territory. The main thing. / Economic feature /. Historical nature."
Later, former Soviet social scientists will throw out the name of K. Kautsky from this record, and the rest of the words will be attributed to VI Lenin. arguing that he "comprehensively developed the historical and economic theory of the nation of K. Marx and F. Engels." However, it was not the founders of Marxism, but Kautsky. In addition, they were far from identical to the views of K. Marx and F. Engels. At least K. Kautsky, as far as we know, did not characterize the nation as a social and class community, did not consider the proletariat the only creator of the nation, did not absolutize any of the features of the nation and did not try to prove that in the absence of one of them its existence.
There is every reason to believe that the first plagiarism was committed by J. Stalin. He built his notorious definition of the nation on the principles "borrowed" from Kautsky, adding to them one of the provisions of O. Bauer and K. Renner. It is significant that he did not make references to sources. Moreover, K. Kautsky was declared a "dilettante in the national question." "A nation," wrote IStapin in 1913, "is a historically established community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and mental composition, which is manifested in the common culture." At the same time, he emphasized: "Only the presence of all the signs, taken together, gives us a nation."
Later, as early as 1929, Stalin repeated all these considerations (with minor changes), called them "Russian / Russian / Marxist theory of the nation" and declared it "the only correct theory." This will "veto" any discussion of the problems of the theory of the nation for decades.
Thus, the historical and economic theory of the nation developed by K. Kautsky, which, according to many scholars, had some "rational grains," was to some extent distorted by I. Stalin and formed the basis of the so-called "Marxist -Leninist theory of the nation. " Of course, there were new "pearls" in it, in particular, the assertion of the existence of "two cultures in each national culture", the division of nations into "bourgeois" and "socialist" supremacy of the latter over the former, and so on.
At the same time, as it does not sound paradoxical, but this theory, in our opinion, has absorbed many provisions of the ethnic theory of the nation. And it was in this combined form that it lasted until the mid-1980s, contributing to some extent to the disintegration of the former USSR and the escalation of a number of ethno-political conflicts. Therefore, consideration of the ethnic theory of the nation is not only theoretical but also practical.
Ethnic theory of the nation
The roots of this theory, in our opinion, should be traced back to ancient times, when the first state formations and states based on a common ethnic origin and culture were born and existed. The theory itself began to take shape sometime in the late eighteenth century. by combining some provisions of the psychological and culturological theories of the nation. In Western Europe and North America, it managed to compete with the historical and economic theory of the nation, but it gave way to the prevailing political theory of the nation. However, the ethnic theory of the nation quickly spread to Germany and Eastern Europe.
In our opinion, in Germany this was facilitated by its delay in the transition to industrial society, as well as the emergence of the works of scientists such as Herder. Fichte and Hegel, who romanticized the tribal spirit of ancient times with its cult of blood and soil. As for the countries of Eastern Europe, including Russia, they were hardly affected by the process of transition to an industrial society, ie there are no appropriate conditions for understanding and perception of the nation as a political community.
Later, in the 20-30s of XX century. in Germany, this theory was absolutized by the leaders of National Socialism and used to prepare for World War II. In the former USSR, and this should be noted; in the theoretical sphere they waged a resolute struggle against it, and in everyday life they took up arms, introducing in the passports of Soviet citizens the notorious "fifth count" – "nationality" which was established "by the law of blood" ie by the origin of one of the parents. and autonomous republics on ethnic grounds.
From the late 1950s, ethnic theory of the nation began to gain popularity in the United States and Canada, then spread to Western Europe and the rest of the world. The so-called "ethnic renaissance" and "politicization of ethnicities" will be discussed in detail in the next section.
Analysis of the works of Western scholars shows that the greatest contribution to the development of the ethnic theory of the nation was made by G. Nilsson, M. Novak, E. Smith and many others, who are today called "stnists".
The essence of this theory becomes clear from the title of one of the extremely popular works of E. Smith "Ethnic origins of nations" which can be translated as "Ethnic roots of nations". In recent years, he writes, more and more ethnicities outside of Western Europe have begun to seek nation status, entered the arena of political life, and fought for the creation or revival of their own states. So do all ethnicities, despite their numbers, level of economic development; reserves of natural resources, etc. This is because, Smith emphasizes, "in order to survive, ethnicity must acquire certain attributes of a nation."
This view is shared by P. Van Den Berg. He gives the following definition: "a nation is a politically conscious ethnicity that seeks the right to statehood because it is an ethnicity."
And it is these ethnicities received in Western ethnopolitics the name "nation – group", "ethnic nation" or simply "ethnonation". "Nation-group," writes Gunnar Nilsson, a professor at the University of Southern California, "is an ethnic group that has become politically mobilized on the basis of ethnic group values. We have adopted the term 'nation-group' to emphasize our / ethnic differences. " / the concept and common practice among scholars and politicians to use the term "nation-state" or "nation" as synonyms for the term "state".
James Kellas, a professor of political science at the University of Glasgow, has the same opinion. In many works, he testifies, the term "ethnonation" is used to distinguish an ethnic nation from a "nation" in the sense of "state" … "Ethnic nation" is used where a nation consists of one ethnic group; "social nation" – where several ethnic groups make up one nation. "