The North German Confederation

So first off, I learned how to title my posts. Yay! In other news, I've been researching nationalism in pre-WWI Europe, and have found some pretty interesting stuff. Today's topic is the Prussian empire--aka Germany.

Germany at the time was actually a bunch of different countries that had been united as states under the rule of Otto Von Bismark after the Austro-Prussian War. This was called the North German Confederation and consisted of 22 states. Things weren't exactly smooth sailing though; pretty much everyone was unhappy for one reason or another. While the smaller states suffered under absolutist rule, the larger powers of Prussia and Austria were constantly vying for control.

                                                              I can add pictures now too!  

That was hardly the only conflict though. Like in the rest of Europe at the time, Germany was torn between different nationalistic factions, each with their own views on how to run the country.

The nationalistic absolutists were big fans of the current state of affairs. They supported the absolutist rules of  the small states under the monarchy under the theory that firm control over the populace begets control over the state as a whole.

The liberal absolutists, on the other hand, were all about unification for the greater good. They desired to unite the states not for political power, but so as to ensure better treatment and representation for the smaller states. They wanted to institute a liberal constitution that would outline the rights and privileges of all the states. I couldn't get any sources to back this up, but I bet that they actually got this idea from the American model of government, as the philosophies are very similar.

Now here's the cool part. Even though these two groups have completely different philosophical and political views, they managed to cooperate and create something called the "Zollverein", or the "custom's union". The Zollverein was a free-trade agreement established in 1834, virtually the first of it's kind. The agreement brought together many of the states, making the whole Confederation much more parochial and tight-knit, which is exactly what both the absolutist and the liberal nationalists wanted in the first place.

So to recap: the two North German Confederacy nationalist movements had completely different opinions, yet still managed to compromise for the good of the nation. Now why can't our politicians do stuff like that?

So I figure that the best way to really start this thing is to define what nationalism actually is. I went online and checked out a bunch of different sites dealing with philosophy, sociology, history etc. All these sites seemed to point towards one person: Ernest Geller.

Ernest Geller was a cultural anthropologist known as "the most important scholar in the field of nationalism". In 1983, he wrote this book "Nations and Nationalism" which contains what is basically the Holy Grail definition of the term. I'm trying to get my hands on a copy, but until then I'll just explain.

First I have to explain the difference between nations and states. States are the pieces of land, including geographical borders, systems of government and postage offices. Nations are groups of people who share a common culture.  Proponents of nationalism believe that nations and states are a matched pair; neither one could or should have to exist without the other. This is, I guess, where people get the fear of immigrants ruining countries by being different.

More than that though, people became obsessed with the idea of nationalities; of belonging and being part of a nation. This makes sense, I guess. People have an innate desire to form and be part of groups, and what kind of group is as powerful or as impressive-sounding as an entire country? Geller hypothesizes (well, hypothesized, he's dead now) that there are two main ways that people view nationalities:

1. People are of the same nationality if they are of the same culture, with shared traditions, social mores and possibly ethnicities. This, I think, is the more stereotypical definition, the one used to justify acts and exclude outsiders.

2. People are of the same nationality if they recognise each other as being such. This opinion argues that nationalities are a social construct. When people have enough in common with each other, they will assume duties and rights towards their fellows, connecting them as a nation.

Geller was of the opinion that both arguments have merit, though neither is completely adequate. He actually goes on to say that definitions in the fields of social sciences are fluid and hard to define, especially when dealing with society and culture. He thought that academics shouldn't pay too much attention to definitions outside of what they need to understand their topics, as nothing they come up with will ever be 100% correct. Wow. An academic who resists the lure of pedantic loquaciousness in favour of getting on with his work. The sites were right; Geller was a pretty good guy to start off with.

I've always regarded the idea of nationalism with suspicion. I guess it's because the nationalism I grew up with was the modern American kind; you know, the stereotypically fanatic, unquestioning devotion for their nation and the deep suspicion and hostility towards anything or anyone different.

This might be the most recent evolution of nationalism, but I doubt that it was always like this. In this blog, I decided to research and explore the different forms that nationalism has taken over the years. How did ideologies differ, and how were they acted upon? I don't know these answers yet, but hopefully in time I will. Then, maybe I can understand what nationalism really is all about.