Supervision 7 Paper 17 - Nationalism Next supervision, Corpus F11A- above the porter's lodge (2 flights up) directly under the flag pole, Friday noon - Try do essays/time essays over the holidays - Be more selective with your examples - Take a broader approach to the Q, bring in more locations- you don't have to tell the story of nationalism country by country, do a cross cultural comparison - Nationalism as an abstract thing= you don't need to confine yourself to national histories, look for common features/themes - Eastern vs western narrative IS really problematic- one reason it exists in secondary literature is the cold war and the way Russian history has been written, Larry Woolf on 'near exoticism' of eastern Europe- - The divide wasn't that clear - What causes the transformations of geography? o Habsburgs suffer from outbreaks of nationalism - Many nationalist histories of these countries come into being at this time - Was it nationalism (not in a modern sense) or reactionary to changes in Europe - A lot of borrowing from the French revolution - Nationalism mainly done on ethnic and linguistic grounds, usually done to overthrow a rule, it provides an excuse for autonomous self-governance - Almost every country was rules by a foreign monarch, inter marriage= complex mixing - Before there was nationalism in the modern sense there was no overlap in a sense of belonging and geopolitical reality - Word nation= more generic in c18 - People had identity form the place they came from but not an explanation for their membership to a particular state i.e. German state - Political, national and educational are completely different things and have to be separated - Not the same as how we view nationalism, politics and geography don't map onto each other - Contradictions o Germany: people belonging to different states; wars of religion left a patchwork of states and boundaries weren't undergoing integration (religiously different) o On the other hand there was integration on another level: culture and officialdom o Sense they have of being apart of a community of german speakers= overwhelms notion of being a member of a certain state but doesn't fully abate it, they still had loyalty to their state - Important point: no teleology in feeling german, it wasn't about being part of a bigger geopolitical unit- states still retain autonomy to this day= divided - Discourse about being german starts only starts in c18; not political, aim wasn't political, Germany as a unified political nature not created until a century later - Nothing predetermined about the shape Germany will take when it becomes a nation, i.e. Austria omitted despite being german speaking
- 'greater german' outcome- Austria at the core - 'little german; outcome- Prussia at the core - In c19 those were the options for the unification of Germany, in c18 it was not predetermined at all - Nationalism wasn't pushing in one direction or predetermining a specific outcome - Where is it effective and when