20.06.2015 Views

BULGARIAN-SPEAKING MUSLIMS - Lalev

BULGARIAN-SPEAKING MUSLIMS - Lalev

BULGARIAN-SPEAKING MUSLIMS - Lalev

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

disintegration of the last surviving multiethnic empires – Habsburg Austria-Hungary and Ottoman<br />

Turkey – during the late nineteenth-early twentieth century. Within these empires, the fledgling<br />

nations existed under a feudal social order and nation-building was a sudden and violent process for<br />

them. With no foundation of sovereign government or tradition in democratic rule, these newly<br />

independent peoples altered the original meaning of nationalism from respect for individual liberties<br />

to patriotic imposition of – what was perceived as – the collective will of the leading ethno-religious<br />

communities. 5<br />

Several decades after Hans Kohn (and others 6 ) formulated the definition of nationalism, in<br />

the 1980s and 1990s, one of the most prominent modern theoreticians of nationalism, Benedict<br />

Anderson, continues to analyze the emergence of nationalism in predominantly positive terms as a<br />

unifying force within the nation-state. Anderson’s signature argument is that nationalism, “nationness,”<br />

and national state – taken as synonyms – are “cultural artifacts” 7 which ruling elites<br />

formulated in response to pressing socio-political needs at certain points in history to consolidate the<br />

masses under one leadership and under common ideology. Although Anderson’s analysis appears to<br />

be in line with Kohn’s positive idea of nationalism, his concept of the socially constructed nature of<br />

the phenomenon also condones the negative notion of nationalism as totalitarian, coercive, and<br />

violent ideology. On one hand, Anderson says, the very idea of nation-state evokes the image of<br />

(imagined) community, i.e. an entity of fraternity or comradeship based on equality among people<br />

from within. And it is this notion of imagined (socially constructed) egalitarian fraternity among the<br />

(majority) members of the national state that makes people willing to fight and die for an ideal. 8 On<br />

the other hand, the national ideal makes people willing to mutilate or kill for it. This proves to be<br />

particularly true for the people of those budding nation-states which have just emerged from<br />

oppressive foreign rule. For previously subjugated people, the ultimate goal of nationalism was the<br />

5 Kohn, 87.<br />

6 See footnote 1.<br />

7 Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (New York:<br />

Verso, 1991), 4.<br />

8 Ibid., passim.<br />

18

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!