ASC-075287668-2887-01

Competing nationalismsCREATING MALI 25The choice between the terms ‘ethnic group’ or ‘nation’ sometimes seems arbitrary.Most writers agree that the concepts of ethnic groups, ethnicity, nationsand nationalism are strongly interlinked. Ethnic groups and nations are seen asrelatively large social units organised along principles of perceived commonidentity based on language, cultural traits, geographic location, polity and(fictive) bloodlines. Varying with the school of thought and purpose of use ofboth terms, other traits can be ascribed. The problem with both terms, as well aswith the terms nationalism and ethnicity, is that they have never been the exclusivedomain of either social science or politics. Both the realm of perceptionand analysis and the realm of creative practice have used these terms and, ininteraction, given them meaning and shape. All over the globe, the social polityidentified with the state is called ‘nation’ as well, hence the concept ‘nationstate’.The dual use of ‘nation’ as both a social polity in itself and as the socialpolity identified with the political unit ‘state’ enhances confusion, which is thensolved by distinguishing between ‘nations’ as embodying ‘the state’, and‘ethnic groups’ as social polities living within but disconnected from the nationstateideological construct. Thus, in Mali, there is a Malian nation and there areMalians. There are also ethnic groups: Mande, Bambara, Minianka, Senoufo,Sarakole, Bobo, Dogon, Songhay, Fulbe, Kel Tamasheq etc, but these are notnations. To both politicians and, it seems, researchers, recognising their existenceas nations would imply recognizing their right to separate from the Malianstate. The implied difference is inspired by political rather than academicconcerns. The political distinction between nation and ethnic group forms thebasis for the distinction between their respective ideologies or cohesive forces:nationalism and ethnicity. Indeed, as with the characteristics ascribed to nationsand ethnic groups, it is hard to observe the difference between nationalism andethnicity. According to Ernest GellnerNationalism is primarily a political principle, which holds that the political and thenational unit should be congruent. Nationalism as a sentiment, or as a movement,can best be defined in terms of this principle. Nationalist sentiment is the feeling ofanger aroused by the violation of the principle, or the feeling of satisfaction arousedby its fulfilment. A nationalist movement is one actuated by a sentiment of thiskind. 7Here, Gellner seems to create congruence between nation and state, and heprobably does so for practical reasons, as it is exactly the idea that nation andstate as a polity should be congruent that matters to the nationalist, and also asGellner goes on to describe nationalism as an ideology intimately linked to the7Gellner, E. 1983: 1.