Lenin’s optimism that the colonial world was on the
verge of revolt possessed a kernel of truth. Although the
West had emerged from World War I relatively intact, its
political and social foundations and its self-confidence
had been severely undermined by the experience. Within
Europe, doubts about the future viability of Western civilization
were widespread, especially among the intellectual
elite. These doubts were quick to reach the attention
of perceptive observers in Asia and Africa and
contributed to a rising tide of unrest against Western political
domination throughout the colonial and semicolonial
world. That unrest took a variety of forms but was
most notably displayed in increasing worker activism, rural
protest, and a rising sense of national fervor among
anticolonialist intellectuals. Where independent states
had successfully resisted the Western onslaught, the discontent
fostered by the war and later by the Great Depression
led to a loss of confidence in democratic institutions
and the rise of political dictatorships.
As we have seen (see Chapter 1), nationalism refers to
a state of mind rising out of an awareness of being part
of a community that possesses common institutions, traditions,
language, and customs. Unfortunately, few nations
in the world today meet such criteria. Most modern
states contain a variety of ethnic, religious, and linguistic
communities, each with its own sense of cultural and national
identity. How does nationalism differ from tribal,
religious, linguistic, or other forms of affiliation? Should
every group that resists assimilation into a larger cultural
unity be called nationalist?
Such questions complicate the study of nationalism
even in Europe and North America and make agreement
on a definition elusive. They create even greater dilemmas
in discussing Asia and Africa, where most societies
are deeply divided by ethnic, linguistic, and religious
differences and the very concept of nationalism is a foreign
phenomenon imported from the West. Prior to the
colonial era, most traditional societies in Africa and Asia
were unified on the basis of religious beliefs, tribal loyalties,
or devotion to hereditary monarchies. Individuals in
some countries may have identified themselves as members
of a particular national group, while others viewed
themselves as subjects of a king, members of a tribe, or adherents
of a particular religion.
The advent of European colonialism brought the consciousness
of modern nationhood to many of the societies
of Asia and Africa. The creation of European colonies
with defined borders and a powerful central government
weakened tribal and village ties and reoriented individuals’
sense of political identity. The introduction of
Western ideas of citizenship and representative government
engendered a new sense of participation in the affairs
of government. At the same time, the appearance
of a new elite class based not on hereditary privilege or
religious sanction but on alleged racial or cultural superiority
aroused a shared sense of resentment among the subject
peoples who felt a common commitment to the creation
of an independent society. By the first quarter of the
twentieth century, political movements dedicated to the
overthrow of colonial rule had arisen throughout much of
the non-Western world.
Modern nationalism, then, was a product of colonialism
and, in a sense, a reaction to it. But a sense of nationhood
does not emerge full-blown in a society. It begins
among a few members of the educated elite (most
commonly among articulate professionals such as lawyers,
teachers, journalists, and doctors) and spreads gradually
to the mass of the population. Even after national independence
has been realized, as we shall see, it is often
questionable whether a true sense of nationhood has
been created.
World History
