Read ნაციონალური იდენტობა by Anthony D. Smith Online

ნაციონალური იდენტობა

რატომ არიან ადამიანები ნაციის ერთგულნი - ოჯახის, რეგიონის, კლასის და რელიგიის დარად? როდის გარდაიქმნება ნაციონალური იდენტობის ჯანსაღი გრძნობა ავბედით ნაციონალიზმად? რა ეთნიკური საფუძველი აქვს ასე მრავალრიცხოვან თანამედროვე კონფლიქტებს? შესაძლებელია თუ არა ნაციების შექმნა მოდელის მიხედვით იმ შემთხვევაში, როცა კოლონიური ან მულტიეთნიკური იმპერიები ინგრევა? შესაძლებელია თუ არარატომ არიან ადამიანები ნაციის ერთგულნი - ოჯახის, რეგიონის, კლასის და რელიგიის დარად? როდის გარდაიქმნება ნაციონალური იდენტობის ჯანსაღი გრძნობა ავბედით ნაციონალიზმად? რა ეთნიკური საფუძველი აქვს ასე მრავალრიცხოვან თანამედროვე კონფლიქტებს? შესაძლებელია თუ არა ნაციების შექმნა მოდელის მიხედვით იმ შემთხვევაში, როცა კოლონიური ან მულტიეთნიკური იმპერიები ინგრევა? შესაძლებელია თუ არა ნაციის ზუსტი განმარტება?ეს წიგნი ეძღვნება ამგვარი მნიშვნელოვანი და სადავო კითხვების ანალიზს. ენტონი დ. სმიტი სვამს კითხვას: რატომ წარმოიშვა პირველი თანამედროვე ერი-სახელმწიფოები დასავლეთში? იგი მსჯელობს იმის შესახებ, თუ როგორ უზრუნველყოფს ეთნიკური წარმომავლობა, რელიგია, ენა და საერთო სიმბოლიკა ნაციის შეგრძნებას - ბასკების, ქურთების და ტამილების შემთხვევაშიც კი, რომელთაც საკუთარი სახელმწიფოები არა აქვთ. თავის არგუმენტაციას ავტორი წარმოადგენს დეტალური მაგალითების თანხლებით, ყურადღებას ამახვილებს ნაციისადმი მყარი ერთგულების როგორც პოზიტიურ, ისე საზიანო ასპექტებზე; პროვოკაციულ უკანასკნელ თავში კი განიხილავს პოსტ-ნაციონალური მსოფლიოს პერსპექტივებს....

Title : ნაციონალური იდენტობა
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 9789994064366
Format Type : Paperback
Number of Pages : 277 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

ნაციონალური იდენტობა Reviews

  • Andreea
    2018-12-28 11:46

    This is slightly better than Imagined Communities, but still really problematic and full of historical errors. The author's main thesis is that there are two types of nationalism, a Western somehow more 'evolved' one that he calls 'civic-territorial' (led by the upper class / aristocratic elites, is successful due mostly to bureaucracy, tries to create a common political community) and a more 'barbaric' one which he calls ethnic-genealogical (which is started from smaller, demotic communities whose ethno-religious self-conceptions had to be exchanged for more activist, political ones. The key to this transformation was the process of vernacular mobilization. Small circles of educator-intellectuals, despite their differential responses to westernization and modernity, were intent on purifying and mobilizing 'the people' through an appeal to the community's alleged ethnic past. p69). Throughout the book the role racism / xenophobia play in creating political / ethnic communities is not discussed and very often the existence of racism / xenophobia itself is denied. Otherwise, it's full of confusing anecdotes and not that much reliable / verifiable data.

  • Eitental
    2019-01-09 03:51

    This examination of nationalism and the nation is perhaps less celebrated than similar works by Benedict Anderson, Ernest Gellner and Eric Hobsbawn, but one of my university lecturers recommended it as the best. On the one hand, I can see why: Smith’s approach is highly systematic and thorough, never sacrificing detail in the name of simplicity. However, this – combined with Smith’s dense and verbose writing style – does mean that it is not an easy read. I frequently found my attention wandering and had to re-read some paragraphs several times for the meaning to sink in. This is especially true of the first four chapters, which are highly theoretical, dealing meticulously with issues of definition, typology and origins. Chapters five to seven are considerably more engaging, as they focus more on practical matters: namely post-colonial nationalism, ethnic conflict and the question of whether we will move towards a post-national world. Furthermore, in the first four chapters, most examples are drawn from antiquity and from mediæval and early-modern Europe, of which Smith assumes more familiarity than the average reader is likely to have, whereas the last three chapters mostly refer to the twentieth century, with which I for one am much more familiar. On the whole, I’d say that if you’re seriously interested in a deep theoretical understanding of nationalism and national identity, this work should definitely be high on your to-read list, but if you just want a background on nationalism to inform your study of other issues or to enrich your general knowledge of history and society, you’re probably better off with Anderson’s Imagined Communities. The strength of Imagined Communities is the way that it synthesizes a very complex subject into clear and simple theses, whereas the strength of National Identity is the exact opposite: nothing is oversimplified, and every nuance is explored.

  • J A
    2018-12-30 06:38

    An important text in this area, establishing civic and ethnic nationalisms, scrutinising the pre-modern aspects of this phenomenon and engaging with why nationalism exists. Nevertheless, there are some methodological problems, particularly when Smith is not only Euro-centric in his analysis, but also relentlessly pushes European exceptionalism (that England and France were the progenitors of the nation). I would have liked to have seen more of an examination of the United States, which is covered very briefly in one chapter (in a comparison with the Soviet Union).Problematic as well is the way that he splits nationalism into 'civic-territorial' that emerges from the aristocracy, and 'ethno-genealogical' that emerges from a vertical aggregation of social classes; it's not a particularly convincing argument, making all kind of assumptions about countries (and establishes a binary between West and Eastern Europe) and I find it hard to explain the concept even after reading. This point hints at what is probably the flaw of Smith's argument, that he attempts to cover too much; there is simply no way to succinctly cover the amount of countries that he does without making sweeping generalisations or historical inaccuracies; or to address each aspect of the phenomenon in sufficient detail (within 250 pages). In summary, a key text, but definitely not the final say; and to be taken with a dose of scepticism.

  • Eb Daniels
    2019-01-14 06:52

    An excellent introduction to the study of the nation and national identity. Smith illustrates an obvious bias towards the West in defining a nation, and one wishes that he had simply limited the scope of his work to the concept of the nation in the West - it would have tidied up a great deal of unhelpful asides. Smith is also prone to generalizations and anecdotal evidence, but for a work of this scope, which is clearly intended to be an introduction, this style works very nicely. And this book is most helpful for its straightforward, grounded introduction of concepts and vocabulary, serving as an ideal stepping off point for further and more nuanced research later. While this book is a little dated (the ruminations of what the EU might look like are quite funny) its basic principles continue to ring true. I would recommend this book for anyone interested in starting research into national identity and the concept of the nation; the bibliography for this text will prove especially useful for further research, although one would do well to also seek out more contemporary resources

  • Jennifer Plummer
    2019-01-08 06:25

    The writing style of this author definitely did not agree with me. I'm currently taking a graduate-level course on this topic and of the eight books we're working our way through with this class, this one I liked the least. I respect the author and feel he has done much research and I know he has been praised for his work. In a conversation, or possibly one of his other books, I may be able to learn a lot from him. This book, however, was very difficult to read and as childish as this many sound, used really big words over and over in the same sentence. Run-ons were horrendous. In fact, one sentence went on for 11 lines. He also liked to briefly mention a topic and skip to something else after stating he would talk more about the last topic in another chapter. It was choppy and not something anyone should read for information of this topic unless you are truly interested and know some of the background already. Other than using it as reference material, I wouldn't recommend it.

  • Andrew
    2019-01-03 05:33

    A not-bad, and at the very least compulsively readable analysis of the phenomenon that exists rather within the shadow of Benedict Anderson and Eric Hobsbawm, which is pretty hard for any scholar in the nationalist concept to escape. Anthony Smith asks the important questions, provides some kinda fluffy, kinda anecdotal, but still provocative answers, and points the way to some further research on the difference between his "demotic" and "bureaucratic" nationalisms-- a concept that I'm not entirely sure holds water, but is worth checking into.

  • Oğuzhan Batur
    2018-12-27 03:29

    https://medium.com/@oguzkhanbatyr/mil...

  • Sofia
    2019-01-23 07:49

    Interesting book!

  • Veronika
    2018-12-29 05:54

    thank you