NB! All comments from the audience are removed to secure privacy.
Panel discussion:
Prof. Maarten Van Ginderachter, University of Antwerp
Dr Reetta Eiranen, Max Planck Institute for Human Development
Prof. Zsuzsa Millei, Tampere University
Prof. Raúl Moreno Almendral, University of Salamanca
Chair: Dr. Ville Kivimäki, Dr. Sami Suodenjoki & Dr. Tanja Vahtikari, Tampere University/HEX
How people participate in “doing the nation” is a fundamental question for the study of nationalism. This is especially important for the histories of experience and emotions, which are interested in the ways the nation is “lived.” Social anthropologist Anthony P. Cohen’s concept “personal nationalism” (1996) is one useful approach in this respect. The term helps to understand how people use nationalism and nationhood to formulate their sense of self. Our panel discusses personal nationalism as a concept of analysis in historical studies and also the limits of attributing agency to individuals in personalizing nationalism and “doing the nation.” Possible questions to be addressed are, for example: How much agency is there to personalize nationalism in different historical contexts? How does this differ according to, e.g., social class, gender, age and ethnicity? Where are power and conflict situated in the study of personal nationalism? How do the historically and culturally changing understanding of the self and its expressions affect the applicability of the concept? How does personal nationalism relate to structural explanations of nationalism? What limits do sources set for studying how people of the past appropriate nationalism – and how can we access the personal nationalism of those people who have not left behind any conventional ego-documents?
Presentation titles:
Prof. Maarten Van Ginderachter: Agency in everyday nationalism
Dr Reetta Eiranen: From personal nationalism to national indifference: Gendered perspective
Prof. Zsuzsa Millei: Everyday nationalism: Methodologies, modalities and childhood as method
Prof. Raúl Moreno Almendral: Autobiographical sources and the personal approach to the history of national phenomena
Click here to read the panelists’ bios.
NB! It is no longer possible to post new comments.
Thank you, an interesting discussion, and helpful in terms of my reflections on the study of religion. It relates to national structures.
Brubaker also writes on the issue of Trans. That people are increasingly mixing identities, the ‘messy era of Identity’ (Millei).
I think of Tik Tok/ YouTube and many kids now becoming culturally Californian and increasing fluent in a global (Americanism).
In terms of agency and the increasing complexity of it, and the historical structure of nationalism and religion which are becoming almost frictional to personal agency, are we not in a stage to revisit these conceptions? Are not the modern structural concepts of nationality, religion and identity, problematically divisive, causing individuals harm – marginalisation, discrimination, prejudice, etc? So, how to shape the structures to be more flexible and open to social constructivist – preserving a core, but more able to engage cultural fluidity? What I mean is linguistically, nationalism, religion, and identity assume categorical stability, but maybe we need other words to describe and account for the complexity that individuals are living and choosing (agency). I mean instead of acculturation/conversion – adjustment to the assumed norms, we can instead describe pro-culturation ‘identity’ journey, multiple new cultural forms. That nationalism rather than being the main structure is a journey among many other journeys. To some it is their identity, to others, it is just a passport to other opportunities – they come with personal history, but as they engage something new, they become something new – neither like their inheritance, nor like where they have come, but something new (unique – not seen before). Historically also these concepts of nationalism, religion and identity are quite recent, before borders were more blurred, and indeed for some low-class people (e.g. tribal groups in the Indian subcontinent), lacking education, they move among nations rather than being defined by them. We are relooking at teaching and management from behaviouristic to social constructivist forms, maybe we need something similar with nationality, religion and also identity. Something less colonial (assumed Western ‘white’ normality) structure and more complexly universal – accounting personal agency. What words could describe that?
Richard Croft
8.3.2021 15:39
HI Richard,
I think this article answers perfectly your question, thanks for participating in our panel, Zsuzsa
Rob Imre & Jim Jose (2010) Religious and Political Violence: Globalising
Syncretism and the Governance State , Religion, State and Society, 38:2, 153-168, DOI:10.1080/09637491003726661
Zsuzsa Millei
8.3.2021 18:37