This book offers an historical sociological analysis of the emergence and development of nationalism in the US and Norway between 1762 and 1884. Both the US and Norway were agrarian societies at the beginning of this time period, and had a property structure that was marked by relatively widespread smallholdings of land. This fact became crucial for the development of national ideology , as ideas of popular sovereignty and individual freedom became tied up with widespread individual ownership of landed property . This book offers an analysis of the relationship between landed property rights and nationalism in these cases, and the development of this relationship with the coming of industrialization . I believe I have arrived at a novel understanding of nationalism, one which reveals the fundamental role of private, landed property rights to the emergence, nature, and development of nationalism, and which illuminates how the agrarian origins of nationalism adapted to its industrial future.
The book uses Charles Tillyâs concept of universalizing comparison1 to generalize development in these countries into a theory of nationalism . One could also refer to Skocpol and Somersâ parallel demonstration of theory, and to their concept of macro-analytical comparison.2 Another way of explaining the way in which this book builds its argument is through Miroslav Hrochâs term synchronic historical comparison: in other words establishing similar historical processes that happened roughly during the same time period in different places:
If we can establish that the objects of comparison went through roughly the same stages of development, we can compare these analogous events, even if from the standpoint of absolute chronological they occurred at different times.3
Why the cases of the US and Norway? It might seem like an odd comparison. There are, however, good reasons for choosing these cases. The point of departure for my comparison between the US and Norway was the similar distribution of landed property in these cases at their respective revolutionary moments. According to classical Marxian materialist assumptions, similar relations of property should result in largely similar developments of ideology and the state. The US and Norway represented the actual existence of a form of relatively widespread private property at an early stage, and before the emergence of a political national movement or the creation of a nation-state . As the initial question that led to the writing of this book was the role of private property in national ideology, such material relations seemed a fruitful starting point. Indeed, these nations did establish very early on private property regimes and democracies based on widespread landholding. Both did this in opposition to imperial states. What happened in the US and Norway was similar, and many Norwegian scholars, as well as Norwegians at the time of the national revolution, have pointed to this similarity. The historian Sigmund Skard wrote about the Norwegian revolution of 1814 and its similarity to Americaâs: âThe historical situation has been felt as parallel: two small nations arose heroically up against great powers. There was a commonality in their spirit which went deeper than their differences.â4 Francis Sejerstedâanother Norwegian historianâhas also noted the similarity between the two societies at the outset of the nineteenth century, and points specifically to the idea that both societies were very much akin to a Lockean ideal societyâthat is to say, societies constituted in large part of individual proprietors of land participating freely in relations with each other and in government.5 This sounds very idealistic, but this fundamental similarity, the âcommonality in spiritâ constituted by the relative widespread ownership of land and similar liberal constitutions, can serve as a fruitful point of departure for comparison.
There is also a point in accentuating the differences between the US and Norway. One was situated in the New World, the other in the Old World, and there was a giant ocean between them. One marked the start of the age of revolution , and the other was close to its end. In the US there existed four million chattel slaves (understood in most respects to be a form of property ) at the time of the revolution; in Norway nothing of the kind had existed for almost 1000 years. In America huge areas of land were taken from the native populations by force or expulsion by the settlers, thus providing the settlers with new land. In Norway there were few possibilities to acquire new land. The US became a republic and Norway remained a constitutional monarchy. These differences might actually strengthen the fundamental comparability of these cases. Despite enormous difference in space, and almost a quarter of a century of difference in time between their national revolutionsâand despite the difference in social structure created by the institution of slavery and availability of land in Americaâwhat happened was similar. Even despite the different state forms of a republic and a monarchy, there was a fundamental and pervasive similarity in the new states that became established and in the philosophy to which they adhered. This might indicate that similar property regimes in land indeed strongly influenced the ideology . Furthermore, this also points to the common intellectual milieu of which nationalists in the US and Norway were a part of. The way these cases developed was not isolated; moreover, although these cases were peculiar in certain ways, they were part of something broader. Nationalism in these cases did not emerge in a vacuum. In fact, the national revolutions of the US and Norway mark the beginning (the US) and the end (Norway) of a series of nationalist revolutions in the Western Hemisphere. The US and Norway were part of what Jonathan Hearn has called âthe North Atlantic interaction sphere.â6 Starting with the American revolution , expressions of nationalism in the form of liberation movements promoting liberal constitutions emerged in a spatial sphere covering North America and Western Europe, as well large parts of Latin America in the years between 1776 and 1814. The French revolution of 1789 is perhaps the most commonly used example of this. In addition, we might include the Haitian revolution of 1791 (and its constitution of 1801), the Venezuelan Constitution of 1811, the Mexican rising of 1810, and the Spanish Constitution of 1812. One might also mention the Napoleonic code (1804) with its strong emphasis on the right to property. In the German states in particular, nationalism emerged as a reaction to the rule of Napoleon. All these occurrences and many more may be seen to constitute the age of revolution or the age of nationalism, in which the emergence of nationalism in my cases was a part.7 The geographical position and general characteristics of their ideologies place my cases in this context, within the tradition of what Hans Kohn called âwestern nationalismââan individualistic, liberal, democratic and essentially capitalist worldview.8 After Kohn, others have developed similar typologies without the historical and geographical specificities of Kohnâs distinction between Western and Eastern nationalism, but which nevertheless are extensions and modifications of these categories. We might thus also label the nationalism of our cases civic nationalism as opposed to ethnic and individualistic or âauthoritarian/collectivisticâ. What is important to recognize is that the nationalism that emerged in the US and Norway was one specific breed, as it were, of the larger category of nationalism, which was nevertheless brought forth by specific historical and social conditionsâspecifically, the widespread ownership of land . It must, however, be emphasized that the widespread ownership structure found in the US and Norway was, even though it was relatively unusual, a symptom of a broader historical trend in Western Europe, where land and property rights became more individual and disconnected from feudalistic or feudal-like structures. Thus, although the argument of this book concerns the specific property structures of the US and Norway, they are used here as very clear examples of a kind of property structure that emerged in many places in Western Europe during and after this time period.
A New Theory of Nationalism
Nationalism, Property and Agrarian Society
In the 1980s Ernest Gellner put forth a theory of nationalism that has since been definitive and influential for all subsequent studies of nationalism. His theory still defines much of the debate around nationalism, as well as the understanding of it. It will be useful to employ Gellnerâs theory as...