Was Modern Nationalism A Direct Product Of The French Revolution And The Napoleonic Wars?

The French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars were pivotal and decisive events whose consequences contributed in advancing Europe into the age of modernity. Sperber argues it was above all a cultural revolution one that invented a new way of talking and thinking about politics, including society, economics, space and time . This radical metamorphose in discourse was accompanied by modern and novel ideas of the Enlightenment, emphasis on capital and rationalisation, but moreover the equalling of the people with the state. This avant-garde notion of sovereignty was embodied in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen claiming the rights of man as universal - "the rights of people to dispose of themselves" . Otto and Dwiniddy claim that it was this idea of natural rights of man that led to the birth of nationalism thus inducing national ideas and patriotic movements in other countries . I disagree to the extent that to claim a birth of a movement is to also to claim an exact point in history when this occurred. "Modern nationalism" however is a contingent movement with interdependent events that all contribute to an evolving "modern nationalism" which Hobswbawm believes lasted until 1918 : it thus cannot be reduced to mere cause and effect. Thus the thesis of this essay shall argue that "modern nationalism" was not a direct product of the French Revolution but was nonetheless strongly influenced by it. In quintessence, the French Revolution made conscious the sense of national identity, which moulded and steered "modern nationalism." This shall be explored and analysed within three key parts: nation-building & raison d`état, proto - nationalism & reactionary nationalism and historical contingency.

"Modern nationalism" is `primarily a principle which holds that the political and national unit should be congruent," thus implying that the political duty to the polity overrides all other public obligations. Brueilly treats nationalism as a new form of politics, and politics at its core is about power and control - thus "nationalism is a special type of political behaviour in the context of the modern state." Nationalism is a state of mind, the expression of national consciousness - a political doctrine that arises from a national identity. Breuilly argues modern nationalism makes the assumptions that there is a nation with explicit peculiar character, its interests take priority and the nation must be as independent as possible - sovereignty. Nonetheless Gellner stresses the element of artefact, the invention and social engineering that makes nations and nationalism, Anderson then claims that the nation is "an imagined political community - and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign." Regardless, whether illusory or not it appeared very real to a lot of people in the late 18th century and 19th century and was a galvanising factor in the creation of nations. The essence of a nation in turn was understood by the French not in members speaking a common language, but in their will to form a nation where it possesses a homogenous set of institutions and a centralised republican government. But the idea of nation also carries a lot of ambiguity to the point where Hugh Watson was "driven to the conclusion that no `scientific definition` of the nation can be derived, yet the phenomenon has existed and exists." Thus, although retaining certain levels of ambiguity I shall treat the definition of modern nationalism is an idea stemmed in modernity, a claim of national identity, an awakened national consciousness and also an `imagined community."

Karl Deutsch argues for the importance of nation building and the raison d`état, which underlies every form of nationalism - this was in turn heavily influenced by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars. The success and defeats of the Napoleonic Wars are strongly attributed to the growth of the bureaucratic state first in France and then throughout Europe, which enabled stronger armies and rendered a new raison d`état. Napoleon created agencies in an effective centralised administration and the education of a cadre of administrators to run them as well as a renewal of state finances where he created a currency on the Gold standard thus reducing inflation, and obliging all landowners to pay tax which the government, with its new bureaucratic apparatus would collect. Whilst reorganising Europe Napoleon also introduced political and socio-economic reforms as well as welfare provision and an advanced rule of law embodied in the Napoleonic Code, thus strengthening the nation lead to the inevitable strengthening of the nation. Bureaucracy also acts as a strong counter-revolutionary tactic and thus after 1815 there are tougher and more bureaucratic states . Thus the centralisation of a state`s bureaucracy strengthens its institutions, which in turn wakens a national consciousness. Before 1789, European countries were an example of a society of orders, a hierarchal social arrangement with aristocratic monopoly, but the French Revolution destroyed this state of affairs and by the Napoleonic era we see a new order emerging, a civil society of property owners, a growth of the capitalist bourgeoisie. Thus more men are becoming more involved in eco- political activity leading to social mobilisation, and giving the nation a political legitimation, making more individuals feel part of a whole. Nation building also involved conscri ption and this breaks down local barriers, creating new contacts between state and rural areas making people take a political interest beyond their locality. Italy is a prime example that "witnessed a profound revival of cultural life and governmental activity," due to Napoleon`s major changes. Otto and Dinwiddy argue that the outbreak of the French Revolution bought immediate qualitative change in Italian politics , galvanizing secret societies against the aristocracy hence awakening a national consciousness by reviving revolutionary ideas and myths of the ancient Roman Empire. Thus the French Revolution in giving definition to the concept of a `nation` aroused great hopes among those who dreamed of constructing a nation `one and indivisible` - this growth of nationalism accompanied by nation building was thus strongly influenced by the French Revolution and Napoleonic wars.

Hobsbawm maintains that nationalism became a power political force so quickly because of Anderson`s notion of `imagined communities`, which led to the mobilisation of certain feelings of collective belonging which could operate on the marco-political scale fitting in with the modern state, which he then defines as proto-nationalism . The French Revolution created two specific types of proto-nationalism; `surpa-local forms of popular identification` that go beyond actual space and `political bonds` linked to the states and institutions: these formed the basis of mass mobilisation throughout Europe. "Modern nationalism" as a consequence of the French Revolution is evident in the surge of patriotic fervour of its citizen armies who believed they, the French - the Grand Armee, were the emancipators of oppressed people thus adding to the radical, chauvinistic, superior French nationalism. Proto-nationalism was also a result of France`s expansionist warfare, which was Clive Emsely argues was used as rhetoric, especially when "le Nation" replaced "le Roi" and an increasing use of words "la nation" and "nationale." This had a `militarisation` effect where the culture becomes militarised, `when war became a reality and revolutionised their revolution, the new republic became synonymous with France and the nation." Thus warfare was important in generating such a ardent nationalist sentiment throughout Europe, whether it be through songs of the `sacred love of the motherland` or like Britain`s reactionary nationalism. Otto and Dinwiddy argue that England developed "earlier than any other European country certain fundamental conditions for the growth of modern nationhood, first country where a national consciousness embraced the whole people` thus suggesting that British nationalism was not a "direct product" of the French Revolution or the Napoleonic wars. Nonetheless it is agreed upon that it was a force whose internal thrust within the countries affect was radical and an important factor in strengthening national sentiment in England - not the French Revolution but the war against the Revolutionary and Napoleonic France. Negatively, national sentiment was defined in terms of hostility to the tradition enemy across the channel. Thus `modern nationalism` was influenced by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars specifically in England, but also throughout Europe with the mass mobilisation of armies protecting their nation, forming a supra-local bond with their territory.

Events in history are contingent upon each other, to suggest that "modern nationalism" is a "direct" consequence of events in France is to dismiss ideas and events that happened prior to the surge of "modern nationalism" - this would in turn lead to a myopic understanding of the topic. By the French Revolution a certain degree of European development had been attained, linguistic and cultural communities had silently matured throughout the centuries and had become conscious of themselves as a force with a historical destiny - could this not have been the core and beginnings of national sentiment, of bonds to a motherland? Is it necessary to have a word, i.e. `nationalism` to indicate and justify its existence, even if it exists to individuals but just not defined by that word? Under a Freudian approach one could argue that this feeling remained in the sub-conscious level of individuals, and it was only in 1789 that this new consciousness was born. But then would it be correct to still claim that this nationalist feeling was a `direct product` of the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars when it`s beginnings are rooted centuries back? This is exemplified in 1539 when French became the official language of the Courts of Justice, as it had raised itself to a level of literary dignity through the lexicographic revolution that had spread the conviction that languages were personal property of a specific group. This in itself is unconscious, pragmatic development. Moreover `modern nationalism` that is founded in modernity cannot claim to be a direct result of any event per se as modernity is a process of interdependent and evolving ideas. Moreover with regard to the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars, they influenced `modern nationalism` to a limited extent as pointed out by Hobsbawm - as much nationalist rhetoric failed to penetrated peasant France , a large proportion of the French population was indifferent to the idea of a nation thus quantifying the significance of the French Revolution. Lastly nationalism is born from a national identity - this in turn can`t be provided or constructed through two events in history, these are the amalgamation of intellectual though, feelings, literature, culture, history as well as the `us` versus `them,` events. Thus to suggest that `modern nationalist` was a `direct product` of the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars is to dismiss the core meaning of a national identity.

Not only was the French Revolution a decisive stage in progression from feudalism to capitalism and thus to the modern world, but also strongly influenced "modern nationalism." It bought to consciousness, sub-conscious sentiments towards the nation in my opinion, but I disagree that it was a `direct product` of the French Revolution and Napoleonic wars, as it was a process as opposed to a specific moment in time - a process that as Carr argues would take until 1918 to formulate. Nonetheless "modern nationalism" was strongly influenced by the two events in question through two facets - nation building that created a new raison d`état and mass mobilisation through proto nationalism and reactionary nationalism. The former focuses on the centralisation of bureaucracy and creation of institutions that cause for an individual to have a stronger bond to the nation, and the latter focused on the effects of war and mass mobilisation, as well nationalism that arises as opposition and not as a right in itself. I do not negate that these were not important moments in history; on the contrary I maintain that they were pivotal and indispensable for the formation of modern nationalism but I also argue that the nationalism ought to be analysed through its context, not as a `direct product` of an isolated event. Nationalism still remains a political phenomenon, but one that today only galvanises hatred, prejudice and racism thus understanding its roots and what it is influenced by has only become more pressing and urgent: "nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."