Attempts at formulating a dichotomous classification of nations and nationalisms have proliferated in the relevant literature over a long period of time. In this study some of the most influential instances of dual typologies of nationalisms are selected for interpretation and analysis. The examples include Renan's under?standing of differences between the "French" and the "German" concepts of nation; Kohn's distinction between "eastern" and "western" nationalisms; a revision of Kohn's dichotomy suggested by J. Plamenatz; and a more recent version of dual (...) typology propounded by L. Greenfield. By reconstructing the views of the selected theorists of nationalism, at the basis of all these typologies a dichotomous division into "civic" and "ethnic" nationalism is identified. Critical objections to this fundamental dual division are articulated at two levels. At the first, historical level, a socio-political contextualization of dual typologies points to their practical, political-ideological purposes. At the second, conceptual level, and drawing on the ideas of R. Brubaker, the author discusses analytical and normative weaknesses of the usual distinction between "civic" and "ethnic" nationalism. Literatura o nacijama i nacionalizmu svedoci o istorijski dugotrajnim pokusajima formulisanja dihotomne klasifikacije proucavanih fenomena. Stoga je autor u ovoj studiji interpretirao i analizirao neke od najuticajnijih primera dualnih tipologija nacionalizma. Predmet njegovog istrazivanja su Renanovo shvatanje razlika izmedju "francuskog" i "nemackog" pojma nacije, Konovo razlikovanje "istocnog" i "zapadnog" nacionalizma, Plamenceva revizija Konove dihotomije, kao i novija verzija dualnih tipologija Lie Grinfeld. Rekonstrukcijom stanovista izabranih teoreticara nacionalizma, autor u osnovi svih prikazanih tipologija identifikuje dihotomnu podelu na "gradjanski" i "etnicki nacionalizam". Kriticke primedbe ovoj osnovnoj dualnoj podeli formulisane su u dve razlicite ravni: istorijskoj i konceptualnoj. U prvoj, socijalno-politickom kontekstualizacijom dualnih tipologija naglasena je njihova prakticna, politicko-ideoloska funkcija. Oslanjajuci se na stavove R. Brubejkera, autor je u drugoj, teorijskoj ravni, istakao analiticke i normativne slabosti uobicajene podele na "gradjanski" i "etnicki nacionalizam". (shrink)

This article examines Claude Lefort's writings in order to think about the ‘social’, understood as separate from the political, and in its separation, as a strictly modern ‘phenomenon’. Prior to the modern democratic revolution, the collective order was presented through the representation of power, itself identified with both law and knowledge, and referred to a transcendent source. At a first moment, the modern democratic revolution, under the sign of the general will, renders power immanent. At a second moment, it separates (...) power from law and, above all, knowledge, such that three domains emerge, each with its own logic, its own notion of representation, its own divisions. The ‘social’, in a sense, arises between these two moments. At one level, it appears as an event in, and in consequence an object of, knowledge, once knowledge need no longer be, primarily, a knowledge of power or law, that is the enunciation of the principles by which the latter establish the order, coherence and sense of the world. At another level the ‘social’ emerges as a response to the difficulties presented by a strictly political representation of societal order–difficulties in no small part due to the revolutionaries’ inability to countenance the separation between the three domains. In this regard the ‘social’ appears as a presupposition that serves to stabilize an inherently conflictual political order. It is, however, an ‘empty’ presupposition, without determinate content, and therefore also a source of uncertainty. While this emptiness proves a stimulus for the construction of new savoirs, it also accounts for the fragility of all discourses that would speak in its name (social science, social theory, sociology). The article concludes with a few words about the ‘death of the social’. (shrink)

The Cognitive Science of Nationalistic Behavior, presented in this paper, integrates the political sciences of nationalities as invented communities with an evolutionary cognitive analysis of social forms as products of the human mind. The framework is modeled after the Cognitive Science of Religion, where decades of cross-disciplinary work has generated standards, predictions, and data about the role of individual cognitive tendencies in shaping societies. We study the nationalistic calendar as a cultural attractor and draw on cue-based behavioral motivation and differential (...) autobiographical memory systems to explain its appeal to the human mind. Calendrical elements are analyzed in the context of essentialist thought patterns and action representation systems. We conclude with the implications of calendrical thinking on the control of elites who aim to forge and reinforce national identities. This paper lays the groundwork for applying a similar approach to the study of other nationalistic elements. (shrink)