Michael Hughes (2) (1954–)

At the start of this book Michael Hughes states he is not interested in examining the essence of nationalism but only the role it played in the formation of modern Germany and Nazism,and leads him to the conclusion that nationalism played only a small role in this process. It is a direct challenge to one of the popular views that purport it was German ideas that bread a type of nationality that pushed the German people towards a unified state, a force that even Bismark could not oppose, and continued to underwrite the formation of Nazi ideology and the destructive forces it unleashed on Europe. Nevertheless, from the pages, you can feel there was a force that was reshaping German thinking about themselves and leading them towards a different social and political arrangements, which Hughes does not attempt to quantify, and that requires another exercise with eyes open wide.

The roles of Herder and Fichte, long considered the fathers of German Nationalism, are placed within their context - arcane thinkers within a small social group that had little influence on the society in which they lived, and less impact on thinkers that followed them. On the road to unification there is no evidence of the Volk - the innate German spirit - but there is plenty of socio-political machinations, particularly from outside Germany.

German unification is seen as the outcome of a process that starts with the reality of Germany in the early modern era - a multiplicity of independent states (there were over 30 of them in 1800) over a loosely defined socio-economic-political zone, held together through the concept of the Holy Roman Empire that was led by the ruling house of one of the German states - Austria. Austria's position was coming under challenge from a newly formed German state Prussia, and its own internal weaknesses and foreign policy failures. The idea of unity was first introduced by Napoleon and his brand of French Nationalism that conceived The Confederation of the Rhine. Post Napoleon politics and culture reverted to the situation pre-Napoleon. There is no denying that something had changed and a growing group of people, largely intellectuals, were looking towards a unified German state, but the machinations of the independent states, the growing weakness of Austria and the increasing influence of Prussia were to have a far greater impact on the course of events than intellectual notions of political unity. In the end, Nationalism played an almost negligible role in the unification of Germany, only significant where a leading party used it to advance its interest, which were more particular than national. Ultimately, a unified Germany subscribing to theories of nations developed elsewhere, rather than some home-grown ideas of Volk, would lead to Germans thinking and acting as one people and joining the international "Balance of Powers". Even Nazism is better understood as an outcome of this machination between independent states and foreign ideas of nations, than the application of some home-grown nationalist theory.

Yet there was an increasing drive towards some sort of national consciousness and organisation, a process that Michael Hughes at the start consciously chose to sidestep (one cannot say he ignored it) and it leaves a challenge to students of nationalism on two fronts. What is this thing called nationality when a state like Germany can be explained without recourse to nationality? Secondly, where does it leave so many studies of other nationalities that were assumed to follow a "German model of nationality"?… (mais)