Anderson versus Gellner: A Typological Comparison of two Nationalism Concepts

Source:  Anderson versus Gellner: A Typological Comparison of two Nationalism Concepts    Tag:  czech people physical characteristics
Foreword

As the title "Anderson versus Gellner: A Typological Comparison of two Nationalism Concepts" suggests, the aim of this essay is to introduce and to compare selected aspects of two important authors who, along with others, prepared the intellectual ground for the revival of nationalism after the Cold War, and use their findings for considerations about the future direction of the society. The first author is Benedict Anderson, a professor of international studies at Cornell University, an expert in history and politics of 20th century’s Indonesia and the author of the book "Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism," which brought him as much praise as criticism. The second one is Ernest Gellner, a philosopher of history, sociologist and social anthropologist of world importance, whose most influential piece is a book called "Nations and Nationalism", translated into ten different languages. Both Anderson and Gellner believed that in the future nationalism will not disappear that easily.

The essay points out historical, as well as sociological and cultural reasons for the emergence of this phenomenon and besides Anderson’s and Gellner’s perspectives mentions the considerations of other authors who deal with this issue. The following text shows in which standpoints these two authors agree with each other, as well as in which opinions they differ; and what formed and influenced their opinions. These aspects are shown through the means of interpretation and comparison of their central pieces – books "Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism" and "Nations and Nationalism." In each chapter, I have chosen a different approach of comparison. I choose the method of interpretation in accordance with Gadamer’s concept of historical consciousness that interprets everything that is transferred by and falls within the tradition of the humanities, and whose intention is not to explain but to understand. Thus, in this essay I will try to use the principles of hermeneutics, as Gadamer puts it [1]. In the hermeneutic position, we constantly need to control what we anticipate, so that we do not go astray. The reward for this is the new knowledge. Interpretation and comprehension also carry the need to take a position. [2] When there was a distinct timeline of the compared facts or the compared topic required it, I compared the contributions of both authors at once. In other cases, I first interpreted each of the authors’ thoughts and then compared them.
The essay is divided into five chapters, which try to maintain the circular relationship between the whole and its parts. The first chapter deals with nationalism in general – it introduces the topic of nationalism and its historical context. The second chapter compares the life paths of the two authors – it attempts to explain who influenced them in their lives and what was crucial for their later thinking - and their basic writings from which this paper draws. The third chapter explains and compares how the authors define the nation and nationalism, and mentions how these central concepts are used in their writings. It also confronts them with the ideas and concepts of other authors. The fourth chapter deals in more detail with the particular opinions, such as: reasons for the emergence and expansion of nationalism, stages of its development, etc. Again, the text is supported by the standpoints of other authors. The last, fifth chapter shows the concept of nationalism standing on the border between multiculturalism and recovering of historical memory and national identities. It suggests, whether and in what form nationalism is going to exist in the future.
The essay does not aim to explain the phenomenon of nationalism as such. It does not even attempt to take into account all the thought directions of the authors. I suppose that for the purpose of this essay it is sufficient to keep the track of the four basic questions that are outlined in the first chapter.
It seems that the elements of nationalist thinking have firm roots in us. The theme of nationalism is not only interesting in relation to the existing state of society, but also in relation to its further direction. In the autumn 2006 issue of the journal Přítomnost (in English: Presence), Karel B. Müller published his article on the origins and future of European identity. It mentions the growing importance of regional identities that, according to him, gain among the people the same weight as national identity. It could thus seem that nationalism, along with nation-states, is vanishing. Yet, we can barely avoid the use of terms associated with nationalism. Even Müller writes: "If the nation-states want to meet their national interests, they must give up their autonomy ... the argument about the absence of a European nation [does not take] into account the dynamics of civic principle in the formation of collective identity."[3, my translation] For example, an article by the historians Eva Hahn and Hans H. Hahn (Démon Edvard Beneš, Lidové noviny, April 3, 2004, my translation) suggests that nationalism have not said its last word, yet: "Nowadays popular German pictures of Edvard Beneš express the focus of German nationalists on themselves, because they fail to show those aspects of Beneš’s legacy, with which he won the respect of a statesman elsewhere. ... Therefore, passionate attacks on Beneš can also be seen as a form of an attack on the legitimacy of the claim of the Czech people to national self-determination and preservation of the integrity of the historic lands of the Czech Crown." How will the theory of multiculturalism or the idea of ​​a European community deal with nationalist thinking, though? And vice versa. To what extent are we able to cope with possible loss of our national identity?
Gadamer says in his book: "To understand means to mediate between the present and the past. ... historical consciousness ... [is] the way, which is given to us so that we always come to the truth which we are searching for since ages."[4, my translation] This essay has no intention to present a list of satisfactory answers to the problems of today. It should, however, show possible ways of thinking and contribute to better understanding of this issue.

1 Nationalism - introduction to the topic

"Nationalism" and "nation" are concepts very difficult to define and it cannot be said that there are universally recognized, comprehensive and concise definitions of these concepts.
In subsequent chapters, I will introduce specific definitions of these terms. We can start with mentioning what the open encyclopaedia Wikipedia says about nationalism: "Nationalism is an ideology born in the 19th century. It is based on patriotism, on the concepts of nation, ethnic group, ethnicity and national identity ... Later, it became an integral part of the political and social discourse, political doctrines and arguments ... Nationalism is a collective consciousness of coherence with one nation, ethnic group or territory, which is aimed at achieving autonomy and successful expansion into other territories." The inability to state a clear definition of nationalism is mainly related to the fact that the form of nationalism has changed in the course of history, depending on the region, the period and the context.
As mentioned above, nationalism is considered to be a collective ideology, therefore it is necessary to combine it with groups and not with individuals only. Nationalism defines a group as nation on the basis of various criteria. These criteria decide what features of the nation will the group show and how it will differ from other nations. The most common characteristics of the nation include language, culture, history, territory that is permanently inhabited by its members, and sometimes also religion.
Generally mentioned phenomenon of nationalism is the idea that every nation has the right to its own independent state. Nationalists then generally look upon the development of their country through a sieve of their own ideology. They often favour the interests of their nation against the overall development of the broader community of states.
In case of the non-independent ethnic groups, nationalism helped to shape the national consciousness and to achieve national independence of some of these ethnic groups. In case of the existing state nations, it strengthened their internal efforts to economically surpass other competing states.
Although some authors believe that the existence of nations is natural, the prevailing opinion is rather that one, which believes that nations are being formed only in modern times, and therefore it is meaningless to speak of nations and nationalism in connection with the history before the French Revolution.
In general, the emergence of nationalism dates back to the period after the French Revolution. However, its signs can already be seen in the writings of earlier thinkers like Hegel and Rousseau. The very term nationalism first appeared in the book of a French priest Augustin Barruel [5]. Enlightenment – and the constitutional changes that accompanied it throughout the 19th century – provided extensive fertile soil to nations and nationalism. However, the transformation of the ethnic group into a nation was conditioned and influenced by different forces. In his book "Europe and its peoples", Krzystof Pomian mentions six powers, that influenced the emergence of the nation and its subsequent appearance. It is: the ruling dynasty, the state, its elite, local groups, churches, and individual nations or their parts. In some places, nationalisation was undertook, in others absolutism survived, and some nations even lost their state. [6]
In parallel with the concept of nation and nationalism, the idea of ​​man as a citizen appears in the society. Consequently with it, the concept of human and civil rights occurs, which in some cases becomes the basis and support of national revivalists. In France in 1789, the subjects of the French king became almost overnight citizens of the French State. From France, this idea began to spread to other countries whose nobility fought against the French Republic, fearing the new order. These fights, however, ultimately gave rise to a sense of national cohesion and unity, which then developed according to the circumstances prevailing in each country. After the restoration of king’s reign in France, the great powers were trying to maintain the existing state system in the form of National Alliance. In many countries, however, national liberation achievements came to the word in the 19th century. Some nations have already achieved political autonomy by this time, others could exist only incorporated into larger state units - that nevertheless didn’t diminish their desire for national autonomy. On the contrary, it caused the national revival which reached its success mostly after World War II. The nation state has become a fundamental norm. Nations have even become something that constitutes history. Generally, characters of individuals are attributed to them (Italians are jealous, Poles are catholic ...). Montesquieu argues that nations can be understood thanks to "the spirit of the laws" - ligatures, which constitute each particular nation and are influenced by climatic conditions. Large and flat lands therefore incline to dictatorship, while the closed countries are moving towards democracy.
Thanks to expansive interests of the European great powers the idea of ​​nationalism spread to non-European areas, the so-called colonies. During the 20th century, during the time of national liberation efforts of the inhabitants of these colonies, we talk about decolonization. During this time, nationalism also gained different, sometimes negative forms - its signs can be found in various anti-Semitic movements and other manifestations of racial intolerance (Nazism, Fascism, etc.). Thanks to its flexibility, nationalism which was originally associated with liberal concepts and still in the 19th century overtaken by the National-Social Parties, became even the support of dictatorial regimes in 20th century.
The experts who address the topic of nationalism often discuss four major issues. The first question that everyone deals with is the question of defining "nation" and "nationalism". The second question focuses on the determination of the time when the nations appeared for the first time. Already in this issue the nationalism theorists divide themselves into three distinct streams. The first group ( nationalists) considers nations as a part of natural order, as something that is in the world since the beginning of time and still in the same form. The second group ( perennialists) argues that national identity remains constant, the nations nevertheless can vary in their appearance during different periods of history; they may even disappear. The third group ( modernists), whose view is currently prevalent, sees nations as fully modern and newly built. Anthony D. Smith also distinguishes between the approach of modernists and post-modernists. While for the modernist the past is irrelevant, for post-modernists it is essential because it provides them, in the form of traditions (due to their selection, inventing and mixing), with the material for political justification of the existence of certain community. [7]
A third group of theorists focuses on the remaining two questions: how the nation and nationalism have been developing and was it exported to non-European regions or could emerge and evolve independently in different places.
Given the fact that both authors, which this essay aims to compare, belong to the third stream of theorists of nationalism, I deliberately omit the ideas of authors who belong to the first two groups. However, I would like to mention here some opinions of the relevant authors and try to outline the image of the discussion in the field of this topic.
The definition of a nation is still subject to constant debate and dissent within the academic community, therefore, it is appropriate to briefly outline the direction in which the theory and views of other authors move. According to Miroslav Hroch, a nation is characterized by three basic phenomena: higher degree of inward communication, collective memory and the concept of equality of all members of the nation as members of civil society. [8] Ernest Renan, on the other hand, considers the main characteristics of the nation to be race, language, religion, community, common interests, territory and spiritual potential which he considers to be the most important component of the nation. [9] Otto Bauer described the nation as "a community of people who share the same fate". [10] E. Lemberg marks the nation as an object of nationalism. He also claims that nationalism as an ideology can be bound to different characters of the nation, since none of these characters has general validity. [11] Elie Kedourie, and similarly John Breuilly, regard nationalism as a doctrine. [12] Hans Kohn argues that "nationalism is a political belief, which forms the basis of cohesion of modern societies and legitimizes their claim to authority"[13], making a distinction between western and eastern nationalism. In the West, according to him, a moderate and literary nationalism is being created through people gathering around the political institutions built on the principles of liberalism. In the East, on the other hand, undemocratic and conservative nationalism is being created, caused by people gathering around folk's culture. Francis Fukuyama argues that "nationalism is a specifically modern phenomenon because it replaces the relationship of master and servant by mutual and equal recognition. It is not fully rational as it restricts this recognition to certain nationality or ethnic group."[14] Richard Handler defines nationalism, among other things, as a unity including diversity - the members of the nation may differ, but they share basic characteristics that create their national identity. [15] John Breuilly argues that nationalism concept equals to a political movement that seeks and experiences the power of the state and defends such conduct by nationalist reasons. [16]

2 Anderson versus Gellner

Before starting the comparison of the concepts of nation outlined by these two authors, I would like to have a closer look at the two of them. The opinions and ideas of each of us are usually shaped by the conditions in which we live, and people which we encounter in our lifetime. So it is in the case of Anderson and Gellner. Therefore, I will try to outline to which environment they were born, what and who had the greatest impact on the direction of their lives. I assume that this comparison will allow us to better understand the origin of some of their ideas.

2.1 Life paths of the authors
Ernest Gellner was born to Jewish parents in Paris on 9 December 1925. He spent his childhood in Bohemia. Gellner’s father returned after the World War I to Prague where – thanks to T.G. Masaryk, the new liberal democratic state and its attitude toward Jews – he aligned with Czech identity and began to hold seminars with Czech intellectuals in his apartment. He also sent his son Ernest to the Czech primary school. Later, Gellner also attended the Prague English Grammar School –he had to interrupt his studies in 1939 because his whole family emigrated to England. It was three years after Benedict Anderson was born to Anglo-Irish parents (his father's family was actively involved in the Irish national movement) in Kunming in China. Anderson's father was a great lover of everything that was Chinese. Nevertheless, in 1941 he moved the family from China to California, where Anderson was given primary education. Meanwhile, Gellner studied at Oxford's Balliol College in England. However, he interrupted his studies soon, so that he could join the Czechoslovak army, with which he returned to Prague in 1945. Here, he began studying at the Philosophical Faculty of Charles University – he attended lectures of philosophy professors, especially lectures of Jan Patočka on Greek philosophy. Post-war development in Czechoslovakia compelled him to return to Britain. He anticipated the political revolution that later really occurred, and did not believe that he could ever return to Prague, for which he hold deep feelings. In 1957, when Gellner was already teaching philosophy at the Department of Sociology at the London School of Economics for several years, Benedict Anderson successfully completed the University of Cambridge in England and enrolled, due to his interest in Asian politics, Cornell University, the field of Indonesian studies. While working part-time at the Department of Political Science he worked on his thesis. As part of his doctoral research he undertook a trip to Indonesia in 1961, where he witnessed 1965 communist coup. Since he was questioning the legitimacy of the new government, he was unconditionally exiled in 1966. Meantime, Gellner returned as a visitor to Prague, where the regime was getting liberalized. He established relationships with many people, especially dissidents, began to visit Prague more often and carried books with himself - even after 1968 he was helping Czech immigrants in England and further delivered books to the Czech Republic. Unfortunately, he dragged the attention of the police towards himself, which banned him the entry into Czechoslovakia in late seventies. After the coup, in 1990 he joined the founders of the Central European University in Prague, where he became the head of sociology and then director of the Centre for the Study of Nationalism. On 5 November 1995 he suddenly died at the age of 70. Meanwhile, Anderson spent several years in Thailand and since then lives in the United States of America and teaches at Cornell University, where he leads Modern Indonesia Program and works as a professor of international studies.
As biographies of these authors clearly show, their lives have much in common. Both were born into a multicultural environment, their parents (mostly fathers) were big fans of particular nations. Both also received an excellent education from excellent professors who certainly fundamentally shaped the direction of their thinking and their subsequent choice of profession. Both Gellner and Anderson had direct experience with the totalitarian regime. All these factors undoubtedly create the ground for the roots of their interest in national identity and nationalism at all, even though each of them took a different approach. For Gellner, it is the influence of the Marxist tradition, which tends to explain his negative understanding of nationalism. But I think, it may be challenging to consider the linguistic environment in which they both grew up as well. Miroslav Hroch refers in his book "V národním zájmu" to the fact that German language, like most Slavic languages, links the understanding of a nation especially with ethnic and linguistic characteristics and conceives the concept of nationalism in a slightly negative way. On the contrary, English language refers to a nation as to a population of one state, e.g. it always associates it with the state and statehood and understands it neutral. [17] – Gellner’s father came from German-speaking family and Gellner followed his example when aligning with Czech identity. The negative cast of his approach to nationalism has thus possible roots here. But he spent a long time in the English-speaking environment – interconnecting the political and national basis was probably influenced by this. Anderson, on the other hand, was born to English parents and lived most of his life in English speaking countries.

2.2 Theoretical and intellectual background of the authors
To really gain a good understanding of their opinions, it is necessary to mention the authors' student years in detail - to mention teachers and people who were closest to their opinions and had the greatest impact   on them.
During his studies of philosophy in Oxford and at London School of Economics, Gellner also attended lectures on social anthropology. He got intimately acquainted with the linguistic philosophy influenced by L. Wittgenstein and G.E. Moore and, like Bertrand Russell, he criticized it in the future. He was also interested in the role and nature of wisdom in different societies. Karl Popper had also a significant influence on him with his advocacy of an open liberal society, its science philosophy and gnoseology. Gellner aligned with his principle of falsification, recognized Popper’s stress on the role of reasoning and theory construction. Furthermore, it was the anthropologists A.R. Radcliffe-Brown and Sir E. Evans-Pritchard, who had been close to a functionalist anthropologist B. Malinowski. Their functionalism could have been well connected with Popper’s scientific method. Anthropology as such was very important in Gellner's education and life. In his empirical studies of Berber tribes in Morocco, he revealed unfamiliar context of these "plural" communities which took him closer to Muslim society, as well as the Western society. He strictly rejected cultural relativism. He was also a decisive rationalist – as an expert on E. Durkheim and M. Weber, he included questions of the social order, social cohesion and target-aimed rationality, in his topics. Gellner distinguished between general Durkheim rationality and specific Weber rationality and connected the transition from the first one to the later one with the emergence of the modern world. He did not overestimate, nor   give up the rationality – he did not consider the reason as a universal instrument, but believed that cognition gives the foundation to the modern human identity. The main theme of contemporary social sciences was for him the emergence of the modern world and its current transformation – he tried to develop all his thoughts within the sociological context. He was also of the opinion that philosophy is not separate from everyday life.[18]

During the time at the University of Cambridge, Anderson studied shortly under Eric Hobsbawm. After graduating, he moved to the University of Cornell, where he was most significantly influenced by George Kahin, John Echols and Claire Holt. [19] George Kahin sharply criticized the war in Vietnam, the book The United States in Vietnam became his most famous piece. He based his criticism on the assertion that the U.S. government did not understand the situation in Vietnam because it did not see the it as a unified nation, nor understood nationalism as such. John M. Echols was a professor of linguistics and literature, who oversaw the creation of the largest collections of materials on Southeast Asia throughout North America - which now bears his name. Claire Holt helped to establish the Modern Indonesia Project at the Cornell University. She was concerned about Indonesian art and has created a lot of materials in this area. Together with George Kahin, she led Anderson’s thesis. After Anderson became an expert on Southeast Asia, military conflicts between Cambodia, Vietnam and China guided him to the idea of ​​analyzing the importance and attractiveness of nationalist expressions. Anderson also included the Marxist tradition and its relationship to nationalism in his considerations. In his deliberations on the printed capitalism, he draws on Erich Auerbach and Walter Benjamin. As one of the most influential scholars of his generation, he often featured in public debates and stressed the issue of human rights violation in Southeast Asia.

As I mentioned above, both of the authors belong to the group of theorists of nationalism - the modernists. They agree with each other in the fact that nations and nationalism are the products of modern times and were created as a means to achieve political and economic goals. Each of them, however, develops this fact in a different way. The authors also differ in the very attitude towards nationalism. While Gellner sees it more as a negative phenomenon, Anderson approaches it positively. I will tackle this closer in the next chapters.

2.3 The writings of the authors
In the spirit of the Schleiermacher’s concept of hermeneutics, it would certainly be significant to mention here the overall work of both authors. However, I think that for the purposes of this essay it is sufficient to mention their main pieces only. At the same time, I mention the focus of their best-known books: Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism and Nations and nationalism.

Benedict Anderson
Java in a Time of Revolution: Occupation and Resistance, 1944-1946. (1972)
Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. (1984)
Literature and Politics in Siam in the American Era. (1986)
Language and Power: Exploring Political Cultures in Indonesia. (1990)
The Spectre of Comparisons: Nationalism, Southeast Asia, and the World. (1998)
Under Three Flags: Anarchism and the Anti-Colonial Imagination. (2005)

Ernest Gellner
Slova a věci (1959)
Myšlení a změna (1964)
Svatí Atlasu (1969)
Legitimisation of Belief (1975)
Muslimská společnost (1981)
Nations and Nationalism (1983)
Pluh, meč a kniha (1988)
Rozum a kultura (1992)
Encounters with Nationalism (1994)
Nacionalismus (1997)

Both books this essay is based on, "Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism" and "Nations and Nationalism," were published in the same period - the period when communist regime was still in power in the countries both authors had close relationship with. The experience they gathered in this period are more or less clearly manifested in their pieces. At the time of writing these books, their understanding of nationalism was as the most universal legitimate value (Anderson) and the newly created principle of social organization (Gellner).
With his book, Anderson intends to give readers a more satisfactory proposals for explaining nationalism - its creation and expansion. Gellner as well gives his concept of nationalism, focusing on its typology and future. Both authors agree in the books that the end of nationalism is not in sight, Gellner even predicts his future appearance. They also connect the emergence of nationalism with changes in the society, Gellner emphasizes the transformation of agrarian society into an industrial and Anderson emphasizes the role of capitalism and "print language". At the same time, both Anderson and Gellner comment on the culture in connection with nationalism - Gellner uses the concept of high culture. Gellner discusses this topic as mostly European affair, while Anderson attributes the emergence of nationalism to Creole states. Both authors mention the various forms which nationalism took on in time and space.

3 Comparison of the central concepts
In this chapter, I would like to address the basic concepts that appear in the thoughts and essays of these authors. My intention here is to isolate critical moments and facts typical for these authors, so that in the next chapter they could serve us as clues to help us better understand other ideas of the authors.

1.3 Nation, nation state and nationalism
Firstly, we will have a look on how the authors deal with the first question - the question of definitions of nation and nationalism.
Anderson accepts the opinion of Hugh Seton-Watson that "no 'scientific definition' of nation can be proposed; but this phenomenon nevertheless has existed and exists", yet he tries to find at least a bit satisfactory definition of these terms. Anderson sees the problem with defining these terms in three paradoxes: (1) The Nationalists consider the nations to be ancient, whereas historians see their modernity. (2) Nationality is universal because everyone has it, but every single person has also his/her own specific one. (3) Nationalism has great political power, but lacks any philosophical content. Anderson says: "Nationalism ... has never given birth to its great thinkers: no Hobbeses, Tocquevilles, Marxes or Webers." [20] The definition of nationalism can be also harmed, according to him, because some people consider it as an ideology. Anderson disagrees with that, he would rather assign it "to the same category as 'kinship' and 'religion', not to the one in which we find 'liberalism' or 'fascism'" [21].
Nationality and nationalism are cultural artefacts, according to Anderson, which spontaneously formed in the late 18th century thanks to the influence of various historical forces. Then they became "model" and appealing artefacts which could be transformed on behalf of various social, political and ideological constellations. Gellner remarks that a person without nationality contradicts today recognized categories and causes rejection. Even if the nationality is not an innate human characteristics, it is understood like that.
In light of his comments, Anderson proposes following definition: the nation is an "imagined political community [22] - existing in the imagination as a community by its very nature, outwardly bounded and sovereign." Thus, the nation is a community that is created and imagined by people who consider themselves to be part of it.
Anderson further develops his definition: "It is imagined because members of even the smallest nation never get to know most of the other members, never meet them or hear about them, yet in the minds of each of them there is the image of their community." [23] That means that everyone who belongs to that nation can imagine its boundaries, even if they do not physically exist. Thanks to this lack of interaction, the nation differs from any other group of people. Miroslav Hroch says that nationalism is a state of mind, which is independent of the objective determinants and can be manipulated. [24] Similar, for Hans Kohn nationalism is especially the state of mind, but he adds that "certain features are common to all forms of nationalism, any form is subject to social structure, spiritual traditions, cultural history and geography of the society in which nationalism manifests itself." [25] This is perhaps the place to mention Hobsbawm’s term "invented tradition", which tries to show that traditions - like nations - often present themselves as old, even though they are current or even imagined. This term expresses the behaviour, which is determined by the laws of ritual or symbolic nature and which tries to implement certain values ​​and standards of conduct through repeating them. This creates continuity with a suitable historic past. Invented Traditions are the result of the efforts to structure some parts of the social life in modern society, which is characterized by constant change, as unchangeable. [26] Ernest Renan says that "the nation is a spiritual principle that emerged from the complex peripheries of the history, it is a spiritual community and not a group which was brought together by a land." [27] Such a nation is based on the ownership of memories and the will to build on a common heritage. In connection with this, he further says: "The existence of the nation ... is a daily plebiscite." [28]
The nation is " externally bounded because even the greatest ... has its final, though flexible boundaries beyond which the other nations find their place." [29] Nationalists are aware of cultural, ethnic and social differences between people and therefore do not seek to include all people under a single "nationalism". Perhaps no nation has any intention of connecting with others.
It is also " sovereign because the concept of the nation was born at the time when Enlightenment and revolutions were destroying the legitimacy of hierarchical dynastic realms given by God." [30] A sovereign state is a symbol of liberation from traditional religious structures. It provides the society with so much needed meaningful order.
Finally, it is a " community because it is ... always conceived as a deep horizontal kinship." [31] This affinity has so strong and deep roots that people are even willing to die for it voluntarily. Individual communities are distinguished by the way they are "imagined".
Even for Gellner, the definition of nation and nationalism is not a simple question. At the beginning it must be said that unlike Anderson he uses the term nationalism everywhere where he talks about the negative manifestations of national aggression or xenophobia. In the theoretical sections, however, he tries to use it in a neutral form. Nationalism, according to him, is "originally a political principle which claims that the political and national unit should be the same." Violating the national principle is possible in many ways – national borders do not include all members of the nation, they include also foreigners, a nation can live in many states, or the leaders of a political unit belong to a different nation than most of the population. Gellner mentions the term "selfless nationalism" – which means that everyone is entitled to have his/her own nation (details below). The fact that nationalism precedes nations is fundamental for Gellner – it is not possible that a nation would exist before nationalism emerged. According to M. Hroch, this theory is nevertheless unproductive because we are not able to describe how it worked. [32] Gellner gives two possible definitions of the concept of nation – cultural and voluntarist. The first one says that two people belong to the same nation, if they share the same culture. Culture is seen as a set of ideas, characters, imagines and ways of behaviour and communication. The second definition says that two people belong to the same nation only when they see one another as belonging to the same nation. This means that the community has changed into a nation only through mutual recognition; shared characteristics do not matter. Similarly, Ernest Renan highlights the role of will when a nation is emerging. He says that the right uniting element is just will not race, language, religion, geography or common interests. [33] There are thus two elements on which the nation could be based, but Gellner is not satisfied with either of them. Neither will, nor culture, according to him, is sufficient to justify the existence of the nation. He explains it with a fact that the groups are established and maintained by a mixture of two main types of drivers (will, loyalty, solidarity, loyalty to the group on one hand and fear and coercion on the other hand) – no group is made up exclusively of one of them. The will may be the basis of the nation, but it is also the basis of many other groups such as clubs, associations, gangs, etc. It is the same with culture – cultural boundaries are sometimes sharp, sometimes hazy. The process of promoting high culture, which happens at a very rapid pace, recalls an impression in us that nationality can be defined in terms of a common culture. A true cultural pluralism ceases to be viable in today's conditions, but it was not always the case. Nations can be defined by concepts such as will and culture only under certain circumstances. Social conditions must be directed to the standardized, centrally protected high cultures that reach all the population. In such moment, a clearly defined, validated and integrated educational culture constitutes the unit with which people willingly identify themselves. Under these conditions, people want to be united with those with whom they share the same culture. In addition to culture, social organizations are also characteristic for human society. Gellner considers them, unlike the state and nationalism, as universal and permanent.
Anderson says that the nation-state has become an international standard, after the First World War ended the age of major dynasties and the League of Nations was created. He points out that nation-states after World War II had different character – their nations had European national languages; they took populism from the European language nationalism, and political orientation on Russification from official nationalism (more on official nationalism in section "Other Characteristic Concepts"). This mixture of popular and official nationalism in these countries is the result of anomalies created by European imperialism. The endorsement of nationalism by state is seen by Anderson as one of the reasons why the concept of nationalism could be replicated by so many different political and social systems, and why it cannot be usurped by anyone. Such nationalism serves primarily to state interests. A successful revolution, whose leading group takes control over the state and begins to use its power to implement its own ideas, always inherits the state from the fallen regime, according to him. This means, it inherits also its memories, archives, laws and other. Anderson also points out here that it is never the ordinary people who inherit, but the leading group. Nationalism serves as a means to mobilize the common people to war in the name of self-defense.
Gellner believes that merging the will, culture and state unit becomes a rule difficult to break. Where there is no state, there can be no nationalism; the reverse is not true. Both the nation and state are random – but first one of them had to be created without the help of the other one. Richard Handler similarly says that states were the creators of nations more often than vice versa. [34] In connection with the state, it is also worth mentioning M. Hroch, who distinguishes between state nations, whose journey to the modern nation had the nature of the transformation of the political system, and ethnic and non-governing groups, whose national identity was yet to be reached. [35] Gellner agrees and adds that in the latter case, it was necessary to create memories and national consciousness, while in the first case it was necessary to forget something (he is inspired by Renan in this). However, he disagrees with the extent of the influence, which according to Hroch global economic circumstances have on the formation of nations. [36]

3.2 Common ground - the state of society and culture
Both authors associate the emergence of nationalism with the state of society and its culture. I will discuss the development of society and culture, together with influences that resulted in the birth of nationalism, in the next chapter. However, it is good to mention the fundamental concepts on which the authors base their thesis, though without the context.

The central concepts, which Anderson addresses are: printed capitalism and printed language. Anderson explains nationalism on the background of cultural systems that preceded it – for him, these are religious communities and dynastic empire. The boundaries of such clusters were unclear, sovereignties were interconnected, the only languages ​​printed were sacred languages, languages ​​of truth – but these were not accessible to ordinary people, everything was organized around the centre – which paradoxically allowed to dominate heterogeneous and often discontinuous population.
This changes with the idea of ​​a homogeneous, empty time, measured by clock and calendar. This idea is then combined with the technical means to represent the nation, according to Anderson, it is the books and newspapers. There are characters appearing in it, who do not know about each other, yet are linked by membership of a particular society and the reader who like God sees all at once. Thanks to market, these resources which stimulate ideas of affiliation get to a greater number of people, communication thus develops very fast. It is printed capitalism, what enables a new way of thinking and relating people to each other.
Print in national languages ​​and capitalism were supported by the fact that humanity can not be united under one language. Anderson mentions three ways in which print languages ​​laid the foundations of national consciousness: they created a unified field of exchange and communication beyond Latin, helped create the idea of ​​ nation’s old age and created languages ​​of power. Books published in local languages ​​allowed readers to understand each other – a common discourse appeared among them. Pre-bourgeoisie ruling classes formed their cohesion beyond the sphere of language, based on kinship, clientele and personal loyalty. It was printed capitalism which gave the shape to the representatives of the bourgeoisie. Depending on the political conditions masses of people of different statuses were shaped.
Being written down, both the French Revolution and the independence movement became a model – validity and generality of these models was then confirmed by the "plurality" of independent states and exclusion of other types of systems. The model of an independent state is available from the last half of 19th century. In Anderson's view, the first European nation-states formed themselves around their national print languages. Finally, an important mention is that all the grounds of the emergence of nationalism (deposing languages of truth, defeating the government of dynastic monarchs and the advent of print capitalism) appear with the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Gellner links the emergence of nationalism primarily with the transition from agrarian to industrial society. According to him, industrial society is characterized by living in and relying on the conditions of continuous growth, and by inventing the concept and ideal of progress – it is a society of permanent growth. For such a society, certain kind of labour division is typical; it is complex and constantly changing, as rising productivity caused greater mobility of people (Eric Hobsbawm observes it as well in his reflections on imagined traditions). This makes the society more changing and egalitarian, inequality exists only in attenuated form.
Gellner sees the importance in standardized educational system, since the new time requires frequent and accurate communication between people. Thus Gellner argues that such a society must necessarily be exo-educational (education must take place in an educational centre, separate from the local community). The monopoly on legitimate education thus becomes more important for the state than the monopoly on legitimate violence. We can see the roots of nationalism in a certain type of new social order. It can be understood as an expression of conjunction of state and culture, which is inevitable. Nationalism is then defined as efforts to ensure that culture and the state are the same, and that culture has a political umbrella, but only from one political entity.
To Gellner, the central concept is universal high culture. This culture is characterized by universal literacy, a high level of numerical, technical and general basic training, members mobility, their ability to be retrain, clear communication, impersonal written communications, standardized language and writing, irreplaceableness of experts and substitutability of ordinary people. It can be expressed in written. At the age of this culture, everything depends on education (on which state has the monopoly) – the possibility of employment, dignity, security and self-esteem of individuals. It is a culture in which all members can breathe, live and produce, it is common to all (but not connected to a place), it is literate, it is not just a tradition.
Another important feature to which Gellner pointed out, is that high culture is not associated with faith and the church. The society worships itself and its culture directly and not through religion. He does not mean that modern society must be atheistic, but the role of the church has changed. High culture has to get secular, according to him, in order to be valid for all who live in the territory. Similarly, E. Renan says that "... religion retains all importance in the heart of every man, but almost clearly ceased to be a reason for the demarcation between nations." [37]
State, as Gellner sees it, ensures efficient operation of high culture. On the basis of this thesis he therefore argues that nationalism is the general promotion of high culture, creating of anonymous society with mutually substitutable atomized individuals held together by this culture and not because of their own traditions or folk culture. It does not say, however, that the ancestors, wealth and connections in the modern world have no weight, but such obtained advantages are often overlooked and they are viewed as at least ambivalent. Emerging nationalism destroys foreign high culture and invents its own high culture instead (it does not replace it with local low culture). However, for worshipping itself it uses the symbols borrowed from folk culture, and then stylize them. According to Gellner, high cultures have aspirations to become the base for a new nationality.

As the preceding paragraphs show, according to both of the authors, the reasons for the emergence of nationalism appear after the transition to industrial society. The society is undergoing a fundamental change and the importance of communication between people grows. Gellner addresses the need to improve and support the communication by standardized educational system that is firmly in the hands of the state. Anderson solves the same requirement by spreading publications written in national languages, which was allowed by the creation of print and market. For Anderson, it is therefore printed language that enables the creation of national consciousness. For Gellner, the basis of the new nation is universal high culture, which is enabled by the connection of culture and state. Both authors agree that language is important for the creation of the nation - even in Gellner’s point of view there has to be high culture, which the state creates, in a language understandable for the citizens.

3.3 Concepts typical for the authors
In the previous section, the authors expressed their common themes. Both authors, however, also use certain terms or refer to views that are specific to their writings only, and yet it is important to mention them. I would, therefore, highlight some of them in this chapter. In the case of Anderson, the concepts are: disgrace, official nationalism and its comparison of Old and New. For Gellner, the concepts are: social entropy, selfless nationalism, and weakness of nationalism.

ShameThe key word in Anderson's concept of nationalism is shame, without which no nationalism can exist. If we are ashamed for the conduct of the members of the same nation to which we belong, or for performing of our own nation state within international affairs (etc.), we are expressing our own feeling that we have something in common with such people and state - that we belong to them. Anderson says: "If you are not ashamed for your country, you can never be a nationalist." [38] On his own example, he shows that this shame is not a constant feature that you are carrying with yourselves from your birth on. Anderson even adds that "shame can be contagious." [39]

Official nationalism
Anderson found inspiration for his piece in Seton-Watson, who gives the name official nationalism to the case of national language being constituted by sovereignty. Anderson shows it on the example of russification, anglication and Hungarian nationalism. The official nationalism was a conservative policy overtaken from a spontaneous popular nationalism that preceded it. Dynastic rulers did not belong to any nation, they even often ruled in different countries over different populations. For practical reasons (for the better management of the land), they decided to establish the printed local language as a national language. Since the idea of ​​nation pervaded the whole Europe at that time, it was tempting even for the dynasty to identify with it. Only through the identification and the granting of citizenship to itself, it was possible for the dynasty to maintain its power over large areas. During the 19th century, the same policy was used in the name of imperialism in the territories of Asia and Africa. Official nationalism of great empires clearly reveals the contradiction between the nation and dynastic realm. Anderson shows this on the example of the population of English colonies - these people were strangers in their own country, they were constantly under the authority of Europeans who immigrated to their country. Imperialist ideology had the character of magic, which transformed the natives into Englishmen. Anderson mentions the observation of M. Maruyama that all nationalisms in Europe grew within the context of traditional pluralism of dynastic states, which interacted with each other. [40] Anderson also points out that the pattern of official nationalism can be followed only by those states in which the leading classes feel threatened by the national awareness of the local population. In this part of his considerations, a demand of a standardized educational system appears, but Anderson does not highlight it at all.

Old vs. New
In the 16th century, names of places began to appear that included a track of novelty (New London). It did not matter whether they were new or with a long tradition. New and old were generally seen as coexisting with an empty, homogeneous time. Without ever meeting, people around the world feel to be connected with a particular region, religion. The condition of such parallelism is the large distance between the two groups, level of settlement of new group, and its subordination to the elderly one. Here, Anderson gives an example of migration to America and puts it in contrast with the Chinese and Arab migrations into Southeast Asia and East Africa. He also explains why nationalism first appeared in the New World and then in the Old. New was not meant to be better or replacing the old, it should ensure the continuation of parallelism. The fact that the American revolutionary wars were wars between relatives assures us that after some time of bitterness the bonds between the old capitals and new nations will be restored. Extraordinary event of the last quarter of 18th century gave new meaning to this newness. The second generation of the national movement began the process of reading nationalism genealogically – as an expression of the historical tradition of serial continuity.

Social entropy
Gellner points out one important aspect of modern society, which is the need of entropy variation, the need to somehow distribute the individuals within this system of society. The concept of entropy expresses a certain degree of disorder in the system. Originally, this term is used in the field of thermodynamics. [41]
At the moment of anti-entropic classification, ie. when individuals with certain characteristics are concentrated on one side or the other of the social ladder, there are unwanted cracks and obstacles emerging in the society. This approach is completely different from the one of an agrarian society, which in contrast was rather creating such relationships in order to assert the privileges of the ruling class. On one hand, industrial society is inegalitarian, given the fact that some social statuses are more advantageous, but is also egalitarian because it gives space to opportunities for the rise and descent and considers severe constraints in this system illegal.
In case the entropic constraints are caused by communication barriers, they can be removed either by successful nationalism or adaptation. If they are caused by barriers of other character, such as physical characteristics or deep religious-cultural habits, the problem becomes far more complex.

Selfless nationalism
As I mentioned above, Gellner uses the term selfless nationalism to give a description of the defending of right of all to have own nation. He says, "... let all the nations have their own political roof and the effort not to include other nations under it."[42] Such nationalism is supported by a desire for the preservation of cultural diversity, pluralism of the international political system and reduction of internal tensions within states. At the same time, Gellner points out that nationalism in practice was not so reasonable. On our planet, there is lack of space for so many independent autonomous units. Thus, all nationalisms can not be simultaneously satisfied. In addition, many nations have lived so long together and mixed that it would be difficult to create ethnically homogeneous nation at once. - What to do with the rest of the population? Kill, expel? The essential fact is that each nation-state is able to cope with certain number of residing foreigners. However, the exact boundary of this capacity can not be determined.

The weakness of nationalism
Gellner believes that the key to the understanding of nationalism is its weakness as well as its strength. He explains it as follows. If we assume that language diversity has resulted in diversity of cultures, we come to number of about 8,000 languages. However, the total number of states is around 200 – it does not mean that we can expect a wave of violence caused by unmet nationalisms. Some are actually not trying to revive their nationalism, others fail to do so. Nationalism is indeed destined to rule, but it is not said which one of all the nationalisms should it be. It is certain that many potential nationalisms must fail, many cultures slowly disappear in the wider culture of the nation state. According to Gellner, blaming nationalism of insisting on the enforcement of uniformity of the people by influencing them through agencies controlled by the nationalist theory does not make sense. He argues that it is rather the objective need for homogeneity, which is reflected in nationalism, as modern industrial state can only operate with mobile, educated, culturally standardized, exchange-capable population. According to him, nations are not natural, even the nation states do not represent the manifestation of final determination of ethnic or cultural groups. The idea of ​​nationalism weakness results from the fact that only small amount of nationalism succeeded.

4 Comparison of key standpoints
In the previous chapter, we defined Anderson’s and Gellner’s understanding of the terms "nation", "nationalism", "national state" and other terms specific to their reasoning in the theory of nationalism and we determined the approximate time of the emergence of nationalisms. This chapter aims to clarify another two issues that the supporters of the modern branches of nationalism theorists ask – how nationalism developed and whether it developed independently in different places or was exported from Europe. Of course, I focus also on the reasons that the authors considered to be of relevance for the emergence and expansion of nationalism and I will mention the various forms of nationalism, which both Anderson and Gellner address.

4.1 The reasons for the emergence and expansion of nationalism
For Anderson, nationalist ideas are connected with religious ideas. Religion explains death, transforms finality into continuity, deals with the mystery of regeneration (the connection between the dead and yet unborn). With the decline of religion, it was necessary to find another way to express continuity – that was nationalism (for Hobsbawm the expression of continuity is represented by imagined traditions). According to Anderson, it is necessary to understand it not in the context of political ideology, but within the cultural systems that preceded it - religious communities and dynastic realms.
"Great" religions were conceivable through sacred language and written text. The sacrament of the language was related to the possibility of becoming a member of a given religion. The importance of the script can be seen in the impossibility to translate ​​some of the words of the languages intermediating holy truth. For a full explanation one must look at the relationship between "literary men" and the society in which they lived. Great power of the Church laid in the ability to move between Latin and local languages ​​- thus between heaven and earth. The reason for its decline were the overseas discoveries that expanded cultural and geographical horizon, the concept of the possible forms of human life, and from 16th century also the degradation of saint language itself.
In 17th century in Western Europe, the decline of the monarchy began to occur. As old principle of legitimacy was disappearing, many dynasties started gaining national look (see 3.3 official nationalism). Emergence of the nation was enabled by the dissolution of the dynastic government. However, as Renan noted, the unification takes place even in countries where there is the rule of different orders than the dynastic ones.[43]
Another reason, why a nation could have been imagined, is a fundamental change in the understanding of the world. Christians were convinced that they are witnessing the end of the world. Present, which combines past and future, describes the Messianic time. It was replaced by the idea of ​​a homogeneous, empty time measured by clock and calendar. New times brought new things, one of them was the emerging market. Initial market educated a small group of bilingual people. Just in the last half of 17th century, due to lack of money, people started to think of printing cheaper books in national languages. The reason for it was also the change in the nature of Latin as such, the possibility to mobilize people politically and religiously, and slow spread of national languages ​​as instruments of administrative centralization. The original intention of the national languages was thus purely administrative, they were not intended to become languages of power. It was just the fact that people can be united under one language which promoted capitalism and printing.

According to Gellner, "nationalism grows out of modernity".[44] He derives his claims about the origin of nationalism from the differences between agrarian and industrial society. In agrarian society, there is a ruling class – a horizontally stratified minority (consisting of military, administrative, spiritual and sometimes even business sub-layer). It is strictly separated from the farmers and peasants. Genetic and cultural differences have been attributed to what was actually only layers of differentiated functions in order to enhance diversity and to equip the society with the authority and stability. Inequalities are made absolute, embodied, they become more acceptable, get a touch of inevitability and naturalness. Gellner agrees with E. Kedourie that nationalism is neither universal nor inevitable. "It is a necessary consequence or correlate of certain social conditions, which happen to be our conditions and are very widespread, deeply rooted and persistent." [45]
Community of agricultural producers was laterally stratified, highly culturally differentiated, but nobody cared too much. As for the churches, they tried to intervene in some ways, but they could never be really successful in their efforts. For they did not have enough money, they only managed to ensure that their ideal was valid, nevertheless unused norm. Furthermore, it is important to realize that literacy (establishment of appropriately permanent standardized script) was attributed only to some people in this society.
Most of the society was reproduced under the principle of "one to one" where the children stay in one place, where the surroundings brings them up in such a way, so that they are similar to their ancestors, which ensures that the society and its culture preserve. Gellner calls this method of education endo-education (endovýchova). However, old stability and social roles are incompatible with industrial society. There are many innovations and changes that are permanent and the stability of changes in employment itself has become a permanent feature of the social order. Gellner concludes that nationalism has its roots in a kind of labour division. Increasing productivity caused that the labour division was complex and constantly changing, which meant that people could not stay in one place for their whole life, social status was rarely passed from father to son, civil estates were very unstable.
This society is the most specialized society ever, but its educational system is also the most standardised because only that makes them easily re-trained; and that is necessary for modern society. The ideal of universality and centrally secured education and the right to education are the parts of the pantheon of modern values. It is no longer possible to follow the principle of "one to one", but it is necessary to use the centralized method, which is represented by education in the learning centre separate from the local community, which provides children with necessary standard. Gellner calls this method exo-education (exovýchova). The only organization that is capable to ensure the operation of such educational infrastructure is the state.

The primary impetus for the emergence of nationalism, on which the two authors agree, is the change of order in society. While for Anderson the change in the temporal and spatial understanding of the world and the associated decline of religion and dynastic empires is fundamental, for Gellner, it was the change in labour division and the associated increase in mobility. In his later reflections, Gellner admits that the roots of nationalism can be found already during the Reformation and the Renaissance period. Form of nationalism is said to be anticipated by the use of local languages, the spread of literacy and direct contact of believers with the sacred world. Regular verbal contact, either with officials or with a deity, helps to formulate a shared national culture.[46] Both authors mention the intermediary through which the people keep the national consciousness - for Anderson it is a market, for Gellner state-run education – the role of those who put everything in motion is left behind. J. Breuilly points out that Anderson explains how new ideas develop and how they are supposed to be organized, but he does not explain why they should cause a response of the masses.[47] M. Hroch addresses the role of individual actors, and in the case of the Czech national movement he takes into account the view of nationalism from above and below and mentions the situation and approach of the patriots.[48]

4.2 The current stage of development of nationalism
According to Anderson, the decline of firmly rooted certainties (languages of ​​truth, organization around the centre, the concept of the present) began in first place in Western Europe and then spread to other places. Thanks to the spread of humanism and European expansion, the European world began to shrink. On the basis of newly discovered cultures, utopias were being created, models were no longer searched for only in the ancient world. The discoveries then led to a revolution in the field of languages.
However, the first model of nation-states, according to Anderson, did not emerge on the European continent and on the basis of language, but in the Western Hemisphere in the late 18th and early 19th century. It was a so-called Creole states and colonial nationalism. The language in this nationalism was not taken into account because it was the same as the language of those whom the Creole people wanted to get rid of. Instead, leaders of national movements related to the dead with whom they were not linked through any language. Leadership role belonged to the rich landowners, merchants and various experts. Thanks to improving communication between the colonies and their European counterparts new economic and political theories were getting to the colonies and settled there more easily. The development of the print and newspaper distribution played an   essential role in the colonies.
According to Gellner, nationalism is a matter of the past two centuries in Europe, he divides this period into five stages. The first stage is for him the Vienna council, when the "principle of nationality was not yet recognized, although the conditions for achieving it already existed".[49] The Vienna council has been an unsuccessful attempt to prevent revolutions and national movements in Europe. It restored hereditary monarchy and created bigger dynastic units merging some of the countries. Shortly after the congress, however, Europe was hit by riots and revolutionary movements could no longer be stopped. The second phase covers the period of iredentism until the end of 1918. During this period, people already considered nationalism natural and righteous, but it still failed to apply politically.
The same period, according to Anderson, is characterized by popular and official nationalism. He says that in Europe, nationalism took the form of rebirth which was primarily related to language. Merging the concept of nation with personal property of the language played an important role in Europe. Dictionaries have become indicators of inclusiveness and the gradual emancipation of languages. 19th century became the age of people who deal with language and work in spheres that deal with the language. Their activity was central to the formation of nationalism. Development of colleges and universities had a great importance here. Printed language provided consistency especially to burgesses who were the first to reach solidarity based on "ideas". In 1920s, European states have already had an independent nation-state model at their disposal. The first European nationalisms had popular character. It was necessary to destroy the bondage, promote education of the people, extend voting rights, etc. In the nineteenth century, in response to this popular nationalism, the official nationalism began to spread, which was initiated by dynastic rulers in an attempt to defend their own power (see 3.3. Official nationalism). The concept of the nation, thanks to industrialization, slowly began to lose its element of ethnic, linguistic or geographic origin. Besides increased mobility, the reason was also the need of a large number of bilingual officers and the development of the modern education. All school history has already been written under the influence of the pervasive nationalism. Late 19th century is characterized by increased migration, the rise of new classes, the resistance of traditional classes against modernity, democratization of politics and creation of a modern administrative state. For the nationalism within the period 1880 – 1914, it is characteristic that the question of the right of self-determination of the nations comes to the foreground, national sentiment strengthens not only within the multinational empire, but also in the already established national states. Also philological nationalism, boom of folk pre-nationalism, anti-Semitism, Zionism, etc. appears among the nations imprisoned in large empires. Hans Kohn considers the period of the First World War a time when nationalism spread to Asia precisely because of the war.[50]
Gellner puts his third stage – a period of winning, but self-destroying nationalism – between the two world wars, the new small states based on ethnic principles were too weak, there were many minorities in them. The newly configured system then collapsed under the pressure of Hitler and Stalin. Anderson says that after the First World War nation-state represented a legitimate international standard, most of the nation states were created till World War II.
The fourth stage, 1930s and 1940s, is called by Gellner the period Nacht und Nebel (Night and Fog). Ethnic cleansing (mass killings and forced evictions) caused that the ethnic map got simplified in many places in Eastern Europe.
Anderson sees the next stage of development of nationalism in 20th century nationalism, which in Europe consisted of a mixture of popular and official nationalism, and in important features resembled colonial nationalisms of earlier time. In both European countries and the colonies, the youth indicating dynamics, development, and revolutionary will had political importance. In the colonies, however, it was the first generation that wanted to define itself (linguistically, culturally) against the parents' generation and colonized peers who had received European education. Afterwards, national awareness could be formed on the basis of sharing the same educational system (experience, knowledge). It varied according to the location - people were travelling to get education, which was applied in the administrative sphere as well. On the example of Indonesia, the author shows that nationalism was invented by the printed language, not language as such. In the 20th century, the idea of ​​the nation was deeply rooted in all printed languages and nationality was inextricably linked with political awareness. Relatively late example of Switzerland shows the decline of the influence of linguistic uniformity in the national consciousness in Europe.
Gellner sees his fifth, final stage in the process of globalization, in which "due to the relative economic improvement and rapprochement of industrial cultures, ethnic hatred and feelings begin to somewhat shrink."[51] In these deliberations, Gellner also thinks about where to place the countries in which the above-mentioned development was interrupted by the communist regime, which tried to suppress a large part of national exposure. He concludes that these countries may join the third, fourth and fifth stages of development. But he also points out that during the Communist regime all these countries underwent certain economic development and thus they experience nationalism on a higher economic level than after the First World War and they have a lot to lose. Thus, they will be different from the countries in which a free society has developed directly from the feudal-baroque absolutism.
Gellner also notes the difference between early and late period of industrialization. In the early period egalitarianism is expected, but unegalitarian approaches prevail. Cultural homogeneity does not yet exist, the life expectations of wealthy and poor differ. The new nation is born only when the privileged can easily identify culturally and ethnically. Such nation forms itself around high culture or around previous low culture. In the late period, it is only the earlier real obstacle of variability and equality that prevents the identification and creation of new boundaries.
For comparison, I present a few more examples. M. Hroch divides the formation process of a modern nation into three phases. Phase A is the period of scholars’ interest in their own culture; national movement is in full compliance with the general modernization trend towards dissemination of scientific knowledge to educate the people. Phase B is the period of national agitation, when the patriots convince others about their belonging to the nation. Last Phase C is the period of mass movement, which reached full social composition. The aim of the process is a nation-state.[52] Hans Kohn then mentions the fact that nationalism was at the beginning the movement of elites, then the movement of the bourgeoisie, and finally the movement of the masses. [53]

4.3 Forms of nationalism and its spread
Anderson considers Creole states to be the place of the origin of nation-states. It is very important to say that this happened due to the access of European empires to these areas. Based on the interference of European countries to events in the American states, movements for national independence, and commitment to create self-sufficient unit emerged. Creole Americans were tied to the place of their birth. During the time they grew in number and strength; they were dominated by the mother country, but they were vitally important for her as well - in terms of power,   Creole tycoon could be compared to feudal baron. At the time of the Enlightenment, an idea spread that culture and nature are influenced by the climate – that prevented Creoles living in "wild" environment from accessing higher positions. Because of this, conflicts arose and led to the establishment of the American national consciousness, which could extend just after the arrival of the printed capitalism. Liberalism and the Enlightenment provided enough material for the ideological criticism of the old times, and empire. Major role in shaping a new awareness, however, belonged to Creole officials and provincial Creole printers.
The emergence of nationalism in former colonial states, however, attaches itself to them rather than to dynastic empires in Europe. This is best seen on three institutions of power: census, map, museum. Here, Anderson mentions an example of SE Asia, since it was colonized almost by all major powers. (1) In the colonial period, the census categories became apparent and more racial. On the contrary, earlier leadership of religion disappeared. Racial categories were created after the independence, subsequently they were transformed and re-delimited. Aim of the inspectors was the effort to map as many people as possible, who would pay taxes. The state has multiplied its size and function, and created new bureaucracies based on the principle of ethno-racial hierarchy. The movement of people through a parallel rows formed then the habit of mobility, which has shaped the social life. Religious membership, which served as a stable imagined communities from which people came out and in which they found support, continued to be the most important (later nationalism took over this function). (2) Together with the development of maps, the view of geographical distribution/definition of "nations" has changed. The word "country", meaning the territory, later meant a new way of understanding the society's policies. In conjunction with the power, maps functioned on the basis of totalizing classification. Maps as historical evidence were used to confirm the legitimacy of controlling the newly acquired territories. Map also served as a logo; emblem of the country was thus getting into a broad awareness of people. (3) The notion of museum is deeply political; in the early 19th century, only few colonial rulers were interested in ancient monuments. The reason for being interested in the monuments was the effort of the conservatives that the indigenous population remained indigenous. Further, it was the fact that the formal ideological program of reconstructions set its creators and indigenous people in a hierarchy. And finally, the reason was that the monuments were to become a means for protection of generalized traditions, for making the colony their own home. Monuments have become symbols of national identity.
That is the place where the first self-sufficient nation-states emerge. Nationalism, however, soon began to develop in Europe and other areas. As I mentioned above, Hans Kohn distinguishes between Western and Eastern nationalism. However, Anderson does not agree with that – he doubts it would be possible to make such a distinction. He illustrates it by the fact that many of the oldest Asian nationalisms (Indian, Japanese) are older than the nationalisms in Europe. In addition, similarities can be found between Asian and other nationalisms – older Asian nationalisms, for example, can be linked to those in Latin America or in Cuba, even Meiji nationalism is similar to the official nationalisms that emerge in the late 19th century in Czarist Russia, Ottoman Turkey and the UK. Elements of Creole nationalism are not confined to the American continent only, they can be found also in Taiwanese, Singaporean and Australian nationalism. Another reason why not to make the distinction between Eastern and Western nationalism, is the instability of the boundary between East and West itself. Migration of the population does not contribute to this aim either. Anderson notes one interesting element - a Creole form of nationalism appears during the last century on all continents. The fundamental thing that distinguishes these from other nationalisms is that they do not consider themselves as the owners of the language (it is the language of empires that originally colonized their countries). Anderson therefore proposes to distinguish between Creole and official nationalism rather than between east and west nationalism. He also mentions another form of nationalism, which has its roots in Europe only. It is the linguistic nationalism (Czech, Hungarian, Polish, ..), which lies in the fight against the language of the dynastic empire. Subsequently, it became a model for other nationalisms in different parts of the world. With the advent of globalization, the element of language is increasingly disappearing from national identities and thus a new form of nationalism is created that fundamentally denies the possibility of distinguishing between the eastern and western nationalism.[54]

Gellner is trying to create a typology of nationalism by drawing up a combination of determinants - power, access to education or to viable high culture, similarity or diversity of culture and capital (property and wealth).
Enforcement of the order is in the hands of some members of society. With greater access to education, four situations may occur, according to Gellner: (1) the power is in the hands of only those who have access to some kind of education (early industrialism, early proletariat), (2) others can have access to power – inequality of power remains, but the cultural and educational differences have diminished (late industrialism), (3) masses have access to power (a traditional agrarian society), (4) no one has the power – as no one actually have access to critical skills (stagnant agrarian society).
In the approach to education and high culture, different alternatives and possible situations play a role.
Access of some people to culture is prevented because they belong to another culture, or because they lack education. Gellner mentions several situations that cause or undermine nationalism. In the early industrialism people have access to education and power, when they are privileged or cultural distinct, nothing radical happens. In late industrialism everyone has access to education, cultural differences do not matter. In another case, a politically weak sub-group is economically privileged even in the access to education, but because the group can not be separated from the majority, nothing happens.
Capital, like capitalism, seems to be overestimated category, it is replaced by the access to education.
In his deliberations, Gellner considers nationalism as primarily European affair. He provides two possible forms, which he links with the western and eastern nationalism of John Plamenatz. Western nationalism, according Plamenatz, is mild and pleasant, it acts in the name of well-developed high cultures, it needs only to modify the political situation and international borders. Eastern nationalism, on the contrary, does not act in the name of enacted high culture, it is disgusting, it lacks the cultural base – thus, there must be a strong cultural influence; sometimes the population is being exchanged or outcast.
In the case of Italy and Germany, Gellner calls these forms of nationalism "unification nationalism" ( sjednocovací nacionalismus; for Plamenatz it is west nationalism) and "classical Habsburg form of nationalism" (for Plamenatz east nationalism) for those, which occur on the south and east of the Austrian monarchy. In the classical Habsburg form, there is a group of the powerful, who have access to power, high culture and education, and various groups of the powerless who do not have access to education, but have their own folk culture that can be transformed into high culture. This new high culture is mostly based on real or imagined memory of the political unit to which the group was related. Under favourable circumstances, a new state can be created. In the case of the second form – the unification nationalism – both classes (those with and those without access to power) have access to education. Divisive element is represented by the cultural differences that needed to be corrected by giving the culture a political umbrella and creating institutions that would align themselves with such culture.
Besides these two basic forms of nationalism, Gellner mentions nationalism in the diaspora as well. Some economicly exceptional groups such as Jews, Greeks, Armenians or Parsees have a long tradition of distraction behind them. Once, the state had interest to protect the minority that could be easily taxed, but then began to have more interest in getting rid of its economic monopolies by expropriating and chasing it. Dissatisfaction of other residents was turning against such minorities, too. In such situation, the minority could either adapt or get rid of its specialization, accountability and create its own state. For these nationalisms, the primary concern is therefore to acquire land on which their state could be created.
Besides the above-described basic types of nationalism, Gellner mentions two more cases, which make his picture complete. Gellner argues that Islam and its individualistic uniform theology is practically a model for nationalist demands. Islam had two faces – one was adapted to the religious and socially plural rural people, the second was aimed at demanding, individualistic urban scholars. Thus, the Arab, Muslim nationalism based on an anonymous local community retain special propositions that were previously preached by the clerics. Simplicity of the precepts and strict unitarianism helped Islam to survive in the modern world better than other religions. Islam allows pre-industrial great tradition of the clergy to survive as a national, socially all-encompassing way of expression and as faith in the community of a new lifestyle. Many nationalists to the south from the Sahara have an interest in the opposite extreme – the use of foreign, European culture. At the core of their nationalism, there is a distinguishing feature – skin colour. They are united by exclusion rather than a common culture. Black nationalism thus developed in colonial states. Language independence was prevented not only by the advantages of foreign - colonial language, but also by a huge number of different languages. Gellner refuses to accept that nationalism could be a global problem. "The problem of nationalism in fact occurs only in a world where states are considered as an obviousness and where there is a demand for them." [55]
Hans Kohn mentions the opinion of Walt Whitman, who divides nationalism into closed and open. The closed type, which relates to the past, emphasize autochthonous character of the nation, a common origin and soil. The open type, which is on contrary aimed to the future, is based on territorial arrangement and state-organized society that makes no distinction between races.[56] The spread of nationalism, according to him, is the result of Europeanization and modernization of non-Western and pre-modern societies.[57]

5 Identity and its transformations
In the last chapter of this essay, I would like to address the future prospects of nationalism. Given the fact that interpretation and comparison of a certain phenomenon needs a time gap, I rather get into the field of considerations.

5.1 The future of nationalism
Both Anderson and Gellner agree that nationalism will not disappear in the future, and current events have not contradicted this prediction. At the same time, however, we are recently encountering terms that are not in apparent compliance with the theory of nationalism, terms such as globalization, multicultural society, multiculturalism, integration, etc. This chapter is thus aimed at the reflection on what will be the next direction of the two phenomena of so called identity politics – nationalism and multiculturalism. I will take into account only those areas, in which both phenomena appear in some form. First, it would be appropriate to mention a few words about the term identity politics. We speak about the identity politics since the end of 1960s in connection with the integration of immigrants, equal access to public matters, but also the rising nationalist movements and the post-war de-colonisation processes. Between the individual and monoculture state there are often disparate special groups (aborigines, immigrants, minorities, etc.) that are struggling for their own recognition and affirmation of their identity, while disturbing the concept of monoculture state. The whole concept of identity politics is intrinsically quite problematic. This is especially true for Europe, which likes to forget that the "colonization of the rest of the world, which has been implicitly or explicitly justified by the idea of ​​cultural or racial superiority, has become the darker side of the development of capitalism and liberal democratic institutions in European societies."[58] In 1995, Gellner said that liberalism, the dominant world political theory, rests on the fragile philosophical foundations.[59] Salman Rushdie says that "at the age of mass migration and the Internet, cultural pluralism is the incontrovertible fact: the dream of a pure monoculture is unattainable." But he also points out that "it is somehow difficult to celebrate multiculturalism, while Belgians of 'North African origin' urge Belgian women to commit suicide bombings."[60]
So which way will the society take? Will it keep going the way of a nation-state, multicultural state, or perhaps even multi-cultural nation?

5.2 Historical memory and national identity
Looking into the future, Gellner says that the constant changes in employment associated with the importance of communication cause the creation of certain kind of social equality, a diminished social distance – which is the foundation of both modern egalitarianism and nationalism. We can expect nationalism to alter, however, the urgency of national eagerness will diminish.[61] He agrees with F. Revel, who says that despite the high degree of globalization, differences between the cultural ways of life and communication will still remain big, therefore, they will still require special handling and different cultural-political units, either sovereign or not. According to Gellner, nationalism will not disappear because national requirement of compliance of political and cultural units will remain true. But at the same time, national clashes will be reduced. Late industrial society does not produce as deep social gaps as an early industrial society does. Meanwhile, it is not likely that big amount of the old folk cultures will survive, but international abundance of high cultures will undoubtedly remain. F. Fukuyama  has also a similar view, he says that there is no destruction threat to nationalism, but "advanced nationalism is probably not able to create new empires any more, it can only decompose the existing ones." [62]
According to Anderson, both individual and the nation need identity, but there is a difference between them: the nation does not have the exact date of its creation and destruction, its origin is never natural. Biography of a nation can never be written as a biography of an individual. It can only be adjusted to the time – its genealogy is then formed by its dead members. Anderson combines his idea about the future of nationalism with the development of mass communication and increased migration of people. In the course of events he talks about two new forms of nationalism – Internet nationalism (in a nutshell it is nationalism that is accessible through the new means of communication) and so-called "long-distance" nationalism (nationalism connected with migrants and refugees, and mixed marriages). In many countries we come across many minority groups that considered themselves as belonging to a different nation. They have their own schools, newspapers, associations, etc. and most importantly they have the opportunity to express their affiliation on countless websites. Such sites are, as Anderson points out, often quite nationalistic. One of the foundations of "long-distance" nationalism was laid by the empowerment of women (Anderson admits that previously he did not pay attention to the role of women in nationalism, it is only in this period). After women gained the same rights as men, the question of the nationality of those women arose, who were married to men belonging to other nations. Such women were not necessarily subordinate to their husbands any more and they did not have to take over their nationality – they have acquired dual citizenship. Here, Anderson encounters a problem which children born of such marriages often meet with. They want to belong to both nations, but it is not possible due to the fact that most of us do not consider it natural to feel connection to two countries. Another fact that supports this type of nationalism is the fact that many people (mostly members of minorities in the country) feel affiliation to the country that they have never visited in their life.
Predictions about the end of nationalism, such as the one by E. Hobsbawm that "nationalism is a historical phenomenon, a product of relatively recent past, itself a subject to change with scant likelihood that it will last indefinitely"[63], clearly have no chance of success. And that is even though, as Gellner says, nationalism should quickly disappear in the modern world as its very foundations are being removed.[64] Leoš Šatava calls the concept of nation a concept of "either-or" – man belongs to a particular ethnic group or not, third option does not exist. He sees it as the most common model of life in European countries and, in terms of conserving ethnicity as a value, as the most effective.[65]
Kohn sees the current role of nationalism in two different lights. On the one hand, according to him, it is a subversive force that induces unilateral and blind trials. But it is also an important factor in the fight against uniformity, which prevents the domination of certain powers and impede the freedom of collective groups.[66]
Before we proceed to multiculturalism itself, I will mention three models of national integration as P. Barša describes them. One model is a consistent assimilation; France is its example. In this case, the state should be the sum of free and equal citizens whose traits are relegated to their private sphere. On the contrary, in the second – British model the groups with their peculiarities enter the public space and apply their specific requirements there. The third model is then a transitional type, which is represented by Germany. Different groups in this case have no hope of integration, their presence is seen as temporary. [67]

5.3 The theory of multiculturalism and European identity
The more the country tries to apply the principles of open society, the more it needs to think about the question of the nation's unity and pluralism. The second variant of identity politics thus often gets in the foreground. Multiculturalism is a policy that can be applied precisely in those countries whose people come from different cultural backgrounds.
Giovanni Sartori, as well as other theorists in this area, considers multiculturalism as more powerful variant of pluralism. In contrast to pluralism, which was merely the result of historical events, multiculturalism is deliberate project which should implement its visions. While pluralism only recognizes the differences, multiculturalism also supports their creation. Sartori mentions two versions of multiculturalism: the first submits to the criteria of pluralism, while the other, more successful, denies pluralism – it highlights one culture over others. He also reminds us of the need not to confuse culture and ethnicity. From the perspective of multiculturalism, culture may reflect the cultural tradition, but also linguistic, religious, ethnic identity, and others. [68]
Barša divides multiculturalism into multiculturalism of separation, which preaches separation of particular cultures as self-contained enclaves, and multiculturalism of integration, which seeks to interconnect such cultures. In his reasoning, he tries to highlight and defend the second option – multiculturalism of integration. In his book, he further distinguishes three possible levels of integration: cultural, socio-economic and civil-political. Cultural integration is further divided into: assimilation, melting pot, cultural and pluralistic multiculturalism. Negative alternative of this integration is cultural segregation. In the case of assimilation, the group gives up its traditions and values ​​and dissolves in mainstream society, in the case of melting pot it enriches it with new elements. In case the minority remains culturally distinct and cohesive, we speak about cultural-pluralistic integration, however, the minority is economically and politically part of the rest of the society. Multiculturalism then promotes the cultural pluralism to the effect desirable for the society. To make a complete picture, I mention also the division of two other forms of integration: socio-economic integration can be total or partial, its negative option is economic segregation. In the case of civil-political integration it is assimilation or accommodation and its negative symptoms may be a political segregation (control by the majority) and ethno-cultural conflicts.[69]
Like nationalism, multiculturalism has different forms depending on the place of origin and historical context. In principle, we can distinguish two basic forms – multiculturalism in European countries that are struggling with immigration from non-European areas and multiculturalism in immigrant countries that are more open to different cultures by their nature.
Barša sees possible future in the program of multicultural nation that is geographically, culturally and politically specific, and provides room for everyone. In fact, today we find ourselves in a situation where we do not need to discover a new culture, because it is all around us. Barša writes: "The speed and ease of movement of capital, people, information and cultural symbols on the level of the planet cause that every developed country and every major city is a node in a transnational network in which the whole world is reflected, as in the Leibniz’s monad."[70] The links to specific geographical, cultural and political place begin to vanish, migration becomes a condition of life and the differences that formerly prevailed between the European and immigrant countries disappear. "If every place on the planet, in principle, is open to information, transaction, or migration, then the whole world is potentially present in it," [71] continues Barša. Thanks to modern technology, it is possible and normal to have more cultural-group identities, therefore, it is not possible, according to Barša, to combine political and cultural unit, it is necessary to transform monocultural European nations into multicultural nations – through the change of consciousness of every one of us and the change of political institutions. Besides his model “either – or” Leoš Šatava also mentions a model of "not only – but also" that corresponds to the concept of multiculturalism. He assumes that most of the society will chose this model in the future [72]

ConclusionOne of the main objectives of this study was to answer four basic questions raised by theorists in the field of nationalism, through the ideas of Benedict Anderson and Ernest Gellner. Comparison in this form is certainly not exhaustive. However, if we understand it in accordance with the circular structure of understanding as one of the projects, it is sufficient. I will briefly summarize the lessons learned in several conclusions that will hopefully not be too hasty.
(1) The emergence of nationalism precedes nations – imagined communities based on a common will and shared culture. It is important to link the nation with the state (whether the stimulus comes from the state, which wants to be national, or from a nation which wants its own state). The essential function in the constitution of a nation belongs to language and education, which are disseminated through the market and state-controlled educational system.
(2) Nationalism begins to emerge in the last half of 18th century and the reason for its creation are the social changes of the time (change in the understanding of space and time, change in the division of labour, etc.).
(3) Nationalism, how Gellner understands it, goes through various stages of development – from unrecognised, ​​through natural, just, political, winning and self-destructive, to aggressive and conservative. He mentions two basic forms of nationalism – the unifying and classic Habsburg – and other such as nationalism in the Diaspora or Muslim or black nationalism. For Anderson, nationalism takes the way from revolutionary colonial, through the popular and official, to new forms such as language nationalism.
(4) While Gellner sees the place of origin of nationalism in Europe, from where it was spread to other areas, for Anderson it is America (but dependending on the influence of European powers and the development of their society), which gave Europe a model through which nationalism spread further into its other colonies.
In the introduction, I touched the questions, how the idea of multiculturalism and the European community will put up with the solid roots of nationalism, and to what extent we are able to undergo the loss of our own national identity. Elie Kedourie says: "What seems natural to us today, was once strange and unknown and required all sorts of justification, persuasion and evidence; what seems simple and clear, is actually mysterious and artificially engineered; it is the result of the now-forgotten circumstances and elemental effort which is now only an academic interest and remnant of sometimes incompatible, and even contradictory metaphysical systems."[73] Raymond Grew speaks similarly: "If we know that national identities are historically constructed, we can deconstruct their rhetoric and ritual."[74] It may therefore seem that nationalism is only a means to achieve certain goals, and because of this nature should not persist longer than necessary. Although Hobsbawm’s thesis of limited duration of nationalism is regarded in recent years as obsolete, I would like to mention one of its essential points: the differences through which nationalism defines "nations" will not disappear, the groups will not stop identifying themselves like that, however, the social, economic and political conditions, from which existence of such groups is deduced, will change to such an extend that it will not be possible to use the terms "nation" and "nationalism" in the form in which they were previously used.[75] In my opinion, this thought is noteworthy. Linking nation to the state was in its time very rewarding. Under the weight of social changes, role of the state was increasing. However, unlike a nation that can be compared to the individual, it was quite disembodied. We can say that it breathed a soul into the state, nation-state has thus become the equivalent of family. This connection, however, together with the increased permeability of national borders, loses its power.
It seems that Europe has chosen the path of a multicultural nation. The tendency in society leads to increasing openness and mobility, it is quite likely that the current identities will lose its current characteristics and it will be necessary to create new identities. This can result in many conflicts. Strict separation of public–unified and private–diverse could prevent this. Open society undoubtedly provides the freedom to choose ones own identity. Each identity, however, needs its solid foundation, which must be varied, if an individual is supposed to have a choice. The society should therefore be open to all forms of identity, it should aim to preserve a variety of sources for its creation, without trying to create, transform, or impose them.

List of references and other sources
Books:
Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, Verso, Londýn, 1991
Anderson, Benedict, Pomyslná společenství, in Pohledy na národ a nacionalismus, Čítanka textů, Miroslav Hroch (ed.), Nakl. Slon, 2003, s. 239-269
Barša, Pavel, Politická teorie multikulturalismu, Centrum pro studium demokracie a kultury, Brno 2003
Bauer, Otto, Národnostní otázka a sociální demokracie, in Pohledy na národ a nacionalismus, Čítanka textů, Miroslav Hroch (ed.), Nakl. Slon, 2003, s. 36-45
Breuilly, John, Přístupy k nacionalismu, in Pohledy na národ a nacionalismus, Čítanka textů, Miroslav Hroch (ed.), Nakl. Slon, 2003, s. 317-348
Fukuyama, Francis, Konec dějin a poslední člověk, Rybka Publishers, 2002
Gadamer, H.G., Problém dějinného vědomí, Filosofia, Praha 1994
Gellner, Arnošt, Národy a nacionalismus, nakladatelství Josef Hříbal, Praha, 1993
Gellner, Ernest, Encounters with Nationalism, Blackwell Publishers, 1994
Gellner, Ernest, Nacionalismus, in Pohledy na národ a nacionalismus, Čítanka textů, Miroslav Hroch (ed.), Nakl. Slon, 2003, s. 403-417
Grew, Raymond, Konstrukce národní identity, in Pohledy na národ a nacionalismus, Čítanka textů, Miroslav Hroch (ed.), Nakl. Slon, 2003, s. 203-216
Hobsbawm, Eric, Introduction: Inventing Traditions, in Hobsbawm, E., Ranger, T., The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge 1983
Hobsbawm, Eric, Několik úvah o nacionalismu, in Pohledy na národ a nacionalismus, Čítanka textů, Miroslav Hroch (ed.), Nakl. Slon, 2003, s. 109-124
Hroch, Miroslav, V národním zájmu: požadavky a cíle evropských národních hnutí devatenáctého století v komparativní perspektivě, Lidové noviny, Praha 1999
Hroch, Miroslav, Na prahu národní existence: touha a skutečnost, Mladá fronta, Praha 1999
Hroch, Miroslav, Evropská národní hnutí v 19. století, Nakladatelství Svoboda, 1986
Hroch, Miroslav (ed.), Pohledy na národ a nacionalismus, Čítanka textů, Nakl. Slon, 2003
Kedourie, Elie, Nacionalismus, in Pohledy na národ a nacionalismus, Čítanka textů, Miroslav Hroch (ed.), Nakl. Slon, 2003, s. 100-108
Kohn, Hans, Nacionalismus, in Pohledy na národ a nacionalismus, Čítanka textů, Miroslav Hroch (ed.), Nakl. Slon, 2003, s. 87-99
Lemberg, Eugen, K psychologii nacionalismu, in Pohledy na národ a nacionalismus, Čítanka textů, Miroslav Hroch (ed.), Nakl. Slon, 2003, s. 71-86
Macura, Vladimír, Znamení zrodu, H&H, Praha 1995
Pomian, Krzystof, Evropa a její národy, Mladá fronta, Praha 2001
Renan, Ernest, Co je to národ?, in Pohledy na národ a nacionalismus, Čítanka textů, Miroslav Hroch (ed.), Nakl. Slon, 2003, s. 24-35
Sartori, Giovanni, Pluralismus, multikulturalismus a přistěhovalci, Esej o multietnické společnosti, nakl. Dokořán, Praha 2005
Smith, Anthony D., Etnický základ národní identity, in Pohledy na národ a nacionalismus, Čítanka textů, Miroslav Hroch (ed.), Nakl. Slon, 2003, s. 270-296
Šatava, Leoš, Etnické menšiny: snahy o zachování identity a jazyka, in Nacionalismus v současných dějinách střední Evropy: od mobilizace k identitě, Zora Hlavičková a Nicolas Maslowski (ed.), CES, Praha 2005

Articles:
Gellner, Ernest, Prorokův triumf, Marxovo selhání, in Nová přítomnost, 3/98, str. 18-20
Hahn, H.H. a Hahnová, E., Démon Edvard Beneš, Lidové noviny, 3.dubna 2004
Müller, Karel B., Šance pro pozitivní identitu, in Přítomnost, podzim 2006, str. 24-26

Internet links:
http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dějiny_nacionalismu
http://www.nationalismproject.org
http://britskelisty.cz/1997/0707brit.htm#07
http://sreview.soc.cas.cz/upl/archiv/files/325_51GELLN.pdf
www.sagepub.co.uk/upm-data/9613_020037ch1and2.pdf
www.culcom.uio.no/aktivitet/anderson-kapittel-eng.html
http://newleftreview.org/A2320
http://blisty.cz/2005/12/14/art26119.html

Footnotes
[1] In the circular structure of understanding, it is needed to reveal the Whole of the examined in first place, and then to develop projects that compete among each other to establish the unity of the importance of the whole. Thanks to the interpretation, the individual concepts are replaced by more acceptable ones. The circle is closed by a confirmation from the subject, thus again in its entirety.
[2] Gadamer, HG, Problém dějinného vědomí, Filosofia, Prague 1994
[3] Italics added.
[4] Gadamer, HG, Problém dějinného vědomí, Filosofia, Prague 1994, p. 53.
[5] Augustin Barruel lived between 1741 and 1820; he was best known for his conspiracy theories, claiming that the Great French Revolution was plotted by secret societies (Mémoires pour servir à l'Histoire du Jacobinism). In 1793, after being forced to flee to England, he wrote a book called Historie du Clergy pendant la Revolution Francaise.
[6] Pomian, Krzystof, Evropa a její národy, Mladá fronta, Prague 2001.
[7] Taken from a passage of Smith's article "Gastronomy or geology? The Role of Nationalism in the Reconstruction of Nations" for the journal Nations and Nationalism on the website http://www.nationalismproject.org/what.htm
[8] Hroch, Miroslav, V národním zájmu: požadavky a cíle evropských národních hnutí devatenáctého století v komparativní perspektivě, Lidové noviny, Prague 1999, pp. 10-11.
[9] Renan, Ernest, Co je to národ?, in Pohledy na národ a nacionalismus. Čítanka textů, Miroslav Hroch (ed.), pp. 28-33.
[10] Bauer, Otto, Národnostní otázka a sociální demokracie, in Pohledy na národ a nacionalismus. Čítanka textů, Miroslav Hroch (ed.), p.37
[11] Lemberg, Eugen, K psychologii nacionalismu, in Pohledy na národ a nacionalismus. Čítanka textů, Miroslav Hroch (ed.), pp. 71-74.
[12] Pohledy na národ a nacionalismus. Čítanka textů, Miroslav Hroch (ed.), pp. 100, 318.
[13] Kohn, Hans, Nacionalismus, in Pohledy na národ a nacionalismus. Čítanka textů, Miroslav Hroch (ed.), p 87.
[14] Fukuyama, Francis, Konec dějin a poslední člověk, Rybka Publishers, Prague 2002, p 256.
[15] Taken from a passage of Handler’s book Nationalism and the Politics of Culture in Quebec on the website http://www.nationalismproject.org/what.htm
[16] Taken from a passage of Breuilly’s book Nationalism and the State, ibid.
[17] Hroch, Miroslav, V národním zájmu: požadavky a cíle evropských národních hnutí devatenáctého století v komparativní perspektivě, Lidové noviny, Prague 1999, pp. 8-9.
[18] Taken from an article in the journal Sociology: http://sreview.soc.cas.cz/upl/archiv/files/325_51GELLN.pdf, written by Jiri Musil.
[19] Taken from the article www.sagepub.co.uk/upm-data/9613_020037ch1and2.pdf
[20] Anderson, Benedict, Pomyslná společenství, in Pohledy na národ a nacionalismus. Čítanka textů, Miroslav Hroch (ed.), nakl. Slon, Prague 2003, p. 243.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ed: Anderson uses the term "imagined political community".
[23] Ibid.
[24] M. Hroch, Evropská národní hnutí v 19. století, Nakl. Svoboda, 1986
[25] Kohn, Hans, Nacionalismus, in Pohledy na národ a nacionalismus. Čítanka textů, Miroslav Hroch (ed.), Nakl. Slon, Prague 2003, p. 87.
[26] Hobsbawm, Eric, Introduction: Inventing Traditions, in Hobsbawm, E., Ranger, T., The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge 1983, pp. 1-14.
[27] Renan, Ernest, Co je to národ?, in Pohledy na národ a nacionalismus. Čítanka textů, Miroslav Hroch (ed.), Nakl. Slon, Prague 2003, pp. 33-34.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Anderson, Benedict, Pomyslná společenství, in Pohledy na národ a nacionalismus. Čítanka textů, Miroslav Hroch (ed.), p. 244.
[30] Anderson, Benedict, Pomyslná společenství, in Pohledy na národ a nacionalismus. Čítanka textů, Miroslav Hroch (ed.), p. 245.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Hroch, Miroslav, V národním zájmu: požadavky a cíle evropských národních hnutí devatenáctého století v komparativní perspektivě, Lidové noviny, Prague 1999, p. 11.
[33] Renan, Ernest, Co je to národ?, in Pohledy na národ a nacionalismus. Čítanka textů, Miroslav Hroch (ed.), pp. 30-33.
[34] Taken from a passage of Handler’s book Nationalism and the Politics of Culture in Quebec on the website http://www.nationalismproject.org/what.htm
[35] Hroch, Miroslav, V národním zájmu: požadavky a cíle evropských národních hnutí devatenáctého století v komparativní perspektivě, Lidové noviny, Prague 1999, pp. 13-14.
[36] Gellner, Ernest, Encounters with Nationalism, Blackwell Publishers, 1994, pp. 182-3, 192.
[37] Renan, Ernest, Co je to národ?, in Pohledy na národ a nacionalismus, Čítanka textů, Miroslav Hroch (ed.), Nakl. Slon, Prague 2003, p.32.
[38] Likes nationalism´s utopian elements, www.culcom.uio.no / aktivitet / anderson-kapittel-eng.html. In the original, the sentence is: "If you feel no shame for your country you can not be and Nationalist."
[39] Ibid.
[40] Maruyama Masao, Thought and Behaviour in Modern Japanese Politics, p. 138.
[41] The term entropy comes from the Greek words en (heat) and trop (change), which means energy converted into unusable energy (= heat). In that sense, Ludwig Boltzmann defined it in 1887 and entropy has thus become one of the fundamental concepts of the new field of statistical mechanics.
[42] Gellner, Ernest, Národy a nacionalismus, nakl. Josef Hříbal, Prague 1993, pp. 12-13.
[43] Renan, Ernest, Co je to národ?, in Pohledy na národ a nacionalismus, Čítanka textů, Miroslav Hroch (ed.), Nakl. Slon, Prague 2003, p.28.
[44] Gellner, Ernest, Nacionalismus, in Pohledy na národ a nacionalismus, Čítanka textů, Miroslav Hroch (ed.), Nakl. Slon, Prague 2003, p. 412.
[45] Ibid, p. 410.
[46] Gellner, Ernest, Encounters with Nationalism, Blackwell Publishers, 1994, p.186.
[47] Breuilly, John, Přístupy k nacionalismu, in Pohledy na národ a nacionalismus, Čítanka textů, Miroslav Hroch (ed.), Nakl. Slon, Prague 2003, p. 334.
[48] Hroch, Miroslav, Na prahu národní existence: touha a skutečnost, Mladá fronta, Prague 1999
[49] Gellner, Ernest, Nations and Nationalism, exp. Hříbal Josef, Prague 1993, p. 8.
[50] Kohn, Hans, Nationalism, in Perspectives on nation and nationalism. Reader of texts, Miroslav Hippo (ed.), p. 95.
[51] Gellner, Ernest, Národy a nacionalismus, nakl. Josef Hříbal, Prague 1993, p. 9.
[52] Hroch, Miroslav, V národním zájmu: požadavky a cíle evropských národních hnutí devatenáctého století v komparativní perspektivě, Lidové noviny, Prague 1999, pp. 15-16.
[53] Kohn, Hans, Nacionalismus, in Pohledy na národ a nacionalismus. Čítanka textů, Miroslav Hroch (ed.), p. 90.
[54] Taken from B. Anderson's article in the journal New Left Review: http://newleftreview.org/A2320
[55] Gellner, Ernest, Nacionalismus, in Pohledy na národ a nacionalismus. Čítanka textů, Miroslav Hroch (ed.), p. 407.
[56] Kohn, Hans, Nacionalismus, in Pohledy na národ a nacionalismus. Čítanka textů, Miroslav Hroch (ed.), p. 91.
[57] Ibid, p.88.
[58] Barša, Paul, Politická teorie multikulturalismu, Centrum pro studium demokracie a kultury, Brno 2003, p.10.
[59] Čulík, J., Filozof českého původu Ernest Gellner varuje, že liberalismus, dominantní světová politická teorie, spočívá na nepevných základechhttp://britskelisty.cz/1997/0707brit.htm # 07th
[60] Britské listy, Salman Rushdie: Multikulturalismus má své hranice, http://blisty.cz/2005/12/14/art26119.html
[61] Gellner, Ernest, Národy a nacionalismus, nakl. Josef Hříbal, Prague 1993, pp. 123-125.
[62] Fukuyama, Francis, Konec dějin a poslední člověk, Rybka Publishers, Prague 2002, p. 261.
[63] Hobsbawm, Eric, Několik úvah o nacionalismu, in Pohledy na národ a nacionalismus, Miroslav Hroch (ed.), Nakl. Slon, Prague 2003, p. 124.
[64] Gellner, Ernest, Prorokův triumf, Marxovo selhání, Nová přítomnost, 3/98, p. 18. Základy nacionalismu má na mysli etnické, kulturní a národnostní rozdíly.
[65] Šatava, Leoš, Etnické menšiny: snahy o zachování identity a jazyka, in Nacionalismus v současných dějinách střední Evropy: od mobilizace k identitě, Zora Hlavičková a Nicolas Maslowski (ed.), CES, Prague 2005, p.16.
[66] Kohn, Hans, Nacionalismus, in Pohledy na národ a nacionalismus, Miroslav Hroch (ed.), Nakl. Slon, Prague 2003, p. 98.
[67] Barša, Pavel, Politická teorie multikulturalismu, Centrum pro studium demokracie a kultury, Brno 2003, pp. 10-14.
[68] Sartori, Giovanni, Pluralismus, multikulturalismus a přistěhovalci, nakl. Dokořán, Prague 2005, pp. 39-46, 75.
[69] Barša, Pavel, Politická teorie multikulturalismu, Centrum pro studium demokracie a kultury, Brno 2003, pp. 19, 231-240.
[70] Ibid, p. 296.
[71] Ibid, p. 297.
[72] Šatava, Leoš, Etnické menšiny: snahy o zachování identity a jazyka, in Nacionalismus v současných dějinách střední Evropy: od mobilizace k identitě, Zora Hlavičková a Nicolas Maslowski (ed.), CES, Prague 2005, p. 17.
[73] Kedourie, Elie, Nacionalismus, in Pohledy na národ a nacionalismus, Miroslav Hroch (ed.), Nakl. Slon, Prague 2003, p. 100.
[74] Grew, Raymond, Konstrukce národní identity, in Pohledy na národ a nacionalismus, Miroslav Hroch (ed.), Nakl. Slon, Prague 2003, p. 216.
[75] Hobsbawm, Eric, Několik úvah o nacionalismu, in Pohledy na národ a nacionalismus, Miroslav Hroch (ed.), Nakl. Slon, Prague 2003, p. 124.