Ethnic and Cultural Survival in the 20th Century
Anthony Smith’s study of ethnic history, “Myth and Memories of the Nation” starts out with a look at several explanations for how ethnic groups survive over long periods when there are so many challenges from outside forces. Two major explanations are primordialism and perennialism, with ethnosymbolism providing a third option for ethnic and cultural historians. It seems that a combination of either primordial or perennial thought and ethnic symbolism seems to be the better option and perhaps Anthony Smith’s artificial isolation of these ideas does not seem in keeping with the subject matter.
One explanation for nationalism as a tool for ethnic survival is primordialism, which Smith describes as a reliance on kinship, ethnic, and genetic bases for human existence as opposed to intellectual or political bases. For primordial societies, nations are an organic being and not one of abstractions. This aspect of primordialism is problematic, according to Smith, because it does not account for the fluctuations of population due to immigration. However, I think that this takes primordial thought too literally and I think some flexibility is possible when considering immigration as part of the natural progression of nation and ethnicity. Similarly, primordialists see all aspects of community life as extensions of biological drives and that many individual biological identifiers (lineage) combined with shared social factors (religion, language) make for a nation. Smith feels that this is a good explanation for nations, but not a good tool for further study or troubleshooting of problems within ethnic groups or nations.
Another explanation for nationalism as a reason for ethnic survival is perennialism, which states that nations and nationalism have always existed as a means to protect ethnic groups but it is not an organic process. One type of perennialism is continuous perennialism, which sees nations in earnest existing for centuries, if not millennia, even if they do not exist under the same name or ruler. Another type of perennialism is recurrent perennialism, a more historically verifiable subset of this idea, which sees nationalism as a dynamic political force that changes constantly to serve varying needs for ethnic groups. Smith and others seem to attach ethnic identity with the historical survival of nations but nationalism is merely an expression of short term goals for a certain generation of ethnic and social forces.
An alternative that Smith presents in “Myth and Memories of the Nation” is the ethno-symbolic analysis of ethnic and national survival. The limitations of primordialism and perennialism are two fold: there is a failure of either to distinguish constructs from the long term processes of socialized succession and there is a neglect to the full extent to which nationalism penetrates culture. As Smith goes on to say, ethno-symbolism states that “…what gives nationalism its power are the myths, memories, traditions, and symbols of ethnic heritages and the ways in which a popular living past has been, and can be, rediscovered and reinterpreted by modern nationalist intelligentsias.” This is certainly compelling and provides historians a good third option in studying ethnic history though I think it works better as a component to one of these theories rather than a theory on its own. Certainly, primordialism and perennialism would be able to fit ethno-symbolism within its ranks because myths could explain both organic and inorganic methods of nation building and ethnic survival.
