No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2014
WHAT FOLLOW ARE LESS ‘THESES’ THAN ‘CONJECTURES’, speculations both tentative and disjointed. Like a mathematician's conjectures, however, they admit of being systematically ordered into a larger theory as well as being elaborated more fully, one-by-one. Here I shall, without elaboration, at least sketch the outlines of that larger theory.
The general tenor of all these conjectures is to query an ethos, prevailing for the past two centuries or more, effectively encapsulated in the slogan, ‘Every state a nation, every nation a state’. Starting with the American and Latin American revolutions and continuing through the twentieth century's own wars of national liberation, the continuing motif has been one of freeing ‘a People’ from ‘alien rule’. Champions of ‘political unification’, from Mazzini's Italy to Kohl's Germany, have likewise taken as their rallying cry the uniting of a single people under a single government. That is the ‘every nation a state’ side of the story.
1 Plamenatz, John, On Alien Rule & Self-Government, London, Longman, 1960Google Scholar. Cf. Kedouri, Elie, Nationalism, 3rd ed., London, Hutchinson, 1966Google Scholar; Margalit, Avishai and Raz, Joseph, ‘National Self-Determination’ Journal of Philosophy, 87, 1990, pp. 439–6110.2307/2026968CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Buchanan, Allen, Secession, Boulder, Co., Westview Press, 1991Google Scholar.
2 Emerson, Rupert, From Empire to Nation: The Rise to Self-assertion of Asian & African Peoples, Boston, Beacon Press, 1960CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Geertz, Clifford (ed.), Old Societies & New States: The Quest for Modernity in Asia & Africa, New York, Free Press, 1963Google Scholar. Mazrui, Ali A., Cultural Engineering & Nation-Building in East Africa, Evanston, II., Northwestern University Press, 1972Google Scholar.
3 See more generally Hobsbawm, Eric and Ranger, Terence (eds), The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992Google Scholar.
4 Tiebout, Charles M., ‘A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures’, Journal of Political Economy, 64, 1956, pp. 416–2610.1086/257839CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 Barry, Brian, ‘Self-Government Revisited’, in Miller, D. and Siedentop, L. (eds), The Nature of Political Theory, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1983, pp. 121–54Google Scholar. Walzer, Michael, Spheres of Justice, Oxford, Martin Robertson, 1983Google Scholar. Miller, David, ‘The Ethical Significance of Nationality’, Ethics, 98, 1988, pp. 647–6210.1086/292997CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Margalit and Raz, ‘National Self-Determination’.
6 I have elsewhere: Goodin, Robert E., ‘What is So Special about Our Fellow Countrymen?’, Ethics, 98, 1988, pp. 663–8610.1086/292998CrossRefGoogle Scholar and ‘If people were money…’, in Barry, B. and Goodin, R. E. (eds), Free Movement, London, Harvester-Wheatsheaf, 1992, pp. 6–22Google Scholar.
7 Goodin, Robert E., ‘Relative Needs’, in Ware, A. and Goodin, R. E. (eds), Needs & Welfare, London, Sage, 1990, pp. 12–33Google Scholar, building on the ‘positional goods’ model of Hirsch, Fred, Social Limits to Growth, Cambridge Mass., Harvard University Press, 1976CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Sylvan, Richard, ‘Anarchism’ in Goodin, R. E. and Pettit, P. (eds), A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, Oxford, Blackwell, 1993, pp. 215–43Google Scholar.
8 Goodin, Robert E., The Politics of Rational Man, London, Wiley, 1976Google Scholar, pt. 2. Hardin, Russell, Collective Action, Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982Google Scholar. For explicit application of such analyses to international politics, see Snidal, Duncan, ‘Coordination versus Prisoners’ Dilemma: implications for international cooperation and regimes’, American Political Science Review, 79, 1985, pp. 923–4210.2307/1956241CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Oye, Kenneth A., (ed.), Cooperation Under Anarchy, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1986CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 Derrett, J. D. M., ‘The Administration of Hindu Law by the British’, Comparative Studies in History and Society, 4, 1961, pp. 10–5210.1017/S0010417500001213CrossRefGoogle Scholar and ‘Justice, Equity and Good Conscience’, in Anderson, J. N. D. (ed.), Changing Law in Developing Societies, London, Allen & Unwin, 1963, pp. 114–53Google Scholar. Calanter, Marc, ‘The Displacement of Traditiona1 Law in Modern India’, Journal of Social Issues, 24, 1968, pp. 65–9110.1111/j.1540-4560.1968.tb02316.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar.
10 My point here is not that notions of shared nationality are always mythic social constructions, merely that they often are. On these themes, see: Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London, Verso, 1983Google Scholar; Hobsbawm- and Ranger, Invention of Tradition; Has, Ernst B., ‘Nationalism: an Instrumental Social Construction’, Millennium, 22, 1993, pp. 505–4510.1177/03058298930220030201CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Representing the reaction against such perspectives within international relations, see e.g. Black, Anthony, ‘Nation and Community in International Order’, Review of International Studies, 19, 1993, pp. 81–910.1017/S0260210500117358CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Himmelbarb, Gertrude, ‘The Dark and Bloody Crossroads: Where Nationalism and Religion Meet’, The National Interest, 32, Summer 1993, pp. 53–61Google Scholar.
11 Dror, Yehezkel, Crazy States, Lexington, Mass., D.C. Heath/Lexington Books, 1971Google Scholar.
12 Baldwin, David A., Economic Statecraft, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1985Google Scholar.
13 Hardin, Russell, Collective Action, Baltimore, MD, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982Google Scholar.