Primordialism

Introduction
Earliest paradigm of nations and nationalism - an approach, not a theory
Describes views that hold that nationality is a 'natural' part of human beings - since

time immemorial
The term comes from adjective 'primordial' which is defined in three ways: first in

order of time, original, elemental

first in order of appearance in the growth or development of an organism (biological

meaning)
an elementary principle, first, primeval, transcending
Edward Shils first person to use the term in 1957; he says 'strength of attachment

one feels for family members does not stem from interactions but a certain
ineffable significance, attributed to the tie of blood, which can only be described as
primordial'

Clifford Geertz uses a similar definition: 'By a primordial attachment is meant one

that stems from the 'givens' - or more precisely, the assumed givens of social
existence: immediate contiguity and kin connection, but also the given-ness
that stems from being born into a particular religious community, speaking a
particular language, or even a dialect of a language, and following particular
social practices. These congruities of blood, speech, custom, and so on, are
seen to have an ineffable, and at times overpowering, coerciveness in and of
themselves
Primordialist accounts of nationalism cannot be considered independently from the

debate on ethnicity
Primordialist accounts explain the origin and strength of ethnic identities.
At least 3 different versions of primordialism can be identified: 1) naturalist 2)

sociobiological 3) culturalist (Tilley also presents a somewhat similar classification)

The Naturalist Approach

Extreme version - asserts that national identities are a 'natural' part of all human beings

like physical traits; nation is predetermined, one is born in a nation like in a family
Holds that nations have 'natural frontiers' hence a specific origin & place in nature, as a

peculiar character, mission and destiny; No distinction between nation and ethnic group
View held by nationalists; has also shaped works of nationalist historians who maintain

that nations are primordial entities objectively identifiable through their distinctive way of
life, attachment to territorial homeland and striving for political autonomy
Past for them is the story of nation's perpetual struggle for self-realization
Number of recurrent themes in every nationalist narrative, can be seen in Turkish patriot

Tekin Alp's essay:

antiquity of the particular nation

the mentioning of a golden age
superiority of the national culture
acknowledgement, but downplaying of periods of recess
the deification of the national hero who comes and awakens the nation and ends the 'accidental period of decadence'

Perennialism
Smith distinguishes a less radical version within naturalists: perennialism
It holds that nations are historic entities which have developed over the centuries, with

their intrinsic characteristics largely unchanged

'modern nations are the lineal descendants of their medieval counterparts
It holds that we might come across nations in the Middle Ages, or even antiquity.

Modernity has not affected basic structures of human association, but

nations/nationalism engender modernity
It concedes that there might be periods of recess, but 'bad fortune' cannot destroy the

national 'essence'.
Very few students of nationalism endorse the bedrock primordialist position.
Perhaps no scholars believes in nations/ethnic being natural, unchanging entities but

some do believe in antiquity.

 Perennialists do not identify a specific date of birth for nationalism - Llobera traces it back

to Middle Ages; Hastings argues national consciousness being shaped in England between
14th and 16th centuries
Llobera concedes that if a restricted definition of nationalism is adopted we conclude that

it is a recent phenomenon and claims that a rudimentary sense of national identity existed
in medieval period
Hastings says that English nationalism can be identified in 14th century, especially in the

long wars with France

They trace the origin of nations to medieval period, well before the modern ages.
They hold that the 'essence' which differentiates any particular nation manages to remain

in tact despite vicissitudes of history - they term modernist explanations 'a recipe for
social disaster'

The Sociobiological Approach

Has gained new momentum with application of findings of sociobiology to the study of

ethnic ties
Question of sociobiology 'why are animals social, why do they cooperate? According to

Pierre van den Berghe, the long known answer was: 'animals are social to the extent that
cooperation is mutually beneficial
Sociobiology supplies the main genetic mechanism for animal sociality, namely kin

selection to increase inclusive fitness

Van den Berghe claims that kin selection is a powerful cement of sociality in humans too.

Both ethnicity and race and the extension of idiom of kinship: 'ethnic and race sentiments
are extended and attenuated form of kin selection
Unimportant that extended kinship might be putative than real - in smaller kin units it is

often real enough and eventually becomes the basis of nationalism, tribalism, racism, and
ethnocentrism

Question how to recognize groups? Cultural criteria such as accent,

adornments etc are more salient than physical ones. Very few groups
use morphological phenotypes
Since kin selection doesn't explain all of human sociality, VDB

identifies two additional mechanisms: reciprocity and coercion

'Reciprocity is cooperation for mutual benefit, coercion is the use of

force for one-sided benefit

All three principles of sociality important. But reciprocity for large

groups, coercion generally for inter-group, and kin selection more for
intra-group

The Culturalist Approach

Associated with works of Edward Shils and Clifford Geertz
Main ideas in their works according to Eller and Coughlan are:
Primordial identities or attachments are 'given', a priori, underived, prior to all experience and interaction
- in fact, all interaction is carried out within primordial realities. Primordial attachments are 'natural', even
'spiritual' rather than sociological. They have no social source. Have presumably long histories.
Primordial sentiments are 'ineffable', overpowering, and coercive. If an individual is a member of a group,
he or she necessarily feels certain attachments to that group and its practices (especially language and
culture)
Primordialism is essentially a question of emotion and affect

However there is a misinterpretation; while Geertz cites congruities of blood, language,

religion & particular social practices among objects of ethnic attachments, he never
suggests them as given, rather 'assumed' by individuals to be given.
Geertz doesn't consider the world being constituted by an objective primodial reality,

rather says that many of us believe in primordial objects and feel their power.

According to Tilly, Geertz's approach to culture can be considered as

'constructivist', illustrated in his statement 'believing in Weber, that man is an

animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun, I take culture to
be those webs, and its analysis not experimental science in search of law, but
interpretation in search of meaning'
Similar confusion about Shils and attribution of sacredness of primordial

attachments to his work

Cultural primordialism in a Geertzian way then may be defined as an approach

which focuses on the webs of meaning spun by individuals themselves. He

makes use of the term 'primordial' more in its sense of 'first in a series
One might also claim that some scholars who advance a subjective definition of

nation might also be considered culturalist primordialists, like Walker Connor

A Critique of Primordialism
The Nature of Ethnic and National Ties
The Origin of Ethnic and National Ties
The Relationship of Ethnic and National Bonds with

Other Types of Personal Attachments

The Question of Emotion and Affect
The Date of the Emergence of Nations