If nations differ, perhaps nationalisms differ too. The most influential attempt to sort them is the distinction between civic and ethnic nationalism. It is widely used by scholars and journalists, and it is also widely criticized.
Kohn's two nationalisms
In The Idea of Nationalism (1944), the historian Hans Kohn, writing during the Second World War, distinguished two types. He associated “Western” nationalism with England, France and the United States, along with the Netherlands and Switzerland. There, he argued, nationalism arose alongside a strong middle class and the struggle for constitutional government, so the nation was understood as a political community of citizens sharing laws and liberties. “Eastern” nationalism, in Central and Eastern Europe and beyond, arose where the middle class was weaker and political unity was lacking. There, he argued, the nation was defined by language, culture and descent, and nationalism tended to be more romantic, mystical and prone to authoritarian rule.
Civic and ethnic
Later scholars dropped Kohn's geography and kept the contrast, now usually called civic and ethnic nationalism.
- In civic nationalism, membership rests on accepting shared political principles, laws and institutions. In principle anyone who settles in the country and commits to its public values can become a full member, whatever their ancestry.
- In ethnic nationalism, membership rests on shared descent, culture and language. One is born into the nation; newcomers may live in the state but remain outsiders to the nation.
Citizenship law often reflects the difference. Some countries grant citizenship to anyone born on their territory (jus soli, the right of soil), while others pass it mainly through parents (jus sanguinis, the right of blood). The sociologist Rogers Brubaker's comparison of France and Germany showed how such rules grew from different histories of nationhood, and how they can change: Germany, for example, loosened its descent-based rules in 2000.
Many people find the distinction morally useful. Civic nationalism seems compatible with liberal democracy and diversity, while ethnic nationalism seems to lead toward exclusion. That is why politicians in many countries describe their own nationalism as civic.
The critics
The distinction has drawn serious criticism.
- Too flattering to the West. Kohn's “Western” countries had their own ethnic and racial exclusions, including restrictions on who could immigrate or become a citizen. Meanwhile, cultural nationalism in the “East” often began as a defense of small peoples' languages under foreign empires, not as aggression.
- The myth of the civic nation. The political theorist Bernard Yack argued that even civic nations rely on an inherited culture and history. Most citizens of civic nations are born into them, inherit their language and stories, and feel loyalty to a particular people and land, not just to abstract principles.
- No state is neutral. The philosopher Will Kymlicka pointed out that no state is culturally neutral, since each picks languages and holidays, school curricula and public symbols. Even the most civic state promotes a particular culture.
For these reasons many scholars now treat civic and ethnic as ideal types, simplified models at two ends of a spectrum, because real nations mix civic and ethnic elements. The useful questions become how open membership is, whether newcomers can become full members, and whether minorities are treated as equals. Those questions can be asked of any country, and the answers usually show a mixture that changes over time.
Worked example: two citizenship rules
Imagine two fictional democracies with very different citizenship laws, and three people who might want to belong.
Country A grants citizenship to anyone born on its soil, and lets adult immigrants naturalize after five years of legal residence and a test on the constitution and history. Country B passes citizenship through parents. Immigrants can naturalize, but only after fifteen years, and the children of immigrants born in the country do not become citizens automatically.
- Mina was born in Country A to parents who arrived from abroad. She is a citizen at birth. In Country B, she would be a foreign resident in the only country she has ever known.
- Carl is the grandson of emigrants from Country B. He grew up abroad and does not speak its language. Country B's descent rules may let him claim citizenship easily, while Mina's equivalent in Country B waits for years.
- Tomas moves to Country A as an adult. After five years, he passes the test and becomes a citizen.
Country A looks like civic nationalism and Country B like ethnic nationalism. But look closer. Country A's test is given only in the national language and asks about national history, so it carries cultural content, as Yack and Kymlicka would note. And suppose Country B, facing a large population of long-settled residents, reforms its law to give citizenship to children born to long-term residents, as several countries have done. The two countries then move toward each other on the spectrum.
This is why the ideal types are useful as questions rather than labels: how open is membership, how long does it take, and are newcomers treated as full equals once they join?