Ernest Gellner
Ernest Gellner is widely seen as one of the most important theorists in the study of nationalism. Gellner was introduced to nationalism and identity politics during his youth. As a Jewish Czech, Gellner was forced to leave his home in 1939, fleeing Prague for England in the wake of Hitler’s takeover of Czechoslovakia. Upon his return to Prague after the war, he found a much changed city that had lost most of its multiculturalism. Not feeling at home, Gellner went back to England to pursue an academic career. From his experience as an ‘outsider’, he develops his first thoughts on identity politics and nationalism. For Gellner, nationalism is the imposition of a high culture on society replacing local, low cultures and most multiculturalism. His most prominent theory on the origin of nationalism starts by regarding the transformation of society from an agrarian based economy and social structure to one centered around industrialism. For Gellner, society before industrialism, was vertically bound with over 80 percent of the population being peasant farmers. There was strict boundaries between communities as well as between classes.
These separate communities while bound under the ‘state’ do not necessarily share common language, memories, myths, religion or ancestry. Peasants were born as farmers and died as farmers with no possibilities of economic mobility or social advancement due to lack of a standardized education. Therefore, these communities did not wish to impose their language or culture on neighboring communities. There was also no imposition of a high culture due to a lack of standardized education.
According to Gellner, this changes with the rise of industrialism. In industrial society the barriers between communities are broken due to a standardized, mass education which allows for economic and social mobility. Gellner notes that industrialization does not spread evenly among all of the communities within the ‘state’. Therefore, individuals in the community which industrialized later lack the opportunities that those in the already industrialized community possess. According to Gellner, there are two possibilities, assimilation or lack of assimilation. If both communities share language and culture, (‘ethnicity’) then assimilation is possible through standardized education. However, if there is not a shared ‘ethnicity’, then assimilation will not occur but rather are excluded from society. In this case, Gellner argues that nationalism will emerge as the excluded ‘ethnicity’ pushes for political sovereignty.
Gellner believes that nationalism strives for one culture or ethnicity under one roof, or ‘state’. For Gellner, this is the most important principle of successful states. He argues that the worst case is when the ruler of a state is not a member of the ethnic majority within the boundaries of the state. In this case, Gellner states that nationalism will inevitably occur because members of the ‘nation’ will want to strive for advancement by attempting to gain control of the state.
As one of the main protagonists in the study of nationalism, Gellner and his theory has come in for a fair bit of criticism. J.A. Hall mentions the main criticism: that Gellner’s argument is too functionalist. Meadwell also mentions several criticisms of Gellner. First that Gellner never proves the nationalism is necessary for industrial society. In addition, Gellner says that nationalism is only available to the dominated, yet this is clearly not always the case as the case studie below will show.
China
Gellner claims that “the social organization of agrarian society, however, is not at all favorable to the nationalist principle, to the convergence of political and cultural units, and to the homogeneity and school-transmitted nature of culture within each political unit (Gellner, 1983, 38-39).” China is a complex country which, on some points, seems to break away from Gellner’s conception of an industrial nation. On the one hand, China has a state-run education system, has managed to converge the national with the political and has experienced unprecedented industrial economic growth.
Yet, there is an argument to be made that the structure of Chinese society remains largely familial and rural. As well, the increasing income gap between the average Chinese citizen and members of the elite class has led some to question whether Chinese society is returning to a pseudo-feudalistic structure. Thus, despite Gellner’s belief that the social makeup of an agrarian society is incompatible with an industrial society, is it possible that China manages to successfully incorporate elements of both?

Summary: This is Gellner's classic modernization argument explaining the origin of nations. The author argues that nations are completely modern constructions borne of nationalism which is "primarily a political principle, which holds that the political and national unit should be congruent" (1). Nations were the result of pressures created by the demands of the industrial revolution. As soon as people from widely different backgrounds began to converge on cities, it was necessary to create some form of common identity for them. Perhaps more importantly, the demands of capitalism, specifically the need for constant retraining, demanded that there be a common language among workers. These demands were met by creating a common past, common culture (created by turning "low" folk cultures into "high" state cultures) and requiring a common language. With these common experiences as a motive, workers were more willing to work hard, not only for their own good, but for the good of their country. Further, it became possible to quickly retrain and move workers around the nation - after all, whether in Paris or Nice, Berlin or Dresden, London or Liverpool, a common culture, language and history united the newly mobile workforce. Finally, it is worth noting that Gellner saw this book as a reaction to Elie Kedourie's theory which Gellner believed lacked any real comprehension of the reality of nationalism as a result of its overly intellectual focus. [E. Zuelow]
-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------
Criticisms
Gellner's theory has been subject to various criticisms: * It is too functionalist. Critics charge that Gellner explains the phenomenon with reference to the eventual historical outcome – industrial society could not 'function' without nationalism. * It misreads the relationship between nationalism and industrialization. * It accounts poorly for national movements of ancient Rome, Greece, etc.; insisting that nationalism is tied to 'modernity' and cannot exist without a clearly defined modern industrialization. * It fails to account for nationalism in non-industrial society and resurgences of nationalism in post-industrial societies. * It fails to account for nationalism in sixteenth-century Europe * It cannot explain the passions generated by nationalism. Why should anyone fight and die for his country? * It fails to take into account the role of war and the military in fostering both cultural homogenization and nationalism, ignoring in particular the relationship between militarism and compulsory education * It has been compared to technological determinism, and criticized for disregarding the views of individuals (agency).