Search

How are masculinity and nationalism intertwined? This question has received scant theoretical attention, and existing theories tend to focus on their shared ideals and are embedded in a heteronormative, homophobic, and patriarchal framework. Such views imply a static relationship between the two phenomena and are incompatible with the recent phenomenon of homonationalism and the incorporation of some homosexual bodies within the nation. Addressing this theoretical gap, this article develops a more holistic framework of the relationship between nationalism and masculinity. Drawing on relational sociology, it conceptualises nationalism as competing masculinities. It argues that the link between masculinities and nationalism is not found in their overlapping substantive ideals, but rather that the two phenomena are co-constructed through their overlapping Othering processes. The proposed theoretical framework does not only provide a more dynamic understanding of the link between masculinity and nationalism, but it also helps to overcome the apparent duality between homonationalism and heteronationalism. It is shown that both phenomena are in fact two sides of the same coin, with the main difference between them being the location of homophobia as a technology of Othering within different types of Self/Other relations. Overall, the article provides an analytical tool that allows for the contextualisation and understanding of seemingly contradictory features of nationalism and its relationship to masculinity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Methodological nationalism in sociological theory is unfit for the current globalized era, and should be discarded. In light of this contention, the present article discusses Max Weber’s view of language as a way to relativize the frame of the national society. While a “linguistic turn” in sociology since the 1960s has assumed that the sharing of language—linguistic community—stands as an intersubjective foundation for understanding of meaning, Weber saw linguistic community as constructed. From Weber’s rationalist, subjectivist, individualist viewpoint, linguistic community was a result of social actions, not a prior entity as assumed by German metaphysical organicism (and historicist holism). Indeed, Central Europe in Weber’s era was a battlefield of linguistic nationalism(s); in contrast to the national societies of the Cold War period, national borders were unstable and ultimately the multiethnic empires of the region were dismantled after World War I into ethnolinguistic nation-states. Experience of this contemporary reality brought Weber to the core of the relationship between language and politics: A language community is an imaginary one demarcated not by language itself but by conscious opposition against outsiders, with monolingual contexts within borders created artificially by homogenizing policies like linguistic standardization and national education—the first modernity of language. In this way, Weber felt, language can be a means to domination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nationalism and social mobilization are two of the most prominent areas of research within the social sciences since the end of the Second World War. Yet, the scholarly specialization has so far impeded a mutual exchange of the theoretical and methodological literatures of both areas. While theorists on nationalism dispute about the validity and scientific efficacy of approaches such as primordialism, perennialism, modernism, functionalism or – more recently – ethno-symbolism, scholars concerned with social movement theory have been divided about approaches commonly known as resource mobilization, political process, framing, or new social movement theories. The recent proposal forwarded by McAdam, Tarrow, and Tilly (MTT) in their book Dynamics of Contention is an important attempt to overcome the scholarly specialization by presenting a new explanatory framework that aims at opening new analytical perspectives to a better comprehension of contentious politics beyond the “classic social movements agenda.” This article on the rise and development of Basque nationalism, however, while accepting the proposal as a valid focus for the macro-analysis and comparison of broad structures and processes, is rather sceptical as far as its hypothetical productivity on the theoretical meso-level (analysis and comparison of one or a few single cases) is concerned. Instead, in the light of the historical evolution of Basque nationalism since the end of the nineteenth century, including its more recent violent dimension, it is suggested that a productive and intelligent combination of approaches coming from both areas: theories on nationalism and on social movements, is still a useful and necessary task to carry out in order to facilitate a better understanding of nationalism in particular and contentious politics in general. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An interesting body of literature in the social sciences has suggested an intimate connection between the institutions and process of the public sphere, on the one hand, and modern nationalism, on the other. The aim in this article is to contribute to this growing literature by considering one case of nationalist mobilization in post-communist Bulgaria. First, the author aim to summarize the development of an empirically-grounded sociological perspective on the public sphere and to demonstrate the usefulness of this perspective for the study of nationalism. Beyond that, however, the author's goal in this case study is to specify the conditions under which national rhetoric is an effective strategy in the modern public sphere. The author argues that this case study contributes to a more adequate understanding of the dynamic relationship between nationalism and the public sphere by indicating that the success of nationalist mobilization is contingent upon the ability pf a nationalist public to link persuasively its claims to the universalistic and democratic ideals that lay at the foundation of the public sphere.