Who We Are is the late Robert Wiebe’s history and assessment of popular nationalism, its development, and influence in the 19th and 20th centuries. Wiebe’s book is very general in its coverage and highly selective in the elements chosen to present this story. The author’s stated purpose is to trace “nationalism’s rise and decline as a popular movement, first in Europe, then elsewhere in the world. Nationalism rose and fell along with other great movements, democracy and socialism. A history of nationalism does not make sense without them...” (p. xv). Thus wherever he discusses nationalism, it is usually in the company of these two other elements. He discusses all three simultaneously in the larger context of the growth of state power. It is this last entity that has so frequently co-opted the benign and admirable element of popular nationalism and perverted it for its own ends. In Wiebe’s view, it is the state that is the real villain.
In his preface, Wiebe states that he wants us to see nationalism as something that is “so thoroughly human that no simple judgment does it justice” (xvii). In other words, nationalism is so complex that, by itself, it cannot be blamed for the ills of the past century. He spends a great deal of effort in presenting evidence attesting to its variability and complexity while attempting to show that other elements are to blame.
Chapter 1, “Thinking About Nationalism”, opens with the question Wiebe uses as the background to his discussion: “How did educated Westerners come to make enemies of an inspiration that has changed the lives of billions?” (p.1). He also gives his own optimistic and benign definition of nationalism: “Nationalism is the desire among people who believe they share a common ancestry and a common destiny to live under their own government on land sacred to their history” (p. 5). Wiebe sees nationalism as a 19th century solution to the problem of identity that emerged when previously existing institutions that had provided identity began to collapse. He makes an important distinction in stating that he is talking about an idea of national identity based on broad popular appeal (thus, Popular Nationalism). Wiebe warns us to not assume that popular nationalism is necessarily spontaneous or democratic. He also, for the first of many times, cautions us not to mistake state patriotism for a genuinely popular nationalism.
Chapter 2, “European Origins”, is a broad history of nationalism in the early 19th century. Wiebe focuses on the origins and early development of Irish and German nationalist movements and Zionism. While these three are the center of the chapter, he freely uses anecdotes from Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, and Basque nationalist movements. These examples not only serve to advance his narrative but also illustrate the differences among these various movements.
Of all of the factors that promoted popular nationalism, Wiebe considers physical mobility to be perhaps the most important aspect in its growth. He claims that nationalism arose from the combination of “migration-and-something-else” (p.19). Sometimes that “something else” could be the state, but it could just as well include the strength and elasticity of family-kin relations or the perceived meaning of the homeland among the people in the group. In discussing migration’s importance and effects, he tells how some groups emigrated to America and formed enclaves. Some had relatively weak ties back to their homeland (for example, the Germans); others formed groups that substantially sustained the nationalist movements in their point of origin (for example, the Irish).
Chapter 3, “Changing Contexts,” explains how nationalism developed and evolved within two major contexts, particularly during the 40 years preceding the First World War. The first context, already mentioned, was the combination of democracy and socialism and their uneasy relationship with state control. The second context was nationalism developing in company and competition with the increasing awareness and importance of language, race, and religion. Again, he illustrates his broad narrative with specific examples. He concludes with the observation that by 1914 nationalism had been largely co-opted by the states. This appropriation of popular movements was accomplished by several means. Foremost among these were anti-populist trends, success in eliminating socialism and democracy, increased state-sponsored militarism, and the selective inclusion of linguistic, racial, and religious movements.
Wiebe then leaves his narrative of European nationalism and gives an account of the development of American nationalism in Chapter 4, “The Case of the United States.” First, he identifies the two major characteristics of American nationalism and its development in the 19th century: the weakness of the central government (in stark contrast to the strengthening of centralized governments in Europe during this period) and the sharp racial divide between black and white. The weakness of the central government was important as it meant that a truly popular nationalism of many different shades could develop. Interestingly, he describes the Mormon experiment (the 19th century in America was a time of many social experiments) and convincingly classifies them as a popular nationalistic movement. The process of defining a general national identity, however, was not open for all Americans. Wiebe describes with great emphasis the importance of race as the means of excluding a sizable portion of the population. The result was not only that whites were alone in defining American nationalism, but also that their version of nationalism gave rise to a callousness often leading to violence.
Chapter 5, “Climax in Europe,” picks up the story of nationalism, primarily in the creation of new states in post-Versailles Europe. Weibe explains how states used nationalism as part of their program to impose total control over their populations. He returns to Irish nationalism, picking up his narrative from Parnell in the 1870s and continuing through to the Easter Rebellion of 1916 and beyond. Wiebe devotes a great deal of space to a discussion of Woodrow Wilson, his background, and views toward self-determination and the consequent decisions made at Versailles.
Wiebe discusses the experiment of creating a multi-ethnic, multi-national Yugoslavia and the bi-partite state of Czechoslovakia. As always he takes a very broad view and it is here that one can cite an example of how a more detailed examination might have yielded a richer work. Czechoslovakia was of course not a truly bi-ethnic state. In addition to the well-known Sudeten German population, the eastern portion of the country contained Ruthenians who had joined with Czechs and Slovaks to become part of this larger state in 1918. While Ruthenia became part of Ukraine in 1945, Ruthenian nationalism exists today (in the face of Ukrainian denial of such a fact). The Ruthenian case and the Sudeten issue might have made for an interesting discussion about national identity and the ability to construct a common identity from different parts. This is one example of many instances in which additional detail and a more nuanced narrative rather than Weibe’s very broad approach might have made this a better book.
To offer another example , Wiebe describes how portions of Poland included substantial numbers of ethnic Germans and Ukrainians. He does not mention the Lithuanian portion, though that portion resulted from the highly questionable actions of a “mutinous” Polish army that seized Vilnius immediately after the First World War. The existence of a cold war with Lithuania involving large numbers of potentially hostile ethnic Letts must have affected the process of defining a Polish identity in the interwar years. The second half of the chapter describes three nationalistic movements, two of which, the Italian and German, were co-opted completely by the state while the third, Zionism, developed in the years before the Second World War without any state sponsorship.
Chapter 6, “Nationalism Worldwide,” provides a capsule history of popular nationalism outside of Europe. He begins with accounts of the development and history of nationalism in three places that do not qualify, by his definition, as truly popular nationalistic movements. Each was in large part state-sponsored. Wiebe describes national movements in Japan (an extensive narrative here), Turkey (in a very cursory fashion), and finally Mexico. He also discusses the pan-African movement and the development of Black nationalism in the United States (to include the activities of Dubois and Garvey Africa). Wiebe tells the story of the Pan-Arab movement as well, describing Nasser’s unsuccessful experiments in developing this latent sense of Arab identification into a functioning multi-state entity.
Chapter 7, “Global Nationalism,” describes the rise and importance of nationalism in the 1960s and 1970. While describing the growth of popular nationalistic movements, he also demonstrates how nationalism as a force began to decline in favor of religious fundamentalism, most notably in India, Iran, and Afghanistan. In Chapter 8, “Thinking About the Future,” Wiebe notes that the West, defined principally by the United States, has four approaches that it can use in order to cope with the changing world. These include strengthening the state, using global capitalism as a mechanism to break down barriers and reduce parochialism, promoting human rights, and welcoming diversity. After briefly discussing the advantages and drawbacks of each of the first three, he then argues for the fourth as the “world’s best hope” (p. 220). His final paragraphs are a plea for diversity and tolerance.
The Bibliographic Essay is one of the most critical portions of the book. Wiebe depended exclusively upon secondary sources so it is interesting to see exactly where he got his ideas and how he formed his work. The bibliographical essay is divided into several parts: General, European people, Irish Nationalism, Zionism, the United States, Nationalism Worldwide, South Asians, Japanese, Mexicans, Pan-Arabism, Pan-Africanism and Black Nationalism, Nigerians, Africans, and Recent Trends. Not only do Western-oriented subjects appear more frequently but they are invariably the largest sections in the bibliography. Thus we see that Wiebe constructed his narrative based on the perspective of the West. In addition, this reading list illustrates his methodology. Sam Bass Warner notes in the introduction that Wiebe’s method was to be an “avid and thoughtful reader of the relevant literature. He was not an archives man” (p.viii).
At the beginning of this review, I noted the personal nature of this work. The message is not only highly personal but so is the treatment of the history and so, too, is the underlying methodology behind this work. What is key in understanding and judging this book that it is a history – a single view – and that it is a personal view/description interpretation of nationalism. It also has to be understood that the book appears (based on the reading list) to be a survey informed by a heavy reliance upon secondary resources, written by area experts and synthesized and presented by a generalist. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that approach but we must acknowledge it as such. The book is very much the product of the generalist. As mentioned earlier, certain subjects could have been expanded. There are also small errors of fact. For example, Mustafa Kemal Attaturk was not an Egyptian leader. Weibe’s reliance on others’ work extends not only to descriptions of individuals, situations, or movements but also to characteristics of a particular era. This book is very much a synthesis of others’ work and that synthesis supports his set of personal beliefs. Another author with the same sources might easily have reached a very different conclusions.
Who We Are is more a meditation on popular nationalism than a tightly constructed, cogently argued, and substantially-supported thesis. While thought-provoking, it is not a complete or rigorous examination. However, that was not Wiebe’s intent, as he emphasizes in the beginning of this volume. He sought to express his view of nationalism and in doing so, selectively extracted materials that would support his case or allow him to explore facets of the subject. Weibe is hopeful but vague in his conclusions. He celebrates diversity and tolerance, but his own narrative about the force of nationalism, coupled with our exposure to the daily news, leaves one feeling less hopeful than the author.