HC1: The Challenge of Nationalism (H22, 1850-1880)
Historiographical approaches to the 19th century:
- Liberal, nationalist, socialist, conservative historians, agreeing that period was
‘modern’
- Attempt to historicise thinking behind modernity (Reinhart Koselleck)
- ‘Persistence of the Old Regime’, it wasn’t actually very ‘modern’ because of the
influence of monarchy, nobility, church (Arno Mayer)
- Critique of modernity as disciplinary and homogenizing (Michel Foucault, scholars of
class, gender and race)
Questions:
1. What does it mean to speak of nationalism as a challenge?
2. Who or what was being challenged, and how precisely?
3. How could nationalist movements found an actual nation state?
4. Why did they succeed in some cases (Greece, Italy, Germany) but not in others
(Ireland, Poland, Czech langs, Cataluny)
The Challenge of Nationalism:
- How did nationalism, from a structurally weak position, become a success?
A lot of symbolic worth, with the American Independence as a perfect example
- Why did nationalism appeal to so many people? What made it special?
A lot of people liked the idea of nationalism = students, intellectuals, teachers, but
also ‘normal’ people as builders and architects.
- Under which conditions did nationalist movements achieve nation states?
- Why did nationalism radicalize, including in firmly established nation states?
Explaining nationalism’s plausibility:
- ‘Imagined community’, ‘invented traditions’: powerful stories of sacrifice,
achievement, glory that brought citizens together
- Emotional, religious, backward-looking and rational, practical, forward-looking
- Attractive to growing middle class of teachers, academics, journalists, but also of
lawyers, engineers, businessmen
Italian unification (1859-1870)
- Movement (Risorgimento), in conjunction (= samenwerking) with leadership by
Piedmont-Sardinia (Camillo di Cavour) and support by Napoleon III’s France
- In 1848/49 failure, but military victory against Habsburg Empire (1859) and
successful uprising against Kingdom of Two Sicilies (1860)
- Italian Kingdom waged a furter war against Habsburg Empire, adding Venice (1866),
and conquered the Papal State (1870)
German unification (1864-1871)
- Movement, at odds (= op gespannen voet) with Prussia but eventually collaborating
with Bismarck and Wilhelm I
- Victory of Prussia and Austria against Denmark added territories (1864)
, - Prussia won war against Austria (1866), leading to annexations and North-German
Federation
- Victory against France (1870/71) brought in southern German states and led to the
German Empire, at first a federation of monarchies.
From nationalism to nation-states
- Nationalism led to uprisings (= opstanden, bijv. Poland in 1830 and 1863, Ireland in
1867) and contributed to revolutions (1848/49)
- But backing by monarchial states was needed, either from outside (France for Italy,
several for Greece) or inside (Prussia, Piedmont-Sardinia). This is the answer to
question 4. Without monarchial states backing the revolutions, nationalist movements
mostly didn’t succeed (O-H)
- New nation-states represented compromises between conservatives and liberals
(Germany) or liberals and revolutionaries (Italy)
, HC2: Class society, Civil society (H23, 1850-1880)
Sleutelvragen
- Wat verstond Marx onder klassenmaatschappij, Tocqueville onder société civile?
- Had Marx ‘gelijk’ over de industrialisatie, de bourgeoisie en de arbeidersklasse?
- Had Tocqueville ‘gelijk’ over verenigingsleven en burgerparticipatie?
- Hoe waren civil society en klassenmaatschappij aan elkaar gerelateerd?
Karl Marx (1818-1883)
- Radicale publicist
- Ballingschap in Parijs, Brussel, Londen
- Kritisch op klassenmaatschappij en bourgeoisie
- Profeet van het communisme
Marx’ maatschappijanalyse in het licht van de recente historiografie
- Industrialisatie = indrukwekkend, maar stapsgewijzer en onevenwichtiger dan
volgens M
- Bourgeoisie = groeiend gewicht, afgebakend van arbeiders, maar diverser en
cultureler gedefinieerd en gemotiveerd dan volgens M
- Arbeidersklasse = wel benadeling maar sociaal en politiek divers en niet altijd aan
het verarmen, kantoorwerkers ontstonden
Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859)
- Franse edelman en liberaal-conservatieve politicus
- Historicus van de groeiende staatsmacht sinds het Ancien Regime
- Waarnemer van het democratische leven in de VS
Civil Society in de 19e eeuw
- Verenigingen voor cultuur, vrije tijd, politiek waren belangrijker in Europa dan T dacht
- Dominantie van mannen uit de middenklasse, die andere groepen buiten de
verenigingen en hun beslissingen hielden
- Maar arbeiders, vrouwen en katholieken vormden steeds meer eigen verenigingen.
Civil society werd dus verdeeld
Klassenmaatschappij en civil society
- Beide concepten bieden belangrijke perspectieven op de 19e eeuwse maatschappij,
verklaren conflicten en dynamieken
- Aan elkaar gerelateerd, aangezien klassen-(religie- en gender-)verschillen het
verenigingsleven bepaalden.
- Nationalisme was deel van typen van maatschappij maar ondermijnde deze tevens
HC3: Revolution and Reform (H21, 1814-1848)
Historiographical approaches to the 19th century:
- Liberal, nationalist, socialist, conservative historians, agreeing that period was
‘modern’
- Attempt to historicise thinking behind modernity (Reinhart Koselleck)
- ‘Persistence of the Old Regime’, it wasn’t actually very ‘modern’ because of the
influence of monarchy, nobility, church (Arno Mayer)
- Critique of modernity as disciplinary and homogenizing (Michel Foucault, scholars of
class, gender and race)
Questions:
1. What does it mean to speak of nationalism as a challenge?
2. Who or what was being challenged, and how precisely?
3. How could nationalist movements found an actual nation state?
4. Why did they succeed in some cases (Greece, Italy, Germany) but not in others
(Ireland, Poland, Czech langs, Cataluny)
The Challenge of Nationalism:
- How did nationalism, from a structurally weak position, become a success?
A lot of symbolic worth, with the American Independence as a perfect example
- Why did nationalism appeal to so many people? What made it special?
A lot of people liked the idea of nationalism = students, intellectuals, teachers, but
also ‘normal’ people as builders and architects.
- Under which conditions did nationalist movements achieve nation states?
- Why did nationalism radicalize, including in firmly established nation states?
Explaining nationalism’s plausibility:
- ‘Imagined community’, ‘invented traditions’: powerful stories of sacrifice,
achievement, glory that brought citizens together
- Emotional, religious, backward-looking and rational, practical, forward-looking
- Attractive to growing middle class of teachers, academics, journalists, but also of
lawyers, engineers, businessmen
Italian unification (1859-1870)
- Movement (Risorgimento), in conjunction (= samenwerking) with leadership by
Piedmont-Sardinia (Camillo di Cavour) and support by Napoleon III’s France
- In 1848/49 failure, but military victory against Habsburg Empire (1859) and
successful uprising against Kingdom of Two Sicilies (1860)
- Italian Kingdom waged a furter war against Habsburg Empire, adding Venice (1866),
and conquered the Papal State (1870)
German unification (1864-1871)
- Movement, at odds (= op gespannen voet) with Prussia but eventually collaborating
with Bismarck and Wilhelm I
- Victory of Prussia and Austria against Denmark added territories (1864)
, - Prussia won war against Austria (1866), leading to annexations and North-German
Federation
- Victory against France (1870/71) brought in southern German states and led to the
German Empire, at first a federation of monarchies.
From nationalism to nation-states
- Nationalism led to uprisings (= opstanden, bijv. Poland in 1830 and 1863, Ireland in
1867) and contributed to revolutions (1848/49)
- But backing by monarchial states was needed, either from outside (France for Italy,
several for Greece) or inside (Prussia, Piedmont-Sardinia). This is the answer to
question 4. Without monarchial states backing the revolutions, nationalist movements
mostly didn’t succeed (O-H)
- New nation-states represented compromises between conservatives and liberals
(Germany) or liberals and revolutionaries (Italy)
, HC2: Class society, Civil society (H23, 1850-1880)
Sleutelvragen
- Wat verstond Marx onder klassenmaatschappij, Tocqueville onder société civile?
- Had Marx ‘gelijk’ over de industrialisatie, de bourgeoisie en de arbeidersklasse?
- Had Tocqueville ‘gelijk’ over verenigingsleven en burgerparticipatie?
- Hoe waren civil society en klassenmaatschappij aan elkaar gerelateerd?
Karl Marx (1818-1883)
- Radicale publicist
- Ballingschap in Parijs, Brussel, Londen
- Kritisch op klassenmaatschappij en bourgeoisie
- Profeet van het communisme
Marx’ maatschappijanalyse in het licht van de recente historiografie
- Industrialisatie = indrukwekkend, maar stapsgewijzer en onevenwichtiger dan
volgens M
- Bourgeoisie = groeiend gewicht, afgebakend van arbeiders, maar diverser en
cultureler gedefinieerd en gemotiveerd dan volgens M
- Arbeidersklasse = wel benadeling maar sociaal en politiek divers en niet altijd aan
het verarmen, kantoorwerkers ontstonden
Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859)
- Franse edelman en liberaal-conservatieve politicus
- Historicus van de groeiende staatsmacht sinds het Ancien Regime
- Waarnemer van het democratische leven in de VS
Civil Society in de 19e eeuw
- Verenigingen voor cultuur, vrije tijd, politiek waren belangrijker in Europa dan T dacht
- Dominantie van mannen uit de middenklasse, die andere groepen buiten de
verenigingen en hun beslissingen hielden
- Maar arbeiders, vrouwen en katholieken vormden steeds meer eigen verenigingen.
Civil society werd dus verdeeld
Klassenmaatschappij en civil society
- Beide concepten bieden belangrijke perspectieven op de 19e eeuwse maatschappij,
verklaren conflicten en dynamieken
- Aan elkaar gerelateerd, aangezien klassen-(religie- en gender-)verschillen het
verenigingsleven bepaalden.
- Nationalisme was deel van typen van maatschappij maar ondermijnde deze tevens
HC3: Revolution and Reform (H21, 1814-1848)
