Max Weber defined "nation" in a precise and succinct way. According to him, a nation is a group of people who are bound together by the conviction that they are of the same descent and strive towards gaining or maintaining their own independent state. This is definition is true in relation to the overwhelming majority of nations today. Even very young ones like, for example the American nation which, in its very short history - only two and a half centuries of it is known in any precise way - has it’s "Founding Fathers" who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Of course, they are not the biological predecessors of the contemporary American nation, but they fullfill the important role of symbolic ancestors in the consciousness of that nation. Undoubtedly the ancestors of nations which have a much longer history are just as symbolic. Their ancestors are lost in prehistoric times - historical knowledge of migrations and genetics preclude any possibility of a nation remaining endogenous over the centuries (although, on the other hand the surprisingly few variations within human genetic codes may indicate that all of modern man is descended from several thousands of common ancestors, and so, from one village). This fact, however, has little meaning for nations themselves, or, moreover, for the shape and content of their national consciousness. "Symbolic kinship" is important, and is often expressed in the word "ours" as distinguished from "others", foreign and often - although not always - enemies.

Another non-academic, this time, definition of a nation, and one which seems to be anonymous, and somewhat in jest, defines a nation as a group of people united by a mistaken belief concerning their ancestors, and a common aversion to their neighbours.

The specific bond and consciousness of nationality lies in the fact that the feeling of there being a common ancestry and a closeness is spread out over (generally) several million people which make up this collective, and necessarily, anonymous group. What is interesting - the inhabitants of villages, small towns or even regions (collective group which are much smaller than nations) are rarely conscious of a common ancestry. This sort of consciousness existed within tribal groups and was transfered in a great and difficult to explain, leap into large and complex national groups. The evolutionary concept of nationality, which conceived of nations being created on the basis of tribal bonds, through joining together kindred tribes (not too dissimilar to the evolutionary, linear concept of cultural development) did not withstand confrontation with reality.

A nation does not function instrumentally - a nation does not directly serve anyone or anything, but it is an autotelic body, a value per se for itself or its members. This is what distinguishes a nation from the state. The state is a tool, a structure which has its own defined function. A nation has no defined function.

Generally speaking there are two models which describe the function of the state in the process of creating a nation. In the first instance the state, or concrete structures and political institutions are of basic importance for the development of the nation. They create a political - spatial framework within which the national culture develops various social ties - especially economic ties. This does not mean, however - as is proved by many contemporary states - that nations are always created within the framework of state structures. Many states have collapsed precisely because no national groups were born within them. In the second, almost contradictory model, nations develop without their own political structures, often in opposition to an imposed foreign political rule, and only after they are fully shaped and have a developed national culture do they obtain (or not) their own state entity. One thing seems certain - having its own national state is conducive to the development of a nation. It safeguards it against external enemies and ensures that the national culture has a status quo in international (though perhaps it would be more correct to say inter-state) relations.

If we remain true to the above definition of Weber, then the answer to the question of which historical period gave birth to contemporary nations is relatively simple. Nations began to appear when two long-existing but relatively independent social entities linked up together - culture (to be precise, social groups having their own separate cultures) and the state. But only in modern times - since the middle of the XVII century in Europe - has there been a clear and permanent identification of the citizen with the state. The great French Revolution was of great importance in this process. Its ideology concerned all citizens - members of a national body, or rather a nation-state. In the France of the Revolution and post- Revolution all citizens were regarded as being members of the nation - also, e.g. Jews. In this way a type of nation, which we might call a political nation, was formed. A similar type of nation was created almost simultaneously in the USA, also as the result of a victorious revolution, which, in this case was the War of Independence. The concept of the British nation is based in much the same way on a political-state body rather than an ethnic body. It’s by no accident that in English the word "nationality" means citizenship and not national identity.

Another type of nation was formed a little later on. It could be defined as being a nation which is a cultural body or an ethnic nation, in comparison with the above-defined political nation. The concept and ideology of an ethnic nation was shaped at the beginning of the 19th century in Germany, which was at that time a homogeneous independent state. In the XIX century the concept and ideology of the Polish nation developed in similar conditions, although it wasn’t at that time an independent state. The Germany and Polish model was typical for almost all the great nations of Central and East Europe which formed around that period, and which were not independent states. Some of them, such as the Ukraine, Slovakia or Slovenia have only recently become fully sovereign states and that is why they were shaped above all as cultural bodies. Religion played an important role in creating ethnic nations - many nations generated or, rather, adopted certain religions as being their own national religion.

This is not the right place to review all the process which created the nations of the contemporary world, nor to analyse all the conditions of these processes. The two basic European types of nations mentioned above can only aid a simplified analysis of ethnic phenomena in other parts of the world. We may acknowledge that the model of a citizens society is typical for the majority of nations in both Americas, whereas the nation of an ethnic type of nation is more useful in analysing Asia or the African continent.

Nations have been formed in defined historical periods as a result of long-term processes. But does this mean that nations have their decline and their fall?

This opinion was popular after World War II. The experience of German nationalism on the one hand and the progressive integration of Western Europe on the other, strengthened the conviction that aggressive nationalism was a thing of the past, and contemporary society had rid itself of national sentiments and phobias. Great hopes were set on the processes of modernization which rendered rational factors as being far more important than national emotions. National ties and national ideologies were to be discarded, because they were part of an earlier, not quite "mature" phase of development of contemporary society.

There were more arguments in favour of the probable disappearance of separate national groups or for replacing them by other sorts of ties and social organizations. Even before World War II, the Polish Sociologist, Florian Znaniecki in his book entitled "The people of today and the civilization of the future" predicted the feasibility of there existing one, supranational culture, which he called civilization. He developed his theses in another book - "Modern Nationalities" which was published in the USA in 1952. There were also other important authors whose works were published in the 50’s, and who also predicted the death or decline of various ideologies, including nationalist ideologies.

The ethnic process overtaking Western Europe and the USA in the 50’s and 60’s seemed to prove the postulate that the importance of ethnic differences was gradually declining. On the other hand, the age of colonialism was over and several dozen new states suddenly appeared. Most of them were not ethnic states yet the majority tribal or national difference became major problems in the ensuing years.

From the 70’s onwards ethnic factors became significant throughout the entire world. They assumed various forms and its impossible to indicate any common factors contributing to this process. Paradoxically it turned out that the processes of modernization were the cause of the formation of many ethnic separatist group, amongst others because they accelerated development in an uneven way and increased the differences existing between various regions of particular countries, and especially multi-ethnic countries. It also turned out that ethnicity may be treated instrumentally. Ethnic ties could a great source of power mobilizing ethnic groups to attain important goals. Mobilization can be dangerous and destructive, especially when it is directed against other nations in the form of open aggression, but it also can unite people to attain political or economic aims.

Efforts to build supranational societies in multi-ethnic countries were generally unsuccessful (not only in communist countries). Attempts to create new nations out of already existing well-formed nations and ethnic groups also failed. This was attempted in the former USSR, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. Communism ignored for the most part (although sometimes took advantage of) ethnic differences and caused them to be temporarily frozen. On the other hand it encouraged (or even forced, as in the case of the USSR) individuals and entire groups to move and resettle which, in turn, increased ethnic stratification and differences between various nations.

This type of experiment was generally successful in the USA. The prime "material" above all consisted of immigrants. Neighbouring Canada is an example of a society in which there is a clearly defined division between Francophone Quebec and the generally English-speaking and increasingly multi-ethnical rest. The U.N. acknowledges only 8% of its members as being countries of a generally homogeneous nationality (this includes Poland which "only" has 3-4% national or ethnic minorities).

The outstanding British anthropologist, Ernest Gellner, author of Nations and Nationalism, contends that nationalistic, or rather nationalist-state, aspirations are not prevalent in the contemporary world - the U.N. has less than 200 countries and there are at least 10 times as many individual cultures in the world. And so, only about 10% of existing cultures have transformed themselves into national cultures with their own state "roof over their heads" (Gelners definition). This is true, yet if we count not the number of cultures but the number of people belonging to national-state societies, then it turns out that the proportion is almost the reverse - almost 90% of humanity possesses a national-state "roof" over it's head or aspires to have one. Nationalism is irrefutably a powerful force which does not seem to be disappearing.

Apart from fully developed nations, there also exist groups which possess their own fully-formed culture and are aware of their ethnic uniqueness, but who do not aspire to be wholly politically independent. They are generally called national groups. In the past they were "condemned" to political non-existence, and it was assumed that they would remain at the very most on the margins of the most important ethnical processes. Today, we can observe that this need not necessarily be so and in the future we may expect further emancipation of at least some of these groups.

Another type of an established ethnic group are immigrant groups, e.g. Polonia in the USA, or many other contemporary groups of immigrants and their descendants from Western Europe. As late as the 60’s it was generally assumed that immigrants would assimilate completely and naturally and would cease to exist as separate groups. Assimilation processes still continue but they are less effective than has been assumed they would be, and new waves of immigrants strengthen earlier ties and a sense of identity.

The processes of ethnic assimilation are difficult to judge unequivocally. Imposed assimilation is just as much a form of discrimination as not allowing it to happen at all. Imposed assimilation is ignoring the cultural uniqueness of a minority, forbidding the language of a minority group to be spoken in public, aspiring to annihilate or limit the differences between a minority group and the dominating majority. Discrimination also takes the form of, e.g., making it impossible for members of a minority group to advance socially-professionally, forcing them to remain in fixed places of abode etc. An extreme example of this policy of rejecting a minority and shutting it up in an ethnic ghetto is apartheid in South Africa, as well as special laws in the USA which, for decades limited the rights of Negros after their independence (the so-called "equal, but separated" policy).

ity has also persisted in regional groups. Not every regional group is, or wants to be, an ethnic group. I use the word "want" deliberately. It is a persons conscious and desire to belong which decides whether or not they are part of an ethnic group (nation). Both international law as well as theories of ethnicity have almost totally rejected a so-called "objective" belonging to a group. A member of an ethnic group is someone who regards themselves as belonging to it, irregardless into which family they were born, or what language they speak everyday. This also refers to social groups. There are no exclusive "objective" criteria such as "unconscious" criteria which would allow an ethnic group to be distinguished from a regional group. The deciding factors are the level of consciousness of the members of the group, its aims and ideology. In contemporary Europe there are two rather different trends in the evolution of ideology and consciousness of many regional groups. One is evolution in a primarily separatist direction, creating and strengthening the group’s autonomy and aspiring to a greater political autonomy, although not necessarily total independence. In the unification policy of Western Europe there appears to be a place for such political "independence". An example of this may be the increasing distance between the Flemish and Walons in Belgium which is becoming more and more federalized. The second trend is completely different. It is characterized not by a clear aspiration towards possessing ones own state, but rather by a desire to free oneself of state domination. This trend is typical for regional movements, whereas the former may be called an ethno-regional movement.

The world which exists at the end of the 20th century is a world of national and ethnic cultures. The continuing supranational integration, and in particular, economic and political integration cannot belie this. The increasing importance of ethnicity and aspiring to maintain ethnic cultures is not surprising even in the face of the ever-advancing processes of integration. On the contrary, it is a natural reaction to the processes of making culture uniform and the domination of supranational structures. It seems that unified Europe will be more the Europe of many homelands that the "United States of Europe". This is not a defeat for integrationalists. The natural environment of man is the world of culture - national culture in particular. National distinction is above all cultural distinction. Ethnic cultures have existed and will continue to do so on various levels as great and small private homelands. The greatest danger for them is the still widespread (though perhaps not dominant) belief that political boundaries should go hand in hand with ethnic and cultural boundaries, and that only one separate culture can exist in any one political structure. As long as this sort of thinking will continue to play an important role in politics, ethnicity and ethnic differences will remain the source of dangerous and severe conflicts. In addition, these conflicts will confirm the still-existing conviction that ethnic differences are transitory and that they should be annulled.

Edited by Sz.W.
Based on the Grzegorz Babinski’s article entitled "Etnicznosc" (Ethnicity) PROGLAS nr 5-6(1997), pp.28-31