Banal Nationalism, 30 Years On—A Review

In this review piece, we would like to offer a number of reflections on Banal Nationalism and, in particular, responses to it, three decades on. First, we would like to provide some context for the development of the Banal Nationalism thesis and then outline some of its key arguments. Here, in particular, we address a central argument of the book that has been perhaps overlooked. That is, how nationalism operates as a wider ideology at the global level, providing powerful justifications for how individual societies, as well as relations between them, should be ordered. The relative lack of attention given to this view stands in contrast to much of the empirical work inspired by banal nationalism, which tends to focus on particular features or social relations in a given (usually national) setting (see Duchesne 2018, 2019 for a critique). Subsequently, we address the various approaches that sought to critically engage with Billig's work. These studies emphasised variability within national settings and argued for a more dynamic model to emphasise the transition from banal to hotter forms of nationalism, and vice versa. Then we turn to Jones and Merriman's (2009) paper on hot, banal and everyday nationalism as a way of opening up, and then critiquing, what seems to have subsequently become the established way of thinking about banal versus everyday nationalism. This is the argument that the former is only about top-down, institutional forms of taken-for-granted nationalism, while the latter is about agency and ordinary people's everyday activities or utterances. Having sought to outline the weaknesses of such a dichotomy, in the final section we offer a number of concluding remarks. Coinciding with the 25th anniversary of Banal Nationalism's publication, Billig was interviewed by the editor of Political Geography and was asked how he came to write the book (Dodds 2016). Around the same time, he was invited to deliver talks about the origins of the book. Some of these talks, which were not published, can be seen online (e.g., Billig 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG4lF7xfQbM). In the interview and the talks, Billig said that in the early 1990s, he had become interested in studying nationalism. His background was in social psychology. Because social psychologists tend to propose universal theories for explaining human behaviour, Billig felt that social psychology may not be best placed for understanding historically specific types of phenomena such as nationalism or fascism. With growing excitement, he read the classic books about nationalism by Benedict Anderson, Ernest Gellner and Eric Hobsbawm. These pioneering theorists saw the rise of nationalism as something historically specific, which they linked to the creation of the nation-state. Here was an understanding of nationalism and fascism that was not based on universal theories of human nature. Anderson, Gellner and Hobsbawm warned against looking for nationalism in times other than modernity or, at least, very early modernity. However, as he read these great books from which he learnt so much, Billig began to worry that these historians might have been a bit too historical. All three books concentrated on the rise of the nation-state and described how nationalist movements succeeded (and sometime failed) in founding national states. But less attention was given to what came next: how the nation-state, once established, was reproduced day after day. It was as if these theories were taking for granted the daily reproduction of nation-states. If all three of the twentieth century's most important theorists of nationalism overlook something fundamental about the nature of nationalism, then this should not be attributed to the weakness of their perception. Instead it points to something endemic about the nature of established nationalism that tends to make it easy to overlook. As Craig Calhoun generously commented in his 25th anniversary commentary on Banal Nationalism, the book aimed to explore ‘the blind spots’ and taken-for-granted assumptions that exist in everyday life and are reflected in social scientific theories by significant absences (Calhoun 2017: 18). Such hiding in plain sight is a characteristic feature of ideology. One of the functions of ideology, or so it has been suggested since Marx, is to make what is socially and historically contingent appear as if it is natural and thereby unchangeable—Hence, ideology was seen as beliefs and practices that reinforce existing power-structures. If phenomena such as nation-states are understood as natural, then in everyday life their contingent aspects will be experienced as indisputable ‘facts’ of human nature (see, for instance, theories of ideology proposed by literary theorists and critical linguists such as van Dijk 1998; Eagleton 2007; Fairclough 2010). In the case of nation-states, this would involve seeing nationalism as something universal. Of course, it is part of the perceptiveness of Anderson, Gellner and Hobsbawm that they could expose the contingent and constructive nature of nationhood. However, they did not take the next step by noticing why their insight might often be hidden in the experience of everyday life in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Banal Nationalism, as Calhoun suggested, aimed to bring to light what was being not noticed in everyday life. There were two aspects to this. First, there was the lack of noticing the symbols of nationhood that were constantly visible in established nation-states–so constantly visible that under ordinary circumstances there were no everyday reasons for the citizens of the state to notice them. The national flag, hanging on flag-posts and unnoticed by the citizenry as they bustle past on their business, was a metaphor for this everyday symbolisation of nationhood. This lack of awareness was not maintained by Freudian repression, which drives uncomfortable thoughts from conscious awareness (Billig 1999). There was no deep-psychological mechanism keeping those national signs from conscious awareness. They were not being noticed for mundane reasons, thereby being kept to the level of what Freud termed ‘the preconscious’ as opposed to the ‘unconscious’—At any moment they could be consciously noticed. When the nation claimed its enemies were threatening the national ‘us’, either within ‘our’ boundaries or outside those boundaries, then the unnoticed symbols and linguistic references would pass into conscious awareness. In this way, Banal Nationalism aimed to show that the outbursts of hot nationalism rested on everyday unnoticed nationalism within the modern established state. To provide some evidence for this, Billig looked at the national press in the United Kingdom, picking 1 day at random and showing how frequently the nation was mentioned or was assumed to be the context for stories and reports, including weather forecasts. As will be seen, the survey was criticised and its limitations have been highlighted. One limitation was its top–down approach. In one respect, this reflected the assumption that nationalism was an ideology. Critical linguists typically link the operation of ideology with the unnoticed exercise of power and look for indications of this within routine and unexceptional uses of language (Fairclough 1992; van Dijk 1998; Fowler et al. 1979). This influenced Billig's strategy of looking at national newspapers, which are, of course, powerful institutions in themselves and often owned by powerful individuals. As we will see, some critics were to urge a bottom-up approach. The argument about the ideologically unnoticed nature of everyday nationalism was not merely an argument about how ‘we’ experience ‘our’ national selves, as if nationalism is something that exists only within national boundaries. In Banal Nationalism, Billig took up the theme that the world today is comprised of nation-states. Each established state occupying its unique place on the globe will declare itself to be unique, and unlike other nation-states, because of its unique history, culture and symbols such as its flag and anthem. However, in making such claims, each state will be declaring itself as similar to other unique nation-states. Peoples who do not have their own nation-state but who aspire to have one will advance their case for being recognised as a nation-state with a mixture of claims about their uniqueness and their similarity to peoples who already have their accepted nation-states. Accordingly, in the world of nation-states, nationalism has international dimensions. The aspiring nationalist movement wants to take its place alongside other nation-states, joining international organisations such as the United Nations, where its flag will flutter alongside the other flags. So long as the world of nation-states persists, then nationalism will persist, bearing this duality: it will be experienced and lived both globally and nationally. As we will suggest, some of the critics of Banal Nationalism felt themselves to be cosmopolitans and that their cosmopolitanism represented the future. In making these claims, they sometimes overlooked the international, even cosmopolitan, aspects of nationalism itself. Having outlined the main thrust of Banal Nationalism's thesis and the wider context for its development, we now turn to a number of responses to it, which initially focused on its applicability and One of the critical now it was the that nationalism, banal or was on the way The would be international and, in the of nationalism was being by the of of the was one of the social to Banal nationalism on these The has been described as of the most of social in the twentieth and In this was that a of was in the modern world because argued that the an dynamic that and the of in such in it was no that did not the main of Banal criticised the book on the that its thesis about was that the signs of banal nationalism were in the of banal and much it would have been had the of Banal Nationalism not been in the was that the of a of The to had its of on the nation-state and was by what and have and and it was to from the that is something in and The that nationalism and are social of banal nationalism. As has most social theorists assumed that and nationalism were and the former was the However, has evidence that the of with the rise of more or less with the global of nation-states. In only of the comprised much of the was of by national nation-states of the theorists like may have the to which the were As a modern would have international alongside from and in international It would have been easy for and his social theorists to that was in the of their own This would be by of even if the social theorists did not the and of such about the may have been in the of established and van Dijk However, the is than the of the then the evidence that of are in the of their As it, such show that has to could well have that such show the international of nationalism. In to take this into we to the of nationalism. nationalism with movements to or to nationalist at the of the would overlook the and forms of nationalism. In this the thesis of banal nationalism was not for an of social with a of what a for an of nationalism. There has been an of empirical work that has been inspired or looked to engage Banal Nationalism which has to focus on particular settings or states. This work of course, been in a of and to and to and to the taken-for-granted nature of national symbols in However, this focus on national has that nationalism has become This there has been less attention given to the way that ‘the world of to be as the natural (Billig Some have on this talks of a of of flag, and so that on the world as well as and an international of and It is these established that aspiring will look to in to in with the universal of national they will their own unique flag that the accepted and of national and they will their own unique national even if will of has the link between the national and the international in to it has been that and other forms of international have an important to in the world as and into and for at is seen to the of a on the international even if it at a 2016). as in such is a central part of what the international a to do and so often to as a of Billig these this argument more work is to how nationalism as a wider ideology operates at the global level as a for how should be ordered. In the next we how this might be and in One of the in which we might to between the particular and the universal studying nationalism is in to work on and In his work on the was to how particular social forms become and in to but his might be to nationalism as the level, are the and that are and argued The key to make is that because these take place within a of they often other of so that the or of the In this are have become and are accepted by all as taken-for-granted to are in a of institutional practices and They tend to be in the that they are taken-for-granted assumptions or of that being that they are In to nationalism, the has to focus on practices and that to individual thereby the to which international and the of the will to three such of the latter First, it to global relations are understood as being between and is at a national of this from the between their a as a for one of their and have to do the same for all other This more than about with it the to which a world of nation-states is into and it is into its for This is important because of the argument that and nationalism are and that the former is the However, the way of is or keeping that the world is comprised of nation-states. and and by the of the that are or The an review of world The like its It as types of and movement of a or It that all or ‘the of of a or by or the the of in this way would be or for which the is national boundaries, for it to that either or ‘the within a nation not to this which would the movement of from one of to but would the much movement of the of two nation-states. In such the tends to the of on a world of of not to and not to it its by like or When the about individual it sometimes or to merely as In this way, the is universal to what is historically history, there have been and at in one or nation-states, with their boundaries and have only the in historically nation-states can be linked to the of and the of is linked to the of and national If we the argument of banal that the reproduction of nation-states on practices of this that nationalism and in the modern are This is reflected and as well as in the practices of everyday life. to global to the from address the of individual instance, from the on will a the then and its its but and in the light of national If we about the once as the of global we can how a of features national and of the world The most of this is the for and which uses national to and these types of and the of the international can be it is to or In the there is an established on et al. but the of these is to the ideology of nationalism as a for global individual are to the of the international and to as on the global The to in a global the are a of from will not be to in the the has of the international said are not there is no national was to being as a or on the international its up at the to as and in showing the world to decades of up nation-states have been within the wider international the of the represented the to this and how looked to offer an to the nation-state based and The is a from one of the of the by do not in nationalism, and all the other and from the and to and then by will own the and the and will to When to the power of established nation-states, was but this ideology did two important First, how the of nationalism can be into and and the power of established in the wider international As the world of nation-states as it a on very forms of of and (Billig Having the between nationalism and both in and we now turn to a number of other critical with the of banal nationalism. In particular, we to a limitation of approaches that to a between banal and everyday nationalism. In the (2009) argued for the for a more model that emphasised of and than the more of hot and In the of national forms of and should be as an In this might be to in in work and or of in approaches However, these of are not only to particular and circumstances but to and instance, one could to the in the (and responses to as of nationalism that have in the rise to of As well as this there is the of who nationalism for granted and, as what this might for instance, empirical studies have that symbols or as banal by one in a given national setting may be with or even by These to the of that exist in any nation and the that will often to a state of that they can on and which In the established of being and et al. institutional and have all been as in an of and in what is often as a and In the studies have that there is a link between and so that who themselves at the of national culture and are to key and other 1998; these types of in a of and has to the of banal forms of nationalism to as well as its the in which it was and, The other that we to flag and the between hot, banal and everyday nationalism in a paper in the of in some of which some of which were and less they to the boundaries between banal and hot and argued that the of nationalism banal and hot in more and contingent In this is a not because it the that seems to have in everyday and banal forms of nationalism. This is the we turn to in the next part of this review of the Nationalism a aimed at with an in nationalism It is to as they are the the and in one of the we everyday nationalism. asked to provide a of everyday nationalism, the in the offer something that seems to have become in the In everyday nationalism is seen to be about the daily and of that and reinforce national In other the is seen to individual agency and, offer a on the Such an is then with banal nationalism, which is seen to offer a on the routine reproduction of the nation that is linked to powerful institutional and In view this is a as hot and banal of nationalism are understood and reproduced a of everyday which in Jones and than the in in of and their we to the of to a number of key First, to and Jones in between of hot and banal nationalism in the everyday and to focus on who they involve and what they might for to of and so that we can why particular practices or from or, to more to the that become so taken-for-granted that they are accepted as by they become even more significant and powerful in how and engage the world to focus more attention on the of features that the taken-for-granted of everyday forms of nationalism and Such an to a between people's daily and to the powerful of institutions in these everyday Some of the best empirical from this of studies of on or national boundaries. and his on the The ordinary and alongside the and national In so they an important of how bottom-up and can be with a particular focus on the everyday as a by hot, banal and forms of national a from the United looked at an based at the of a to the The of the their to a long each day in to an than the which is the national in The its to of than the the on both of the and the in their to the and not the Billig's most work the of individual agency in the of state in national the background of the in Billig has a those in who the of a state. Billig on one at the who was not only an in early but social boundaries in both and This who was Billig's can be seen as a of the movement of which and against the nationalism of the is significant is that itself a It was to understanding and between individual and in in the of social In interested in everyday nationalism may have by studying ordinary people's and the institutional have a fundamental in these everyday the same Banal Nationalism may have of and to key but it argued against the that ordinary might to the in which nationalism an and to Having outlined the of to the as a that a of both taken-for-granted and more and practices to the in the next section we offer a number of final remarks. In this of Banal Nationalism after its publication, we have aspects of the book that have been as well as a number of that were at In the we to the of to nationalism as an international ideology that the nation-state appear natural and is experienced as something that is we the of a more dynamic model that the between banal and hot nationalism was the argument that is about and that is about bottom-up However, we it is important to both and bottom-up features in than in to each the everyday is a where both taken-for-granted and more forms of nationalist and take In the of this concluding we to make a of points about the of nationalism, both in of who and what One of the in times has been the rise of in such as and, perhaps most the United However, there is a that these will to be as the of modern nationalism and in the of nationalism, which the of banal nationalism sought to will become we to that the rise of and movements has been as or a of the that they are from an These more should be as but they are part of the wider ideology that the world in national The United is a very of this. it is that studies of nationalism are and between in the social in the United It is as if theorists have not the to be studying in own With the rise of this has to and some have from the of his as a nationalist (see, for Billig and for a of the The is not the view that is a nationalist or a In his has his against from and while to who were the of the is at nationalist The is seeing such a as being something because it is is not so from some of the by the who and by the who in In his of the in the of a number of declaring nation is great because we it This nation is great because we as a (Billig When his after in the of 2020, he is to the 2020, If it is to declare that should be great then it nationalist to declare that is a great it is nationalist to declare that is to the These forms of nationalist should not be overlooked because they are by we to that such has become so in that we do not much attention we a or on of their nation-state. The of taking as the nature of nationalism is that it to that if we can to then we will have succeeded in the of nationalism. But with the of like and nationalism will not will their nationalist might not notice what their are but This to a final Billig's in what unnoticed in everyday it is perhaps that studies have not this This for the that might have been and for the that could have from to the the and the To take one approaches to be with some of these but studies of nationalism that even approaches have been and between nationalism studies have often the of that can be These empirical are perhaps the best that we have for the to which to their own and those of in national There now seems that nationalism to who and what in particular settings and, more the Accordingly, it is that we to more and of making and the of nationalism in the not to this as no were or the