Introduction: John Stone's Trajectory From Race Relations to Nationalism

John Stone (1944–2023), one of the first scholars to open up the immigration and race relations field to nationalism studies, was the founder of the journal Ethnic and Racial Studies in 1978. By then, the field of race relations, as a branch of sociology, was already experiencing a conspicuous expansion in the United States and was adapted to the British and then the European and global contexts. From its first issues, Ethnic and Racial Studies reflected this global dimension well. During the 1980s, the sociology matrix of race relations increasingly incorporated contiguous disciplinary fields, such as political philosophy, pursuing and building critically on the previous work by John Rex, Pierre L. van den Berghe, Michael Banton, and a few others (Stone 2003, 2004a). John Stone was, in fact, a key figure in the inception of racial studies as a distinct field of study and even perhaps a discipline in its own right, successfully bringing together different approaches to the understanding of the concepts of ethnicity and race (Stone 1998, 2003; Stone and Dennis 2003). The four contributions collected in the present Symposium in honour and memory of John Stone explore different facets of his scholarly trajectory, while remembering his warm friendship and collegial relationships in the common effort to promote comparative research on race and ethnicity. Four authors from different disciplinary and geographical backgrounds are united here to commemorate John Stone both as a scholar and a much-loved and esteemed colleague. Drawing on the legacy of Alexis de Tocqueville and Max Weber, Natividad Gutierrez's contribution articulates how power, domination, and exclusion shape the experiences of marginalised groups. Tocqueville's observations on inequality during his study of American democracy highlight the conflict between democratic ideals and the systemic oppression faced by Natives and Afro-Americans. Gutierrez points out that Stone was among the few scholars who emphasised that no nation is entirely homogeneous (Connor 1994; Smith 1996, 1998, 2002), while attempts to erase ethnic and racial identities have eventually resulted in failure. Stone integrated Weber's concepts in his own sociological analysis of race and ethnicity. Raising critical questions about the persistence of ethnic groups and the structural inequalities imposed by dominant groups, Gutierrez highlights how the emergence of Indigenous and Black intellectuals challenges these structures, advocating for representation and autonomy. Gutierrez concludes her essay by asserting that, despite historical oppression, ethnic and racial identities continue to evolve and assert agency in the face of contemporary challenges, underscoring their centrality in sociological inquiry and the ongoing fight against cultural homogenisation and racial discrimination. The second contribution by John Solomos, current editor of Ethnic and Racial Studies, traces the origins of John's contribution to the school of ethnic relations in Great Britain. John Stone's doctoral research on South Africa shaped his understanding of the ways colonialism and empire influenced racial dynamics. Encouraging curiosity and critical thinking in his students, and mentoring colleagues at various career stages, he emphasised the importance of using comparative analytical frameworks while addressing contemporary issues, such as nationalism in the age of populism (or nationalist populism), which preoccupied him in recent years. Solomos looks at an essay published in Nations and Nationalism in which, jointly with his former research student, Ioanna Christodoulaki, coined the promising term ‘Nebulous Nationalism’ (Stone and Christodoulaki 2018). The term pointed to the mixture of populism and nationalism—a gentle way to highlight the nascent form of neoliberal authoritarianism under the first Trump presidency (2016–2020). Stone's legacy, Solomos argues, remains vital for future scholars pursuing critical conversations in this field. His work encouraged curiosity in students and broadened perspectives on race, ethnicity and nationalism. The third contribution by his former student, Xiaoshuo Hou, reflects on her fruitful collaboration with John Stone that would culminate in works like the Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia on Race, Ethnicity, and Nationalism (Stone et al. 2016) and stresses John's legacy as a mentor known for his aversion to formal accolades. As Hou notes, it was John's encouragement of intellectual independence that inspired her to explore race, ethnicity, and nationalism in China. Hou makes Stone's co-authored article on ‘Nebulous Nationalism’ (Stone and Christodoulaki 2018), already mentioned by Solomos, the centrepiece of her contribution, to show Stone's unstoppable intellectual energy throughout his life and his insights into manifestations of nationalism in the 21st century, and especially Trump's ‘America First’ ultra-nationalism. As Hou points out, in their joint article, Stone and Christodoulaki examine Trump's electoral success within the context of disillusionment with neoliberal democracy, arguing that Trump's support base encompasses a range of individuals, complicating the binary distinction between nationalism and patriotism, as diverging perspectives on American identity combine and collide and, at the same time, political division polaris increases at all levels. On the basis of Hou's observations, it might be useful to consider Cara Daggett's (2018) analysis of the first Trump administration. She described it as a form of nascent ‘fossil fascism’, subsequently mutating into a frontal attack on scholarship, academic research, and science, including the social sciences and higher education in general, as well as fiercely inciting violent attacks and authoritarian actions (Darian-Smith 2025a, 25–60; Darian-Smith 2025b). For many American colleagues, Trump's regime is now inspiring anxiety, fear and self-censorship (MacIsaac 2025), as attacks on universities, research centres, libraries, museums and governmental institutions and the sacking of their personnel have become the new ‘normal’ (Abbasi 2025; Anand and Bernstein 2025; Babor et al. 2025; Barocas and Choo 2025; Chrastka 2025; Gwynne 2025; MacIsaac 2025; Naquet-Radiguet 2025; Nord et al. 2025). Censorship, already visible during the first Trump administration (O'Connor et al. 2025), had immediate public health repercussions, such as when all mentions of the SVI (social vulnerability index) were abruptly removed on 31 January 2025 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other federal sites following Trump's Executive Order 14168 (Huang and McCoy 2025). According to some, the rampage of slashes to government social programmes and workforce rapidly transformed a Western democracy into a Russian-style oligarchy (Pruszynski 2025) centred on the expansion of fossil fuels. Stone was just a short step from identifying the contours of an emerging ‘fossil fascism’—a concept fully elaborated by Andreas Malm (2021). On the other hand, the COVID-19 pandemics sparked both collaboration and exclusion, challenging simplistic categorisations of US nationalism and patriotism and emphasising their intertwined identities. In the light of Trump's re-election and mounting protectionism, Stone and Christodoulaki (2018) argue that Trump's support base is diverse and encompasses individuals beyond traditional ethno-nationalist narratives, reflecting discontent with the American Dream amid rising socio-economic disparities, confirming that nationalism serves as a unifying force when the gap separating rich and the poor risks becoming ungovernable (Hadžidedić 2022). Stone's work urges scholars to approach such issues with humility and a historical perspective, reminding us of the intricate relationship between nationalism and patriotism in defining collective interests and societal cohesion. Ultimately, Stone's insights underscore the psychological underpinnings of political mobilisation amidst a rapidly changing landscape. The final contribution by Heribert Adam honours John's life trajectory, describing him as a versatile sociologist known for his cosmopolitan outlook and academic career that took him to a number of distinguished universities, including Columbia University, Oxford University, and George Mason University at Fairfax Virginia, before settling at Boston University. Less focused on local issues than his contemporaries, Stone's cosmopolitan-cum-comparative approach led him to explore race relations globally. Adam reflects on their shared life experiences in South Africa's apartheid context, highlighting their discussions on the huge sociological advances made by critical theory (Adam 1971). The missing link is, as Adam interestingly states, the Frankfurt School's critical theory, particularly Adorno's Authoritarian Personality—providing a shared foundation for the engagement of the two friends and intellectuals with anti-apartheid activism (Adorno 1950). Both Adam and Stone shared a commitment to social justice while elaborating on important historical events, such as Algeria's independence struggle and the enduring power of nationalism. Adam also refers to his discussions with Stone about the compelling classic 1966 Italian-Algerian film, The Battle of Algiers by Gillo Pontecorvo concluding that, unforeseen by President de Gaulle in the early 1960s, a superior force cannot erase a just idea in people's minds and military supremacy cannot extinguish a popular nationalist ideology—a vision that, since 1959, directly informed the birth and radicalisation of various sub-national armed groups, including ETA (Euskadi Ta Askatasuna, meaning ‘Basque Country and Freedom’) in Spain (Conversi 2000). They concluded that military victories cannot simply extinguish ideologies, emphasising the continuous need for negotiation, non-dogmatism, and open-mindedness (Stone 2004b). This principle also became evident in South Africa, as the anti-apartheid struggle under Nelson Mandela's leadership would force the ruling elites to realise that there was no alternative to negotiating a fair compromise—and thus a ‘negotiated revolution’ became an effective solution. The intellectual acumen which characterised Stone throughout his life is evident in Adam's final correspondence with him, which showcases Stone's professionalism and grasp of contemporary issues. As noted, Stone founded ERS in 1978 (its first issue was published in January 1978), 17 years before the foundation of Nations and Nationalism (N&N) in 1995, with its first issue published in March 1995. N&N was seen as ERS's ‘sister journal’. The kinship between the two journals lies in two facts: first, in that Anthony D. Smith, who led the foundation of N&N, together with his former doctoral students, Obi Igwara and Athena Leoussi as joint editors, had been full Editor of ERS from July 1989 until 1992, when he was joined by Martin Bulmer also as full Editor. As Christopher Husbands, Associate Editor of ERS since 1989, noted in his history of 40 years of ERS, Smith began withdrawing from ERS during 1993 and 1994 ‘to set up the Association for the Study of Ethnicity and Nationalism (ASEN) and in 1995 its house journal, Nations and Nationalism’ (Husbands 2018, 5). John Solomos, one of the contributors to the present Symposium, would become Associate Editor of ERS at the end of 1995; second, the personal staunch support that John Stone, as the founding editor of ERS and an internationally distinguished scholar, based in the United States, together with the then editors of ERS, Martin Bulmer and Christopher Husbands, gave both to ASEN and its journal. Both ASEN and N&N were not only new but, more importantly, young: they were largely run by research students and recent PhD graduates, full of enthusiasm and energy, but with limited academic experience. John Stone and Christopher Husbands would unequivocally endorse N&N by becoming founding members of its International Advisory Board; and third, the shared intellectual concerns of the two journals. John Stone and the then editors of ERS recognised the urgency of issues relating to nations and nationalism, especially since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe and the USSR. They generously welcomed a journal that would receive the expanding research in this field, while at the same time giving the opportunity to young academics, specialising in the field of nations and nationalism, to grow professionally. They recognised the complementarity of the two journals—the one focusing on ethnic and ‘race’ relations and the other on ethnicity, nations and nationalism—and were not troubled by the obvious overlaps which could make the two journals competitors rather than partners—another proof of John Stone's open and generous mind and his concern for the future of young scholars. As an editor of books, Stone was remarkably open-minded and inspiring, granting contributing authors maximum freedom, as when asking one of us to write a chapter on ‘the future of nationalism’ for his co-edited Wiley Blackwell Companion to Race, Ethnicity, and Nationalism (Conversi 2020; Stone et al. 2020). He was endearingly patient with the contributors to the monumental and hugely significant reference volumes which he edited with the support of co-editors, not only the Companion, mentioned above, but also his earlier, 5-volume The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Nationalism (Stone et al. 2016). He placed enormous trust in his contributors, inspiring them with the belief that their contributions were valuable and important; and he was prepared to wait for them. This trust and commitment to his contributors is evident, for example, when he welcomed a contribution 1 year after its original deadline (Leoussi et al. 2020). John Stone was also generous with his praise for other scholars, as is evident in his contribution to a volume to honour our pioneering colleague Walker Connor (Stone 2004b). Last but not least, John Stone belonged to this rare breed of academics who were passionately dedicated to their colleagues and friends, until the end of their lives. Only a few months before his passing, and obviously physically weak, he made sure to complete and send references to support the careers of others. All contributors to this Symposium agree in identifying John Stone's generous, warm, thoughtful, kind, and highly respectful personality. In the current drift towards confrontational nationalism, we hope that John Stone's view could provide a counterpoint and would certainly teach us more than one lesson as we are witnessing a slow normalisation of warfare, just as Pope Francis spoke of a ‘third world war’ in fragments (Singh 2018) and as ‘fossil fascism’ risks spreading globally beyond the United States (Conversi 2024; Malm 2021).