<i>Austria Neglecta</i> : Rethinking the Theory of Nationalism between Acton, Mazzini, and the Habsburg Legacy

Following Benedict Anderson and the opening definition in Ernest Gellner's Nations and Nationalism, often treated as definitive, prominent political scientists conflate patriotism, nation-building, and a desire for self-determination with nationalism. The result is a consensus among scholars of nationalism that nationalism is even benign and liberal. Yet these views are based on ahistorical assumptions, including the belief that the creation of mono-national states à la Mazzini was progressive. In fact, most nationalism scholars dismiss the last three decades of Habsburg and Central European historiography, which has refuted the national narratives on which the classic theories of nationalism and much political science are based. Focusing on the Habsburg context, this interdisciplinary article corrects several assumptions of nationalism scholarship, in particular highlighting the distinctions between nationalism, on the one hand, and diverse forms of national allegiance, dynastic patriotism, supranationalism, and Landespatriotismus, on the other. Looking through the Habsburg lens shows that nationalism cannot be reduced to patriotism and nationality, but reflects an illiberal aspiration towards culturally homogenous societies.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The European Legacy
Published
2026-04-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/10848770.2026.2645810
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Central European national history
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
43.50
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Austria Neglecta : Rethinking the Theory of Nationalism between Acton, Mazzini, and the Habsburg Legacy

Mario Maritan
1 citations
The European Legacy
Central European national history
43.50
article

Austria Neglecta : Rethinking the Theory of Nationalism between Acton, Mazzini, and the Habsburg Legacy

Mario Maritan
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Following Benedict Anderson and the opening definition in Ernest Gellner's Nations and Nationalism, often treated as definitive, prominent political scientists conflate patriotism, nation-building, and a desire for self-determination with nationalism. The result is a consensus among scholars of nationalism that nationalism is even benign and liberal. Yet these views are based on ahistorical assumptions, including the belief that the creation of mono-national states à la Mazzini was progressive. In fact, most nationalism scholars dismiss the last three decades of Habsburg and Central European historiography, which has refuted the national narratives on which the classic theories of nationalism and much political science are based. Focusing on the Habsburg context, this interdisciplinary article corrects several assumptions of nationalism scholarship, in particular highlighting the distinctions between nationalism, on the one hand, and diverse forms of national allegiance, dynastic patriotism, supranationalism, and Landespatriotismus, on the other. Looking through the Habsburg lens shows that nationalism cannot be reduced to patriotism and nationality, but reflects an illiberal aspiration towards culturally homogenous societies.

The European Legacy
Sogang University (KR), Hanyang University (KR)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 0%
Central European national history
43.50
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.