The Transformation of Nationalism in the Late 19th Century
The late 19th century witnessed a dramatic evolution in nationalism, shifting from a principle associated with liberal revolutions to a potent political force with new ideological contours. Between 1880 and 1914, nationalism underwent a radical transformation—not merely in scale but in substance. The term “nationalism” itself emerged during this period, initially describing right-wing movements in France and Italy that championed aggressive expansion, xenophobia, and opposition to liberalism and socialism.
This era saw the ascendancy of an exclusionary nationalism that sought to monopolize patriotism, branding dissenters as traitors. Whereas earlier nationalisms had often aligned with progressive causes—such as the unification of Italy and Germany—the new nationalism increasingly became the domain of the political right. Yet it remained a complex phenomenon: Irish Marxist James Connolly could simultaneously lead a socialist revolution and an anti-colonial uprising in 1916, illustrating nationalism’s ideological fluidity.
The Four Key Shifts in Nationalist Ideology
Four pivotal changes redefined nationalism during this period. First, the ideological capture of patriotism by the right laid groundwork for interwar fascism. Second, the criteria for national self-determination expanded dramatically—from Mazzini’s vision of 12 viable European nations in 1857 to Woodrow Wilson’s recognition of 27 new states after World War I. Third, full independence rather than autonomy became the non-negotiable demand. Fourth, racial and linguistic markers increasingly supplanted historical or territorial claims in defining nations.
Language became a particularly contentious battleground. The Gaelic League’s 1893 founding tied Irish identity to linguistic revival, while Zionists resurrected Hebrew—unspoken for millennia—as a nationalist project. These efforts reflected a broader trend: standardized national languages were often artificial constructs, compiled from regional dialects by intellectual elites. In Catalonia, the Basque Country, and the Baltics, “language masters” codified vernaculars into political weapons against dominant cultures.
The State as Nation-Builder
Modern states played an indispensable role in forging national consciousness. As traditional communities like guilds and parishes declined, governments filled the void through schools, bureaucracies, and mass conscription. France’s Third Republic transformed peasants into Frenchmen; Italy’s monarchy struggled to “make Italians” after unifying the peninsula. Even autocratic regimes like Tsarist Russia embraced nationalism, with Alexander III promoting Russification policies in the 1880s.
Education systems proved particularly effective tools. Between 1870-1914, primary school enrollment skyrocketed—tripling in Britain, increasing thirteen-fold in Finland. State-mandated instruction in national languages marginalized minority tongues, creating self-reinforcing cycles of linguistic nationalism. Where minorities won educational concessions—as Flemish activists did in 1883—it often catalyzed broader political movements.
The Social Foundations of Nationalist Movements
Contrary to romantic notions of grassroots awakening, nationalist mobilization typically originated with urban middle classes. Basque nationalism, founded in 1894, drew scant support from rural Basque speakers. Similarly, Welsh nationalism initially flourished among literate professionals who resented English cultural dominance. For these groups, linguistic nationalism offered career advancement—state employment required mastery of official languages.
The lower middle classes proved especially receptive to nationalist appeals. Facing economic insecurity and status anxiety, they found solace in narratives blaming foreigners for their woes. Political antisemitism flourished in France and Germany despite small Jewish populations, reflecting broader anxieties about capitalism and modernity. Military service also provided upward mobility; in Germany, secondary school graduates could become reserve officers, gaining coveted social standing.
Nationalism’s Paradox: Strength Through Synthesis
Pure nationalism rarely commanded mass followings. Successful movements combined national appeals with other ideologies: Irish nationalism fused with Catholicism; Polish socialism became a vehicle for independence; Zionism incorporated socialist principles. Even the Austro-Hungarian Empire—often called a “prison of nations”—retained most subjects’ loyalty until World War I shattered the Habsburg state.
When war erupted in 1914, governments mobilized citizens not through jingoism but by framing conflict as defense of civilization. British and French propaganda emphasized democracy versus German militarism; Berlin countered with appeals to Kultur against Russian barbarism. This civic nationalism—tying sacrifice to progressive ideals—initially sustained morale more effectively than ethnic chauvinism could have.
The Legacy of Pre-War Nationalism
The nationalism that emerged between 1880-1914 established patterns enduring throughout the 20th century. Its linguistic basis informed post-1918 border settlements; its conflation of ethnicity and citizenship fueled interwar fascism. Yet the period also demonstrated nationalism’s plasticity—its capacity to merge with socialism, liberalism, or conservatism depending on context.
Most crucially, this era revealed nationalism’s dual nature: as a destructive force exacerbating ethnic conflicts, but also as a framework for democratic participation. The “suitable for heroes” rhetoric of 1918—promising postwar reconstruction—showed how nationalist sentiment could be channeled toward progressive ends. This tension between exclusionary and inclusive nationalism remains unresolved in contemporary politics, making the study of its formative period more relevant than ever.