The Puzzle of National Identity in 19th-Century Europe

The mid-19th century witnessed an intellectual revolution in how Europeans understood collective identity. As Ernest Renan pondered in 1882, why was Holland considered a nation while Hanover and the Grand Duchy of Parma were not? This fundamental question about what constitutes a nation would shape political discourse across the continent. The era from 1848 through the 1870s became defined by what contemporaries called “the principle of nationality” – the radical notion that every distinct people deserved sovereign statehood.

This concept emerged during a period of remarkable political transformation. The 1848 revolutions, though ultimately suppressed, had unleashed nationalist aspirations from Germany to Hungary, from Italy to Poland. Even as revolutionary fervor faded, the nationalist impulse persisted through more pragmatic means. By 1871, Europe’s map had been dramatically redrawn through wars, diplomacy, and popular movements – all invoking the powerful rhetoric of national destiny.

The Revolutionary Crucible of 1848

The “Springtime of Nations” in 1848 represented nationalism’s first mass political expression. Across the continent, peoples asserted their right to independent statehood: Germans and Italians sought unification; Hungarians demanded autonomy from Habsburg rule; Poles resurrected dreams of independence; Romanians articulated national consciousness. Even smaller groups like Czechs and Croats, though often overshadowed by larger neighbors, began asserting distinct identities.

These revolutionary movements shared common characteristics. They typically emerged among educated urban elites – teachers, lower clergy, students – who articulated national ideals through cultural organizations, newspapers, and political clubs. The German Frankfurt Parliament and Italian nationalist societies exemplified this bourgeois nationalist vanguard. However, their visions often diverged sharply from peasant populations who remained focused on local concerns rather than abstract national ideals.

The revolutions’ failure temporarily checked nationalist ambitions, but the genie could not be returned to the bottle. Over the next quarter-century, nationalist objectives would be achieved through alternative means: Prussian statecraft unified Germany; Piedmontese leadership forged Italy; Hungarian nobles negotiated autonomy through the 1867 Compromise. Only Poland’s aspirations were brutally crushed, its 1863 uprising met with severe Russian repression.

The Contradictions of National Construction

Nation-building proved far more complex than romantic nationalists had imagined. As Massimo d’Azeglio famously remarked after Italian unification: “We have made Italy; now we must make Italians.” The new kingdom faced profound challenges in creating shared national identity among populations speaking diverse dialects, with only 2.5% using standard Italian in 1860. Similar issues confronted Germany, where regional loyalties often outweighed national sentiment.

This highlighted the fundamental tension between two conceptions of nationhood:

1. The “historical” model based on existing state institutions, elite cultures, and written traditions (applying to England, France, Spain)
2. The democratic model asserting popular sovereignty based on language, ethnicity, or shared oppression

Nowhere was this tension more apparent than in multiethnic empires. The Habsburg monarchy contained numerous potential nations – Germans, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Romanians, Croats, Serbs, and more – each with competing visions. Hungarian nationalists, while demanding autonomy from Vienna, often denied similar rights to their own Slavic minorities.

The Irish Exception: Precursor of Anti-Colonial Nationalism

Ireland presented a unique case of mass nationalist mobilization. The Fenian movement (Irish Republican Brotherhood), founded in 1858, represented a new type of nationalism – revolutionary, republican, and drawing support primarily from lower classes. Unlike bourgeois nationalist movements elsewhere, Fenianism emerged among Irish emigrant workers in England and America, combining traditional agrarian unrest with modern organizational methods.

Their 1867 rising failed, but Fenianism established key patterns that would influence 20th-century anti-colonial movements:
– Complete separation from imperial power as primary goal
– Willingness to use armed struggle
– Diaspora support networks
– Tenuous relationship with both church and middle-class nationalists

The Mechanisms of Nation-Building

Successful nation-states developed powerful tools to foster national identity:

Education Systems:
– Prussia’s elementary schools reached 80% of children by 1840
– France’s Third Republic made primary education free, secular, and compulsory in the 1880s
– Italy’s post-unification schools increased enrollment by 460%

Military Service:
– Mass conscription (adopted by France, Germany, Italy, Austria) became “the school of the nation”
– Created shared experiences across regional and class lines

Language Standardization:
– National languages became mandatory in administration and education
– Dialects were marginalized or recast as “folklore”

These institutions proved remarkably effective. By the 1870s, even recently unified states like Germany and Italy had created substantial national consciousness among their populations.

The Paradox of Small Nations

The nationalist principle created insoluble dilemmas for smaller ethnic groups. As Walter Bagehot observed, the 19th century became an era of “nation-making,” but this process inevitably privileged certain groups over others. Three approaches emerged toward smaller nationalities:

1. Denial – Asserting they weren’t “real” nations (German attitudes toward Slavs)
2. Assimilation – Expecting absorption into larger nations (French treatment of Bretons)
3. Autonomy – Granting limited self-rule (Hungary’s 1867 compromise)

The criteria for nationhood remained hotly contested. Was it language? (But many Irish spoke English.) Historical statehood? (Irrelevant for most Balkan peoples.) Culture? (Whose culture counted?) These unanswered questions would fuel 20th-century conflicts.

Nationalism’s Democratic and Undemocratic Faces

The nationalist legacy proved deeply ambivalent. On one hand, it:
– Overthrew antiquated dynastic systems
– Created frameworks for popular participation
– Inspired liberation movements worldwide

Yet it also:
– Justified repression of minorities
– Created exclusionary identities
– Laid groundwork for ethnic conflicts

As the 19th century closed, nationalism’s democratic potential increasingly competed with its chauvinistic tendencies – a tension that would explode in 1914. The “principle of nationality” that had seemed so liberating in 1848 would become, in the 20th century, a source of both emancipation and terrible violence.

The great nationalist projects of the 19th century succeeded in creating nations, but failed to resolve the fundamental question: In a world where populations were always mixed and identities fluid, how could the ideal of homogeneous nation-states ever be peacefully achieved? This dilemma, born in the age of Mazzini and Bismarck, remains unresolved in our own time.