Hala – APSA 2005
This notion, like the notion of “international norms” to which it is often attached, violates
the principle of state sovereignty in a fundamental way. Most of the time states,
especially weaker ones, would rather comply with external demands. States often prefer
cooperation over conflict. Occasionally, however, they resist compliance or categorically
deny the legitimacy of external political assessments on the grounds of national
sovereignty. When political actors accuse outsiders of threatening their sovereignty,
they imply a border has been crossed, and thereby construct their nation.
Conclusion
In a recent review examining the historical trajectory of studies of nations and
nationalism, Spillman and Faeges observe a movement in analytical emphasis from
politics to culture (Spillman and Faeges 2005). While classic theories tended to treat
culture as an epiphenomen of state organization and practices, the current theoretical
tendency is to treat political forms and action as culturally determined. They argue that
most theorists “tend to emphasize one dimension at the expense of the other (2005: 434).
Reading the claims of Czech and Slovak nationalists, one cannot ignore the repeated
references to past conflicts, historical symbols, clashes of values. This is culture. But the
invocation of these shared understandings and representations in pursuit or in defense of
power is eminently political. The “cultural turn” in world affairs is nothing new. If the
cultural turn in the social sciences is to make sense of nations and nationalism, it should
look to the interaction between culture and politics, between identity and interest. The
analysis here is an attempt to turn that corner.
29
Convention