The Coming of Nationalism - Ross Poole

okay i have MAJOR PROBLEMS.

So Poole says:

"A second problem in Gellner's account...is to take sufficient note of the tension between nationalism and other characteristically modern modes of thought."

He says that the way Gellner describes the 'spirit of modernity' would automatically mean that there would be no place for nationalism. Because Gellner says:

"...modern rationality imposes a 'universal conceptual currency'" because "modern rationality...assumes that there is 'one coherent world' which is the final arbiter of truth and it investigates this world in causal and analytical terms..."

But YET, for nationalism, "each nation is its own world, and each natioanl language provides its own specific and unique mode of access to that world...." so according to Poole, "Gellner does not show how the modern world generates and sustains meanings of this kind..."

But then again, I think that this can be solved. I mean, sure Gellner was a bit overenthusiastic with his universal conceptual currency for the WHOLE WORLD thing. But I think Gellner actually has a valid point IF he limits his universal thing to the nation which is meant to think that they are all sharing the same image of the nation, as Poole says is needed. Like if everyone thinks the same, if they think that they're sharing the same conceptual currency, then yeah, okay. fine, we've got our everyone-thinking-they're-thinking-the-same-thing thing that Poole says we need, and that Gellner and Poole won't be at odds with each other. It seems that the mistake Gellner REALLY made is not distinguish WHO is looking at WHAT at WHAT TIME. Like if we limit the currency thing to within the nation, and not looking at THE WHOLE WORLD AND ALL ITS NATIONS, then I think it is possible to draw links between the 'spirit of rationality' and nationalism.

But he made the mistake of extending it to the whole world, so obviously that's not going to work because we obviously have different nations in the whole world so immediately Poole shoots him down for it, which you can't really blame Poole. So I think what we need to do is try to remember that there are different points-of-views which are important if you want to keep this discourse clear in your mind without going insane. IE you can either see it from the point of view of within the nation, or outside, ....or there are probably some more possible POVs. The funny thing is that, Poole doesn't try to suss out that MAYBE this might be what Gellner wanted to say, except that he maybe got a bit overenthusiastic. At least that's what I think, because when I read what Gellner argued it sounded plausible FROM WITHIN the nation's view, but yet Poole shot it down from WITHOUT. And Gellner's over-enthusiasm doesn't help either.

okay. I think that's about it for now.