East Asian history and the modern nation-state

Nation-State

Is the nation-state the natural subject of history? How can we escape writing natural histories?

On the one hand, the nation-state is the natural subject of modern and post-modern history. It is an inescapable collective construct, and one that either imposes or supposes shared identity. As Anderson points out, though, "nation, nationality, nationalism -- all have proved notoriously difficult to define, let alone to analyze," (3). Complicating the process of analyzing the concept of the nation-state is the fact that the term takes on unique meanings depending on culture and geography. In other words, culture impacts the form and function of the nation-state, just as the nation-state influences the formation of culture. The meaning of nation state will therefore be different in Japan than it is in Korea or in France. The actual function of the nation-state will also be different in these respective regions; and the self-concept and nationhood identity of Japanese, Korean, and French people will also be different. What is shared in common among the disparate nation-states is a collective agreement in the geo-political boundaries with which the term is defined.

Of course, the term nation-state is dependent on geographic and political boundaries. In this sense, the nation-state is a natural subject of history because of the continuity of geographical boundaries that have delimited political power. The modern nation-state may not be as remarkable or revolutionary a construct as some historians believe. Ethnic identity remains relatively fluid in spite of the supremacy of the nation-state in determining political affairs and personal identity.

Doak points out, "one approach in contemporary theory on nationalism has focused on nations as 'invented' or 'imagined' identities in order to emphasize nations as recently constructed and historically contingent forms of collective identity that never quite measure up to their claims of common purpose or ancient foundations," (284). In fact, the superficiality of nation-statehood is merely presumed. There is no concrete reason to question the organic nature of the nation-state. The nation-state emerged on the heels of the Enlightenment (Anderson).

Historians cannot escape writing natural histories; writing natural histories is certainly preferable to penning unnatural histories. In Korea, "through the practice of state-sponsored rituals, the building of monuments, and the compilations of official histories, narratives about the collective 'self' were continuously generated," (Em 336 . These are the very same processes of nation-state building as take place anywhere in the world. The process of nation-state and subsequent identity formation is inescapable and therefore natural.