Following Benedict Anderson and the opening definition in Ernest Gellner's Nations and Nationalism, often treated as definitive, prominent political scientists conflate patriotism, nation-building, and a desire for self-determination with nationalism. The result is a consensus among scholars of nationalism that nationalism is even benign and liberal. Yet these views are based on ahistorical assumptions, including the belief that the creation of mono-national states à la Mazzini was progressive. In fact, most nationalism scholars dismiss the last three decades of Habsburg and Central European historiography, which has refuted the national narratives on which the classic theories of nationalism and much political science are based. Focusing on the Habsburg context, this interdisciplinary article corrects several assumptions of nationalism scholarship, in particular highlighting the distinctions between nationalism, on the one hand, and diverse forms of national allegiance, dynastic patriotism, supranationalism, and Landespatriotismus, on the other. Looking through the Habsburg lens shows that nationalism cannot be reduced to patriotism and nationality, but reflects an illiberal aspiration towards culturally homogenous societies.
Mario Maritan (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: