ABSTRACT

I first set out my general perspective on nationalism as, above all, a form of politics related to modern statehood. This feeds into the response to each reviewer. First responding to Sandelind, I dispute the contention that I overstate nationalism’s political dimension. The dominance of nationalism as a political ideology in the contemporary world is, I argue, much more important than Sandelind suggests, in terms of framing both statehood and the politics of immigration. Turning to Antonsich’s review, I query the extent to which the mundane social practices analysed through the ‘everyday nationhood’ agenda are fruitful for analysing nationalism without also clearly taking into account the relatively unmoving and enduring modern state. This endurance, related to prevalent and seemingly secure frameworks of public power and authority, shapes my response to Valluvan’s optimism for an anti-racist, post-national politics, and my more pessimistic conclusion that nationalism retains a seemingly inescapable grip over present and potential collective political identifications and agency in Britain and beyond.

摘要

首先，我首先阐述我对民族主义的一般看法，认为民族主义首先是与现代国家地位有关的一种政治形式。这将反馈给每个审阅者。首先对桑德林德作出回应，我对有关我夸大民族主义的政治层面的论点提出了质疑。我认为，就建立国家和移民政治而言，民族主义在当代世界中作为政治意识形态的主导地位比桑德林德所认为的重要得多。转向安东尼斯的评论，我质疑通过“日常民族主义”议程分析的平庸的社会实践在多大程度上有益于分析民族主义，而又没有明确考虑相对不动和持久的现代国家。这种持久性与普遍存在且看似安全的公共权力和权威框架有关，