Abstract Scholars often describe the early stages in the development of nationalism with the metaphor of “national awakening,” which originally comes from historical actors. Several scholars, notably Ernest Gellner, criticize the metaphor for its implicit teleology and essentialism. Much recent scholarship considers non-national loyalties, such as regionalism, civic pride, monarchism, or national indifference, reflecting an understandable weariness with teleological narratives. Scholars can avoid essentialist teleology by studying failed national movements. The history of “Slovak” national awakening, for example, should address Czechoslovakism and Panslavism. Despite its difficulties, however, the metaphor of “awakening” should be retained as a term of historic periodization.

中文翻译：

---

突发事件与“民族觉醒”

摘要 学者们常以“民族觉醒”为比喻来描述民族主义发展的早期阶段，“民族觉醒”最初来自历史演员。几位学者，尤其是欧内斯特·盖尔纳 (Ernest Gellner)，批评隐喻隐含的目的论和本质主义。最近的许多学术研究都考虑了非国家忠诚，例如区域主义、公民自豪感、君主制或民族冷漠，反映出对目的论叙事的厌倦是可以理解的。学者可以通过研究失败的民族运动来避免本质主义目的论。例如，“斯洛伐克”民族觉醒的历史应该涉及捷克斯洛伐克主义和泛斯拉夫主义。然而，尽管困难重重，“觉醒”的隐喻仍应保留为历史分期的术语。