George L. Mosse took a ‘cultural turn’ in the latter part of his career, but still early enough to make a pioneering contribution to the study of political culture and in particular what he called political ‘liturgy’, including marches, processions, and practices of commemoration. He adapted to the study of nationalism in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the approach to the history of ritual developed by historians of medieval and early modern Europe, among them his friend Ernst Kantorowicz. More recently, the concept of ritual, whether religious or secular, has been criticized by some cultural historians on the grounds that it implies a fixed ‘script’ in situations that were actually marked by fluidity and improvisation. In this respect cultural historians have been part of a wider trend that includes sociologists and anthropologists as well as theatre scholars and has been institutionalized as Performance Studies. Some recent studies of contemporary nationalism in Tanzania, Venezuela and elsewhere have adopted this perspective, emphasizing that the same performance may have different meanings for different sections of the audience. It is only to be regretted that Mosse did not live long enough to respond to these studies and that their authors seem unaware of his work.

乔治·莫斯（George L. Mosse）在职业生涯的后半段经历了一次“文化转向”，但仍然足够早，可以为政治文化研究做出开创性的贡献，尤其是他所谓的政治“礼仪”，包括游行，游行和游行。纪念活动。在19世纪和20世纪，他适应了民族主义的研究，这种方法是由中世纪和近代早期欧洲的历史学家（其中包括他的朋友恩斯特·坎托罗维奇）所发展的仪式历史的方法。最近，一些文化历史学家批评了宗教或世俗的仪式概念，理由是它在实际以流动性和即兴创作为特征的情况下暗示着固定的“文字”。在这方面，文化历史学家已成为包括社会学家和人类学家以及戏剧学者在内的更广泛趋势的一部分，并且已被制度化为表演研究。最近在坦桑尼亚，委内瑞拉和其他地方对当代民族主义进行的一些研究都采用了这种观点，强调相同的表演对于不同受众群体可能具有不同的含义。令人遗憾的是，莫斯的寿命不足以回应这些研究，而且他们的作者似乎没有意识到他的工作。