Historical sociologists have questioned the idea that nationalism and imperialism are mutually exclusive phenomena. In contrast to traditional historiography that depicted empires as ‘the prison houses of nations’ contemporary scholarship emphasises the structural and ideological ambiguities that characterised the 19th century European imperial projects. Hence instead of ‘popular longings’ for national independence the focus has shifted to the experiences of ‘national indifference’. In this paper I aim to go beyond this dichotomy by questioning the role of (nationalist) agency in the collapse of imperial order. Drawing on the primary archival research I zoom in on the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina under the Austro-Hungarian rule (1878–1918). The paper contests the view that the imperial state was severely undermined by the presence of strong nationalisms. I also challenge the notion that the majority of Bosnian population remained ‘nationally indifferent’ during this period. Instead, I argue that understanding the character of the Austro-Hungarian rule is a much better predictor of social change that took place in this period. Rather than stifling supposedly vibrant nationalisms or operating amidst widespread national indifference the imperial state played a decisive role in forging the nation-centric world through its inadvertent homogenisation of discontent.

中文翻译：

---

打造以民族为中心的世界：波斯尼亚和黑塞哥维那的帝国统治和不满情绪的同质化（1878-1918）

历史社会学家质疑民族主义和帝国主义是相互排斥的现象的观点。与将帝国描述为“国家监狱”的传统史学不同，当代学术强调了 19 世纪欧洲帝国计划的结构和意识形态模糊性。因此，焦点不再是民族独立的“大众渴望”，而是转向了“民族冷漠”的经历。在本文中，我旨在通过质疑（民族主义）机构在帝国秩序崩溃中的作用来超越这种二分法。根据最初的档案研究，我放大了奥匈帝国统治下（1878-1918）下的波斯尼亚和黑塞哥维那的案例。这篇论文反驳了帝国主义国家被强烈的民族主义严重削弱的观点。我还质疑大多数波斯尼亚人在此期间仍然“对民族漠不关心”的观点。相反，我认为理解奥匈帝国统治的特征可以更好地预测这一时期发生的社会变革。帝国国家并没有扼杀所谓的充满活力的民族主义，也没有在广泛的民族冷漠中运作，而是通过无意中将不满情绪同质化，在打造以民族为中心的世界方面发挥了决定性作用。我认为，理解奥匈帝国统治的特征可以更好地预测这一时期发生的社会变化。帝国国家并没有扼杀所谓的充满活力的民族主义，也没有在广泛的民族冷漠中运作，而是通过无意中将不满情绪同质化，在打造以民族为中心的世界方面发挥了决定性作用。我认为，理解奥匈帝国统治的特征可以更好地预测这一时期发生的社会变化。帝国国家并没有扼杀所谓的充满活力的民族主义，也没有在广泛的民族冷漠中运作，而是通过无意中将不满情绪同质化，在打造以民族为中心的世界方面发挥了决定性作用。