Preface

identities. By exploring the true meaning of the language used to define them, it is possible to gain a deeper understanding of contemporary political debates relating to nationhood.

My argument will not focus on the violent conflicts between nations or ethnic groups during the totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century. The purpose of this section is merely to explore the intellectual foundations of a specific myth of national identity. By tracing this myth back to its origins, we begin to understand the role it has played in shaping modern European political thought. This concept was not borrowed by the French from any other languages or cultures. Any external influences, if they even existed, were seamlessly assimilated into France’s specific context, namely conditions there during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The concept of peuple was born out of social and economic realities, and is inseparable from the institutions established during the French Revolution. Historiographers have commented on connections between the revolutionary ideal of peuple and the ideology of nationhood forged in the medieval era. These parallels are used to amplify the general ideology of national belonging that has run through the course of France’s history.

It would be unwise to create too rigid a distinction between the ideology of peuple and that of nation. However, as the development of political discourse is shaped by these shifts in language, it is worth making some observations regarding the differences between these concepts. The distinction between peuple and nation has its roots in the radical politics of 1789. In effect, our definition of these terms is connected to the social landscape of France at the end of the eighteenth century and the seismic changes brought about by the Revolution. At the time a new political identity was conceived. A historico-political analysis of the word peuple suggests that it refers to the masses, to the emotional state of a population, to a national spirit that exists as a continuum between the past and present. Nation, on the other hand, has more clearly defined parameters: it refers to the social, judicial and historical aspects of the state.1

Whereas le peuple – like das Volk – implies the idea of a community, nation entails a more complex system, such as a society organised by a state, an entity with a coherent political purpose, exercised both internally and externally. Nation transcends the local sphere, it goes

beyond regional concerns or traditions, its aims are universal. This distinction applies to a number of other languages and cultures: French, British and Dutch, for example. The concept of le peuple – similarly to das Volk – makes sense only in a particular linguistic community.2 It is a construct inextricably tied to a specific moment in French history, and to ignore this is to lose some of its nuances and connotations, which are linked to certain cultural and religious traditions. With some exceptions, most historians do not distinguish between the concepts of peuple and nation in the case of France or between das Volk and die Nation in relation to Germany. Despite the fact that these terms have often been regarded as interchangeable, we should consider in more detail their different connotations. For instance, it can be said that by equating the French la nation with the German die Nation, we overlook the political traditions that have given rise to these terms and the ideological conflicts between them. Likewise, by conflating the French peuple with the German Volk or the Slavic narod or the Romanian popor, the political cultures of these countries begin to lose their distinctness. If we accept these preliminary observations, we can infer not only that these terms have been misused by Central and Eastern European countries in an attempt to define their social history, but that the West has been equally guilty of applying these paradigms to every culture, regardless of its unique traditions or political situation.

In his preface to the third volume of Les Lieux de mémoire, Pierre Nora perceptively observes that a sense of identity feeds on its own contradictions, that it must acknowledge political, religious and geo-historical conflicts. He notes certain schisms within modern, contemporary identities, which he attributes to contrasting religious, political, social and national ideas that emerged in 1789. The notion of peuple became pivotal as it was associated with the possibility of political renewal after the fall of the monarchy. Peuple became emblematic of the sovereignty of the state. This concept, which assumed an enormous transformation of the body politic and the public sphere, came at a crucial moment in French history and its echoes are still felt today. It would compete with the cultural and religious narratives that shaped that country. In 1789 France was not interested in the resurgence of any particular ethnic group or in creating a sense of unity between members of one particular race. At that

11

VOLK (PEOPLE) AND SPRACHE (LANGUAGE): HERDER’S THEORIES OF ETHNICITY AND THE NATION

1. FOR A NEW COMPREHENSION OF HERDERIAN IDEOLOGY

The theories of nationhood formulated by Herder and several other intellectuals from the former Austrian Empire need to be revisited for a host of reasons. First of all, it is important to contrast the spiritual dimension, influenced by Sturm und Drang, which Hamann, Herder and Goethe brought to this ideology with the more materialist French theories. In addition, we can trace its impact on the public sphere, such as the celebration for the first time of everything that was supposedly German, for example, Gothic art. Such analysis gives us insight into the differences between the French and German cultures in the eighteenth century, including why Diderot’s Encyclopédie, with its promotion of modern, rational modes of enquiry, did not find favour with contemporary German intellectuals. On the other hand, the analysis of Herderian ideas is important because in this way the speculative theory on collective identity in Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe could be revised; because the identification of

key notions and political languages formed through them is useful to highlight new meritorious aspects of Herder’s work, but also to show the lack of discernment contained in his theory of identity.

Herder’s writings provide insight into the ideology of national consciousness and the nation state formed around 1800, which remained influential in Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. His cultural commentary added a new dimension to the collective ideologies of Volk (people) and Sprache (language). In attempting to define the character of the nation, Herder leaned more towards the sentimental than the rational. The philosopher Isaiah Berlin described the ‘teleological outlook’ with reference to German Romanticism. According to this school of thought, individual responsibility is an illusion. As a consequence, despite our best efforts, the process of reasoning ‘can never enable us to make completely free choices. Puppets may be conscious and identify themselves happily with the inevitable process in which they play their parts; but it remains inevitable, and they remain marionettes.’1

Herder’s ideas have been echoed right up to the present day by a number of historians, philosophers, sociologists and linguists concerned with collective identity. He played an important part in the development of German linguistic culture in the nineteenth century. Positivist historiography discusses only the Romantic ‘impulse’ towards a ‘new value system’, the ‘impetus for scientific study’, the treasure trove of southern Slavic proverbs and fairy tales discovered by Herder, Grimm, Schlözer, Müller, Sulzer, Thunmann, Gebhardi and others. It highlights the connection between the cultures of Germany and Eastern Europe and the spiritual influences they exerted on one another. Studies of this kind tend to concentrate all their attention on the ethnography, languages and historical roots of Central, Eastern and Southeastern European countries, but pay no attention to the relationship between culture and political ideology.

Herder’s theories paved the way to national and ethnic consciousness. However, considering the intellectual dogmas they promoted by blurring the distinction between reality and fantasy (as seen, for example, in the fictitious, ideologically loaded definition of ethnicity), these theories could be seen as a forerunners to National Socialism and Communism. The academic institutions of Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe did not focus on regional speci-