Transformation of nationalism over lengthy intervals

Published on 11/7/2025 by Ron Gadd
Transformation of nationalism over lengthy intervals
Photo by Mortaza Shahed on Unsplash

From Empires to Nation‑States: The first great leap

When you trace the arc of nationalism, the earliest turning point isn’t a protest march or a social media hashtag—it’s the very re‑drawing of the world’s political map. By the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars shattered the old feudal order. Rulers were no longer justified simply by divine right; they had to appeal to “the people” they governed. The Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789) turned sovereignty into a collective claim, planting the seed for modern nation‑states.

A few concrete developments illustrate how that shift unfolded:

  • Territorial consolidation – The Congress of Vienna (1814‑15) tried to restore old borders, but the very act of convening diplomatic representatives around the idea of “balance of power” reinforced the notion of distinct, sovereign entities.
  • Legal codification – The Napoleonic Code (1804) spread a uniform set of laws across conquered lands, standardising citizenship and property rights—key ingredients of a national identity.
  • Cultural standardisation – Language reforms, public education, and the printing press created a shared narrative. Think of the German “Kulturkampf” in the 1870s, where Bismarck used state‑run schools to promote a common German language and culture.

These changes didn’t happen overnight. Over several decades, the “nation” moved from an abstract ideal to a concrete political reality, setting the stage for the turbulence of the 20th century.

The 20th‑Century shockwaves: wars, decolonization, and ideology

If the 19th century was the sprint, the 20th century was the marathon—punctuated by sprints of its own. Two world wars, a wave of decolonization, and the Cold War’s ideological tug‑of‑war reshaped nationalism in ways that still echo today.

World War I turned nationalism into a double‑edged sword. On the one hand, the collapse of Austro‑Hungarian, Ottoman, Russian, and German empires birthed new states—Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Poland, and others—each built on ethnic self‑determination. On the other hand, the same fervour that fueled the war also birthed extremist movements, as veterans and disillusioned citizens searched for purpose.

World War II intensified the paradox. The Nazi regime weaponised a twisted, racial nationalism that led to the Holocaust. After the war, the United Nations enshrined self‑determination, but the emerging bipolar order forced many newly independent nations into the orbit of either the United States or the Soviet Union. This “Cold War nationalism” was less about ethnic identity and more about aligning with a global ideological camp.

Decolonization (roughly 1945‑1975) added a third layer. Former colonies in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean demanded sovereignty, often framing it as a reclamation of cultural pride. The newly minted nations grappled with artificial borders drawn by colonial powers, leading to internal nationalist conflicts that sometimes spiralled into civil wars.

A quick snapshot of the era’s key dynamics:

  • Ethnic mobilisation – The breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s showed how dormant ethnic tensions could erupt when central authority weakened.
  • Economic nationalism – Post‑war reconstruction programmes (e.g., the Marshall Plan) blended national pride with pragmatic growth, while later “import‑substitution” policies in Latin America reflected a protective stance.
  • Transnational ideologies – Communism and liberal democracy both claimed to transcend the nation, yet they were packaged in distinctly national narratives to win hearts at home.

These shockwaves didn’t erase earlier forms of nationalism; they layered new meanings atop the old, creating a complex tapestry that continues to evolve.

When crises turn into nationalist fuel: COVID‑19 and beyond

Crises have a habit of amplifying existing fault lines. The COVID‑19 pandemic is a recent, vivid example of how a global health emergency can condition nationalist sentiment, especially in Europe. A study examining the “conditioned effects of the COVID‑19 crisis on neo‑nationalism in Europe” points out that the pandemic didn’t create nationalism from scratch; it provided a catalyst that sharpened pre‑existing tendencies.

Key mechanisms identified include:

  • Border re‑assertion – Nations hurriedly closed external borders, reviving the idea that “our people first.” Even Schengen‑zone countries, traditionally champions of free movement, introduced temporary travel bans.
  • Supply‑chain securitisation – Governments touted “national self‑reliance” for medical equipment, framing imports as potential vulnerabilities.
  • Narrative framing – Political leaders used pandemic statistics to claim competence or, conversely, to blame external actors (e.g., “foreign viruses”). This rhetoric resonated with voters already skeptical of supranational bodies like the EU.

These patterns echo past crises—think of the post‑World‑War‑I “War Guilt” narrative in Germany or the oil shocks of the 1970s that sparked energy‑focused nationalism. The pandemic’s digital dimension also mattered: social media amplified conspiracy theories that often linked national identity to health behaviours.

Beyond COVID‑19, other contemporary stressors are feeding nationalist resurgence:

  • Climate‑induced migration – Rising sea levels and desertification are prompting debates over who “belongs” in receiving countries.
  • Economic inequality – Globalisation’s winners and losers are increasingly polarised, giving populist leaders a ready audience for “take back control” messages.

In short, crises act like a pressure cooker: they heat up public sentiment, and nationalism is often the valve that releases the steam.

The rise of neo‑nationalism: identity, ethnicity, and religion

If classic nationalism was largely about language and shared history, today’s neo‑nationalism adds a potent mix of ethnicity and religion to the equation. Recent scholarship on 21st‑century neo‑nationalism notes a striking shift: issues that were once peripheral—ethnic and religious concerns—have moved to the centre of political discourse across many nations.

Concrete illustrations:

  • Europe’s far‑right parties – Movements such as France’s National Rally and Germany’s Alternative for Germany foreground anti‑immigrant, culturally Christian narratives, positioning themselves as defenders of “European heritage.”
  • South Asia’s identity politics – In India, the rise of Hindu nationalism (Hindutva) has reshaped policy on minority rights, education, and even foreign relations.
  • Middle East and North Africa – Religious nationalism, particularly Sunni versus Shia divides, has become a driving factor in state alliances and conflicts.

Why this shift now?

Global migration – The unprecedented scale of cross‑border movement has heightened anxieties about cultural dilution. Digital echo chambers – Algorithms amplify identity‑based content, making it easier for nationalist narratives to find receptive audiences. Economic precarity – As automation and gig‑economy jobs erode traditional labour markets, people often cling to ethnic or religious identity for stability.

A brief bullet‑point rundown of neo‑nationalist hallmarks:

  • Exclusionary rhetoric – Emphasis on “us vs. them” framed through ethnicity or religion.
  • Sovereignty‑first policies – Resistance to international agreements, from climate accords to trade deals.
  • Populist leadership style – Charismatic leaders claim to speak for the “real” people, bypassing traditional party structures.

These features make neo‑nationalism both a reaction to modern pressures and a driver of new political dynamics, feeding back into the broader transformation of nationalism over time.

Where might nationalism go next? Scenarios and signals

Looking ahead, the question isn’t whether nationalism will persist—it already has— but how its shape will evolve. Scholars outline several plausible trajectories, each hinged on the interplay of technology, geopolitics, and societal values.

Scenario 1: Tech‑enabled micro‑nationalism
Blockchain‑based communities could enable “digital nations” with their own currencies, legal frameworks, and membership criteria. Imagine a group of climate‑activist citizens forming a transnational enclave that operates under a shared charter, sidestepping traditional state boundaries.

Scenario 2: Re‑globalised cosmopolitanism
If climate crises force unprecedented international cooperation (e.g., massive carbon‑capture projects), a new form of “planetary nationalism” might emerge—where loyalty shifts from nation‑state to humanity as a whole. This would require robust global institutions, a step up from the EU model.

Scenario 3: Reinforced ethno‑religious blocs
Should economic shocks deepen and migration pressures persist, we could see a hardening of identity‑based alliances, reminiscent of the Balkan conflicts of the 1990s but on a larger scale. This would likely involve tighter border controls and more assertive cultural policies.

Key signals to watch:

  • Policy shifts on citizenship – Moves to grant or restrict dual citizenship often foreshadow broader nationalist trends.
  • Education curricula – Revisions that foreground national myths or downplay global perspectives signal a tilt toward inward‑looking nationalism.
  • Tech platform regulation – How governments handle algorithmic amplification of extremist content will influence whether nationalist narratives stay fringe or become mainstream.

No single path is predetermined; the future will likely be a blend of these scenarios, molded by regional specifics and unexpected events. What’s clear is that nationalism, as a social force, will continue to adapt—absorbing crises, technology, and shifting identities—to stay relevant over the long haul.

Sources