BILL KISSANE INTERVIEW WITH RISTO ALAPURO, EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI: NOVEMBER 7, 2012
H-Nationalism has been a leading online forum for the study of nationalism since its founding in 2006. H-Nationalism serves as a focal point for informed, moderated discussion and produces diverse academic content including book reviews, interviews, blog series, and bibliographies. Our all-volunteer editorial staff hails from across the globe and includes scholars of all ranks. CfPs, discussion posts, and research queries are available immediately below. More content is available on our Reviews and Resources pages. Scholars of all disciplinary, methodological, and topical backgrounds are welcome to set up a free subscription and to inquire about serving as an editor with H-Nationalism. You can read more about our staff here and look into working with us here.
Question: At one point in the interview, you mention that nationalism studies have focused too heavily on the production of nationalism, and have given too little attention to its broader reception. A couple of queries: (i) Could you elaborate a little on this point, perhaps suggesting works that have successfully done this and/or ways that you think reception could be better explored? (ii) Is the production-reception distinction the best way to open things up, or would it be better to think instead about expanding our definition of the production of nationalism?
This is the latest in a series of H-Nationalism series of interviews with leading figures in contemporary Nationalism studies. John Hutchinson is a colleague of John Breuilly's at LSE, and the other heir to the LSE 'tradition' of Nationalism Studies. He gained his Ph.D. at LSE under Anthony Smith, where he was Smith's first doctoral student. He has written numerous articles and three books, The Dynamics of Cultural Nationalism (Routledge 1987), Modern Nationalism (Fontana 1994) and, most recently, Nations as Zones of Conflict (Sage 2005).
Question: The debate between ethnosymbolists, primordialists, and modernists seems to be basically focused on why and when nationalism and nations first developed. Would it be fair to say that nationalism studies have been heavily -- perhaps too heavily -- focused on the origins of nations and nationalism? Have other topics, such as the persistence of nationalism, been neglected?
Department of History
University of South Carolina
List Editor, H-Nationalism
During the annual conference of ASEN (Association for the Study of Ethnicity and Nationalism) we asked John Breuilly, the chair of Nationalism and Ethnicity Studies at the London School of Economics, to talk with us about the study of nationalism, where it has been and where it is going. Don H. Doyle, University of South Carolina, and Susan-Mary Grant, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, both founding members of ARENA (Association for Research on Ethnicity and Nationalism in the Americas) met with Professor Breuilly over lunch at Coopers near the LSE on March 29, 2006.