Official Nationalism and Imperialism (Benedict Anderson)
In his book, Anderson (1991) explains that initially, dynasties had nothing to do with nationalism as they could rule different and rivalrous states (e.g. Ottoman, Habsburg, Russian empires). However, when empires needed unification and universalism (instead of a nationalistic point of view) they attempted to stick to the particular vernacular language of the empire making a language-of-state. As the author continues usually the unifying language was an unselfconscious inheritance from the predecessors. An in example Joseph II preferred German over Latin as German had vast culture and literature and minority throughout Austro-Hungary. Furthermore, in many other empires, national identifications (like Hanoverians became English and, Hohenzollerns counted themselves Germans) started to be associated with a particular vernacular. Anderson (1991) clarifies that this ‘official nationalism’ was a reaction of power-groups in Europe to the threats of exclusion from popular imagined communities (p. 110). Linguistic-nationalism served as a catalyst in this situation. Similar policies were pursued then, in Asia and Africa in the 19th century. The author states that the official nationalism was similar to litmus paper to see the differences of dynastic and nation realms (e.g. Slovaks-Magyarized, Indians – Anglicized, Koreans-Japanified, yet they were not allowed to administer Hungarians, English, or Japanese, because those were instinctively resistant to foreign rule). The other reasons for the official nationalism were not only racism but also the fact that every empire had a core nation in it.
References
Anderson, B. (1991). Official Nationalism and Imperialism. London: Verso.
NUWG 