Calhoun, Craig. Nations Matter: book review

34 

Calhoun, Craig. Nations Matter: 

Culture, History, and the Cosmopolitan 

Dream. New York: Routledge, 2007. 

Nations Matter is not Craig Calhoun’s 

most rigorous and comprehensive state- 

ment on nationalism (his 1997 book 

Nationalism is a better source on this 

topic); nor is Nations Matter Calhoun’s 

most complete treatise on cosmopoli- 

tanism (for that we will have to wait for 

his forthcoming Cosmopolitanism and 

Belonging). But Nations Matter holds 

many treasures for thinking about citi- 

zenship in the age of globalization. 

Nations Matter is a collection of previ- 

ously published essays, each one pitched 

to a slightly different audience. The 

common thread is that all are intended 

to sway liberal-leaning audiences to real- 

ize the danger of a cosmopolitan fantasy 

that denies the historical, and current, 

importance of nations and nationalism. 

Calhoun is primarily concerned here 

with the often-overlooked link between 

nationalism and liberalism. According to 

Calhoun, history proves that nationalism 

has often served to promote the establish- 

ment of democratic institutions, as well 

as the equitable distribution of resources. 

He further argues that the notion of 

international cooperation makes little 

sense in the absence of strong nations. 

The cosmopolitan dream of transcend- 

ing nationalism is, for Calhoun, a fanta- 

sy. He believes that nations matter more 

than ever in the age of globalization. 

Some critics will assume that this 

book is not worth reading due to the 

repetitive nature of its genre—a collec- 

tion of previously published essays on 

a hot topic. However, it is the impor- 

tance of the topic and the trajectory of 

Calhoun’s research agenda that warrant 

giving this book special attention. In 

short, Calhoun is onto something, even 

if his conclusions feel incomplete. His 

historically informed view of nationalism 

combined with his impressive knowledge 

of current trends in globalization have 

led him to some keen observations about 

why the liberal, cosmopolitan dream is 

inadequate as an empirical description 

and as a political ideal. But Calhoun is 

not entirely pessimistic. Although he 

warns that transcending nationalism is 

impossible, he believes that “nationalism 

helps locate an experience of belonging 

in a world of global flows and fears” (1). 

For Calhoun, nationalism is a source of 

solidarity that is crucial for democracy 

and for resisting neo-liberal versions of 

globalization. He wants well-intentioned 

liberals to stop focusing on what is wrong 

with nationalism—which he admits is 

responsible for some horrific historical 

events—and instead notice the transfor- 

mative potential of nationalism. 

Calhoun is at his best when he explores 

the relationship between cultural identity 

and forms of belonging. Nationalisms 

are better thought of as having family 

resemblances, rather than conforming to 

an essentialist definition. Nationalism, as 

a discourse, is a product of modernity, 

meaning the last three hundred years. 

Ideas about the individuation of the per- 

son and the nation are historically emer- 

gent and linked phenomena that form 

the social foundations for nationalism. 

Calhoun never loses track of the fact 

that cultural identity is a moving object 

of analysis and that nationalism is a rhe- 

Book RevIeW

35 

BOOK REVIEW 

torical tool of identity production. At the 

same time, he refers to national identity 

as a Durkheimian social fact that shapes 

individuals; thus, identity is not a matter 

of completely free choice. 

In chapter 5, “Nationalism, Political 

Community, and the Representation 

of Society: Or, Why Feeling at Home 

Is Not a Substitute for Public Space,” 

Calhoun draws our attention to the rela- 

tionship between modes of belonging 

and political participation. He shrewdly 

observes that nationalist claims to eth- 

nic or cultural similarity, on one hand, 

and common citizenship, on the other, 

ignore a crucial element that constitutes 

political community. These dichotomous 

perspectives focus on the continuity 

of nations and do not explain cultural 

reproduction or change. Whether claims 

to nationhood are based in ancient eth- 

nicity (the paradigmatic example being 

Germany) or an historical moment that 

constitutionally guarantees rights and 

obligations (the paradigmatic example 

being France), they underestimate the 

importance of institutions, networks, 

and movements that bring people 

together across diversity within nations. 

Affective attachments between concrete 

persons differ qualitatively from indi- 

vidual attachments to large-scale cultural 

categories, such as nations. Furthermore, 

affective attachments based on similarity 

do not necessarily create the foundations 

for navigating difference. 

Calhoun warns that social scientists 

are guilty of conflating nation and soci- 

ety conceptually, a mistake he sees as 

having political consequences. He argues 

that conflating nation with society leads 

to a failure to understand citizenship. 

According to Calhoun: 

Debates on nationality and 

citizenship need to problem- 

atize not only the contrast 

among territorial, civic, and 

ethnic models, and the ques- 

tions of how to understand 

immigrants, minorities, and 

aboriginal populations, but 

also the very way in which 

a rhetoric of nations and 

nationalism shapes the rep- 

resentation of political com- 

munity. 

Membership in a society 

is an issue of social solidarity 

and cultural identity as well as 

legally constructed state citi- 

zenship.  (104–5) 

Calhoun goes on to argue that broad- 

ening our understanding of citizenship 

requires attention to distinctions among 

different modes of social belonging. This 

is his most intriguing idea—that citizen- 

ship can serve as a safeguard against the 

darker sides of ethnicity and national-

THE HEDGEHOG REVIEW / FALL 2008 

36 

ism. Citizenship, then, becomes a meso- 

level theoretical tool (or, if you prefer, 

a metaphorical tool) for imagining the 

space between the demands of a dense 

web of local networks (for example, kin 

groups) and the cultural conformity 

associated with nationalism. Calhoun’s 

conception of public space—a space of 

discourse but also a space in which legal 

entitlements can be enforced—mediates 

between a diversity of interpersonal rela- 

tions and large-scale cultural categories. 

Thus, Calhoun makes the case in chap- 

ter 5 for the creation of public space, a 

space for engaging in discourse, perhaps 

even critical-rational discourse as Jürgen 

Habermas suggests, but also something 

beyond critical-rational discourse— 

a space to make culture and even to 

remake identities. 

Chapter 6, “Inventing the Opposition 

of Ethnic and Civic Nationalism: Hans 

Kohn and The Idea of Nationalism,” is 

the most impressive accomplishment of 

this volume. Calhoun critically examines 

the accepted notions of ethnic and civic 

nationalism by revisiting Hans Kohn’s 

1944 work, The Idea of Nationalism. He 

makes a compelling case for reinterpret- 

ing Kohn for contemporary audiences. 

Calhoun admires Kohn’s optimism about 

nationalism and his insistence about its 

importance for liberalism. For Kohn, 

liberal nationalism could serve as a valu- 

able step on the path to cosmopolitan 

integration. Calhoun finds this convic- 

tion remarkable in the context of 1940s’ 

politics—the rise of the Nazis, World 

War II, the threat of National Socialism, 

events that tended to highlight the evil 

side of nationalism. Calhoun sees Kohn’s 

sustained, and largely positive, attention 

to nationalism as holding valuable les- 

sons for contemporary liberals: 

Many have rejected nation- 

alism as a fundamentally 

illiberal imposition of the col- 

lectivity over the individual, 

of ethnic loyalty over human 

rights, and of tradition over 

reason. And even more com- 

monly, liberalism has swept its 

own tacit reliance on nation- 

alist thinking under the car- 

pet, failing to analyze why the 

population of any one country 

belonged there and why the 

state was entitled to keep oth- 

ers out. Liberalism generally 

took up questions about how 

to advance justice and liberty 

within “societies,” didn’t much 

examine what made a society 

a society, and (except when 

prodded by war) was vague 

on the relationship between 

a world of such distinct soci- 

eties and sovereign states and 

the rights of individuals in the 

world as a whole. These issues 

have come to the fore recently 

in response to globalization, 

with many liberals struggling 

with national identities and 

state boundaries and pro- 

claiming adherence to a more 

cosmopolitan ideal.  (126–7) 

Calhoun admits that The Idea of 

Nationalism has influenced its readers 

most by contrasting ethnic nationalism 

(read: irrational and particularistic) with 

civic nationalism (read: rational and uni- 

versalistic). However, he instead chooses 

to reinterpret it with an eye towards 

the insights that it offers about the link 

between nationalism and liberalism. In 

Calhoun’s eyes, Kohn was ahead of the 

wave of postwar modernization projects. 

37 

BOOK REVIEW 

Calhoun traces this insight to Kohn’s 

unlikely synthesis of values from cultural 

Zionism with Enlightenment liberalism. 

Kohn’s belief in the spiritual foundations 

of democracy indeed transcends the tra- 

ditional dualism inherent in contrasting 

ethnic with civic nationalism. This insight 

is undoubtedly a product of Kohn’s 

remarkable biography, which Calhoun 

weaves nicely throughout chapter 6. 

Nations Matter can be read as a 

defense of nationalism, a critique of lib- 

eral cosmopolitanism, or, in my view, an 

insightful look at citizenship today. He 

insists that a failure to appreciate the 

power of nations to motivate collective 

responsibility through solidarity will lead 

to unintended pernicious politics. He 

then begins to point towards citizenship 

and the creation of public space as the 

hopeful antidote for liberal pipe dreams. 

We can anticipate that Calhoun will con- 

tinue to explore the relationship between 

modes of belonging and political partici- 

pation and that he will continue to sup- 

ply us with nuanced observations about 

the emergence of globalization. For stu- 

dents of citizenship, Calhoun is a man 

to watch. 

Regina Smardon is an associate fellow 

at the Institute for Advanced Studies in 

Culture. She completed her Ph.D. in soci- 

ology at the University of Pennsylvania and 

is currently working on a book based on her 

fieldwork in a small Appalachian commu- 

nity that explores the meaning of disability 

and citizenship.