High-capacity states’ homogenization efforts paradoxically breed rival nationalist claims to self-determination

Evidence

By the twentieth century, the growth of territorially extensive highcapacity states with their own programs of cultural homogenization through education, the media, and ritual representation of their histories had produced a paradoxical situation. On one side, every regime above a very small scale actually contained a wide variety of populations, cultures, and territories; international migration and the expansion of states from core areas into new territories limited the effects of top-down homogenization. On the other side, state-led efforts fortified two nationalistic claims that often contradicted each other: … We control the state, and therefore we have the right to define the nation. … We are a separate nation, and therefore we have the right to our own state. … When well-connected, culturally distinct minorities occupied contiguous territories, the second claim often justified demands for autonomy or secession. The Soviet Union’s breakup featured a sensational series of nationalist demands, based largely on the titular nationalities around which Communist leaders had built their Moscow-centered rule (Beissinger 1993, Box 7. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 1021

Categorization

• XREF: The two rival claims map usefully onto the reader’s test case: dominant groups claim the state defines the nation while subordinate groups claim nationhood justifies a state — institutionally absorbing politicization may work differently for each. — connects to: State homogenization programs bred contradictory nationalist claims that spur secession — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 1021; Assimilationist colonial policies generate nationalist independence movements; Exploitative colonial systems routinely produce nationalist independence movements — Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 2198 (+3 more)
• QUESTION: This ‘contradiction’ between the two claims is exactly where the asymmetry in rights-regimes could bite — does Tilly elsewhere specify which claim state institutions absorb and which they fuel?
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 1021

Broader Connections

• Coercive Americanization backfired, driving minorities into their own defensive nationalisms #exemplifies (0.88) — John Higham, Strangers in the Land, 1531
• State homogenization programs bred contradictory nationalist claims that spur secession #corroborates (0.83) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 1021
• Assimilationist colonial policies generate nationalist independence movements #exemplifies (0.78)
• Supranational empires educated subject nations in tribal nationalism by pitting nationalities against each other #expands (0.75) — Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 599
• Exploitative colonial systems routinely produce nationalist independence movements #exemplifies (0.74) — Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 2198
• National self-determination triumph triggered the nation-state’s own disintegration #complicates (0.73) — Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 680