Popular nationalism reproduced exclusion by demanding linguistic uniformity

Evidence

At the same time, slowly increasing literacy (by 1869 one third of the adult population), the spread of print-Magyar, and the growth of a small, but energetic, liberal intelligentsia all stimulated a popular Hungarian nationalism conceived very differently from that of the nobility. This popular nationalism, symbolized for later generations by the figure of Lajos Kossuth (1802–1894), had its hour of glory in the Revolution of 1848. The revolutionary regime not only got rid of the imperial governors appointed by Vienna, but abolished the supposedly Ur-Magyar feudal Diet of Noble Counties, and proclaimed reforms to put an end to serfdom and noblemen’s tax-exempt status, as well as to curb drastically the entailment of estates. In addition, it was decided that all Hungarian-speakers should be Hungarian (as only the privileged had been before) and every Hungarian should speak Magyar (as only some Magyars had hitherto been accustomed to do). As Ignotus drily comments, ‘The “nation” was, by the standard of that time (which viewed the rise of the twin stars of Liberalism and Nationalism with boundless optimism), justified in feeling itself extremely generous when it “admitted” the Magyar peasant with no discrimination save for that relating to property; and the non-Magyar Christians on condition they became Magyar; and eventually, with some reluctance and a delay of twenty years, the Jews.’ Kossuth’s own position, in his fruitless negotiations with leaders of the various non-Magyar minorities, was that these peoples should have exactly the same civil rights as the Magyars, but that since they lacked ‘historical personalities’ they could not form nations on their own. Today, this position may seem a trifle arrogant. It will appear in a better light if we recall that the brilliant, young, radical-nationalist poet Sándor Petófi (1823–1849), a leading spirit of 1848, on one occasion referred to the minorities as ‘ulcers on the body of the motherland.’ — Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities, 386

Categorization

• XREF: The exclusionary core of ‘liberating’ nationalism echoes Anderson’s account of the imagined community’s limits and scaffolds readings on how national identity defines who belongs and who is cast out. — connects to: Tribal nationalism is introverted and measures a people by inner qualities rather than achievements — Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 577; Peoples without states fell back on language and ethnicity as national identity; Languages came to be seen as the property of specific national communities — Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on…, 345 (+15 more)
• DEEPTHINKING: The phrase ‘lack historical personalities so they cannot form nations’ distills how nationalism weaponizes history itself — a mechanism the Islamophobia field relies on when analyzing who is granted belonging.

Related

• Peoples without states fell back on language and ethnicity as national identity (similarity 0.87)
• Language policy framed as zero-sum triggered counter-nationalism. (similarity 0.82)
• Hungarian nationalism was born from proving the vernacular fit the highest literary genre (similarity 0.79)
• Hungarian noble elites shifted their political language from Latin to Magyar (similarity 0.78)
• Once a national-state model exists, even reactionary nationalisms must adopt populist standards (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Early American nationalisms did not depend on language difference #contradicts (0.75) — Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities, 212
• Colonial administrative language can become the lingua franca of anticolonial nationalism #qualifies (0.70) — Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities, 667
• Language and culture cannot confer national belonging without shared experience #expands (0.70) — Frantz Fanon, A Dying Colonialism, 572