Mario Maritan

The notion of ‘liberal nationalism,' popularized by Yael Tamir, has become a mainstay of nationalism studies. Recent years have witnessed its revival alongside debates on the persistence of nationalism in contemporary politics. The Italian nationalist ideologue Giuseppe Mazzini is often cited as the leading historical exponent of this inclusive form of nationalism. Mazzini is portrayed as a liberal because of his democratic and republican stances – which is yet a depiction originating from limited engagement with his writings, the repetition of Italian national narratives steeped in anti-Austrian rhetoric, and customary conflations of democracy with political liberalism. This article reassesses Mazzini’s alleged role as a founding figure of ‘liberal nationalism.’ Through textual analysis of his Duties of Man and related works, it shows that while Mazzini’s nationalism was democratic, it was not liberal. His emphasis on collective duties and cultural homogeneity placed him at odds with political liberalism, concerned with limiting state interference in individual life, and liberal democracy. Without directly assessing the normative validity of ‘liberal nationalism,' the article challenges its purported Mazzinian genealogy by questioning the historical accuracy of grounding it in Mazzini, thereby inviting a reconsideration of the historical and conceptual foundations of the idea of ‘liberal nationalism.'

Following Benedict Anderson and the opening definition in Ernest Gellner’s Nations and Nationalism, often treated as definitive, prominent political scientists conflate patriotism, nation-building, and a desire for self-determination with nationalism. The result is a consensus among scholars of nationalism that nationalism is even benign and liberal. Yet these views are based on ahistorical assumptions, including the belief that the creation of mono-national states à la Mazzini was progressive. In fact, most nationalism scholars dismiss the last three decades of Habsburg and Central European historiography, which has refuted the national narratives on which the classic theories of nationalism and much political science are based. Focusing on the Habsburg context, this interdisciplinary article corrects several assumptions of nationalism scholarship, in particular highlighting the distinctions between nationalism, on the one hand, and diverse forms of national allegiance, dynastic patriotism, supranationalism, and Landespatriotismus, on the other. Looking through the Habsburg lens shows that nationalism cannot be reduced to patriotism and nationality, but reflects an illiberal aspiration towards culturally homogenous societies.