Introduction- The modernist school have made great use of “the nation” in their analysis of contemporary European society. But there is a possibility that this work has led theory along a blind alley. The prevalence of work on the nation conceals a paucity of work on the state, particularly in the political anthropology of Europe. This is ironic in the sense that the nation has been referred to as a means of concealing the machinations of the state in society (Grillo, pg 8). This essay will investigate the role of the state in the construction of the nation and its manipulations of national boundaries for its own purposes. It is intended to serve as an indication of the possibilities for anthropological analysis of the nation-state (rather than simply the nation without reference to the state) as an everyday community and as a producer of meaning.The section on the definition of the terms to be used is intended to elucidate the ways that the different forces (of nation, state, nation-state etc) relate to each other. This leads to a summary based on the role of violence and borders which cuts across the entire discussion. It will be argued that the state produces the nation by three crucial processes. Firstly, through the construction of a pacified interior, the state creates the conscripted body of the inmate population. This relates to the state allocation of categories, such as “human”, and the way that this involves both state ownership of the body and the exclusion of the non-national “other”. Secondly, the self-producing external encounter produces the national self via the manipulation of border systems. After briefly considering tourism as a means of packaging and consuming national cultures, this section turns to the main ethnographic evidence of the essay. This information is derived from informal participant-observation undertaken during October 2000 at the Home Office in Croydon. It is not the purpose of this essay to provide an insight into the politics of immigration per se. The topic is employed as a vehicle to get under the skin of the state’s physical creation of categorical boundaries and cultural meaning via the mechanism of national borders within the functionary-client relationship. The asylum applicant is compared to the conscripted body in terms of state ownership, national membership and the allocation of humanity. Thirdly, this is followed by a brief discussion of the universal military experience and the role of mass industrialised militarism on the home front in the construction of the nation.

Banal “Statism”-The modernist school of Anderson and Gellner etc has popularised an understanding of the nation as an “imagined community” (Anderson, pg 7) . Billig achieves the singular success of fusing the analysis of Anderson with that of James C. Scott and others. Scott’s theories of everyday (masked) resistance helped to relocate radical power relations to the informal local spheres that anthropologists have been traditionally comfortable with (e.g. Scott, pg 234). Billig’s theory of banal nationalism (Billig, pg 6) fits safely within this pre-established comfort zone of recent ideas. He outlines the daily reproduction of the nation through “flagging”, the unconscious, everyday manipulation of national symbols and discursive deixis (ibid, pg 8, pg 107). This is, at first, a very seductive chain of reasoning. We find the nation justified and reproduced daily at exactly the correct, everyday, level of vision. We find the false consciousness “re-imagined” and further shown to be an adept illusion of motivation at the emotional, identitative level. However, his work is a classic example of depoliticised cosmopolitanism. The observation of the everyday reproduction here obscures the nature of that which is being reproduced. It is not simply “the nation” that is being flagged. A much earlier observation of a similar phenomenon, this time couched in different terminology, comes from Kropotkin-

“From the cradle to the grave all our actions are guided by this principle. Open any book on sociology or jurisprudence, and you will find there the Government, its organisation, its acts, filling so large a place that we come to believe that there is nothing outside the Government and the world of statesmen. The Press teaches us the same in every conceivable way. Whole columns are devoted to parliamentary debates and to political intrigues; while the vast everyday life of a nation appears only in the columns given to economic subjects, or in the pages devoted to reports of police and law cases... and yet as soon as we pass from printed matter to life itself…. We are struck by the infinitesimal part played by the Government.” (page 43).

The modernists describe the production of an imaginary sense of communal identity, but what is described above is a very definite relation of power to cultural domination. The imaginary content lies in the illusion that the government is all-pervasive, omnipresent and naturally essential. The production of this illusion could be referred to as banal “statism”. Somehow it seems as if the modernists may have been looking in the wrong place. The state uses the nation as a veil to hide its face (Grillo, pg 8). Discussing the state controlled process of nationalism entirely in the context of the nation, rather than the state, is indicative of a failure to pierce the veil. It is possible to argue that the concept of “the nation” has been utilised as a ploy to reintroduce the problematised “state” into the viewfinder (Magnusson, pg 279). The state had been “neglected by social scientists and ignored by anthropologists” (Grillo, pg 19). They claimed to have discovered a more fundamental human reality, of which the state was a mere reflection (Magnusson, pg 279). In the daily newspapers, it may be the country or the notion of the nation that is referred to textually, but implicit behind this is the notion of the state which has produced “the nation”. At this point it would be useful to present a clarification of the definitions to be employed of the various terms, including the state, the nation and the nation-state, all of which have been used as if interchangeable. It is not desirable to merely separate the terms, however. What is required is a more adequate fusing of the different realms, and a better understanding of how they relate to each other.

The Nation- The nation has been viewed as an ethnic formation (Dandeker, pg 22) and also as a second-hand term for “the people” of a given territory (e.g. John Stuart Mills quoted in Hobsbawm, pg 19). These are both unsatisfactory, but they do reveal some of the latent, assumed or implied meanings of the term. A cursory etymology of the term reveals implications of birthplace, apparently linking ethnicity to a given territory (e.g. natal, native etc). Yet a deeper historical etymology of usage reveals a more potent meaning. In pre-revolutionary France and imperial Germany, the term “nation” referred to the elite groups who enjoyed political status and who played a part in political actions (Schulze, pg 104, 103). After the French Revolution, the set of people who enjoyed political access changed (ibid, pg 155). Instead of the aristocracy (Cicero’s “nation”, ibid, pg 99) or the clergy, the new nation consisted of this “third estate”- the commons (after Sieyes, ibid, pg 155). Our modern notions of the nation, linked as they are to the nation-state and nationalism, have an almost inherent reference to the construction of others and a political/economic experience of “foreigners”. In the early points of formation, however, the nation emerges as a device concerned with the legitimisation of new regimes, constructed “from above” (Hobsbawm, 1990, pg 11), by the state, with implicit reference to the internal, rather than external populations. That the state creates the nation, rather than the nation creating the state, flies in the face of much nationalist discourse on the natural essence of the nation as a political form. But this is the crux of an important argument, and should not be avoided in discussions of the imaginary nature of the nation itself. The nation is formed within the “political framework provided by the state and its monopoly on violence within a territory” (Dandeker, pg 21, after Weber). It is an insistence on homogeneity and an appeal to order within a demarcated territory, the self made prison of the nation-state.

The State- “Not just a set of institutions staffed by bureaucrats who serve public interest. It also incorporates cultural and political forms, representations, discourse, practices and activities, and specific techniques and organisations of power that, taken together, help to define public interest, establish meaning and define and naturalise available social identities” (Nagengast in Donnan and Wilson, pg 154). The state is a complex system, and no easy definition is satisfactory, but it can be characterised by a particular form of behaviour- namely, violence. In his “Recollections and Essays”, Tolstoy opined that “the organisation of government is unimaginable without murders”. The classic Weberian reference to the monopoly on domestic violence must also be tied to an understanding of its role in inter-state violence. War is defined by the combat between, or for, states (Ostergaard in Tivey, pg 179). The essence of the state is coercive power, “organised violence” (Kropotkin, quoted by Ostergaard in Tivey, pg 185), without war, the state has no moral authority, and no legitimacy (Proudhon, quoted in Jabri, pg 98). The modern state may manipulate the tool of nationalism to provide a greater degree of mythic/emotional legitimacy, but its primary legitimacy is tied to violence and, therefore, the nationalist endeavour must too be tied to violence in order to function.

The Nation-State- The nation-state as “bordered power container” has been characterised as “a set of institutional forms of governance maintaining an administrative monopoly over a territory within demarcated boundaries, its rule being sanctioned by law and direct control of the means of internal and external violence” (Giddens, pg 121). But this does not differ greatly from our Weberian understanding of the normative, territorially assured, state. It is important to extract what is unique about the political formation that attaches the “nation” to the state. It has been more accurately described as “a political entity that emerges as a result of claims by an ethnic nation for political autonomy” (Harvey, pg 95), but this places analysis at the wrong end of the chicken and the egg. Here, the nation-state is being offset against the “state-nation”, which consists of a state manipulating the discourse of nationalism to gain legitimacy (ibid). This is a false conception based on a misunderstanding of the temporality of claims to ethnicity. Firstly, political claims to ethnic-based autonomy do not occur “organically” (in that they are always politically motivated constructions) and they do not occur universally, somehow embedded within an ethnic group prior to political mobilisation (Eriksen, 1995, pg 277). Secondly, once an ethnically construed nation-state has been formed, the “ethnic nation” does not remain automatically projected into its future. The nation, and the ethnic group that it supposedly represents, must be reiterated and reconstructed daily. Harvey’s “state-nation” definition can instead be taken as an adequate definition of the nation-state.

Nationalism- Nationalism, the “god of modernity”, has been described as the “belief that the political and national units should be congruent” (Hobsbawm, 1990, pg 10, Gellner, in Harvey, pg 58). Ideologically, it insists upon its naturalistic origins, its organic political nature (Tivey, pg 4), upon the conception of nations as “God’s thoughts” (Von Ranke quoted in Schulze, pg 6). Psychologically, it exists within a set of symbols that emphasise “communality among the members of a political order” and downplay internal difference (Giddens, pg 116). The success of this emphasis upon homogeneity relies upon a variety of macro-level factors such as the egality of distribution and social differentiation (Azzi, in Dandeker, pg 10). Although nationalism is often tackled as a discourse of “the people”, or primarily of the working classes, it is in reality a state manufactured ideology guided by the interests of “privileged minorities” (Ostergard, pg 187, in Tivey).

The unimagined community-The ideology of nationalism is the antithesis of culturally-relative cosmopolitan anthropology. There has been great success and agreement on the assertion that the nation is an imaginary formation and that it has no existence outside of it’s imagery (e.g. Smith, pg 5). But is this really the pinnacle of the anthropological investigation of modern Europe? In the search for community-level analysis in the post-modern environment, social scientists have found an easy target in the “imagined community” of the nation (Anderson, pg 7), but have made two tactical errors. Firstly, modernist insistence on the “fake community” of the nation implies an unproblematic “real community” in pre-modern society and an unproblematic differentiation between the two social models. These classificatory divisions could themselves be seen as the products of a nationalist discourse which relies upon traditional/modern differentiation to produce the modern nation-state (Harvey, pg 59). Secondly, they address the nation, and national identities, in a political vacuum, with no reference to the “institutional context” of the modern state (Donnan and Wilson, pg 63, pg152). Even without reference to the political dimension, an entirely cultural investigation (if such a thing were imaginable) would still need to take account of the state, which is itself a culture-producing mechanism. In addition, far from the imagined community of the nation, there exists a real community of the state. Located within this community are the everyday dynamics of the relationships between the governed and the governing. An investigation of this community could tease out the functionary-client model postulated by Grillo as a development of the patron-client model found in much Mediterranean anthropology (Grillo, pg 20). These relations embody the social practices that contain political power (Donnnan and Wilson, pg 154). Apart from a few depoliticised forays into the anthropology of organisations and bureaucracy (Mary Douglas, Sue Wright etc), this work remains largely incomplete.

Border-skins- The nation is always a strategic deployment of, if not the legitimised state, then at least of the political power brokers. This deployment is utilised to engender loyalty, and can safely be regarded as “nationalism”, as long as the implicit political play has been made explicit. Nationalism, in this context, can be utilised for three purposes. Firstly, it secures a territory for state purposes (taxation and smuggling, security and surveillance). Secondly it humanises an internal population (national service, citizenship). Thirdly it dehumanises an external population (war, wartime rape, concentration camps, ethnic cleansing). Thus we see it relates to the process of rooting a specified group of people within the prison walls of the nation-state. Once penned in, their humanity is assured through their participation in the construction of the pen and in their dehumanising of those on the outside.

An example of these processes can be found in the sexualisation of borders. Donnan and Wilson provide many interesting accounts of border zones as areas of sanctioned/tolerated prostitution (especially the German/Czech border and the US/Mexican border zones). This kind of anthropology helps to locate the political within the body, but it is also possible to push through such considerations to an analysis of the sexualisation of borders at the international political level. The sexualisation of borders relates to the (state controlled) functionalistic construction of the nation-state as a physical body that is polymorphously perverse. The discourse of war, for example, involves the humanising of the internal, or captive group, and the aggressively psycho-sexual penetration of the enemy. The body is polymorphously perverse in that the border-skin is indiscriminately sensate, or politically hypersensitive- the slightest touch can be construed as an act of penetration. This functionalistic rendering of the national body as a union-physicality is akin to the process of body-space extension experienced by motorists. The proxemic extension of personal territory to encase the vehicle results in expressions such as “S/he hit me” to describe one person’s car colliding with another’s (Fast, pg 44). It is obvious to compare this with the deixical expression of penetration such as “They invaded us”.

These observations reveal that the processes of nation-state construction and reconstruction relate to three essential phenomena- the internal pacification of inmate populations, the self-producing external encounter and the universal military experience. All of these are mediated through, and directed by, the state apparatus at the everyday crossroads of cultural and political experience .

Internal pacification- Internal pacification relates to the construction of the demarcated territory as an open prison, and of the internal population as an “inmate population”. It relates to the external encounter in the sense of state allocation of humanity-nationality and it relates to the universal military experience in terms of conscription. “National service” and wartime conscription are among the greatest state weapons of nationalism (Ostergaard, in Tivey, pg 117). Their message is implicitly located in the body, primarily in the state ownership of the body (Donnan and Wilson, pg 129). The conscripted body is a site of active political power relations, it is stripped of its presumptions to autonomy, its individual markings of hair, clothes etc, and is pressed into a blank, national, mould. Militaristic conditioning involves, for example, the psycho-sexual re-orientation found in enforced periods of celibacy and organised prostitution, and the genital identification with automatic weaponry. The experience of national service or conscription bestows citizenship, or full membership, a form of adult-hood and socio-political access that is peculiar in its nature to the nation-state. Its peculiarity resides in its connection to territorial security and the national border (witness the “national guard”, the “territorial army” etc). The allocation of citizenship confers humanity on the inmate population, as opposed to the dehumanised zoomorphic representations of outsiders (an example of this is the common coincidence of the word for “member” and the word for “human”- Giddens, pg 117).

Like so many devices ostensibly designed for “our own safety and security”, the national border is a mechanism of social control, and the nation-state can be understood as an open prison. Nationality confers a captive status. Entitled to rights in a given territory, the right of existence outside of that territory are hard won. People are trapped within “a grid of factory, family, school, army, prison, city and the national territory” (Poulantzas, pg 105). Through instruments such as universal suffrage, nationality and conscription, the masses have been “persuaded to cooperate in the building of their own prison” (Proudhon, quoted by Ostergaard, in Tivey, pg 126). This domestic pen can be compared to nation-state institutions such as the concentration camp. Concentration camps, like the national territory, concretise the spatial “power matrix”, they embody the template of the state system’s control mechanism (Poulantzas, pg 105). Imprisonment through nationality is undertaken via the body by violent means (Rocker, quoted by Ostergarrd, in Tivey pg 187). Other examples consist in the consolidation of national territory over the hinterlands (such as Wales and Scotland in the UK) or subjugation of an indigenous population (USA, Australia, New Zealand etc).

Self-producing external encounter- The rise of travel within Europe, the rise of contact with “foreigners” and experiences abroad were essential factors of the construction of nationalistic “us-feeling”, the sense of national inculcation (Schulze, pg 106). Specifically, the British conception of the national/racial self was a product of colonialism and the denial of “Britishness” to members of the subjugated empire (Wilson, pg 88). Without the creation of the “Other”, the external population, there can be no internal population, no inmates. Group sentiments are always exclusionary (Barth, quoted by Giddens, pg 116). The process of exclusion creates a “defensive hatred” for the outsider (Kristeva, quoted by Jarbri, pg 138). The structural categories of civilisation/wilderness (Donnan and Wilson, pg 100) that argue for the sanctity of the prison wall’s borders are dependent on this creative action. One essential mode of this creation in the modern nation-state is the tourist project. Tourism “embodies the largest single movement of human populations around the globe outside wartime” (Rapport and Overing, pg 353). In some ways tourism, with its attendant luggage of cultural imperialism, serves as a peacetime alternative to troop movements. It provides the gateway to the orient, the exotic, and to the primitive encounters abroad with the “other” which serves to confirm the inmate-tourist’s own national self (Donnan and Wilson, pg 100). Tourism also involves the packaging of one’s own national culture for foreign consumption within the domestic market. This process is similar to the levels of national construction at events such as the expo (see Harvey). The monumentalisation of heritage sites and national nodes finds its greatest outlet in this activity, tied as it is to the intimate packaging of the domestic power sphere. For example, many anti-monarchists will concede that the Queen, and, more specifically, Buckingham Palace, ought to be preserved for their economic function in luring tourists to the UK. Thus the monarchy is reconstituted as a benefit to the national economy, rather than as a tedious drain on national resources. In the production and consumption of the “national entity” as a purchasable commodity, these inversions of power relations and dominance are commonplace. Symbols of dominant, or once-dominant elites are packaged alongside the symbols of the pacified- the rural idyll, the quaint peasant histories etc. These are rendered as souvenirs and objects and, through photography (the tourist’s Kalashnikov), time itself is produced as a consumer object.

Immigration can be understood as the inversion of tourism. In the masculine sexualisation of border-skins, penetration of another border and the transference/ejaculation of internal populations is a “safe” activity- witness the laxity of export controls. Conversely, the border-skin is highly sensitive to its penetration by any foreign bodies. At a policy level, immigration is generally deemed unsatisfactory or even dangerous (it is polluting in the sense of “foreign” diseases (Donnan and Wilson, pg 132) and can be portrayed as undermining domestic stability). Even the exemplary cases where such a penetration is deemed necessary (the Windrush or early American immigration), it is quickly denoted as regrettable by the manipulators of the national discourse. The recent Orwellian hate-week devoted to “bogus asylum seekers” is a case in point. The practical criminalization of immigrants enforces the policy of “bounded citizenship”, the subdued inmate population, and redeploys it for media sale and consumption (Donnan and Wilson 99). Categorisations of outsiders proceed to include “bloody, violent, dangerous, ugly, evil, animal-like, less than human” (Haas, pg 14). The dehumanisation of immigrants, like the subjugation of the inmate population, is located within the physical body, and recreates the border-zone sensitivity inside of the territory. To illustrate this process with reference to the functionary-client model, there follows a brief description of the physical experience entailed in the applicant for refugee status interviews.

The Home Office’s Immigration House is situated in Croydon, Surrey, just south of London, in the satellite/suburban heartland of southern England. Asylum seekers are summoned to appear for their assessment interviews in order to plead a case for refugee status. Entry to the building is strictly policed and potential applicants are forced to queue behind the main doorway before inspection. The queuing zone is comprised of a thin exterior corridor and a larger corral at the rear. The corral is broken up by a metal barrier which is too high to climb over and yet too low to climb under without an embarrassing prostration. In order to preserve their dignity, the applicants are therefore forced to herd around the rear entrance and make their way ridiculously up and down the length of the barrier several times, in full view of the queue. Legal representatives and independent translators have to parade before the queue with handwritten signs bearing the applicant’s name, much in the manner of the arrival zone at an airport. Once inside the building, the applicant’s papers are snatched from their hands and inspected. They are seldom ever addressed in person, or looked at. They are not expected to speak any English, and the bureaucratic documentation is allowed to do the talking for them, much in the manner of passports. Once allowed to proceed, they must approach a desk manned by two security officers . They are made to empty their pockets into a small tray, and their bags are searched. The guards wear sanitary plastic gloves as if performing a cavity search at Customs. The applicant will be repeatedly asked whether they have a cigarette lighter or any matches upon them. As this is an unexpected question, responses are often delayed or confused. These responses are greeted with weary and aggressive impatience, as if they are the first ones not to understand immediately what is being asked of them. They are then asked to walk through a free-standing metal detector, after which their possessions are returned to them (with the exception of the lighter which is retained). Depending on the nature of their interview and the number of departments that they have to visit, this procedure will be repeated a number of times at different points in the building.

This replication of border conditions in the heart of the territory (the internalisation of national frontiers- Poulantzas, pg 105) reveals the embodiment of national security at the level of internal state processes. This functionary-client relationship is a cluster of node points for the state deployment of national boundaries and the categorical allocation of humanity/citizenship. Dehumanisation through border-zone body politics promotes internal homogeneity (in this case a shared humanity) to the benefit of the warden state. It is a process of community domestication enacted through a national format (borders, foreigners, nationalities) by and for the state. As opposed to the conscripted body, the asylum applicant has not yet been accorded the status of state property. They may not be touched, nor may their possessions be touched and they may not yet be permitted their humanity. This process of application to domesticity feeds into the nationalist discourse for the expansion of state power, specifically the expansion of its ability to govern and allocate categorisations of humanity along the lines of natal or designated citizenship. An obvious side-effect lies in its success as a diversionary tactic, guiding the inmate population’s gaze away from internal social inequality and pitting the (in the main) working classes against the immigrant population in a competition over resources and space. A potent example is the ongoing myth of the displaced white council tenant in favour of the Asian family. The irony of this particular example lies in the sell-off of public-sector housing in the 1980s, a policy designed to enrich the state at the expense of the nation which is then re-presented as a consequence of immigration and an appeal to greater nationalist sentiment.

Universal military experience- Through the demise of the professional soldier in the late 18th Century and the spread of conscription, interstate wars expanded to draw the entire national population into the realm of physical/emotional militaristic control (Schulze). France was the first “nation in arms” (Osergaard, in Tivey, pg 117). The early French nation-state promoted the concept of citizenship through active participation in state enterprises, as discussed above (Giddens, 233). The mass industrialisation of war (Giddens, 116) concealed internal social differences through the emphasis on conformity, identification with the army, allegiance and economic production on the home front (Jabri, pg 99). The militarisation of the British “home front” during the second world war is a particular example of this process. It involves the domestic internalisation of the depersonalised militaristic mindset, creating a charged sense of national homogeneity (Jabri, pg 99).

Conclusion- The ultimate conclusion of these diverse ruminations is that the nation is constructed and controlled by the state, for the state, primarily through the deployment of violence (in a number of guises). The nationalist programme allows the state to present the given territory as an anthropomorphic projection of each individual citizen. This works through a functionalistic embodiment at the level of sexuality and humanity. The national body is promoted as a sexually sensitive masculine body and the people that it contains and represents are promoted as the only true humans. The image of the border as a protective skin (rather than as the walls of a self-made prison), and of the proxemic extension of vulnerable sensitivity to include the border, is one of the more substantial mechanisms by which this projection is achieved. The replication of border conditions in the interior of the territory for the purposes of dehumanising potential immigrants is reminiscent of both conscription and the concentration camp. This is due to the emphasis on nationally ascribed categories and to the state ownership of the body (its right to call up, imprison, employ etc). A differentiation between the conscripted body and the asylum applicant reveals the state management of ownership through the recreation of territorial borders and licensed physical procedures. The internal category of human and citizen is also produced to a large extent by this controlled encounter with, and production of, the “foreigner” (this production also relates to the presentation of national cultures and histories as consumer objects in tourism). It is enlightening to analyse the state-structured bureaucratic encounter with the “Other” because it reveals, through the appearance of dehumanising border tactics, the tying of humanity to nationality and the state’s control in the application of such categories.

What the anthropology of “complex”, “modern” societies has missed is precisely this community-level state deployment of national boundaries. The neglect appears to have originated in the quest for power within everyday social practices and a sense that these occur outside of the state. The weakness of this position is that is seeks to locate the state specifically within formal politics, whereas the state can be more usefully approached as a productive agent in the field of socio-cultural production. The Home Office is a formal Whitehall institution, but, through structured encounters such as that found at Immigration House, it is also a set of productive forces. A critical analysis of the process of nationalism that does not make explicit reference to the guiding hand of the state is as impotent as a nation without a state.

Bibliography-
Anderson, B. Imagined Communities. 1983. London.
Andreski, S. Max Weber on Capitalism, Bureaucracy and Religion. 1983. London.
Billig, M. Banal Nationalism. 1995. Sage.
Dandeker,C. (ed) Nationalism and Violence. 1998. Transaction.
Donnan, H
& Wilson, T. Borders: Frontiers of Identity, Nation and State.
1999. Berg.
Douglas, M. How Institutions Think. 1986. Routledge.
Eriksen, T.H. “Nationalism” in Ethnicity and Nationalism:
Anthropological Perspectives. 1993. London.
Eriksen, T.H. Small Places, Large Issues. 1995.
Ethnicity and Nationalism In Europe Today. Anthropology Today. Vol 8, No 1, Feb 1992.
Fast, J. Body Language. 1970. Pocket.
Gellner, E. Nations and Nationalism. 1983. Blackwell.
Giddens, A. The Nation State and Violence. 1985. Polity.
Grillo, R.D. (ed) “Nation” and “State” in Europe. 1980. London.
Haas, J. The Anthropology of War. 1990. Cambridge.
Harvey, P. Hybrids of Modernity. 1996. Routledge.
Hobsbawm, E.J. Nations and Nationalism since 1780. 1990. Cambridge.
Inventing Traditions. In “The Invention of Tradition”, eds Hobsbawm and Ranger. 1983. Cambridge.
Jabri, V. Discourses on Violence. 1996. Manchester.
Kropotkin, P. The Conquest of Bread. 1913. London.
Magnusson, W. The Search for Political Space. 1996. Toronto.
Poulantzas, N. State, Power, Socialism. 1978. NLB.
Rapport, N
& Overing, K. Social and Cultural Anthropology.2000. Routledge.
Schulze, H. States, Nations and Nationalism. 1994. Blackwell.
Scott, J.C. Weapons of the Weak. 1985. Yale.
Smith, A.D. “Gastronomy or Geology?” in Nations and Nationalism, Vol.1, No.1, 1995.
Tivey, C. (ed) The Nation State. 1981. Oxford.
Wilson, K. “Citizenship, Empire and Modernity in the English Provinces” in 18th Century Studies, Vol. 29, No. 1. 1995.

4984

Copyright Steve Cake 2005