You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
This lesson examines the dark side of nationalism: expansionist (chauvinistic) nationalism and ethnic nationalism. Where liberal nationalism treats self-determination as a right belonging equally to all peoples, these strands turn nationalism into something quite different — an assertion of one nation's superiority and its right to dominate, exclude, or even destroy others. The Edexcel specification names Charles Maurras (1868–1952) as the key thinker of this aggressive nationalism, and his doctrine of integral nationalism supplies the theoretical core of the lesson. Understanding these strands is essential for the 24-mark question, because they furnish the strongest evidence for the case that nationalism can be a force for oppression and atrocity — and because evaluating whether the problem lies in nationalism as such or only in its distorted forms is one of the topic's central debates. A candidate who can hold the catastrophes of expansionist and ethnic nationalism in view and explain precisely how they differ from the liberal and anti-colonial strands is equipped to write with the balance and discrimination that the very top band demands.
Expansionist nationalism is a form of nationalism that seeks to extend the nation's power, territory, and influence beyond its existing borders. It crosses the line from self-determination (governing yourself) to domination (governing others). It is frequently described as chauvinistic — the word "chauvinism", derived from the name of a legendary over-zealous Napoleonic soldier, denoting an aggressive, boastful, and irrational devotion to one's own nation coupled with contempt for others. Whereas liberal nationalism treats the nation as one community of equal worth among many, expansionist nationalism treats it as uniquely superior and therefore entitled to lead, absorb, or rule its neighbours. It is the form of nationalism that turns most readily into war, since its very premise — that the nation's greatness must be expressed through dominance — sets it on a collision course with the equal claims of other peoples.
| Feature | Description |
|---|---|
| National superiority | The nation is believed to be inherently superior to others — in culture, race, or historic destiny |
| Territorial expansion | The nation has a right, or even a duty, to expand its territory — to unite all co-nationals, or to seize resources and strategic advantage |
| Militarism | Military power is central to national greatness; war is glorified as the supreme test of national vitality |
| Imperialism | The nation has a "mission" to civilise, lead, or dominate other peoples |
| Chauvinism | Extreme, irrational loyalty to the nation, combined with contempt and hostility towards other nations |
The spec-named thinker of aggressive nationalism is Charles Maurras (1868–1952), the French writer and founder of the Action Française movement, whose doctrine of integral nationalism (nationalisme intégral) gives this strand its theoretical heart.
For Maurras, integral nationalism was an intensely emotional nationalism in which individuals submerge themselves into the nation. The nation is not, as for the liberal, a community that exists to secure the rights of its members; it is a supreme organic whole to which the individual owes total devotion and in which the individual finds his true identity and meaning. The good of the nation overrides every other consideration, including the rights and even the lives of individuals.
Several features of Maurras's thought are worth grasping precisely:
Maurras matters because he articulates, in theoretical form, the logic that distinguishes aggressive from liberal nationalism: the elevation of the nation into an absolute, before which the individual disappears. This is the doctrine that, carried to its extreme by movements far more radical than Maurras's own, would underwrite the catastrophes of the twentieth century.
It is illuminating to set Maurras directly against Mazzini, the spec's liberal nationalist, because the two define the same ideology in opposite ways. Both treat the nation as an object of intense devotion; but for Mazzini that devotion is outward-looking and fraternal — Italy's mission takes its place among the equal missions of all free nations — whereas for Maurras it is inward-turning and exclusive, defining the nation against its enemies, both foreign and domestic, and recognising no equal claims beyond its borders. For Mazzini the nation serves humanity; for Maurras humanity is an abstraction and only the nation is real. For Mazzini the individual is fulfilled through free participation in the national community; for Maurras the individual is absorbed and effaced by it. This contrast crystallises the single most important lesson of the whole topic: that the difference between nationalism's liberating and oppressive forms is not a difference of intensity — both are passionate — but a difference in how the nation is conceived and how it relates to the individual and to other nations.
Each of the following cases shows the same underlying move — the claim that the nation's greatness entitles it to dominate others — and together they make the case that expansionist nationalism has been among the most destructive forces in modern history.
1. German expansionism (nineteenth–twentieth century). Pan-Germanism sought to unite all German-speaking peoples in a single state, already an expansionist demand since it implied absorbing territory and populations across existing borders. The Nazi concept of Lebensraum ("living space") radicalised this into a programme of outright territorial conquest in Eastern Europe, where Slavic populations were to be displaced or enslaved to make room for German settlement. Hitler's ideology thus fused ethnic nationalism, racial supremacy, and territorial expansion in their most extreme form — and the result was the Second World War and the Holocaust, the deadliest expression of nationalism the world has seen.
2. Japanese imperialism. Japan pursued aggressive expansion across East Asia in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, conquering Korea, much of China including Manchuria, and large swathes of Southeast Asia. This was justified by a belief in Japanese racial and cultural superiority and a self-proclaimed destiny to lead a "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" — a phrase that dressed up imperial domination as regional liberation, illustrating how expansionist nationalism cloaks the subjugation of others in the language of mission and benevolence.
3. Fascist Italy. Mussolini's Italy pursued territorial expansion — invading Ethiopia (1935) and Albania (1939) — and linked this to the dream of restoring the glory of the Roman Empire. The invocation of a glorious imperial past to justify present conquest is a recurring feature of expansionist nationalism, which characteristically grounds its claims in a mythologised history of former greatness that it promises to restore.
4. The "Scramble for Africa" (1880s–1900s). The European powers — Britain, France, Germany, Belgium — competed to partition almost the entire African continent among themselves, justifying conquest through a combination of national rivalry, racial ideology, and the supposed "civilising mission". The Scramble shows how seamlessly nationalism and imperialism fused in the age of empire: national prestige was measured in colonial possessions, and the asserted superiority of the European nation became the licence for the domination of others — the very contradiction, claiming self-rule while denying it to others, that lies at the heart of expansionist nationalism.
Expansionist nationalism collapses the distinction between nationalism and imperialism, and the resulting contradiction is the key to evaluating it:
Expansionist nationalists assert their own nation's right to self-determination while flatly denying that same right to others — claiming sovereignty for themselves and dominion over everyone else. This is why expansionist nationalism is, in the strict sense, a betrayal of the principle of self-determination rather than an application of it: it universalises the nation's power while particularising the nation's rights.
Ethnic nationalism (or ethno-nationalism) defines the nation in terms of shared ethnicity, descent, and ancestry. Membership of the nation is determined not by political choice or civic participation but by birth — by who one's ancestors were. Because belonging is a matter of blood rather than allegiance, there is no act of will by which an outsider can join: one is either born into the ethnic nation or forever outside it, which is the deep root of the strand's exclusivity. At its hardest edge, where descent is reconceived as biological "race", ethnic nationalism shades into the racialism identified in the opening lesson as the ideology's extreme fringe.
| Feature | Description |
|---|---|
| Ethnic identity | The nation is an ethnic community defined by common ancestry, descent, and (in extreme forms) "blood" |
| Exclusion | Those who do not share the ethnic identity are denied full membership of the nation |
| Cultural purity | The nation's culture and bloodline must be preserved against foreign "dilution" |
| Homeland | The nation possesses an ancestral homeland regarded as belonging exclusively to the ethnic group |
| Blood and soil (Blut und Boden) | A slogan of German ethnic nationalism linking the nation to its racial bloodline and ancestral territory |
The clearest way to grasp ethnic nationalism is to set it against the civic conception examined in the previous lesson:
| Civic nationalism | Ethnic nationalism |
|---|---|
| Nation defined by shared political values | Nation defined by shared ethnicity and descent |
| Open — one can join by adopting the nation's values | Closed — membership is fixed by birth |
| Inclusive — accommodates diversity | Exclusionary — minorities are marginalised |
| Forward-looking — based on a shared future commitment | Backward-looking — based on inherited ancestral ties |
The historical record of ethnic nationalism is, tragically, a record of some of the worst atrocities of the modern era, and a strong answer uses these examples not as a list but as evidence for a thesis about what happens when the nation is defined by blood and descent and captures the power of the state.
1. Nazi Germany. The most extreme case in history. The Nazi regime defined the German nation in racial terms: "Aryan" Germans were proclaimed a master race, while Jews, Roma, Slavs, and others were classified as racially inferior. This racial-ethnic nationalism led directly to the Holocaust — the systematic, industrialised murder of six million Jews and millions of other victims. The Nazi case shows the terminus of the logic traced in this lesson: when the nation is conceived as a racial body whose purity must be defended, those defined as outside the race cease, in the eyes of the regime, to be fully human, and their extermination can be presented as a kind of national hygiene. It fuses every pathological element — integral subordination of the individual, chauvinist glorification of struggle, ethnic exclusion, and biological racialism — into a single catastrophe.
2. The Yugoslav Wars (1991–2001). The violent breakup of Yugoslavia was driven by competing ethnic nationalisms — Serbian, Croatian, and Bosniak movements each seeking an ethnically homogeneous state out of a population that had long been intermingled. Ethnic cleansing — the forced removal or killing of ethnic minorities to create "pure" national territory — was used systematically, most notoriously in the Srebrenica massacre (1995), in which thousands of Bosniak men and boys were murdered. The Yugoslav case demonstrates the peculiarly destructive potential of ethnic nationalism where rival groups share the same land: because the ethnic conception of the nation cannot accommodate a mixed population, it generates pressure to "unmix" it by violence, turning neighbours into enemies almost overnight.
3. The Rwandan genocide (1994). Ethnic hatred between the Hutu majority and the Tutsi minority, inflamed by relentless ethnic-nationalist propaganda that dehumanised Tutsis as alien invaders, produced the genocide of roughly 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus in around 100 days. Rwanda illustrates with terrible clarity the self-fulfilling character of ethnic nationalism: ethnic categories that had been partly hardened under colonial rule were weaponised by political elites who manufactured the very fear and hatred they claimed merely to be channelling, with ordinary people drawn into mass killing of those they had lived alongside.
4. Contemporary ethnic nationalism. Ethnic nationalism is not confined to the past. Hindu nationalism (Hindutva) in India defines Indian identity in Hindu religious and cultural terms, tending to marginalise Muslims and other minorities and to recast a constitutionally secular and pluralist republic as the homeland of one religious community. White nationalism in parts of the United States and Europe asserts the primacy of a white identity and opposes immigration, multiculturalism, and ethnic diversity, sometimes invoking conspiratorial fears of national "replacement". These contemporary movements show that the ethnic conception of the nation retains its appeal and its dangers wherever populations feel their inherited identity to be under threat.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.