From the beginning of the nineteenth century to the present day, the exploitation of the idea of 'the nation' has become an extremely powerful political tool throughout the world. During this period governments and political parties have exploited 'the nation' by cementing whilst at the same time exploiting, notions of 'the past.' 'The West' in particular, has used nationalism derived from the notion of 'the nation,' as a deliberate political device to subdue social unrest and placate populations that were becoming 'increasingly aware of their ability to alter their own destiny' (Hobsbawm, 1994, 177). 'The nation' and 'nationalism' are however separate entities that can arguably be associated with both imperialism and anti-imperialism with emancipation and aggression and with colonialism and post colonialism. So what actually constitutes a nation? What is a nation? Nation, given its dictionary definition, (when dealing with something that everyone seems to argue does not exist, it is interesting to note and use as a starting point an institutional definition), stems from the Latin 'to be born to.' It is then defined as 'a large aggregate of people so closely 'associated' with each other by factors such as common descent, language, culture, history, and occupation of the same territory as to be identified as a distinct people.' Concentrating on the idea of an 'association' the essay will argue that a nation does not really exist, other than in the mind of the individual, in their perception of 'self' and with the 'associations' that this idea of 'self' creates. In addition, the essay will try and identify when a nation emerges, what triggers the association, when is a nation?

So if a nation is not real then what exactly is it? For Achmed Sukarno, the most convincing descriptions of what a nation is, was contained in a short essay by Professor Taylor from Ohio University, who wrote:

'You would answer that the nation exists only in the minds and hearts of men. It is an idea. It is therefore more real than its courts and armies; more real than its cities, its mines, its cattle; more real than you and I are, for it existed in our fathers and will exist in our children. It is an idea, it is an imagination, it is a spirit, it is human art. Who will deny that the nation lives?"

This is a convincing argument and one that appears to point to 'the nation' being an almost naturally formed phenomenon. It points to the individual and their state of mind in certain circumstances at a given time. 'The nation' you could say is as real as the individual wants it to be, but that it does not actually exist in reality. It seems that before we attempt any further definition of a nation, there is a need to locate the formation of a collective state of mind.

The formation of an 'association' deriving from the perception of 'self' is problematical and contradictory. A number of reasons can explain why the idea of 'the nation' becomes so powerful in different geographical areas at different times, 'race, gender, language, ethnic conflict, economics, imperialism and religion', to name but a few. Different cultures also posses varying 'aspirations, sentiments and cultural values' that might also affect the formation of 'the nation' (Smith, 3). In order to establish 'when' a nation is, there is a need to examine the elements of modernity and capitalism that have forged ethnic identity and new notions of 'community' and how the very notion of 'community' was constructed through language, history, culture and heritage. In a way it is what Eric Hobsbawm calls 'The Invention of Tradition' (1994b, 76). Other writers on the subject of 'the nation' and nationalism such as Benedict Anderson, saw 'capitalism and print converging' as creating 'the possibility of an imagined community - a modern nation' (95). This in turn created a 'common language' and 'national consciousness' elements that become what Anderson refers to as an 'imagined community.' Hugh Seton-Watson also wrote:

In the modern world people became more aware, because of improved communications and transport, of who they were, as a result they begin to understand the 'very nature of their existence,' coming to terms with 'self' thus establishing ethnicity (Anderson, 89). The concept 'Ethnicity' is a recent construct 'emerging from numerous discourses' on the subject of 'the nation' in the nineteen sixties and nineteen seventies. It points to the formation of identity as emerging from 'linguistics, ancestry, religion and region' (Glazer, 285). Anderson's view is very much aligned with other writer's arguments of ethnic origin in national formation, but there should still be room for the more modern Marxists view of Eric Hobsbawm that nations emerge at a time of 'change in the social order.' What Hobsbawm seems to be arguing here, certainly in relation to Europe, would be the shift from a feudal to a capitalist society. This might also apply in countries where the shift is from a colonial to a post-colonial order as might be the case when looking at the formation of nations in South America, Asia and Africa (Hobsbawm, 1997, 88-90). The 'change in social order' can of course be on a world level as well as a local, in its way creating a number of nations. There follows an argument then, although simplistic, that seems to be the most convincing argument when trying to establish when is a nation? The argument suggests that 'a nation exists with other nations - and because other nations exist' and is 'directed to secure the aspirations of a people for equality and freedom - and to secure the institutions necessary for that purpose.' Again we see the emphasis on an emotion, feelings that can effect the individual and the community in this case 'aspiration.' The other key phrase here seems to be 'securing institutions.' This leads us into the debates about the difference between a 'nation' and a 'nation-state.' What is created out of this 'changing social order,' a nation or a nation-state?

The arguments that have been looked at so far go some way to establishing that a nation exists when certain individuals perceive themselves as belonging to a collective community. This however presents a number of problems when trying to establish what the elements of a nation are in the world today. There has been a distinct shift in the very idea of the 'nation-state.' Hobsbawm defines a nation-state as being 'a bounded territory with its own autonomous institutions' (1994, 425). But this idea of 'the nation-state' in Western Europe has clearly changed with the formation of 'The European Economic Community.' No longer can a nation existing within this political and economic power block claim to possess 'national self-determination.' There are few, if any established nation states remaining in Western Europe. The idea of 'the nation' has therefore to be located elsewhere in the modern world. There are a number of nation-states that were hybrids formed from a number of ethnic communities, Yugoslavia is just one example. Here communication has fractured a society rather than binding it together and this in a way lends support to Anderson's view of ethnic formation of a nation, it seems ethnicity can break down any boundary, and impose its own.

The main problem with this intense notion of belonging, is that in the formation of 'community' be it ethnic or geographical, it creates the notion of 'other.' Everything that is not associated with the community, perhaps more intensely so in nation-state's, becomes merely 'an other.' It becomes an ideology of difference, nationalism. Nationalism however is exactly that, an ideology, an ideology that 'exalts the nation-state as the best form of political organisation' and in this way the state legitimises itself and claims the 'loyalty of its citizens' (Bullock, 559). Nationalism effectively demands a devotion to one's nation and support for the state becomes a national duty. Therefore, if 'the nation' is an idea, then nationalism exploits that idea. Nationalism was a global phenomenon in the late nineteenth century, but it was particularly exploited as an ideology by political forces in Europe (Alter, 4-6). There was seemingly nothing that could not in some way be justified and legitimised by nationalist sentiment. The social and economic difficulties that occurred on a global level in the latter part of the nineteenth century made the idea of nation almost a political requirement of social control; it did however provide a pattern for the future. Each existing 'nation-state' and newly emerging state now appealed to the educated masses as Anderson argues, 'through their newly acquired literacy,' to protect the 'community' to which they belonged (Anderson, 95). In more democratic states it had become 'their natural' duty to accept the rule of and stand behind a government that they themselves (or so it may now have appeared) had put in power (Hobsbawm, 1987, 142-151).

All of the arguments that have been considered so far seem to point to the idea of 'the nation' as existing in the individual and their 'state of mind' at any given moment, but surely it must go deeper than 'the nation' being just a symbolic invented force created by the manipulation of the past. What is it that retains the idea? There is some merit to Hannah Arendt's view that:

'The society of the nation in the modern world is that curiously hybrid realm where private interests assume public significance and the two realms flows unceasingly and uncertainly into each other 'like waves in the never ending stream of the life-process itself'.

In other words it appears that there has to be something in it for the individual or why else would it appeal. This may not be just financial or territorial, but might also focus on the individuals psychological need to belong. What is being argued here is that ' the nation' creates or evolves from a selfish state of mind, individual or collectively it is about 'survival of the fittest' in an almost Darwinian way (Medawar, 200). It seems that there must be benefits for the individual if those benefits are not real, then they must at least appear real. Nationalism however seems to circumvent this individual requirement, extending it to the wider needs of the community.

The essay has attempt to answer the questions 'what and when is a nation?' In conclusion, seemingly all definitions are incomplete and partial. As Hugh Seton-Watson indicated at the beginning of this piece 'no conclusion can be derived' and that is the conclusion of someone who has dedicated his life to the study of the origin of nations. It seems therefore that 'the nation' is imagined whilst 'the State' is a political reality. The individual within a nation is brought up in such a way that it feels natural that she or he in some way belongs, it is what they have been taught by 'the state.' 'It is nature and nurture - it is not either or but both' it is about survival (Satyendra, 1997. 8). Future studies must look to the individual, how that individual views themselves and 'their' nation. As has already been mentioned it is what creates promise and possibilities, it does not matter that others might view the ideas that emerge as immoral. The nation dictates the moral code of the individual, like religion 'the nation' promises something, a reward. But where can we study nation and nationalism today? As the idea of 'the nation' certainly seems to be dissipating in 'the West' it is to the new states in Africa and Asia that Eric Hobsbawm feels that we must look to start to really understand the dynamics of 'the nation' in the world today (1997, 92). The experience of Asian and Africa may help provide a clearer theory of what and when a nation is. A continued study of 'the nation' and its formation may help identify and then eradicate the more negative aspects of nations and nationalism. The last word should be left to Rupert Emerson who wrote, 'The simplest statement that can be made about a nation is that it is a body of people who feel that they are a nation; and it may be that when all the fine spun analysis is concluded, this will be the ultimate statement as well'.

Alter, P. (1985) Nationalism, Edward Arnold, London.

Anderson, B. (1994) ‘Imagined Communities’ From Nationalism, Edited by Hutchinson, J. and A.D.Smith, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Bullock, A. (1977) 'Nationalism' from The Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought. (Second Edition) Ed Alan Bullock, Oliver Stallybrass and Stephen Trombley, Fontana, London.

Glazer, N. (1988) 'Ethnicity' from The Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought. (Second Edition) Ed, Alan Bullock, Oliver Stallybrass and Stephen Trombley, Fontana, London.

Hobsbawm, E. (1987) The Age of Empire , Abacus, London.

Hobsbawm, E. (1994) ‘Nationalism in Europe’ From Nationalism, Edited by Hutchinson, J. and A.D.Smith, Oxford University Press, Oxford.*

Hobsbawm, E. (1994b) ‘The Nation as Invented Tradition’ From Nationalism, Edited by Hutchinson, J. and A.D.Smith, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Hobsbawm, E. (1994c) The Age of Extremes, Michael Joseph, London.

Hobsbawm, E. (1997) On History, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, London.

Medawar, Sir P. (1988) 'Darwinism' from The Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought. (Second Edition) Ed, Alan Bullock, Oliver Stallybrass and Stephen Trombley, Fontana, London.

< http://www.tamilnation.org/nation.htm > 12^th October 1999.

Smith, A.D. (1994) ‘The Origins of Nations’ From Nationalism, Edited by Hutchinson, J. and A.D.Smith, Oxford University Press, Oxford.