Readings

Fukuyama, F. (2014). Political order and political decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the globalization of democracy. Chapters 12 (pp. 185-197) and 22 (pp. 322-334). New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Read these two chapters closely. Chapter 12 is about nation-building in general. Be sure to understand the distinction between state building and nation building, the four routes to national identity, and the relationship between nationalism and violence. Chapter 22 is about nation building in developing countries specifically. Focus on the reasons why Indonesia and Tanzania developed a strong national identity relative to Nigeria and Kenya. Be prepared to explain the state building consequence of this contrast.

• Notes

Guichard, S. (2013). The Indian nation and selective amnesia: Representing conflicts and violence in Indian history textbooks. Nations and Nationalism, 19(1), 68-86. Available through Claremont libraries, Database: Academic Search Premier.

Read this article closely. It is not clearly written. You will have to pay attention to which sets of textbooks are being discussed at any given part, but be sure to understand the main thesis, the concept of selective amnesia, and why violent episodes in India's past are highlighted or obscured depending on the nation building project.

• Classmate Notes

Study Guide

1. How is nation building different than state building?
   • State building: the creation of tangible institutions: armies, police, bureaucracies, ministries.
   • Nation building: an identity that will supersedes their loyalty to tribes, regions, or ethnic groups.
   • Difference: nation building requires national traditions, symbols, shared historical memories, common cultural points of reference.
2. What are the four routes to national identity? What is the role of violence in these routes?

   1. Moving borders to fit posited(假定的) national identities.

   2. Moving or eliminating populations to create more homogeneous political units

      e.g. ethnic cleansing

   3. Cultural assimilation(吸收): subordinate populations adopt the language and customs of the dominant group. e.g. regional french → Parisian french

   4. Adjusting posited national identities to fit political realities

      • least coercive(強制性的) most promising path
3. Why did Indonesia and Tanzania succeed in nation-building relative to Nigeria and Kenya?
4. What is Guichard's main thesis? Define the concept of selective amnesia when articulating her thesis?
5. Why are certain violent episodes highlighted while others are obscured in India's history textbooks?
   • "Thus, tensions within the nation ‘as it is imagined’ are given as little space as possible in the national narratives; these narratives avoid representing the existence of conflicts within the nation (here between castes). Yet conflicts that implicate the out‐group are depicted. The source of conflict is placed outside the nation as it is imagined. The ‘principle’ is the same for the secularist and the Hindu nationalist narratives, but their imagining of the nation differs."

Pre-class Work

Fukuyama says that Indonesian leaders crafted a "national narrative" that fostered a strong sense of political cohesion. He does not elaborate on the term, but we can understand its meaning. Outline a summary of Indonesia’s “national narrative” in several lines in a google document. Set the permissions of your document so that anyone with a link can edit, and title your document SS112 5.2 Pre-Class Work (insert first and last name). Have the document and the link ready to share in class. Also think about your own home country’s national narrative (if you aren’t from Indonesia!) and outline it in several lines. Even better, think back to history textbooks you had. Looking back, were certain episodes selected or de-selected for emphasis? Why do you think that was? In groups during class you will synthesize your Indonesia narratives and then compare them to the narratives of students’ own countries.

SS112 5.2 Pre-Class Work_EstherYang

why is liberalism not conducive to rapid state-building in many cases?

Liberalism is not conducive to rapid state-building (the creation of tangible institutions: armies, police, beuracracies, etc.) in many cases because that's a process that gives mind (or at least should give mind) to all groups and concerned parties. The formation of a state is often through a process of assimilation - which is often times violent and against minorities in the area through authoritarian like leadership. You are likely to fall back on clientalism and in-groups at this stage when appointing staff and officials who train the other workers in terms of formulating budgets and laws.