The tiny microstate of San Marino, enclaved totally inside Italy, embodies a powerful nationalist custom. Regardless of there being comparatively few educational efforts to introduce the nation to a worldwide viewers, Veenendaal (2015: 71) highlights the cultural fervour of its 34,000 inhabitants, noting that ‘on the nook of virtually each road, tribute is being paid to the well-documented Sammarinese historical past and its accompanying heroes’. This nationwide id aligns carefully with a set of intersecting beliefs: well-liked sovereignty, constitutional liberalism, and territorial independence (Catudal Jr. 1975). Descriptions of San Marino’s previous usually body it as a story of democratic exceptionalism, a timeless battle for liberty. Central to this narrative is the legendary founding of the state by Saint Marinus, a Christian stonecutter fleeing Roman persecution in 301 AD. This founding fantasy is regularly invoked each internally and externally, reinforcing San Marino’s id as ‘the traditional land of freedom’ and ‘the oldest republic on this planet’ (Veenendaal 2015: 70).
On this piece, I’ll briefly study Sammarinese nationalism by means of two empirical frameworks: ethnosymbolism and modernism. A central debate between these two colleges of thought in nationalism research considerations the problem of social continuity. Ethnosymbolists argue for reconciling fashionable developments with an emphasis on the pre-modern origin of countries, observing ethnic ties inside a long-term historic context (la longue durée) (Guibernau 2004). Against this, modernists undertake a extra inflexible perspective, arguing that nations and nationalisms have change into sociological requirements within the fashionable world however had no place within the pre-modern period. This divide is clear within the varieties of proof every perspective prioritises: ethnosymbolism focuses on myths, symbols, and traditions (Smith 2001), whereas modernism emphasises materialist processes equivalent to capitalism, industrialisation, and the rise of the fashionable bureaucratic state (Özkirimli 2010).
Who’s the Sammarinese Nation?
To grasp the Sammarinese nation, we should first discover its composition and character. Ethnosymbolist Anthony D. Smith (1991: 21) contends that pre-national ethnic teams, or ethnies, possess ‘a collective correct title, a fantasy of frequent ancestry, shared historic recollections [and] a number of differentiating parts of a typical tradition’. On this context, San Marino’s ethnie may be described as a ‘coalescence ethnie’, because the nation’s demographic formation resulted from historic enlargement and assimilation (Özkirimli 2010). The final territorial additions occurred in 1463 when the villages of Faetano, Fiorentino, Montegiardino, and Serravalle had been built-in into the polity (Catudal Jr. 1975).
As beforehand famous, probably the most outstanding manifestation of Sammarinese id is the promotion of political liberties, expressed not solely to outsiders (most famously to honorary citizen Abraham Lincoln) but in addition by means of public monuments. Essentially the most seen of those is the Statua della Libertà outdoors the nation’s legislature, the Grand and Common Council (Veenendaal 2015). The ethnosymbolist lens is helpful right here, as the traditional fantasy of Saint Marinus escaping despotic rule and establishing a pious neighborhood continues to be portrayed because the origin of the democratic character that nominally distinguishes the Sammarinese individuals (Sundhaussen 2003). This enduring narrative underscores the essential function of collective reminiscence and symbolism in sustaining San Marino’s nationwide id, additional supporting Smith’s (1986: 16) view that ‘ethnies, as soon as shaped, are usually exceptionally sturdy’.
The concept that a Sammarinese ethnie acted as a precursor to its nationalism challenges the notion that the latter is a purely latest phenomenon. Nevertheless, any modernist critique of this attitude would probably give attention to the extent to which social engineering has influenced the territory’s collective id, with historians dismissing the veracity of the Marinus legend (Duursma 1996). Eric Hobsbawm’s (1983: 303) idea of ‘invented traditions’ is especially related right here in mild of his observations in regards to the ‘mass manufacturing of public monuments’, a typical follow traditionally utilized by European states to consolidate political unity.
Nonetheless, an ethnosymbolist view can nicely reply to this criticism, particularly with respect to San Marino. Certainly, the idea of invented traditions doesn’t undermine the worth of specializing in cultural markers in understanding the creation of nationwide identities. As Hutchinson (1987) argues on this level, the modern social affect of those symbols is extra necessary than their literal historic accuracy. Moreover, in our case, Sundhaussen (2003: 215) observes that ‘myths, if they’re accepted by the individuals, kind orientations no matter whether or not they are often traditionally verified; it was the myths of the egalitarian teachings of Marino … which created a yearning for liberty among the many easy peasants of the republic’. Regardless of its romanticism, this image of San Marino has had tangible penalties for the nation-state. As an example, nicely into the 20th–century, the Sammarinese provided asylum to refugees of any and all political persuasions, demonstrating the enduring relevance and sensible software of this central facet of their nationwide id (Sundhaussen 2003).
Why and the way did the Sammarinese nation emerge?
However, modernist theorist Brendan O’Leary (1996: 90) may argue that nation-building in San Marino is a superficial type of ‘retrospective nationalism’. From this attitude, ethnic entrepreneurs would use Sammarinese cultural traditions to assemble and promote an primarily confected sense of belonging. This connects to our second theme: exploring the explanations behind and the method by which the Sammarinese nation emerged.
Whereas O’Leary’s concept is related in some contexts, such because the Catalan and Irish nationalist actions of the early to mid-Twentieth–century (actions impressed by a small group of historians and artists), the scenario in San Marino differs. Particularly, the decline of the traditional Sammarinese language doesn’t observe this sample (Hutchinson 1987). As Montanari (2018) opines, nation-building efforts within the microstate are presently hindered by a normal failure to handle the function of the Sammarinese language in its nationwide id, and policymakers have uncared for it to the purpose of endangerment by failing to doc its options. Nonetheless, modernists are proper to level out the important thing function of different materials components, equivalent to defence preparations and financial industrialisation, in sustaining a nation’s political distinctiveness. Relating to defence, Corridor (1995) highlights how safety considerations can foster nationwide consciousness, which hyperlinks on to San Marino insofar as Bartmann (2008: 361) notes that ‘probably the most pertinent query attending the sovereignty of microstates is the problem of safety’. Quite than counting on subjective communal notions of self-determination, San Marino has employed pragmatic diplomacy to take care of its territorial separateness, forming alliances and leveraging worldwide norms. Notable Sammarinese measures embody sustaining neutrality throughout World Battle II and its longstanding relationship with Italy, which preserved its independence through the nineteenth–century Risorgimento and has assured it whole army help for the reason that two states’ 1939 Treaty of Friendship (Duursma 1996).
The function of financial industrialisation presents a extra advanced image. Till the late 20th–century, San Marino, regardless of its robust sense of nationhood, remained largely agrarian, with restricted urbanisation and a weak financial system. This isolation saved it from experiencing the modernisation seen within the neighbouring Italian area of Romagna (Montanari 2018). This challenges modernist Benedict Anderson’s (1991: 38) concept of ‘print capitalism’, which means that the unfold of a standardised language, pushed by industrialisation, was the first explanation for nationwide formation in Europe. Whereas I counsel that San Marino was a nation by the point of the Industrial Revolution, its inhabitants was additionally largely illiterate and unentrepreneurial (Montanari 2018). This case is echoed by the view of early nineteenth–century Sammarinese statesman Antonio Onofri, who argued, ‘solely in poverty and insignificance might San Marino hope to take care of herself free and sovereign by means of the centuries’ (quoted in Sundhaussen 2003: 216). Nevertheless, modernism’s emphasis on financial transformation has change into extra related in latest instances. Immediately, San Marino has established itself as a monetary haven, with its GDP per capita surpassing that of most Western international locations, partly as a result of its exemption from EU laws. In 2008, it was even positioned on the OECD’s ‘black listing’ for dangerous tax practices (Veenendaal 2015). This fiscal area of interest has additional affirmed and strengthened its nationwide independence, each legally and economically (Armstrong & Learn 1995).
The Sammarinese nationwide id additionally aligns with modernist Ernest Gellner’s (1983: 61) idea of ‘cultivated’ or ‘backyard’ cultures, by which he refers to nations shaped by small teams with excessive social mobility and migration. Round 12% of San Marino’s inhabitants are Italian residents, partly as a result of labour calls for throughout Europe’s microstates (Caldwell, Harrison & Quiggin 1980; Veenendaal 2015). Whereas modernism presents insights into San Marino’s financial modifications, it doesn’t absolutely clarify the continuity of its nationwide character. In distinction to Elie Kedourie’s (1994) view that nationalism emerges from the collapse of pre-modern establishments, I argue that it’s the preservation of their beliefs that has nurtured Sammarinese nationalism. A key instance is the cultural reminiscence of the Arengo, a plebiscitary physique of patriarchs energetic from the 5th–century till 1243. This physique immediately influenced the present Grand and Common Council, which upholds the Arengo’s ideas of direct democracy by means of common referenda and proportional illustration (Sundhaussen 2003).
When and the place did the Sammarinese nation emerge?
Having referenced pre-modern phenomena, it now appears logical to hypothesise the ultimate of our themes: the when and the place of the Sammarinese nation’s emergence. Beginning with the latter, we’d think about Anderson’s (1991: 6) well-known perception {that a} defining function of a nation is its inherent limitation, that almost all members of it’ll by no means meet one another. This, nevertheless, proves problematic for San Marino, the place its comparatively miniscule inhabitants makes it extremely probably that one might meaningfully encounter a bigger proportion of 1’s fellow residents, thus questioning the notion of a distant, ‘imagined neighborhood’. Given this subject, there may very well be a temptation to rely extra on ethnosymbolism to find out when a Sammarinese id started. Nevertheless, I argue that some students overlook the important continuity on this course of. For instance, ethnosymbolist Armstrong (1995: 35, 282) asserts that ‘nationalism originated … no sooner than the fifteenth century’ and that ‘the importance of language for ethnic id is extremely contingent’.
Relating to San Marino, I discover this strategy inadequate for 2 causes. First, historic proof means that by the late 13th–century, San Marino was already recognised as a political entity with particular territorial rights, equivalent to exemption from feudal tribute to the Bishop of Montefeltro (Stiles 2018). Duursma (1996) argues that the papacy’s beneficial strategy was a deliberate effort to accommodate the Republic’s pre-existing custom of sovereignty, exemplified by establishments just like the Arengo, the place choices had been made democratically with each head of household collaborating (Sundhaussen 2003). My second objection to Armstrong’s place considerations his dismissal of the function of language within the formation of a nation. Right here, I argue that he deviates from Smith’s invocation of the ethnie and from the historicism central to ethnosymbolism. Within the case of San Marino, Montanari (2018) exhibits that the Sammarinese language has been the dominant vernacular for practically a millennium. Its distinctive phonological, lexical, and grammatical options have performed an important function in shaping the cultural and political material of the neighborhood. If one accepts {that a} distinctive language has a powerful social affect, it is sensible to discover the pre-modern ethnic influences that led to the formation of those linguistic options within the first place (Smith 1991).
With influences starting from Byzantine Greek to Celtic, Germanic, and Lombardic, the Sammarinese language stands aside. This uniqueness means that the territory’s unique vernacular considerably helped to form Sammarinese nationhood (Montanari 2018). On this means, these linguistic markers may help reply each the when and the place of the nation’s origin, tracing the evolution and geographic unfold of the microstate’s cultural indicators.
Conclusion
This piece has sought to concisely characterise the composition, existence, and lifespan of the Sammarinese nation by means of the competing ethnosymbolist and modernist approaches to the research of nationalism. Influenced by Anthony D. Smith, I’ve argued for the existence of a definite ethnie inside San Marino, one that’s expectant of political liberties and united by collective recollections of an historic previous. Dissenting modernist theorists, who emphasise the pre-eminence of invented traditions, had been proven to misread the supply of their significance, not as empirical truths, however as vital cultural myths. Following this, in making an attempt to elucidate the inception and survival of its nationalism, San Marino was discovered to adapt to theories from each approaches. I argue that whereas its inception is best defined by ethnosymbolist notions of historic continuity, the nation’s survival is extra carefully linked to the arrival of modernity.
Lastly, I thought of the historic and spatial circumstances surrounding the Sammarinese, figuring out them as an outlier in relation to modernist conceptions of imagined communities, and demonstrating how a failure to contemplate la longue durée unfairly alienates San Marino as a polity with advanced pre-modern ties. Taken collectively, I need to due to this fact conclude that ethnosymbolism is the preferable framework for understanding the peculiar Sammarinese case.
References
Anderson, Benedict (1991). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Unfold of Nationalism. 2nd ed. New York: Verso Books.
Armstrong, John (1995). ‘In direction of a Principle of Nationalism: Consensus and Dissensus’ in Periwal, Sukumar (ed.). Notions of Nationalism. Budapest: Central European College Press. pp. 34–43.
Armstrong, Harvey W. & Learn, Robert (1995). ‘Western European Micro-States and EU Autonomous Areas: The Benefits of Dimension and Sovereignty’. World Growth, 23(7), pp. 1229–45.
Bartmann, Barry (2008). ‘Assembly the Wants of Microstate Safety’. Commonwealth Journal of Worldwide Affairs, 91(365), pp. 361–74.
Caldwell, John C., Harrison, Graham E. & Quiggin, Pat (1980). ‘The Demography of Micro-States’. World Growth, 8(12), pp. 953–62.
Catudal Jr., Honoré M. (1975). ‘The Plight of the Lilliputians: An Evaluation of 5 European Microstates’. Geoforum, 6(3–4), pp. 187–204.
Duursma, Jorri C. (1996). Fragmentation and the Worldwide Relations of Micro-States: Self-Willpower and Statehood. Cambridge: Cambridge College Press.
Gellner, Ernest (1983). Nations and Nationalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell College Press.
Guibernau, Montserrat (2004). ‘Anthony D. Smith on Nations and Nationwide Id: A Important Evaluation’. Nations and Nationalism, 10(1–2), pp. 125–41.
Corridor, John A. (1995). ‘Nationalisms, Categorized and Defined’ in Periwal, Sukumar (ed.). Notions of Nationalism. Budapest: Central European College Press. pp. 8–33.
Hobsbawm, Eric (1983). ‘Mass-Producing Traditions: Europe, 1870–1914’ in Hobsbawm, Eric & Ranger, Terence (eds.). The Invention of Custom. Cambridge: Cambridge College Press. pp. 263–308.
Hutchinson, John (1987). ‘Cultural Nationalism, Elite Mobility and Nation-Constructing: Communitarian Politics in Fashionable Eire’. British Journal of Sociology, 38(4), pp. 482–501.
Kedourie, Elie (1994). Nationalism. 4th ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Montanari, Simona (2018). ‘Sammarinese, the Endangered Language of the Republic of San Marino: A Preliminary Examine of Documentation and Description’. Dialectologia et Geolinguistica, 26(1), pp. 57–95.
O’Leary, Brendan (1996). ‘On the Nature of Nationalism: An Appraisal of Ernest Gellner’s Writings on Nationalism’ in Corridor, John A. & Jarvie, Ian (eds.). The Social Philosophy of Ernest Gellner. Amsterdam: Rodopi. pp. 71–112.
Özkirimli, Umut (2010). Theories of Nationalism: A Important Introduction. 2nd ed. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Smith, Anthony D (1986). The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Smith, Anthony D. (1991). Nationwide Id. Reno, NV: College of Nevada Press.
Smith, Anthony D. (2001). Nationalism: Principle, Ideology, Historical past. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Stiles, Kendall W. (2018). Belief and Hedging in Worldwide Relations. Ann Arbor, MI: College of Michigan Press.
Sundhaussen, Ulf (2003). ‘Peasants and the Strategy of Constructing Democratic Polities: Classes from San Marino’. Australian Journal of Politics and Historical past, 49(2), pp. 211–21.
Veenendaal, Wouter P. (2015). Politics and Democracy in Microstates. London: Routledge.
Additional Studying on E-Worldwide Relations
