As a past student of Boston University, let me say that Prof. Greenfeld is a scholar of the highest caliber. If conclusions from her review of history be difficult, even dubious, she is the first to review her work, admit ambiguity, and give to sociology nothing more than a stable investigation, employing the panorama of our traditions of thought. Conclusions will always be argued; Prof. Greenfeld however models technique. We can trust her books in a modern air where trust is a difficult friend. Her unrivalled unbias in her reading and writing deserve not a little honor.

During the Clinton years, the foundation of American foreign policy seemed to be that economic growth was a natural phenomenon and that America needed only help other nations 'liberate' their markets. We did not take seriously enough the idea that economic growth is rooted in particular cultural norms, and that 'liberalization' without those norms would frequently lead to nothing but chaos and deep-seated anti-American resentment.

There is no justification for the attacks of September 11th, but one could argue that, under Clinton, America did not do enough to demonstrate that we stand for political as well as economic reform. This book, which I have read in manuscript form, is an important intellectual rebuttal to ideas that have tarnished America's name abroad.

I have read an advance copy of this book, and feel obliged to comment on the erroneous PUBLISHERS WEEKLY review, found in the editorial reviews section of this page. It is apparent that the author of that review did not actually read the book.

The first sentence of the review states as fact a false position, that "beginning in 15th-century northern Europe, unprecedented economic growth spread throughout the world, bringing with it nationalism, technological progress and rationalism in government, religion, and justice, as well as eradication of traditional cultures, environmental damage, imperialism, and wars of unparalleled destructiveness." The book being reviewed argues that it was nationalism which caused the reorientation of the economy towards sustained economic growth. (Nationalism was the motive force behind modern capitalism.) The reviewer is putting the cart before the horse. The opening sentence is a statement of the reviewer's own position, and to contrast it with the central thesis of the book being reviewed (without evidence or counterargument of any kind) was in poor taste. But this is not the worst.

The reviewer asserts that the author "eschews both the historian's careful study of primary sources and the economist's insistence on rigorously testable models." The reviewer claims that instead Greenfeld relies on excerpts from secondary sources. This is plainly false. The majority of the book's evidence is primary-source material, all meticulously documented in the notes, which the reviewer apparently did not have time to read. Indeed, like the author's previous work, NATIONALISM: FIVE ROADS TO MODERNITY, this book is interesting and convincing, in part, because of the quantity and detail of empirical evidence it provides.

Third, the reviewer states that, allegedly according to the author, the 6 cases treated (England, Holland, France, Germany, Japan, and the United States) are unrelated. This is also, quite simply, false. The author draws tight connections between these cases. Indeed, she believes that nationalism (and it's refraction in the economic sphere) is fundamentally an idea. This idea began in one place (England) and was exported to the other cases under consideration (minus the Netherlands, where impressive early economic growth was both not sustained and not caused by nationalism), though it took very different forms in each. Given that so much of the story in each case is of the importation of the idea of the nation, it's reception and transformation, and it's impact upon the economic orientations of the social actors in each nation, it is absurd to claim that these cases are unrelated.

Finally, the reviewer makes the bizarre observation that this book is a "criticism of all aspects of the modern world" which will only have appeal to disgruntled readers. Frankly, I cannot imagine how on earth the reviewer got this impression. The book is not a critique of modernity, it does not issue value-judgements, and it most certainly does not condemn modern diet, work habits, and culture, as the reviewer would have us believe.

This is an excellent book. There is none other like it on the subject, both in terms of theoretical scope and detailed historical evidence. It is a captivating story, written in elegant prose. It should be of interest to economists, historians, political scientists, anthropologists, sociologists, and anyone who wants to understand the world in which we live.

Perhaps one of the most accessible and complete book relating to European nationalism I have had the pleasure to read. Greenfeld examines nationalism as it moves from nation to nation changing as it moves along. As a point of methodology, she asks three questions: [1] Why and how nationalism emerged? [2] Why and how it was transformed in the process from one society to another? [3] Why and how these different forms of national identity and consciousness translated into institutional practices and patterns of culture, molding the social and political structures of societies which defined themselves as nations? How she deals with it is the really fascinating part of this book. Greenfeld explores nationalism along 2 broad categorical dimensions: popular sovereignty and criteria of membership. For the most part, and educated middle class (as in England and Germany) or the nobility (as in France and Russia) tried to solve a crisis of identity as well as acute feelings of "status inconsistency" in times of drastic changes in the social structure and status hierarchy. This identity crisis of the upwardly mobile social groups gave birth to a conception of England as a community of "free" and "equal" individuals having recourse to political participation. From England the notion of the "nation" changed in form as it moved from country to country coming full circle in the United States where it took its original form.

The core of Greenfeld's narration of the metamorphosis of the ideologies -- actually its development is the idea that, German intellectuals lacked the support and recognition of the nobility. The extreme financial and social insecurity German intellectuals felt led them to lose faith in the Aufklarung (Enlightenment) and to embrace a Pietist ontology (coupled with, lest we forget, a secularized Romanticism) which within its precepts held the seeds of racism and authoritarianism. Moreover, the concept of "ressentiment" as Nietzsche used it "On the Genealogy of Morality" (also available on Amazon.com) What is this "ressentiment"? Essentially, it is a notion of existential envy. Envy towards those economically or militarily more powerful countries that resulted (again in the Nietzschean sense) a "transvaluation of values" attached to the borrowed concept of national identity or an outright rejection of these values and the glorification of what one sees as his/her "indigenous" culture. Greenfeld really effects a wonderful analysis of the internal dynamics and the quid-pro-quo connection between the structures, the culture and the individual's psychology. More on this issue, she shows how elites in particular countries -- England, France and Russia evolved national identities the in turn shaped their own "place" or social status as well as aims, goals and hopes. From Greenfeld's perspective the elites formed their idea of society and later transferred it down, in its original form, to the rest of society. As far as this reader is concerned, it is not clear why national identity has such an intense role when it came to the rise of Nazism and the Russian revolution but not the particular form of American racism?

Returning to the issue of ressentiment, Greenfeld argues that the specific groups invented nationalism in the fight for recognition (as I mentioned above) and used it as an umbrella concept for national identity, consciousness and recognition. The French and Russian cases are unique in that nationalism gave each case a unique basis for status and self esteem. The American case is different from the process it took in Europe but comes close to the English experience. In the case of America, Americans fought for liberal democracy or for what Greenfeld articulates as "Civic Nationalism." However, in all cases, the creation of national identity really involved redefining what was meant by "the people." Breaking it down further, she breaks down the evolution of nationalism to categories: there is the individualistic-libertarian (UK and US) and the collectivist-authoritarian (France, Germany and Russia). German nationalism, according to Greenfeld, is the epitome of ethnic authoritarian collectivism. Greenfeld is great because she discusses the role language and literature play in the creation of national identity. Moreover, she examines how religion and secularism; war and revolution; intellectuals and education factor in the process of national identity. Her interdisciplinary approach is really admirable considering the size of the project. Her use of Max Weber -- as in how particular groups or strata which are facing a threat to their status or status identity makes Weber accessible and understandable. The details relating to each and every example are too much for this review, and I strongly suggest a careful read. I give her a resounding 5 stars.

Miguel Llora

Professor Greenfeld has compiled an exhaustively researched series of "case studies" of the genesis of nationalist sentiment (England, France, Russia, Germany, and the United States). She puts forth very convincing arguments that (1) nationalism began in England, and spread to the European continent, (2) the self-loathing of segments of certain societies led to a transformation of their values, resulting in nationalism, and (3) that nationalism lay the basis for modernity. My only complaint, if it can be called that, is that she does not more extensively examine American nationalism. I highly, highly recommend this book for any student of nationalism.