z-logo
Premium
The importance of being Ernest: a Comment on Riga and Hall
Author(s) -
Meadwell Hudson
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
nations and nationalism
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.655
H-Index - 44
eISSN - 1469-8129
pISSN - 1354-5078
DOI - 10.1111/nana.12315
Subject(s) - criticism , functionalism (philosophy of mind) , nothing , nationalism , structural functionalism , admiration , philosophy , epistemology , sociology , law , political science , literature , art , politics
Ernest Gellner's work on nationalism continues to draw a mix of both admiration and criticism. In a recent article, Riga and Hall find fault with a new line of criticism of Gellner's theory of nationalism that I introduced in a series of articles in this journal. They claim that I have merely repeated a well‐known criticism of Gellner – that his work is functionalist. This would be convenient for their arguments if it were true. While I would agree, and have explicitly acknowledged, that there is nothing new in the charge of functionalism, I do not take a functionalist line on Gellner. Functionalism is not the issue. My work shows that his theory of nationalism is plagued with problems that have little or nothing to do with functionalism.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here