The international and multidisciplinary conference “Nations and Empires” focused on how nations and empires are related to each other across time and place. In the organisers’ introductory remarks, VOLKER DEPKAT (Regensburg) and MATHILDE MONGE (Toulouse Framespa) presented the major themes of the conference: What are nations and empires, and who – which historical actors – have shaped them, when, where, and for what reasons? What does post-imperialism mean, and how can we identify and reflect post-imperial structures? The conference also wanted to inquire into the resilience of empires, imperial economies, the role of diasporas as de-territorialized nations within these empires as much as transnational organisations. Scholars from France, Germany, Spain, Ireland and the United States investigated these questions in a digital meeting from May 4th to May 6th 2021. The conference was jointly organized by the universities of Toulouse, Regensburg and Bayreuth. In their presentations, contributors to the conference covered a vast variety of different areas and regions, spanning from Spain to Latin America, Mexico, Russia, the Netherlands, Singapore, the United States, Ireland, Germany, and Austria-Hungary.
The first session “Heritage, Continuation, and Reinvestments: (Re-)thinking the Transition to the Nation(State) and Its Interplay with Nations of Empire” featured talks on the transition from empire to the nation-state. BARTOLOMÉ YUN CASALILLA (Seville) inquired into the transition from monarchy to nation-state in Spain and compared this process with that in the Spanish colonies in the Americas. On the one hand, he explained the development with a shift in the relationship between the monarchy and the elites, and on the other hand with the profound impact of globalization on trade, administration, and inter-imperial tensions. Among other things, he identified a shift in Spanish imperial policies from taxes on consumption to taxes on customs and trade, which resulted in the Spanish colonies in America becoming more powerful and economically more important.
ASPASIA DIMITRIADI (EHESS Paris) shed some light on the importance of the Byzantine Empire for Greek nationalism between 1830 and 1922. According to Dimitriadi, the Byzantine Empire was an issue for many Greek nationalists, ranging from perceiving it as a long-lasting imprisonment of the Greek nation to dreams of a possible new Hellenistic empire in succession of the Byzantine Empire. Therefore, Byzantium functioned as a place for a multi-facetted public discussion about the collective past and has still today a peculiar place in modern Greek national history.
EMMANUELLE PEREZ TISSERANT (Toulouse – Framespa) presented her thoughts on Mexico in the transitional period of the early 1820s, when Mexico first became a short-lived Empire in its own right and then a federal republic. She argued that this transition had a specific character in Mexico`s interior provinces – New Mexico and the Californias in particular – where Spain’s imperial legacy was still highly visible in the form of forts and Franciscan missions. Perez Tisserant concluded that this regional case study can be seen as an indicator of Mexico’s hybrid nature of an emerging nation with a plethora of repercussions of its imperial past.
The presentation of JULIETTE CADIOT (EHESS Paris) revolved around the national and imperial implications of the elections of a Constituent Assembly in June 1917 in Russia. Many debates focused on different forms of political and ethnic identifications and identities, often in contrast to existing pan-imperial parties. Even though the Bolshevik seizure of power resulted in the dissolution of the Assembly, Cadiot argued that the results of the election were considered by the Bolsheviks as a sign of the growing power of nationalist tendencies in the different parts of the vast Russian Empire. They acknowledged this development by a reorganisation of the interior borders according to different nationalities in order to prevent the growth of an anti-bolshevik opposition based on national principles.
In his keynote lecture entitled “Empire and Nation in Time perspective” FREDERICK COOPER (NYU) focused on the question of when the nation-state gained a pride of place on a global level, and as of when one could identify an “end of empire”. He stressed the changing meaning of the term nation and its immense diversity. Nation, according to Cooper, is a claim, not a reality, but it can produce reality. Despite the developments during the Age of Revolution, he denied that the 18th century can be regarded as an age of nations. Furthermore, he argued that the end of the First World War does not mark the beginning of the end of imperial states; even the radical changes brought by the Second World War were not necessarily directly leading towards a nationalized globe. On the contrary, Cooper emphasized that internationalist thought had a strong influence in the context of African decolonization from the 1940s to the 1960s. The former colonies developed concepts of a nation-state only reluctantly; they did not aspire to it from the beginning. In consequence, Cooper set the beginning of the global pre-eminence of nation-states as late as the 1960s. In conclusion, Cooper insisted that even though the nation-state seems to be the prevalent form of state organization today, the relationship between state, nation and human welfare is nowadays as fraught as ever.
The second session “Imagined Communities between Empires and Nations: Issues, Practices and Representations” witnessed WIM KLOOSTER (Clark University) presenting his paper on the colony of Dutch Brazil in the 17th century. According to Klooster, the leadership of this colony was part of an expansionist and imperialist group within Dutch society which was competing with the concept of the Netherlands as a decentralized, federal, peaceful trading nation propagated by a large rivalling faction. Until now, historians have failed to see that this imperial strand in Dutch politics was created on the model of Ancient Rome. In consequence, Dutch imperial actors such as e.g. Johann Maurits von Nassau-Siegen were compared to ancient Roman politicians such as Aeneas, Scipio Africanus, or Augustus. Klooster stressed that Dutch identity in the 17th century had a supra-regional character and was much influenced by the short-lived imperial endeavours in Dutch Brazil.
THOMAS BRISSON (Université Paris VIII) illustrated with the example of Singapore that the clear-cut distinction between empire and nation is not to be taken for granted. After the independence of the British colony in 1965, the concept of the nation did not figure prominently in the new state’s identity narrative. The nation-state of Singapore was a very unstable frame of reference. Brisson showed instead that while Singapore quickly became a successful state and an economic powerhouse, the process of building a nation is still on its way.
In a case study of the seizure of the Abbey of Lure by the Marquis of Varambon, ETIENNE BOURDEU (CESR, Tours) argued that the imperial structure of the Spanish Monarchy in the 16th century can be seen as a co-construction, which relied on the participation of actors, who can be considered as national patrons. Therefore, the Spanish de-facto empire was heavily influenced by structures on a national scale. Bourdeu stressed that the establishment of a social group on a national level, which was simultaneously involved in the process of empire-building, was key for the functioning of the Spanish monarchy.
In his talk, MICHEL MARTINEZ-PEREZ (Toulouse – Framespa) highlighted key aspects of the construction and re-construction of an Aragonese nationalism in the 20th century. This movement was strongly affected by the nostalgia of the medieval kingdom of Aragon and its powerful hold on the Mediterranean between the 13th and the 15th century. In contrast, also recent intra-Spanish developments like statutory reforms since the 1980s and the development of other regional nationalisms in Catalonia and the Basque country played an important role in its rise.
In the final part of the second session, JASPER TRAUTSCH (Humboldt University, Berlin), presented his thoughts on the developing process of an American nation-state. He argued that the US was a union before it was a state and that it was a state before it became a nation. He described widespread expectations that the union was to be dissolved after the war. The specter of European intervention turned the union into a state and in the following decades, especially the postal and foreign policy had a major impact on the formation of an American nation.
The third session “Embeddedness, Compatibility, Competition: (Re-)thinking the Relationship between Empires and Nations beyond the ‘jeu d’échelles’”, contained four talks focused on different examples and aspects of this relationship. Sociologist MATTHIAS LEANZA (Basel) argued that the "German Reich" was a monarchical federal state which from its very birth comprised a blend of national and imperial elements. He raised the question what part the German colonies playd in that composition. Leanza highlighted especially the term “Heimat” which was not necessarily linked to the “Reich”, rather than to Bavaria, Wurttemberg, and other smaller German territories. It was in the colonies that the term “Heimat” became imperial. The debate about the colonies triggered a process that lead to further centralization in the core of the Reich.
In his presentation NICHOLAS CANNY (Galway) stated that, although there was never an Irish empire, the Irish – ranging from the protestant population to suppressed residents and émigrés – were involved in several European empires. According to Canny, there was a notable shift from involvement in other empires to the British Empire in the 19th century. Especially Roman Catholics became increasingly aware of the opportunities for their careers in the British imperial context. Nonetheless, the attitude of Irish nationalism towards empire remained ambiguous, oscillating between bitter resentment with regard to British imperial power and support of other non-British imperial endeavors.
ROÍSÍN HEALY (Galway) investigated aspects of 19th century imperialism in Ireland and posed the question whether it was possible to be in favor of Home Rule and to be an imperialist at the same time. She emphasized that the Irish gave varied answers to this question, including forms of unapologetic imperialism, reform-minded imperialism, and anti-imperialism. Furthermore, she stressed the importance of comparisons between the Irish situation and Polish and Indian anti-imperialist movements. Many expressions of solidarity came from Ireland, either based on the same antagonist, such as in the Indian colonial context or on a common faith with the Polish people.
The last presentation by BALINT VARGA (Budapest) focused on the idea and imagination of a possible Hungarian empire. Notions about a Hungarian empire were based on medieval spheres of influence of the kingdom of Hungary and mainly limited to mentions in books and literary circles. The term “empire” was used to contest the Austrian empire and aimed at changing the power relations between Austria and Hungary. The dream of a Hungarian empire, however, died with Austria’s military defeat in the First World War.
The conference closed with concluding remarks by JANE BURBANK (NYU). She summarized the various papers of the conference under the title “Transformations, Transitions and Trajectories” and stated that the decision not to generally define the terms of nation and empire in the first place but to define these terms and concepts for the specific contexts under investigation triggered productive discussions and important contributions. The participants showed with their talks that the conventional chronological trajectory of a transition from empire to nation vanishes, if one looks closer at the given examples. Instead, as Burbank made clear, we can see a multitude of very dynamic situations and variations in the relationship of “nation” and “empire”, a variety of transitions from but also coexistence of empire and nation. The various investigations into the relationship of nation and empire made us better understand how people within and across time and space have designed, reformed, and enhanced political institutions. Burbank considered therefore the long time span of the conference and its global approach as laudable, not the least as it led to fascinating comparisons. She saw the necessity to even broaden the perspective and include more non-European empires. Inquiring into the relationship of multiple concepts of empire and nation will remain relevant for historians and other disciplines to understand statehood, political institutions and how they are subject to change. Burbank stressed the crucial role of elite actors for the various concepts and transformations of nation and empire since all contributors had in one way or another shown that it matters how elites think about and act within these. Jane Burbank concluded that the conference showed that nation and empire can have a great variety of meanings and that therefore, scholars need to be careful with their categories.
Conference Overview:
Introduction
VOLKER DEPKAT (Regensburg); MATHIEU GRENET (Albi – Framespa); SUSANNE LACHENICHT (Bayreuth); MATHILDE MONGE (Toulouse – Framespa)
Session 1: Heritage, Continuation, and Reinvestments: (Re-)thinking the Transition to the Nation(State) and Its Interplay with Notions of Empire
Chair: Sébastien Rozeaux (Toulouse - Framespa)
BARTOLOMÉ YUN CASALILLA (Seville): Between the Composite Monarchy and the Nation-State, 1492-1808: On the Making of Spain, or How to Explain a Historical Gap
ASPASIA DIMITRIADI (EHESS) : Exploiter le passé, construire la nation : l`utilisation du passé impérial en Grèce au XIXe siècle
EMMANUELLE PEREZ TISSERANT (Toulouse – Framespa) : L`héritage impérial dans la construction nationale du Mexique au XIXe siècle
JULIETTE CADIOT (EHESS): Universalism versus/toward Diversity: Voices from the Russian Empire, June 1917: Nationalities in the Preparation of the Elections of Constituent Assembly
Keynote
FREDERICK COOPER (NYU): Empire and Nation in Time Perspective
Chair: Mathieu Grenet (Toulouse - Framespa)
Session 2: Imagined Communities between Empires and Nations: Issues, Practices and Representations
Chair : Volker Depkat (Regensburg)
WIM KLOOSTER (Clark University): The Early Dutch Republic as a Modern Version of the Roman Empire
THOMAS BRISSON (Paris VIII): Building the Nation on Transnational Imaginaries: Global Cultures, Modernization and Intellectual Interventions in Post-Imperial Singapore
ETIENNE BOURDEU (CESR, Tours) : Servir sa nation ou l`empire ? Marc de Rye, marquis de Varambon, et la structuration de la monarchie hispanique à la fin du XVIe siècle
MICHEL MARTINEZ-PEREZ (Toulouse – Framespa) : La construction de la nation aragonaise par le nationalisme aragonais (de 1917 à nos jours)
JASPER TRAUTSCH (HU Berlin): Union before State before Nation: Remarks on the Creation of American Nationalism
Session 3: Embeddedness, Compatibility, Competition: (Re)thinking the Relationship between Empires and Nations beyond the “jeu d`èchelles”
Chair : Mathilde Monge (Toulouse - Framespa)
MATTHIAS LEANZA (Basel): Disentangling the German Imperial Nation, 1871 – 1919
NICHOLAS CANNY (Galway): Ireland, Irish Catholics, and European Overseas Empires, 1500 – 1900
ROÍSÍN HEALY (Galway): Anti-Imperialism in Irish Nationalist Discourse on Poland in India in the Nineteenth Century
BALINT VARGA (Budapest): An Empire Underneath an Empire: Concepts of a Hungarian Empire in the Long Nineteenth Century
Conclusions
JANE BURBANK (NYU)