Nationalism & Historiography

One of the earliest critical analyses of nationalism can be attributed to the legendary medieval Arab/Muslim historiographer and scholar, Ibn Khaldun in his seminal book Muqaddimah, where he discusses the concept of ʿasabiyyah (tribalism/clanism). Ibn Khaldun uses the term ʿasabiyyah (which stems from the Arabic word nerve/root, but also means ‘bad temper’ and ‘fanaticism’) to describe the communal bond of cohesion between humans in a group. He states that ʿasabiyyah, decreases with the advancement of civilization. However, I disagree with his statement since, as I will demonstrate, ʿasabiyyah may, in fact, become more exaggerated or irrational as society progresses. His concept of a nerve or root is similar to what Christy Wampole discusses in her recent book Rootedness: The Ramifications of a Metaphor where she investigates rootedness and the tendency for human beings to seek context and feel connected to a homeland. The temporal and geographic spaces that separate Ibn Khaldun’s and Wampole’s works alone are enough to underscore the gravity of their arguments and to demonstrate that theorists have been analyzing and investigating the phenomena of community and rootedness for centuries.

The concept of nationalism as an imagined construct is exemplified in Benedict Anderson’s ‘imagined community’ and later by Arjun Appadurai in his theory of the ‘social imaginary’. Anderson argues that nationalism is a social and political system imagined by people who hold in their mind a “mental image of their affinity.” While Appadurai agrees with this definition, he adds that the social imaginary is held together by a system of laws, values, symbols and institutions, which he identifies as components of imagined communities. While Anderson values the utopian aspect of nationalism, Appadurai contests that it is “the last refuge of ethnic totalitarianism.”

History is written by nationalists, who manufacture myths and legacies, endorsing these imagined affinities. Historical narratives of events or leaders are often monolithic and abstracted views of the past serving the development of collective memory. This ‘monumental history’ often identifies an enemy, revolutionary hero and vanguard party that pave the way for a cultural and political awakening bringing a society together. In a post-colonial perspective attaining independence from a foreign occupier is a common theme and the promise of freedom and social justice builds consensus for this utopian vision. This edited and manipulated view of history is passed on to generations to come, and is further abstracted, exaggerated or reaffirmed by media representations and creative/artistic production contributing to the blurring between fiction and reality, resulting in a hyperreality.

Vernacular imagery that represents nationalistic ideals is often utilized in mass display and propaganda. Public space in Egypt possesses many historical monuments that commemorate past victories and highlight Egypt’s resistance to foreign occupation promoting a hegemonic narrative of national belonging. Monuments are distinct from other artifacts in that they are immutable, historical symbols embedded in a changing urban environment and can be considered an intersection of history and everyday life. Egyptian monuments are often appropriated as the state’s official discourse, other times they are adopted by organizations, corporations or institutions each imbuing them with a varying set of semantic representations. Growing up in Egypt I was personally exposed to many such narratives and myths often fragmented and incoherent. In my search for coherence, and in order to establish a backdrop to my investigation into the iconography of nationalism, I began researching the origins of Egyptian Nationalism.