different kind developed in countries with feudal economies and strong absolutist
rule, Kohn argued. Unmitigated by other pressures or interests in society, this -
ethnic - nationalism commanded an individual’s absolute commitment to the
nation, an attachment overriding all other loyalties. It rejected the notion of
voluntary association and the representation of the nation as a modern political
community involved in and committed to contemporary social issues. Instead it
regarded the nation as an everlasting natural entity that had slowly evolved from
prehistoric times. Membership of the nation was fixed, being grounded in descent,
native language, religion and customs and folklore. According to Kohn, the ethnic
brand of nationalism prevailed in Germany, Central and Eastern Europe and the
periphery of Western Europe (e.g. Ireland and Spain).
The civic-ethnic distinction has inspired many authors. In an echo of Kohn,
Greenfeld and Chirot (1994) identify two types of nations: a political nation, which
individuals can become part of by either birth or voluntary participation, and an
ethnic, collectivistic nation, the membership of which is ascribed by descent
(blood). They associate the first type with Britain and France and the latter with
Germany and Russia (see also Hagendoorn and Pepels 2000). In similar vein,
writing about the nation-building projects in the Soviet successor states, Kolst0
(2000, p. 2) argues that whereas in the West the nation has traditionally been
understood as a community of citizens held together by a common territory,
common government authority, a „rival concept that sees the nation as a cultural
entity ... has deep roots in the eastern part of Europe, not least in Russia’. Brubaker
(1992) used Kohn’s framework to account for differences in citizenship and
immigration policies between France and Germany. Other scholars have been
quick to put the label ethnic on the nationalisms that followed the fall of