Eugen Peter Schwiedland: Review of Waldemar Mitscherlich, Der Nationalismus Westeuropas (1921)

Schwiedland’s journal book review praises Mitscherlich’s study for combining a comprehensive account of nationalism with a distinctive sociological method. Nationalism appears as a force comparable in social importance to socialism and capitalism; the book’s chief achievement, however, lies in explaining it without treating the present as an organic continuation of the past.

The author abandons the theory of evolution and puts in its place that of plurality.

As Schwiedland explains it, plurality treats each social phenomenon as a distinct formation with its own conditions of existence. His enthusiasm therefore extends beyond the reviewed book’s subject: he regards this method as potentially opening new perspectives across the study of human life. The review endorses that promise without testing its limits or exploring possible objections.

Its historical synopsis follows nationalism through the conditions of its emergence and its eventual power as a creative idea. Nationalism was foreign to medieval social and political structures; its rise required a fundamental change in those structures.

The modern state, based on unity and on law, lays the foundation to nationalism; besides this, several causes in social life and culture help to bring it forth; a great influence may here also be conceded to individualism.

This account makes nationalism contingent on a conjunction of political, cultural, and social conditions, rather than an enduring feature of collective life. Schwiedland distinguishes its early formation from its acquisition of creative importance toward the end of the eighteenth century. The subsequent nationalistic period reveals its expansion, intensity, and relations to the state and economic life.

The review then turns to the book’s concluding discussion of competing ideas, which Schwiedland considers especially pertinent to his own moment. Imperialism and state unionism challenge nationalism’s aims and claims.

Imperialism and state unionism may be mentioned here—the latter being a voluntary coalescence of sovereign states into one political structure, without, however, giving up their individuality and full independence.

The definition of state unionism makes political association beyond nationalism conceivable without the surrender of sovereign individuality. Schwiedland closes by joining methodological admiration to praise for the book’s calm, nonpartisan tenor. The review’s significance lies in this conjunction: it welcomes both a historically conditioned explanation of nationalism and a framework for considering political forces that might exceed it.