The Winning Paper from the 2000 Himes Graduate Student Award from NCSA

Nationalist separatist movements have generally been associated with the post-Colonial period, in the wake of World War II when the Western European powers forfeit their colonies in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. In present times, the disintegration of states has mainly been associated with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent break up of the Eastern bloc. The concept of separatists’ movements in so-called first world is foreign as to almost be considered absurd. The most recent example of peaceful state disintegration in the West was the break-up of Sweden and Norway in 1905. Not since that time has a state in the West peacefully cleaved apart (for a fuller history of this separation see Derry 1973).

This paper analyzes the case histories of Quebec and Scotland as an opportunity for theoretical reflection. These two examples have been selected because, of the myriad of Western nationalist movements, these two have proceeded with a significant degree success and international attention. Following, a brief discussion of the modern history of the two movements, classical Sociological theory will be employed to construct a framework of analysis; beginning with Marx continuing to Durkheim and concluding with Weber. Each of the three theorists will be analyzed with specific attention paid to his interpretation of modernity and the illuminative power each brings to this discussion.

It is a specific contention of this paper that evaluation of the current efforts towards state dissolution in Quebec and Scotland can be postulated as modern evaluations of classical Sociological thought. The actions undertaken by these nations can be formulated as outgrowths of modernity and using the framework constructed by Beck, Giddens, and Lash (1994) these actions are viewed as "reflexive modernization." That is, these acts mark the existence of what Giddens (1994) calls "post-traditional society". These actions arise from the social construct of modernity and offer a unique vantage-point of the current era. The separatist movements of the above mentioned nations offer opportunities for reflection on the interpretive utility of classical sociological thought. Moves toward state disintegration offer a chance for the construction of a classical framework of explanation while at the same time allowing for an evaluation of classical thought.

In order to begin the construction, a brief explanation of the working terminology of the paper will be followed by historical sketches of the two nations and their current actions. Upon conclusion of this discussion, the events will be interpreted through classical, theoretical lenses. The discussion concludes with an evaluation of the illuminative power of each theorist offers and in turn how the events offer evaluation of each theorist. Finally, the paper concludes with a discussion of theoretical congruence and evaluation.

The choice of first-world nationalism as an interpretive lens for classical theory is grounded in the social and historical parallels of the classical works and this modern interpretation. Moreover, first world nationalism has aided in the construction of modernity that in many ways is similar to the social world inhabited by Marx, Durkheim, and Weber. The social circumstances that have facilitated the rise of first world nationalist tensions approximate a similar contextual background as that of the classical theorists being evaluated. It is important to recognize that the theorists utilized in this evaluation were operating in similar social surroundings to those we find ourselves today.

The industrial revolution ushered in rapid economic changes and urbanization facilitating dramatic shifts in the social landscape. Additionally, the construction of modern states and the death of ancient empires framed the scholarship of these men. Our modernity encompasses a similar set of circumstances. Shifts in economic production have redefined the social landscape and nationalist fervor is again leading to a reconstitution of the nation-state system.

The theoretical foundation of this study draws from a combination of classical, sociological works and an understanding of nationalist movements. Spencer (1998:7) offers an especially useful definition of nationalism as a "theory of political legitimacy which requires that ethnic boundaries should not cut across political ones, and, in particular, that ethnic boundaries within a given state should not separate the power-holders from the rest." More directly, Spencer’s definition argues that a theoretical formulation of nationalism finds its basis in a discussion of power and power dynamics. Accepting the social construction of a ‘national identity’, it can be argued that Spencer’s definition finds its basis in the Thomas theorem of actors defining the reality of their situation by the reality of its consequences.

For the purposes of this discussion, it is accepted that nationalism is a potentially large-scale phenomenon that uses both institutionalized means of protest and innovative, new forms of social action to circumvent or maintain the status quo. These similarities in circumstances, between the beginning of the industrial revolution and the current environment, offer fertile ground for theoretical construction and evaluation.

Keating (1996) identifies three factors giving rise to a distinctly French Canada in Quebec: language, religion, and social class. These three factors have combined to create the basis of ethnopolitics in Canada. Fuller explanation of these facts can be found in an evaluation of the history of the region. Quebec was initially colonized by France in the seventeenth century and its small number of French settlers openly embraced their connection to French society and culture. The early seeds of social discontent were sown in 1759 following the end of the Seven Years War and the subsequent conquest of all of Canada by the English.

The preceding period of French colonial action in Quebec was marked by the exertion of Catholic power in the province. Standing in contrast to the English model of colonization, the French discouraged the development of metropolitan centers that could potentially compete with France (O’Sullivan See 1986). This policy allowed the Church to exert a great deal of power over the affairs of French Canada. Following the French revolution in 1789, Quebec became a bastion for displaced elements of the former French court, especially traditional components of French Catholicism (Keating 1996). Frowning on industrial development, the Catholic Church was able to shape the economy of Quebec into a primarily agrarian system. This form of traditional economic organization was easily managed and limited the possibility of rapid social change in turn, limiting threats to the Church’s power. The long-term effects of this policy were felt until the middle part of this century.

Little changed in Quebec after the British take over, the majority of the population remained Catholic and the main language of discourse was still French. Economically speaking, the region remained essentially agrarian in its orientation. The discouragement of large-scale industrial development by both England and the Catholic Church ensured that the majority of the people in the region were still primarily lower class. Broad ranging social change began to take root in the 1960s with the "Quite Revolution." Quebec had long been given a great deal of autonomy within the federal Canadian system (Keating 1996; Thomas 1997). Taking advantage of this considerable amount of freedom, the government of the region instituted a number of social and economic changes. These changes were manifested through rapid industrialization and nationalization of many important industries. Resulting from these actions, the rise of a Quebecois elite and an overall transformation of the status of the region began to take place.

A major turning point in the Quebecois movement came in the 1968 with the founding of the Parti Quebecois (PQ) and, subsequently, with a resurgence of the bilingual movement. Parti Quebecois offered a mainstream voice for the members of this region and presented a legitimate outlet for this social movement. Additionally, the bilingual movement actively acknowledged the deep cultural differences between French-speaking Quebec and the rest of Canada. The separatist’s spark of the 1970s was fanned into a raging fire by 1980 with the first referendum on independence for Quebec. While this first referendum failed, it did not prevent the PQ from trying again in 1995. That referendum was only narrowly defeated, with 60% of French speaking Canada is favor of independence. The future of Canada remains uncertain, but the push towards dissolution certainly appears to be an ongoing contention.

The relationship of Scotland to Quebec reveals that while both share a similar background of British rule, Scotland’s claim for independence lacks the cultural and linguistic elements of Quebec. The "Celtic Fringe" of Great Britain has been long associated with varied and competing ethnic minorities. With Welsh, Scottish, and Irish components, the history of ethnopolitics in the British Isles is a rich one. History maintains religious difference in Ireland and linguistic distinction in Wales, but there "has lacked a readily definable feature around which [Scottish] grievances could be structured" (Ishiyama and Breuning 1998:134). Scotland’s impetus for independence is due in great part to a contrived social history and a desire for greater economic independence. Again, a brief discussion of the background is required to understand fully the separatist demands of Scotland.

Modern Scottish history begins in 1707 with the formal union with England as part of the United Kingdom. The transition to English rule was, for the most part, a painless endeavor. The two nations had long been interdependent and the formal Union of Parliaments in 1707 was more a legal maneuver than an act of domination. The formal alliance of the two states ensured expanded political and economic power for Scotland and formalized the existing system for the British. The mixed motivations for this precarious union have been described by Keating (1996) as a rationalized system needed to quell strategic concerns. Specifically, Keating discussed that

         On the English side, the main concern was. . .the need 
         to secure the Protestant succession in both countries 
         and prevent Scotland from being used as a base for Jacobite 
         plots and French intrigue.  For the Scots, the advantages  
         of union were more economic.  It provided free trade with 
         England and opportunities in the expanding empire. (P. 163). 

Early organized signs of nationalism began to arise little over a century following the unification. In the early nineteenth century, signs of a distinctive, Scottish ethnopolitics arose. The first and strongest of these movements was that of that of the newly formed business elite of Glasgow who sought greater representation in London. This new merchant class, ushered in through greater alignment with the industrial strength of England, sought a stronger voice in resource allocation. The second and third fronts were more abstract in their orientation.

The literary revival in Edinburgh brought with it demands for an independent state, drawing its support for a contrived revival of the past grandeur of Scotland. As part of this movement, poets and playwrights attempted the construction of a Gaelic heritage. With only two percent of the Scottish population Gaelic speakers (Harvie 1998), the actions of these groups failed to materialize into any real political action. The third, and more radical element of Scottish politics, desired independence solely to see Scotland stand on its own two feet.

Moves for Scottish independence in the twentieth century have been met with general resistance, that is, until the 1990s. While Scotland, like Quebec, has always enjoyed a great deal of autonomy within its federal union, the desire for more control of resource allocation has fueled Scottish demands for devolution. The government in London responded to these demands by offering more autonomy and the creation of a Scottish parliament with wide-ranging powers. Although the push for independence has been meet with increased political autonomy, the desire for a free Scotland lead to a referendum on the issue in 1997, with similar results as the one in Quebec.

Even with the failure of the 1997 referendum on independence, the move for Scottish autonomy has continued to gain momentum, mainly due to the continued successes of the European Union (EU). The Scottish National Party (SNP) has argued that freedom for Scotland should take shape within the framework of the EU. Specifically, the SNP sees freedom within the EU as offering the necessary political legitimacy and economic opportunity to be truly successful. Drawing on a number of parallels with Quebec, Scottish nationalists have called for dramatic autonomy within the existing federal system and a new economic independence within the EU.

With the contextual and historical foundation of this analysis constructed, attention will now be given to theoretical analysis. As was discussed above, this paper endeavors to construct a theoretical framework for the peculiarly modern phenomenon of first-world ethnopolitics. Accompanying that goal, a modern reinterpretation of classical thought has been undertaken using this same frame. Much in the same way as Marx turned Hegel on his head, this paper fully acknowledges its intention to construct a reflexive analysis of classical thought using the modern examples of first-world nationalism in Quebec and Scotland. Moreover, the analytic goal is to construct a classical lens of interpretation for the actions in Quebec and Scotland and in addition to evaluate the illuminative power of classical thought for modernity.

Beginning this analysis is an evaluation of works of Karl Marx, with specific attention paid to his frame of analysis concerning social change. Most specifically, Marx will be used more for an analysis of his theoretical weaknesses than strengths, but his critical theory will be shown to offer an interesting insight. The study progresses to the work of Emile Durkheim. Critical to this evaluation is his analysis of the division of labor in society and its effects of the types of social organization and cohesion. Lastly, the work of Max Weber aids in the discussion of modernity by considering these movements as outgrowths of rationalized action. Concluding this inquiry is an attempt to find a classical explanation for first-world nationalism and additionally, to evaluate the place of classical thought in the modern era.

Given only a cursory glance, the actions of Quebec and Scotland would appear to prove Marx as a poor judge of the modern age. Marx postulated that material organization of society creates a class system that is linked to "historical phases in the development of production" (Marx 1978:220). In addition, he argued that this system would lead to revolution and a dictatorship of the proletariat. These actions would in turn lead to a classless society. This argument easily offers a theoretical foundation to the actions of former European colonies of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, but appears to offer little in explaining the two nations being studied. Going beyond this simple overview of Marxian thought requires that a discussion of his theoretical formulations be undertaken.

An understanding of Marx begins by realizing that he refuted the ideological formulation of society as postulated by Hegel. Marx argued that it is material, not ideal, interests that drive society and serve as the fuel of the evolutionary strides that it takes. Complete understanding of this concept comes in his seminal works on capital. In the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Marx expounded on the formation of money and its ability to redefine all relationships into ones of economic exploitation. To this end, he explains that "money is . . .the general overturning of individualities which turns them into their contrary and adds contradictory attributes to their attributes" (Marx 1978:105). This statement speaks to the power that Marx attributed economic interests in society. Furthermore, this discussion illuminates the corrupt foundation of an economic society. The foundation would without doubt give way to an eventual revolution by the exploited classes.

Marx’s understanding of history as a series of ongoing class struggles between ruling elites who define the social system and an oppressed proletariat defined his work. In his 1847 work, The Poverty of Philosophy, Marx expanded his thoughts by explaining that political struggles are inextricably tied to social struggles. Specifically, the combat of class against class serves as the driving force of society. Looking specifically to his work concerning crisis theory this point becomes clearer. Marx pointed to the "possibility of crisis [as] given in the process of metamorphosis of capital itself" (Marx 1978:455). Moreover, the function of money in society so commodifies and separates social elements into economic values that crisis is inevitable. Revolution would be the final chapter in any social movement due to the exploitive elements of capital.

This view on the function and cause of social action appears to offer an incomplete explanation with reference to first-world ethnopolitics. Marx’s unyielding focus on economic degradation as the main impetus for large-scale social action does not appear to describe adequately the above circumstances. The discrepancy between a ruling, owner class and the masses who sale their labor fails to capture the reality of the modern era, especially those societies that Giddens has characterized as "post-traditional" (Beck, et.al. 1994).

More specifically, the movements within these nations are, in great deal, efforts towards expanding capitalist motivations. Both Scotland and Quebec have stated their intentions in terms of membership within supra-national economic alliances. The European Union offers a similarly modern enticement to the Scots as did the expanding empire of England in the eighteenth century. Additionally, the structure presented by the North American Free Trade Agreement whets the economic appetite of the Quebecois. This understanding dramatically redefines the use of Marx as a classical lens of analysis. The foundation created by Marx offers an adequate, even exemplary lens for interpreting third-world nationalism, but fails in offering greater understanding of modern, first world ethnopolitics.

The modern era and the effects of globalization have certainly given rise to a number of social and political upheavals directly related to economic motives. In any number of ways Marx can be pointed to as offering a frame of understanding the far reaching effects of capital and its ability to define and redefine the social structure. It is certainly the case that current class organization draws its understanding from the definitional construct presented by Marx. Even so, the organized reaction to the current class structure of first world nations has not been met with active revolution in hopes of radical redefinition and subsequent rebirth as a classless society. The actions undertaken by Scotland and Quebec have been posed as ethnic in origin, but are in reality economic in motivation. These motivations had give rise to movements that demand greater expansion of the exploitive system Marx defined and have lead in fact to the wrong revolution.

Having completed an analysis of Marx, attention is now given to the work of Durkheim. Paying specific attention to his work concerning the modern division of labor it can be understood that Durkheim filled several of the spaces left in Marxian thought. Strictly speaking, Durkheim stood in contrast to Marx, challenging the fundamental tenant of his theorem. Specifically, Durkheim viewed social disruption as potentially harmful to society; not a goal of social action. This view of social organization will be expounded upon in the subsequent discussion and will in turn, offer a greater understanding of this analysis.

Durkheim bridged the theoretical gaps between Saint-Simon and Comte and formulated his functionalist view of social organization (Giddens 1995). This analysis of society viewed institutions as comprising a system of social organization that is sui generus; that is, the whole is greater than the sum of its constituent parts. This view of society postulated that organizations evolve and create a dynamic environment where actions serve a function in maintaining the system. Maintenance of the system of social organization was of the utmost importance to Durkheim. Breakdowns in social order, or anomie, formed the basis of threat to societies and establishment of a balance between social stability and individual rights had to be maintained. Of specific interest to Durkheim and acting as the foundation of this evaluation was the proliferation of the division of labor.

For Durkheim, "nothing appears easier than to determine the role of the division of labor" (Durkheim 1984:12). The expansion of such, affects all member of any society and forms the basis of social solidarity. Understanding Durkheim’s view of the organic nature of society was touched upon earlier in the discussion. The sui generus nature of social organization points to the organic nature of social systems that is, they are outgrowths of social action. Serving as the basis of such organization is the manner in which people operate in the system of labor. This division of labor offers the definitional context for Durkheim’s analysis. Two forms of social life, as derived from the division of labor, were identified, mechanical, and organic.

Durkheim’s reification of social organization into two types allowed for discussion of the effect of modernization. The evolutionary model that he postulated argues that societies advance from mechanical systems of organization to organic solidarity. In early civilizations, solidarity of society was based on commonality. Moreover, the simplicity of life allowed for higher levels of collective conscious. These mechanical societies are marked by a number of social circumstances that first-world ethnopolitics claim in many ways to mimic. Specifically, they are based on similarity with a low division of labor, punitive legal systems, and high levels of collective conscious that regulate activity. As the population on an area expands, a social evolution begins.

According to Durkheim, the rise of organic solidarity begins with three factors: increased population, the rise of cities, and increasing speed of communication (Durkheim 1984:Chapter II). The combination of these factors helps to usher in a reorganization of the division of labor. This reconstitution of society is marked by greater diversity of occupations, higher population density, and lower levels of collective conscious. This combination of factors characterizes modernity and currently, the world is marked by organic solidarity. This is no more prevalent than in the so-called first world. Understanding that modern social organization is based on the principles described above offers an interesting interpretation of first-world nationalism. Additionally, the phenomenon of social dissolution in Quebec and Scotland presents an interesting reflection upon the work of Durkheim.

On the surface the devolution of states would appear to be Durkheim’s greatest fear realized--anomie. Using the model constructed above, societal evolution would preclude the possibility of state dissolution, especially within organic systems. Extrapolating from this model, it can be argued that efforts towards succession are an anomic response to modernity. Using Durkheim’s construct of social evolution, it would seem on the surface that the actions taken by Scotland and Quebec are counter-evolutionary. That is, efforts toward independence appear to be revivals of mechanical solidarity with both Quebec and Scotland claiming cultural and ethnic foundations for their movements.

Probing deeper, it becomes apparent that nationalism and nationalistic movements are in reality a paradox of sorts. As was discussed above, the moves by Quebec and Scotland are efforts toward the establishment of independent states with greater autonomy over social direction and advancement; greater control over integration into organic networks. While in reality, these moves are a resurgence of mechanical society in an organic framework. The linguistic, religious, and economic motives for these moves are attempts by the nations to regain some of the simplicity of mechanical society amidst the turbulent changes of organic organization.

Referring again to the model of reflexive modernization, the use of a Durkheimian lens of interpretation offers critical insights. While indeed the revival of ethnic difference is being used as cohesive model, it is being called upon to expand organic interests. Certainly, both nations have sought autonomy claiming social difference, but the basis of these claims is grounded in economic motivations. Separation presents greater opportunity for economic expansion within the world system, an extremely organic outgrowth with foundations in a revived mechanical frame. The above-mentioned paradox makes this case reflexive. Durkheim’s postulation concerning social evolution would appear to make mechanic resurgence impossible. Additionally, the contrived foundation of the rebellion, coupled with its use of existing social and legal outlets makes it organically framed mechanical action. This unique combination offers an interesting insight into modernity.

Offering perhaps the single most complete frame of analysis are the works of Max Weber. Understanding Weber requires an understanding of his terminology and the manner in which he constructed his own lens. A contemporary of Durkheim, Weber undertook a contradictory view of social organization. At the root of his analysis is rationality, not functionality. Beginning with a discussion of the manner in which Weber reified his categories for social action a greater understanding of state dissolution is possible. At the same time, this discussion of separatist movements presents an excellent opportunity for reflection on the ongoing importance of Weber.

Weber’s personal history offers s a great deal of explanation concerning his academic interests. The German State (in reality, an amalgamation of several principalities) into which Weber was born, and spent a considerable portion of his life in service to, was forged of a Realpolitik (Giddens 1995) based on expansion of economic interests. The reality of this state system served as the foundation of his works. A conflict theorist, similar to Marx, Weber saw social organization as an ongoing attempt towards realizing expanding social and economic power. It is the manner of social organization that Weber identifies that makes his analysis unique. Power manifest itself through three distinct outlets: class, status, and party.

Weber’s seminal work, Economy and Society, clarifies these points tremendously. Weber turned his attention towards the economic organization of social systems as a means of exercising power. Specifically, he points to the place of economic organization, especially capitalistic economies as impetus for action. A group in similar economic surroundings constitutes social class as a shared place in the social system. Status is the social standing assigned such classes and party serves as the organized outlet for the exercise of a class’ power. In addition to these definitions, Weber stated that power is exercised in the modern era with the purpose of expanding rationalized systems.

These rationalized systems take the form of goal-oriented action. That is, power is manifested in a manner so as to increase clearly delineated economic goals. Applied to the cases of Quebec and Scotland, this discussion becomes extremely clear as an outgrowth of Weberian thought. For Weber expounded that, "every expansion of a country’s power sphere increases the profit potential of the respective capitalist interest" (Weber 1963:346). For Weber, an understanding of the exercise of power as an opportunity for economic expansion is vital to the understanding of why action is undertaken. In addition, a Weberian understanding of capitalism reveals that increasing rationality demands new markets to conquer as the system appears to construct its own animated order. Moreover, modern capitalism requires economic markets that offer struggles and subsequent opportunities for conquest.

This understanding is exemplified by the economic motivations of the two groups under study. Again, it is important to recall that both groups have faced little subordination within their current configurations and have been granted significant degrees of legal autonomy. Even in light of this, their current motivations can be attributed to an increasing rationalization of their own position. More directly, Quebec and Scotland have justified their current actions in Weberian terms of the problematic construction of the status order. Weber stated that as to the "general effect of the status order, only one consequence can be stated, but it is a very important one: the hindrance of the free development of the market" (Weber 1963:937).

Both nations have justified their ethnopolitics in a similar frame. Claims of national unity have been constructed as to offer expansion of the "free development of the market" (Weber 196:937). This is evidenced by their desires to expand membership within the supra-national economic organizations of the European Union and NAFTA. Domination defined by Weber as "one of the most important elements of social action" (p. 941) takes two forms in this situation. Both nations claim dominance by governing systems that do not allow for full actualization of social potential. Additionally, both wish to expand domination of economic environments. More succinctly stated by Weber as the "two diametrically contrasting types of domination . . . virtue of constellation of interest (in particular: by virtue of a position of monopoly), and domination by virtue of authority, i.e., power to command and duty to obey" (p. 943).

Recognizing the argument of Quebec and Scotland as one of increasing rationalization clarifies the position of Weber. Using this case of modern state dissolution as a reflection on the modernity of Weber’s work presents a fuller argument. It is clear from the evaluation that discussion of Weber finds continued relevance of work in the modern era. The actions that constitute first-world nationalism address the validity of Weber’s argument. Understanding the rationalization used by these actors within the framework constructed by Weber reveals that the continued use of this analysis is warranted. The unique phenomenon of Western ethnopolitics reaffirms the systematic discussion of power and its display as discussed by Weber.

This evaluation has reviewed the current actions undertaken by Quebec and Scotland as opportunities for theoretical evaluation. While the concept of state dissolution is not unique to this period in history, its occurrence in the so-called first world is peculiar to this modernity. Attempting to find an understanding of these actions has lead to the evaluation of classical Sociological thought. Simultaneously, the discussion of Western ethnopolitics has been used as a reflexive model concerning classical theory. In concluding this evaluation, a discussion of the issues will take the shape of the construction of a theoretical model accompanied by an assessment of classical thought in the modern age.

It has been the goal of this discussion to find a classical lens to evaluate efforts towards state dissolution in Canada and the United Kingdom. Using the work of the three patriarchs of the discipline, a theoretical congruence can be found. Without doubt, both Durkheim and Weber benefited from their lengthy debates with Marx (Giddens 1995; Shaskolsky Sheleff 1997). By acknowledging the contribution that Marx made in the greater understanding of society, they worked as social masons filling the gaps in the walls around theoretical explanation. Even today, the overwhelming reliance that theorists have placed on Marx continues to reinforce his validity. The purpose of this examination, as explained above, is not only an explanation of current events, but also a reflection on classical thought. With this understanding, it is easily expressed that Marx serves as more than simply a foil to Durkheim and Weber.

This analysis is deeply indebted to the understanding that Marxian analysis offers. Specifically, the conceptual framework that Marx constructed with reference to the powers of a system based on money. This lens of analysis offers the core around which more sincere understanding is built. Additionally, the structure of class conflict as the driving force of social action greatly illuminates the discussion. Where Marx failed in his analysis is his unyielding focus on economic degradation as the most significant motive for social action. This discussion would be remiss if it attempted to understand first world nationalism only as an outgrowth of class conflict. It is certainly a contention of this analysis that at its foundation, these actions have economic motives. The difference arises when understanding that the motives are not based on an overthrow of the current system in a favor classless organization. Rather, the actions of these nations are undertaken as an attempt to expand the exploitive system that Marx detested.

Continuing this reflexive construction, an evaluation of Durkheim’s contribution is necessary. This paper has focused on Durkheim’s discussion of the division of labor and the effects its proliferation has on society. Moreover, these specific cases of ethnopolitics have served as an assessment of the validity of an evolutionary construct. The functional attributes of social structures are questioned by these actions. If societies were to be believed to evolve, then organic solidarity would appear to prevent the rise of such movements as those in Quebec and Scotland. First world societies, according to Durkheim’s model, would be the most evolved examples. Even so, the cases presented do not necessarily discount Durkheim’s frame.

The validity of Durkheim’s construct is found is the unique manner through which Quebec and Scotland have formed their cases. Both nations have called upon mechanical elements of solidarity in an attempt to redefine their organic engagements. Referring to the construction of a money system as defined by Marx this point is further defined. Marx expressed that the basis of this system turns action into its opposite which explains the resurgence of mechanical solidarity in the organic system. The combination of these elements begins the construction of an explanatory system.

The concluding analysis of the works of Weber completes the system of theoretical construction. Weber’s focus on the rationalization of action as a natural outgrowth of systematic social progression offers a significant degree of explanation. This belief is especially useful in the cases of Western nationalism. Using all three levels of social stratification as defined in Economy and Society, these cases use actions associated with class, status, and party organization as a system of social action. Weber’s reflection on modernity is without doubt the most complete. However, additions of the works of Marx and Durkheim complement and further illuminate his analysis.

Full understanding of a classical lens of analysis concludes with a delineation of the appropriate aspects of each theorist as a theoretical frame. Specifically, completion of this argument is through a combination of classical elements. The cases of first world nationalism in Quebec and Scotland are best viewed through constitution of the following work. Understanding that economic interests form the basis of these actions, the money system as proposed by Marx constructs the frame. Continuing to understand that this money system has at its root contradiction, Durkheim’s explanation of social organization clarifies understanding of these actions. These efforts are elucidated more aptly as a response to organic organization by calling upon mechanical elements to face change. Lastly, combining these elements with a Weberian understanding of rationality a more complete picture of the situation arises. Moreover, the construction of first world nationalist movements is a natural outgrowth of modernity.

The understanding that classical theory offers in rationalizing western ethnopolitics in turn validates the role of classical theory in the modern era. The works of Marx, Durkheim, and Weber continue to offer explanatory and illuminative power. This discussion has concluded that classical Sociological thought continues to offer a suitable frame for this modernity. At the same time, the actions of the separatists in these nations reconstitute the place of classic thought amidst reflexive modernization.

Return to NCSA Information Page