State formation and nation-building in the Netherlands and the Soviet Union: a historical comparison Author(s): Hans Knippenberg

Reviewed work(s): Source: GeoJournal, Vol. 40, No. 3 (November 1996), pp. 249-262 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41146998 . Accessed: 18/04/2012 16:10
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to GeoJournal.

http://www.jstor.org

40.3: 249-262. Geojournal

1996 (November)KluwerAcademiePublishers.Printedin theNetherlands.

in and State formation nation-building and the SovietUnion: theNetherlands a historical comparison
Hans; Department HumanGeography, Knippenberg, of University of The Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
6 1996 Accepted June Abstract: The interrelated of and are processes stateformation nation-building analysed fortwo cases: the Netherlands (1795-1960) and the Soviet Union (1917-1989). The central cultural or questionis: how did thesestatesdeal withstrong (religious ethnic) In there three are elimination, cleavagesin itssocieties. general, options: marginalization, and institutionalization. In bothstatesinstitutionalization dominant, thekindof was but institutionalization differed much:'personalistic' Netherlands) versus territorial (the very The has (SovietUnion)institutionalization. hypothesis beenputforward in general, that, institutionalization 'personalistic' on a basiswillcreate more political stability.

1. Introduction SincethecollapseoftheBerlin wallin 1989Europe has been thesceneof unexpected violent and outbursts nationalism ethnic of and which have conflicts, considerable confusion scholars and generated among areconfronted an unprecewith policymakers. They dented rateof changethatneedsbothdescription, and theoretical explanation analysis(Huttenbach 1994: 6). However, the following day by day outbursts and conflicts, may be prevented one from theseeventsin theirproperperspective. placing a detached is for Therefore,more approach needed, a historical one. Like vulcanic example, eruptions, societal often of eruptions arethe consequences longterm processes. Theseconflicts twothings common. the have in In first there an appealto a certain is or place, political cultural (national, ethnic, identity etc.) to religious divide'us' from 'them'.In thesecondplace,these * conflicts substate are conflicts and not conflicts between a states, although break ofthestate up may be theresult, a substate conflict a into transforming conflict between states. These common characteristics indicate relethe vanceof twolong-term which combiin processes, nationare distinctive modernsocieties: state of formation nation-building. a long time and For scholars werefamiliar withthe idea of an evoluin tionary processof modernization, whichboth

that Now, subprocesses gained strength. we know the be thecase: thedisintegrationstate of opposite may and nation,or, as Connorput it alreadyin 1972 somewhat nation (Connor provocatively: destroying 1972). In thispaperbothlong-term processesof state formation disintegration) nation-building and (or (or are between two cases: the destroying) compared SovietUnionandtheNetherlands. fist At both sight statesseem not comparable. Whatis the sense of the vast Soviet Union and its many comparing with little the of and peoples country theNetherlands its relatively Still,this homogeneous population? makessense.Bothcountries a comparison represent different optionfor the way state and (different cultural minorities interact. and State within) society are from society heredistinguished each other only foranalytical purposes. In a way,bothstates thesameproblem: had how to deal with the cultural of diversity the state's The of population? formation theSovietUnionafter the1917 Revolution confronted leaders its with the immense ethnic of diversity itspopulation. According to the 1926 censusalmost 200 peopleswereliving on itsterritory of (Kozlov 1988: 15). The founding the modernDutch unitary state afterthe 1795 BatavianRevolution confronted Dutchcentral the with of government thereligious diversity itspopulation.The Netherlands situated whatthe was on Dutchhistorian Kok once called the'faultline De

250

H. Knippenberg

RomeandReformation' also comprised 1991:79-84). When state formation nationbetween and precedes - as inmany Western states onecan speak a Jewish Kok 1964). (De minority building Whennation-building Both states tried legitimate authority of territorial to their nation-building. young modern statesthey precedesstateformation as in the case of the thepeople.Like other through in states divin disintegration ofmulti-ethnic absolutist basedon thedroit empires nation authority rejected Ofcourse, of the and accepted idea of sovereignty thepeople. - onecan speakofethnic nation-building. situations occur. of the that However, idea presupposed existence a may hybrid in With these typologies mind,the historical did a peopleornation not people.Thus,when single and in the Netherlands the Soviet one. As a to it exist, was thestate'sinterest create developments in in a nutshell. Mile stones its the tried homogenize people Unionwillbe analysed to consequence state the define historical For cultural theprocessof stateformation one culturally, building singlenation. That does not whichwill be considered. of the couldthreaten political stability the periods, diversity on is meanthat state. nation-buildingallwaysdependent It the stateformation. does meanthatthe stateis an In general, diversity, dealingwithcultural actorin thenation-building has state three process,in elimination, marginalization important options: and or ethno-national ethnic sentiment, of and institutionalizationcultural (Van generating diversity on societalgroups an ethno-national Amersfoort 1996). Elimination in mobilizing 1995; Knippenberg ever will basis. Dutchhistory be analysed cultural or ethnic certain tries suppress to the that state means ended of or violence bya policy assimilation. sincetheBatavianRevolution (1795), which by properties Soviet (or the Republicof the UnitedProvinces. the Stateagainst Kurdsis of The policy theTurkish ever will in Thewayrulers thepastimposed Russian) a recent history be followed sincethe1917 example. which endedtheCzarist to on Empire. their according thewell Revolution, subjects religion their serve eiusreligio, cuiusregio, known may principle or Genocide ethnic times. earlier from as anexample 1795-1960: of can be theultimate consequence such 2. The Netherlands 'cleansing' on Nazi Germany from know diversity a instance as religious a policy, wefor institutionalizing basis non-territorial ('personalistic') andformer Yugoslavia. concerns A more 'gentle'wayofhomogenization Revolution certain 2.1. TheBatavian meansthat Marginalization marginalization. are or language) not cultural (as properties religion for was Revolution very the The Batavian but important the or suppressed forbidden are bannedfrom nation of 1996).In diver- building theDutch (Knippenberg to theprivate Religious sphere. publicsphere for by maybe marginalized a reli- 1795, the federalRepublicof the Seven United sity, instance, in of by or neutral state, byfreedom religion the Provincescame to an end. Supported French giously ended took revolution place,that a of troops political but of conscience, notfreedom senseoffreedom and statestructure gave riseto a the as during DutchRepublic theold crumbled such publicworship, 'federbetween state.The struggle the modern where Provinces unitary oftheUnited only (1648-1795), of in was in thepublicsphere. alists' and 'unitarists' settled favour the was allowed church calvinist accommodated unof- 'unitarists'. by may diversity be Linguistic The ideology of the enlightened as function part of the ficialbilingualism: languages minority for wouldbe the sourceof inspiration official 'homelanguages'alongwithan (majority) population the and the public organizing new state.The Dutch nationwas languagebeingused in education and dissenters, Roman redefined. catholics, protestant sphere. statusand becamefull second-rate for jews lost their cultural with A third ofdealing diversity way of of or the thestateis recognizing multi-ethnic multi- citizens thenew stateand equal members the to elitetried compromise Thepolitical Dutch certain of people. character itspopulation giving cultural by the withtheidea that Dutchpeoplewas a calvinist as territories or to cultural groups to certain rights state.Two kindsof institutionalization people. in a federal people, and territorial extra-territorial For,theDutchpeoplewas nota calvinist be distinguished: may had Provinces of the These kindsare although governmenttheUnited arrangements. (or 'personalistic') was education aim.For instance, to reachthat between tried difference withthewell known connected based on ius soli and on ius sanguinisi used to calvinisethepeople and theschoolteacher citizenship of and his wifehad to be members the Calvinist one is where the from territory, derived citizenship or the or living, from nation people,to whichone Church. of The calvinisation theDutch peopleonlypartly belongs. on a greater impact theprotestant can having movements be subdivided succeeded, Also nationalistic 38% In catholics. 1809> than on and in territorial ethnic ones,dependent whether dissenters on theroman was roman catholic, only the from (state) of theDutchpopulation national identity theyderivetheir dissenters Table1). to (see the or from peopleor ethnic (Smith 4.4% belonged theformer group territory

and theSoviet Union The Netherlands of Table 1. Thereligious composition theDutchpopulationin 1809 Number Roman Catholics Old Catholics Calvinists Lutherans Mennonites Remonstrants Jews No religion Others Population 840,209 4,321 1,223,467 61,779 30,169 4,075 39,596 295 878 2,205,505 % 38.1 0.2 55.5 2.8 1.4 0.2 1.8 0.0 0.0 100

25 1 and Orthodox-protestants roman catholics were at freedom of education. That meant the aiming freedom establishtheir to own confessionalschools, where they could transmittheir own religious This started first the ideologyto thenew generation. phase of the so-called schoolstruggleagainst the liberal state(De Bruin 1985). Withinthe Dutch ReformedChurch,the authorities came into conflictwith a numberof orthodox In whichwas occurred, clergymen. 1834, a separation Jcalledde Afscheiding (the Secession) (Bakker et al. 1984). 2.2. The 1848 Constitution The second mile-stone of state formation was Thorbecke's liberal Constitution in 1848. This Constitution offered such as freedom manyliberties, of religionand freedom education. of Freedomof religionmeantthatchurcheswere no longerobliged to get state approval of theirchurch thatpaved theway organization. Amongother things, forthe restoration theepiscopal hierarchy, of which ended the statusof the greaterpart of the country as missionaryterritory. turn that considerably In increased opportunities organizing, the for mobilizing and disciplining catholicpopulation. the The awakeningof consciousness of the calvinist population was encouraged by new churchregulations. These regulations were strengthening the impact of orthodoxforces,especially on the local level. A struggle betweenmore dogmaticand more liberalmembers theDutch Reformed of Churchwas the result. Finally, part of the right wing of this calvinist church seceded (the 1886 Doleantie), leaving behind a stronglydivided church. Both liberal and orthodox groups within the Dutch Reformed Churchorganizedthemselvesin different associations (Rasker 1986). The constitutional freedom educationincreased of theopportunities founding for denominational private schools. Paradoxically, also intensified schoolit the struggleon the long run, because the liberal state increased the educational requirements(1857 and 1878). That was not a problem for the state aided public school, but it was a great financialproblem forthe non-subsidised confessionalprivateschools. The schoolstruggle freedom educationchanged for of intoa schoolstruggle getting for equal financial rights forpublic and (confessional)privateeducation. So, the educationpolicy of the state,which was based on the idea of an undivided,generalChristian the nation,stimulated schoolstruggle unintentionally. In otherwords: stateefforts marginalizereligious to had an invertedimpact. The resultwas a diversity and identificationby stronger self-identification othersof orthodox-protestants romancatholics. and It is not surprising thateducation was the issue on whichbothgroupswere mobilized. As a mediumof

Data source: Kok 1964:292-293. De The great majorityof the protestants had become calvinist, but the Dutch people had not become entirely protestant. The new authorities centralisation of aspiredafter The old provinces and local powerand national unity. lost a greatpart of theirpower (urban) authorities to the national government. The centralizationof itselfforinstancein a tax politicalpowerexpressed reform,the introductionof compulsory military of service,and the establishment a national educationsystem, classical elementsof stateformation all (De Vrankrijker 1969; Amersfoort1982; Lenders & 1988; Knippenberg De Pater 1988: 136-144). The last elementin particular was essential forbuilding theDutch nation. So, already in 1798, only threeyears afterthe Batavian Revolution, the PreliminaryAuthority an whichhas appointed Agentof NationalEducation, been consideredas thefirst Minister Educationin of & Europe (Knippenberg Van der Harn 1993: 17). A nationalSchool Act ended thediversity local and of A nationalschoolinspection provincial arrangements. in supervised its performance the whole territory 1986: 40-47). (Knippenberg Still,therewas theproblemof religiousdiversity. To solve this problem the authoritieschoose for public education of a general Christian character, denominations. acceptableto all different Theyfeared that everything could dividethepeople. Aim was the of a Dutch nationof worthy building citizens,loyal to thenew politicalsystem. was Religiousdogmatism bannedfromthepublic to theprivatesphere. was However,politicalparticipation limited. Only a few percentof the population had access to the the politicalarena.Therefore, enlightened Christianity of thepoliticalelitecould dominate politicalpractice. That gave rise to the firstsigns of protest from and (especially) orthodox-protestant (less) roman catholic sides. The first skirmishes the education in sectorand withinthe calvinistmotherchurch now called Dutch Reformed Church (Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk) - came forward.

252

H. Knippenberg

cultural education was veryimportant in for dominant cultural transfer, (the group calvinists) a minority The increased maintaining religious identity. partic- position. Growing 'ethnicity'among orthodoxineducation in such relevant calvinists theresult. wasunique that was That madetheschoolstruggle ipation ninewas foundin no other foralmost 1986). 'ethnicity' everyone protestant (Knippenberg . General societal werealso contributing teenth country century European processes and of orthodox-protestants of calvinists to thesuccessful mobilization orthodox 'ethnicity' Growing in itself different catholics and theexpansion integra- roman androman catholics, ways. expressed e.g. character the religious of in the tionof theinfrastructure secondhalfof the The intergenerational werethepromowas strengthened. and groups As nineteenth Typical century. faras communication resistance and the tionof church this is marriage thechurch brought transport concerned, integration in for mixedmarriages, instance National elitesbecamemore against Dutchpeopletogether. religiously letter of Errorum theencyclical their and and of Quanta capable reaching mobilizing rank file theSyllabus Cura in 1864 (Van Eupen,1985:27). Untilfarinto & (Knippenberg De Pater1988: 43-91). therewas a declinein the of modernizationthecountry the twentieth Thesocio-economic century, mixedmarriages of con- number religiously is a secondmoregeneral (Schmidt, factor, contributing with first one. Largescale industrializa- 1993: 197-210). Even in 1959,theDutchsociolothe nected statedthatmixed but late tionwas relatively in theNetherlands, from gistsVan Doom and Lammers in that marriages Dutchsociety of was about1860there a modernizationsociety alwaysmeanreligiously 1959:59; and local communities madepeople sus- mixed unlocked (VanDoom & Lammers marriages on resistance In to new waysof socialization. thesame see also Dekker1965: 13-14). Church ceptible were Mixedmarriages thisissue is understandable. was growing. mortality Declining prosperity period the In from not ratesindicated onlyimproving a sourceof apostatizing ratesand birth religion. fact, between distinction fora sharper but andhygienic medical conditions, also churches argued knowledge whichthe Dutchsociologist 'us' and 'them', betweenthe 'ingroup'and the a changing mentality Hofsteehas describedas the 'modern-dynamic' 'outgroup'. and more became Thereligious 1962: 13-84). of important identity (Hofstee pattern culture otheridentities dominated (Van Miert1992: 671). offiand weresharpened church standards calvinists Religious orthodox2.3. Growing among 'ethnicity' local as their cials supervised observance, different catholics and roman haveshowed studies 1985;VanderLaarse (Meurkens of a induced conditions 1992).The survival theownreligious 1989;Groot A mixof social and political rise and group more attention, fertility giving tohigh got orthodox-protestants among 'ethnicity' growing and catholics orthodox protescatholics.First,therewas the ideological levelsamongroman roman the of in In tants. retrospect, thefifties thiscentury, whichpenetrated theliberalstate, threat deeply by thattheDutch Van Heek stated local communities Dutchsociologist realm. intheeducational Second, of and the eroded through modernization integration catholicstook the moralruleslaid downby their in thantheir moreseriously the in general, politicalelite church co-regionalists Third,also society. and Germany(Van Heek 1954). The without a favoured Dutchnation religious Belgium strong also kept high relatively fertility orthodox-protestants cleavages. resisted rates.A real purgetookplace in catholic catholics politics. androman Orthodox-protestants werereplaced ultrato faith their Liberalcatholic by and thesedevelopments pinnedtheir politicians 1986:202-203).Aninterplay ones which montane (Righart was The owngroups. result a religious revival, and to an of selfidentification identification others and led by their strengthened group identity 'ethnic'consciousness. as known verzuiling strengthened and organizational socialsystem of the ('pillarization'): segmentation Dutchsociety roman 2.4. Theschoolstruggle of in compartments orthodox-calvinists, and socialists liberals. extent and catholics, toa lesser In overeducation. was Not onlyinternal processesplayeda part.The The 'ethnic'conflict fought was thenation-building ofthestate field, policy was Netherlands notan islandin Europe.In other that was a verysensieducation took revival as ofEurope well,a religious place mostclear.Moreover, parts and with In combination church family, The and Rationalism Enlightenment. social tivematter. resisting for institution the themostimportant was in catholics someother European education among processes to culture thenextgeneration. of have countries also beenlabelled (Righart transfer 'ethnic' verzuiling causeda growing Thatschoolstruggle 'ethnicity' 1986). up dividing theDutch groups, was The Dutchsituation uniquein thelongtradi- amongthereligious to tion of a (religiously)plural society and the nation.The attitude public or (confessional) for becametheyardstick 'ethnic' education Revolution the break private during Batavian ideological - which groupmembership. the opinionof Rome and In by strengthened the 1848 Constitution had the of theformer Utrecht ofthearchbishop) realcatholic (seat theorthodox representatives brought

and TheNetherlands theSovietUnion

253

should sendtheir children costswerecovered theStategrants nochoice:catholic (Oud 1979: by parents to catholicprivateschools. Only when catholic 142). schoolswerenotavailable,it was allowedto send Graduallythe position of the socialists had Theirmainissue was the childrento (religiously schools. becomemoreimportant. neutral)public in catholiceducation which would was a central introduction universalsuffrage, of Participation which At element a realcatholic of laid down considerably increase their revival, power. their political and newstandards behavior moral of codes (Rogier congress 1902theSocialDemocratic in Labour Party 1985: 171). Arbeiders 1956;Meurkens, (Sociaal-Democratische Partij)discussed Theattitude confessional to education was theschoolissue.The party strongly was divided. On private essential orthodox-protestants The 1848 the one hand socialists fundamentally for as well. favoured Constitution indeed had freedom educa- publiceducation, theother of on handthey werefrightprovided but that there shouldbe sufficient enedtoalienate confessional who their tion, also stated workers, sent in The children confessional to schools.The majority public education everywhere the country. supavailable did the publiceducation notmeet needsof porteda motionthat demandedfree education thereal calvinist. The orthodox-protestant of financed theState.In order to endanger not the part by thepopulation therefore was on private unity theworking of class theyalso supported the dependent initiatives. 1860, the Association Christian position both In for that and education should public private NationalEducation{Vereniging voor Christelijk meet the same materialstandards and therefore NationaalSchoolonderwijs) founded, was followed should both financed theState thesameway. be in by other protestant such as the In fact,the socialistssupported confessional the by organizations, Association Calvinist for Education voor parties their in the {Vereniging struggle against liberalStatefor in 1868 and the financial ofpublic private and education Gereformeerd Schoolonderwijs) equalisation Union: A School withthe Bible (De Unie: Een (Korver1987:45-46). Schoolmet Bijbel)in 1879(VanStrijd Zegen den en In 1913theliberal cabinet CortvanderLinden of 1904: 646-718). In 1872 the Association for set up a Statecommission investigate possito the Christian National Education was transformed into bilities State-aid private of for schools. Although they the Anti-Education League {AntiSchoolwet fundamentally Act education liberals the supported public a withmorethan wanted bring schoolstrugglean end.In their to the Verbond), national to organization hundred local branches. The orthodox-protestants thisschoolstruggle dividedthenation and opinion were alsomobilized became and 'ethnic'. hampered growth its increasingly (Oud 1979: 210-212). this in The so-calledSatisfying Commission Through mobilization theschoolstruggle {Bevredialso got more political power. Using the gingscommissie) succeeded. Consensus reached was they infrastructure Anti-Education on theprinciple equal financing publicand of the of of organizational ActLeague,theprotestant leaderAbraham education. Thisprinciple eveninscribed was Kuyper private founded first the modern massparty: The in the Constitution. Article 192 of the 1917 political olutionair e Parti]) Constitution that Anti-Revolutionary {Anti-Rev Party prescribed education not only - is an object continuous in 1878.Thenameis symbolic. orthodox-protesThe of concern publiceducation tant the of The party fought against principles theFrench of the central government. same articlelaid its and and downthefinancial Revolution, ideasonfreedom citizenship, Bothprivate educaequalisation. itsrationalism secularisation. party and This of strength- tion thatmet the conditions law and public enedthepolitical of education should financed an equal basis. be on power theorthodox-protestants At thesametimetheissue of universal considerably. suffrage In 1887a change theConstitution of doubled the was settled. Constitution The for prescribed suffrage electorate. Thatwas in favour theconfessional all menand madepossiblethesuffrage women. of for The of for So, a package-deal representatives. results the1888elections between and rightwing leftwing theSecondChamber showeda remarkable to issues victory parties brought anendthetwomain political fortheconfessionals. Consciousof their common of thesecondhalfof thenineteenth thebeginand interest the schoolstruggle in The constitutional againstthe liberals, ning of the twentieth century. catholics and orthodox-protestants each embedding was veryimportant Kwaasteniet supported (De other's candidates theconstituencies in reform wouldneedat preventing 1990: 37). As a constitutional the election a liberal of candidate Tijn1971 27). : least a two-third (Van the State-financing of majority, Thischange power of pavedthewayforthefirst privateschoolscould not be undoneby a simple confessional cabinet Dutchhistory Mackay, majority Parliament. in with in member theAnti-Revolutionary as Prime of The financial of Party equalisation publicand private Minister. cabinetalso contained The two catholic education elaborated the1920Primary in Education members. thefirst For timethere was the oppor- Act- meant both that sectors should equally be paid for the of tunity changing law in favour theprivate veryliterally. give theclassicalexamplein this To schools.So, the 1889 Education brought Act some context: whena windowof a public school was ofprivate schools. About 30% of all broken, private State-financing the schoolalso gotthemoney a for

254

H. Knippenberg

newone.Therather application theprinciple encouragedsimultaneously. catholicprivate of The rigid of equality avoidedtheemergence newconflicts school had to follow the rules of the national of In of educa- government. reaction, centralization catholic a between and of supporters opponents private education tookplace,which tion(De Kwaasteniet 1987:38). gaverise arrangements in institution 1920: catholic education of to a national In theinternational context detailed this system BureauforEducation neutral education confes- theRomanCatholicCentral and State-financed public was rather sionalprivate education unique.In his (R.K. Centraal Bureau voor Onderwijs en 1994:237-244). classic historyof the Dutch educationsystem Opvoeding) (Verhoeven in in there no country the was out organizedthemselves Orthodox-protestants Idenburg pointed that as of national on where claimsand rights education the world organizations well. They also became level. This national to wereformally moreoriented thenational denominational thedifferent groups of conditioned thenature was as as and materially by guaranteed accurately in the orientation further local dominated politics. often Liberals 1964: 55). The education localpolitics. Netherlands (Idenburg eliteon thenational in the reformers level, Republic thebegin- By joiningtheorthodox during Batavian couldopposetheideology had of the nineteenth politicians certainly not local orthodox century ning had to this foreseen result. (Van religion ofthelocal authorities Miert1992). They tried banish For historical of the to from publicsphere cope with problem the reasons,theorthodox-protestants the nation than roman above weremore loyalto theDutch standing Only diversity. a Christianity religious theDutchnation For couldbe catholics. orthodox-protestants of thedivision thevarious groups religious ruled a calvinist nation an base oftheState.Instead institutional- was a calvinist themoral kingdom, by traits thathad arisen in the heroicrevoltagainstthe with of ization that diversity corporate religious Act catholic Education the In hadarisen. fact, 1920Primary king. Spanish with identification the the Forcatholics ideological of set an exampleforthe settling otherdisputes The Dutchnationwas morecomplicated and theconfessional thesecular (Bornewasser parties. among aboutthe as appliedto thesubsi- 1989). They werenot veryenthusiastic of principle proportionality a For the initiated Dutchstate. example, that the became main revolt schools and ofprivate public dizing such celebration as the300thanniversary in 'national' of devicefortheallocation government money first of othersectorsof societysuch as healthcare and oftheconquest Den Brielat 1 April1872(the successin theDutchRevolt)gaveriseto local riots 1990:38). as well (De Kwaasteniet housing and between protestants aloofcatholics participating 1992:681-682;Te 1992: 124-131;VanMiert in 2.5. Nation-buildinga segmented (Groot society Velde 1992: 131-132; Groot 1995). Catholics fatherof the to for prefered emphasize greatness their of were consequences this the What segmentation still the landin theMiddleAges,whentheNetherlands Somewhat Dutch paradoxically, nation-building? of centuries three not has stimulated onlysubnational werecatholic, counterbalancing schoolstruggle domination and a butalso national (Raedts1992). identities, protestant feelings religious educaand withsecondary higher This national identity. is becausetheschoolstruggle Stateconcern the On effect. theone hand, level as againstthe tionalso had a twofold thenational has strengthened and of Thathas inducednational expansionand modernization secondary level. local or regional formation the education to among and supported elite nation-building. higher integration contributedDutch and the orthodox-protestants romancatholics, dominated that giving It werenational organizations On mobilization. the for in Church the moreopportunities their The schoolstruggle. RomanCatholic contributed of thisexpansion education hand, was not only part of the universal other Netherlands Thorbecke's the to Dutch nation-building. As Secondary of but Church, was first all a Dutchchurch. education Act on Meurkens it in his study the Education (1863) gaveriseto general put antropologist withnation-building in subjectssuch as OudeKempenland region thecatholic province schooltypes (a and Dutch language Dutch history, which of 'The geography, ofNorth-Brabant): standards behavior, had been formulated the Brabant (and Dutch) (Bartels1947: 13). by was education comparable. in Thesituation higher of the both rules the from werederived clerical elite, the Act Education transformed old of the and from virtues the Dutch State, The 1876Higher church, into and Utrecht of and universities Leiden,Groningen, whichwere propagated Dutchprotestants by Atheneum and the Amsterdam 1985: 172-173).Others liberals' pointed State universities, (Meurkens univerIn into university. these of the outthat subcultures liberals, orthodox-protes-Illustre a municipal of theliberalpartof thepeople sitiestheideology in tantsand romancatholicswere converging a which direction Opposingthatliberalcharacter, middle-class (Van Miert 1992: dominated. general forqualified Dutch had prevented university appointments 677-678). Even forcatholicand calvinist Da like the orthodox-protestantsBilderdijk, Costa,and in someaspects, differed which clearly history, 1930: 7-8), the (Rullmann and Netherlands theDutchpeople weretheframe Groenvan Prinsterer Abraham of zuil was leader theprotestant (pillar), Kuyper, A of reference. catholicand a Dutchidentity

TheNetherlands theSovietUnion and

255

in founded Amsterdam the Free University 1880, existing cultural which couldthreaten the diversity, which very was for eliteforma- stability thepolitical of Needlesstosay,this important protestant system. tion. was greater that theNetherlands. than in diversity far Romancatholicswere underrepresented the in theBolsheviks a specialproblem. had However, academic world well.Around as twoout Their marxist-leninist was 1900,only ideology internationalistic of209 university tothecatholic on principle: proletarians all to professors belonged belonged thesame church 1958:34-38). In 1923catholics working class. A subdivision different in (Matthijssen peoplesor alsogottheir catholic own thus nations couldthreaten unity this the of class Nijmegen University, working the of civilelites. andcouldbe contraproductive struggle inthe enabling education catholic against In the same perioduniversities became more capital(Connor1984:30 ff).On theother the hand, nationalin character, of non-Russian nationalities losing their international dissatisfactionthemajor orientation someextent to 1962: 214to the former Russian Empire,that 'prison of (Groenman as for was factors 215). Latindisappeared a medium instruction nations', oneoftheprincipal contributing andforthefirst time chairs Dutchhistory in (1860) to the1917Revolution 1968). (Aspaturian andgeography beforeWorldWar I, thisproblem was (1877) wereestablished. Already Whatconclusions be drawn can from rough discussedamongleadingmarxists, wereconthis who historical outline Dutch of state formation nation- frontedwith the situationin the multi-ethnic and The origin themodern of Dutchunitary Habsburg building? Empire(Gleason 1990: 19-39; Bezemer whichcovered present-day the ever 1991; Hanf1991). In short, question state, the was: 'Can territory since 1839, laid down who would belongto the different thatdefine themselves peoples as groups Dutchnation. From cultural a the live together within singlestate, a and viewpoint, limita- and nations tionof Dutchterritory fairly was State how can theyorganizetheircoexistence?'(Hanf arbitrary. borders notcoincidewithlanguageborders did or 1991: 35). borders. religious The in particAt the 1899 Brunn religious of Social diversity Congress Austrian ularwouldthreaten unity theDutch the of nation and Democrats proposals two wereadvanced: 'territoa thestability thepolitical of rial' one based on a federal modeland an 'anthrosystem. Theeducation of state underlined pological'one based on national-cultural policy theliberal autonomy thereligious contrasts contributed a growing (Gleason 1990: 25). LeadingAustro-Marxists and to like 'ethnicity' amongorthodox-protestants eleborated distincthis (calvinists) OttoBauerand KarlRenner androman catholics. at this tionin two concepts:"das Territorialprinzip' However, thesametime, (the education to of policycontributed thebuilding the territorial versus 'das Personalittsprinzip' principle) Dutch which itself thesideof the (thepersonality on nation, ranged (Bauer 1907: 324-366; principle) leaderTroelstra 1918 Renner in Queen,whenthesocialist 1918:71-79; a first edition Renner book of 's called forrevolution in (Van Miert 1994; for more was publiced 1902 under pseudonym the Rudolf details: Scheffer 1984). The of based Springer). concept cultural autonomy The Dutch 'solution' for the religionbased on theprinciple personality first of was formulated 'ethnic' was or diversity notan elimination margin- in 1866 by Adolph Fischof,an Austrian Liberal alization this of butitsinstitutionalization, diversity, the (Hanf1991: 35). In Renner's opinion territorial called theverzuiling of principle an important had traditionally (pillarization) '. disadvantage: . . es setzt Dutch society. This segmentation societywas voraus halbwegs geschlossene, abgerundete of maintained untilthe 1960s.Thereafter, secu- Sprachgebiete, mass die zugleich fr die sonstigen larization individualization and whould diminish the Staatsaufgaben geeignete eine Grundlage abgeben' social and political of zuilen (. . . it requires impact thetraditional self-contained, partially compact In time eversince1918, linguistic (pillars). 1994,forthefirst areasthat also form suitable a basisfor the a Dutchcabinet installed was without members performance all thestate'sother of any duties)(Renner of theconfessional 1918:73; translation: 1991:37). TheAustrianparties. Hanf dual in couldnotfulfil Hungarian monarchy,general, thisrequirement. 3. The SovietUnion1922-1989:territorial As a solution thenationality for Bauer problem institutionalization a ethno-nationalistic and Renner on to start from personality the proposed basis citizen should choosefora national principle: every of theregion, where was he community, regardless 3.1. Pre-revolutionary discussions socialists born, and where his historical'homeland' was among situated. Thesenational communities would some get In a way, Bolsheviks theRussian the after Revolution autonomy, in thefieldof education and especially hadthesameproblem thepatriots theBatavian culture. as in This proposalmeant distinction a between Republic: how to legitimizethe new political land and people, betweenstate and nation.As system amongthepopulation. And,just as in the citizens subjects theHabsburg the of were Empire the Netherlands, newauthorities tocopewith had the subjectedto the territorial rules of the state,as

256

H. Knippenberg

members the nationalcommunities of theywere 3.2. Theformation theSovietUnionin 1922 of to the rules of theirown nationality. subjected the Leninhad to changehis ideas, to this whould After revolution According BauerandRenner proposal rimlands the of the annexed several to the and offer possibility maintain Empire atthe when Bolsheviks the had little states where of its Russian to the sametime, satisfy national Empire, independent aspirations come into existence.Afterthe civil war, Stalin different peoples. in theseannexations thePravda(Oktober the did TheRussian Empire notmeet requirements defended of of this 'The center Russia, fire-place world either. the for According 1920): principle applying territorial cannot live withoutthe aid of the ethnic revolution, there were146 different to the1897Census, in which rich rawmaterials, are of was which foodstuffs, probably an underestimation rimlands, groups, to therealnumber. According the1926Censusthere and fuels' (cited in Bezemer 1989: 12). Stalin of the weremorethan190 ethnic aspirations the groups(Kozlov 1988: opposedstrongly nationalist distribution peoplesin therimlands. the 245-248). Moreover, geographical He Leninchoose a moresubtleapproach. critiareas. of the homogenous prevented bounding ethnic the of that against 'social-nationalSo, it was notsurprising therepresentatives cisedStalin'sbitterness for a themostdispersed sup- ists'andproposed newsolution thenationality warmly people,theJews, At the Fourth problem: the 'voluntary'union of all Soviet the personality principle. ported founded the Socialist Bund(Jewish Federation, of including Russian Party republics, Congress theJewish of the the advanced ideathat in 1918.With creation theUnionof Socialist in founded 1879)in 1901they to Lenintried takeawaythefear of SovietRepublics into 'Russia mustbe transformed a federation and domination forthecontinuaof with notion federation used forgreat-Russian the nationalities, being His sense' extra-territorial (Gleason1990: tionoftheRussian inanexplicitly Empire. old ideasaboutselfin can Social determination be traced the1924Constitution, of 25-26). At the1903Congress theRussian of the that providedthe rightof secession for Union Workers' Democratic Party representatives to So, Bundcalledon theCongress acknowledge republics. the Bolshevikschoose a territorial Jewish In for solution their a nationalities in opinion interests structuring ethnic nationality problem. their policy cleavethnic without communist own theall-union to of andtheright nations setup and runtheir party command the union-wide 1996:4). economyand the ages, (Smith organizations party to werestrong In theseideas verystrongly. his union-wide enough Lenincriticised system planning a of theunity theSovietsystem: de jure of thesolution cultural-national autonomy guarantee opinion state.Lenin's support but was federal, de factounitary social democrats proposedby the Austrian In tactical. his was solution essentially '. of to theinterests theproletariat: . . the of a federal contrary form 'a was divides the viewfederalism temporary: transitional of cultural-national autonomy slogan of of to it and nations links up with en route theunity thelaborers all nations' different ofthe proletariat the and bourgeoiselementsof the (Lenin cited in Gleason 1990: 32). However, the reactionary woulddecideotherwise. in 1972:68; written 1913). future nations' (Lenin separate 1922 30 as inventers 'opportunistic The SovietUnionwas formed December the He portrayed Austrian view and comprised four republics: the Russian whoheldan outdated intellectuals', bourgeois and theTransBelorussia the the s.a.,pp. 33-41). He also considered idea Federation, Ukraine, (Lenin, CaucasianRepublic as 1968).The lastone was dividethesocialist Bundto (Pipes of theJewish party en Armenia Georgia, of a combination Azerbaidzhn, as He party wrong. saw a centralised fundamentally statesin 1920 and whichhad becomeindependent 1996: 4). He socialism to essential securing (Smith Asia tooSovietSocialist of instruments 1921.In Central Republics to accusedtheBundists be 'in effect in Federation 1918 of As hadarisen. part theRussian nationalism' (Lenin1972: 81). bourgeois SovietSocialist Autonomous theTurkestan Republic that realised nationalism Lenin On theother hand, SovietSocialist Autonomous couldbe used andin 1920theKirgiz which was a forceful factor, political 'the Republicwererecognized (Gleason 1990: 44-45). he cause.Therefore, supported forthesocialist in Federation 1920theKhorezm the Outside Russian In this to of right nations self-determination'. way, and SovietRepublic theBukharan off People's People's couldthrow thepeoplesof theRussianEmpire The wereformed. former this SovietRepublic republic from themselves theCzaristyokeand liberate did to the In of nations'. his opinion right self- joinedtheUSSR in 1923andthelater so in 1924. 'prison intothe Asia was divided for the offered opportunity a 'volun- In thesameyearCentral determination Socialist Republic (includingthe taryand freechoice' to join the socialistsranks Uzbek Soviet Soviet Socialist to (Gleason1990:29-30). The right self-determina-TadzhikASSR) and theTurkmen ASSR was upgraded theTadzhik In tion hingedupon the rightof secession. Lenin Republic. 1929, of that offered right, to thestatus SSR. In 1936,theKazakhSSR and were that assumed ifa nation freely At it wouldnotuse it.In a post-revolutionary political KirgizSSR wereconstituted. thesame timethe and was annulled, the Federation which Trans-Caucasian for was there no specialstatus nations, system and Azerbaidzhn SSR, SSR, Armenian Georgian hadnotseceded(Bezemer1991:20-21).

and TheNetherlands theSovietUnion

257

nations theSovietregime to to SSR set up as partsof the Soviet Union (Kozlov order tietheseveral education 1988: 34-35). The resultof this 'Balkanisation (Roeder1991:203-204). Local language, in For also was thatin 1936, whenthe StalinCon- andculture werepromoted. instance, the process' 11 Asianrepublics, withtheir lanwas the stitution adopted, USSR comprised Union Central non-literary thedevelopment titular of andlinBelorussia,Georgia, guages, Republics(RSFSR, Ukraine, alphabets was In structures encouraged. theUkraine and Armenia, Azerbaidzhn, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, guistic and and Belorussia eventheRussianlanguage was officially Turkmenistan, Kirgizstan, Tadzhikistan), 20 autonomous fifteen within the discriminated Russian 1996:7). Great (Smith republics (including against 'chauvinism' to be oppressed. had RSFSR). As a consequence the of Molotov-Ribbentrop nonit diminHowever, becameclearverysoon,that of Lithuanians ishing economic was condiagression treaty 1939,theLatvians, inequalities a necessary and Estonians for of nationalities 'joined' the Soviet Union in 1940, tion a more equivalent position the three new UnionRepublics.In the same in general. Thatgave riseto a policyof modernizaforming year,the MoldavianSSR was createdfromthe tionand industrialization. Those,whohad to guide Moldavian ASSR (partof theUkrainian from the SSR) and thismodernization processwererecruited Romanian also a result theMolotov- moreadvancednations, Russiansin particular. of the Bessarabia, the and to Ribbentrop After Second WorldWar,the ManyRussianspecialists workers pact. emigrated federal structure remained and theless-developed inCentral basically borderlands, unchanged especially was confirmed the1977 Constitution. in According Asia. tothat the Union consisted 15 of becameincreasingly Constitution, Soviet concerned Stalin,however, Union Republics,20 Autonomous 8 aboutthelevelofindigenization, which probably he Republics, Autonomous Oblasts(regions), 10 Autonomous thought be contrary theeffective and to to implementation hisfar-reaching of economic (districts) (Kozlov 1988:35). He Okrugs policies. blamed the ofethno-national manyof the failures collectivization large However, institutionalization of and was notonlyterritorial character, had scale industrializationminority in it on nationalism. a As diversity a personal dimension well. In 1932,nationality consequence, as which officials, many indigenous party as an official of in component personalstatuswas wereaccusedofbourgeois-nationalism, especially introduced thenewly instituted of and were by system internal theUkraine Central-Asia, sacrified during 1994: 54). in (Kozlov 1988: 171; Brubaker passports largescale purges the 1936-1938period(Simon This system central thecontrol regula- 1986). Russianinfluence growing Russian was to and was and tionof laboursupplyand internal The languageand culture was vigorously in migration. promoted of of registration nationality {natsionaVnos)in the schools.The number Russianschoolsincreased internal was based on self-desig- considerably passports initially and after the (Smith1996: 8). During nation. Whenregistration thepassport taken 'GreatPatriotic in had War' thepromotion theRussian of was no possibility changing of one's people and the Russian language reached new place, there The nationality children of was deter- heights. After victory Nazi-Germany, May the on nationality. on mined thenationality their of In case of 24, 1945 Stalin proposeda toaston the Russian by parents. mixed children thechoicebetween had the people.Through clearmind, its marriages, firm and character, twonationalities their of itspatience Russian the parents. her peoplehad shown place Boththeethno-territorial system the as leadingnation.The idea of a unionof equal federal and ofnationality theinternal peoples was replacedby a community nations in independent registration of institutionalized national the dimension in organized aroundthe 'elder brother', Russian passports the the Soviet political,socio-economic and cultural people, for responsible all anda guidetoall (Carrre also Hajda & Beissinger (see system 1990). d'Encausse,1978). After Stalin'sdeathin 1953,nationality policies 3.3. Soviet underwent someliberalisation nationality policy the of during regime hissuccessor Khrushchev. peoples, Some which were Withthe creation thisfederalstatesystem of on deported Stalin, were rehabilitated were and by an ethno-national basis the Bolsjeviksdeemedto allowed return their to to such homelands, as Balkars, eliminate nationalistic resistance. With for- Chechens, the any and Karachai, Kalmyks Ingush, (Kreindler mation theSoviet of the had 1986). Volga Germans, Union, national Meskhetians Crimean question and been solved on principle. in Accordingto Lenin's Tatarswerenot and remained exile. Underthe 'tactical' of in approach thenationality administration theCrimean also problem, the Gorbatchev Tatars he to beginning tried takeawaythefearof Russian wererehabilitated 1991:55). Further(Knippenberg the dominance, of stressing fundamental included more a equality all more, nationality policy proportional nations 1968:190-195).Thispolicy was representation thenationalities thecommunist (Aspaturian for in labelled korinezatsiya and was party and bureaucracy, an extension their (indigenization) and of to the and of cultural designed promote training development Lane 1978; autonomy 1968; (Aspaturian cadres in Simon 1986). This renewedindigenization indigenous politicaland administrative policy

258

H. KninnpYhprQ

was successful.In eleven of the fifteen Union economic cultural and modernization thecause was thispolicyevenled to overrepresentation 1988: 17). (Simon, republics ofthetitular in For a longtime, and Gorbatchev underestimated the nationality Party State leadership in his country. his Perestroika. In atthe levelinthe1955-1972 national (Roeder republic period question A new visionfor my country and the world,he 1991:204-205). He 5 pagesoutof 300 to thissubject. also forKhrushchev nationality-based devoted the Still, only the Leninvisionthat underlined traditional divisions werean essentially administrative through tempoof to matter, phasein the the formation the Soviet Union the national belonging a transitional rary solved: 'If the national of people.Atthe22ndParty questionwas essentially development theSoviet Union the was in a Congress 1961he provided basisfora policyof question notsolvedessentially, Soviet so their of the'flourishing nations' 'drawing wouldnothavereached much... If thefundaalongside if of interests nations coincide, theideal of together'(sblizhenie)until theirfinal 'merger' mental of is in forms thebackbone the (sliyanie)was realised(Smith1996: 8-9). Educa- equality everything the between nations and thisis exactly of favoured promotion Russian relations the tionalreforms for is the for withnegativeeffects the what situation likein Sovietsociety then languageteaching, thatarises and foreach misundernation- each problem oftheminor (non-Union republic) languages diffievenunder can a was standing solution be found, Economicdevelopment alities in particular. 1987: 118-122). economic cultcircumstances' thesetting ofregional (Gorbachev up through promoted on was there no well-delineated In fact, economic substantial which policy the councils, power granted issue.Therewereonlyad hoc measures Unionrepublics nationality the within larger to various regions conof number ethnic to in reaction theincreasing andto thesmaller republics. 1996: 15). The result from of flicts differed that administration TheBrezhnev (Dostl 1991:41; Smith a in his predecessor pursuing morecautious, prag- was thatfor the firsttime the Union republics of in used theirright secession.Lithuaniadeclared lessidealistic and matic conservative being policy, on the 1996:10-12).However, official independence 11March1990,theother character republics (Smith the after August1991 Coup (Lwenhardt the followed intact: remained of tenets thenationalities policy 1992 theSoviet the 1995: 183-186). Since 1 January of formation theSovietpeople{Sovetskii narod), Uniondoes notexistanymore. a common 'newhuman territory, sharing community the economic culture, goal ofbuilding state, system, on and as and communism a common language', Brezhnev 3.4. Nation-building ethno-nationalism levels inSmith atthe formulated 1971Party different (cited Congress was 1996: 10). In 1977 a new Constitution settled, on territorial federation. In retrospect, the nation-building thelevel re-established nationality-based which The has as Union a whole failed. Soviet who favouredthe oftheSoviet to his opponents Responding 'We people,wantedby their noted: Brezhnev of politicalleaders,has not abolition thefederal system, on was course if we were arisen. nation-building Still,there territorial shouldbe takinga dangerous extent and thisobjectiveprocessof theleveloftheUnion to accelerate republics, toa lesser artificially (Autonomous betweennations' (cited in Smith on lowerlevelsof political autonomy rapprochement Oblastsand Autonomous Autonomous Union Republics, allowed His more 1996:11). policy pragmatic an the for more appointments Okrugs).Moreover, peoples without autoopportunities native republics ethno-national also saw a growing and providedsome de facto nomous territory to local positions of as and administrative leewayforregional local native consciousness a consequence Sovietpolicyto theregime pin everySovietcitizen- untilhis death- to his field In cadres. theeducational however, his 'from nationality of the passport. to through internal continued promote teaching Russian, on federation an Lenin'schoicefora territorial end of the At to Kindergartens universities'. the basis was essentialin this whole ethno-national there was a growing Brezhnevadministration, contributed The Bolsheviks of unintentionally as concern to the scale of indigenisation cadre process. of theSovietUnionin thelong to thefalling at apart level,which negatively appointmentstherepublic in 'homelands' thepolitical nationalities. run. institutionalizing of the By affected interests thenon-titular nationfor certain also rights titular successor by Brezhnev's Andropov heldtheview system, providing and thesehomelands, by increasingly within alities that policieshad gonetoo far.He pastnativization elites to governthesehomelands of theneed forfairer allowingtitular representation all supported in a withinthe Union republics.In his undercentral supervision, processdeveloped, nationalities on and formation nation-building the was the policy 'notonly whichstate opinion, goalofnationalities each homelands strengthened other. but of the sblizhenie nations, also theirsliyanie' levelof these whichshould modernization The same process, (cited in Smith 1996: 12). However,he had to have realisedthe sliyanieof all Soviet peoples, the that SovietUnionwas thesceneof a recognise the elitefor bigger and a self-consciousness national amongalmost provided political economic growing as they thechance when As got all peoples.In his view,an 'objective'processof onesinstead. soon

and TheNetherlands theSovietUnion had thecentral weakened these power sufficiently elitesfilledthepowervacuum. anti-Russian Using and anti-center sentiments succeeded mobiin they thepeopleon national issues. lizing Charles the Tillyoncecompared policyof Stalin and his successors withtheEnglish colonialpolicy ofindirect (interview Charles rule with TillyinNRC 12 June1993). The communist Handelsblad, party functioned mediator. long as regional as As party cadres usedtheir (titular) own clientle theservice at ofthestate a whole, as and they much got autonomy influence. when power the'colonial' the of However, centre had weakened, system the collapsedand a for arosebetween local andregional struggle power elites theonehand, oppositional on and party groups on theother. most In cases theold party who elites, hadplacedthemselves topof themovements on for national won independence, thisstruggle. Wasn't there sliyanie all among Soviet at the any with peoples? Wasn'tthereany identification de Union a whole? modernization large as Did and scale industrialization lead to integration cultural not and as counhomogenization, was thecase in Western suchas theNetherlands? tries, In somerespects, theseintegration did processes occur. this But was affair the in integration a Russian first also place.TheRussians (andto a lesserdegree Ukranians Belorussians) and werethemostimportant 'vehicles'of modernization. swarmed off They intothewholecountry, tookthekeypositions they inpolitics economy, and with Western comparable the former colonial rulers. there a Sovietidentity, If was itwas among these Russians. many For Russians the SovietUnionand Russia werethe same. Even in that equal proporan 1991,an opinion poll showed tion theRussians themselves of felt Sovietcitizen in thefirst were Russians whofelt themplace,as there selvesprimarily Russian (Does 1993: 13). In theold was days,Sovietidentity especiallystrong among wholivedoutside Russian the Russians, Federation. The same held trueforthe non-Russians, who livedoutside their titular homeland. them, For 'sovietisation' meant'russification' a loss of their and own ethnic thenumber nonof However, identity. Russian,that lived outside theirhomelandwas insidetheir small,and thenon-Russians relatively titular homeland russified only to a small extent (Dostl& Knippenberg 1981,and 1992).

259

Thatinstitutionalization notalwaystheresult was ofdeliberate, state In purposive policy. thebeginning, theDutchstate tried marginalize existing to the reliitfrom publicsphere. the giousdiversity banning by Thatwas nota successful policy.On thecontrary, statepolicycontributed a growing to 'ethnic'consciousness of orthodox-calvinists and roman catholics. The consequence was institutionalization on a 'personalistic' basis.Especially education, in but lateron in other sectors society well,protesof as tant roman and catholic interest wererecoggroups nizedandgovernment funds wereallocated these to Protestant roman and catholic groups proportionally. politicalpartieshad the power to establishand maintain verzuilde this ('pillarized')system. In the Soviet Union,therealso was an institutionalization theimmense of ethnic More diversity. than theNetherlands, was theresult choice. in this of this a However, essentially, choicewas temporary: transitional on theroadtosliyanie, merging the phase of all peoples.An ideologicaldiscussion preceded thischoice,in whichremarkably 'personalistic' a with option, comparable theDutch verzuiling, played a part.At first, Lenincriticized institutionalevery territorial personalistic. wouldthreaten or It ization, theunity theworking of class. In fact, prefered he a of of distinctions assimpolicy elimination ethnic by ilation. he reasons, choosea federOnlyfortactical ationon a national-territorial He rejected basis. a as personalistic option backward. In retrospect, mayconclude hischoicefor we that a federation bore theseed of thedisintegration of theSovietUnionin a set of independent states. Of thisfederal structure nottheonlyconwas course, factor. the Otherwise, SovietUnionwould tributing nothave existed almost for seventy years.But it is a veryimportant Due to Lenin's choice,the one. nationalities their ownhomelands, which bigger got wereformally In thishad recognized. thelongrun, two important a First,it provided consequences. which the political infrastructure, facilitated disintein states. gration independent Second,thesehomelandswerean essential element thedevelopment in of a national the identity among different peoples. In general, territory stimulate a national conmay sciousnessin three ways (Knight1982; Anderson 1988; Murphy1989; Roessingh1991: 175-176). a First, territory giverecognition outsiders. may by As a consequence theuniversal of of acceptance the a is ideologyof thenation-state, territory a basic 4. Conclusion for to its necessity anyethnic group trying preserve distinctiveness a group.Second,a territory as may What couldwe learn from historical this as for comparison? serve a focus identification the for ethnic group it the First, is clearthat state an important in itself, providing 'homeland'or 'fatherland'. is actor a by ethno-nationalethnic or sentiment in Third, and generating control territory of meansopportunities for social groupson a ethno-national or mobilizing mobilizing whether resources, theyare humanor ethnic basis.Boththe Dutch state theSovietstate non-human. and triedto accommodate cultural the of Theautonomous territories Soviet diversity its inthe Union did this peoplebyinstitutionalizing diversity. stimulate nationalconsciousness the first in and

260

H. Knippenberg

in ethnic terrisecond that which, cases where they provided recognition by political system, way, means of others opportunities self-identification. and for This tories coincide with demarcations federal ethnic in influences strengthens and territorial existing republics, itself autonomy strengthened (partial) doesnot In a in nationalsentiments some cases, for instance characteristics.contrast,unitary system on mobilization a territorial basis; this Lithuanians, Estonians, Latvians, Georgians, promote among as the In national conscious- affects formof representation well as the and Armenians. other cases, and formation identity for suchas amongtheCentral-Asian possibilities identity nesswas created, pro1995: 257). His secondconcluTurkestan tection' Russian of The (Roessingh peoples. subdivision former with Unionrepublics sion is thatcommunist and theSteppeRegionin separate policies- compared - eased the transition to ones the liberal-democratic considerations: was motivated geopolitical by see also 1995:249; nationalism sentiments or fear pan-Turkic pan-Islamic of (Smith virulent (Roessingh of or Brzezinski wereabsent identities 1996: 315-316). National 1989). So, thecombination an ethnoand federation a communist Union national The system provided rudimentary. setup offivedifferent very and on nation-buildingthelevelof the best chance fornationalism forpolitical encouraged republics in fivemore instability the long run.On the otherhand,a and territories created theseautonomous state liberal-democratic nations. or less distinct unitary seemsto be thebest and for institution- option political The Dutch model of personalistic stability theaccommodation did not have these ofethnic alizationof religious cleavages. diversity interof to The way consequences. non-territorial ofinstitution- Returning thetypology state-society that itappears in mentioned theintroduction, and actions levelvery madethenational alization important, is in ofcultural and cohesion. institutionalization stimulatednational integration diversity itself not or were contrasts accom- good or bad forstateformation nation-building. and Regional centre-periphery the 1993:308; Daalder1981).Onlythe It is (amongother modated things) kindof institutional(Toonen and The matters. Netherlands theSoviet that of of gave rise ization specialstatus theprovince Limburg modelsforinstitutionalizadifferent denCamp 1992). Unionoffered at to someattempts secession (Op or for homelands orthodox- tionbased on a 'personalistic' a territorial prinThelackofinstitutionalized to one identifi- ciple.The 'personalistic' appeared be themost catholics and roman prevented protestants a In thesehomelands. theory, territorial successful. cationwith about Europeanpoliticalintegration, as in Netherlands well. had solution beenpossible the Thinking a bit we area in the perhaps nowunderstand better creating livedin a compact why catholics The roman is and a European as whichhad some tradition identity so diffiSouthof thecountry, unity European cult. unit Generaliteitslanden during political (as separate also The theUnited Provinces). orthodox-protestants thesewereless own livingareas,though had their References 1992). (Knippenberg compact labelled as 'consociational The Dutch system, naar Een en H.: Amersfoort, VoorVaderland Oranje. verkenning not accommodated only van betrokkenheid natieen leger. by democracy' Lijphart, de wederzijdse Tijdschrift and contrasts was- viewed but voorGeschiedenis 538-557(1982). 'ethnic' also regional 95, or - an almost H. Amersfoort, van: Institutional problem solution solution plurality: the from state (Lijphart optimal of state?In: S. Periwal(ed.), Notions forthemulti-ethnic VanAmersfoort 1995). 1969and1977;Toonen 1993; York: 162-181. Budapest/London/New nationalism, pp. inteand was political The result stability national Press1995. Central University European In: and J.: gration. Anderson, Nationalist ideology territory.RJ.Johnston, states thatfederal D.B. Knight; Kofman E. (eds.), Nationalism,SelfMay we drawtheconclusion and Determination Political pp. Geography, 18-39.London: basis on an ethno-national are doomedto fallapart Helm1988. Croom on in the long runand thatcultural autonomy a In: nationalities. A. Kassof V.V.: The non-Russian and basisalwayscreated stability inte- Aspaturian, personalistic for pp. (ed.), Prospects SovietSociety, 361-198.New York The Thatwouldbe premature. Netherlands 1968. gration? van of and the Soviet Uniondiffered coursein more Bakker,W. e.a. (red.): De Afscheiding 1834 en haar Kok 1984. ofthe Kampen: the geschiedenis. Forinstance, ethnic heterogeneity respects. thanthereli- Bartels, A.: 75 jaar middelbaaronderwijs 1863-1938. timesgreater SovietStatewas many 1947. Wolters Groningen/Batavia: The in giousdiversity theNetherlands. sameholds Bauer,O.: Die Nationalittenfrage die Sozialdemokratie. und differences. institution- Wien:IgnazBrand1907. Still, for true theeconomic In: the Bezemer, and basis had provided J.W.:Nationalism SovietPatriotism. Bon,A.; alizingon a personalistic of in R. Voren, van (eds.),Nationalism theUSSR. Problems Soviet Union with a betterchance for political Center SecondWorld Nationalities, 12-18. Amsterdam: pp. stability. 1989. is Thishypothesis supported recent compara- Bezemer, by in en J.W.:Communisme nationalisme de Sovjetunie. between on relationship In Nationalisme research. hisstudy the tive Het In: T. Zwaane.a. (red.), Europees Labyrint. Amsterdam: in and ethno-nationalism en natievorming Europa, 19-30.Meppel/ Roessingh pp. politicalsystems WO Boom/SIS 1991. is concludesthat'the federalstructure a typeof

and the Soviet Union The Netherlands

261

J.A.: katholieken hunnegenen York: Manchester Bornewasser, De Nederlandse states, pp. 33-52. Manchester/New tiende-eeuwse vaderland. voor Press1991. 95, University Tijdschrift Geschiedenis der RoomsHeek, F. van: Het geboorte-niveau Nederlandse 577-604(1989). R.: and in Katholieken. demografisch-sociologische vaneen Een studie Brubaker, Nationhood thenational question theSoviet Unionand post-Soviet Eurasia:an institutionalist account. Leiden:Stenfert Kroese gemancipeerde minderheidsgroep. and 1954. 23, Theory Society 47-78 (1994). A.A.de: Hetontstaan de schoolstrijd. van naar Onderzoek E.W.:De groei de Nederlandse van In: Bruin, Hofstee, bevolking. A.N.J. in de worteis de schoolstrijd de Noordelijke van Nederlanden den Hollander (red.),Drift Koers.Een halve eeuw e.a. en de helft de 19e eeuw; een cultuurhisvan socialeverandering, 13-84. Assen:VanGorcum Prakke & gedurende eerste pp. torische studie. Leiden:Bolland1985. 1962. Z.: nationalism. Affairs H.R.: Mundus Novus.Nationalities Brzezinski, Post-communist 68, Huttenbach, Foreign Papers22, 5-7 1-25 (1989). (1994). Ph.J.: Schets van het Nederlandse schoolwezen. Camp, R. op den: "Noch Franschnoch Pruissischmaar Idenburg, Nederlandsch!". Publiekeopinie en Nederlands-nationaal Wolters 1964.(tweede druk) Groningen: rond 1870. D.B.: Identity territory: and gevoel in de Nederlandse provincie Limburg Knight, geographical perspectives on nationalism regionalism. and 111,82-102 (1992). Annalsof the American Maasgouw Carrre H.: clat.La rvolte nations des Association Geographers 514-531 (1982). of d'Encausse, L'Empire 72, en USSR. Paris:Flammarion 1978. H.: aan in Knippenberg, Deelname hetlager onderwijs Nederland W.: or World Politics Connor, Nation de eeuw. van building nation destroying? gedurende negentiende Een analyse de landelijke 24, 329-355(1972),. en verschillen. Netherlands ontwikkeling van de regionale W.: in Connor, The National Studies Amsterdam: 9. KNAG/ISG Question Marxist-Leninist 1986. Theory Geographical andStrategy. Princeton: Princeton Press1984. H.: in Soviet Union. University Knippenberg, The'nationalities question' the centerand periphery the in Daalder,H.: Consociationalism, In: H. van Amersfoort; H. Knippenberg, (eds.), Statesand Netherlands. P. Torsvik(ed.), Mobilization, In: centerNations. rebirth the'nationalities The of in question' Europe. structures nation-building. and A volumein comNetherlandsGeographical Studies 137, pp. 42-58. periphery memoration Stein Rokkan, of Amsterdam: KNAG/ISG 1991. pp. 181-240. Bergen/Oslo: 1981. H.: Universitetsforlaget kaart van Nederland. Knippenberg, De religieuze Omvang G.: Dekker, Het kerkelijk en geografische van gemengde vanaf huwelijkin Nederland. spreiding godsdienstige gezindten de Reformatie heden. tot Meppel:Boom 1965. Assen/Maastricht: Gorcum Van 1992. erfenis. R. Does & H. In: Does, R.: Ruslanden de imperiale H.: en van Knippenberg, Nationaleintegratie de 'etnisering' Ramkema De Het ontwaken katholieken Protestanten: rol van onderwijs. H. te en (red.), Unieinstukken. nationale de In: van volkenen statenvan het GOS, pp. 10-42. Utrecht: Velde; Verhage, H. (red.), De eenheid en de delen. Zuil1993. Werkgroep Oost-Europa en Projekten in vorming, onderwijs, natievorming Nederland1850-1900, Doom, J.A.A. van; Lammers,C.J.: Moderne sociologie. Het pp. 177-196. Amsterdam: Spinhuis1996. en Het Systematiek analyse.Utrecht/ vanaanhoudende Antwerpen: Spectrum Knippenberg, vanderHam,W.: Een bron H.; 1959. van Onderwijs [Knsten]en zorg. 75 jaar ministerie en in Dostl,P.: Nationale aspiraties autonomie Sovjet-Europa. 1918-1993. Assen:Van Gorcum 1993. Wetenschappen, Nieuwe onder In: Het opties B. Gorbatsjov? T. Zwaane.a. (red.), H.; van Knippenberg, Pater, C. de; De eenwording Nederland, Nationalisme natievorming Europa, en in Europees labyrint. en sinds 1800. Nijmegen: SUN Schaalvergroting integratie 1991. pp. 31-47. Meppel:Boom/SISWO 1988. De Dostl,P. & H. Knippenberg: staatkundige en Kok, J.A. de: Nederland de breuklijn indeling het Rome-Reformatie. op in Numerieke russificeringsprocesde Sovjet Unie. In: J.M.M. van en aspectenvan Protestantisering Katholieke W.F. & Amersfoort, Heinemeyer H.H. vanderWsten, Een in Nederlanden 1580-1880. Assen: Herleving de Noordelijke wereld staten, 105-1 Alphen denRijn:Samson van 11. aan Van Gorcum/Prakke pp. & Prakke 1964. 1981. Korver: Groninger De schoolmotie de SDAP. In: M. Krop van Dostl,P. & H. Knippenberg: Russification Sovietnationaliof e.a. (red),Hetachtste voorhetdemocratisch sociajaarboek ties: the importance territorial of WiardiBeckmanStichting autonomy. lisme,pp. 15-54. Amsterdam: Historyof Ideas 15,631-638 (1992). European 1987. Th.A.G. van:Kerk gezininNederland. G.A. Kooy en In: Eupen, V.: of Kozlov, Thepeoples theSoviet Union. London: Hutchinson Vier (red.), Gezinsgeschiedenis. eeuwen 1988. gezinin Nederland, Van 1985. pp. 7-30. Assen/Maastricht: Gorcum I.: Kreindler, The Sovietdeported nationalities:summary a and and Nationalism: struggle Gleason, G.: Federalism the for un update. SovietStudies 387-405 (1986). 38, in Westview Press1990. republican rights theUSSR. Boulder: M. and Kwaasteniet, de: Denomination primary education the in M.S.: Perestroika. newvisionfor country A Gorbachev, and Netherlands my (1870-1984). A spatialdiffusion perspective. theworld. NewYork:Harper Row 1987. & Netherlands Studies117.Amsterdam/Florence: Geographical S.: der Groenman, De integratie dlen.In: A.N.J. Hollander den KNAG/ISG/EUI 1990. e.a. (red.), Drift Koers. halve en Een eeuwsocialeverandering, Laarse, vander:Bevoogding Bevinding. R. en Heren kerkvolk en 1962. pp. 209-225.Assen:Van Gorcum in een Hollandseprovinciestad, Woerden1780-1930. 'sF.: Groot, Roomsen, en rechtzinnigen nieuwlichters. Hollandse Historische Reeks1989. Verzuiling Gravenhage: ineenHollandse 1850-1930. Lane,D.: Politics society theUSSR. London1978(Second plattelandsgemeente, and in Naaldwijk Hilversum: Verloren 1992. edition). F.: rondAlva's brii.Papenen geuzenbij de Groot, De strijd J.: en Lenders, De burger de volksschool. Cultrele mentale en van herdenking de innamevan Den Briel. Bijdragenen van achtergronden een onderwijshervorming. Nederland betreffende geschiedenis Nederlanden de der Mededelingen 1780-1850.Nijmegen: SUN 1988. HO, 161-181(1995). Lenin,V.l.: On proletarian internationalism. Moscow:Progress M. factor Soviet in Hajda,L.; Beissinger, (eds.):Thenationalities 1972. Politics Society. and Boulder/San Francisco/Oxford 1990 Lenin,V.l.: Hetnationale en internavraagstuk hetproletarisch conflict Hanf,T.: Reducing cultural Karl tionalism. through Moskou: autonomy: Progress (s.a.). Renner's contribution. U. Ra'ananet al. (eds), Stateand In: A.: Consociational World Politics 21, Lijphart, democracy. nation multi-ethnic in societies. breakup multinational The of 207-225(1969).

262
Lijphart, A.: Democracy in plural societies. A comparative New Haven/London: Press 1977. Yale University exploration. withthe J.: of Lwenhardt, The reincarnation Russia. Struggling 1990-1994. Harlow: Longman 1995. legacy of communism, Matthijssen,M.: De intellectueleemancipatie der katholieken. Historische en sociografische analyse van het Nederlands katholiekmiddelbaaronderwijs.Assen: Van Gorcum 1958. and McRae, K.D.: The principle of territoriality the principle of personality in multilingual states. Linguistics: An of Journal theLanguage Sciences 13, 33-54 Interdisciplinary (1975). Meurkens,P.: Bevolking, economie en cultuur van het Oude Kempenland.Bergeijk:Eicha 1985. Miert,J, van: Verdeeldheiden binding. Over lokale, verzuilde en nationaleloyaliteiten. Bijdragen en Mededelingenbetreffendede geschiedenisder Nederlanden107, 670-689 (1992). Miert,J. van: Confessionelenen de natie, 1870-1920. In: D.J. Wolffram(red.), Om het christelijk karakter der natie. van en Confessionelen de modernisering de maatschappij, pp. Het Spinhuis 1994. 89-112. Amsterdam: Murphy, A.B.: Territorial policies in multi-ethnic states. GeographicalReview 79, 410-421 (1989). vormgeving Oud, P.J.:Honderd jaren. Een eeuw van staatkundige in Nederland1840-1940. Assen: Van Gorcum(zevende druk) 1979. of Pipes, R.: The formation the Soviet Union: communismand Press 1971-1923. Cambrigde:HarvardUniversity nationalism, 1968 (revisededition). Raedts, P.: Katholiekenop zoek naar een Nederlandseidentiteit 1814-1898. Bijdragen en Mededelingen betreffendede geschiedenisder Nederlanden107, 713-725 (1992). Rasker, A.J.: De Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk vanaf 1795. en Geschiedenis,theologischeontwikkelingen de verhouding eeuw. in tot haar zusterkerken de negentiendeen twintigste Kok 1986 (derde druk). Kampen: der Nationen, in Renner, K.: Das Selbstbestimmungsrecht Teil: Nationund Erster aufsterreich. besonderer Anwendung Staat. Leipzig/Wien:Franz Deuticke 1918. Righart,H.: De katnolieke zun in europa, nei onisiaan van verzuiling onder katholieken in Oostenrijk, Zwitserland, Boom 1986. Amsterdam: Belgi en Nederland.Meppel/ and ethnicmobilization,world Roeder,Ph.G.: Soviet federalism Politics 43, 196-232(1991). of Roessingh,M.: The interaction statesand ethnicgroups:emermanifestaor gence, persistence disappearanceof primordial

H. Knippenberg
& tions.In: H. van Amersfoort H. Knippenberg (eds.), States and Nations. The Rebirthof the 'Nationalies Question' in GeographicalStudies 137. Europe, pp. 172-189. Netherlands KNAG/ISG (1991). Amsterdam: Roessingh, M.A.: A state of tension. Ethnonationalismand political systems in Europe. Ph.D Thesis University of of Amsterdam, Department Human Geography1995. Rogier, L.J.: Katholieke herleving.Geschiedenis van katholiek Nederlandsinds 1853. Den Haag: Pax 1956. 1880-1930. Haar ontstaan Rullmann,J.C.: De Vrije Universiteit De en haar bestaan. Amsterdam: Standaard 1930. Simon, G.: Nationalismus und Nationalittenpolitikin der Diktaturzur nachstalinistiSowjetunion.Von der totalitren schen Gesellschaft.Baden-Baden: Nomos 1986. Simon, G.: Perestrojkaen het nationale vraagstukin de Sovjetin Unie. In: Rumoerin hetrijk.Nationaliteiten de Sovjet-Unie, WerkgroepOost-EuropaProjekten1988. pp. 6-27. Utrecht: H.J.: November 1918. Journaalvan een revolutiedie Scheffer, De Amsterdam/Dieren: BataafscheLeeuw 1984 nietdoorging. (derde druk). Schmidt, O.: Waar gebeurd? Geschiedschrijvingen sociaalUniversiteitvan wetenschappelijk onderzoek. Proefschrift Amsterdam1993. London: PenguinBooks 1991. Smith,A.D.: National identity. Smith, G. (ed.): The nationalities question in the post-Soviet states.London/NewYork: Lomgman 1996. Smith,G.: The Soviet stateand nationalities policy. In: G. Smith (ed.), The nationalities question in the post-Sovietstates,pp. 2-22. London/NewYork: Longman 1996. Nationenum den R.: Springer, Der Kampf der sterreichischen Staat. Leipzig/Wien:Franz Deuticke 1902. Tijn, Th. van: Schoolstrijd en partijvormingin Nederland. Educatief 1971 (tweede druk). Meulenhoff Amsterdam: Toonen, Th.A.J.: Bestuur op niveau: regionalisatie in een ontzuilendbestuur.Acta Politica 28, 295-325 (1993). Van Strijden Zegen: Gedenkboekvan hetChristelijk Onderwijs, 1854-1904. Leiden: Udo 1904. Libralisme en Velde, H. te: Gemeenschapszinen plichtsbesef. nationalismein Nederland,1870-1918. 's-Gravenhage:SDU 1992. Verhoeven,D.: Ter vormingvan verstanden hart.Lager onderwijs in oostelijk Noord-Brabantca 1770-1920. Hilversum: Verloren1994. Bussum: A.C.J.de: Geschiedenisvan de belastingen. Vrankrijker, Fibula/VanDishoeck 1969.