- Analyze the evolution of nationalism in Italy up to the World War I.
The idea of an Italian state wasn’t very easy to legitimize due to the sheer diversity of the region. The ideas of a common culture, a common language, a shared past or geography couldn’t be applied in the case of Italy. The failure of Nationalism derived from the masses meant that the idea of an Italian nation state was imposed on the masses by the elite policymakers. It was a difficult task for the Italians to view themselves as a part of a homogenous, ethnic community. A majority of the people weren’t averse to the possibility of an Italian race but struggled to define it clearly which would have been crucial to attract masses of people. Family ties rather than ethnic ones were the basis of Italy’s first law on citizenship. Citizenship could be gained by being a child of a citizen according to the law and was drawn from the Piedmontese code of 1837. The Giolittian reform of 1912 placed an emphasis on the nationalization of the peninsula.
It’s important to understand the perspectives of people who provided a basis for a sense of nationalism amongst Italians in the 19th century. Mancini emphasized the importance of race but conceded that factors such as region, language and culture contributed to the formation of this race. V. Gioberti advocated a federal polity under papal presidency as he claimed Italians to be the most vigorous descendants of the Pelasgic people who were the foremost of the white races. He distinguished Italians from the Celts, Germans, Slavs and fellow Greeks. According to him, the Pelasgic people had inhabited different regions of the country and subsequently intermixed with each other, the Slavs, Celts and Iberians to create modern Italians. C. Correnti distinguished the Latins from the Slavs and subsequently, divided the Latins into distinctive groups like Romanians, Gallic, Iberian and Italian. He also didn’t believe that blood constituted a race and instead focused on the culture, language and geography. At the same time, a racial anthropologist of the time, G. Sergi wrote about the difficulty through which Illyrians, venetians and other groups of Italian people can be distinguished. C. Balbo was critical of the concept of race constituting Italian people as he believed that Italians were multiracial community with the most eclectic culture as a result of successive waves of immigrants.
Ideas of a common culture and geography were also hard to defend even as notions that the Alps and the sea set apart Italy from the barbarians outside were common amongst 15th century humanists like Cicero. Andre Vieusseux in 1821 blamed the internal local identities and town based identities for undermining national sentiment. The distinctiveness amongst people from different regions led to the failure of uniting against foreign threats as Tuscans and Neapolitans were as distinct from each other as a German from a Dutch. The concept of a national language was also non- existent as different dialects were incomprehensible to one another. Tulio De Mauro’s survey claimed that only 2.5 percent of the population spoke the national tongue in 1861 reiterated this argument. Banti points out that even If a quarter of the population understood Italian, much lesser would have been able to understand the work of Dante, Machiavelli which meant that the scope of a shared literary tradition was limited. Even people averse with Italian didn’t think it was necessary or important to speak Italian. The First Prime Minister and the first King of the new Italian state were more accustomed to communicating in French. Similarly, Florentine, Milanese was used by influential people as even the definition of what constituted Italian wasn’t clearly defined. Debates continued whether Italian was a composite tongue of regional variations or contemporary Florentine.
Rome was contemplated by many to be used a uniting factor forwarding the argument that Italy had seen considerable unity under the Roman Empire. The problem lay in claiming any kind of continuity between the modern period and the Empire. There were different schools of thought regarding the unification of Italy and the identifying of Italy with the Ancient Empire. Mazzini wanted to expand into the Mediterranean on the basis of the Imperial past. In the restoration era, the classical period was being associated with the Jacobins and Napoleonic rule and therefore, many Italians wanted to distance themselves with the aggressive aspect of the Ancient Empire. Also, there’s ample evidence which shows that the Roman Empire was riddled with internal strife. The identification of a unified Italy along religious lines and close association with the papacy also is riddled with problems. Even though most Italians were Catholics, there was no way through which non- Catholic Italians could be distinguished within the universal church. Dante and Machiavelli believed that Italian patriotism was weak because of the papacy and the medieval clashes between Guelph and Ghibelline. Even though the idea of claiming Italy to be a centre of Catholicism as propagated by V. Gioberti did gain a certain amount of popularity, the failure of Pope Pius IX as a liberal leader showed the unfeasibility of drawing on Christianity to evoke nationalist sentiments. After the acquisition of Rome in 1870, Pius IX’s call to not recognize the newly formed Italy and his decision to reject the Law of Guarantees in 1871 made matters worse. Only in 1929, after Mussolini’s Lateran Pact did the Vatican recognize the Italian state.
The role of myths and creation of legends also needs to be addressed to understand the basis of the Italian state. There was a great deal of romantic interest in the medieval period due to continuity with the modern period. Simonde de Sismondi’s work on Italy’s republics was translated into Italian and was used to emphasize the important role played by the city republics in the growth of political liberty and the cultural revival of the west. Examples were traced to the Lombard League in 1167 which was successful in blocking the assertive German emperor F. Barbarossa. It’s important to note that those who advocated the formation of a centralized Italy couldn’t draw upon the middle ages as was prone to civil strife and was very fragmented at the time. Another issue was the fact that Italy didn’t have any national heroes as most of the legends emphasized the loyalty towards their region or cities and many stories depicted heroes fighting against another city with the help of a foreign power. Only in literature, did some kind of semblance for nationalism emerge but it’s advantage was minimal as majority of the people were illiterate. The lack of legends and tales of inspiration meant that The Risorgimento became a foundation myth. Figures like Mazzini, Carlo Alberto, Garibaldi and events like the 1820 revolution in Naples, Garibaldi’s defense of and retreat from the Roman republic became celebrated events. The five glorious days in March 1848 when the people of Milan drove out Habsburg forces of Marshal Radetzky from the Lombard Capital came to be associated with national pride even though they might have had aspects which showed municipal loyalties rather than national identities or the betrayal by the aristocrats and the king against republicanism.
After outlining the difficulties of identifying the basis of an Italian nation, it is important to understand how different writers have understood and defined the term ‘Nationalism. E. Renan, a French scholar focused on the voluntary aspect of nationalism and rejected the fact that geographical factors played any role in the formation of a nation. He claimed that a nation could be defined as a result of human will, consciousness and collective memory. This definition of Renan can be critiqued as the existence of a ‘will’ can be seen in many human groupings and not just that in the case of nations. The consciousness of belonging to a nation comes in only after the formation of the nation and therefore, it cannot be considered as a factor which leads to the formation of a new nation. In the 20th century, Joseph Stalin focused on a common culture to define a nation. The idea of a shared territory, economic life, language and psychological make-up which constituted a nation according to Stalin cannot be applied accurately in the case of Italy and many nations in the modern world. E. Gellner has argued that “Nationalism is a political principle, which holds that political and the national unit should be congruent. He has claimed the fact that Nationalist sentiment and nationalist movements can be kept within the framework of this principle as nationalism is a theory of political legitimacy. Ethnic sentiments and boundaries need to be taken into account while forming political identities. The fact that there is a potential for new nations to be formed at any given moment of time and when new nations are formed, there are many others who are frustrated by it, shows that the peaceful implementation of the nationalist principle is difficult. According to John Breuilly, ‘Nationalism can be understood in a variety of ways by different historians. Firstly, Nationalism can be understood in terms of a doctrine and distinguished between varied doctrines like liberal and integral nationalism. But it cannot be defined entirely accurately when expanded into the scope of politics and politics. Secondly, National sentiments can be associated with a large number of people but regional diversity and social mobility needs to be when one thinks of political centralization. There are also cases where national sentiments can be seen but there is no case of a national doctrine or national politics being forwarded by the dominant social group. The modern notion of a state would have been only possible in the last 2 centuries as he idea of a country which is a sovereign state consisting of a group of people which are set apart from all other human beings couldn’t have been applied earlier. According to Stephen J. Lee, three characteristics which are important for the identification of nationalism are: Firstly, the awareness of homogeneity based upon language, culture and social customs. Secondly, the authority of the central government which is accepted by all the citizens. Thirdly, a sense of identity that can be used to either extended the boundaries of a nation or drive out foreign powers. The feudal obligations and loyalties formed bonds and a local connection which had lasted from the middle ages and was still considered to be a strong force. In the context of Italy, he argues that the French revolution and Napoleon’s role in dismantling the remnants of feudalism and consolidation of small areas into larger states played a major role. The work of writers like Rousseau are also contributions to the growth of nationalism as he criticized the enlightened cosmopolitan outlook and encouraged people to develop strong community ties. Also, he established the concept of a place for an individual and his relationship with the society, which later inspired Jacobin leaders like Robespierre, Carnot and Danton. Nationalism cannot be called a bourgeoisie idea even though many university professors, professionals and business classes did support it. The nature of political integration that would emerge after nationalism would thus, benefit the business classes but most members of the business classes didn’t want to disturb the existing system and hence, rejected the notion of nationalism.
In 1796, the re-organization of the administration and political organization of Italy as stated earlier by Napoleon was seen by many as an introduction of a modern state. The opportunity to dismantle the privileges of the aristocrats and the old order, and the prospects of opportunities based on merit and a modern state fuelled the imagination of the people. The lack of unification was presented to be the root of all problems in the region. The social difficulty of the south was portrayed due to the result of Bourbon misrule. Later developments showed that de-fragmentation ultimately weakened the nationalist spirit in Italy. In 1815, the Great Powers including Austria sought to recreate the prerevolutionary condition in Europe. These powers were anxious of any local uprisings which would threaten the peace of Europe and therefore, the settlement of 1815 aimed at conciliation through constitutional and political reforms. Even though these reforms were hardly sufficient, there was a suppression of republican, moderate and Jacobin ideas and therefore, any step towards independence, seemed unrealistic. The restrictions on political opposition led to the formation of secret societies like F. Buonarroti’s ‘Sublime Perfect Masters’ which aimed at creating a republic based on egalitarian ideas through the dictatorship of revolutionary elite. In the south, these revolutionary sects were loosely organized and the Carboneria was an important secret organization which focused on the overthrow of the rule of Ferdinand I after 1815. Even though the various groups of the Carboneria had different goals, the ultimate objective was to create a secular, constitutionally based regime. These political developments left Italy in a fragmented state. The Habsburg state had taken over Lombardy, Venice and other duchies like Tuscany, Parma through dynastic alliances. Piedmont was the only state which was politically independent even as Central and Southern Italy were in chaos as the papacy and Bourbons looked to take back control. In the 1840’s Piedmont showed very little characteristics of leadership which it would ultimately do for the formation of a new Italian state.
The forces which played an important hand in restricting changes of any kind in Italy were: Firstly, compared to the rest of northern Europe, most of the areas of Italy except Lombardy lacked any kind of economic development. Secondly, due to the lack of literacy and other factors, a large entrepreneurial and professional class was lacking which had been so instrumental in other areas to forward the sentiment of nationalism. G. Mazzini propagated the idea of a unitary Italian state to the public. He believed that real change in politics would happen only through the support of the masses and thus, he adopted a broad based revolutionary strategy which had a lot to do with elaborate propaganda exercise. He gave an played an important hand to the formation of a new movement, La giovine Italia (Young Italy) which focused on educating people politically and organizing popular insurrections for an Italian state. Italian activists were encouraged to think in terms of a national political structure rather than the traditional, regional and city based loyalty. Some of the insurrections were successful in Turin and Naples in 1820-21 even as many of them failed to draw attention of the masses.
In the 1840’s, a new group of constitutional monarchists emerged who aimed to achieve political change through the conversion of one or more existing ruling houses to take up the cause of reforms. This national movement was more dominant in the northern areas of Italy rather than the south. They wanted to maintain the social status quo and aimed to form a confederate of various cities and regions. They were critical of populism as they had links with the liberal aristocracy.. Since the regions of Italy were too diverse to unite easily, they aimed to install the Pope as the leader of the confederacy They believed that constitutional reforms were necessary at all levels including overhauling of the legal system , infrastructural and economic improvements for the princes to hold their ground. Gioberti was an influential moderate who believed in the fact that political change could be achieved not through the popular means adopted by Mazzini but through foreign influence like the help of the French. The moderates were in a dicey position as they couldn’t agree with the constitutional monarchists over the fact of giving power to an autocrat.
The new pope Pius IX initially though a number of liberal measures and reforms seemed like a prospective leader of the national movement. With the backdrop of a severe food crisis, anxieties of the Austrians and the pressure on the princes to for political concessions, the moderates were asked to take responsibility to resolve issues. The developments of the February Revolution in Paris and the resignation of Metternich in March set the stage for action against Austria.
The Austrians were forced out of Milan through an insurrection but the path to be pursued by the Patricians wasn’t decided. The moderate Patricians feared losing out to the radicals and their belief in republicanism. Cattaneo and the other radicals looked to foreign powers for support as they believed that the influence of the Patricians within the city couldn’t be challenged. Carlo Alberto decided to support the Milanese against the Austrians to maintain the hegemony of Piedmont in the north even though his interests might have conflicted with a republican Milan. As a victory for radicals in Milan might have been a threat to his position, the king was soft on the Austrians and allowed them to reclaim lost ground and recuperate. The revolution broke out in Italy in 1848 due to the inability of the restoration regimes to facilitate reforms and other pressing issues at the time. Therefore, the views of historians like Banti aim to present an idealistic view which overplays the importance of nationalism for driving people to a revolution. The personal interests of the ruler of Piedmont thus, can’t be ruled out when he decided to wage war with the Austrians in 1848. With the support of the moderates, he annexed Lombardy too. Even though Cattaneo didn’t wish to be under the inefficient Piedmontese rule, Mazzini wanted to make sure that there was no divide between the different groups of nationalists and hence, the plebiscite of 12 May supported annexation. The Austrians crushed the Piedmontese army and after an understanding with them, Carlo Alberto’s successor Victor Emmanuel was re-installed as king in return for suppression of democratic and nationalist tendencies in the region. The sequence of events left the people disillusioned and left no scope for reforms. Even Pope Pius IX withdrew his support for the movement against the Austrians as it was another catholic state. The Roman Republic remained isolated but later due to the pressure from foreign powers, Garibaldi’s resistance surrendered in 1849 and Bourbon rule was restored.
In the 19th century, the nation was being defined as a mass of people. This concept of nationalism was a revolutionary one because Rousseau and Herder believed that political sovereignty and power were based only on the mandate of the people. Herder who wrote in the context of Central Europe in 1803 believed that nations were formed as a product of tradition and its history and thus, they were a cultural entity rather than political. Some parts of Europe, nationality overlapped according to Herder’s definition. Upper classes were one linguistic group and the lower classes were another which would lead to a class war. It was also revolutionary because it would explore a different national state system as there would have to be some kind of reorganization if they were based on languages. Nationalism was the middle ground between cosmopolitanism of the enlightenment of the upper classes and localism of the countryside. Nationalism between 1815-48 had certain phases of the enlightenment as it became a universal idea. This might have been because the old order itself cut across national cultures and therefore, an international revolutionary movement emerged against the existing international aristocratic order. The romantic reaction to the enlightenment also fostered nationalism as it propagated the idea of one population distinct from another. A sense of pride started being felt with the birth of folklore and no longer seen as corrupting localism.
Romantic nationalism was essentially a utopian concept as the propagators of this belief felt that the old order would accept nationalism immediately. The old order on the contrary, resisted changes that were taking place and didn’t hesitate to control them through military action. The failure of this phase of nationalism led to conservative nationalism which can be understood as Nationalism imposed from above. They realized that without the support of the old elites, a new nation couldn’t have been born after 1840’s. The failure of this revolutionary phase of insurrections led to a new sense of realism. The new focus was on to understand the fact that the regions of Italy had diverse economic and cultural interests and therefore, issues with immiediate concerns were taken up. Since class and traditions resentments were back in place compared to earlier idea of hostility towards Austria, the Papacy and Bourbons, there was a need to douse the conflicts.
After 1948, there were many people who identified reasons for the failure of the national movement. Cattaneo argued that it was due to the lack of political and civil awareness and disagreed with Mazzini’s concept of involving the masses and forming a unitary nation. He believed that considering the diversity of Italy, a federal nation would be more suited. There were also radicals influenced by socialist ideas like Ferrari who felt that even the French revolution couldn’t eradicate the old regime and criticized Mazzini for overlooking the social divisions prevalent in the country to avoid disunity amongst nationalists. He argued that these underlying tensions needed to be addressed and resolved before the national movement was taken forward.
Prime minister d’Azeglio was the reason why the parliament and constitutional govt. survived in Piedmont. He struggled to address the deeper societal and economic problems in Italy but was able to strike a balance between the democrats and the king. There was an urgent need for Piedmont needed to modernize and Cavour who rose up very rapidly in the ministry understood this problem. He started a program of economic liberalization as he believed in the laissez faire system. His agreement with the leader of the democrats, U. Rattazzi isolated the monarchic right and Mazzinian left and thus, gained a lot of support from the moderates. Public infrastructural projects like railways, canals, irrigation, public state banks were established. Even though Cavour only aimed to develop Piedmont, he was forced to look into the situation around Italy as many exiled activists settled in Piedmont after 1849 and public opinion in Turin favoured cosmopolitanism. He was also brilliant diplomat and understood the European situation and played it to his advantage once the power balance in Europe shifted. He used France to his advantage for an anti-Austrian strategy. The Italian national society was formed by Pallavicino, Manin and La Farina who were nationalists but believed that unification wouldn’t have been possible without the support of Piedmont. French and Piedmontese victories against Austria were accompanied by insurrections in Central Italy which led Napoleon III to sought independent peace with Austria. Since Napoleon was being hailed as a champion of Italian Nationalism, he couldn’t resist the unification of Tuscany and Emily. Garibaldi used efforts military campaigns in the south as they overthrew the Bourbon army and became the dictator of Sicily. The poor relations and the lack of communication between Garibaldi and Cavour almost led to a showdown between the Piedmontese army and Garibaldi’s troops. The parliament opted for the annexation for the south of Italy after a popular plebiscite and the unification of Italy was more or less complete. Italy was integrated with Italy only in 1866 after the Prussian expansion and similarly, Rome became a part of the Italian State only in 1870 after the Franco-Prussian War. Even though there was a unification of the Italian state, the political thinking remained narrow minded and skeptical of popular social movements. The lack of enthusiasm for a new national identity is shown by the fact that the Piedmontese Statuo was imposed in 1861, rather than the formation of a new formation. The restricted franchise, suppression of socialists by Prime Minister’s like Crispi in the 1880’s led to a civil war in the country and disturbances as nationalist values weren’t strengthened. Gramsci has called it a as a ‘passive revolution’ which had political changes but maintained the social status quo. The northerners were especially disillusioned as even after unification, nationalism didn’t end their backwardness, anarchy. There were very farfetched expectations associated with the unification. By blaming the local populations for problems, imposing Piedmontese institutions and brutal repression of people showing dissent caused a civil war in the 1860’s and therefore, there was very little sense of national identity amongst the people in the Italian state. Ultimately, due to the lack of a popular mandate, Italian nationalism had to be imposed from above.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
- Breuilly, John : “Nationalism and the State”; University of Chicago Press, 1994
- Gellner, E.H: “Nations and Nationalism”; Cornell University Press, 1983
- Haddock, B. A: “Themes in European History”; Routledge, 1992
- Hobsbawm, Eric J: “Nations and Nationalism since 1780”, Cambridge University Press, 1992
- Lee, Stephen J: “Aspects of European History: 1789-1980”, Routledge, 1982
- Timothy, Baycroft and Hewitson, Mark: “What is a Nation”; OUP, 2006