REV_Mees Studies  on  National  Movements,  2  (2014)      |      REVIEWS     Ludger  Mees   James   Kennedy,   Liberal   nationalisms.   Empire,   state,   and   civil   society  in  Scotland  and  Quebec  (Montreal  -­‐  Kingston  -­‐  London  -­‐   Ithaca:   McGill-­‐Queen's   University   Press,   2013)   322   pp.,   ISBN   9780773538986.   Review  by  Ludger  Mees   Inverting  the  habitual  structure  of  this  kind  of  review  essays,  I  would  like   to   initiate   this   brief   comment   on   James   Kennedy's   recent   book   by   forwarding   one   of   the   conclusions   I   reached   after   having   read   his   322   pages   on   liberal   nationalisms   in   Scotland   and   in   Quebec.   Without   any   doubt,   this   publication   is   a   major   contribution   to   the   research   on   nationalism.  This  contribution  is  important  and  interesting  for  mainly  four   reasons:  because  it  deals  with  a  complex  historical  topic  which  so  far  has   been   remarkably   under-­‐researched;   because   it   is   based   on   the   methodology   of   comparative   history,   which   helps   both   to   highlight   the   common   features   and   to   underline   the   differences   between   the   case   studies;   third,   the   structure   and   the   prose   of   the   text   are   perfectly   constructed,   fluent   and   easily   understandable   even   for   non-­‐experts   on   Scottish  or  Canadian  nationalisms;  and,  finally,  the  main  arguments,  which   might   even   sound   somewhat   provocative   to   the   ears   of   some   readers,   invite  to  further  debate.   To  begin  with,  Kennedy's  book  is  probably  the  first  scientific  monograph   dedicated  to  the  comparison  of  early  francophone  Canadian  nationalism  in   Quebec  on  the  one  hand,  and  Scottish  nationalism,  on  the  other.  Normally,   the  references  for  both  nationalisms  are  other  cases,  the  most  important   probably  being  the  Irish  one  in  the  case  of  the  Scots.  However,  Kennedy's   choice  to  bring  together  Scotland  and  Quebec  makes  sense  and  opens  new   analytical   perspectives,   since   both   territories   were   part   of   the   broader   British   Empire,   both   had   been   able   to   maintain   a   certain   level   of   self-­‐ government,  and  both  developed  reacting  to  imperial  policies  aiming  at  a   Studies  on  National  Movements,  2  (2014)      |      REVIEWS   Ludger  Mees   centralisation  of  the  Empire's  rule  which  put  pressure  and  strain  on  local   governance   in   both   cases.   The   author   identifies   these   measures   of   centralisation  analysing  the  consequences  of  the  South  African  War  (Boer   War,  1899),   tariff  reform,  naval  re-­‐armament  and,   in  the  Canadian  case,   the   restrictions   on   education   in   French-­‐speaking   schools.   His   chronological  time  frame  comprises  the  period  between  the  Boer  War  and   the  outbreak  of  World  War  I,  which  gave  rise  to  major  political  changes  in   the   history   of   Scottish   and   Quebec   nationalisms.   At   the   center   of   the   analysis   Kennedy   places   two   organisations   and   their   respective   leadership.  In  Scotland  it  is  the  Young  Scots'  Society  (YSS)  formed  in  1900,   and  in  Quebec  the  Ligue  nationaliste  canadienne  founded  three  years  later,   in  1903.   According   to   Kennedy,   both   organisations   represented   a   liberal   type   of   nationalism.   What   does   this   mean?   The   concept   of   liberalism   and   its   different  historical  expressions  are  nearly  as  broad  and  complex  as  that  of   nationalism   and   it   might   have   been   convenient   to   dedicate   a   special   theoretical  section  of  the  book  to  this  issue.  The  introduction  and  the  first   chapter   (“Liberty   and   Nationality”)   place   much   more   emphasis   on   ‘Nationality’   than   on   ‘Liberty’.   Thus,   without   going   into   details,   and   drawing  on  authors  as  John  Stuart  Mill,  Charles  Taylor  or  Will  Kymlicka,   Kennedy  forwards  a  definition  of  liberal  nationalism  as  a  movement  made   up  by  nationalists  who  seek  a  reconciliation  of  liberalism  and  nationalism   by   1.   considering   that   a   sense   of   nationhood   is   compatible   with   democracy;   that,   2.,   moreover,   nationality   is   conductive   to   the   good   working  of  democracy,  and  that  3.  the  cultural  expression  (choice)  is  itself   a   liberal   right.   Furthermore,   other   more   concrete   features   of   liberal   nationalism   are   the   defense   of   typical   liberal   claims   of   the   historical   context   (land   reform,   free   market,   women   suffrage,   etc.)   or   the   intertwining   of   nationalism   with   the   self-­‐regulating   agencies   of   civil   society  and  their  normative  commitment  to  tolerance  (Church,  education,   press,  social  movements,  etc.).   Kennedy   organises   his   analysis   in   seven   major   sections.   As   already   mentioned,   chapter   one   is   an   excellent   theoretical   introduction   which,   however,   might   have   deserved   some   more   attention   to   the   concept   of   liberalism.   In  chapter   two  (‘Empire,  state,  and  civil  society  at   the   fin  de   Studies  on  National  Movements,  2  (2014)      |      REVIEWS   Ludger  Mees   siècle’)   the   specific   political   and   institutional   situation   of   Quebec   and   Scotland  as  parts  of   the  British  Empire   is  analysed.  Chapter   three  deals   with   the   performance   and   the   social   background   of   the   ‘liberal   nationalists’  within   this   context.   In  both  cases  nationalists  were   ‘young,   urban,  and  professional’,  but  in  the  Canadian  case,  their  nationalism  was   more  elite-­‐led  and  channeled   through  specific  newspapers,  whereas   the   Scottish   was   a   more   grassroots   nationalism   spread   through   a   broad   organisational  network.  In  the  fourth  chapter  (‘Empire  and  industry’)  the   nationalist  reactions  to  different  challenges  articulated  by  imperial  policy   are  scrutinised  (Boer  War,  tariff  reform,  industry  and  trade).  Chapters  five   and  six  deal  with  the  particular  political  aims  formulated  by  Scottish  and   Quebec  nationalists  (federation  and  consociation,  respectively).  Finally,  in   chapter   seven   (‘Liberalism   and   the   politics   of   civil   society’),   Kennedy   discusses  the  relationship  between  nationalism  and  civil  society.     As   a   result,   the   author   unfolds   a   multicoloured   picture   of   a   complex   historical  reality,  in  which  similarities  appear  side  by  side  with  remarkable   differences.   Kennedy's   general   conclusion   reasserts   the   existence   of   a   liberal  nationalism  in  Quebec  and  in  Scotland.  Both  movements  arose  and   got   stronger   responding   to  political  decisions   taken  by   the  Empire   that   were  understood  as  menaces  to  the  interests  of  the  Quebecois  and  Scottish   people.  Yet  neither  of  the  two  articulated  a  demand  for  independence,  but   rather   a   desire   for   broader   autonomy   within   the   Empire.   Completing   Michael   Mann's   typology,   Kennedy   calls   them   ‘state-­‐reforming   nationalisms’.  And  in  both  cases  this  liberal  nationalism,  incarnated  by  the   Ligue  nationaliste  canadienne   and   the  Young  Scots'  Society,  vanished  by   assimilation  into  other  more  radical  nationalist  organisations  opposed  to   the   classical   bi-­‐nationalism   defended   by   the   prior   organisations.   But   together   with   these   remarkable   similarities,   there   were   also   very   important,   and   even   more   numerous,   differences.   Both   territories,   although   part   of   the   British   Empire,   had   very   different   weights   and   statuses   within   it.   In   general,   Scots,   unlike   the   Francophone   Canadians,   had   a   disproportionate   involvement   in   the   Empire   and,   in   terms   of   economy   and   business,   Scotland   was   a   beneficiary   of   the   Empire.   The   Dominion  of  Canada,  and  especially  the  Francophone  region,  suffered,  as   Kennedy  puts  it,  ‘something  of  a  “core”/”periphery”  relationship’  with  the   Studies  on  National  Movements,  2  (2014)      |      REVIEWS   Ludger  Mees   Empire   (106).   Conversely,   this   situation   was   reversed   in   the   political   realm.  Whereas  Quebec  possessed  a  legislative  assembly,  Scotland  did  not.   Its   recovery   became   the   core   demand   of   the   home   rule   campaign.   The   different  configuration  of  civil  society  had  far-­‐reaching  consequences.   In   Quebec,   it   was   marked   by   the   enduring   and   nearly   unchallenged   predominance   of   the   Catholic   Church,   whereas   in   Scotland   the   confessional  fragmentation  reduced  the  power  of  Presbyterianism  which,   nevertheless,   was   entwined   with   the   Liberal   Party.   As   a   consequence,   ‘liberalism  was  more   firmly  established   in  Scotland  and  more   fragile   in   Quebec’   (226).   The   result   of   this   relative   strength   or   weakness   of   liberalism  for  the  nationalist  movements  was  that  ‘in  Scotland  nationalism   was   often   subordinate   to   Liberalism,   in   Quebec   liberalism   was   often   subordinate  to  Nationalism’  (ibid.).   These   are   only   some   of   the   most   intriguing   findings   forwarded   by   the   author  in  his  book  on  Liberal  Nationalisms.  As  I  have  already  stated  before,   the  book  is  important  since  it  allows  for  further  debate  and  also  for  some   critical  comments,  with  which  I  would  like  to  conclude  this  review  essay.   My   first   question   is   related   to   a   methodological   problem.   I   wonder   whether  a  sample  of  five  leading  personalities  of  the  Ligue  nationaliste  is  a   sufficient  grounding  for  the  formulation  of  general  conclusions  concerning   liberal   nationalism   in   Quebec.   Of   course,   Kennedy   displays   a   profound   knowledge   of   each   of   these   five   biographies,   and   not   one   single   detail   escapes  his  scrutiny.  Things  become  even  more  complicated  if  the  findings   do  not  coincide  in  all  of  the  cases,  that  is,  if  in  certain  situations  some  of   these  five  leaders  think  or  act  in  one  way,  and  the  others  in  a  different  way.   The   author   seems   to   be   aware   of   these   problems,   for   instance   when   dealing   with   the   attitude   towards   the   Catholic   Church   defined   by   the   leaders   of   the   League.   The   empirical   data   provided   and   prove   the   ‘divisions  among  the  Nationalistes’  (216),  but,  after  mixing  Canadians  and   Scots,   Kennedy   concludes   ‘that   they   were   indeed   liberal   nationalists’   (217).   Is   this   a   realistic   conclusion   if   three   among   the   five   Quebec   nationalists  campaigned  for  a  ‘leading  role’  of  the  Catholic  Church  in      civil   society?   A  second  and  final  doubt  is  related  to  terminological  problems.  Agreeing   with  Kennedy's  criticism  to  Gellner's  point  of  view  that  all  nationalism  is   Studies  on  National  Movements,  2  (2014)      |      REVIEWS   Ludger  Mees   by  nature  a  state-­‐seeking  movement  and  ideology,  and  considering  valid   the   definition   of   nationalism   as   a   political   project   that   ‘seeks   an   arrangement   in   which   the   status   of   the   nation   is   politically   and/or   culturally  enhanced’  (16),  I  think  that  Kennedy's  concept  of  ‘binationalists’,   which  he  introduces  and  uses  without  further  explanation,  deserves  a  little   more  epistemological  attention.  It  is  well  known  that  some  of  the  authors   who   have   studied   the   phenomenon   of   nationalism   do   not   even   label   organisations   like   the   Ligue   or   the   YSS   as   clearly   nationalists.   In   Eric   Hobsbawm's  bestseller,  Nations  and  Nationalism  since  1780,  for  example,   the  Scottish  case  is  considered  a  ramification  of  Liberalism  or  Socialism.1   Thus,  the  question  may  arise  as  to  what  extent  the  Ligue  or  the  YSS  are   (more  or  less  liberal)  nationalist  organisations  or,  to  the  contrary,  (more   or  less)  liberal  ones.  Moreover,  if  both  are  ‘binationalist’,  does  that  mean   that  there  are  two  nations  that  share  the  place  on  the  top  of  the  scale  of   values  and  that  both  are  receptors  of  their  people's  loyalty?  How  does  that   work   in   reality?   What   about   possible   conflicts   within   this   binationalist   behavior?   Wouldn't   it   be   more   reasonable   to   introduce   the   concept   of   regionalism   in   this   debate?   Some   of   the   quotations   of   Henri   Bourassa   reproduced  in  the  book  seem  to  suggest  that  he,  in  reality,  was  a  supporter   of  what  might  be  considered  a  peaceful  coexistence  of  a  patria  chica  with   its  singular  cultural  particularism  within  a  broader  Canadian  nation.  Here   just  one  example:  ‘To  pursue  a  union  of  the  two  peoples  of  Canada,  without   mutual  respect  for  their  respective  rights,  is  to  build  a  nation  on  a  fragile   basis;  it  is  to  provide  an  element  of  ruin  and  destruction  as  a  foundation   stone’   (221).   Is   it  only  by  chance   that   the  Quebec   leader   refers   to   ‘two   peoples’   and   one   ‘nation’?   Or   was   he   simply   referring   to   the   Canadian   ‘state’   when   using   the   term   ‘nation’?   Might   the   concept   of   ‘patriotism’,   introduced  but  not  explained  on  page  234,  be  helpful  here?   These  doubts,  however,  do  not  curtail  the  great  value  of  Kennedy's  study.   His  findings  also  open  new  analytical  perspectives  for  the  investigation  of   other   nationalisms   which   emerged   in   the   context   of   different   Empires   (Spanish,   Turkish,   Austria-­‐Hungary),   whose   particular   political,   social,   economic  and  cultural  structures  proportionated  a  visible  impact  on  the   configuration   and   evolution   of   these   nationalist   movements.   If   at   the   beginning  of  this  brief  commentary  I  held  that  Kennedy's  book  might  also   Studies  on  National  Movements,  2  (2014)      |      REVIEWS   Ludger  Mees   be  perceived  by  some  readers  as  a  provocation,  I  was  referring  to  those   who  still  stick  to  simplistic  and  ahistorical,  frequently  more  normative  and   Manichean   than   analytical   visions   of   nationalism.   After   reading   Liberal   Nationalisms,  they  will  have  learned  that  nationalism  is  not  black  or  white,   good  or  bad,  per  se.   In  the  words  of  Anthony  D.  Smith,  nationalism  only   ‘offers  a  broad  and  abstract  framework’  which  has  to  be  filled  out  ‘by  all   kinds   of   secondary   concepts   and   particular   notions’.   In   a   nutshell:   ‘Whether  nationalism  helps  to  “fill  out”  other  ideologies,  or  is  filled  out  by   them,  is  a  secondary  matter;  it  varies  with  the  historical  context.’2     Endnotes   1  ‘The  national  feelings  of  the  Welsh  and  Scots  in  the  United  Kingdom  did  not  find   expression  through  special  nationalist  parties,  but  through  the  major  all-­‐UK   opposition  parties  -­‐first  Liberals,  then  Labour.’  See  E.J.  Hobsbawm,  Nations  and   Nationalism  since  1780.  Programme,  myth,  reality  (Cambridge,  1990),  p.  125.   2  Smith,  Anthony  D.:  Nationalism,  Oxford:  Polity,  2001,  p.  24.