（This is a continuation of Part 8 “What Was the Modern Nation-State?“.
Here, we will examine the process by which the modern nation-state—with its defining characteristics such as national borders, a single ethnic group, and a single language (though these are, to a large extent, artificial constructs)—took shape in Britain from the 17th century onward. At the same time, we will consider the scholarly theory that prototypes of the modern nation-state may have emerged earlier than in Britain, in places such as South America.
.
The source text is “In Search of Lost Modernity” by Akio KAWATO.
The English edition of this book (originally written in Japanese) is on
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hiRK7kjbX0Hxd2NOxPqtQlVWgjDHgKCr/edit
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MB0Me9P5Lpa2HGceuJUdMqqQ2CRHQSxa/edit)
.
(The copyright belongs to the author, Akio Kawato)
.
The Design of Modern Nation
From the 18th century onward, Britain not only led the world in the Industrial Revolution—it also laid the foundation for the modern nation-state as we know it today: a political entity where a national parliament governs directly, collecting taxes and conscripting soldiers without relying on feudal lords.
.
In 19th-century Britain, voting rights expanded, and democratic participation grew. As political parties competed for votes, they increasingly promoted social security programs, gradually transforming the state from an “18th-century war machine” into a welfare state.
.
Let’s take a closer look at the modern state that Britain built in parallel with the Industrial Revolution—the process of its development and what it ultimately meant.
.
Borders with Fences:
One of the most modern phenomena is the idea of drawing lines on the ground to mark national borders—lines that cannot be crossed freely. For Japanese people, who live on an island with no land borders, this concept can feel abstract. I remember being shocked when I once saw the barbed wire separating East and West Germany stretching to the horizon and thought, “Why would anyone build something like that?”
.
Certainly, there are examples from ancient times, such as the Great Wall of China during the Qin dynasty and the Roman Empire’s Limes. However, these are different from modern-day borders.
.
The Islam region followed Europe in establishing borders in a modern sense. The Ottoman Empire and Persia (Iran) signed the Treaty of Zuhab in 1639, which set vague borders. But in the Second Treaty of Erzurum (1847), with British and Russian mediation, they drafted a precise border demarcation. This marked a shift in Islamic societies from older, fluid notions of territorial boundaries to the modern Western concept of a border as a fixed line.
The Myth of “One Language, One Race”:
So, fixed borders became the first essential tool of a sovereign nation. The next is the concept of a common language and race. Many countries include an official language in their constitutions.
Some nations recognize multiple official languages—not because everyone must speak all of them, but so citizens can access public services in any of the recognized languages. For instance, Belgium has two official languages, while Switzerland has four. In Central Asia, Russian still functions as a de facto official language more than 30 years after the fall of the Soviet Union. It takes time for local languages to fully take over in areas like higher education. Even in Meiji-era Japan, it took about 15 years before Japanese professors could teach core subjects at Tokyo Imperial University.
.
In Western Europe, languages like German and French are often thought to have developed organically, though the process is not well understood. What is clear is that the invention of the printing press (attributed to Gutenberg in the mid-15th century), the rise of mass publishing, and Martin Luther’s translation of the Bible into German (instead of Latin, which most people couldn’t read) all played major roles in shaping modern European languages.
.
Between 1500 and 1600, an estimated 150 to 200 million books were printed in Western Europe. Newspapers began appearing in the early 17th century. This revolution in publishing fueled the emergence of the modern nation-state. As mentioned in an earlier volume, Venice was initially the epicenter of this print culture.
.
There is a common belief that sovereign nations are made up of a single ethnic group. But unlike language, ethnicity is hard to define. After all, every human being is mixed if you go back far enough in your family tree.
.
In China, for example, the Han are the majority, but ethnic classification there is self-reported, not based on genetics. It’s not unusual for one sibling to identify as Han and another as Manchu, especially since some minority groups receive special treatment in university admissions and public services. While you might be able to imagine what a “Russian” is, there’s no such thing as an “American race.” Anyone born in the U.S.—or even those who live there long enough and pass a citizenship exam—can become American.
.
In today’s world, the idea that a nation must consist of a single ethnic group is not only outdated—it’s often considered taboo. Most modern constitutions, including those of Japan, the U.S., the UK, Germany, and France, make no reference to a dominant ethnic group.
.
Were the First Modern Nation-States in Latin America or Turkey?:
Some scholars argue that modern nation-states emerged first in Latin America, not Europe. According to political scientist Benedict Anderson in Imagined Communities, elites in Latin American colonies were inspired by the liberal reforms of King Carlos III of Spain (reigned until 1788) and moved toward independence at the end of the 18th century. When Napoleon invaded Spain, they seized the opportunity to break away. These new countries declared independence and adopted republican political systems.
.
However, this may be overstated. By the time Latin American nations declared independence, Britain had already developed a modern state. And in many Latin American countries, indigenous populations had no rights. The colonists’ goal was not to build inclusive modern states, but to protect their own power and wealth by establishing new borders and state structures separate from the colonial motherland. Bureaucratic institutions remained weak in many cases. Thus, it’s hard to argue that these nations were true pioneers of modern nation-states.
.
Interestingly, the origins of the United States were not so different. The American Revolution was primarily aimed at protecting the interests of local white elites. Though the U.S. did adopt a forward-thinking constitution rooted in Western Enlightenment ideals, the original thirteen states remained highly autonomous. When building Washington, D.C., they only offered a swamp (a literal one at that time)—a region nobody claimed. Each state retained the right to issue its own currency and resisted the creation of a central bank.
.
Japanese historian Masami Arai, in his book “Osman vs. Europe”, argues that Western European countries in the 17th century borrowed features of the Ottoman Empire, such as a standing army, to increase state power. These features helped them develop modern nation-states.
But Turkey, unlike its Western peers, lacked parliamentary democracy. Meanwhile, China’s Qin Dynasty had already established a highly centralized legal and bureaucratic system in the 3rd century BC.
In this sense, Western Europe’s true historical innovation wasn’t just centralization—it was the fusion of centralized governance with democratic ideals, inherited from ancient Greece.
Leave a Reply