During the last two decades, the concept
of nationalism has been repeatedly put under
spotlight by both the media and academics.
This heightened attention has produced a
plethora of theories and applications of the
concept. However, there is little agreement
among scholars on what “nationalism”
means and how it came about. Gellner and
Hobbsbawn regard it as a political principle
that reflects cultural and voluntary
commitment of individuals within a national
political boundary, where as Anderson
describes it as an imagined collective
identity.1 Breuilly offers yet a different
definition by identifying nationalism with
political movements seeking or exercising
state power.2 Recently, even the long-held
consensus on the relatively recent historical
origin of the concept has been challenged.3
In spite of such wide range of
disagreements on various aspects of
nationalism, however, most scholars agree
on its dynamic and fluid nature. Nationalism
is not a fixed ideology or identity, but
changes constantly through interactions
among members within and outside of the
nation. Yet, few studies explicate what the
dynamism of nationalism entails. How is
nationalism dynamic? Are the forces that
shape nationalism endogenous or
exogenous? What are the mechanisms of
change? What is the locus of the dynamism?
This paper attempts to address these
questions by examining the contentious
politics of symbolic boundary maintenance
between the Chinese government and Korean
minorities in China