Barcelona, Naples and Salonika: Ethnic and Civic Nationalism in Three Mediterranean Port Cities (1888–1915)^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper has a fascinating premise.  The work of Hans Kohn, as the author correctly notes, has been “criticized and attacked” by many scholars over the past two decades (at least).  But I agree with the author’s implied hyposthesis that Kohn’s work, and especially his famous dichotomy between “ethnic” and “civic” nationalism might be worth re-examining.  The author’s plan to focus his/her investigation on three Mediterranean port cities is also intellectually exciting and offers the possibility of an interesting comparative perspective, as well as building on the sociological and historical literature of port cities and maritime societies. To round out the interesting intellectual foundations of the paper, the author also situates the beginning of the study in a specific year, 1888, which, corresponds to significant symbolic episodes of “modernization” in each city.  The author thus implicitly links his/her approach to nationalism with such “Modernists” as Gellner, Hobsbawm, and Anderson.

Unfortunately, from these promising beginnings the paper quickly loses its way.  The different case studies of each city make little attempt to discuss nationalism, let alone Kohn’s dualistic conceptualization of it.  Much of the discussion of Naples is taken up with the importance of Camorra and, later, the alleged destructive effects of Globalization.  The author’s treatment of Barcelona probably comes closest to engaging with Kohn’s ideas, but somehow gets sidetracked into a detailed examination of the city’s demographic history.  The case of Selanik/Salonika/Thessaloniki, is potentially the most interesting of the three cities in terms of the paper’s stated goals.  Its cosmopolitan nature and ethno-religious diversity under the Ottomans is explicitly (and correctly) emphasized.  But the author fails to make clear what effect this had on the national self-identities of its inhabitants. While the author correctly suggests that the transformation of Salonika from a cosmopolitan Mediterranean entrepot to a Greek provincial city was a result of Greek policies following the Balkan Wars, he/she somehow links this to the Armenian genocide in Anatolia, at which time the Ottomans were no longer in control of Salonika or its environs.

Later in the paper, the author comes back to an evaluation of Kohn’s ideas about nationalism and attempts to link them to the city case studies, but the results are disappointing. Instead of grappling with the challenges of considering civic and ethnic nationalism in the context of these cosmopolitan maritime communities, the author gets bogged down in a complicated discussion about the relationship between “cultural” and “ethnic” factors in understanding the nature of ethnic nationalism.  Given the author’s impressive command of the literature (as evidenced by the extensive bibliography) it is interesting in this regard that he/she does not reference the work on ethnicity and national identity by Anthony Smith.

Given the fact that the author explicitly links his/her project in this paper with some understanding of “modernization” and/or industrialization, it is a pity that he/she does not discuss the importance of socialist politics and organized labor in these cities as possible alternatives to nationalism and national identities.  He/she does briefly mention the strength of socialist and anarchist movements in Barcelona, but fails to note their importance in Ottoman Salonika, where the socialist Worker’s Federation was a major force. 

One possible hypothesis drawn from the information the author presents is that the status and conditions in these port cities mitigated against their inhabitants developing strong national identities of any type.  Instead, they were drawn to hyper-regional or simply urban-based identities, or to socialism.  But these are simply my inferences, and I have no idea of whether this is what the author is actually trying to say, nor whether these ideas have any relevance to the author’s interest in exploring the continued importance of Kohn’s work.

The author’s research agenda is interesting and exciting.  In particular, the focus on these three port cities has real potential as a way of complicating not only Kohn’s formulations about nationalism, but indeed many of our existing ideas about the nature of this phenomenon.  The paper in its current form, however, does not pursue any of these promising possibilities and would require substantial and significant revisions before it would be suitable for publication.

English is satisfactory.  The paper has a few very minor grammatical mistakes and typographical errors.

Author Response

This paper has a fascinating premise.  The work of Hans Kohn, as the author correctly notes, has been “criticized and attacked” by many scholars over the past two decades (at least).  But I agree with the author’s implied hypothesis that Kohn’s work, and especially his famous dichotomy between “ethnic” and “civic” nationalism might be worth re-examining.  The author’s plan to focus his/her investigation on three Mediterranean port cities is also intellectually exciting and offers the possibility of an interesting comparative perspective, as well as building on the sociological and historical literature of port cities and maritime societies. To round out the interesting intellectual foundations of the paper, the author also situates the beginning of the study in a specific year, 1888, which, corresponds to significant symbolic episodes of “modernization” in each city.  

Thank you very much for these encouraging comments, they have been most useful to condense, straighten and improve the overall argument of the article.  

 

The author thus implicitly links his/her approach to nationalism with such “Modernists” as Gellner, Hobsbawm, and Anderson.

Yes, this is correct. I hope I have sufficiently emphasized this. I have also added references to previous works on the modernist connection.

Unfortunately, from these promising beginnings, the paper quickly loses its way.  

 I think the article has become much more coherent now that I have cut a substantial part, mostly concerning post1915 developments 

The different case studies of each city make little attempt to discuss nationalism, let alone Kohn’s dualistic conceptualization of it.  

This has been taken fully into consideration both at the beginning and at the end of the article.

Much of the discussion of Naples is taken up with the importance of Camorra and, later, the alleged destructive effects of Globalization.  

I have now added substantial subsections on the weakness and illegitimacy of the central state and its nationalising project as an important component of the peculiar configuration of state-society relationships in Naples from a civic/ethnic/cultural nationalism viewpoint.

The author’s treatment of Barcelona probably comes closest to engaging with Kohn’s ideas, but somehow gets sidetracked into a detailed examination of the city’s demographic history.  

This demographic section now has been removed.

The case of Selanik/Salonika/Thessaloniki, is potentially the most interesting of the three cities in terms of the paper’s stated goals.  Its cosmopolitan nature and ethno-religious diversity under the Ottomans are explicitly (and correctly) emphasized.  But the author fails to make clear what effect this had on the national self-identities of its inhabitants. 

I think I emphasise better how the Balkan wars, as a prelude to WW1, have led to homogenising nationalism and the elimination/removal of the Ottoman legacy with its cosmopolitanism.

While the author correctly suggests that the transformation of Salonika from a cosmopolitan Mediterranean entrepot to a Greek provincial city was a result of Greek policies following the Balkan Wars, he/she somehow links this to the Armenian genocide in Anatolia, at which time the Ottomans were no longer in control of Salonika or its environs.

I have now corrected this.

Later in the paper, the author comes back to an evaluation of Kohn’s ideas about nationalism and attempts to link them to the city case studies, but the results are disappointing. Instead of grappling with the challenges of considering civic and ethnic nationalism in the context of these cosmopolitan maritime communities, the author gets bogged down in a complicated discussion about the relationship between “cultural” and “ethnic” factors in understanding the nature of ethnic nationalism.  

Yes, thank you for these comments which I fully take on board. I should point out that the opposition between cultural and ethnic nationalism adds an extra dimension to the civic/ethnic opposition, but this discussion has now been made much more stringent and to the point.

Given the author’s impressive command of the literature (as evidenced by the extensive bibliography) it is interesting in this regard that he/she does not reference the work on ethnicity and national identity by Anthony Smith.

I have included Anthony D. Smith's important contribution both earlier in the article and in the final section, mostly his critique of Hans Kohn's work.

Given the fact that the author explicitly links his/her project in this paper with some understanding of “modernization” and/or industrialization, it is a pity that he/she does not discuss the importance of socialist politics and organized labor in these cities as possible alternatives to nationalism and national identities.  

Thank you very much for this very important observation. Class struggle (and the workers' movement) have been a crucial component in the historical developments of at least two of the three regions and would be unforgivable not to mention them. I did so in the new version a couple of times. This also provided an occasion to refer to an important recent work on the relationship between capitalism and nationalism. 

He/she does briefly mention the strength of socialist and anarchist movements in Barcelona, but fails to note their importance in Ottoman Salonika, where the socialist Worker’s Federation was a major force.

Yes, indeed, I also added this. Thank you for correcting me.

One possible hypothesis drawn from the information the author presents is that the status and conditions in these port cities mitigated against their inhabitants' developing strong national identities of any type.  Instead, they were drawn to hyper-regional or simply urban-based identities, or to socialism.  

I articulated this argument in a slightly different way towards the conclusions and in different points of the article.

But these are simply my inferences, and I have no idea of whether this is what the author is actually trying to say, nor whether these ideas have any relevance to the author’s interest in exploring the continued importance of Kohn’s work.

The author’s research agenda is interesting and exciting.  In particular, the focus on these three port cities has real potential as a way of complicating not only Kohn’s formulations about nationalism but indeed many of our existing ideas about the nature of this phenomenon.  

Thank you very much! 

The paper in its current form, however, does not pursue any of these promising possibilities and would require substantial and significant revisions before it would be suitable for publication.

This has now been done via substantial changes. The article has now run through deep revision and long sections have been removed while focusing entirely on the 1888-1915  timespan. 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

This is really a very good article, which provides a constructive critique of Hans Kohn´s thesis by saving its basic findings but applying them to a comparative approach to three urban settlements in their civic/ethnic identities. It is very well contextualized and offers a lot of hindsight for understanding the different historical dynamics of formally similar urban sea ports that have actually experienced very different processes of citizenship building and social inclusiveness.

The article combines quite detailed and specified political economy with cultural history.

I would only recommend shortening the passages on the recent designation of Salonika for European Cultural Capital: the whole final critical reappraisal of Kohn´s views is already long, and the detailed description of Salonika´s candidacy is not necessary; it may be saved for a different text.

There are just a few spelling mistakes

Author Response

This is really a very good article, which provides a constructive critique of Hans Kohn´s thesis by saving its basic findings but applying them to a comparative approach to three urban settlements in their civic/ethnic identities. It is very well contextualized and offers a lot of hindsight for understanding the different historical dynamics of formally similar urban seaports that have actually experienced very different processes of citizenship building and social inclusiveness.

The article combines quite detailed and specified political economy with cultural history.

I would only recommend shortening the passages on the recent designation of Salonika for European Cultural Capital: 

Thank you very much, I agree, indeed that this wasn't strictly necessary, and I have entirely removed any mention of it.

the whole final critical reappraisal of Kohn´s views is already long, and the detailed description of Salonika´s candidacy is not necessary; it may be saved for a different text.

Yes, the article has now been reshaped accordingly; more recent aspects are being treated separately at the moment for a second article, possibly for the same journal. 

Thank you very much for your very important comments, which have certainly contributed to strengthening the argument and making the article more robust and original.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author has made extensive revisions to the paper, which I find much improved in all respects.  As I wrote in my initial review, the premise and working hypotheses of the project were/are very interesting.  I am glad that the author was willing to work through them further.  I think that the paper in its revised form makes an important contribution to our literature on Nationalism Studies.

Author Response

Thanks you so much, all corrections have been accepted and incorporated (/see track changes). 
Please double-check and signal any possible error. 
Minor typos can be corrected at the proof stage.