Critique: Hypothesis on Nationalism and War Literature

Description of the Work

In the article “Hypothesis on nationalism and war literature,” Stephen van Evera produces nine main hypotheses and 12 sub-hypotheses to demonstrate the impact of various types of nationalism that can cause war. Evera classified these hypotheses in terms of remote and proximate causes of wars. However, the author acknowledges that these hypotheses need to be validated empirically to ensure they are used for empirical inquiry. The author also argues that the impacts of nationalism are variables that affect how different aspects of nationalism can cause war because they are dangerous under certain circumstances. In that regard, the central purpose of the article is to spin out valid hypotheses (Van Evera, 1994). Evera also predicts how nationalism will pose the risk of war by using different examples such as Eastern and Western Europe. In this paper, the chief focus is to critique the article by evaluating the methodology used by the author to support his hypotheses on how nationalism can cause war. Besides, the critique will also evaluate the organization of sources and materials used by the author to support his hypotheses.

Methodology

The author wanted to demonstrate how his hypotheses caused war using two approaches, namely, remote and proximate causes. Mainly, it is evident that the author achieved his goals by presenting historical, statistical, and anecdotal evidence. For example, Evera subdivided his evidence into two. First, he presented how proximate cause propelled nationalism to cause war using different factors such as political status, attitudes towards national diaspora, attitude towards other nationalities, and national respect to minority rights (Van Evera, 1994). Using the proximate cause, the author was successful because he used historical evidence to support his hypotheses. For example, he used the Serbia attack on Croatia in 1991 to demonstrate how national respect for minority rights would cause war as his historical evidence to support his hypotheses.

After considering the evidence provided by the author, one can say that it was sufficient. For example, he presented how his hypotheses would be used as a checklist for assessing risks posed by the nationalist movement. In that regard, he uses Europe as an example of a region where nationalism has spread in the past. Thus, his evidence is sufficient because it indicate which regions are like to be affected by both remote and proximate causes of war. For example, he claims that these causes pose little danger of war in Western Europe because nationalism has been contained. On the other hand, he claims that these causes will pose a great danger of war in the East in areas occupied by the Soviet Union in 1870 to 1945 (Van Evera, 1994). Thus, using historical sufficient evidence makes this article reliable.

More significantly, the author has presented his argument using evidence that has been arranged sequentially and logically. For example, the author separated his hypotheses into two forms, namely, nine main hypotheses and 12 sub-hypotheses, which sum up to 21 hypotheses (Van Evera, 1994). In each set, the author further subdivides into a different cause. The logical sequence makes it easy for the author to present his argument. The evidence is presented clearly because the author considers each evidence at a time. For example, he presents four varieties of nationality that cause war in terms of political status, attitudes towards national diaspora, attitude towards other nationalities, and national respect to minority rights. This is a logical manner that he used to present a clear fashion in his main argument.

Organization of Material and Sources

The piece has been organized in a logical manner which makes it easy to follow. For example, the author has utilized the use of subtopics in the article to ensure readers can differentiate both proximate and remote causes of war. The material makes a compelling case by the world has experienced many types of wars that have left devastating impacts. Therefore, the idea of the author to present 21 hypotheses on the possible causes of war in terms of proximate and remote cause is relevant to prevent the occurrence of other wars in the future (Van Evera, 1994). These sources are reliable because they have provided historical and statistical evidence on previous wars that took place in different parts of the world.

Personal critical evaluation

After considering the evidence provided by the author to support his argument, it is clear that he achieved his argument. Also, the material is a contribution because it highlights the possible cause of war using different hypotheses. Therefore, if the world assesses these hypotheses, then it possible to address the current conflicts and wars in the Middle East region and other areas dominated by terror groups such as Al-Shabaab, ISIS, and Al-Qaeda. However, the author should have tried to categorize proximate and remote causes of war in terms of regions where the war has occurred. This would have been easy to develop his hypotheses on how to address the cause of war in different regions. In terms of strength, the article has used reliable sources that provide both historical and statistical evidence. Nonetheless, that author has not provided a reference list which makes it difficult to trace these sources. In terms of limitation, the extent to which his hypotheses are applicable outside Europe and Russia is questionable. Also, some of his hypotheses are indirectly tested in other materials thereby making them receive less support in explaining the causes of war. To sum up, I believe his hypotheses may still hold in demonstrating how different nationalism increase risks of war that others, thereby solving many conflicts that are currently affecting the globe.