Banal nationalism

The term is derived from English academic, Michael Billig's 1995 book of the same name and is intended to be understood critically. Billig's book has been described as 'the fourth most cited work on nationalism ever published'. Billig devised the concept of 'banal nationalism' to highlight the routine and often unnoticed ways that established nation states are reproduced from day to day. ==Impact==

The concept has been highly influential, particularly within the discipline of political geography, with continued academic interest since the book's publication in 1995. Today the term is used primarily in academic discussion of identity formation, geopolitics, and the nature of nationalism in contemporary political culture. in the United States is one of the most overt forms of banal nationalism – most are less obvious.|left ==Examples==

Examples of banal nationalism include the use of flags in everyday contexts, sporting events, national songs, symbols on money, popular expressions and turns of phrase, patriotic clubs, the use of implied togetherness in the national press, for example, the use of terms such as prime minister, weather, team, and divisions into "domestic" and "international" news. Many of these symbols are most effective because of their constant repetition, and almost subliminal nature. Banal nationalism is often created via state institutions such as schools. It can contribute to bottom-up processes of nation-building. Journalist Francesca Barca and author Michael Antonio Fino have called gastronationalism a form of banal nationalism. ==Distinction from extremist variants==

Michael Billig's primary purpose in coining the term was to clearly differentiate everyday, regular nationalism from extremist variants. He argued that the academic and journalistic focus on extreme nationalists, independence movements, and xenophobes in the 1980s and 1990s obscured the strength of contemporary nationalism, by implying that nationalism was a fringe ideology rather than a dominant theme in contemporary political culture. ==Contrast with other causes for mobilized action==

However, in earlier times, calls to the "nation" were not as important, when religion, monarchy or family might have been invoked more successfully to mobilize action. Billig also uses the concept to dispute post-modernist claims that the nation state is in decline, noting particularly the continued hegemonic power of American nationalism. ==Further reading==