the ethnic nature of modern nations (Bromley 1990, Kuznecov 1989). So, for instance, the fundamental feature of Bromley`s concept is the unity of ethnic and national development which is evident in his definition of nation as an “ethno-social organism.” This author’s terminology for dealing with national and ethnic phenomena can be easily applied to the logic of terms used by Western scholars. For instance, his term ethnicos has generally the same definition as Smith`s ethnie. Yet, as ethnicos (ethnie) can represent not only ethnic and territorial unity but also a socio-economic unity (historically dependent on concrete socio-economic formations such as feudalism, capitalism, socialism, etc.), Bromley has invented the term “ethno-social organism,” which is wider than simply ethnicos (ethnie), and as a result more flexible. Nation, for instance, is referred to in these terms as an ethno-social organism during the period of “capitalism” and “socialism,” i.e., during industrial and post-industrial society.
Table 1. Ethno-Social Organisms (ESOs)
| Stages of human social development | Forms of ethno-social organization | Socio-economic formations |
| Tribe | Ethnicos | Primitive or Slavery |
| Narodnost’ | Ethnicos | Feudalism |
| Nation | Ethnicos | Capitalism/Socialism |
Only in the widest sense did the author suggest using the term “ethnos” to cover all periods of both ethnic and socio-economic development. In this way, we have a synthetic attempt to take into account (at least on the level of terminology) the socio-cultural as well as the socio-economic nature of national phenomena simultaneously. Bromley`s approach does not contradict either Smith`s or Gellner`s theories, the former because the two sets of terms almost overlap, and so simply complete each other, and the latter because Gellner`s periodization of human history (pre-agrarian, agrarian and industrial society) is reflected in the classification of ethnos (in the wider meaning of the term) according to the three historical types (tribe, narodnost` and nation), where the main criterion is socio-economic. All of the above suggests that Bromley`s, and the wider Soviet, terminology offered the possibility of a synthesis of “perennialist” and “modernist” approaches to understanding national phenomena. But first of all it makes sense to find out why the contradictions exist in the first place, and why the links between pre-modern ethnic communities and modern national communities are so crucial in these debates.
2.1.2 Ethnic Community, Ethnie, Ethnos
The terms “ethnic community,” “ethnos” or “ethnie,” like “nation,” have different meanings depending on the conceptual approach. “Ethnos” (in Greek, tribe, people) has been used since the beginning of the nineteenth century both in ethnography and social anthropology. It was applied, first, to small collectivities or groups that were the subject of anthropological research. Later on it was also applied to bigger communities. In the Western tradition it is not broadly used. More common are the terms “people,” “volke,” “ethnie” and so on. “Ethnos,” though, has been a key term for Soviet Ethnography since 1970s. But the term “ethnic community” has wider acceptance within different national traditions and therefore will be used further as a working term. A brief survey is necessary to establish in which context this, and other terms, are to be used.
The term and concept of “ethnic community” is understood by Anthony Smith as a type of cultural collectivity which emphasizes the role of myths of descent and historical memories, and which is recognized by one or more cultural differences, like religion, customs, language or collective institutions. The author lists six main attributes of ethnic community or ethnie:2
1 A collective proper name;
2 A myth of common ancestry;
3 shared historical memories;
4 One or more differentiating elements of common culture;
5 An association with a specific “homeland”;
6 A sense of solidarity in significant sectors of the population.
The combination of these attributes can be, and usually is, different; but the more of these attributes a given population possesses, the more closely it approximates the ideal type of an ethnic community or ethnie (Smith 1991b, 210). This would be a common definition of the ethnic community as it is accepted in the English-language literature.3 In this way, ethnie is a culturally defined community that dominated in pre-modern political entities with a hierarchical structure. Smith assumes that to exist in modern times, ethnie must be politically suppressed by other nations, as in the case of the Basques. In the Soviet tradition, the term “ethnie” corresponds to the term “ethnicos,” or to the narrower meaning of the term ”ethnos.” The latter was defined as a stable human community that has historically formed on a certain territory and possesses common (relatively temporary) specific features of language, culture and psyche, as well as an “awareness” of its own unity and distinctiveness from other similar communities (self-consciousness) which was fixed in a self-given name (ethnic name—“ethnonym”) (Svod, 49).
Smith and Llobera stress the socio-cultural nature of ethnic communities, as they are defined by religion, customs, language and collective institutions. Primordialists believe that it is these factors which are most important for nation-building, since new nations receive their crucially important collective myths and memories from a prior ethnic heritage. They also accept that subjective factors are crucial for nation-building.
“Modernists” do not consider “ethnic communities” as central to the nature of nations, and underline the purely functional role of ethnic elements for nation-building. For Gellner, previously existing pre-modern cultures are only randomly turned into nations by the force of nationalism. Although previous ethnic boundaries could be important for the social and political security of the new national states, modernists stress that “ethnicity” turns into nationalism only when cultural homogeneity and continuity is conditioned by the economic fundamentals of social life. In other words, “modernists” highlight the objective (socio-economic) aspects in the relationship between ethnic communities and nation-building, where ethnicity is a situational or even random element.
The Soviet term “ethno-social organism” or ESO creates, to a certain extent, some logical order within the framework of the debates described above. ESO was considered to be an ethnicos (ethnie) within a certain socio-economic unit (historically dependent on concrete socio-economic formations). In this way, ethnicos can exist within different socio-economic formations, while ESO exists always within a defined formation. Nation, for instance, is firstly an ethnicos or group of ethnicoses, and secondly an ethnicos which is included whithin a “capitalist” socio-economic unit. Only in the widest sense was it suggested to use the term “ethnos” to cover all periods of both ethnic and socio-economic development. In this way, we have a synthetic attempt to take into account (on the level of terminology) of the socio-cultural as well as the socio-economic nature of the national phenomenon, also taking into account the fact that, in the wider meaning, ethnos is a dynamic system and therefore a process. Soviet scholars stressed two main developments of this process. The first is “ethno-transformation,” where ethnic identification and membership is shifting or changing. The second is “ethno-evolution,” where ethnic identification persists. Soviet ethnosociology argued that the ethnosocial dynamic
