Sociology of nation and nationalism is in a crisis - this is a common claim among contemporary theorists. As a rule, however, this claim is not accompanied by an in-depth analysis of symptoms and causes of the crisis. Worse still, it is not certain whether there is any sociology of nation and nationalism and what it is. In consequence, we do not know, what the crisis is about and whose crisis it is. The goal of this paper is to answer these questions. To define naciology, I reconstruct cores of four main theories of nation and nationalism. Yet the sole existence of four theories is a symptom of the crisis. To overcome it, we should introduce a criterion which would distinguish what should be included into the discipline and what should not. Accordingly, I claim that we should impose three conditions on our theories: (a) integration, (b) dynamics, (c) elasticity. These criteria, for their part, allow me to describe and evaluate four theories and, at the same time, the dimensions of the crisis.
Financed by the National Centre for Research and Development under grant No. SP/I/1/77065/10 by the strategic scientific research and experimental development program:
SYNAT - “Interdisciplinary System for Interactive Scientific and Scientific-Technical Information”.