Nationalism and migrant integration studies: Some thoughts on their evolution since 2001

It is worth considering how nationalism theories have evolved in the last 25 years in Europe and North America, in relation to a changing, and indeed challenging, socio-political context Compared to the scholarly focus on why, when and how nations emerged that characterised the 1980s and 1990s, the last three decades have been marked by a shift towards studying the lived experiences of citizens (notably the so-called banal or everyday nationalism) and the tensions between national identity and post-migration diversity. Scholars have asked why and how nationalism persists and whether and how it evolves in more plural or more exclusionary ways (multicultural, transnational or plural nationalism). It is my contention that nationalism studies were shaped not only by the intellectual curiosity of the scholars in the field, but also, and most importantly, by the positionality of the scholars and their self-reflective approach on their social, economic and geopolitical context.

In a recent paper, published in Ethnicities as well (Triandafyllidou 2022), I have proposed to divide the last 40 years in four periods which are marked by important social and political transformations. I chose to start with the 1980s with a view to including the period prior to 1989 and the dramatic changes that 1989 brought to Europe (and the world) but also with a view to emancipating my review from the post-World War II considerations and placing it more firmly in the 21^st century context.

In considering how nationalism and our understanding of identity and diversity have evolved, we need to take note of the later Cold War period during the 1980s and until the early 1990s, when nation-states still dominated international politics. During this period, nationalism research focused on explaining when and how nations have developed and why and how they have turned into the primary and dominant form of political community in the modern period. Thus, theoretical debates between the so-called modernists that argued that the nation is an outcome of the modern period (Anderson, 1981; Gellner, 1983; Hobsbawm 1990), responding to the new forms of production and socio-political organisation that emerged after the industrial revolution, and the perennialists (Armstrong 1982; Hastings 1997) who searched for the origins of nations in earlier ethnic identities and communities, remained dominant in this period. It is in this period that John Breuilly (1994) discussed the links – or rather the tensions – between nationalism and the state in the modern period while Walker Connor (1994) critically investigated ethnonationalism and its political implications. And it is also in the same period that Anthony D. Smith (1991, see also Guibernau 2004) developed his seminal work on ethnosymbolism seeking to bring together the two divergent perspectives, acknowledging that nations find their roots in ethnies that have a much longer historical record while they take their specific historical form as nations, and nation-states during the modern times. The common thread that can be seen as running through these important scholarly works on nationalism is the desire for an explanation: where do nations come from, and how can we explain that they have become the most important form of political organisation in the contemporary world.

The second period starts in the early/mid-1990s and lasts till the mid-2000s. This period reflected the aftermath of the sweeping geopolitical changes that took place in 1989 and the following years as Communist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe and across the Soviet Union and its satellite states imploded. This political and economic reconnection of Europe has been accompanied by the re-emergence of the ‘national question’ in Central Eastern Europe and the revival of both national majorities and national or ethnic minority identities. At the same time, this period saw important challenges in terms of diversity and Europe’s Muslims, while it was also marked by important steps in European integration – not least the creation of a European citizenship and the big bang Eastern Enlargement of 2004 (and 2007).

This period raised important questions as to the role of individuals and groups in nations, how much nations should be taken for granted or can be superseded by alternative forms of political organisation, how can we understand nationalism in a changing world order and does nationalism need to end up in war. It is no coincidence that there was a new interest in this period in understanding nationalism from a social psychological perspective, looking at the common elements within nationalism dynamics beyond (to the extent possible) historical specificities. It was in this period that Michael Billig wrote his book on Banal Nationalism Billig (1995) looking at how our everyday lives are imbued by tacit understandings of us and them, here and there and how such understandings are reinforced by everyday routines. Stephen Reicher and Nick Hopkins (2001) also wrote their more systematic analysis of nationhood, national identification and nationalist mobilisation from a social psychological perspective. There was an increasing interest as to the role of minority/majority groups in Central Eastern Europe and the analytical use of the term ‘identity’ (Brubaker and Cooper 2000; Brubaker et al., 2006).

While the early 2000s were of course marked by 9/11 and the Madrid and London bombings of 2004 and 2005, these events did not directly bear on the study of nationalism or at least not in the immediately subsequent years. While the rise of international jihadist terrorism triggered both a political and scholarly interest in questions of socio-economic and cultural integration of migrants and second generations, the relative success or failure of different integration models, and of course the roots of violent radicalisation and terrorism, they were not immediately reflected in the focus of nationalism studies. Such reflections on what international terrorism and violent radicalisation meant for nations came into the study of nationalism only in the 2010s, after a new wave of international terrorism and the related rise of Islamophobia.

The question of diversity and integration developed separately as an issue of social cohesion and migration, while the role of diversity within nationalism has been addressed most recently in the new currents of multicultural nationalism as discussed by the ‘Bristol school of multiculturalism’ (Levey 2019; Modood 2019), transnational nationalism (Kastoryano, 2018) and my own work on plural or neo-tribal nationalism (Triandafyllidou, 2013, 2020). This third period which expanded from the second half of the 2000s through until the late 2010s was dominated by two concerns: whether nations will survive and whether they are fit for purpose in an increasingly globalised and transnationalised world where major challenges (including climate change, security or indeed trade, work and the economy) transcend state boundaries (see for instance Calhoun 2007).

And yet the last 5 years and the most recent period spanning the late 2010s and until today (2025) have brought some unprecedented new challenges: a global pandemic; a series of violent conflicts and displacement crises around the world; and the intensifying effects of climate change. This period also witnessed a notable polarisation through the emergence of ethno-cultural nationalism, nativism and strong anti-immigrant discourses, on one hand, and, on the other hand, a notable mobilisation against racism and discrimination such as the Black Lives Matter movement in North America and Europe in the 2020-2021 period.

At the time of writing (fall 2025) a strident political polarisation, particularly in the United States, but also notable in many countries, including France, the UK, Germany, Italy, India or Brazil has been growing stronger. While the undermining of the rule of law and the violent anti-immigrant campaigns of the second Trump administration (2025) in the United States are quite unique, there has certainly been a notable polarisation between progressive and conservative forces and a normalisation of populist discourses of exclusionary nationalisms in Europe and elsewhere too.

Scholars in nationalism studies have responded by theorising on pandemic re-bordering and ‘vaccine nationalisms’ as they related to hierarchies of membership and transnational interdependence (Triandafyllidou 2022b). During the pandemic lockdowns we have witnessed innovative approaches to membership that have valued ‘effective residence’ over legal status of a migrant (as temporary or permanent) (Triandafyllidou 2023). We have seen a reconsideration of temporary migrants or asylum seekers as ‘essential workers’ that should be given a preferential path to permanent residency or citizenship on the basis of their contribution to the community (by ensuring the food supply chain or the care services do not break down). Fundamental rights such as the right to health and life took also precedence over status considerations during the pandemic leading thus to universal access to public health services in several European countries and in Canada, and for instance to provisional automatic ‘regularisations’ for people with precarious status to avoid them being exposed to further challenges during the pandemic (Triandafyllidou 2022b). At the same time the pandemic has also given rise to calls for less transnational dependency and more self-sufficiency for some goods that could be crucial for the safety of the nation (e.g. in relation to the production of protective equipment or of vaccines).

Attention has also shifted towards the rise of populism and the powerful combination of populism and nationalism among Far-Right parties and movements. Such movements have grown exceptionally strong in countries that were considered as the cradles of civic nationalism notably the US (Trump) and the UK (Brexit) building on both nativist concepts of the nation (Anbinder 2006; Lippard 2011) and on the Islamophobic currents of such new nationalism (Bangstad 2018). What is interesting in these developments is the combination of political ideologies with national pride. Thus, in Trump and in Brexit discourses as well as in countries like Denmark, Germany or the Netherlands, we find an exclusionary statist nationalism (Joppke 2021) which builds walls to protect the nation (and particularly those ‘left behind’) and compensate for the threats of globalisation and the neoliberal order while at the same time it argues that citizens are responsible for looking after themselves and should not burden the welfare state. In a symmetrical but radically different dynamic, left wing forces like the Greek party SYRIZA or the Spanish Podemos (Custodi 2021) developed a populist discourse where national identity became a vehicle for constructing a moral, political community arguing for an inclusive welfare state, an egalitarian society and a nation that is open to cultural and religious diversity. Such discourses are counter-hegemonic both from a nationalist and a political ideological perspective but can also become divisive as they are based on an anti-elite rhetoric.

In reflection to the Black (and Indigenous) Lives Matter Movement, scholars have built upon past work on decolonisation (Tuck and Yang 2012) developing arguments about the need for more effective anti-racism policies particularly in consideration of the discrimination suffered by Black and Indigenous people (Habtom and Scribe 2020). Scholars have also reflected on the linkages between calls for decolonisation, nationalism and migrant integration (Bauder et al., 2025; Bauder and Mueller 2023). What remains though unclear is the extent to which these calls align with those fighting Islamophobia and whether these counter-hegemonic discourses can develop into a new form of nationalism or within each country as a new national narrative.

As scholars of nationalism and migrant integration it is important to relate to the current questioning of the international order, the undermining of international institutions and the rise of violent conflicts and anti-democratic populism around the world. The field of nationalism and migrant integration is vibrant and studies on these developments will certainly emerge in the coming years. Of note is the rise of decolonial perspectives in academia in world regions outside Europe and North America by scholars based in those countries.