Banaler Nationalismus: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen

| last=Piller

| date=2017-05-12}}</ref>

Michael Billig's primary purpose in coining the term was to clearly differentiate everyday, endemic nationalism from extremist variants. He argued that the academic and journalistic focus on extreme nationalists, [[Separatism|independence]] movements, and [[Xenophobia|xenophobe]]s 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.<ref name="Koch"/> <ref name=Duchesne /> Billig noted the almost unspoken assumption of the utmost importance of the nation in political discourse of the time, for example in the calls to protect Kuwait during the [[1991 Gulf War]], or the [[Falklands War|Falkland Islands in 1982]]. He argues that the "hidden" nature of modern nationalism makes it a very powerful ideology, partially because it remains largely unexamined and unchallenged, yet remains the basis for powerful political movements, and most political violence in the world today. Banal nationalism should not be thought of as a weak form of nationalism, but the basis for "dangerous nationalisms" <ref>{{cite web | last=Wade | first=Lisa | title=Banal Nationalism | date=4 July 2014 | url=https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2014/07/04/banal-nationalism/ | work=[[Sociological Images]] | access-date=2019-10-16}}</ref> 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. He also uses the concept to dispute [[post-modernist]] claims that the [[nation-state]] is in decline, noting particularly the continued [[hegemony|hegemonic]] power of [[American nationalism]].