Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The idea of an Italian state wasn’t very easy to legitimize due to the sheer
diversity of the region. The ideas of a common culture, a common language, a
shared past or geography couldn’t be applied in the case of Italy. The failure
of Nationalism derived from the masses meant that the idea of an Italian
nation state was imposed on the masses by the elite policymakers. It was a
difficult task for the Italians to view themselves as a part of a homogenous,
ethnic community. A majority of the people weren’t averse to the possibility of
an Italian race but struggled to define it clearly which would have been crucial
to attract masses of people. Family ties rather than ethnic ones were the basis
of Italy’s first law on citizenship. Citizenship could be gained by being a child
of a citizen according to the law and was drawn from the Piedmontese code of
1837. The Giolittian reform of 1912 placed an emphasis on the nationalization
of the peninsula.
The forces which played an important hand in restricting changes of any kind
in Italy were: Firstly, compared to the rest of northern Europe, most of the
areas of Italy except Lombardy lacked any kind of economic development.
Secondly, due to the lack of literacy and other factors, a large entrepreneurial
and professional class was lacking which had been so instrumental in other
areas to forward the sentiment of nationalism. G. Mazzini propagated the idea
of a unitary Italian state to the public. He believed that real change in politics
would happen only through the support of the masses and thus, he adopted a
broad based revolutionary strategy which had a lot to do with elaborate
propaganda exercise. He gave an played an important hand to the formation of
a new movement, La giovine Italia (Young Italy) which focused on educating
people politically and organizing popular insurrections for an Italian state.
Italian activists were encouraged to think in terms of a national political
structure rather than the traditional, regional and city based loyalty. Some of
the insurrections were successful in Turin and Naples in 1820-21 even as
many of them failed to draw attention of the masses.
The new pope Pius IX initially though a number of liberal measures and
reforms seemed like a prospective leader of the national movement. With the
backdrop of a severe food crisis, anxieties of the Austrians and the pressure
on the princes to for political concessions, the moderates were asked to take
responsibility to resolve issues. The developments of the February Revolution
in Paris and the resignation of Metternich in March set the stage for action
against Austria.
The Austrians were forced out of Milan through an insurrection but the path
to be pursued by the Patricians wasn’t decided. The moderate Patricians
feared losing out to the radicals and their belief in republicanism. Cattaneo
and the other radicals looked to foreign powers for support as they believed
that the influence of the Patricians within the city couldn’t be challenged.
Carlo Alberto decided to support the Milanese against the Austrians to
maintain the hegemony of Piedmont in the north even though his interests
might have conflicted with a republican Milan. As a victory for radicals in
Milan might have been a threat to his position, the king was soft on the
Austrians and allowed them to reclaim lost ground and recuperate. The
revolution broke out in Italy in 1848 due to the inability of the restoration
regimes to facilitate reforms and other pressing issues at the time. Therefore,
the views of historians like Banti aim to present an idealistic view which
overplays the importance of nationalism for driving people to a revolution.
The personal interests of the ruler of Piedmont thus, can’t be ruled out when
he decided to wage war with the Austrians in 1848. With the support of the
moderates, he annexed Lombardy too. Even though Cattaneo didn’t wish to be
under the inefficient Piedmontese rule, Mazzini wanted to make sure that
there was no divide between the different groups of nationalists and hence,
the plebiscite of 12 May supported annexation. The Austrians crushed the
Piedmontese army and after an understanding with them, Carlo Alberto’s
successor Victor Emmanuel was re-installed as king in return for suppression
of democratic and nationalist tendencies in the region. The sequence of events
left the people disillusioned and left no scope for reforms. Even Pope Pius IX
withdrew his support for the movement against the Austrians as it was
another catholic state. The Roman Republic remained isolated but later due to
the pressure from foreign powers, Garibaldi’s resistance surrendered in 1849
and Bourbon rule was restored.
In the 19th century, the nation was being defined as a mass of people. This
concept of nationalism was a revolutionary one because Rousseau and Herder
believed that political sovereignty and power were based only on the mandate
of the people. Herder who wrote in the context of Central Europe in 1803
believed that nations were formed as a product of tradition and its history and
thus, they were a cultural entity rather than political. Some parts of Europe,
nationality overlapped according to Herder’s definition. Upper classes were
one linguistic group and the lower classes were another which would lead to a
class war. It was also revolutionary because it would explore a different
national state system as there would have to be some kind of reorganization if
they were based on languages. Nationalism was the middle ground between
cosmopolitanism of the enlightenment of the upper classes and localism of the
countryside. Nationalism between 1815-48 had certain phases of the
enlightenment as it became a universal idea. This might have been because
the old order itself cut across national cultures and therefore, an international
revolutionary movement emerged against the existing international
aristocratic order. The romantic reaction to the enlightenment also fostered
nationalism as it propagated the idea of one population distinct from another.
A sense of pride started being felt with the birth of folklore and no longer seen
as corrupting localism.
After 1948, there were many people who identified reasons for the failure of
the national movement. Cattaneo argued that it was due to the lack of political
and civil awareness and disagreed with Mazzini’s concept of involving the
masses and forming a unitary nation. He believed that considering the
diversity of Italy, a federal nation would be more suited. There were also
radicals influenced by socialist ideas like Ferrari who felt that even the French
revolution couldn’t eradicate the old regime and criticized Mazzini for
overlooking the social divisions prevalent in the country to avoid disunity
amongst nationalists. He argued that these underlying tensions needed to be
addressed and resolved before the national movement was taken forward.
Prime minister d’Azeglio was the reason why the parliament and
constitutional govt. survived in Piedmont. He struggled to address the deeper
societal and economic problems in Italy but was able to strike a balance
between the democrats and the king. There was an urgent need for Piedmont
needed to modernize and Cavour who rose up very rapidly in the ministry
understood this problem. He started a program of economic liberalization as
he believed in the laissez faire system. His agreement with the leader of the
democrats, U. Rattazzi isolated the monarchic right and Mazzinian left and
thus, gained a lot of support from the moderates. Public infrastructural
projects like railways, canals, irrigation, public state banks were established.
Even though Cavour only aimed to develop Piedmont, he was forced to look
into the situation around Italy as many exiled activists settled in Piedmont
after 1849 and public opinion in Turin favoured cosmopolitanism. He was also
brilliant diplomat and understood the European situation and played it to his
advantage once the power balance in Europe shifted. He used France to his
advantage for an anti-Austrian strategy. The Italian national society was
formed by Pallavicino, Manin and La Farina who were nationalists but
believed that unification wouldn’t have been possible without the support of
Piedmont. French and Piedmontese victories against Austria were
accompanied by insurrections in Central Italy which led Napoleon III to
sought independent peace with Austria. Since Napoleon was being hailed as a
champion of Italian Nationalism, he couldn’t resist the unification of Tuscany
and Emily. Garibaldi used efforts military campaigns in the south as they
overthrew the Bourbon army and became the dictator of Sicily. The poor
relations and the lack of communication between Garibaldi and Cavour almost
led to a showdown between the Piedmontese army and Garibaldi’s troops.
The parliament opted for the annexation for the south of Italy after a popular
plebiscite and the unification of Italy was more or less complete. Italy was
integrated with Italy only in 1866 after the Prussian expansion and similarly,
Rome became a part of the Italian State only in 1870 after the Franco-Prussian
War. Even though there was a unification of the Italian state, the political
thinking remained narrow minded and skeptical of popular social movements.
The lack of enthusiasm for a new national identity is shown by the fact that
the Piedmontese Statuo was imposed in 1861, rather than the formation of a
new formation. The restricted franchise, suppression of socialists by Prime
Minister’s like Crispi in the 1880’s led to a civil war in the country and
disturbances as nationalist values weren’t strengthened. Gramsci has called it
a as a ‘passive revolution’ which had political changes but maintained the
social status quo. The northerners were especially disillusioned as even after
unification, nationalism didn’t end their backwardness, anarchy. There were
very farfetched expectations associated with the unification. By blaming the
local populations for problems, imposing Piedmontese institutions and brutal
repression of people showing dissent caused a civil war in the 1860’s and
therefore, there was very little sense of national identity amongst the people
in the Italian state. Ultimately, due to the lack of a popular mandate, Italian
nationalism had to be imposed from above.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: