Perhaps more than any other problem, fathoming the influence of national identity and ethnicity poses a major challenge, not least because of the complex responses that these notions evoke. One need only think of the divergent normative connotations of the words “nationalism” and “self-determination,” or of the ambiguous attitudes of most governments toward the practical application of the principle of selfdetermination, to sense the complex emotions involved. In the new states themselves, the autocratic legacy of hostility toward manifestations of ethnic sentiment among non-Russians has made the contrast between the pejorative and positive connotations of the native-language terms for “nationalism” and “self-determination” even sharper than it is in English. The value judgments embedded in the terminology commonly used to discuss these controversial issues make it doubly difficult to treat them dispassionately.

Remembering a few general propositions can help analysts avoid such intellectual pitfalls. Despite the assertions of nationalist ideologists, nations are not ancient entities but a product of modern historical processes and contingencies. Rather than being inherent in particular groups of people, national consciousness develops through the efforts of state officials or independent intellectuals to persuade other social groups that they belong to an overarching nation whose members are united by key characteristics.” Depending on the circumstances, the features singled out may include citizenship in the same state, shared historical experience, or a common language, religion, or culture. Which features come to be accepted as key markers of national identity in a particular case depends not only on objective social conditions but on the political entrepreneurship of the governmental and cultural elites that seek to shape the nation according to their own political agendas.