In this concluding chapter, I would like to highlight some interesting points mentioned in the preceding chapters and occasionally offer my own interpretation. I will also draw some brief comparisons between the countries in order to show similarities and differences in the process of nationalism and globalization.

As I see it, “nation/nation state” is the product of modern history. In the past, there was a concept of “dynasty” or kingdom rather than the “nation/nation state”. It is also true that “ethnic group” emerged long before “nation”, if one defines “ethnic group” in terms of common ancestry. Nevertheless, it seems that “ethnic group” can also develop into a nation, the so-called “ethno-nation” or “ethnic-nation”. Japan is one example. Nevertheless, the majority of nations in the world are multiethnic nations, also known as “social nations”.

Whether it is an ethnic nation or a social nation, there are similarities in terms of their components. A common history, a common heritage (including a common language) and common values often constitute the basis of national belonging. The political élite promoted this sense of national belonging, which is often called nationalism. It was the élite who defined nation and nationalism. Some writers, for instance, Ernest Gellner, even maintain that nationalism is a creation of the élite in order to achieve certain political goals. It is a political construct. To a large degree, this is certainly true but one should not ignore the “foundations” (components) of a “nation” that other writers mention. Without these “foundations” it is hard to recognize that there is indeed a “creature” called “nation”.

The twelve countries under study, with the possible exception of Japan, are “nations” at different stages of development. Some have just completed state building, while others have been “nations” for different lengths of time, but their components continue to develop. Even the United Kingdom, which is considered to be one of the first modern nations, is actually a “multinational state” rather than a “nation state”. Because of the difficulty in building a nation with a common culture, common language, and common heritage, many countries have abandoned nation-building efforts and concentrate instead on citizenship. They have abandoned the building of a national culture or a national identity but accept multiple cultures and multiple identities. Citizenship, it would seem, can be developed into nationhood, but citizenship is not identical with nationhood.