What’s So New About ‘New’ Nationalism in Higher Education?

Abstract

This chapter investigates the diminishing power of the globalist imaginary on the imagination of the future of higher education. To do so, it analyzes the ascent of new nationalist discourses, along with their impact on university policy and management, from an historical-comparative point of view. Set against the backdrop of political theories concerning new nationalism, the point of departure revolves around the question of how the university's positioning between the nation and the globe has evolved, both historically and in the present. Addressing this issue allows for assessing the novelty of so-called new nationalist discourses and the claim they make on higher education today. Drawing on a set of case studies, the chapter distinguishes different strands of nationalist discourse, each employing its distinct arguments and tactics. These differentiations illuminate the changing relationship between the university and the nation.

Full text

Stephanie Fox • Lukas Boser
Editors
National Literacies
in Education
Historical Reections ontheNexus ofNations,
National Identity, andEducation

203© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2023
S. Fox, L. Boser (eds.), National Literacies in Education, Historical
Studies in Education,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41762-7_15
CHAPTER 15
What’s SoNew About ‘New’ Nationalism
inHigher Education?
HansSchildermans
The UniversiTy BeTween ThenaTion andTheGloBe
In the decades following World War II, the European continent has been
characterized by increasing international collaboration and exchange.
Within higher education, these tendencies culminated around the turn of
the century in the current European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and
the European Research Area (ERA), created by the Bologna Process and
the Lisbon Strategy respectively. These transnational policy initiatives
aimed to turn Europe into a competitive knowledge economy on par with
the rapidly growing economies of countries such as China and India
(Kushnir, 2016; Lawn & Grek, 2012). This tendency towards internation-
alization and globalization now seems to have come to an end. In recent
years, governments have started to react to the perceived externalities of
the unied European higher education space and the idea of global higher
education more generally by charting a more protectionist course that
H. Schildermans (*)
University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
e-mail: hans.schildermans@univie.ac.at

204
tries to close off national higher education institutions (Brøgger, 2021;
Van der Wende, 2021). More extreme repercussions of the return of
nationalism in higher education include the silencing, ring, or even jail-
ing of academics and the banning or defunding of university departments
that contest the conservative status quo (Douglass, 2021a).
Educational research has been slow to seriously investigate and analyze
these new forms of nationalism. Due to the language of globalism that has
been so prevalent in recent decades, ‘the nation(-state) had been removed
from the research agenda, and where nationalism was addressed at all, it
was treated as a moral problem that had to be countered with morals and
human rights’ (Tröhler, 2022: 9). Taking the globe as both unit of analysis
and point of orientation—what Marginson (2022: 11) has called ‘meth-
odological globalism’—is problematic because it starts from the assump-
tion of a zero-sum relation between the global and the national. This
means that it is presupposed that the more globalism there is, the less
nationalism prevails. However, both the global and the national coexist,
and globalization did not occur at the expense of national interests and
agendas. In reality, it indeed seems to be the other way around: the more
globalism, the more nationalism. Problematizing the universalistic pre-
tense of the ‘global university’ discourse, Nelson and Wei (2012: 259)
remark that there are ‘many different ways of being or becoming global’.
In other words, there are as many ‘global universities’ as there are nation-
states that aim to promote their global university.
In addition, methodological globalism is heavily loaded with particular
norms, values, and expectations. The normative character of globalism,
however, is not unequivocal but strongly divided into two opposite
stances. Whereas some celebrate global convergence towards cosmopoli-
tanism and a genuine world polity as a cure for the ills of nationalism,
conservatism, and particularism, others are concerned about
Americanization, neo-imperialism, and the subsumption of local cultural
differences. Irrespective of their conicting viewpoints, ‘[b]oth groups
proved completely wrong about the decline of the nation-state. Each was
half right about the simultaneous and contrary tendencies to homogeneity
and difference’ (Marginson, 2022: 11). In light of the misunderstandings
produced by an all too globalist perspective, this chapter raises the ques-
tion of how we can understand the revival of nationalism in higher educa-
tion today. Is it a return of the nation after years of Europeanization and
globalization that sought to overcome the calamities of nationalism mark-
ing the twentieth century? Did the nation never really go away, and was it
H. SCHILDERMANS

205
perhaps persistently present despite being disregarded by educational
research ‘under the spell of globalization’ (Tröhler, 2022: 7; see Jusdanis,
2019)? Are we maybe witnessing a return of the nation under a new guise,
with a new vocabulary and rhetoric, a new way of speaking and making its
claims? This would mean that this revival might also signify the articula-
tion of a new ‘national literacy’, a new way of experiencing what it means
to be a nationally minded citizen and to feel attached to the national com-
munity (Tröhler, 2020: 620).
Answering these questions requires having a closer look at how the
relation between the university and the nation has been congured histori-
cally. This makes it possible to assess the novelty of so-called new national-
ist or ‘neo-nationalist’ (Gingrich, 2006: 195) claims on higher education
observed today and to see if it really gave rise to a new national literacy.
The central intuition of this chapter is that the historical contract between
the university and the nation as it has come into being at the beginning of
the nineteenth century, that was conrmed and consolidated during the
subsequent decades and that was strengthened during the Cold War (see
Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004: 65: ‘the military-industrial-academic com-
plex’), seems to have been broken due to the anti-intellectualist attitudes
of new nationalist movements.
The UniversiTy andThenaTion
inhisTorical PersPecTive
Universities are often thought of as cosmopolitan, universalist or, indeed,
global centers of higher learning. This idea is partly true when considering
the rst decades after the inception of the university in medieval Europe.
Students who wandered across Western Europe, Latin as the lingua franca
of scholarly exchange, and a strategically opportune relative independence
from both secular and religious powers marked the heydays of the early
universitas studii (De Ridder-Symoens, 1992). At the dawn of the
Reformation, however, Catholics and Protestants were quick to mobilize
the university to forge and bear their ideological arms in the religious
wars. Universities generally thrived in this timeframe but, due to the exces-
sive emphasis on questions of philosophical and theological nature, they
became rather rigid and unworldly institutions. The early modern univer-
sities lagged behind on the advances that were made during the Scientic
Revolution, and at the end of the eighteenth century, most European
15 WHAT’S SO NEW ABOUT ‘NEW’ NATIONALISM IN HIGHER EDUCATION?

206
universities ‘were moribund, with idle professors feebly teaching a medi-
eval curriculum without much relevance to modern life, and despised by
the intellectuals of the Enlightenment’ (Perkin, 2007: 174; see
Douglass, 2021b).
The turn of the nineteenth century marked a tipping point in the his-
tory of the university. This time period not only saw the reinvention of the
university after a decade-long process of decline, but it also witnessed the
rise of nationalism as a political ideology about the formation of nation-
states, namely as political-administrative entities that include people from
the same nation. In an early reection on the rise of nationalism, Ernest
Renan remarked that a nation is not founded upon a shared language,
race, or religion, nor is the nation being held together by shared interests
or geographical location. He emphasized that a nation is not a static entity,
but rather that it is a dynamic and collective identity that has to be con-
voked via stories and performed in rituals. Renan dened the nation as a
‘large-scale solidarity, constituted by the feeling of the sacrices that one
has made in the past and of those that one is prepared to make in the
future’ (Renan, 1882/1990: 19; see Özkirimli, 2010). University reform
at the beginning of the nineteenth century was heavily invested in the
construction of the nation-states via, for instance, the construction of
national canons in arts and literature and scientic research promoting
national technological development. Two short exemplary case studies
illustrate this point.
The involvement of the university in a process of nation-building is
probably most clear in the case of Germany. After its humiliating defeat
during the Napoleonic Wars, the confederation of states was in need of a
substitute for the University of Halle which was under French occupation.
In 1809, Wilhelm von Humboldt, acting in his capacity as section head for
culture and public education, ordained the foundation of a new university
in the city of Berlin. The principles of this new institution were built on
the ideas of German philosophers and theologians such as Fichte,
Schleiermacher, and Schelling. Although in reality the newly established
university was perhaps not as radical or avant-garde as proclaimed in the
rather hagiographical accounts of these events (see Ash, 1999: Mythos
Humboldt), the discursive machinations that produced a new idea of the
university still provide insight into the way the connection between the
university and the nation-state was being articulated at that time. It stands
out that Humboldt’s aim was to construct a German university that was
decisively different from the French institutions of higher education.
H. SCHILDERMANS

207
In the wake of the French Revolution, universities in France were abol-
ished together with the other institutions pertaining to the Ancien Régime.
The old-fashioned universities were replaced by a state-led centralized net-
work of schools specializing in a particular branch of science and technol-
ogy (e.g., École Polytechnique, École des Mines; see Rüegg, 2004). The
German idea of higher education, on the other hand, did not do away
with the university and its claim to universal learning, but sought to
embody it based on the principle of the unity of Wissenschaft (as a general
philosophical-scientic study) and Bildung (as the cultivation of national
character). The German university was conceived to give rise to a national
culture and to make its students take part in it. ‘[T]he revelation of the
idea of culture and the development of the individual are one […] and the
place [where] they unite is the University’ (Readings, 1997: 65). This
means that the university was not only the incubator of what had to
become a particular German culture or maybe even thought-style (see
Tröhler, 2018), but also that it performed the function of making the
educated citizenry devoted to this newly founded German tradition and
value-framework. In other words, the university gave ‘the people an idea
of the nation-state to live up to and the nation-state a people capable of
living up to that idea’ (Readings, 1997: 65).
It would be, however, too easy to assume that the German university is
merely a servant to the state by executing its nation-building agenda.
Rüegg (2004) remarks that one of the characteristics of the German uni-
versity—also as a way of distancing itself from the rivaling centralized
French higher education system at that time—was the importance it
accorded to freedom from direct state intervention. The competence of
the state when it comes to matters of the universities was ‘to protect their
freedom and to appoint professors’ (Rüegg, 2004: 5). The university
advanced the German nation by creating an educated citizenry that could
work in the professions required for the functioning of the state (namely
by taking care of the legal, bodily, and spiritual integrity of the state and
its citizens through the three ‘higher’ faculties of Law, Medicine, and
Theology respectively). In addition, the disciplines of history, geography,
and anthropology developed cultural heritage for the emerging nation by
creating and disseminating narratives about the German nation-state,
including its place in the world and in history. State and university form a
loose connection within the body politic of the German nation with the
state as a functionalist and executive organ and the university as the intel-
lectual embodiment of national culture. ‘The state protects the action of
15 WHAT’S SO NEW ABOUT ‘NEW’ NATIONALISM IN HIGHER EDUCATION?

208
the University; the University safeguards the thought of the state. And
each strives to realize the idea of national culture’ (Readings, 1997: 69;
see also Tenorth, 2018: 147).
A second and slightly different case of the involvement of the university
in nation-building is that of the land-grant colleges in the United States.
These colleges came into being in the second half of the nineteenth cen-
tury. Because of their embeddedness in the local communities of the
Midwest—as opposed to the more elitist liberal arts colleges on the East
Coast—these universities ‘were commonly referred to as “democracy’s
colleges”’ (Nash, 2019: 437). The land-grant colleges are the outcome of
a policy by the federal government to sell land in the new territories of the
expanding nation and to use the revenues for establishing higher educa-
tion institutions. Justin Morrill, the architect of the Land Grant Act that
was signed into law by President Lincoln in 1862, envisaged a new kind of
higher education, namely one that would be ‘accessible to all, but espe-
cially to the sons of toil’ (Morrill, as cited in Geiger & Sorber, 2013: x).
The land-grant colleges had to provide instruction in practical subject
matters, while teaching the basics of the liberal arts ‘to promote the liberal
and practical education of the industrial classes on the several pursuits and
professions in life’ (Act of July 2, 1862, as cited in Geiger, 2015: 281). A
last objective of these colleges was the economic development of the states
through research in agriculture, engineering, military science, and mining.
The land-grant colleges, ‘[t]his uniquely American invention’ (Labaree,
2017: 38), hence contributed in four distinct ways to the construction of
the American nation-state. First, students could attend a university close
to their homes in a subject that was deemed relevant and offered prospects
of a stable job in the growing American economy. It was a way of ‘using
education as a means to catapult the nation into global prominence as an
industrial leader’ (Nash, 2019: 439). Second, the research conducted at
the land-grant colleges and their afliated agricultural experiment stations
offered immediate scientic support to the state’s farmers. Solving
mechanical problems and optimizing machines in turn was benecial to
the industrialists and their enterprises (Geiger, 2015). Third, the land-
grant colleges performed a civilizing mission in that the students who
attended these colleges and had to take the supplementary liberal arts
courses grew up to become members of the rural upper class who could
represent the American national consciousness in the local community
(Labaree, 2017). Fourth, with the agricultural cultivation of land and sci-
entic contributions to the development of the railroad network, the
H. SCHILDERMANS

209
land-grant colleges played a crucial role in the westward expansion of the
American nation to the detriment of the lives and livelihoods of Native
American people (Stein, 2020). In sum, the land-grant colleges contrib-
uted to nation-building in a variety of ways. ‘Students trained in these
colleges and universities helped build infrastructure, launch large-scale
bureaucracies, and support the growth of the nation-state’ (Nash,
2019: 446).
Both the Humboldtian research university and the land-grant colleges
are clear cases of how institutions of higher education were mobilized to
promote the advancement of the nation-state. The kind of nationalism
present in both cases, however, seems to be of a different nature. The two
reform movements indeed attempted to achieve rather different aims. The
nationalism displayed in the German case addresses the university in its
capacity to create a cultural elite that could not only perform a variety of
professional functions essential to the operations of the modern German
state, but that could also embody and emanate the values of an emerging
German national ‘Culture’. This kind of elitist nationalism diverges from
the nationalism exemplied by the U.S. land-grant movement. Although
there are of course elements present for creating local, rural elites, the
movement was not initially motivated by the desire to create a national
culture, but rather by a zest for economic and industrial advancement
under the sign of ‘Progress’ (see Tröhler, 2017). The nationalist reex
focused more strongly on the working class and sought to civilize rural
populations, all while supporting the westward expansion and moderniza-
tion of the nation-state via innovations in agriculture, the railroad net-
work, and industrial enterprises.
Two cases obviously cannot provide a systematic or encompassing
overview of the historical relation between the university and the nation.
Nevertheless, they give some indication of the ways in which universities
became instrumental in nation-building projects of different kinds. Both
kinds of nationalism—the elitist nationalism of the Humboldtian univer-
sity (Culture) and the civic nationalism underlying the land-grant move-
ment (Progress)—seem to be predicated on a strong connection between
the nation and the state. This means that what is good for the nation is
deemed good for the state and vice versa or that a particular politicization
of the nation to strengthen the state transpired. In both cases, the univer-
sity played a mediating role between the nation and the state, which
granted the university its central position in the functioning of modern
social life.
15 WHAT’S SO NEW ABOUT ‘NEW’ NATIONALISM IN HIGHER EDUCATION?

210
The UniversiTy andTheThreaT ofnew naTionalism
This holy alliance between the nation and the state now seems to have
been broken, with universities falling victim to the heated struggle
between the two parties. Neo-nationalist movements and discourses
have undone the bond between the nation ‘as a cultural thesis of com-
monality, collective being and belonging’ and the state ‘as an organizing
principle of power distribution’ (Tröhler, 2022: 11). Neo-nationalist
politicians and activists claim that the state no longer reects the values
and identities of the nation and that hence the contemporary nation-
states ‘with the state proting from loyal citizens and the nation from
state institutions that perpetuate the idea of the nation’ (ibid.) are mor-
ally bankrupt. Neo- nationalists denounce what they perceive as the state
becoming a servant of a global political-economic elite, on the one hand,
and the humanitarian role of the state in providing care for the globally
dispossessed (e.g., people ousted by war or climate change), on the other
(Gingrich, 2006).
New nationalism is ‘the nationalism that emerged in the mid-2010s in
Europe’s political landscape and relates to anti-immigration and anti-
globalization right-wing populism, protectionism, and euro-skepticism’
(Van der Wende, 2021: 118). Although this denition focuses on Europe,
similarities with the nationalist course charted by politicians such as
Trump, Bolsonaro, or Putin are hard to overlook. Important to empha-
size, however, is that new nationalism is not conned to presidential
ofces, but that it covers a spectrum ranging from nascent populist move-
ments, populist political parties, nationalist-leaning governments, illiberal
democracies, and authoritarian regimes (Douglass, 2021a). What charac-
terizes current forms of new nationalism is not so much the politicization
of some national identity—this is indeed a tale as old as the nation-state
itself. Rather, its novelty lies inthe fact that the politicization of the nation
no longer happens in support of the state, but that instead the nation is
nowturned against the state. In new nationalist discourses, the state is
being staged as a representative of a global elite and supported by the
‘propaganda’ of the mass media. Therefore, new nationalism claims to be
more bottom up and embedded within grassroots movements. Once it
becomes dominant, following an election victory for instance, it turns
authoritarian and hostile vis-à-vis the institutions representing the ‘tradi-
tional nationalism’ that identies itself with the state (e.g., Trump
H. SCHILDERMANS

211
communicating via Twitter instead of the ofcial channels; discrediting
judges or the entire justice system as ideologically biased).
What does this mean now for the university? Within nineteenth- century
political discourse, the university had become a crucial cog in making the
nation-state run at full speed. Just like a well-functioning railroad network
was seen as essential for the transportation of persons and goods through-
out the state, a well-oiled university system was deemed vital for the free
ow of ideas, knowledge, and values within the borders of the nation.
However, within the new nationalist imaginary, universities are seen as
‘hubs of dissent, symbols of global elitism, and generators of biased
research’ (Douglass, 2021a: 22). Once in power, the new nationalist reac-
tion to universities has been characterized by the overt and covert suppres-
sion of academic freedom, ring, or even jailing of faculty and administrators
and imposing of organizational change to ensure greater control.
Exemplary of the new nationalist oppression of universities is the reloca-
tion of the Central European University, founded by the Hungarian bil-
lionaire George Soros, from Budapest to Vienna. The move is the hitherto
last step in a long legal battle between the university administration and
the government led by President Orban. It is framed within the presi-
dent’s campaign against liberal values and dissenting voices via legislative
action that excludes particular institutions or hampers their activities (Van
der Wende, 2021). An even more telling example comes from Turkey
where, by order of President Erdogan, thousands of academics were red
or even abducted and incarcerated if they spoke up for the rival Gülen
movement (Douglass, 2021a).
However, it would be too easy to narrow down the new nationalist
discourse about universities to these exemplary cases of explicitly discredit-
ing academics and undermining universities via populist and often anti-
intellectualist rhetoric. Next to this populist version of new nationalism, a
second discourse can be discerned that pushes a nationalist agenda as part
of the strategies of austerity politics. Under the guise of a more technical-
economic rationality, pressure is being exerted on universities to reverse
recent strategies for international cooperation and student exchange. In
Denmark, for instance, the center-right government that took ofce in
2015 chose to reduce the amount of English-language courses based on
the argument that the international students attending these programs did
not sufciently benet the Danish economy. At the same time, new mas-
ter’s programs were developed that were aimed at working professionals
to strengthen the intellectual capacities of the Danish workforce.
15 WHAT’S SO NEW ABOUT ‘NEW’ NATIONALISM IN HIGHER EDUCATION?

212
Interestingly, in terms of degree structure, these programs deviated from
the frameworks developed as part of the Bologna Process to secure inter-
national exchange (Brøgger, 2021). In the Netherlands, anti-
internationalization sentiments rose due to the increase in attendance of
international students after particular study programs such as psychology
or business were converted to English. Universities could not handle the
amount of students anymore, and student organizations spoke out against
the business model of attracting international students for enrollment fee
revenue (Van der Wende, 2021). These policy initiatives mark a shift in
priority from the integration of national higher education systems into the
European Higher Education Area (EHEA) towards a more protectionist
stance that relocates the university politically within the borders of
the nation.
New nationalist movements and discourses have undeniably recong-
ured the relation between the university and the nation-state in a variety
of ways. Without doing justice to the empirical complexities of these pro-
cesses of reconguration, the concept of new nationalism seems to have
been used to capture two slightly different strategies for repositioning the
university in relation to the nation-state. Populist new nationalism tends
to feed the perception that universities are degenerated institutions that
are foreign to the people and serve the interests of a global elite. Their
critical and independent stance poses a threat to the authoritarian leader-
ship of autocratic regimes and illiberal democracies. Economic new
nationalism, on the contrary, acknowledges the importance of universities
for modern statecraft, but it reacts against European and transnational
policy initiatives such as the Bologna Process and the Lisbon Strategy, on
the one hand, and against the inux of international students which puts
pressure on the capacity of national study programs and curricula, on the
other hand. Within the economic new nationalist discourse, the national
economy still seems to hold pride of place over the global knowledge
economy.
GloBish hiGher edUcaTion andThefUTUre
ofThenaTion
The urgency for understanding the relation between the university and
the nation-state both historically and in its present state is prompted by
two contextual factors. First, discourses of globalization have pushed
H. SCHILDERMANS

213
forward the ideal of the world-class university of excellence contributing
to and competing in the global knowledge economy (Marginson, 2022;
Readings, 1997). Secondly, and partly as a reaction to the rst tendency,
neo-nationalist movements and discourses have tried to curtail the global
aspirations of the university while relocating it in a national policy environ-
ment. The aim of this chapter has not been to make a normative distinc-
tion between good and bad forms of nationalism or to save some original
nationalism from some of the twisted versions encountered today. The
chapter has distinguished particular forms of nationalism, or perhaps more
precisely, different strands of nationalist discourse that each make use of
their own set of arguments, to shed light on the changing relation between
theuniversity and the nation. Different discourses discerned include an
elitist nationalism that needs the university for the cultivation of a national
culture created by the upper class and seeping down through various social
layers, a civic nationalism that urges citizens to contribute to the social and
technological progress of the nation-state, a populist nationalism that
attempts to tame the university and neutralize the challenges it poses to
national culture and politics, and, lastly, an economic nationalism that, in
the trade-off between the global knowledge economy and the national
economy, again chooses for the latter to the detriment of international
cooperation and student exchange.
Returning to the question that motivated this chapter and gave it its
title, namely concerning the novelty of ‘new’ nationalism in higher educa-
tion, it seems that what singles out new nationalism in higher education is
not so much its rhetoric or its strategies—these are indeed as heteroge-
neous as those of more traditional forms of nationalism—but rather its
explicit hostile stance towards global higher education, or what, perhaps
more apt, could be called ‘globish’ higher education, referring to the
rather attened version of English spoken around the world. What is often
being promoted as global higher education seems to be indeed a rather
decontextualized version of university management originating from the
United States that drives towards the ‘worldwide diffusion of neo-liberal
norms and policies, social-cultural reproduction of White Supremacy, and
linguistic-cultural monoculture in knowledge’ (Marginson, 2022: 17; see
Kamola, 2014). It is therefore not really a surprise that the ‘European
response to globalization was perceived by some as a neoliberal, Anglo-
Saxon effort that conicted with European social values’ (Van der Wende,
2021: 136). In other words, the language of globalism—spoken with an
Anglo-Saxon accent—that is promoted by transnational policy-makers
15 WHAT’S SO NEW ABOUT ‘NEW’ NATIONALISM IN HIGHER EDUCATION?

214
and think tanks seems to have clashed with the national literacies that
national government ofcials and university administrators have been edu-
cated in. In this way, new nationalism, in its different voices, from populist
to economic, can be understood as a polyphonous reaction to the
Babylonian confusion of tongues provoked by the discourse of global
higher education.
The question remains now whether the historical connection between
the university and the nation really has been severed—the original intu-
ition of this chapter. At rst sight, it seems that new nationalist discourses
transmit a strongly hostile attitude towards universities, which are either
seen as bulwarks of a progressive conspiracy of the global elites or as
expendable institutions that could be replaced by more cost-effective
research centers and training units. However, upon closer inspection and
seen against the background of the variety of historical forms of nationalist
higher education, on the one hand, and the diversity of nationalist reac-
tions against global higher education, on the other, the alliance between
the university and the nation does not really seem to be harmed by the
slander of demagogues or the austerity of bookkeepers. Rather, it seems as
if the age-old contract between the university and the nation is up for
renewal. Nation-states marked by both forms of nationalism, populist and
economic, are eager to exert closer control on the comings and goings of
universities. Whether universities are as thrilled about this new alliance
remains to be seen.
references
Ash, M. G. (Ed.). (1999). Mythos Humboldt. Vergangenheit und Zukunft der
deutschen Universitäten. Böhlau.
Brøgger, K. (2021). A specter is haunting European higher education—The spec-
ter of neo-nationalism. In V.Bozalek, M.Zembylas, S.Motala, & D.Holscher
(Eds.), Higher education hauntologies. Living with ghosts for a justice-to-come
(pp.63–75). Routledge.
De Ridder-Symoens, H. (Ed.). (1992). A history of the university in Europe. Volume
I: Universities in the middle ages. Cambridge University Press.
Douglass, J.A. (2021a). Neo-nationalism and universities: A conceptual model. In
J.A. Douglass (Ed.), Neo-nationalism and universities. Populists, autocrats, and
the future of higher education (pp.22–42). Johns Hopkins University Press.
Douglass, J.A. (2021b). Neo-nationalism and universities in historical perspective.
In J.A. Douglass (Ed.), Neo-nationalism and universities. Populists, autocrats,
and the future of higher education (pp.1–21). Johns Hopkins University Press.
H. SCHILDERMANS

215
Geiger, R.L., & Sorber, N.M. (2013). Preface. In R.L. Geiger & N.M. Sorber
(Eds.), The Land-Grant colleges and the reshaping of American higher education
(pp. ix–xiv). Transaction Publishers.
Gingrich, A. (2006). Neo-nationalism and the reconguration of Europe. Social
Anthropology, 14(2), 195–217.
Jusdanis, G. (2019). Why the nation never really went away. In F.López-Alves &
D.Johnson (Eds.), Populist nationalism in Europe and the Americas. Past, pres-
ent, and future (pp.40–57). Routledge.
Kamola, I. (2014). US universities and the production of the global imaginary. The
British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 16(3), 515–533.
Kushnir, I. (2016). The role of the Bologna process in dening Europe. European
Educational Research Journal, 15(6), 664–675.
Labaree, D.F. (2017). A perfect mess. The unlikely ascendancy of American higher
education. University of Chicago Press.
Lawn, M., & Grek, S. (2012). Europeanising education. Governing a new policy
space. Symposium.
Marginson, S. (2022). What is global higher education? Oxford Review of
Education. Advance online publication 18 May. https://doi.org/10.108
0/03054985.2022.2061438
Nash, M.A. (2019). Entangled pasts: Land-grant colleges and American Indian
dispossession. History of Education Quarterly, 59(4), 437–467.
Nelson, A.R., & Wei, I.P. (2012). Conclusion: Lessons from the past, consider-
ations for the future. In A.R. Nelson & I.P. Wei (Eds.), The global university.
Past, present, and future perspectives (pp.255–265). Palgrave Macmillan.
Özkirimli, U. (2010). Theories of nationalism: A critical introduction (2nd ed.).
Palgrave Macmillan.
Perkin, H. (2007). History of universities. In J.J. F.Forest & P.G. Altbach (Eds.),
International handbook of higher education. Part I: Global themes and contempo-
rary challenges (pp.159–205). Springer.
Readings, B. (1997). The university in ruins. Harvard University Press.
Renan, E. (1990). What is a nation? In H.Bhabha (Ed.), Nation and narration
(pp.8–22). Routledge. (Original work published 1882).
Rüegg, W. (2004). Themes. In W. Rüegg (Ed.), A history of the university in
Europe. Volume III: Universities in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries
(1800–1945) (pp.3–31). Cambridge University Press.
Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy.
Markets, states, and higher education. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Stein, S. (2020). A colonial history of the higher education present: Rethinking
land-grant institutions through processes of accumulation and relations of con-
quest. Critical Studies in Education, 61(2), 212–228.
Tenorth, H.-E. (2018). Wilhelm von Humboldt. Bildungspolitik und
Universitätsreform. Ferdinand Schöningh.
15 WHAT’S SO NEW ABOUT ‘NEW’ NATIONALISM IN HIGHER EDUCATION?

216
Tröhler, D. (2017). Progressivism. In Oxford research encyclopedia of education.
https://oxfordre.com/education/view/10.1093/acrefore/978019
0264093.001.0001/acrefora- 9780190264093- e- 111. Accessed 11 Aug 2021.
Tröhler, D. (2018). Internationale Provokationen an nationale Denkstile in der
Erziehungswissenschaft: Perspektiven Allgemeiner Pädagogik.
Bildungsgeschichte: International Journal for the Historiography of Education,
8(2), 173–189.
Tröhler, D. (2020). National literacies, or modern education and the art of fabri-
cating national minds. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 52(5), 620–635.
Tröhler, D. (2022). Magical enchantments and the nation’s silencing: Educational
research agendas under the spell of globalization. In D.Tröhler, N.Piattoeva,
& W.F. Pinar (Eds.), World yearbook of education 2022: Education, schooling
and the global universalization of nationalism (pp.7–25). Routledge.
Van der Wende, M. (2021). Neo-nationalism in the European Union and universi-
ties. In J.A. Douglass (Ed.), Neo-nationalism and universities. Populists, auto-
crats, and the future of higher education (pp. 117–140). Johns Hopkins
University Press.
H. SCHILDERMANS