Brubaker - Religion and Nationalism Four Approaches
Brubaker - Religion and Nationalism Four Approaches
Brubaker - Religion and Nationalism Four Approaches
NATIONALISM
FOR THE STUDY OF ETHNICITY
A N D N AT I O N A L I S M EN
]] (]]),
Nations and Nationalism 18 (1), 2012,
2011, 2–20.
1–19.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8129.2011.00486.x
ABSTRACT. Building on recent literature, this article discusses four ways of studying
the relationship between religion and nationalism. The first is to treat religion and
nationalism, along with ethnicity and race, as analogous phenomena. The second is to
specify ways in which religion helps explain things about nationalism – its origin, its
power or its distinctive character in particular cases. The third is to treat religion as
part of nationalism, and to specify modes of interpenetration and intertwining. The
fourth is to posit a distinctively religious form of nationalism. The article concludes by
reconsidering the much-criticised understanding of nationalism as a distinctively
secular phenomenon.
Introduction
‘Religion’ and ‘nationalism’ have long been contested terms. Both terms – on
almost any understanding – designate large and multidimensional fields of
phenomena. Given the lack of agreement on what we are talking about when
we talk about religion, or nationalism, it is no surprise that one encounters
seemingly antithetical assertions about the relation between the two - for
example, the assertion that nationalism is intrinsically secular, or that it is
intrinsically religious; that nationalism emerged from the decline of religion,
or that it emerged in a period of intensified religious feeling.
Because both ‘nationalism’ and ‘religion’ can designate a whole world of
different things, few statements about nationalism per se or religion per se, or
the relation between the two, are likely to be tenable, interesting or even
meaningful; a more differentiated analytical strategy is required. Rather than
ask what the relation between religion and nationalism is – a question too
blunt to yield interesting answers – I seek in this article to specify how that
relation can fruitfully be studied. Building on the literature produced by a
n
Thanks are due to Matthew Baltz and Kristen Kao for their assistance, to anonymous referees
for their comments, and to Bernd Giesen and Philip Gorski for the opportunity to present an early
version of this article at a conference on ‘Nation/Religion’ in Konstanz.
recent surge of interest in the topic1, I delineate, develop and critically engage
four distinct ways of studying the connection between religion and national-
ism. The first is to treat religion and nationalism, along with ethnicity and
race, as analogous phenomena. The second is to specify ways in which religion
helps explain things about nationalism – its origin, its power or its distinctive
character in particular cases. The third is to treat religion as part of
nationalism, and to specify modes of interpenetration and intertwining. The
fourth is to posit a distinctively religious form of nationalism. I conclude by
defending a qualified version of the much-criticised understanding of nation-
alism as a distinctively secular phenomenon.
informal social relations in ways that generate and sustain social segmenta-
tion. The key mechanism here is religious or ethnic endogamy, whether more
or less deliberately pursued from the inside, or imposed from the outside.5
Religious injunctions against intermarriage, together with clerical control or
influence over marriage, have often helped reproduce socioreligious segmen-
tation. This, in turn, has helped reproduce religious, ethnic and national
communities over the long run and has worked to prevent their dissolution
through assimilation (Smith 1986: 123).
Finally, from a political point of view, claims made in the name of religion
– or religious groups – can be considered alongside claims made in the name
of ethnicity, race or nationhood. The similarities are particularly striking in so
far as claims are made for economic resources, political representation,
symbolic recognition or cultural reproduction (the latter by means of
institutional or territorial autonomy, where institutional autonomy involves
control of one’s own agencies of socialisation such as school systems and
media). These claims are part of the general phenomenon of politicised
ethnicity, broadly understood as encompassing claims made on the basis of
ethno-religious, ethno-national, ethno-racial, ethno-regional or otherwise
ethno-cultural identifications, which have proliferated in both the developed
and the developing world in the last half century.6 Widening the analytical
lens still further, claims made in the name of religious communities can
fruitfully be seen as part of a very general pattern of the politicisation of
culture and the culturalisation of politics.7
In this perspective, religion figures as a way of identifying ‘groups’ or
political claimants, not as a distinctive way of specifying the content of
political claims. Of course, politicised religion involves not only claims for
resources, representation, recognition or reproduction; it also involves claims
to restructure public life in accordance with religious principles. I will return
to this issue later, when I discuss the question of whether there is a
distinctively religious form of nationalism, defined by the distinctive content
of its claims.
The three perspectives I have sketched suggest potentially fruitful ways of
treating religion, ethnicity and nationalism as analogous phenomena, and as
parts of a more encompassing domain. But they all abstract from the specific
content of religious belief or practice, the specific ways in which belief may
shape life conduct, and the specific role played by religious organisations and
their relation to the state. As a result, their treatment of religion remains
inevitably ‘flattening’, and they miss much of what is distinctive and interest-
ing about religion and its relation to nationalism.
A third way of analysing the connection between religion and nationalism sees
religion not as something outside nationalism that helps to explain it, but as
role of religion in the origins of nationalism, we might well say the same thing
about victorious nationalism today (cf. Greenfeld 1992: 77).
One question, then, is what counts as religious language and imagery, as
opposed to religiously tinged or originally religious but subsequently secu-
larised language and imagery. A second issue concerns how to judge in
comparative perspective – whether over time or across cases – the salience or
pervasiveness of religious language or imagery. In almost any setting, the field
of nation-talk is vast, heterogeneous and chronically contested; one can’t
judge the degree to which nation-talk is framed in religious terms simply by
giving examples of such religious framing, no matter how numerous or vivid.
To judge the relative importance of distinctively religious ways of framing
nation-talk (as opposed to other ways of framing such talk) in different times
and places, one would need a systematic discourse-analytic study of the field
of nation-talk as a whole, so as to avoid sampling on the phenomenon of
interest.
A further issue concerns the resonance or effectiveness of religiously
framed, coded or tinged nation-talk. The force, meaning and resonance of
national or nationalist rhetoric, like those of any other form of rhetoric,
depend not on the rhetoric itself, or on the intentions of the speaker, but on
the schemas through which the rhetoric is interpreted. This suggests that the
intertwining of religious and nationalist discourse should be studied not only
on the ‘production’ side, but also on the ‘reception’ side. For example, in the
American case, even if the rhetoric of national mission used to justify post-
9/11 foreign policy is not in and of itself distinctively religious, and indeed is
cast in much more secular form today than in the past, that rhetoric may have
religious resonance, and may be interpreted in religious terms, by some of
those to whom it is addressed. It might therefore be claimed that the
distinctive degrees and forms of American religiosity help to explain the
initially broad-based public acceptance of post-9/11 American foreign poli-
cies, and of the invasion of Iraq in particular. But it is far from evident how
exactly to study the intertwining of religious schemas of interpretation and
nation-talk on the ‘reception’ side.
Scholars have studied not only the religious inflection of nationalist
discourse but also the inverse phenomenon: national or nationalist inflection
of religious discourse. More broadly, they have studied the ‘nationalisation’ of
religion in its organisational and practical as well discursive aspects: the ways
in which religions – particularly supraethnic, ‘universal’ religions such as
Christianity and Islam – have been transformed by their encounter with
nationalism and the nation-state (Haupt and Langewiesche 2004: 12 ff;
Schulze Wessel 2006: 7–14).
In the Christian context, nationalisation is in part a matter of what might
more precisely be called the ‘etatisation’ of religion, through which states have
sought to establish control over church affairs, appointments and property. In
the realm of Orthodox Christianity, especially in south-eastern Europe,
the nationalisation of Christianity involved the fragmentation of Eastern
The fourth and final way of analysing the connection between religion and
nationalism that I want to consider involves the claim that religious nation-
alism is a distinctive kind of nationalism. The claim is not simply that
nationalist rhetoric may be suffused with religious imagery, or that nationalist
claims may be framed and formulated in religious or religiously tinged
language. This is indisputably true. It is not simply a claim about a religio-
national symbiosis or interpenetration, which no doubt often exists. The
argument I want to examine here concerns not the rhetorical form of
nationalist claims, or the language or imagery used to frame them, but the
content of those claims. It is a claim that there is a distinctively religious type
of nationalist programme that represents a distinct alternative to secular
nationalism.
The claim for a distinctively religious form of nationalism has been
articulated most fully by Roger Friedland (2002; see also Juergensmeyer
1993). Friedland defines nationalism in statist terms. He characterises nation-
alism as ‘a state-centred form of collective subject formation’; as ‘a program
for the co-constitution of the state and the territorially bounded population in
whose name it speaks’; and as ‘a set of discursive practices by which the
territorial identity of a state and the cultural identity of the people whose
collective representation it claims are constituted as a singular fact’ (Friedland
2002: 386).
This statist definition allows Friedland to conceptualise religious nation-
alism as a particular type of nationalism. Nationalism is understood as a form
with variable content. The form prescribes the ‘joining of state, territory, and
culture’ (Friedland 2002: 387), but does not specify how they are to be joined.
It leaves open the content of state-centred collective subject formation, the
content of the discursive practices through which the territorial identity of
a state and the cultural identity of a people are ‘constituted as a singular
fact’. Religion provides one way of specifying this content. It provides a
nation is imagined as limited, as just one among many other such nations
(Anderson 1991: 7). The social ontology of nationalism is in this sense
‘polycentric’ or ‘pluralist’ (Smith 1983: 158–59, 170–71). The umma is not
imagined as limited in this way, as one nation alongside others. Nor is the
umma imagined as actually or potentially sovereign – as the ultimate source of
political legitimacy (Asad 2003: 197–8). The forms of politics built around this
categorical identity are therefore better conceptualised under the broad rubric
of politicised ethnicity that I discussed in the first section of this article
(involving claims for resources, representation and recognition) than under
that of nationalism.
Conclusion
The four ways of studying the relationship between religion and nationalism
that I have distinguished and delineated are neither exhaustive nor mutually
exclusive. They do not represent alternative theories: they do not provide
different answers to the same questions, but ask different kinds of questions.
My aim has not been to argue for the merits of one of the four approaches
over the others; all represent interesting and valuable lines of research.
Rather, I have sought to give a sense of the range and variety of questions
that can be asked about the relationship between the large and multidimen-
sional fields of phenomena we call ‘religion’ and ‘nationalism’.
I would like to conclude by reconsidering the much-criticised understand-
ing of nationalism as a distinctively secular phenomenon. A secularist bias in
the study of nationalism, like the secularist bias in many other domains of
social science, long obscured interesting connections and affinities between
religion and nationalism. Long-dominant modernisationist arguments, em-
phasising socioeconomic modernity (Deutsch 1953; Gellner 1983), political
modernity (Breuilly 1994; Hechter 2000; Tilly 1996) or cultural modernity
(Anderson 1991), neglected religion or saw it as being replaced by national-
ism. The paradigmatic instances on which the literature focused were
European nationalisms between the late eighteenth and early twentieth
centuries; this truncated range of cases marginalised other cases – from early
modern Europe, South Asia or the Middle East, for example – in which
religion was more obviously central. A widely shared understanding of the
modern nation-state – an understanding at once normative and predictive –
relegated religion to the realm of the private.
This secularist bias has been challenged powerfully in recent years (Asad
2003; Spohn 2003; Van der Veer 1994). A substantial body of work, several
strands of which have been discussed above, has explored the multiple
connections and affinities between religion and nationalism. This work has
highlighted the religious matrix of the category of the secular itself, and has
challenged the notion that modernity requires the privatisation of religion
(Casanova 1994). These developments are entirely salutary. But is there
Notes
1 The collections edited by Hutchinson and Lehmann (1994), Van der Veer and Lehmann
(1999), Geyer and Lehmann (2004), and Haupt and Langewiesche (2004) are indicative of this
surge in interest.
2 Hayes (1926: chapter 4); the quotations are from pp. 95, 104 and 124–5. The centrality of this
notion for Hayes is suggested by the title of his 1960 book Nationalism: a Religion. In a somewhat
more analytical discussion, Ninian Smart (1983) specified six dimensions on which nationalism
can be compared to religion (although by ‘nationalism’ he means what he admits might better be
called ‘patriotism’, namely ‘devotion to [one’s] own nation-state’). Thus understood, nationalism
is weak in doctrine, strong in myth, strong in ethics, intermittent in ritual, strong in experience and
strong in social form.
3 On the ways in which people use religious terms to define civic identities, see Lichterman
(2008).
4 The notion of social pluralism was developed with primary reference to colonial societies, but
varying degrees of social segmentation and institutional parallelism can be found elsewhere. The
‘pillarised’ (or formerly pillarised) society of The Netherlands is one classic example of a relatively
high degree of social pluralism.
5 Other mechanisms may be at work as well, including residential segregation and occupational
niches. These are analytically distinct from institutional duplication, although they usually work
in tandem.
6 Geertz’s seminal essay on politics in postcolonial societies (1963) provided an early argument
for treating all such claims together. See also Rothschild’s argument that it would not help to
separate out ethnicity from ‘religious, linguistic, racial, and other so-called primordial foci of
consciousness, solidarity, and assertiveness . . . If religious, linguistic, racial, and other primordial
criteria and markers were to be peeled off, it is difficult to see what precisely would be left to, or
meant by, the residual notion of ethnicity and ethnic groups’ (Rothschild 1981: 9). For a more
recent argument on the merits of treating race, ethnicity and nation as a single field, see Brubaker
(2009).
7 In addition to claims made on the basis of ethno-cultural or ethno-religious identity, broadly
understood, these include claims made in the name of the deaf (understood as a linguistic
minority; Plann 1997) or the autistic (as a neurologically based cultural minority; http://
www.petitiononline.com/AFFDec/petition.html; cf. Hacking 2009).
8 For Smith, the myth of ethnic election and divine covenant is constituted by a number of
linked ideas including divine choice, collective sanctification and conditional privilege (2003:
chapter 3, especially 50–51).
9 Smith has consistently distinguished nationalism as a distinctive ideology and movement from
national consciousness or national identity (see, for example, Smith 2003: 268). And he continues
to argue that while national identities have deep roots in pre-modern ethnic and (often) religious
identities (Hastings 1997; Smith 1986), nationalism crystallises as a fully elaborated doctrine only
in the late eighteenth century (Smith 2008: x). But he now dates the first nationalist movements to
these seventeenth-century cases.
10 See, for example, Gellner (1983: 142), for whom the key elements of Protestantism
‘foreshadowed an anonymous, individualistic, fairly unstructured mass society, in which relatively
equal access to a shared culture prevails, and the culture has its norms publicly accessible in
writing, rather than in the keeping of a privileged specialist. Equal access to a scripturalist God
paved the way to equal access to high culture. Literacy is no longer a specialism, but a pre-
condition for all the specialisms . . . In such a society, one’s prime loyalty is to the medium of our
literacy, and to its political protector. The equal access of believers to God eventually becomes
equal access of unbelievers to education and culture’.
11 For a different perspective on religion and vernacular languages, attributing less importance to
Protestantism and more to Christianity per se (which, unlike Arabic, never had a sacred
language), see Hastings (1997: 193ff).
12 Smith (1986: 27) has observed that scholars of nationalism have paid too much attention to
language, and too little to religion. Ironically, it is partly through religious developments that
vernacular languages acquired the distinctive importance that they would come to have as a key
criterion and medium of nationality in Europe.
13 The Peace of Augsburg codified the territorialisation and politicisation of religion in the
German lands by making the jus reformandi – the right to determine the religion of a territory – an
attribute of [princely] sovereignty (Rice 1970: 165). The political fragmentation of Central Europe
meant that the fusion of culture and polity associated with confessionalisation occurred on lower
levels of political space than those later associated with ‘nations’. Nevertheless, the territorialisa-
tion and politicisation of religion were still significant in establishing the principle of the
congruence of polity and culture, and in providing both conceptual models of culturally
homogeneous political spaces and organisational infrastructures for establishing them that were
transferable to larger scales of political space and to other domains of culture.
14 ‘The fall of Latin exemplified a larger process in which the sacred communities integrated
by old sacred languages were gradually fragmented, pluralized, and territorialized’ (Anderson
1991: 19).
15 The coincidence between religious and ethnic boundaries is suggested by the term ‘ethno-
religious’; there is no corresponding combination term denoting the intertwining of nation and
religion, or the symbiosis between nation and religion.
References
Aburaiya, I. 2009. ‘Islamism, nationalism, and Western modernity: the case of Iran and Palestine’,
International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society 22, 1: 57–68.
Akenson, D. H. 1992. God’s Peoples: Covenant and Land in South Africa, Israel and Ulster. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press.
Anderson, B. 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism
(2nd edn). London: Verso.
Anderson, J. W. 2003. ‘The Internet and Islam’s new interpreters’, in J. W. Anderson and D. F.
Eickelman (eds.) New Media in the Muslim World (2nd edn). Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press.
Arjomand, S. A. 1994. ‘Fundamentalism, religious nationalism, or populism?’, Contemporary
Sociology 23, 5: 671–5.
Asad, T 2003. Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Baker, K. M. 1994. ‘Enlightenment and the institution of society’, in W. Melching and W. R. E.
Velema (eds.) Main Trends in Cultural History: Ten Essays. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Bell, D. A. 2001. The Cult of the Nation in France: Inventing Nationalism, 1680–1800. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Bellah, R. N. 1975. The Broken Covenant: American Civil Religion in a Time of Trial. New York:
Seabury Press.
Breuilly, J 1994. Nationalism and the State (2nd edn). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Brubaker, R 2004. Ethnicity without Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brubaker, R et al. 2006. Nationalist Politics and Everyday Ethnicity in a Transylvanian Town.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Brubaker, R. 2009. ‘Ethnicity, race and nationalism’, Annual Review of Sociology 35: 21–42.
Calhoun, C. J. 1997. Nationalism. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Casanova, J. 1994. Public Religions in the Modern World. Chicago/London: University of Chicago
Press.
Deutsch, K. W. 1953. Nationalism and Social Communication: An Inquiry into the Foundations of
Nationality. Cambridge, MA: Technology Press of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology/
Wiley.
Durkheim, E 1995. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. New York: Free Press.
Friedland, R. 2002. ‘Money, sex and God: the erotic logic of religious nationalism’, Sociological
Theory 20, 3: 381–425.
Fukase-Indergaard, F. and Indergaard, M. 2008. ‘Religious nationalism and the making of the
modern Japanese state’, Theory and Society 37, 4: 343–74.
Gauchet, M 1997. The Disenchantment of the World: a Political History of Religion. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Geertz, C 1963. ‘The integrative revolution: primordial sentiments and politics in the new states’,
in C. Geertz (ed.) Old Societies and New States: the Quest for Modernity in Asia and Africa. New
York: Free Press of Glencoe.
Gellner, E. 1983. Nations and Nationalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Gellner, E 1994. Encounters with Nationalism. Oxford: Blackwell.
Geyer, M and Lehmann, H (eds.) 2004. Religion und Nation, Nation und Religion. Göttingen:
Wallstein Verlag.
Gorski, P. S. 2000a. ‘Historicizing the secularization debate: church, state and society in late medieval
and early modern Europe, ca. 1300 to 1700’, American Sociological Review 65, 1: 138–67.
Gorski, P. S. 2000b. ‘The mosaic moment: an early modernist critique of modernist theories of
nationalism’, The American Journal of Sociology 105, 5: 1428–68.
Gorski, P. S. 2003. The Disciplinary Revolution: Calvinism and the Rise of the State in Early
Modern Europe. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Greenfeld, L 1992. Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Hacking, I. 2009. ‘Humans, aliens and autism’, Daedalus 138, 3: 44–59.
Hastings, A 1997. The Construction of Nationhood: Ethnicity, Religion and Nationalism.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haupt, H. G. and Langewiesche, D. (eds.) 2004. Nation und Religion in Europa. Frankfurt:
Campus.
Hayes, C. J. H. 1926. Essays on Nationalism. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Hechter, M 2000. Containing Nationalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hill, C 1993. The English Bible and the Seventeenth-century Revolution. London: Allen Lane.
Hutchison, W. R. and Lehmann, H. (eds.) 1994. Many Are Chosen: Divine Election and Western
Nationalisms. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
Jenkins, R. 1997. Rethinking Ethnicity: Arguments and Explorations. London: Sage.
Juergensmeyer, M. 1993. The New Cold War? Religious Nationalism Confronts the Secular State.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Kapferer, B. 1988. Legends of People, Myths of State: Violence, Intolerance and Political Culture in
Sri Lanka and Australia. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Kohn, H. 1940. ‘The genesis and character of English nationalism’, Journal of the History of Ideas
1, 1: 69–94.
Lapidus, I.M 2001. ‘Between universalism and particularism: the historical bases of Muslim
communal, national and global identities’, Global Networks: a Journal of Transnational Affairs
1, 1: 37–55.
Lehmann, H. 1982. ‘Pietism and nationalism: the relationship between Protestant revivalism and
national renewal in nineteenth-century Germany’, Church History 51, 1: 39–53.
Leustean, L. N. 2008. ‘Orthodoxy and political myths in Balkan national identities’, National
Identities 10, 4: 421.
Lichterman, P. 2008. ‘Religion and the construction of civic identity’, American Sociological
Review 73, 1: 83–104.
Pelham, N. and Rodenbeck, M. 2009. ‘Which way for Hamas?’, New York Review, 5 November
2009.
Plann, S 1997. A Silent Minority: Deaf Education in Spain, 1550–1835. Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press.
Rice, E. F. 1970. The Foundations of Early Modern Europe, 1460–155 (1st edn). New York:
Norton.
Rothschild, J. 1981. Ethnopolitics: A Conceptual Framework. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Saunders, R. A. 2008. ‘The ummah as nation: a reappraisal in the wake of the cartoons affair’,
Nations and Nationalism 14, 2: 303–21.
Schama, S. 1988. The Embarrassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden
Age. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Schulze Wessel, M. (ed.) 2006. Nationalisierung der Religion und Sakralisierung der Nation im
östlichen Europa. Stuttgart: F. Steiner Verlag.
Smart, N. 1983. ‘Religion, myth and nationalism’, in P. H. Merkl and N. Smart (eds.) Religion and
Politics in the Modern World. New York: New York University Press.
Smith, A. D. 1983. Theories of Nationalism (2nd edn). New York: Holmes and Meier.
Smith, A. D. 1986. The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Oxford: B. Blackwell.
Smith, A. D. 1991. National Identity. London: Penguin.
Smith, A. D. 2003. Chosen Peoples. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, A. D. 2008. The Cultural Foundations of Nations: Hierarchy, Covenant and Republic.
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Spohn, W. 2003. ‘Multiple modernity, nationalism and religion: a global perspective’, Current
Sociology 51: 265–86.
Stephanson, A. 1995. Manifest Destiny: American Expansionism and the Empire of Right. New
York: Hill and Wang.
Taylor, C. 2007. A Secular Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tilly, C. 1996. ‘The state of nationalism’, Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 10, 2:
299.
Tuveson, E. L. 1968. Redeemer Nation: The Idea of America’s Millennial Role. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Van den Berghe, P. L. 1967. Race and Racism: A Comparative Perspective. New York: Wiley.
Van der Veer, P. 1994. Religious Nationalism: Hindus and Muslims in India. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Van der Veer, P. and Lehmann, H. (eds.) 1999. Nation and Religion: Perspectives on Europe and
Asia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Weber, M. 1958. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Scribner.
Zubrzycki, G. 2006. The Crosses of Auschwitz: Nationalism and Religion in Post-Communist
Poland. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.