Thought and Change

Gellner argues that nationalism is not the awakening of pre-existing nations but an unintended consequence of industrialisation. Industrial society requires a standardised, literate workforce sharing a common culture, sustained by mass public education. Where industrialisation spreads unevenly, uprooted populations and a mobilised intelligentsia turn to language and culture as the new basis for social cohesion. Nationalism, on this account, is the political expression of industrial society's structural needs, not a primordial identity asserting itself.

The book's seventh chapter contains Gellner's first sustained statement of his modernist theory of nationalism. Scholars regard it as the nucleus of his later Nations and Nationalism (1983). Roman Szporluk notes that Thought and Change also contains the seeds of Plough, Sword and Book (1988) . Its initial reception among political scientists and sociologists was lukewarm, and Gellner's theory of nationalism went largely unnoticed until the 1983 book brought it wider attention .

Both Gellner and Kedourie reject the idea that nationalism reflects ancient ethnic ties, but they locate its cause differently. Kedourie, in Nationalism (1960), traces nationalism to a philosophical error: the spread of German Romantic ideas about self-determination among European intellectuals. Gellner instead offers a structural, sociological explanation rooted in industrialisation's requirements for cultural homogeneity and standardised education. For Gellner, nationalism is not primarily an intellectual mistake but a functional response to the conditions of industrial society.

Gellner's industrialisation thesis remains a foundational position in the modernist school of nationalism studies, but it faces persistent challenges. Critics argue that nationalism often emerged before full industrialisation, that many nationalist movements mobilised rural populations rather than industrial workers, and that Gellner's model understates the role of political elites and state institutions. Later theorists such as Anthony Smith emphasised the ethnic roots of many nations, complicating Gellner's functionalist account. Yet the uneven development framework remains widely cited.

Reviews at the time were mixed. George Lichtheim, writing in The New Statesman in January 1965, called it important for asking the right questions about nationalism and industrialisation, though he remained unconvinced by Gellner's answers . Antony Flew, reviewing it in The Spectator in 1965, dismissed it as pretentious and argued it did not deliver the systematic theory it promised . The book's reputation grew substantially in later decades as scholars recognised its anticipation of Gellner's mature nationalism theory.

John A. Hall and I. C. Jarvie note that while Gellner asserted legitimacy in the modern world depends on two principles, nationalism and industrialism, industrialism holds explanatory priority . Gellner treats nationalism as a corollary of industrialism, specifically as an unintended consequence of industrialisation's uneven diffusion across the globe. This means understanding nationalism requires first understanding the structural transformations industrial society imposes on culture, education, and social organisation.