Page:Calcutta Review (1925) Vol. 16.djvu/387

1925] resort we can only say that a nation is a nation because its members passionately and unanimously believe it to be so. But they can only believe it to be so if there exist among them real and strong affinities.”

This definition is not comprehensive though it only vaguely echoes the German definition which points out what these real and strong affinities are.

Lastly comes the psychologist M’Dougall who says, “a nation is a people or population enjoying some degree of political independence and possessed of a national mind and character and therefore capable of national deliberation and volition.” To him “nationhood is a psychological conception.” Regarding the definition of “national mind” he says, it is “a certain degree of mental homogeneity of the group. The homogeneity essential to a nation may be one of two kinds; native or acquired.” As regards national character, he says, among the conditions essential to its formation are “homogeneity” which is a prime condition and the “racial qualities” which influence national character. Here it is clear M’Dougall pinned his definition on psychological basis, but beyond which there are sociological factors. The sociological factors are the primary bases of nationhood and the psychological conditions are the result of the former combination. From his psychological definition we learn that a certain degree of mental homogeneity, native or acquired, is necessary to the formation of nationality. His homogeneity is the “community of character” of Bauer. Thus we see that the definitions of the English savants are covered by the definitions advanced by Bauer Cunow.

Without going into detailed discussion it is to be mentioned here that it is held as certain that a nation is not based on racialism. Racial homogeneity does not exist anywhere in the world and a people and a nation are not defined by the homogeneity of skull and nasal indices or other somatic characteristics. Geographical unity is not essential to