PAES Historia | El surgimiento del estado nacional | Clase 2

Main ideas and lessons (organized by the class structure)

Intro / course logistics (PAES / content updates)

• The instructor welcomes students to a History and Social Sciences class as preparation for PAES.
• They discuss that Puntaje Nacional published changes to the regular PAES syllabus for 2027 (summer / upcoming admission cycle).

Clarification

• Winter PAES: syllabus remains the same as last year.
• Summer PAES: includes new topics/songs and explicitly added content.

Student guidance

• Students are encouraged to follow Puntaje Nacional’s social media for reliable dates and updates (e.g., FUAS and admission-related steps).

Today’s topic

• The emergence of the nation-state.

---

Four-block lesson plan

1. Block 1: Review + link to last class — Liberalism and the nation-state
2. Block 2: Conceptualizing the nation-state — definitions of state, nation, nation-state
3. Block 3: Nationalism — how it works; unification/separatism; risks
4. Block 4: Challenges for Latin American nation-states — nation-building after independence; exclusion; institutions; identity

---

Block 1: Liberalism and how it connects to nation-states

What to remember from the previous class (liberalism)

• Liberalism was a key ideology in the 19th century in Europe and America.
• It drove major social, political, and economic transformations.

How liberalism contributes to nation-states

• Liberalism is linked to the formation and consolidation of nation-states.
• Core liberal ideas emphasized:
  • National sovereignty: power resides in the people; people delegate it to authorities.
  • The people becomes linked with the idea of nation (a national community).
  • Equality before the law and freedom are central to nation-state existence.
• Shift described:
  • From subjects of a crown (old regime) to citizens with rights and duties.
  • Citizens should be able to influence the state’s fate.
• Examples mentioned:
  • Liberalism supports ideas behind Latin American independence via self-determination.
  • Liberalism is not treated as the single cause of nation-states (multiple factors exist), but it is a major driving force.
• Economics clarification:
  • Liberalism generally supports free market principles and reduces state intervention.
  • The state’s role: set/enforce laws, defend private freedom, and create conditions/infrastructure for trade.

Historical/territorial illustration (Europe & America)

• Europe
  • Before: political fragmentation into many small units.
  • Late 19th century: consolidation into larger states aligns with nation-state spread.
  • Examples:
    • Italy: fragmented states unify under an “Italian” national identity.
    • Germany: Germanic identification supports unification.
    • The Ottoman Empire is contrasted as fragmentation rather than unification (as framed by the instructor).
• America
  • After independence and through ~1900, borders/fragmentation are described as changing, with states gradually reflecting more “contemporary coincidence” between people/nation ideas and political boundaries.

Conceptual caution

• “People” and “nation” are related but not the same, though they are often used interchangeably in everyday language.

Block 1 wrap-up (explicit summary given)

• Liberalism promoted nation-state formation by:
  • supporting individual liberty, equality before the law, and people-based sovereignty
• It helped move from kingdoms with subjects to states with citizens.
• It influenced American independence and the political/economic organization of new countries.

---

Block 2: Conceptualizing the nation-state (definitions)

Definition of “state”

A state is described as:

• a historical political form created/organized by human beings,
• existing when there is:
  • territory
  • population
  • organization of power
• States are characterized as prevalent in the modern world.

Definition of “nation”

A nation:

• gained strength with the French Revolution
• expresses shared identity (e.g., “we are all French” → “French citizens”)
• is characterized by shared:
  • culture, language, history
  • a common project
  • answers to “who are we?”
• Nations are often imagined as ancient/pre-existing, but understood as historical constructs.

Key scholarly source used

• Benedict Anderson is introduced with the idea that a nation-state is a:
  • political community that imagines itself as limited and sovereign
  • limited: not humanity as a whole, but a finite community (e.g., “Chilean” rather than “all people”)
  • sovereign: it has power in how the state is organized

What is a nation-state (as concluded in this block)

A nation-state is described as:

• consolidated/dominant since the 19th century
• a political organization combining:
  • a state (territory, population, government)
  • with a nation (shared identity: culture, history, identity)
• It fosters belonging (“we”), linked to liberal ideas.

Important nuance

• Tensions/conflicts can arise:
  • nation-states have not always coexisted harmoniously with other forms
  • nationalism can become expansionist
  • not all states are homogeneous—some recognize diversity (e.g., plurinational models)

Diversity / “plurinational” complication

• Examples:
  • Bolivia: officially plurinational
  • Spain: different identities (Catalans, Galicians) coexisting under one state
• Political note:
  • The instructor mentions a Chile debate about whether Chile should be plurinational under a proposed constitution; it “ultimately” did not become a new constitution (as stated).

Block 2 wrap-up (explicit)

• Nation-state = 19th-century consolidated model uniting:
  • state + nation identity
• People are positioned as citizens equal before the law.
• But internal conflicts and diversity issues still exist.

---

Block 3: Nationalism (ideology/movement; unity/separation; risks)

How the instructor defines nationalism

• Nationalism is treated as an:
  • ideology or political movement
  • that strengthens belonging to a nation
  • and seeks actions in the name of that nation
• Core claim:
  • state and nation should coincide
  • borders of the state should match borders of the nation
  • support for political reorganization to align national/political boundaries

Potential dangers

• When extreme, it can produce:
  • xenophobia (rejection/discrimination toward foreigners)
  • discrimination and violence
• It is cited as relevant to World War I as an example of nationalism playing a fundamental role.

Examples driven by nationalism

Unification: Italy (Risorgimento)

• Italy described as:
  • culturally/past-identifying peoples but politically fragmented into small states
• Risorgimento (19th century nationalist movement):
  • argument: if we are all Italians, unite under one state
  • goal: make national borders coincide with political borders
• Timeline:
  • unification from early 19th century until the Kingdom of Italy formation in 1861
• Meaning of “Risorgimento”:
  • “resurgence,” tied to recovery/rebirth of greatness associated with the Roman Empire (as explained by the instructor)

Unification: Germany

• Similar logic:
  • Germanic peoples unite based on German identity
  • aimed at becoming a nation-state

Separatism: Greece (from Ottoman rule)

• Greeks described as:
  • under Ottoman Turkish domination
  • maintaining distinct language/culture/traditions → Greek identity existed
• Nationalism + self-determination leads to:
  • independence of Greece from the Ottoman Turkish empire
• Here, nationalism provides grounds for separation from a larger unit.

Explicit Block 3 wrap-up

• Nationalism:
  • strengthens national belonging
  • seeks border alignment between state and nation
  • driven processes like:
    • Italy unification
    • Greece independence
    • Belgium referenced in passing
• Extreme nationalism can cause:
  • discrimination, xenophobia, violence
• Clarification about American independence:
  • described as separatist but not primarily nationalist in the same way—less about “we are Chileans” style nation-based self-determination, more about broader American identity.

---

Block 4: Latin American nation-states—post-independence building and exclusion

Central “peculiarity” stated for Latin America

• In Latin America, the instructor emphasizes:
  • nations were not assumed to exist before independence
  • therefore nations had to be built after independence
• New states faced the challenge of:
  • building/organizing a nation
  • generating legitimacy for state sovereignty

Nation-state vs plurinational state (re-explained)

• Nation-state: one nation encompasses the whole state.
• Plurinational state: multiple nations coexist within one state.

Debate: state vs nation (the “chicken-or-egg” framing)

• Historiographically, there is debate about what came first in Latin America:
  • state or nation
• Instructor’s trend description:
  • the state is built first, then the nation is constructed to respond to fragmentation/diversity challenges.

Challenges after independence (organized by issues)

• Territorial problems
  • very large territories and fragmentation
• Social/cultural diversity
  • Indigenous populations, Iberian-descended groups, enslaved populations, mestizos, etc.
• Political instability
  • disputes over:
    • centralist vs federal systems
    • republic vs monarchy
    • boundaries between states
  • conflicts contributed to civil wars and institutional difficulties
• Economic reorganization
  • wars devastated economies
  • continued dependence on colonial/neocolonial models
  • integration into the international market as a supplier of raw materials, limiting more autonomous development

Role of national symbols after independence

• Symbols emerged to create shared identity and legitimize new political orders:
  • flags, anthems, coats of arms, shields, common references
• Example logic:
  • it would be hard to imagine “Chile” without visualizing the flag (as illustrated by the instructor).
• Republican ideals:
  • new Latin American states adopted republican frameworks largely, with exceptions mentioned:
    • Brazil
    • briefly Mexico
  • Argentina’s coat of arms is described as visually linking:
    • Enlightenment/liberal ideas
    • French Revolution symbolism (e.g., Phrygian cap, fraternity/clasped hands)

Exclusion within nation-building (Creole-led nation project)

• Major problem highlighted:
  • nation-building was not inclusive
• Political power:
  • Creoles consolidated power and shaped the nation concept “from above”
• Excluded/left out groups (explicitly named):
  • Indigenous peoples
  • enslaved people
  • women (also later stated)
• Mechanisms of exclusion:
  • Citizenship rules: who could vote and who counted as citizen (e.g., literacy, age, socioeconomic conditions; as stated)
  • Visual/narrative representation: 19th-century national imagery often excluded Indigenous and Black people from leading roles
• Key question raised:
  • “Who were really part of the new nation?”

Block 4 wrap-up (explicit points)

• After independence, Latin American countries had to define:
  • government type, borders, meaning of “nation”
• Difficult due to:
  • diversity + scale + conflicts → institutional challenges
• Institutions and access:
  • education shaped inclusion/exclusion by controlling who had access
• National symbols and institutions legitimized new states, but inclusion was uneven.
• Creoles concentrated power; excluded groups remained marginalized.

---

In-video methodology: PAES-style practice exercise (multiple-choice)

Exercise prompt (as presented)

• Context: 19th-century Latin America and the nation-state
• The prompt references a text (1993) about “State and education in Latin America since its independence.”
• Question:
  • “Considering the text description, what was one effect of applying this form of organization in 19th-century Hispanic American society?”
• Options:
  • A. Required the construction of a national identity from the elites.
  • B. It recognized multinationality in local geographic spaces.
  • C. It consolidated indigenous peoples as new national protagonists.
  • D. It favored the participation of popular sectors in national politics.

Instructor’s answer and reasoning

• Correct answer: A
• Reasoning:
  • The nation was conceived as a homogeneous indivisible unit and “egalitarian individuals,”
  • but elites defined what counted as nation and used that definition to leave other groups aside.

Why other options were rejected

• B rejected: emphasizes unity/homogeneity, not multiplicity.
• C rejected: indigenous peoples are not described as central/protagonists in this conception.
• D rejected: popular-sector participation is framed as more associated with the 20th century, not typical of the 19th century (as stated).

---

Final synthesis of the whole class (given by the instructor)

• Liberalism helped form nation-states by promoting:
  • freedom, equality, and popular sovereignty
  • moving from kingdoms to states of citizens
• Nationalism strengthened national belonging, but could generate conflict
• Latin America after independence had to build common national identity:
  • an elite-led process that often excluded many groups
• Next class preview:
  • how these ideas developed/applied in Chile, specifically during 1823–1830 (formation of the Republic)

---

Speakers / sources featured

Speakers (instructor and participants)

• Instructor (main speaker/teacher)
• Catalina (student question referenced)
• Laura (student contributions/questions referenced)
• Sofia (student question referenced)
• Eli (student question referenced)
• Felix (student question referenced)
• Alonso (student/chat comment referenced)
• Matu (student/chat comment referenced)
• Pato (student question referenced)
• Boris (student question referenced)
• Benja (student comment/question referenced)
• Gonzalo (student question referenced)
• Panchi (student question referenced)
• Ignacia (student question referenced)
• Sandra (student comment referenced)
• Benedict Anderson (cited/used for conceptual definition)

External sources mentioned

• Puntaje Nacional (source of PAES syllabus updates and materials)
• 1993 academic text referenced in the practice question:
  • “State and education in Latin America since its independence” (title as paraphrased in subtitles)