Without ideas such as national soverignity, the idea of the "nation" as opposed to the state, and so on, how would history be different?
Nationalism is just tribalism writ large and tribalism is built into humans through evolution (except in Kansas, of course). Therefore, I can't imagine any historical scenario in which nationalism does not emerge as literacy and the means of communications expand.
Well, I agree, but even if we humans have a tendency to gather in groups and feel loyalty to these groups, there's no reson why this groups have to be nation-states. Nation-states have an intermediate size: they are too big for anyone to know one's neighbours or one's land and too small compared to other entities that have existed in the past or could exist in the future.
We could perfectly be living in multi-ethnic empires (like Austria-Hungary) or entities (like a stronger European Union) and feel both loyal to our comunity and to the grater structure ... but not to a certain nation-states.
In this scenario, Basques might feel Basques and Europeans, but not Spanish or French. Slovaks who speak a certain dialect might feel both "Slovaks who speak dialect X" or "Slovaks who live in a certain area" AND Europeans; but not "Slovaks in general".
There were times when people felt this way. I was reading an article that said that in 1800, people living in Spanish America had several identities at the same time, none of which coincide with our current nation states:
- Face to Protestants they felt Catholics.
- Face to other Catolics they felt Spanish.
- Face to Spanish from Spain ("españoles peninsulares") they felt Spanish American ("españoles americanos")
- Face to other Spanish Americans they felt identified with the region were they lived (River Plate Area, Paraguay, Tucuman, Cordoba).
None of this matches with the "Argentinian" identity, meaning by that the nation-state that came to being in 1816*. Paraguay is an exception, as apparently there was a Paraguayan regional identity in late XVIII century in a region that matches more or less with Paraguay's modern core territorry (I mean, Eastern Paraguay)
*According to the article, "Argentino" meant then only a natural of the River state area. In 1800, a few porteños were using the adjetive to refer to the whole Vicerroyalty, but that use hadn't gained much acceptance in the other parts of the Vicerroyalty, like Cordoba or Salta.
Quite. That, after all, was how much of mankind lived until the late 18th/early 19th century, and well into the 20th in the non-Western world.We could perfectly be living in multi-ethnic empires (like Austria-Hungary) or entities (like a stronger European Union) and feel both loyal to our comunity and to the grater structure ... but not to a certain nation-states.
If I try a more serious post, I'd expect religion would be more of a motivator for the people and a centre of loyalty. If people don't believe in the nation-state, they'll believe in something else instead, and kings and lords aren't likely to be popular in a modern age.
OTL shows that even in a scientifically advanced world, religion remains a potent focus of self-identification. This being said, one should keep in mind that outside of the Abrahamic cultures, and to a lesser extent the Indian subcontinent, people don't tend to make a big deal about which religion they follow. And it was the same thing in the Roman empire until it was taken over by Christianity.The problem with such view is the effect of advance of science may gradually erode the influence of religion. Granted, religion in OTL remained a potent influence and development of nation- state greatly accelerate scientific discoveries, but the science present another worldview that contrast greatly with religion. Science and religion are not exactly incompatible, but the effect of science should not be underestimated.