Causes The Modernist Interpretation The modernist interpretation of nationalism and nation-building perceives that n ationalism arises and

flourishes in modern societies described as being associat ed with having: an industrial economy capable of self-sustainability of the soci ety, a central supreme authority capable of maintaining authority and unity, and a centralized language or small group of centralized languages understood by a community of people.[29] Modernist theorists note that this is only possible in modern societies, while traditional societies typically: lack a modern industria l self-sustainable economy, have divided authorities, have multiple languages re sulting in many people being unable to communicate with each other.[29] Karl Marx wrote about the creation of nations as requiring a bourgeois revolutio n and an industrial economy.[30] Marx applied the modern versus traditional para llel to British colonial rule in India that Marx saw in positive terms as he cla imed that British colonial rule was developing India, bringing India out of the "rural idiocy" of its "feudalism".[29] However Marx's theories at the time of hi s writing had little impact on academic thinking on the development of nation st ates.[29] Prominent theorists who developed the modernist interpretation of nations and na tionalism include: Carlton Joseph Huntley Hayes, Henry Maine, Ferdinand T?nnies, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, and Talcott Parsons.[29] Henry Maine in his analysis of the historical changes and development of human s ocieties noted the key distinction between traditional societies defined as "sta tus" societies based on family association and functionally diffuse roles for in dividuals; and modern societies defined as "contract" societies where social rel ations are determined by rational contracts pursued by individuals to advance th eir interests.[31] Maine saw the development of societies as moving away from tr aditional status societies to modern contract societies.[31] Ferdinand T?nnies in his book Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft (1887) defined a gem einschaft (community) as being based on emotional attachments as attributed with traditional societies, while defining a gessellschaft (society) as an impersona l society that is modern.[31] While he recognized the advantages of modern socie ties he also criticized them for their cold and impersonal nature that caused al ienation while praising the intimacy of traditional communities.[31] Emile Durkheim expanded upon T?nnies' recognition of alienation, and defined the differences between traditional and modern societies as being between societies based upon "mechanical solidarity" versus societies based on "organic solidarit y".[31] Durkheim identified mechanical solidarity as involving custom, habit, an d repression that was necessary to maintain shared views.[31] Durkheim identifie d organic solidarity-based societies as modern societies where there exists a di vision of labour based on social differentiation that causes alienation.[31] Dur kheim claimed that social integration in traditional society required authoritar ian culture involving acceptance of a social order. Durkheim claimed that modern society bases integration on the mutual benefits of the division of labour, but noted that the impersonal character of modern urban life caused alienation and feelings of anomie.[31] Max Weber claimed the change that developed modern society and nations is the re sult of the rise of a charismatic leader to power in a society who creates a new tradition or a rational-legal system that establishes the supreme authority of the state.[31] Weber's conception of charismatic authority has been noted as the basis of many nationalist governments.[31]