© Kamla-Raj 2016 Anthropologist, 24(2): 481-485 (2016) Strengths and Weaknesses of Anthropology and Political Science in Observing Nationalism: The Case of Cyprus (1968-1977) Sevki Kiralp Near East University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Nicosia, Cyprus, 99138, Mersin 10, Turkey KEYWORDS Documentary Research. Enosis. Makarios. National Identity ABSTRACT This paper reflects the results of a Political Science research that investigated the re-construction of Greek Cypriot national identity in 1968-1977. It utilized a qualitative methodology and conducted a documentary research. It also followed a deductive approach and tested the validity of theoretical approaches, arguing that national identities and nationalism politics are constructed based on economic and political interests. Even though the data gathered supported the validity of these approaches for the studied case, the research remained insufficient in accounting for the roles of language, ethno-symbols and collective memories in shaping national identities. The paper discusses its results based on the strengths and weaknesses of Political Science, and Sociocultural Anthropology, in studies of nationalism and national identity. Address for correspondence: Sevki Kiralp Near East University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Nicosia, Cyprus, 99138, Mersin 10, Turkey Telephone: 009 0533 86981 64 INTRODUCTION Nationalism constitutes an attractive phe- nomenon for the disciplines of Anthropology and Political Science. Due to its theoretical and ana- lytical successes, Political Science merely out- shined Anthropology in studies of nationalism and national identities in the last decades. How- ever, a number of scholars tend to support an interdisciplinary framework which merges with Sociocultural Anthropology and Political Science for nationalism studies. Political Science focus- es primarily on nation-building policies made by statesmen in nationalism studies, due to their disciplinary and theoretical differences. Never- theless, Socio-cultural Anthropology investi- gates society’s perception on its national identi- ty. This paper evaluates the strengths and weak- nesses of both disciplines, and concludes that an interdisciplinary framework which merges the two is beneficial for a more comprehensive un- derstanding of nationalism and national identi- ty. This research utilized the discipline of Politi- cal Science and investigated policies of Cypriot President Makarios via a documentary research and re-construction of Greek Cypriot national identity (in 1968-1977). The results of the research signalled that political leaders play crucial roles in re-constructing politics of ethnicity and na- tionalism. Their self-interests and their commu- nity’s political and economic interests, led polit- ical leaders to regulate their politics on national- ism. Nevertheless, the relevant research is man- ifestly inefficient in accounting for the percep- tion of Greek Cypriots on their national identity. Thus, an interdisciplinary framework utilizing theoretical and methodological approaches of Political Science and Sociocultural Anthropolo- gy is rather advantageous in accounting for na- tionalism at political, as well as the social levels. In his ‘primordialist’ approach, Geertz (1973), who was amongst the anthropologists theoriz- ing the origins of contemporary nations, argues that the nations are racial extensions of their an- cestors. Their identities, as well as their cultures, are ‘given’ to them by kinships, religious values, linguistic characteristics and social customs. Another anthropologist, Berghe (1981), gener- ated the ‘sociobiological’ notion. According to the scholar, nations are ‘sociobiological’ entities, composed of races and ethnic groups. Berghe differed from Geertz on one specific aspect. While the first argues that the nations, ethnic groups and even races tend to imagine ‘alleged kinships’ in group formation, the latter argues that nation- al identities are produced by the biological pro- cess in the nature, and an individual’s ethnicity and nationality are determined by his or her ‘pri- mordial’ origins. Gellner (1983) was another an- thropologist theorizing the origins of nations. The scholar generated the ‘Modernist’ theory. He analysed the socio-cultural transformations of Industrial era, and concluded that the nation- al cultures were productions of post-industrial (modern) societies. According to Gellner, the ur- banization and industrialization processes of the