To what extent is nationalism a cohesive ideology?

Generally, to answer such a question one needs to a) form a thesis b) justify this thesis c) include criticisms and reponses to them.
a) Questions like the above are designed so that students are able to respond either way, meaning there is no one correct answer such as ‘nationalism is a cohesive ideology to a large extent’. Therefore, you should decide on a thesis bearing in mind the above points. An example of a clear stance might be ‘nationalism is to a larger extent a cohesive ideology’. Notice how the phrasing of the question and the above thesis allow for exceptions. By this I mean it is allowed and even encouraged that one considers the weaknesses of one’s stance and that some may even be correct as long as on the whole one demonstrates one’s stance is correct. Thus, it is in most cases a positive thing to allow small criticisms to stand as long as one debunks the larger ones and demonstrates the strength of the main points supporting one’s own stance. It is also important to provide several main points supporting one’s argument, these will form the majority of your answer. So, in the case of the above example if one were to take the position that it is more cohesive than not some key points to consider would be the similarities shared by most forms of nationalism over human nature, the state, the economy and society etc. For example, in this case a point you would want to emphasise is that almost all forms share the idea that humans naturally bind together in groups based on  some form of cultural, social and/or ethnic basis. If one were to assume the opposite position, that nationalism is to a lesser extent coherent, one would want to focus on key contrasts between types of nationalism and the limitations of what they do share. In this scenario one would need to focus on points such as the vast contrast between progressive and regressive forms of nationalism. Either way, the lesson from this is that one should have several main points supporting one’s argument. A good number of main points being three. It is better to have a few good points than several that are not so strong. By only including a small number of points which are all strong, it is much easier to demonstrate depth of knowledge and defend criticisms that are raised against them. Having three good points allows one to do this and consequently obtain more marks. A key means of demonstrating depth of knowledge is examples (historic but especially contemporary) and key thinkers. For example, if one was arguing nationalism to be to a greater extent incoherent, one might want to show the differences between progressive and regressive forms of nationalism. To show depth of knowledge in this case one would  To achieve the highest grade, it is essential to demonstrate that one is able to recognize criticisms against one’s argument and when they are correct or not. Thus, it is essential to include criticisms of one’s position and responses to them.