Before the collapse of European communism that began in the late 1980s, nationalism was not a subject of significant academic study and was generally neglected,[citation needed] with the exception of some major contributions by authors such as Ernest Gellner, Benedict Anderson, and Anthony D. Smith.[2][3][4] Connor’s work was another exception to this rule, and today he is regarded as “one of the scholars of nationalism and ethnic conflict who has contributed most towards establishing a conceptual grounding” for the study of nationalism.[5]
Widely cited for his insistence on the inherently ethnic character of nationalism, which he called ethnonationalism to emphasize the point, Connor long held that the most significant obstacle to advancing the study of nationalism is terminological imprecision. Particularly problematic, he contended, is the tendency to conflate the distinct concepts of state and nation, as well as the respective concepts of patriotism and nationalism which derive from them.[6]
Connor viewed the nation as a "self-differentiating ethnic group" that believes its members are ancestrally related, forming a "fully extended family." He believed that nationalism belongs to the realm of the "subconscious" and the "nonrational" (which he distinguished from "irrational"), rooted in the deep psychological bond of common ancestry. He argued that national identity is not dependent on academic accuracy.[7]
Connor is also well known for his critiques of Marxist-Leninist theories of nationalism in his book, The National Question in Marxist-Leninist Theory and Strategy,[8] in which he argues that the Marxist view of nationalism as merely a byproduct of economic conditions ensured they failed to suppress nationalism as they did not understand that ethnic identity and by extension nationalism was separate from economic or class interests.
