Did nationalism predate nation states?

Feeling tribal loyalty to a group depends on social conditions

Question: Did nationalism predate nation states?
Position‹2 of 3›: No, nationalism did not predate nation states.
Argument‹2 of 3›: Feeling tribal loyalty to a group depends on social conditions

People often feel loyalty towards a group they are raised with; that isn't necessarily their own ethnic or cultural group, so nationalism is not inherent but taught.

The argument

The argument tests the idea that national feeling is inherited by looking at the cases where upbringing and origin come apart. Although most people are brought up by people who belong to their own ethnic, cultural, or social group, many are not, and consequently do not feel what would traditionally be considered nationalism for their group of origin. Because origin and environment usually coincide, the two explanations normally predict the same outcome and cannot be told apart; the cases where they diverge are the ones that decide the question. The example given supplies exactly that divergence. Someone adopted from China as a baby by an American family is likely to have much more experience of American than Chinese life and culture, and would consequently consider themselves American. If loyalty followed ethnic origin, that person's attachment would run to China; instead it runs to the society they were raised in. This suggests that nationalism is taught, not inherent, and is not necessarily based on one's group of origin but the group in which one is raised. The same pattern is then generalised. In an increasingly globalised and multinational world, where more and more people emigrate, have children with someone from a different country, or consider themselves loyal to more than one group or nation, it is difficult to see nationalism as something people inherently feel to people of their own ethnic or cultural group. Multiple loyalties are especially awkward for the inherent account, since an inherited attachment ought not to be divisible. If national feeling is produced by shared social conditions, the direction of causation follows. Nation states are not formed specifically because of nationalism, but rather nationalism develops based on people living together in a nation state, which means nationalism did not predate nation states.

Premises

[P1]Many people raised outside their group of origin, such as a child adopted from China into an American family, feel loyalty to the group that raised them rather than to their ethnic origin. [P2] This shows nationalism is taught by social conditions, not inherent to one's ethnic or cultural group, especially in a globalised world of emigration and mixed nationality. [P3] If nationalism develops from people living together within a nation state, then the state must come first. [C] Therefore, nationalism did not predate nation states.

Counter-arguments

Although this is true, the majority of people are still raised in their own cultural or ethnic group and feel a loyalty towards them. Someone belonging to more than one culture or country does not mean they cannot feel loyal towards them both - nationalism does not have to be exclusive, and although it is to some extent taught, this is difficult to assert confidently when most people do still grow up with their own cultural group, meaning there is arguably not enough data to decide.

Rejecting the premises

1. Most people are brought up by members of their own cultural or ethnic group.

Framing

This argument has many historic examples, with figures in history and mythology developing loyalties to those who raised them rather than their own social or ethnic group. However, it does not necessarily disprove that nationalism existed before nation states, because it does not mean that nationalism is only taught, and not at all inherent.