As I began my research for this essay, it became clearly evident that there is no consensus on the roots of nations. From Gellner to Smith, a million little points in time and space can be traced to the creation of a nation, which in itself carries various meanings and connotations. Believing that both modernists, who interpret nationalism as being associated with industrial economics and centralized authority, and primordialists, who argue that nations are ancient and natural phenomena, make valid points, I have chosen to adhere to Michael Mann's explanation that the structure of nations "had multiple causes and stages overlapping one another in unexpected and unfortunate ways." They were contingent because different causal chains, each of which can be traced and explained very well, came together in a way that we cannot explain in terms of any of them, but which proved expedient for the outcome » (Mann 2012: 3). However, despite the diversity of explanations of nationalism, one concept recurs. Humans, whether in their local, state, or international societies, are motivated by power, and those who have the ability to impose their decisions on others cede power. Even though colonialism and imperialism are no longer recognized as current practices, international society still exists under the umbrella of neocolonial influences, of which globalization is a product. In this essay, I will explore the status of the nation and nationalism as it currently exists under neocolonial influences. To survive in the long term, human cultures, and therefore nations, have had to adapt to different environments and changing conditions. Today's technological growth has challenged nations to adapt at an increasingly rapid pace, without regard for the international community. This is evident in the types of nationalism I have explored, both new nationalism and cosmopolitanism. They have opposing views on what nationalism is or can become in the future, but both possess qualities that allow small nations to continue to exist in international society. I have inadvertently expressed my view that nations are structurally political and that it is in the interest of their leaders to appeal to their unique traditions in order to maintain their power. Regardless, the choice between these two approaches depends on the nation and its relationship with international society. Globalization does not hinder the existence of the nation but rather helps it carve out a place in the power structure in a world still dominated by politically and economically dominant superpowers..