What really intrigued me in particular was the idea of a redivision of impoverishment. That is, poverty becoming more concentrated in cities instead of the countryside. Having taken classes in urban studies before, this assertion resonated with what I learned regarding the relative redistribution of wealth in many countries, especially in most U.S. cities. The rapid movement of middle and upper-class people from U.S. cities to the suburbs in response to growing numbers of lower-income city neighbors is an example of what Bright and Geyer suggest. In turn, they would be correct in presuming there are no longer nations, at least in countries where this has occurred or is still occurring.
The cities that are supposedly filled with culture and interaction, facilitating shared national identity, are now being repurposed as large-scale attractions and theme parks in a sense, largely ignoring the plight of their lower-income residents in favor of catering to tourists and young professionals. In fact, cities largely cater to an implicit locational segregation between much of the higher and lower income peoples in their city, removing any chance for a unified national identity through constant interaction. This is intensified further with those who have moved out to the suburbs, who go further in distancing themselves from lower-income persons to create their own suburban strongholds and “utopias”. A national mindset is then harder to manifest in the populace in the modern era.
If any nationalist mindsets would manifest themselves in these differing communities, they would most likely manifest along cultural, ethnic or racial lines (for example, white nationalism and supremacy in the U.S.). This would do more to harm any national unity than to enrich it, as various national identities could spring up amongst willingly (and unwillingly) segregated communities.