What Does David Miller Mean by Nationality - Essay Example

?Topic: What dose David Miller mean by "nationality" what kind of nationality dose he support, and how far should we accept his views Introduction David Miller’s concept of nationality means that the citizens should not only abide by the legal and ethical standards adopted by the State, but also participate actively in the economic and social development. Towards this, he proposes the concept of welfare state, where the State takes the onus of bringing about a social and economic equality with the help of the citizen’s taxes and philanthropy. In this essay, I intend to discuss the implications of the concept of nationality as espoused by David Miller, and how it affects the modern economic and social environment of a country. I will use evidence as well as theories and opinions of other scholars to establish that David Miller’s concept of nationality cannot be acceptable in its entirety in the modern times. ESSAY SECTION According to Miller, the idea of nationality comprises of a state that has claim to political determination and which is also ethical in nature1. The concept of an ethical nation is based on Miller’s presumption that justice is a pluralistic concept and it should be understood and practiced in the context of the situation. For an ethical nation, it is believed that social solidarity is the underlying justice principle, as this emulates the justice system of community level living, only on a much larger scale2. A community is tasked with ensuring that all members’ needs are met and that there is fairness in distribution of resources according to each individual’s need. Similarly, an ethical nation is the one that has a social welfare system aimed at providing facilities and resources to people who need it and cannot afford it otherwise owing to economic inequalities. In addition, Miller also contends that there is a need for affirmative action and active income redistribution to bring down the social and income disparities. According to him, nationality would mean that people should have a greater sympathy and willingness to help their co-nationals than they are with respect to the general humanity3. The concept of Miller’s nationality is an idealistic one as he seems to have over-simplified both the theoretical underpinnings as well as the practical implications of his theory. He uses the concept of nationality to mean support for a welfare state on the premise that a welfare state is the apt solution to ensuring justice. According to him, this justice is pluralistic and varied and depends on what is the context of the situation. His conclusion that a welfare state is the ultimate manifestation of justice is not supported by any empirical or factual information. He does not elaborate why any other approach to justice is not suitable for a nation, or how the welfare state metes out justice to the numerous and diverse sections of the society4. The fact that pluralistic justice is given importance by Miller himself further traps him into detailing why he proposes only a welfare state as an ethical state, and why nationality should require a support for such a state alone. Next, the concept of nationality as envisioned by Miller is also contrary to the dynamics of a free market and freedom of opportunity – ideals that are incorporated in democratic states in the free world. For example, the notion of welfare state is based on the premise that the rich and the well-off people need to compensate for the poor who do not have the means or opportunities5. In order to maintain a welfare state, a differential tax system is employed which can be akin to penalizing the achievers and the rich people for their growth and progress. This inherently appears to be at cross-purposes to the free market concepts and the individual freedom to earn and self-determination. Also, it is also debatable that to what extent the concept of nationality should be used to support the welfare state. It is proposed by Miller that nationalism and citizenship should bring the onus of welfare and support to all the individuals of that nation. However, as seen above, this onus violates the free spirit principle. Moreover, it is not understood the extent to which a welfare state needs to continue to function. It looks like a quick fix solution rather than ensuring that grass-root level progress is made to bring social and economic justice. Welfare state is as professed by Miller’s concept of nationality is actually detrimental to the nations’ economic health as it does not lead to a radical change in the plight of the disadvantaged groups. The condition of the disadvantaged or the marginalized citizens can only be attained through development that brings about more jobs and opportunities. A government that simply takes money from the rich and uses it to support the poor is not creating sustainable means of growth or development of all. Also, Miller fails to provide any conclusive evidence to support his presumption that duties to provide distributive justice predominantly fall upon the conationals6. In addition to the above issues regarding the concept of nationality based on its implications for a welfare state, it is also seen that Miller defines nationality with respect to the external environment. He contends that the concept of nationality should entail a partiality towards the co-nationals at the cost of exclusion of all those who fall outside the national boundary7. This presumption about nationality has found much criticism by humanitarian scholars who contend that as human beings, all the people across the borders need to be treated equal8. According to several scholars, there are certain basic human rights that are universal and it’s unjust to provide a partial treatment to the conationals. Miller has combated these arguments by stating that all nations have been equipped with the capacity to provide for their own citizens, and hence there is a need to focus internally rather than care for the other nations9. Moreover, some scholars like Young (2000) state that some nations are inherently disadvantaged (for example, in the availability of their natural resources) and hence Miller’s contention that all nations are naturally well endowed and capable is wrong10. Miller also states that this onus on the conationals is driven from the background of shared history, culture and lives over the ages. The nation is seen as a community and the bonds of the community members lead to a moral obligation on them to adopt a supportive stance towards their conationals. According to Miller, this bond is not of choice, but of heritage and shared community values and history, and hence, it needs to be binding on the conationals.11 This contention again appears to be against the basic tenets of democracy and individual freedom. Conclusions It is seen from the above discussion that David Miller’s concept of Nationality is acceptable only partially. The premise of pluralistic justice is contradictory to the concept of welfare state in a nation where diversity exists. As pluralistic justice is hard to define when a diverse society with varying needs coexists. Moreover, the main fault with the concept of nationality by Miller lies in its implications for a universal welfare state. While the modern day democracies do take a partial welfare stance and the economically well off class is required to participate in helping the state (through taxes or charity), it cannot be supposed that the challenge of building a prosperous nation can be taken by simply adopting a universal welfare state. Instead, it is the principles of free market, capitalism and individual economic determinism that help people grow and also fuel the economic growth of the nation. It is through the development and growth in industries and services that drives grassroot level changes through bringing in more employment and opportunity to the marginalized section of the nation. As such, the onus on the conationals to bring a change to the conditions of the disadvantaged classes may be justified, but the means need to be a free market dynamics rather than the universal welfare state as envisioned by Miller. Also, nationality as being based on historical bonds leaves a limited scope, especially in the context of the modern world where emigrations and immigration is the norm and any country contains heightened diversity. Nationality therefore needs to be defined more in terms of individual choice and commitment to live and participate in the economic development of a nation. It can therefore be concluded that the concept of nationality as proposed by Miller is not backed by evidence and sound reasoning based on facts. It is only partially acceptable in the modern day of diversity and globalization. Bibliography Miller, David. On Nationality. USA: Oxford University Press, 1997. Print Miller, David. (1988).The Ethical Significance of Nationality Ethics 98.4 (1988): 647-662. Print Miller, David. Citizenship and National Identity. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000. Print DeSchutter, Helder and Tinnevelt, Ronald. “ David Miller’s theory of global justice. A brief overview .“ Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 11.4 (2008): 369-381. Print Jones, Charles. “Revenge of the Philosophical Mole: Another Response to David Miller on Nationality”. journal of Applied Philosophy 13.1 (1996): 73–86 . Print O’leary, Brando. “Symposium on David Miller’s On Nationality”..Nation and Nationalism, 2.3 (1996): 407-451. Print Wener, Leif. “Human rights and equality in the work of David Miller”. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 11.4 (2008): 401-411. Print Young, Iris Marion. (2000) Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Print Read More