Nationalism and the Modern World - Essay Example

17 November Nationalism and the Modern World [Nationalism has done more to shape the modern world system than anything else] This paperis aimed to examine the role of nationalism in shaping the world political system as we know it today. Being primarily based on the understanding that nationalism is first and foremost a form of politics (Breuilly 1), the paper expounds on the different varieties of nationalism and traces their development over times. In doing so, the paper starts with the prelude to nationalism in early modern Europe and goes through the separatist and unification forms of nationalism worldwide in the nineteenth century, including Arab nationalism in the Ottoman Empire. The last section of this paper deals with the anti-colonial nationalism and the different forms of nationalism in both the new and old nation-states; finally, the paper draws a conclusion that nationalism has exerted a huge amount of influence on the modern world political system, in terms of both opposition and a claim to the modern state, which, however, shouldn’t be overestimated. Introduction Breuilly writes that the term ‘nationalism’ is used to denote a political movement seeking or exercising state power and justifying its actions with nationalist arguments, where the latter are seen as a political doctrine “built upon three basic assertions” (2). Thus, in the first place, there should be a nation with an explicit character, which is peculiar to that nation; secondly, the nation’s values and interests should take priority over all other suchlike; and last but not least, the attainment of political sovereignty is required (Breuilly 2). Anderson, in turn, considers nationalism, along with nation and nationality, rather difficult for one to define let alone to analyze, and suggests that nationality and nationalism are cultural artifacts which have been transplanted to a variety of social terrains as well as merged with a corresponding variety of political and ideological constellations (3-4). On the other hand, as Seton-Watson points out, the ‘nation’ phenomenon “has existed and exists”, insofar as a significant number of people in a community possess national consciousness, i.e. consider themselves to have formed a nation, or behave as such. Hence, if a nationally conscious elite succeeded in creating a nation, it would be able to remain in power on the basis of that nation, and conversely (5). So, however one may go into nationalism – whether as a state of mind, the search for some sort of national identity or the expression of certain national consciousness – there’s no doubt that, as Breuilly put it, nationalism is, above and beyond anything else, about politics (1). Since politics is infinitely, if not exclusively, concerned with power and power, in the modern world, is mainly about the control of the state, nationalism, besides its cultural, ideological, class, etc. dimensions, is inevitably related to the objectives of obtaining and using the state power (Breuilly 1). Thus, the modern state, hence the modern state system and nationalism appear far too intertwined with each other, insofar as nationalist politics have given rise to the creation of many present-day nation-states, and could be held responsible for certain developments in others; and not surprisingly therefore, the modern state would offer “the key to an understanding of nationalism” (Breuilly 2). Origins of Nationalism - Prelude to Nationalism in Early Modern Europe The roots of modern nationalism could be traced back to the monarchical states of Western Europe in the early modern period (Breuilly 75; Seton-Watson 19-22). With the dramatic increase of state power by that time, the opposition to the state also increased and consolidated; as the state extended its authority over its subjects and diminished that of other institutions, like guilds, churches, etc., the idea of the ‘nation’ could be deemed to have achieved certain political relevance (Breuilly 75). This idea, however, had inevitably been subordinated to religious and monarchical principles, which is exemplified by the person of Elizabeth I and the Protestantism at the time of the Great Spanish Armada, and Louis XIV of France, who ‘naturally’ embodied the French nation (Breuilly 76). Another example in this regard is the indissoluble – until the late fifteenth or early sixteenth century – link between the French people’s national consciousness, the monarchy and the Catholic Church (Seton-Watson 20). Later on, however, by the time of the Catholic-Protestant religious war and the accession of Henry IV of France, both Protestants and Catholics claimed to be fighting for the sake of the nation, thus treating national unity as a greater virtue than religious righteousness (Seton-Watson 20). The rise of the centralized state in Europe by that time spurred the advent of new social groups, like state officials, city burghers, etc. (Seton-Watson 17). Despite their differences and frequently conflicting interests, more often than not, these groups were bound together by common loyalty; and had been manipulated as political instruments (Seton-Watson 17). Thus, the change occurred at both vertical and horizontal levels of relationship – between the state (ruler) and its subjects as well as between the different social groups – and resulted in the birth of the modern nation, where the interests of the people started to form the basis of government’s legitimacy (Seton-Watson 17). This process, however, did not affect all 15th century sovereign states and wasn’t painless; moreover, it conflicted with the established institutions far too often. The English and the French cases are considered not only notable examples of both nation and state formation advancing together, but also of the development of national opposition which clashed with the existing institutions (Seton-Watson 17; Breuilly 92). While in the English case, the idea of the nation remained much more bound up with the existing institutional framework – above all to Parliament – it went far beyond the political debate in France, where the institutional character of the state, the depth of the social crisis and the complexity of the international situation put together brought to the 1789 revolution and the consequent radical change (Breuilly 92). National ideology played a crucial part in the construction of the new French republic; as well as in promoting and justifying cooperation among the variety of interests already involved in politics in both England and France (Breuilly 94). And this was about to have serious reverberations throughout Europe and the rest of the world. Unification and Separatist Nationalism in the Nineteenth Century Three cases of unification nationalism are discussed within this section – the German, Italian and Polish ones. The cases of separatist nationalism are exemplified by the Magyar, Czech, Rumanian, Serbian, Greek and Bulgarian nationalism, along with the case of Arab nationalism in the Ottoman Empire. One of the most important features of the German, Italian and Polish nationalist movements could be considered the fact that they had been confined to small social and political elites, whose objectives of national unification were remote from popular interests (Breuilly 120). Being rather fragmented and lacking social and political authority, these elites – especially in Germany and Italy – were necessitated to seek support from existing states, as well as from other European players, like Britain and France, and gradually made themselves entangled in those states’ own ends concerning German and Italian national unity (Breuilly 120). In the Polish case, on the other hand, the elite (szlachta) which pursued the restoration of the historic kingdom of Poland appeared more unified and definitely had more political authority than the German and Italian nationalist elites (Breuilly 121). This made nationalism much more effective but also faced with much greater problems; thus, nationalist movements gradually came to mirror the conditions in a particular state – being a state’s ally in Piedmont and Prussia, opposition to the state in Congress Poland, and a mixture of the two in Lombardy (Breuilly 122). As a result, the new state of Germany lacked the ‘national’ ingredient, although the political system encouraged the development of a national focus; while in Italy, the high centralization exacerbated regional differences (Breuilly 122). In all three cases, however, nationalism played an important part in the creation of the respective state and its political system. The nineteenth-century separatist nationalist movements arouse in two empires – the Habsburg and Ottoman – which differed as much in the character of the ethnic, religious, and economic divisions within their populations as in the way these empires were regarded by the liberal West (Breuilly 143; Cassels 53). While the Habsburg Empire had been considered a stable unit in the international community and the major European powers – perhaps with the exception of Russia – avoided exploiting the internal tensions in the empire, the Ottoman Empire had been regarded as a highly unstable, even decaying unit within the international community (Breuilly 144). Hence the establishment of new ‘client’ states in place of Ottoman authority appeared rather attractive and particularly important for Britain and France, and nationalism readily offered a credible justification for such a foreign policy (Breuilly 144). On the other hand, ethnic, religious and economic divisions in the Habsburg empire generally overlapped, while in the Ottoman Empire, ethnic divisions had little to do with the economic ones (Breuilly 144). Surprisingly or not, however, nationalism in both empires produced rather similar type of conflict, namely between Greek and non-Greek in the Ottoman Empire, and between Magyars and non-Magyars in the Habsburg Empire (Breuilly 147). In result, the most effective political movements were created by the privileged groups and the response of the subordinated groups was to claim national autonomy against the former (Breuilly 147). Thus, the interaction between the state, the privileged groups and the non-privileged population in both Habsburg and Ottoman empires is thought to have either caused, or justified, the creation of many nation-states in Central and Eastern Europe. The internal forces that favored Arab nationalism in the Ottoman Empire were as weak as those in its European part; on the other hand, the relative strength of the Ottoman government and the degree of central control in the Arab regions were much stronger (Breuilly 154). The outbreak of the Great War made the use of nationalist arguments possible in order to help legitimize the Allies’ support to the resistance movement; the war and consequent political instability, in turn, spurred a territorial nationalist movement, which, at the end of the day, became the legitimized successor of the Ottoman rule, and, ironically, a product of Ottomans’ desperate attempts to modernize. In turn, the conflict between the government and Arab resistance intensified the Turkish nationalist sentiment, and the break-up of the empire after the end of the war reinforced the efforts to turn Turkey into a nation-state (Breuilly 246). Anti-colonial and Contemporary Nationalism There are different interpretations of, or approaches to anti-colonial nationalism, but for reasons mentioned earlier in this paper the political approach is considered most reliable in offering an insight into the nature of anti-colonial nationalism and its importance for the present-day world system. According to this approach, the colonial state was the specific institution that shaped political choice, operating within “a general context of external political domination”; on the other hand, it sought to establish a public and autonomous character of its relations with colonial society (Breuilly 167). The consequent changes, which occurred in the form of political conflict, brought directly on the advent of nationalist movements (Breuilly 167). Thus, in a way or another, the colonial state appeared responsible for the creation of both the collaboration and opposition components, and in some cases, like India for example, both reflected the structure and character of the colonial state. However, there are many cases in Africa, which, due to ideological or other flaws, gave birth to extremist nationalism that wound up in civil wars or guerilla warfare; while the contradictions and tensions between the newly-independent Arab states surfaced and surged to the fore in all their complexity after the World War II (Kramer 173). All in all, according to Breuilly, the existence of a distinct power under foreign control would appear the prerequisite to the development of anti-colonial nationalism, which in most cases accepts the territorial units and the collaborator institutions created by the colonial state (196). The pan-African and pan-Arab nationalist movements, which were developed in the twentieth century as ways of coordinating action against an external threat, actually greatly differed in their regional importance (Breuilly 287). The former is undoubtedly the weakest among the unification nationalist movements considered above, while the latter is the strongest, although by far not the most successful one (Breuilly 287). Nationalism has produced, or at least significantly contributed to, important geopolitical changes in Europe – the collapses of former Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc – and worldwide; and even currently, there is a visible return to nationalism in many European countries, for instance the Scottish case. Conclusion Being a particular form of politics, and just like all forms of politics being entangled in “a world of material interests”, corruption, and rhetoric, nationalism, however, has exerted a huge amount of influence on the modern world political system, especially in the creation of nation-states (Breuilly 401). On the other hand, its importance shouldn’t be overvalued since there are other forms of politics and nationalism’s main political objective or ideal – the creation of nation-states – is not a panacea for all ills. References Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. 1983. London: Verso, 1991 Breuilly, John. Nationalism and the State. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993. Cassels, Alan. Ideology and International Relations in the Modern World. London: Routledge, 1996 Kramer, Martin. Arab Nationalism: Mistaken Identity. N.d. Web 19 November 2012. < http://www.martinkramer.org/sandbox/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/arabnationalism.pdf> Seton-Watson, Hugh. Nations and States: an Inquiry into the Origins of Nations and the Politics of Nationalism. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd. 1977 Read More