The Various Types of Nations or Nationalism - Coursework Example

Losing faith in the unifying force of civic nationalism, conservative critics of the multicultural policy deemed it as leading towards `cleaving' of Australian society fostered by transnational identities formation (James 2006) and ultimately tribalism (Blainey cited in Dunn 2005). Hence, at the dawn of the 21st century, Australian policy makers have welcomed the return of integration to policy rhetoric (Jakubowicz 2008). Under what sorts of circumstances may ethnic belonging and civic-national belonging come into conflict consequently undermining the unifying force of civic nationalism? Name Institution 1.0 INTRODUCTION Joseph Stalin defined the term ‘nation’ as a “historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in common culture” (cited Croucher 2004). The concept, however, evades universal definition according to scholars and Stalin’s willingness to use that definition may have been underpinned by an underhanded desire to exclude some groups, such as the Jews, from the Russian nation (Croucher 2004). The usual means employed by scholars to foster understanding of nation or nationalism is to classify the various types of nations or nationalism. One common classification is that of civic nation or nationalism, on one hand, and ethnic nation or nationalism, on the other (Croucher 2004). Hans Kohn pioneered the ethnic/East-civic/West dichotomy discourse of nationalism suggesting that states in Western Europe and North America followed the civic brand of nationalism, whilst those in Eastern Europe practiced the ethnic type of nationalism (cited Janmaat 2004). Thus, in countries underpinned by liberalism and decentralised rule nationhood is wide open to anyone who swears allegiance to the principles of the nation’s values and goals. On the other hand, states operating under feudal and absolutist rule developed ethnic nationalism, which does not subscribe to voluntary association, but fixed membership “grounded in descent, native language, religion and customs and folklore” (Janmaat 2004, p. 5). In the Australian context, the clash between civic nationalists and ethno nationalists is not infrequent considering that Australia is an acknowledged multiculturalist society and a magnet to many immigrants and asylum seekers. This essay looks at the various instances where these two models of nationalism may come in conflict resulting in the possible undermining of civic nationalism. 2.0 ETHNIC AND CIVIC NATIONAL BELONGING 2.1 Overview The distinguishing marks that separate a civic nation from an ethnic nation is the degree to which the opinion characterising ethnic belongingness or civic belongingness predominate within a given jurisdiction. The impact of the predominance of such opinion, whatever side it takes, significantly impacts on the adoption of policies, such as immigration or refugee policies. Thus in a state where more people endorse ethno-belongingness, there is a tendency for the policymakers to adopt anti-immigrant policies (Wakefield 2011). In the Australian context, variants of macro-social identities exist that primarily tends toward either the civic characteristic type of belonging or ethnic type of belonging. A third type – denizen – has no strong attachment to Australian identity – is rare. Another observably exists, but is declining and almost instinct. This is the class identity type that finds basis of solidarity in people of the same class. However, most of the population, viz. 38%, embraces civic national belonging and they are constituted mostly by baby boomers, tertiary-educated and the secular. Australians in this type of national identity, is attached to Australia as a society composed of people sharing the same belief in the country’s major institutions. On the other hand, 30% of the population believes in ethno-nationalism and they mostly include older people, less educated and religious people. Australians subscribing to this type of national identity likewise share the same strong attachment with the difference that the object of their attachment is Australia as a nation of people sharing the same “specific culture, traditions and culture” (Pakulski and Tranter 2000, p.40). Pakulski and Tranter (2000) believed that those subscribing to ethnic belongingness type of nationalism will eventually diminish in number as they are replaced by younger, more educated and progressively secularized generations. 2.2 Conflicts Immigration One of the areas in which civic nationalists and ethnic nationalists may come in conflict is in the area of immigration. This view is already supported by previous research on the matter. Table 1 is a reproduction of the result of a survey conducted by the International Social Science Program (ISSP hereafter) cited in Pakulski and Tranter (2000). The surveyed showed how civic nationalists – termed as citizens – and ethno nationalists – called here as nationalists – responded to specific questions related to immigration. As can be seen the most contentious area proved to be that on the issue of immigration and refugees and their impact on the economy. The questions posed to the subjects require them to agree that immigrants have the following effect on Australia as a whole: they aggravate crime rates, they take away jobs from Australians, and they are generally good for the Australian economy. The average difference for these three questions is 25.67%. The fourth question in this section required them to agree that refugees should be allowed to stay and the percentage of difference between the answers is 25.8%. Not surprisingly, civic nationalists or simply ‘citizens’ generally did not see immigrants as a threat to native-born Australians with respect to the country’s peace and order and their own economic stability more than ethnic nationalists (indicated here as plain nationalists). In the second section, which tackled assimilation of immigrants or foreigners already settled in the country, the overall percentage between responses is relatively smaller than the first section at 12.7%. The highest difference in opinion in this section pertains to the issues on maintenance of distinctions in culture and traditions as well as adaption and blending into society. The lowest difference in opinion is on the issue of increasing the number of immigrants. Like in the previous Table 1 (cited Pakulski and Tranter 2000) section, citizens impose less requirement of adaption on immigrants and are more tolerant of other culture and traditions than those subscribing to ethnic belongingness. Like the resulting scenario generated by section 2 questions on ‘assimilation,’ section 3 questions on national interest protection did not result into a significant gap in answers. The average difference in this 3-question section is just 15.9%, with the biggest gap of difference resulting from the question of imposing Australian interest despite potential conflicts with other nations. The implication of the results of the ISSP survey is that Australians embracing civic belongingness and those subscribing to ethno belongingness type of nationalism are likely to widely diverge in opinion on the issue of immigration. Asylum-seekers Another area in which ethno-nationalists and civic-nationalists has already find issue with is the subject of asylum-seeking. Asylum-seekers are by nature foreign and are not part of the Australian culture or ethnicity. For the true civic nationalist, such an issue may not pose a problem, but for an ethno-nationalist this means allowing ‘others’ into one’s yard. Asylum-seeking is contentious issue that is persistently being debated in Australia. Australian policy over asylum seekers has gone from welcoming to exclusionary in the last decade. First, the mandatory detention upon arrival was imposed to all asylum-seekers, young and old, until all court procedures have been conducted to determine whether to deport or grant them access to the country. After the 9/11 incident in the US, things turned for the worse for asylum-seekers. The Australian government refused entry into the country a Norwegian ship carrying more than 400 persons after its crew saved the latter from their damaged boat. The saved persons were purportedly on their way to Australia to seek asylum. The Howard government had Australian SAS board the ship and took the asylum seekers to an island in Nauru for detention. Since Nauru is not part of the Australian jurisdiction, the Howard government bribed the Nauru government by increasing its aid to that impoverished country. Legislations supporting a ‘keep asylum-seekers out’ policy were subsequently and hastily passed (Every 2008). In the debates that ensued after the harsh change of policies on the issue of asylum seekers, Every (2008) noted the characteristics of arguments supporting and condemning those policies. Although supporters of the policies did not overtly argue from an ethnic or cultural nationalism showing tendencies of xenophobia and racism, a connection was noticeable between exclusive nationalism and ethno-culturalism. This determination was grounded on the way such arguments used terms and words, such as ‘fair go’ and ‘generosity.’ The lack of overt link between anti-asylum seeker arguments and ethno-nationalism was attributed to the desire to prevent racism accusations. Nonetheless, there were also discernible links between inclusive nationalism and ethno-nationalism proving Kuzio’s (2010) claim that ethno-nationalism and civic-nationalism can exist in the same person at the same time (Every 2008). Nonetheless, Koning (2011) believed that the terminologies are useful and in fact, are real. By analysing 26 countries and the policies imposed by them on immigration and naturalization processes, he was led to conclude that there are, in fact, distinctions between how supposedly civic nations and ethic nations deal with persons professing a desire for inclusion into their nation. Thus, countries like Canada, France, New Zealand and the US exhibited similar approaches in dealing with new entrants into their countries that manifested civic nation characteristics. On the other hand, Austria and Germany manifested ethno-nation quality in their approach and policies towards such new entrants (Koning 2011). Multiculturalism The issue of multiculturalism is apparently one that a civic nationalist or ethno-nationalist would find conflict in. This is because multiculturalism presupposes the embrace and tolerance of various ethnic and cultures existing side by side. From the ethno-nationalist view, such an arrangement is definitely not workable, which the civic nationalist finds no trouble with. Australia has been acknowledged as a successful multicultural society, but in the last several decades the impact of multiculturalism on national building has been questioned. The doubts now placed on the multicultural policy of the government stemmed from security issues that emerged, especially after 9/11 and the emerging threats of terrorism. Multiculturalism is being questioned because it is believed to be hampering efforts towards integration and social cohesion and is in fact, promoting segregation in society (Koleth 2010). Among specific issues hurled this policy is apparently ethno-nationalist in nature, such as potential influence of ethnic lobbies and cultural relativism. In addition, there was concern, particularly in the 1980s during the Bicentenary of European Settlement, that multiculturalism was harming Australian nationhood and culture (Koleth 2010). Race and Religion The multiculturalist nature of Australian society necessarily implies the presence of various races and religious in the country in addition to the traditionally Anglo-Saxon race that settled after the British founded the island-continent. Race is naturally a contentious issue where ethno-nationalists and civic nationalists are likely to clash. This goes likewise to the issue of religion. The exclusivist character of the former would naturally contend that nationhood cannot take in other races that are not historically linked to Anglo-Saxon or religion other than Christianity. Al-Natour (2010), for example, reported that several applications for the establishment of Islam schools, churches and other institutions in several areas in Australia had been met with hostile and violent objections. The incident that happened in Camden in 2007, for example, where the Muslim community proposed the establishment of Muslim school and how many in the community raised their objections, at the same time exhorting that the objections were not laced with racism illustrated this point. The author noted that this new approach at justifying apparently racist arguments by clothing them in non-racist rhetoric is an emerging and new racism. It has been the popular view that race is a social discourse and not a scientific phenomenon (Skinner 2007), but until now there are still some sectors of society that do not see it as such as illustrated in the above case and in research where race is often a variable (Sankar 2008). 3.0 CONCLUSION The deep differences of perspectives between ethno-nationalists and civic nationalists lay open a wide area of possible conflicts that can undermine civic nationalism. Although Tazreiter and Tham (2013) saw Australian civic nationalism being divided between those advocating the total abandonment of nationalism and those promoting multiculturalism and cultural diversity as basis of new Australian identity, both types believed in “shared political values and a civic compact are sufficient glue for national cohesion” (p. 139). The conflicts of these two types of models of nationalism in the areas of immigration, asylum seeking, multiculturalism, and race and religion can undermine the positive impact and efforts of civic nationalists to effectuate national cohesion and solidarity despite the presence of various cultures, ethnicities and races in Australian society. Although a truly democratic system has always room for conflicting ideas and positions and, in fact, thrived in it, intense and often emotional cleavages in society wrought from clashes in basic political policies and approaches can eventually weaken civic nationalism. This would ultimately justify the claim that civic nationalism is fictional and is an impossibility (Tazreiter and Tham (2013). References Al-Natour R, 2010, ‘Racism, ragheads and rednecks,’ Nebula 7.1-7.2, pp. 1-22, http://www.nobleworld.biz/nebulaimsarchives/nebula7172.html. Croucher S, 2004, Globalization and belonging: The politics of identity in a changing world, Rowman & Littlefield Every D and Augoustinos M, 2008, ‘Constructions of Australia in pro- and anti-asylum seeker political discourse,’ Nations and Nationalism 14 (3), pp. 562–580. Janmaat J. 2006, Popular Conceptions of Nationhood in Old and New European Member States: Partial Support for the Ethnic-Civic Framework, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 50-78 Koleth E, 2010, Multiculturalism: a review of Australian policy statements and recent debates in Australia and overseas, Parliamentary Library (Australia), viewed 21 January 2015, . Koning E, 2011, ‘Ethnic and civic dealings with newcomers: naturalization policies and practices in twenty-six immigration countries,’ Ethnic and Racial Studies vol. 34 No. 11 November 2011 pp. 1974-1994 Pakulski J and Tranter B, 2000, ‘Civic Identity in Australia,’ Australian Journal of Civic Issues, vol. 35, no.1, pp. 35-51 Sankar P, 2008, ‘Moving beyond the two-race mantra,’ in B Koenig, S Lee, S Richardson (eds.), Revisiting Race in a Genomic Age, Rutgers University Press, pp. 271-284 Skinner D, 2007, ‘Groundhog day? The strange case of sociology, race and ‘science’,’ Sociology, vol 41(5): 931–943 Tazreiter C and Tham S 2013, Globalization and social transformation in the Asia-Pacific: The Australian and Malayasian experience, Palgrave Macmillan Wakefield J, Hopkins N, Cockburn C, Shek K, Muirhead A, Reicher S and van Rijswik W, 2011, The impact of adopting ethnic or civic conceptions of national belonging for others' treatment, Pers Soc Psychol Bull, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 1-12 Read More