Nations and Nationalism - Essay Example

This essay is about nationalism which basically refers to two phenomena. First, nationalism is the particular attitude that all the members of a country possess when they think about the national identity they have. (Tamir, Y., 1999). Secondly, at the same time, nationalism refers to the actions that are taken by the citizens of a particular country when they seek to attain and have a sustained self-determination. This essay concludes that nationalism is irrational due to the fact that it is not using reasoning but relying on emotions. Nationalism is about the issue of a national identity that can be described in terms of ethnicity, common origin, or cultural ties. The specificity of nationalism, that which distinguishes nationality from other types of identity, derives from the fact that nationalism locates the source of individual identity within a “people”, which for its part has been acknowledged as the bearer of sovereignty, the central object of loyalty, and the basis of collective solidarity. The foundation of nationalism, argued Liah Greenfeld (1992), without which no nationalism is possible, is an idea; nationalism is a particular perspective or a style of thought and that the idea of the nation lies in it core. (p. 3-4) Scholars are at odds as to when did nationalism emerge. However, they are in unison in saying that it started in Europe. For instance, there are those who argue that nationalism came out of Britain in the sixteenth century. There are those who believe such as Andrew Vincent (2002), that nationalism’s groundwork was established during the French and American revolutions. (p. 46) Nonetheless, the concept has signified the beginning of modernity, corresponding with the growth and modernization of states. This does not mean, however, that there were no instances of group loyalty and allegiance in the past. They were not simply considered nationalist as we understand the term today. The membership of an individual in a country is not a voluntary issue, though some times it is said to be voluntary. Nationalism is involuntary when a member of a country is born in a particular nation. It was not a choice to be born there, so it is involuntary. People who decide to change their citizenship and get that of another country are voluntarily members of their country of choice. This argument has become significant when we talk about ability to consider and choose between alternatives, which “entitle one to decide what was best for oneself and was the basis for the recognition of the autonomy of the individual conscience and principle of civic liberty. In addition, since human beings were equal in this crucial respect, in principle they had the equal right to participate in collective decisions.” (Greenfeld L. 1992, p. 30) The concept of nationalism is deeply intertwined with questions such as: What does a nation refer to and what is the meaning of national identity. What does it mean to belong to a nation? Is this nation membership non-voluntary or voluntary? Is nationalism rational? Is it appropriate to care always about one’s national identity? How much should one care about nationalism? Liberal, rational socialists and internationalists took nationalism to be a phase to the extent of branding it as an aberration in political development and a piece of developing false consciousness. Scholars, who consider nationalism as irrational and aggressive treat the concept as an idea or doctrine and that they focused less on specific intellectuals, instead connecting the idea or doctrine to national histories. Nationalism is a doctrine that believes that a nation- defined at this point as a culture or ethnicity- is entitled to be an autonomous or independent political community that has its basis on a common destiny or a shared history. According to Weinrich (1985), attachment to ones ethnicity is irrational because it encompasses strong affective ties, but that rational dialogue within a community “is concentrated on protecting the integrity of its ethnicity (its religion, rites of passage, customs, folklore, judiciary, etc.) (p. 24) That is why it becomes necessary to study nationalism based on ethnic identity. In turning to Wallman, we are offered the idea that ethnicity becomes a process by which ‘their’ difference is used and exploited in order to enhance the sense of ‘us’ for purposes of organization or identification. (p. 3) Those who are extreme about nationalism define it in terms of genetics or even race. We have the German political parties, Christlich Demokratische Union and its Bavarian sister party, the Christlich Soziale Union as examples. These parties bank on the kind of extremism associated with xenophobia and racism to appeal to a particular sector of the German public. Sometimes, nationalism has been written in from philosophical debates as an irrational concept-for example, by Slochenicin. It has, however, surfaced in philosophy recently, especially as a result of the “constant troublesome nationalists clashes for instance in Yugoslavia”. (Gans, C., 2003). The rush of nationalism can be ambivalent. The fight for political independence and national awakening can be a cruel struggle, but at the same time heroic in terms of history. It leads to the creation of a full and free state that passionately responds to deep sentiments. However, in the process of attaining this, the means can be violent. (Miller, D., 1995). Indeed, we have what scholars call as legitimate nationalism. Delos set forth an interesting proposition that provides some form of standard that allows nationalism to remain conformable to the superior rules of morality and law. According to him, this standard is achieved when nationalism guard itself against three major dangers: foreign, domestic and religious policies. (p. 113) His arguments are summarized as follows: 1. With regards to foreign policy, nationalism must never forget to combine equitably international with national duty. 2. In regard to domestic policy, nationalism must not underestimate the various other political objectives not directly related to the organic power of state by avoiding narrowness of exclusivism, of a one-sided point of view. 3. With respect to religious policy, nationalism must guard itself against the perpetual tendency to consider Catholic questions, which, by definition, are of universal order, from the exclusive standpoint of the national interest which is essentially particular to each nation. (p. 113) In this perspective, as long as nationalism, along with the care of national interest, are maintained within the limits assigned by morality and law and always with respect to the boundaries of other regions, of other sanctuaries, nationalism is best understood as a rational phenomenon. However, the fact remains that these are mere standards and ideals and that the realities are expected to tell a different tale. There are several principles that together compose the ideology of nationalism. Nationalism is a type of universalism, in that its characteristics apply to a range of nations. For example, there may be a notion like “in this nation, the national language must be the official spoken language, all the citizens of this nation are expected to speak it and they must not use any language that is foreign.”(Gans, C., 2003) Although this sounds dictatorial, it is expressing a common view of what national identity is about. Nationalism has its starting point as the physical existence and presence of a nation. Nationalism feels more at ease with being a ‘natural’ development than with being an artificial creation. From this school of thought, the nation is seen ideally as having a long history. Nationalists consider themselves as being the representatives of a nation that has a long-term history, even if it has not had a formal existence. Even where nations come quickly into being, as with Germany and Italy in the 19th century, their citizens like to look back to a long history of common political myth. Although, it could be argued that Hitler was creating a new German state, it was deliberately called the Third Reich, with the origins of the time of Charlemagne. More recently, the Falkland Islands claimed to be British, although clearly they were many thousands miles away and of relatively recent immigration. Nationalism is an ideology that makes individuals so committed to their culture or ethnic groups that they ignore the concerns of fellow human beings elsewhere. It leads people to follow blindly the attitudes of nationalists and all the beliefs that come along with them. Some scholars view it as a totalitarian way of thinking. This can be most clearly seen in the nationalist dictatorships of the 20th century, Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Franco, Hitler and Mao Dzedun all used nationalist feelings in a way that led to total subordination to the state, and the national interest being identical with those of the leaders. In these systems, criticism of the leaders was equated with undermining the nation. Nationalism appeals to the nationalist because of its potential to give people the satisfaction and fulfillment of the needs that they have; despite the fact that these needs may not be in any way connected with the nation or even be of interest to the protection of the interests of the particular nation, (McKim, R. and McMahan, J. 2001). Nationalist moods have their own momentum and sweep popular culture on its way. Any reservations about the nationalist mood tend to be restricted to intellectual life and critics can be equated with dissidents. Nationalism is not rational, as one of its chief results is for people to join the movement either to escape their own social isolation or to gain benefits of a materialistic nature from the state. Nationalism can create an illusion of social harmony and leave people to think that they have got a common goal. Also nationalism can provide a reason for living, and quite frequently, for dying. It provides the citizens with an arena for an exercise that is socially approved of all kinds of aggression. It appears to be a perfect way of escaping the individuality of oneself, as well as the possibility of being able to redefine the self-worth by mixing up the individual in to the rest of the masses. On a lighter note, we can see the power of nationalism in the irrational, but emotionally intense, feeling raised by international sporting events such as football matches. It is debatable whether these contests add to national rivalries or whether they act as a sort of release of emotion. For one to be able to understand fully the reasoning used by nationalists, it is important to understand that for a nationalist, the general nation is the definitive reference point for all political and social actions and loyalties. The nationalists compete to promote and respond to, direct aggression. Similarly, they advance conformity and collective intolerance. (Smith, A. D., 1991). All this is done for the sole purpose of drawing further boundaries and making much exaggerated contrasts. The ideal of nationalism is forwarded as a phenomenon of the elites, while the general masses are encouraged or enforced to follow. Due to the nature of its characteristics, and also bearing in mind that nationalism relies and attempts to appeal to the minds and hearts of the people, nationalism is best termed as a phenomenon that is non-rational. National sentiment is non-rational. This however does not mean that it is totally irrational. It is simply a tool that is used as a means to an end. Conclusion Any rational phenomenon is best described as that which uses the power of reason in any decision making process, it is the use of the mind in thinking and reasoning through without the influence of emotions. Hence, nationalism is not a rational phenomenon. It is not wise to call it irrational, but it can best be described as a non-rational phenomenon. The people who are nationalists use the ideology as a means to an end. (Gellner, E., 2003). The rhetoric tells its story. For example, the American loyalties that are indoctrinated to students in schools are constructed as being patriotic but they do not constitute a problematic irruption of irrational psyche, unlike nationalism, which provokes countless fanatical sacrifices. That is why the word ‘fanatical’, ‘instinct’, ‘irrational’ have attached themselves to ‘nationalism in Michael Billig’s (1995) text and that its emotional bonds become the problem and the threat. (p. 56) A number of social scientists have identified that the love of country that rhetoric insists makes up nationalism is actually patriotism, “a functionally positive force, providing stability for the ingroup and a sense of identity to its members.” (Janowitz M. 1983, p. 194) Apparently a lot of people confuse this with nationalism, which actually takes on a quality of aggression that makes it one of the prime causes of wars because the concept encourages negative feelings against outgroups. This is not surprising because even the most extreme of nationalists will claim the patriotic motivation for themselves. Billig quotes Frederich Hertz, one of Hitler’s retinues, as he wrote about nationalism: If one asked fascists what their creed was, the will invariably say that it consists in passionate devotion to the nation and in putting its interests higher than anything else. As such nationalists will protest that they are defenders, not attackers, only taking against foreigners when the latter are in danger to the beloved homeland. Nationalism is neither simple nor equivocal. Juliana Geran Pilon (1992) is very much correct when she said that nationalism is not primarily captured in class relations, and is not reducible primarily to social relations, but is rather a complex ideology, with all the overtones of state apparatuses, cultural systems, and social interactions that word currently implies in the popular mind. (p. 4) These variables are inimical to rationality – a realm far from the clutches of emotional influence. Bibliography: 1. Gellner, E., (2003): Nations and Nationalism, Blackwell, Oxford. 2. Smith, A. D., (1991): National Identity, Penguin, Harmonds worth 3. McKim, R. and McMahan, J. (2001): The Morality of Nationalism, Oxford University Press, Oxford. 4. Miller, D., (1995): On Nationality, Oxford University Press, Oxford. 5. Tamir, Y., (1999): Liberal Nationalism, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 6. Gans, C., (2003): The Limits of Nationalism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK. 7. Billig, Michael. (1995): Banal Nationalism. SAGE, UK. 8. Delos, J. (1971): Race, Nation, Person: Social Aspects of the Race Problem. Ayer Publishing. 9. Greenfeld, L. (1992): Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity. Harvard University Press, Harvard. 10. Janowitz, M. (1983): The Reconstruction of Patriotism, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 11. Pilon, J. (1992): The Bloody Flag: Post-Communist Nationalism in Eastern Europe. Transaction Publishers, New Jersey. 12. Vincent, A. (2002): Nationalism and Particularity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 13. Wallman, S. (1979): Ethnicity at work, Macmillan, London. Read More