Nationalism vs. Order and Justice in the International Community - Essay Example

Nationalism vs. order and justice in the international community (Name) (Institution) (Course) (Instructor’s Name) Date of submission In history, nationalism has been a fundamental ideology in the drafting of national borders, development of national identities and the search and protection of sovereignty. It is a force that has been behind the fight for independence from colonizers for many countries around the world that found themselves under the rule of some European powers such as Britain, Portugal Spain and Germany. The fight for independence resulted in wars, destruction of property and life. The same force has been used to push for political and social agendas. Its relevance in the modern world has presented many myths and theories. Classical sociological modernization theories and political and philosophical theories have offered different views on the relevance of nationalism. In this era of globalization and modernism, some newer theories have been developed that tend to be less universalistic by noting that there are different varieties of nationalism and each variety has a specific role to play. Some of them argue that liberalized nationalism has a role to play in facilitating order and justice in the international society while others observe that nationalism as a whole poses a direct threat to order and justice in the international society and that it is a recipe for global conflict. This paper therefore sides with the latter argument and provides evidence to show that nationalism fuels war, racism and inter-state hostility and that it is a threat to order and justice in the international society. Nationalism is one of the many forms of identity that individuals and societies use to classify themselves under one nation or nationality or group. Greenfield (2003) says that the core concept behind the term nationalism is loyalty to a nation. He says that nationalism is best practiced at the national level by a mass of people because the ‘people’ is seen as the bearer of sovereignty which is the central object of loyalty. He simplifies the term further and says that nationalism is a particular perspective of thought towards a nation. Gellner (2006) says that nationalism is a political principle which holds that the political and national unit should be congruent. Hugh Seton-Watson (cited in Gellner 2006) says that nationalism is the application of the principle of popular sovereignty to the nation. It is apparent that defining nationalism is incomplete without first understanding what a nation is. The origin of the term nation indicates the application and use of the word nationalism. The word nationalism is derived from the word ‘nation’ whose contemporary understanding wrongly implies state. Greenfield (2003) says that the word nation is derived from the Latin word natio which translates to ‘something born.’ The term was first used in a derogatory way in Rome to refer to foreigners to indicate that they were of lower status than Romans. The Greeks also used the term in reference to foreigners. In this sense, persons or foreigners united by their place of origin formed a nation. The same classification was used in ancient universities where students who shared common origin, language and culture were referred to as a nation. For instance the University of Paris had four nations; L’honorable nation de France, La fidele nation de Picardie, La venerable nation de Normandie and la constante nation de Germanie. The nation de la France comprised of students from France, Italy and Spain; la constante nation de Germanie comprised of students from England and Germany; La venerable nation de Normandie was for students from the Northeast; and La fidele nation de Picardie comprised of students from Denmark. The use of the term nation in this way helped shed the derogatory connotation and facilitated the term to gain more meaning as these ‘nations’ acted as support groups or unions. They later came to take sides in scholastic disputations which was critical in developing communities in opinion and purpose. This marked the birth of the term ‘nation’ as a community of opinion (Greenfield 2003). It is apparent that the state and nation do not refer to one and the same thing. In ancient times, students from different states such as Germany and England were grouped under the same nation. This implies that the idea of nationalism does not occur to state-less people or necessarily from same geopolitical region (Greenfield 2003). Gellner (2006) says that a nation is an artifact of men’s convictions and loyalties and solidarities. He says that a nation is a categorization of people by freewill either by territory, language, culture or other attributes whereby the members firmly recognize certain mutual rights and duties to each other in virtue of their shared membership. This implies that the higher the number of connections between members, the more solid and the bond is among the people that form a nation. Vincent (2002) however warns that a ‘people’ is not necessarily a nation as individuals have many levels of allegiance and loyalties. Other forms of loyalties that may count are religion, social status and class. In ancient times therefore, the place of origin was the most basic binding factor of a nation until sharing of opinion and nation took over. This paper therefore adapts this perspective that a nation is a group of people who share an opinion towards a political principle as suggested by Hugh Seton-Watson in Gellner (2006). Although the definition of nationalism heavily relies on ‘nation’ it also relies on the ‘state.’ Max Weber controversially described the state from a sociological perspective as that agency within society which possesses the monopoly of legitimate violence. Weber argued that the state is that agency which has the power to resolve violence or delegate the same powers to another clearly defined and centralized body to use force when necessary to resolve conflict in the society (Gellner 2006). This therefore implies that the state is a creation of the nation. The act of protecting the nation either militarily or otherwise is often termed as patriotism, something that many people confuse with nationalism. Nationalism differs from patriotism in many ways. One of the major ways is that patriotism is defensive in nature while nationalism is seen as offensive. While use of force might be necessary in patriotism to protect a nation, nationalism seeks to use force to advance the interest of the nation. In one of his many works on governance and nationalism, George Orwell wrote that patriotism means devotion to a particular nation or political perception which he perceives to be better than others while nationalism seeks to use force not for personal gains but the benefit of the nation or any other form of identity. The use of force has in no way indicted that it breeds justice and order. Orwell also added that, a nationalist always celebrates in the fall of his enemies or opponents in ideologies. A nationalist sees contemporary history as the continuous rise and decline of power units with his side on the upgrade and the rival on the downgrade. There are different and often conflicting philosophical perspectives on the relevance of nation and nationalism. The modernist orthodoxy perspective argues that the nationalist-tinged paradigm of nation is ideological and anachronistic. This perspective denies that nations are natural or essential and substantial in modern times but rather are primordial collectivity with all the dangerous political consequences such as racism, fascism and anti-Semitism (Berdun, Guibernau & Hutchinson 2001.). Vincent (2002) adds to this criticism of nationalism and nation says that formally, nationalism as self-determination as compatible with fascism as with liberalism. The claim that nationalism is a necessity for justice freedom and democracy is mistaken though it applies if and only if it is accepted and received in an ethical manner that seeks to strike a balance with ethics as it is here to stay and also to influence political activity (Vincent 2002). There has been many philosophical arguments advocating for or questioning the role of nationalism in restoring order and justice in the international level in the face of globalization. While nationalism seems to advocate for and strengthen the geographical borders and identities that define a nation and pertinent to maintaining order and justice within those borders, globalization challenges the existence and strengthening of such borders in an attempt to create a global village not limited by geography (Lane 2006). Karl Popper says that ‘nationalism has a strong affinity with the revolt against reason and the open society as it appeals to our tribal instincts, to passion and to prejudice, and to our nostalgic desire to be relieved from the strain of individual responsibilities which attempts to replace by a collective group responsibility” (Beiner p. 69). The author brings a vital issue relevant to the Australian case about nationalist and tribal instincts in reference to the Aboriginal people’s question which this paper addresses later. Contemporary liberal nationalists claim that nationalism underpins justice and welfare for the international society though the same nationalism that they advocate for has fanned war and injustices all over the world in the 20th century. Vincent (2002) says that strong nationalistic sentiments fuel war but do very little in promoting democracy. He notes the cases of Britain under Margaret Thatcher, Germany under Adolf Hitler, Chile under Pinocher, Argentina under the military Gunta and Spain under Franco, where al these countries where under the leadership of highly nationalist leaders who ultimately led their countries to war. The argument that nationalism breeds democracy is also wrong. Countries such as the Germany in the 1930’s had very high levels of national identity but very little concerns for democracy. Again, a country like Canada has very low levels of national identity yet very high levels of democracy. Nationalism has many dimensions and ethics is one of them that nationalists have failed to observe. Nationalism is a language of rights and duties to another as explained in the definition of a nation, but has been used to justify cruelty and violence. As members of the international communities, states have embarked on missions to protect the rights of individuals in other countries. A good example is the common humanitarian intervention in military conflicts around the world. In the some cases of political violence such as in the Democratic Republic of Congo, violence has erupted as a result of nationalist movements opposing incumbent governments without using the right procedures (Syse and Reichberg 2007). The conflict is basically triggered by injustices that are felt by these nationalist movements. Unfortunately, the international society responds via humanitarian intervention without first listening to the dissidents. Therefore, the urge to protect the human rights as a form of patriotism to the human race and to advance the benefits of democracy and human rights to the affected people translates to nationalism but it does not restore order and justice. Beiner (1999) cites the case of the US invading Iraq and Afghanistan to free the citizens of these countries people from oppressive regimes. The result has been war destruction and no justice or order has been achieved so far. Humanitarian intervention in crisis-stricken nation-states is a product of one form of nationalism, western nationalism. Beiner (1999) generally categorizes nationalism into two; eastern and Western. He argues that western nationalism is based on the protection of human rights and is less radical though it justifies peace through war. There exists other classification of nationalism such as methodological (Chernilo 2006), ethnocultral, liberal, civic, multicultural (Greenfield 2003), contemporary cosmopolitan among other minor ones. Nonetheless, all of them celebrate the defeat and demise of opponents. Charnilo (2006) argues that any form of nationalism that does not support this perception towards rivals does not qualify as nationalism. Globalization is defined as the process through which global economies and societies integrate in disregard of geopolitical boundaries to form one global village. The basic idea behind this is a nationalistic ideal that seeks to identify the unifying factors in all communities and nation states around the world (Charnilo 2006). This has been viewed as the tool to foster global peace and justice where the fight for the common enemy in terms of war, poverty and global warming are seen at the major unifying factor. However, nationalism disregards this unity of purpose that coins globalism but calls for smaller nations defined by culture, language and geographic boundaries. Nationalism therefore undermines a force whose intent is to foster order and justice by creating a single global nation by advocating for nation states. Lane (2006) writes that globalization undercuts nationalism in two ways (i) it enhances multicultural societies which do not support nationalism except in the form of certain minorities embracing xenophobia and (ii) it reduces the relevance of the ideology stating the specificity of nations. Simply put nationalism promotes ethnicity which is poses a direct threat to order and justice and also ignores the geopolitical identities that encourage inter sate wars. The former case is evident in Australia where the country that lacks a common unifying factor in faced with nationalistic demands from Aboriginal communities. Brown (2000) says that cultural nationalism promotes barbarism and cultural intolerance. He notes the case of the Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda where over 800 000 persons were killed in ethnic violence. The contemporary Australian society lacks a historical bonding factor except for the often sidelined Aboriginal communities. Wesley (2000) says that Australia lacks a national defining moment. He observes this is because the country had failed to take its responsibility to define its sovereignty free from the British. Brown (2000) says that the affiliation and protection of Australia by Britain from foreign forces contributed to the lack of nationalism in the country prior to 1940’s as there was no common external enemy. As aforementioned, nationalism was grows out of the need to see the downgrade of a rival or opponent. Again, the country had no unifying struggle for independence. The Australian Human Rights Commission, formerly known as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission gives recognition mainly into the protection of social justice of the Aboriginal communities and Torres Strait Island persons which in one way or another may fuel ethonocultural nationalism. As earlier indicated, ethnocultural nationalism had led to blood berth in Rwanda, Kenya, and Yugoslavia and elsewhere (Roudmetof and Robertson 2001). Wesley (2000) argues that giving excessive precedence to the aboriginal communities in Australia in matters relating to land use may give rise to renewed sense of cultural identity among such communities. By restoring such form of nationalism, in a country accused of lacking a genuine nation bonding identity could disrupt order ad justice. The ‘assimilist’ bonding factor that the nation of Australia took after the Second World War is being threatened by the cultural recognition being awarded to ethnic communities. The ideology behind nationalism, whether at the state level or ethnic level, does not support the initiatives to promote order and justice in the international level. The fact that nationalism at whatever level rejoices in the downfall of the rival indicates intolerance which breeds conflict. The basic idea behind nationalism is the demise of rivals. In such a case, some aboriginal communities in Australia would celebrate and work towards eradicating some communities. While nationalism is applied at the state level, then some stets will celebrate and work towards the downfall of another in the spirit of nationalism. It is therefore obvious that there is no way through which nationalism restores and promotes justice in the international society. References Beiner, R. Theorizing nationalism. Perth: SUNY Press, 1999 Berdun, M., M. Guibernau & J. Hutchinson. Understanding nationalism. London: Wiley-Blackwell, 2001 Brown, D. Contemporary nationalism: civic, ethnocultural, and multicultural politics. Sydney: Routledge, 2000 Chernilo, D. “Social Theory’s Methodological Nationalism Myth and Reality” European Journal of Social Theory 9(1): 5–22, 2006 Gellner, E. State and nation. London: Wiley-Blackwell, 2006 George Orwell. Notes on Nationalism Polemic: A Magazine of Philosophy, Psychology & Aesthetics, No.1. 1949. Greenfield, L. Nationalism: five roads to modernity. New York: Harvard University Press, 2003 Lane, J. Globalization and politics: promises and dangers. Melbourne: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. 2006 Roudmetof, V. & Robertson, R. Nationalism, globalization, and orthodoxy: the social origins of ethnic conflict in the Balkans 2nd ed. London: Greenwood Press, 2001 Syse, H. & Reichberg, G. Ethics, nationalism, and just war: medieval and contemporary perspectives. London: CUA Press, 2007 Vincent, A. Nationalism and particularity. London: Cambridge University Press, 2002 Wesley, M. “Globalization and nationalism in Australia” in Suryadinata, L. Nationalism and globalization: East and West. Sydney: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2000 Read More