Nationalism
Nationalism is a political ideology that involves a
strong identification of a group of individuals with a nation. There are two main perspectives
on the origins and basis of nationalism, one is the primordialist perspective
that describes nationalism as a reflection of the ancient and perceived
evolutionary tendency of humans to organize into distinct grouping based on an
affinity of birth; the other is the modernist perspective
that describes nationalism as a recent phenomenon that requires the structural
conditions of modern society, in order to exist.[1] There are various
definitions for what constitutes a nation, however, which leads to several
different strands of nationalism. It can be a belief that citizenship in a
state should be limited to one ethnic, cultural, religious, or identity group,
or that multinationality in a single state should necessarily comprise the
right to express and exercise national identity even by minorities.[2]
The adoption of national identity in terms of historical
development, has commonly been the result of a response by an influential group
or groups that is unsatisfied with traditional identities due to inconsistency
between their defined social order and the experience of that social order by
its members, resulting in a situation of anomie that nationalists seek to
resolve.[3] This anomie
results in a society or societies reinterpreting identity, retaining elements
that are deemed acceptable and removing elements deemed unacceptable, in order
to create a unified community.[3] This development
may be the result of internal structural issues or the result of resentment by
an existing group or groups towards other communities, especially foreign
powers that are or are deemed to be controlling them.
Causes
There are two major bodies of thought on the causes of
nationalism, one is the modernist perspective
that describes nationalism as a recent phenomenon that requires the structural
conditions of modern society, in order to exist; the other is the primordialist perspective
that describes nationalism as a reflection of the ancient and perceived
evolutionary tendency of humans to organize into distinct grouping based on an
affinity of birth.[1] Roger Masters in
The Nature of Politics says that both the primordialist and modernist
conception of nationalism both involve an acceptance of three levels of common
interest of individuals or groups in national identity. The first level is that
at an inter-group level, humans respond to competition or conflict by
organizing into groups to either attack other groups or defend their group from
hostile groups.[17] The second level
is the intragroup level, individuals gain advantage through cooperation with
others in securing collective goods that are not accessible through individual
effort alone.[17] The third level
is the individual level, where self-interested concerns over personal fitness
by individuals either consciously or subconsciously motivate the creation of
group formation as a means of security.[17] Leadership
groups' or elites' behaviour that involves efforts to advance their own fitness
when they are involved in the mobilization of an ethnic or national group is
crucial in the development of the culture of that group.[17]
Primordialist interpretation
The primordialist perspective is based upon evolutionary
theory.[18] The evolutionary
theory of nationalism perceives nationalism to be the result of the evolution
of human beings into identifying with groups, such as ethnic groups, or other
groups that form the foundation of a nation.[18] Roger Masters in
The Nature of Politics describes the primordial explanation of the origin of
ethnic and national groups as recognizing group attachments that are thought to
be unique, emotional, intense, and durable because they are based upon kinship and promoted
along lines of common ancestry.[19]
The primordialist evolutionary view of nationalism has
its origins in the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin that
were later substantially elaborated by John Tooby and Leda Cosmides.[20] Central to
evolutionary theory is that all biological organisms undergo changes in their
anatomical features and their characteristic behaviour patterns.[20] Darwin's theory
of natural
selection as a mechanism of evolutionary change of organisms is
utilized to describe the development of human societies and particularly the
development of mental and physical traits of members of such societies.[21]
In addition to evolutionary development of mental and
physical traits, Darwin and other evolutionary theorists emphasize the
influence of the types of environment upon behaviour.[22] First of all
there are ancestral environments that are typically long-term and stable forms
of situations that influence mental development of individuals or groups gained
either biologically through birth or learned from family or relatives, that
cause the emphasis of certain mental behaviours that are developed due to their
necessity the ancestral environment .[22] In national group
settings, these ancestral environments can result in psychological triggers in
the minds of individuals within a group, such as responding positively to
patriotic cues.[22] There are
immediate environments that are those situations that confront an individual or
group at a given point and activate certain mental responses.[22] In the case of a
national group, the example of seeing the mobilization of a foreign military
force on the nation's borders may provoke members of a national group to unify
and mobilize themselves in response.[22] There are
proximate environments where individuals identify nonimmediate real or imagined
situations in combination with immediate situations that make individuals
confront a common situation of both subjective and objective components that
affect their decisions.[23] As such proximate
environments cause people make decisions based on existing situations and
anticipated situations.[23] In the context of
the politics of nations and nationalism, a political leader may adopt an
international treaty not out of a benevolent stance but in the believe that
such a treaty will either benefit their nation or will increase the prestige of
their nation.[23] The proximate
environment plays a role in the politics of nations that are angry with their
circumstances, an individual or group that becomes angry in response to
feelings that they are being exploited usually results in efforts to
accommodate them, while being passive results in them being ignored.[23]Nations that are angry
with circumstances imposed on them by others are affected by the proximate
environment that shapes the nationalism of such nations.[23]
Pierre van der Berghe in The Ethnic Phenomenon (1981) emphasizes
the role of ethnicity and kinship involving family biological ties to members
of an ethnic group as being an important element of national identity.[24] Van der Berghe
states the sense of family attachments among related people as creating
durable, intense, emotional, and cooperative attachments, that he claims are
utilized within ethnic groups..[24] Van der Berghe
identifies genetic-relatedness as being a basis for the durable attachments of
family groups, as genetic ties cannot be removed and they are passed on from
generation to generation.[24] Van der Berge
identifies common descent as the basis for the establishment of boundaries of
ethnic groups, as most people to not join ethnic groups but are born into them.[24] Berghe notes that
this kinship group affiliation and solidarity does not require actual
relatedness but can include imagined relatedness that may not be biologically
accurate.[19] Berghe notes that
feelings of ethnic solidarity usually arise in small and compact groups whereas
there is less solidarity in large and dispersed groups.[25]
There are functionalist interpretations of the
primordialist evolutionary theory. The functionalists claim that ethnic and
national groups are founded upon individuals' concerns over distribution of
resources acquired through individual and collective action.[26] This is resolved
by the formation of a clan group
that defines who is accepted within the group and defines the boundaries within
which the resources will be distributed.[26] This
functionalist interpretation does not require genetic-relatedness, and
identifies a variety of reasons for ethnic or national group formation.[26] The first reason
is that such groups may extend group identity and cooperation beyond the
limited of family and kinship out of reciprocal altruism, in the belief that
helping other individuals will produce an advantageous situation for both the
sender and receiver of that help, this tendency has been noted in studies
by Robert
Axelrod that are summarized in his book The Evolution of Cooperation(1984).[26] The second reason
is that such groups may be formed as a means of defense to insure survival,
fears by one group of a hostile group threatening them can increase solidarity
amongst that group, R. Paul Shaw and Yuwa Wong in their book The Genetic Seeds of Warfare (1989)
identify this as the foundation of xenophobia that they
identify as originating in hunter gatherer societies.[27]
[edit]Modernist interpretation
Beginning in 1821, the Greek
War of Independence began as a rebellion by Greek nationalists
against the ruling Ottoman Empire.
The modernist interpretation of nationalism and
nation-building perceives that nationalism arises and flourishes in modern
societies described as being associated with having: an industrial economy
capable of self-sustainability of the society, a central supreme authority
capable of maintaining authority and unity, and a centralized language or small
group of centralized languages understood by a community of people.[28] Modernist
theorists note that this is only possible in modern societies, while
traditional societies typically: lack a modern industrial self-sustainable
economy, have divided authorities, have multiple languages resulting in many
people being unable to communicate with each other.[28]
Karl Marx wrote
about the creation of nations as requiring a bourgeois revolution
and an industrial economy.[29] Marx applied the
modern versus traditional parallel to British colonial rule in India that Marx saw in positive terms as
he claimed that British colonial rule was developing India, bringing India out
of its "rural idiocy" of its "feudalism".[28] However Marx's
theories at the time of his writing had little impact on academic thinking on
the development of nation states.[28]
Prominent theorists who developed the modernist
interpretation of nations and nationalism include: Henry Maine, Ferdinand
Tönnies, Emile
Durkheim,Max Weber,
and Talcott
Parsons.[28]
Henry Maine in his analysis of the historical changes and
development of human societies noted the key distinction between traditional
societies defined as "status" societies based on family association
and functionally diffuse roles for individuals; and modern societies defined as
"contract" societies where social relations are determined by
rational contracts pursued by individuals to advance their interests.[30] Maine saw the
development of societies as moving away from traditional status societies to
modern contract societies.[30]
Ferdinand Tönnies in his book Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft (1887) defined a
gemeinschaft (community) as being based on emotional attachments as attributed
with traditional societies, while defining a gessellschaft (society) as an
impersonal societies that are modern.[30] While he
recognized the advantages of modern societies he also criticized them for their
cold and impersonal nature that caused alienation while
praising the intimacy of traditional communities.[30]
Emile Durkheim expanded upon Tönnies' recognition of
alienation, and defined the differences between traditional and modern
societies as being between societies based upon "mechanical
solidarity" versus societies based on "organic solidarity".[30] Durkheim
identified mechanical solidarity as involving custom, habit, and repression
that was necessary to maintain shared views.[30]Durkheim identified
organic solidarity-based societies as modern societies where there exists a
division of labour based on social differentiation that causes alienation.[30] Durkheim claimed
that social integration in traditional society required authoritarian culture
involving acceptance of a social order. Durkheim claimed that modern society
bases integration on the mutual benefits of the division of labour, but noted
that the impersonal character of modern urban life caused alienation and
feelings of anomie.[30]
Max Weber claimed the change that developed modern
society and nations is the result of the rise of a charismatic leader to power
in a society who creates a new tradition or a rational-legal system that
establishes the supreme authority of the state.[30] Weber's
conception of charismatic authority has been noted as the basis of many
nationalist governments.[30]
Civic nationalism (also known as liberal
nationalism) defines the nation as an association of people who
identify themselves as belonging to the nation, who have equal and shared
political rights, and allegiance to similar political procedures.[31] According to the
principles of civic nationalism, the nation is not based on common ethnic
ancestry, but is a political entity whose core identity is not ethnicity. This
civic concept of nationalism is exemplified by Ernest Renan in his
lecture in 1882 "What
is a Nation?", where he defined the nation as a "daily
referendum" (frequently translated 'daily plebiscite") dependent
on the will of its people to continue living together".[31]
Civic Nationalism is a kind of non-xenophobic nationalism
compatible with liberal
values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights.[32] Ernest Renan[33] and John Stuart Mill[34] are often thought
to be early liberal nationalists. Liberal nationalists often defend the value
of national identity by saying that individuals need a national identity in
order to lead meaningful, autonomous lives[35] and that liberal
democratic polities need national identity in order to function properly.[36]
Civic nationalism lies within the traditions of rationalism and liberalism, but as a form
of nationalism it is contrasted with ethnic
nationalism. Membership of the civic nation is considered voluntary, as
in Ernest Renan's "daily
referendum" formulation in What
is a Nation?. Civic-national ideals influenced the development
of representative
democracy in countries such as the United States and France(see the United States Declaration of Independence of
1776, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and
of the Citizen of 1789).
Ethnocentrism
Whereas nationalism does not necessarily imply a belief
in the superiority of one ethnicity over others, some nationalists support
ethnocentric protectionism or ethnocentric supremacy. Studies have yielded
evidence that such behaviour may be derived from innate preferences in humans
from infancy.[37][need
quotation to verify][verification
needed]
National purity
Some nationalists exclude certain groups. Some
nationalists, defining the national community in ethnic, linguistic, cultural,
historic, or religious terms (or a combination of these), may then seek to deem
certain minorities as not truly being a part of the 'national community' as
they define it. Sometimes a mythic homeland is more important for the national
identity than the actual territory occupied by the nation.[39]
Left-wing
nationalism
Left-wing
nationalism (occasionally known as socialist nationalism, not
to be confused with Right-wing
national socialism)[40] refers to any
political movement that combines left-wing
politics with nationalism. Many nationalist movements are
dedicated to national liberation, in the view that their nations are being
persecuted by other nations and thus need to exercise self-determination by
liberating themselves from the accused persecutors. Anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninism links
itself closely with this ideology, although many left-wing nationalists refute
the assertion that Anti-Revisionists are truly "left-wing
nationalists." Practical examples of this anti-revisionist nationalism
include Stalin's early work Marxism and the National Question and
his Socialism
in One Countryedict, which declares that nationalism can be used in
an internationalist context, fighting for national liberation without racial or
religious divisions. Other examples of left-wing nationalism includeFidel Castro's 26th
of July Movement that launched the Cuban Revolution ousting
the American-backed Fulgencio Batista in
1959, Ireland's Sinn Féin, Wales's Plaid Cymru, Scotland's SNP,
theAwami League in Bangladesh and
the African
National Congress in South Africa.[citation
needed] Truly left-wing nationalism (that which does not
involve authoritarianism and inequality between ethnic groups or citizens, and
that which includes public ownership of industries and services) is a type of
civic nationalism, although some nationalists who are ostensibly socialist,
such as Stalinists, are not civic nationalists. This can give rise to confusion
over the nature of left-wing nationalism, even though in its condition of being
left-wing is implicit respect for other nations and ethnic groups, and a
non-authoritarian state.
Territorial nationalism
Nationalist slogan "Brazil, love it or leave
it", often used during the Brazilian military dictatorship.
Territorial nationalists assume that all inhabitants of a
particular nation owe allegiance to their country of birth or adoption.[41] A sacred quality
is sought in the nation and in the popular memories it evokes.[42] Citizenship is
idealised by territorial nationalist[42] A criterion of a
territorial nationalism is the establishment of a mass, public culture based on
common values and traditions of the population.[42]
Pan-nationalism
Pan-nationalism is
unique in that it covers a large area span. Pan-nationalism focuses more on
"clusters" of ethnic groups.
Proto-nationalism
Proto-nationalism refers to the
nationalism that people feel for a connection to a particular indigenous or
ethnic identity which is unconnected from the national identity. It also refers
to a "nationalism" that existed before the foundation of a
nation-state. It thus describes a nation-less nationalism.[43]
Ultranationalism
Benito Mussolini (left) and Adolf Hitler(right). The
two most pre-eminent figures offascism in
Europe.
Ultranationalism is a zealous nationalism that expresses
extremist support for one's nationalist ideals. It is often characterized
by authoritarianism,
efforts toward reduction or stoppage of immigration, expulsion and or
oppression of non-native populations within the nation or its territories,
demagoguery of leadership, emotionalism, fomenting talk of presumed, real, or
imagined enemies, predicating the existence of threats to the survival of the
native, dominant or otherwise idealized national ethnicity or population group,
instigation or extremist reaction to crack-down policies in law enforcement,
efforts to limit international trade through tariffs, tight control over
businesses and production, militarism, populism and propaganda. Prevalent
ultranationalism typically leads to or is the result of conflict within a
state, and or between states, and is identified as a condition of pre-war in
national politics.[citation
needed] In its extremist forms ultranationalism is
characterized as a call to war against
enemies of the nation/state, secession or, in the
case of ethnocentrist ultranationalism, genocide.[44][45]
Fascism is
a form of palingenetic ultranationalism[46] that promotes
"class
collaboration" (as opposed to class struggle), a totalitarian state,
andirredentism or expansionism to unify
and allow the growth of a nation. Fascists sometimes promote ethnic or cultural
nationalism. Fascism stresses the subservience of the individual to the state,
and the need to absolute and unquestioned loyalty to a strong ruler.[47]
Anti-colonial nationalism
This form of nationalism came about during the
decolonialisation of the post war period. It was a reaction mainly in Africa
and Asia against being subdued by foreign powers. This form of nationalism took
many guises, including the peaceful passive resistance movement led by Gandhi
in the Indian subcontinent [48] Benedict Anderson
argued that anti-colonial nationalism is grounded in the experience of literate
and bilingual indigenous intellectuals fluent in the language of the imperial
power, schooled in its "national" history, and staffing the colonial
administrative cadres up to but not including its highest levels. Post-colonial
national governments have been essentially indigenous forms of the previous
imperial administration.[49]
Criticisms
Critics of nationalism have argued that it is often unclear
what constitutes a "nation", or why a nation should be the only
legitimate unit of political rule. A nation is a cultural entity, and not
necessarily a political association, nor is it necessarily linked to a
particular territorial area - although nationalists argue that the boundaries
of a nation and a state should, as far as possible, coincide.[50] Philosopher A.C. Grayling describes
nations as artificial constructs, "their boundaries drawn in the blood of
past wars". He argues that "there is no country on earth which is not
home to more than one different but usually coexisting culture. Cultural heritage
is not the same thing as national identity".[51]
Much of the early opposition to nationalism was related
to its geopolitical ideal of a separate state for every nation. The classic
nationalist movements of the 19th century rejected the very existence of the
multi-ethnic empires in Europe. Even in that early stage, however, there was an
ideological critique of nationalism. That has developed into several forms
of anti-nationalism in
the western world naming it a 'theoretical and political challenge for the
foreseeable future' [52]. The Islamic revival
of the 20th century also produced an Islamic critique of the nation-state.
At the end of the 19th century, Marxists and
other socialists (such
as Rosa
Luxemburg) produced political analysis that were critical of the
nationalist movements then active in central andeastern Europe (though
a variety of other contemporary socialists and communists, from Vladimir Lenin (a
communist) to Józef
Piłsudski (a socialist), were more sympathetic to national self-determination).[53]
In his classic essay on the topic George Orwell distinguishes
nationalism from patriotism, which he defines as devotion to a particular
place. Nationalism, more abstractly, is "power-hunger tempered by
self-deception." [54]
For Orwell the nationalist is more likely than not
dominated by irrational negative impulses:
There are, for example, Trotskyists who have become
simply enemies of the U.S.S.R. without developing a corresponding loyalty to
any other unit. When one grasps the implications of this, the nature of what I
mean by nationalism becomes a good deal clearer. A nationalist is one who
thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a
positive or a negative nationalist — that is, he may use his mental energy
either in boosting or in denigrating — but at any rate his thoughts always turn
on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations. He sees history, especially
contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units, and
every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the
upgrade and some hated rival is on the downgrade. But finally, it is important
not to confuse nationalism with mere worship of success. The nationalist does
not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the
contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the
strongest, and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are
overwhelmingly against him.[54]
Massacres of Poles in Volhynia in 1943. Most Poles of
Volhynia (now in Ukraine) had either been murdered or had fled the area.
In the liberal political tradition there
is widespread criticism of ‘nationalism’ as a dangerous force and a cause of
conflict and war between
nation-states. Nationalism has often been exploited to encourage citizens to
partake in the nations' conflicts. Such examples include The Two World Wars,
where nationalism was a key component of propaganda material. Liberals do not
generally dispute the existence of the nation-states. The liberal critique also
emphasizes individual freedom as opposed to national identity, which is by
definition collective.
The pacifist critique
of nationalism also concentrates on the violence of nationalist movements, the
associated militarism,
and on conflicts between nations inspired by jingoism or chauvinism. National
symbols and patriotic assertiveness are in some countries discredited by their
historical link with past wars, especially in Germany. Famous pacifist Bertrand Russell criticizes
nationalism for diminishing the individual's capacity to judge his or her
fatherland's foreign policy.[55] Albert Einstein stated
that "Nationalism is an infantile disease... It is the measles of
mankind." [56]
The anti-racist critique
of nationalism concentrates on the attitudes to other nations, and especially
on the doctrine that the nation-state exists for one national group to the
exclusion of others. This view emphasizes the chauvinism and xenophobia that have
often resulted from nationalist sentiment.Norman Naimark relates
the rise of nationalism to ethnic cleansing and genocide.[citation
needed]
Political movements of the left have often been
suspicious of nationalism, again without necessarily seeking the disappearance
of the existing nation-states. Marxism has been
ambiguous towards the nation-state, and in the late 19th century some Marxist
theorists rejected it completely. For some Marxists the world revolution implied
a global state (or global absence of state); for others it meant that each
nation-state had its own revolution. A significant event in this context was
the failure of the social-democratic and socialistmovements in
Europe to mobilize a cross-border workers' opposition to World War I. At present
most, but certainly not all, left-wing groups
accept the nation-state, and see it as the political arenafor their
activities.[citation
needed]
A snack bar sign advertising "American" fries
at Knott's
Berry Farm. The sign formerly read "French".
In the Western world, the most
comprehensive current ideological alternative to nationalism is cosmopolitanism. Ethical
cosmopolitanism rejects one of the basic ethical principles of nationalism:
that humans owe more duties to a fellow member of the nation, than to a
non-member. It rejects such important nationalist values as national identity
and national loyalty. However, there is also a political cosmopolitanism, which
has a geopolitical program to match that of nationalism: it seeks some form
of world state, with a world government. Very few
people openly and explicitly support the establishment of a global state, but
political cosmopolitanism has influenced the development of international
criminal law, and the erosion of the status of national sovereignty. In turn,
nationalists are deeply suspicious of cosmopolitan attitudes, which they equate
with eradication of diverse national cultures.[citation
needed]
While internationalism in the cosmopolitan context by
definition implies cooperation among nations and states, and therefore the
existence of nations,proletarian internationalism is different, in that it
calls for the international working class to
follow its brethren in other countries irrespective of the activities or
pressures of the national government of a particular sector of that class.
Meanwhile, anarchists reject nation-states on the
basis of self-determination of
the majority social class, and thus reject nationalism. Instead of nations,
anarchists usually advocate the creation of cooperative societies based
on free
association and mutual
aid without regard to ethnicity or race
