What Price, Nationalism??
Nationalism Defined:
As we all sit engrossed by recent events that have transpired since 9/11, as well as those in Iraq, trying to understand how we arrived at this point, I thought I might put a few of my thoughts done in a more cohesive manner than individual postings generally permit.
I submit to the audience that nationalism, or more importantly, the "flavor" of nationalism and the face it takes, as well the the lack of adequate mechanisms and guidelines for international political institutions to deal with it, are the primary factor.
Many may have heard my views on what constitutes a nation, which is primarily a cultural, linguistic, and/or ethnic entity. And I've witnessed many people confuse a political state, with a nation state. So what is the difference between a nation and a state? One author defines it this way:
1. “"Two men are of the same nation if and only if they share the same culture, where culture in turn means a system of ideas and signs and associations and ways of behaving and communicating.
2. "Two men are of the same nation if and only if they recognize each other as belonging to the same nation. In other words, nations maketh man; nations are the artefacts of men's convictions and loyalties and solidarities. A mere category of persons (say, occupants of a given territory, or speakers of a given language, for example) becomes a nation if and when the members of the category firmly recognize certain mutual rights and duties to each other in virtue of their shared membership of it. It is their recognition of each other as fellows of this kind which turns them into a nation, and not the other shared attributes, whatever they might be, which separate that category from non- members. “
nationalismproject.org
Gellner’s opinions in his book “Nations and Nationalism”, can be summarized as follows:
Summary: This is Gellner's classic modernization argument explaining the origin of nations. The author argues that nations are completely modern constructions borne of nationalism which is "primarily a political principle, which holds that the political and national unit should be congruent" (1). Nations were the result of pressures created by the demands of the industrial revolution. As soon as people from widely different backgrounds began to converge on cities, it was necessary to create some form of common identity for them. Perhaps more importantly, the demands of capitalism, specifically the need for constant retraining, demanded that there be a common language among workers. These demands were met by creating a common past, common culture (created by turning "low" folk cultures into "high" state cultures) and requiring a common language. With these common experiences as a motive, workers were more willing to work hard, not only for their own good, but for the good of their country. Further, it became possible to quickly retrain and move workers around the nation - after all, whether in Paris or Nice, Berlin or Dresden, London or Liverpool, a common culture, language and history united the newly mobile workforce. Finally, it is worth noting that Gellner saw this book as a reaction to Elie Kedourie's theory which Gellner believed lacked any real comprehension of the reality of nationalism as a result of its overly intellectual focus. [E. Zuelow]
nationalismproject.org
Gellner’s definition is more inclusive of the complex socio-economic ties which motivate people to unite and identify themselves as a nation, in the global arena, we primarily see nations defined as groups sharing linguistic, cultural, ideological, and ethnic (genetic) identities banding together for political, economic, and cultural representation. For example, ponder what defines us as Americans. Is it strictly the fact that we live within the confines of the geographical border of the political entity known as the United States? I would say no. The US can be defined as a nation because the American people adher to a common primary language and ideological belief system, despite our cultural diversity and lack of ethnic commonality. What binds us together is our political system, our constitution, and most importantly, our common belief in the equality of mankind, inalienable human rights. In other words, our ideas and values define us as a nation. Anyone sharing those ideas is welcome to join our nation and participate, no matter what their ethnic heritage. And any flaws that result, I blame upon friction between sub-nationalities (white on black, Anglo vs (insert ethnicity/culture here). But, of course, within this nation, we have other national entities represented who often attempt to “have it both ways”, maintaining their ethnic and cultural links, or cultural values, while claiming to pledge allegiance to the values represented by the American nation. However, other groups of individuals define themselves more along the lines of ethnic and cultural values. A shared common history in a specific geographical region, and/or linguistic and religious values. And within EVERY existing political state, we have a multitude of groups who can claim a measure of individual identity which, if the definition is broadened, qualifies to be defined as a nation.
And I submit that this lack of any international standard as to what defines a nation, or more importantly, what definition justifies a nation being accorded political recognition as a state, which bedevils the international order. With the fall of the Soviet Union and the ending of the bi-polar international order, to which the rest of the world’s states once subordinated their individual political aspirations, we see the world filling that political void by returning to a multi-polar system, and within that system, a return to rising nationalism by individual groups living within these states.
Next: NATIONALISM AT ANY COST? (unless my train of thought changes.. :0) |
