national identity
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>There has been a wide discourse
regarding "nationalism", and several concepts are likewise being
brought to the fore, such as the concepts of nation, nation-state and national
identity.
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>According to Hans Khon (1944),
nationalism is characterized principally by a feeling of a community among a
people, based on common descent, language and religion.
nationalism emerged as a distinctive movement, states usually were based on
religions or dynastic ties. Concerned
with clan, tribe, village, or province, people rarely extended their interests
nationwide. Most modern nations have
developed gradually on the basis of common ties of descent, religion and
language.
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>He sees nations as modern, dating
back to the mid-eighteenth century. His major argument is that nations are
first and foremost the result of history and as such modern nations have their
roots in the distant past. He states
that "Nationalism is first and foremost a state of mind, an act of
consciousness, which since the French Revolution has been more and more common
to mankind". Nations are constantly changing, making them exceptionally
complex and difficult to define. He further states that groups become
nationalized by the rise of print capitalism, public education systems, growth
of population, increased influence of the masses, and new information and
propaganda techniques.
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:red'>Kohn, Hans. The Idea
of Nationalism: A Study of Its Origins and Background. First ed. New York:
The Macmillan Company, 1944.
about nationalism, David Miller for his part, refers to the ‘the principle of
nationality’, a principle which he believes can offer a rational guidance when,
as individuals or as citizens, we have to respond practically to some national
question. Miller groups the questions of this kind into four main categories:
(i) questions about boundaries, (ii) questions about national sovereignty,
(iii) questions about nationality’s relation to states’ internal policies, and
(iv) questions about the ethical weight that should be assigned to nationality.
Note here that Miller is using the term "nationality" to denote the
principle for which he will offer a "discriminating defence".
nationality encompasses what he refers to as "three interconnected
propositions," videlicet: (i) a person’s identity may properly include
belonging to a nation (this proposition subdivides into two: (a) that nations
"really exist" and (b) that making our nationality an essential part
of our identity is not "rationally indefensible"); (ii) nations are
ethical communities; and (iii) national communities "have a good claim to
political self-determination" (10-11, italics added).
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:red'>Miller, David. On
Nationality. Oxford, UK, Clarendon Press, 1995.
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>
vs Nationalism
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>There are four core debates which
permeate the study of nations and nationalism. First among these is the
question of how to define the terms "nation" and
"nationalism." Second, scholars argue about when nations first
appeared. Academics have suggested a variety of time frames, including (but not
limited to!) the following:
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>Nationalists argue that nations
are timeless phenomena. When man climbed out of the primordial slime, he
immediately set about creating nations.
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>The next major school of thought
is that of the perennialists who argue that nations have been around for a very
long time, though they take different shapes at different points in history.
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>While postmodernists and Marxists
also play in the larger debates surrounding this topic, the modernization
school is perhaps the most prevalent scholarly argument at the moment. These
scholars see nations as entirely modern and constructed.
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>It should not be surprising that
the third major debate centers on how nations and nationalism developed. If
nations are naturally occurring, then there is little reason to explain the
birth of nations. On the other hand, if one sees nations as constructed, then
it is important to be able to explain why and how nations developed. Finally,
many of the original "classic" texts on nationalism have focused on
European nationalism at the expense of non-western experiences. This has
sparked a debate about whether nationalism developed on its own in places like
China, or whether it merely spread to non-western countries from Europe.
on nationalism
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>There is a long-standing debate
between what is being referred to as ‘ethno-symbolists’ and ‘modernists’.
John Breuilly, and Michael Mann, explain the rise of nationalism by a unique
configuration of modern social, political and economic forces. Despite many
important differences, what binds modernists together is their conviction that,
contrary to nationalists’ assertions, modern claims to nationhood are not the
product of long forgotten ways of life rooted in the consciousness of an ethnic
community. Instead, modernists hold fast to the belief that nationalist
scholars, intellectuals, politicians, among others, invent nations in an effort
to redress serious economic, political, cultural and social disparities that
result from major transformations in modern social conditions.
Walker Connor believes that an essential ethnic core lies at the heart of most
nationalist movements. In his chapter he explores the power of ‘homeland
psychology’ and links it to the emergence of several ethno-national movements.
Homeland psychology is defined here as a strong emotional attachment to one’s
home and is intimately connected to devotion to family and friends. Connor does
not shy away from examining the darker side of homeland psychology by pointing
to the many instances (world wars, wars of liberation, racism and xenophobia)
in which homeland psychology has led to acts of social exclusion and in extreme
cases to ethnic violence. John Hutchinson theory also falls squarely within the
ethno-symbolist framework. He too maintains that nations need an ethnic base to
survive and explores the various ways in which nationalists mobilize ethnic
loyalties in new and innovative ways. Hutchinson, however, is much more
positive in his assessment of ethno-national mobilization, describing the
various benefits that result from such struggles.
Historian John Breuilly defends the modernist position in his chapter on the
relationship between the state and nationalism. For Breuilly nationalism has
very little to do with ethnic mobilization and everything to do with political
mobilization. The rise of the modern state system provides the institutional
context within which an ideology of nationalism is necessary. Breuilly argues
that the process of state modernization provides an important key to
understanding a variety of historical manifestations of nationalism. In a word,
nationalism is a form of politics. Michael Mann also utilizes a state-centered
approach and therefore falls within the modernist camp as well. Mann’s goal,
however, is slightly different from Breuilly’s. Mann does not concentrate on
nationalism per se but instead investigates what he calls ‘murderous ethnic
cleansing’. For Mann the struggle over political sovereignty is the major
motivating factor pushing those who have control over the state to use violence
against certain ethnic groups. Mann provides an excellent typology with which
to study incidents of nationalist violence, to which he adds a five-stage model
for understanding the history of ethnic cleansing.
Peter Taylor (1989) epitomizes the world as seen by nationalists, at three
levels (approximately the global, national and individual). The world is, for
them, a mosaic of nations which find harmony when all are free nation states.
Nations themselves are natural units with a cultural homogeneity based on
common ancestry or history, each requiring its own sovereign state on its own
inalienable territory. Individuals all belong to a nation, which requires their
first loyalty, and in which they find freedom. This standard nationalist
thought says more about nationalism than the immediate goals of any one
nationalist group.
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>Another opposition recurrent in
theory on nations is that between the national and the global (Arnason 1990).
The nation state and national culture, it is often said, are being eroded by,
for instance, global communication, that is, the Internet will dissolve
nations. Much the same thing was said about satellite television, air travel,
radio, the telegraph, and railways. Nation states are still here. Yet few
people are skeptical about "globalization" (Cox 1992; Smith 1990),
and in a sense there is no reason to be. There is no erosion of the national by
the global, but only because there is nothing to erode. Nationalism is 100%
global: a world order cannot logically be further globalized.
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>Although nationalism is often
viewed as a kind of natural or primordial form of human self-identification,
most experts on the subject have maintained that nations and nationalism are a
fairly recent phenomenon, despite their call to history and origins.
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>Many experts, believe however,
that nationalism has emerged out of the shift from agrarian to industrialized
society. In agrarian society, there was a complex division of labor, with power
located at the top, and an emphasis on informality and intimacy. With
modernity, however, agrarian workers moved to urban centers and a universalized
and impersonal culture replaced that of agrarian culture. Nationalism,
according to these experts, occurs when the modernized peoples find their roots
in the folk culture of the past, and draw upon the romantic stories of such a
past to form the nation. Certainly, 19th century nationalism seems
to reflect this model.
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>Some thinkers have suggested that
the rise of nationalism is sometimes due to some form of political, social or
economic crisis (whether real or imagined) and generally provides the impetus
for people to respond to nationalistic sentiments. Meanwhile, other analysts
surmise that capitalism, the engine of globalization, made democracy more
ubiquitous, and the outgrowth of increased democratization has been an increase
in the number of micronational movements and episodes of balkanization today.
Yet other theorists state that nationalism must be understood as a long term
historical process, which may be tied to capitalism, industrialization and
modernization.
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>Conversely, however, dissenting
voices argue that nationalism is not simply a by-product of industrialization
and capitalism, but the very essence of modernity; it is about creating social
cohesion, which then engenders industrialization, societal improvements and
economic progress. In this model, nationalism should be championed as an agent
of emancipation and development for the less advanced and oppressed peoples of
the world. This understanding of nationalism is quite distinct from the view
that nationalism is the root of the violent episodes of balkanization and
genocide, since it advances a modality of nationalism that is not defined by
cultural, ethnic, linguistic or religious identities. Instead, in this civic
model, nationalism – as a central feature of contemporary politics – acts as
the mechanism that mobilizes the masses, and allows them to effectively deal
with the ongoing transition into modernity.
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>Based on Khon's account, the
tendency toward nationalism was historically fostered by various technological,
cultural, political and economic advances.
Improvement in communications extended the knowledge of people beyond
their village or province. The spread of
educaiton in vernacular tongues to the lower income groups gave them the
feeling of participation in a common cultural heritage.
common background and tradition and began to identify themselves with the
historical continuity of the nation. The
introduction of national Constitutions and the struggle for political rights
gave people the sense of helping to determine their fate as a nation and of
sharing responsibilities for the future well-being of that nation.
industry laid the basis for economic units larger than the traditional cities
or provinces.
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>
of Anthony Smith
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>For Smith there is a high degree
of continuity between certain historical ethnies and modern nations.
assumption that nations are entirely modern. While Smith does not argue that
nations are modern formations, he claims that modern nations are based on a
longer development than many scholars are willing to admit. Smith argues that
modern nations are based on much older cultural groups which he calls ethnie.
According to Smith, ethnie define the boundaries within which modern nations
can be formed. Ethnie are constructed of "more permanent cultural
attributes" such as memory, value, myth and symbolism. The first half of
the book focuses on the development of ethnie while the second half focuses on
the development of nations from their pre-modern roots. Smith addresses memory
to a greater degree than do most other scholars. He also provides an
interesting discussion of the importance of landscape.
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>“The wave of industrialization
also generated social conflicts in the swollen cities". Conflicts between
the waves of newcomers and the urban old timers, between the urban employed in
the city centers and the underemployed proletariat in their shantytowns on the
edge of the cities”.
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>Perennialism
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>This concentrates heavily on the
History of Nations, which are seen as stretching back for centuries. Nations
could therefore be described as ancient and immemorial. The Perrenialist
perspective “regarded national sentiments and consciousness as fundamental
elements of historical phenomena”. Historians specialising in this theory would
recall such events as the activities of past leaders in antiquity and the
medieval era, the decline and rebirth of their nation, and the glorious future,
when highlighting the importance of history within the framework of
nationalism. It saw the Nation as a popular community that reflected the needs
and the ideals of the people, and saw the nation as a seamless whole with “a
single will and character”. Ancestral
ties and culture were of huge importance to the advocates of this theory.
Modernism
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>The main challenge to
Perrenialism came in the form of Modernism, that tended to concentrate upon the
political aspects of Nations and Nationalism. The theorists of Modernism
included Deutsch, Foltz, Lerner, Bendix and Berner, among others. These
scholars often differed over the finer points of the theory, such as social
communication and political religion, but agreed on the fundamental idea that
the Nation was a Mass Participant Political Culture.
They felt that “Nations and Nationalism’s were social constructs and cultural
creations of modernity, designed for an age of Revolution and mass
mobilisation, and central to the attempts to control these processes of social
change”.
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>
Mass education, employment and citizenship are all seen as key factors within a
nation, as they are modern conditions available to all, no longer only
available to the elite. Such modern factors would increase political
participation, and in turn help define the Nation and Nationalism. “Only in a
modern society was a high level of political participation by the masses
possible”.
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>
The Nation is viewed by Modernists as a creation of the Elite. Some theorist
believed that this was an attempt to control and influence the thoughts and
actions of the masses, in order to achieve their own ends. Unlike Perennialism,
the Nation is also seen as divided. Different social groups representing
religion, gender and class have different needs, and therefore split off into
separate groupings.
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:red'>Smith, Anthony D. The
Ethnic Origins of Nations. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998 (1986).
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:red'>
of Ernest Gellner
Gellner's classic modernization argument explaining the origin of nations. He
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". Nations were the result of
pressures created by the demands of the industrial revolution.
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.
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.
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>Gellner defines nation as a
sharing of the same culture and artifacts of men's convictions and
loyalties. In the question, "Why
does nationalism arise? Gellner has two
macro-theories 1) a theory of history/modernity 2) a theory of the structure of
society.
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>
on consent (consent is determined by the limited choice no other
possibilities exist. What Gellner means
when he qualifies nationalism as a weak force is that, not all potential
nations/cultures become nation states.
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>He sees nationalism as an
ideology and as a feeling felt by individuals. According to him, states and
intellectuals mobilize campaigns of assimilation through public education and
the culture industries. Nationalism occured in the modern period because
industrial societies, unlike agrarian ones, needed homogenous languages and
cultures in order to work efficiently. Gellner's theory is quite controversial
and it has been accused of being too one-sided. Some scientists say he should
take into account political culture, identity and collective action as well and
emphasize less the materialistic side of nationalism
The culture of Industrialisation was a
theory discovered by Ernest Gellner in the 7th chapter of “Thought
and Change”. The idea is that as industrialisation spread over the globe, it
had a huge effect upon the spread of Nationalism. As people left their towns
and villages to move into the developing cities, the traditional social roles
held by communities were lost, along with many lifestyles and beliefs. Peasants
in the new cities would often group together according to their cultural
backgrounds and beliefs.
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>Class conflicts would arise
between the propertied and educated and the illiterate and destitute masses.
There was also much ethnic antagonism due to different languages and differing
physical features. The different groups would then create their own
communities, grouped together where they could live according to their own
particular lifestyles, small Nations created through the spread of Nationalism.
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>Gellner therefore argued that,
“Nations do not in fact create Nationalism, Rather Nationalist movements define
and create Nations” .
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:red'>Gellner, Ernest. Nations
and Nationalism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983.
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>The beginnings of modern
nationalism may be traced abck to the disintegration, at the end of the middle
ages of the social order in Europe and of the cultural unity of the various European
states. The cultural life of Europe was
based on a common inheritance of ideas and attitudes transmitted in the West
through Latin, the language of the educated classes.
religion, catholic Christianity. The
breakup of feudalism, the prevailing social and economic system, was
accompanied by the development of larger communities, wider social
interrelations and dynasties that fostered feelings of nationality in order to
win support for their role. National
feeling was strengthened in various countries during the Reformation, when the
adoption of either Catholicism or Protestantism as a national religious became
an added force for national cohesion.
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>The great turning point in the
history of nationalism in Europe was the French Revolution.
centered in the king. As a result of the
revolution, loyalty to the king was replaced by loyalty to the country.
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>The rise of nationalism coincided
generally with the spread of the industrial Revolution, which promoted national
economic development, the growth of a middle class, and popular demand for
representative government. National
literatures arose to express common traditions and the common spirit of each
people. New emphasis was given to
nationalist symbols of all kinds; for example, new holidays were introduced to
commemorate various events in national history.
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>The revolution of 1848 in central
Europe marked the awakening of various people to national consciousness.
originated their movements for unification for the creation of
nation-state. Although the attempts at
revolution failed in 1848, the movements gathered strength in subsequent
years. After much political agitation
and several wars, an Italian kingdom was created in 1861 and a German empire in
1871. The events in Europe between1878 and 1918 were shaped largely by the
nationalist aspirations of these people and their desire to form nation-states
independent of the empire of which they had been participants.
Arial;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>
No comments:
Post a Comment