dylans
overlord of all acorns
What is nationalism? An easy question to answer perhaps. The belief in your nation right? but of course that begs the question what exactly is a nation. Here I want to define a definition of nationalism that some may find unusual or defined in manner that hasn't been considered before.
Nationalism is first and foremost an ideology. A political idea. no controversy there. The problem arises when we move beyond that and try to outline a definition that is shared by everyone. The problem begins when we try to define a nation. So perhaps we should begin there.
Many have tried to define a list of characteristics that define a nation. Stalin attempted to answer the question thus
Many wouldn't find too much problem with this (even if the author was a murdering bastard) However I want to argue it is completely wrong.
Not that there is no "historically constituted community of people" clearly there are, (sometimes)The problem is that such a community is neither eternal or universal. A a nation is an identity that exists only in the heart and mind not in the world outside ideas.
It is an assumption and a belief and an identity. As such it can change and decay and alter depending on the historical circumstance. A nation you will die for today may be one care nothing for tomorrow I
In short I want to define nation as a community to which one feels a shared identity and a community to which you belong and to whiich others are excluded. That identity may be ethnic, geographic, linguistic or religious. It may be grounded in a specific geographic area or it may be trans national or diasporal. The important thing is that for whatever reason a person feels a commonality and shared identity with a specific community to which others do not belong.
Such national identity can take many forms.It may be democratic and progressive. For example the movement to end Colonialism was an expression of a demand for national self determination and thus a democratic ideal. Nehru's exhortation to Indians that regardless of religion, language or caste they were all Indian, was a definition of nation based on a democratic national ideal that was inclusive and all embracing.
As in the Indian definition of nation, National identity may be inclusive and democratic or it may be exclusive and persecutory. The White power lunacy of skin head racists is a nationalist ideal, in which identity is defined by skin colour. More recently, the genocidal madness of Hutu extremism is a manifestation of nationalism in which Tutsis were excluded to the point of extermination.
On the other hand national identity can be forced on a people by their shared experience of oppression. A german Jew may have felt little in common with a Jew from Poland but the Nazis killed them the same and in their shared suffering and persecution they found a commonality. A shared identity through shared suffering. They became a nation.
An African man may have thought of himself as a proud Dinka warrior and felt nothing for the Nuba over the mountain but to the British imperialists who drew the borders they were all black and all the same. When fighting for independence these former enemies suddenly find themselves fighting for the same nation. The shared experience of colonialism created a national identity.Created in fact, a nation.
Nationalism may be expansive or divisive. The Irish nationalism of the IRA for example demands a united Ireland an ideal that if successful would create a nation larger than present. On the other hand, the nationalism of Baltic states demanding independence following the fall of the Soviet Union, is separatist in nature. A nationalism that that in throwing off a perceived oppressive neighbour creates a smaller independent nation.
What all this indicates is one important point. There is no single definition of nation. No Stalinist list that can clearly and accurately define a nation.
A nation is merely an idea and a belief and a set of assumptions about belonging. it exists only in the heart and mind of those who feel they belong and as such is a morphous and indefinable little beast which changes and alters over history For this reason claims of historical rights to nationhood or attempts to justify nationalism in terms of ethnic purity etc should be treated with suspicion. Whether it is the Jewish peoples god given right to Israel or the Serbs holy right to Bosnia. National myths are merely stories to wrap dreams and political ambitions around. and all to often to justify persecution.
So where does this leave nationalism. The political belief that one belongs to a community. Like the various forms of national identity, nationalism too has a thousand faces and forms.
It is fair to say that nationalism is perhaps the most powerful and destructive political force of the 20th century and the 21st seems to show no decline in its appeal.
To belong and to exclude. My group your group. I have all in common with him and nothing in common with you. Like national identity nationalism as a political ideology can be progressive or reactionary, healthy or genocidal.
When Egyptian Muslims defend Egyptian Christians they are expressing a healthy democratic nationalism that says we are all Egyptians. When Islamist bombers attack a Coptic Church they are expressing a reactionary divisive exclusive nationalism. They are saying Egyptians are only Muslims and Copts are excluded.
When Jinnah demanded Pakistan he refused Nehru's democratic nationalism and appeals that Muslims were Indian and instead offered nationalism as seperatism. A religious nationalism that said Muslims are a nation and cannot live side by side with Hindus.
I would go further. I would say nationalism as a political ideology can be about more than national identity in a geographical sense. It can be a claim to belonging to a group other than nation. It can be a claim to identity defined in opposition to a specific other. For example I would argue that some forms of radical feminism share the same political characteristics of nationalism if not the language. All women have commonality against all men who are defined as the oppressor or the enemy. This is exactly the language of nationalism. When Andrea Dworkin says a miners wife has more in common with Thatcher than she does with her husband she is making a statement of identity exactly the same as nationalism.
In the above example I would argue the dynamics that drive radical feminist politics are the same as those that drive the Black nationalism of separatists such as Marcus Garvey in which all blacks are defined as having commonality in opposition to all whites and in which ideals and goals are defined in terms of separation.
By this standard I would argue that nationalism as a political ideology is not necessarily restricted to a geographic nation state or even a call for one. For example the Islamist call that all Muslims are a nation is nationalism not internationalism despite that fact that Muslims are in many countries. It is an expression of identity that insists religious identity is more important than national citizenship or ethnic identity.
Another example of religious nationalism is Zionism which claims all Jews are a nation regardless of ethnicity or the nation state in which they live and an identity defined against the gentle. It emphasises the impossibility of integration in a society alongside gentiles and insists on separatism as a goal.
Finally, What all these have in common is the rejection of class. Class plays no role in nationalist arguments. To a nationalist a millionaire and a beggar belong to the same community if they meet their definition of belonging.
Nationalism is first and foremost an ideology. A political idea. no controversy there. The problem arises when we move beyond that and try to outline a definition that is shared by everyone. The problem begins when we try to define a nation. So perhaps we should begin there.
Many have tried to define a list of characteristics that define a nation. Stalin attempted to answer the question thus
Many wouldn't find too much problem with this (even if the author was a murdering bastard) However I want to argue it is completely wrong.
Not that there is no "historically constituted community of people" clearly there are, (sometimes)The problem is that such a community is neither eternal or universal. A a nation is an identity that exists only in the heart and mind not in the world outside ideas.
It is an assumption and a belief and an identity. As such it can change and decay and alter depending on the historical circumstance. A nation you will die for today may be one care nothing for tomorrow I
In short I want to define nation as a community to which one feels a shared identity and a community to which you belong and to whiich others are excluded. That identity may be ethnic, geographic, linguistic or religious. It may be grounded in a specific geographic area or it may be trans national or diasporal. The important thing is that for whatever reason a person feels a commonality and shared identity with a specific community to which others do not belong.
Such national identity can take many forms.It may be democratic and progressive. For example the movement to end Colonialism was an expression of a demand for national self determination and thus a democratic ideal. Nehru's exhortation to Indians that regardless of religion, language or caste they were all Indian, was a definition of nation based on a democratic national ideal that was inclusive and all embracing.
As in the Indian definition of nation, National identity may be inclusive and democratic or it may be exclusive and persecutory. The White power lunacy of skin head racists is a nationalist ideal, in which identity is defined by skin colour. More recently, the genocidal madness of Hutu extremism is a manifestation of nationalism in which Tutsis were excluded to the point of extermination.
On the other hand national identity can be forced on a people by their shared experience of oppression. A german Jew may have felt little in common with a Jew from Poland but the Nazis killed them the same and in their shared suffering and persecution they found a commonality. A shared identity through shared suffering. They became a nation.
An African man may have thought of himself as a proud Dinka warrior and felt nothing for the Nuba over the mountain but to the British imperialists who drew the borders they were all black and all the same. When fighting for independence these former enemies suddenly find themselves fighting for the same nation. The shared experience of colonialism created a national identity.Created in fact, a nation.
Nationalism may be expansive or divisive. The Irish nationalism of the IRA for example demands a united Ireland an ideal that if successful would create a nation larger than present. On the other hand, the nationalism of Baltic states demanding independence following the fall of the Soviet Union, is separatist in nature. A nationalism that that in throwing off a perceived oppressive neighbour creates a smaller independent nation.
What all this indicates is one important point. There is no single definition of nation. No Stalinist list that can clearly and accurately define a nation.
A nation is merely an idea and a belief and a set of assumptions about belonging. it exists only in the heart and mind of those who feel they belong and as such is a morphous and indefinable little beast which changes and alters over history For this reason claims of historical rights to nationhood or attempts to justify nationalism in terms of ethnic purity etc should be treated with suspicion. Whether it is the Jewish peoples god given right to Israel or the Serbs holy right to Bosnia. National myths are merely stories to wrap dreams and political ambitions around. and all to often to justify persecution.
So where does this leave nationalism. The political belief that one belongs to a community. Like the various forms of national identity, nationalism too has a thousand faces and forms.
It is fair to say that nationalism is perhaps the most powerful and destructive political force of the 20th century and the 21st seems to show no decline in its appeal.
To belong and to exclude. My group your group. I have all in common with him and nothing in common with you. Like national identity nationalism as a political ideology can be progressive or reactionary, healthy or genocidal.
When Egyptian Muslims defend Egyptian Christians they are expressing a healthy democratic nationalism that says we are all Egyptians. When Islamist bombers attack a Coptic Church they are expressing a reactionary divisive exclusive nationalism. They are saying Egyptians are only Muslims and Copts are excluded.
When Jinnah demanded Pakistan he refused Nehru's democratic nationalism and appeals that Muslims were Indian and instead offered nationalism as seperatism. A religious nationalism that said Muslims are a nation and cannot live side by side with Hindus.
I would go further. I would say nationalism as a political ideology can be about more than national identity in a geographical sense. It can be a claim to belonging to a group other than nation. It can be a claim to identity defined in opposition to a specific other. For example I would argue that some forms of radical feminism share the same political characteristics of nationalism if not the language. All women have commonality against all men who are defined as the oppressor or the enemy. This is exactly the language of nationalism. When Andrea Dworkin says a miners wife has more in common with Thatcher than she does with her husband she is making a statement of identity exactly the same as nationalism.
In the above example I would argue the dynamics that drive radical feminist politics are the same as those that drive the Black nationalism of separatists such as Marcus Garvey in which all blacks are defined as having commonality in opposition to all whites and in which ideals and goals are defined in terms of separation.
By this standard I would argue that nationalism as a political ideology is not necessarily restricted to a geographic nation state or even a call for one. For example the Islamist call that all Muslims are a nation is nationalism not internationalism despite that fact that Muslims are in many countries. It is an expression of identity that insists religious identity is more important than national citizenship or ethnic identity.
Another example of religious nationalism is Zionism which claims all Jews are a nation regardless of ethnicity or the nation state in which they live and an identity defined against the gentle. It emphasises the impossibility of integration in a society alongside gentiles and insists on separatism as a goal.
Finally, What all these have in common is the rejection of class. Class plays no role in nationalist arguments. To a nationalist a millionaire and a beggar belong to the same community if they meet their definition of belonging.
