The bane of Nationalism

[GePap]

Re: Re: The bane of Nationalism

Originally posted by Sikander


Are you disgusted by the effect of nationalism or by what you see as its emotional rather than logical underpinnings? Nationalism has proven much stronger glue than ideological associations, to the extent that even putatively ideological associations like the United States or the Soviet Union relied on simple nationalism for their cohesion moreso than their ideology.

I think the reason nationalism is the stronger forces is simple. It functions rather like family. You may not agree with or even like every member of your family, but you naturally enough tend to stand or side with them when things are tough. Ideologies don't tend to be able to garner this sort of loyalty without becoming fantical and tending to destoy themselves. Plus there are so many ideologies that tend to cohabitate in a modern open society that it makes trying to form functional political units based on them difficult without resorting to repression.

Except that its a 'false' family. Tribalism is ancient and ingrained into humanity, and Nationalism appears at the surface to play like a version writ large of that. But its not. Its is as much a modern political invention as any other political ideology. I really don;t think that the US plays o nationalism. It plays on patriotism. There is a distinction between the two notions. Its similar to say the Romans, who certainly had a very strong sense of their own identity and were rather proud about it. At the same time, anyone could become a Roman Citizen, fight for Rome, be part of Rome. THat is patriotism, loyalty to the state, whatever the underlying identity. Nationalism is loyalty to the defined "Nation", for or against the benefit of the state.

I think the Arab world is a fine example of Nationalism, its limits, and its uses. Given the basic idea that what defines a nation is a common ethno-cultural identity, most commonly seen by a common language, it seems logical to think of all Arabs as one nation. Yet Pan-Arabism failed, and each of the states in the Arab lands have sought to have their own nationalistic identities. To some extent they have failed, but in some parts they succeeded, which is both a failure and a success of nationalism. A failure in that how do you explain why say sunni arabs in Syria and Iraq were not the same "nation", and a success because over time the Syrian and Iraqi regimes were able to convince their people's they were different, though what the basis of this difference is is unclear.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
What is the alternative case? Local sovereignty, a la Britanny or Hesse? Or large scale sovereignties that ignored the national principle, a la the Hapsburg monarchy, or the larger ancien regime monarchies.

The latter were inevitably brought into question by the rise of liberal democracy. Once you establish that the people should rule, it matters very much how you group the people. Democracy to work requires shifting coalitions and rotation in power - otherwise its simply dictatorship of the majority. When the issues in a polity run on lines of nationality and culture, there will be permanent majorities and minorities, and the minority has no stake in majority rule. Where that minority is large and strong enough, it will not be possible to enforce its staying inside an empire dominated by another group, at least not by liberal democratic means. Even in empires with multiple groups, the importance of identity, but especially of language, which more than most aspects of culture can NOT be excluded from the public sphere, made democratic politics problematic. A detailed study of the 19th century Hapsburg monarchy is very helpful in this regard. It is no coincidence that the "universalist" forces in the 19th century were almost always on the anti-liberal, anti democratic side.

And yet, the breakup of these states brought about massive disruptions and death and war. As for your notion of what it takes democracy to work, Japan has been a dmeocracy for 50 years with one party. What democracy needs to work is respect for the outcome, and an acceptance that only through the democratic process should things be resolved. And democracy can be inherently anti-liberal, since Liberalism is about respecting individual values, while democracy is also about collective wills, which can be at odds. The uS is a great counterpoint. For most of our history, the US was a collection of states with lots of local soverignty. And many of those states used that soverignty to limit democracy and liberalism. It was as the central government gained more strenght that liberalism and greater dmeocracy, to the benefit of citizens, was pushed unto many states.

Could smaller states have survived, without integrating into nationalist wholes? Well, yes, depending on the strategic circumstances. Luxembourg made it, Canada avoided becoming part of the US, etc. While part of this was how strong local loyalties actually were, more of it had to do with the strategic situation. At some point after the Napoleonic wars, people in German and Italian states realized that their independence was illusory, and made them a battlefield for larger states. (of course Brittany, for example, was long gone BEFORE nationalism appeared)

German and Italian unification became real because of the specific work of certain powers that used it to their advantage. After all, the Kleine Deutschland that Prussia built was just really a greater Prussian Empire. A state like Bavarian could certainly have survived just fine in the interplay of great powers. JUst look at Belgium. And then of course, the Balkans people did not mind having their own tiny little states, as long as they could claim them as theirs.

Now in the late 20th cent this played out differently, at least in Europe. For the smaller states national sov proved as illusory as that of the small German and Italian states had been. For GErmany and Italy it had proven real, but disastrous. So going with a transnational EU makes a certain amount of sense. Will the EU face the kinds of language battles the Hapsburgs faces? Will the lack of a common language for transEuropean political campaigns limit democracy? Will the lack of emotional loyalty limit the effectiveness of the state, or the level of citizen involvement? At this time we dont know, since the EU is simply not yet quite that "state like". Given high levels of education and accompanying multilingualism, and the likelihood that the march of technology will soon give us good automated translators, the language issue may well be much less important.

IN many cases, much as in the US example, the greater centralizing EU idelogy allies with individual citizens to protect their individual rights from collective whims.

But IMHO it is a mistake to read the history of the 20th century and ignore the degree to which nationalism has been a progressive force in history. There were pan European wars before nationalism - they were less destructive than WW1 largely due to technological differences. Its likely that in the absence of nationalism there would still have been a pan-european war at some point, and it would have been very destructive. Its useful to note that perhaps the most hawkish state in Europe in July 1914, the one with the least interest in a compromise solution, was the one state that was self-consciously anti-nationalist, Austria-Hungary.

I think you are incorrect to state that AH was the "most hawkish". Germany was equally as Hawkish, in fact, no state in 1914 seemed particularly interested in not going to war. As for AH, it felt it needed the war to smash the nationalistic forces that were tearing it apart, and it should be interesting to note that through the war the empire was able to build sufficient internal support for what was a trully sapping experience.

As for WW2, I would say that fascism was no more natural an evolution of nationalism than Bolshevism was of socialism - socialism being another example of an attempt to address a "permament minority" that had limited stake in 19th c liberal democracy. For a discussion of "patriotic" opposition to fascism, id suggest John Lukacs.

"patriotic" is not the same as Nationalistic. That is why there is a different word. Patriotism is loyalty to the "fatherland" (same root word for Patria and Padre). That loyalty does not really identify the legitimacy of said "fatherland."

And Bolshevism is not a development of socialism, it is a development of Communism, which is a more narrow idea, and Bolshevism itself is more narrow than communism, and so forth. BUt then, to state something like "normal evolution" is wrong, since it almost implies some predetermined ladder, but as we all know, evolution is random, based on events, never set.

The problem with Nationalism is simple, it places soverignty squarely within the hands of a particular single group, The Nation. Only things decided by the common "national will" are valid. Decisions that undermine the "nation" are inherently bad, as they undermine the source of legitimacy. Except that the "nation" is an invention, that can be defined, depending on the group in power, as broadly, or narroly as possible. And since legitimacy lies in some collective, there is plenty of excuses to crush the rights of individuals, in ways small or radical (like extermination) is said individuals pose a problem for the "nation" as has been defined.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by GePap
The problem with Nationalism is simple, it places soverignty squarely within the hands of a particular single group, The Nation. Only things decided by the common "national will" are valid. Decisions that undermine the "nation" are inherently bad, as they undermine the source of legitimacy. Except that the "nation" is an invention, that can be defined, depending on the group in power, as broadly, or narroly as possible. And since legitimacy lies in some collective, there is plenty of excuses to crush the rights of individuals, in ways small or radical (like extermination) is said individuals pose a problem for the "nation" as has been defined.

But that's not a nation-specific problem. It goes for other ideologies or religions as well - there's always the possibility you can exclude someone as heretic, infidel, terrorist, counter-revolutionary, non-cititzen etc. for political purpose.

And historically forms of rule not (primarily) legitimized by some collective will crushed individual rights (if they had much to begin with) even more.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

"Not really. Nationalism states that soverignty comes form the collective decisions of the 'nation',"

Id say thats one particular definition of nationalism. A more Herderian (?) type of nationalism, one that would not have been accepted by many 19thc liberals who we tend to think of as nationalists. A more liberal approach is to start with the enlightenment ideal of a democracy giving equal rights to all citizens, but pragmatically recognizing that groups exist as social entities, and that this makes it necessary to draw boundaried based on nationality. To recognize national loyalties, the role of language and group in politcs. The same way one can (and should) recognize the role of class in politics, even if one is not a Marxist.


As for what is American food - when I go to visit my inlaws in Brooklyn, I have little difficulty determing that some are more "Americanized" than others, and yes it does involve adoption of foodways, among other things. Although use of English is the key, Id say.

[GePap]

Originally posted by BeBro
But that's not a nation-specific problem. It goes for other ideologies or religions as well - there's always the possibility you can exclude someone as heretic, infidel, terrorist, counter-revolutionary, non-cititzen etc. for political purpose.

What is the point of saying that Nationalism shares many of the problems of other aliberal ideas like religious intolerance? That does not excuse the problems of nationalism.

And historically forms of rule not (primarily) legitimized by some collective will crushed individual rights (if they had much to begin with) even more.

The question is, what legitimacy lies with the individual. Certainly any notion that posits legitimacy in some transcendent thing can be used and abused to deny individuals any legitimacy, since how can they compare to some transcendant value? But to a degree the "nation" is also a "transcendant" thing. Its is "the Nation", somehow seperate and above those who make it up.

Nationalism is NOT necessary at all in order to create an idelogy which states that the collective will should be the basis for decision making.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Id say thats one particular definition of nationalism. A more Herderian (?) type of nationalism, one that would not have been accepted by many 19thc liberals who we tend to think of as nationalists. A more liberal approach is to start with the enlightenment ideal of a democracy giving equal rights to all citizens, but pragmatically recognizing that groups exist as social entities, and that this makes it necessary to draw boundaried based on nationality. To recognize national loyalties, the role of language and group in politcs. The same way one can (and should) recognize the role of class in politics, even if one is not a Marxist.

These local loyalties are far more limited in scope and size than the nationalists would have believe. Why should 'German' identity trump Bavarian identity? Why should 'French' identity trump Burgundian identity? 'Italian' identity Piedmontese identity? Yes, people live in communities that define themselves in social and cultural ways, but the bounderies drawn by Nationalists are as fake as any drawn by multiethnic empires. Clearly in Europe it took lost of suffering and mass population displacements to make those bounderies "make sense.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by GePap

What is the point of saying that Nationalism shares many of the problems of other aliberal ideas like religious intolerance? That does not excuse the problems of nationalism.

Sure it's not an excuse, but if you find similar problems elsewhere it's the question if these are primarily "problems of nationalism".

The question is, what legitimacy lies with the individual. Certainly any notion that posits legitimacy in some transcendent thing can be used and abused to deny individuals any legitimacy, since how can they compare to some transcendant value? But to a degree the "nation" is also a "transcendant" thing. Its is "the Nation", somehow seperate and above those who make it up.

Nationalism is NOT necessary at all in order to create an idelogy which states that the collective will should be the basis for decision making.

A form of "collective will" is the basis of decision making in any modern democracy. It brings a much broader legitimacy than decision making just by "single will". And nationalist ideas had certainly pogressive impact here in enabling some kind of "collective will" to count at all when they were successful first during the fight against monarchies.

Ok, maybe it's not necessary to have this only on the basis of a "nation" (as transnational orgs like the EU may show if they are successful in the long run), but that does not make the "national" approach automatically "wrong" or "fake".

Because - re your recent post - sure "German" is not inherently superior to "Bavarian" (although that would make some nice jokes here in Germany ). But when people in Bavaria start to id themselves with Germany as well I don't see how this could be illegimate.

You have a point when saying that people sometimes hadn't much say during the formation of a nation state, for example the ordinary Bavarian during the unification 1871. It's also right that some parts of Germany were rather sceptic due to various reasons, but then there was no large-scale resistance either, and in many (even non-Prussian) parts people were all for a united Germany since Napoleon's times.

[Sandman]

Not really. Nationalism states that soverignty comes form the collective decisions of the 'nation', while the enlightenment notions that frame US iodeals state that it comes from the consent of the Citizens. That is a very different source of legitimacy for the entire system. You can use nationalism to justify any form of government, certainly, from Liberal democracy to dictatorship. That can;t be said of the universalist values of the US.

You may consider enlightenment notions to embody US ideals, but many (most?) Americans subscribe to some form of American exceptionalism, believing themselves to be somehow better than other nations. You state later on that patriotism is loyalty to the state, but many 'patriotic' Americans have an ferocious antipathy to anything government-related, preferring to rely on folksy 'homespun' wisdom, rather than universal ideals.

And what exactly is "American culture"? Its a hodgepot that is elastic enough to admit anything. American music? HUge African influences with some European stuff thrown in . American food? Anything from indigenous ideas (barbecue) to then German (Hamburgers, Franks), Italian (PIzza) and Mexican (Tacos). As for film and TV, I would say that American TV dominates the globe not only because it has a leg up in the mone available for production and other financial advanatges, but simply because American films are generally based on a more universal lowest common denominator.

The food thing is hardly uniquely American, the UK has tea (China), curry (India) and fish and chips (Spanish Jews). And what about sports? America is quite distinctive in that regard.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sandman


You may consider enlightenment notions to embody US ideals, but many (most?) Americans subscribe to some form of American exceptionalism, believing themselves to be somehow better than other nations. You state later on that patriotism is loyalty to the state, but many 'patriotic' Americans have an ferocious antipathy to anything government-related, preferring to rely on folksy 'homespun' wisdom, rather than universal ideals.

None of those point have anything to do with American somehow believing or acitng upon the ideas of nationalism.

The food thing is hardly uniquely American, the UK has tea (China), curry (India) and fish and chips (Spanish Jews). And what about sports? America is quite distinctive in that regard.

The UK is no a particulalrly good example of nationalism in itself. After all, look at the name, UNITED KINGDOM, with the unifying factor being loyalty to one crown, not belief that all the people's of Britain are one nation. Heck, the welsh, scotts, and english all have separate world cup teams.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by GePap
The problem with Nationalism is simple, it places soverignty squarely within the hands of a particular single group, The Nation. Only things decided by the common "national will" are valid. Decisions that undermine the "nation" are inherently bad, as they undermine the source of legitimacy. Except that the "nation" is an invention, that can be defined, depending on the group in power, as broadly, or narroly as possible. And since legitimacy lies in some collective, there is plenty of excuses to crush the rights of individuals, in ways small or radical (like extermination) is said individuals pose a problem for the "nation" as has been defined.

I challenge you to find a single socially binding ideology that is not an 'invention'.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by GePap
There is no real basis ... for a Swabian and a Saxon living under the same rule as a Prussian, a Hessian, a Bavarian, but not an Austrian, .

The German nationalists wanted a Grossdeutschland complete with Austria. It was excluded from the 2nd Reich for purely political reasons (foremost of which was because Bismarck didn't want to add so many more Catholics). The German nationalists, both in Germany and in Austria, never stopped believing that Austria was German.

I think that saying that all nations are complete constructs is overbroad. The national groupings aren't totally random. They're based on salient features such as shared language, culture & customs, and geographical proximity. A 19th century Saxon would have far more in common with a Swabian than a Spainiard, for instance. Nations are constructs, but, for the most part, they're not absurd constructs.

[lord of the mark]

"There is no real basis ... for a Swabian and a Saxon living under the same rule as a Prussian, a Hessian, a Bavarian, but not an Austrian, . "

The basis was that Swabians, Saxons, Hessians and Bavarians, not only were German speakers, BUT they also saw their own states as too weak to protect them from non-German states like France and Russia, and the key political classes in those states felt greater loyalty to Germany per se than to their local dynasty. Some German Austrians - the radicals, usually antisemites, felt the same way. The liberal German Austrians, saw things differently. Austria was a great power, Vienna was a mighty center of adminstration and trade. They didnt want to give up their own great power to live under the Prussians. Though they often resented the Catholic conservatism of the Hapsburgs, the fact that it ensured the loyalty of conservative Catholic peasants (including German speakers in the Tyrol) was a positive. Now of course Germans who DIDNT live in Vienna, or share the economic interests of the capitalists, or feel a benefit (as German Jews) from living in the cosmopolitan empire, often opposed Austro-liberalism fro German nationalism. Esp those who lived as minorities in Bohemia, Moravia or Slovenia, for whom entering the German empire would solve their local language conflict favorably. And of course SOME south Germans, and even some Hanoverians, opposed German unification.

So the differences are HISTORICAL. They were the product of different individuals, weighing the costs and benefits of different options for identity, and for the political expression of identity. Into to which linguistic concerns were important interests, but so were economic interests, religious interests, etc.

But then, in my view thats what MAKES nations - history, and historical circumstance. Theres no magic formula that says X is a nation based on attributes A, B, and C. Its a fuzzy concept. Just as is class, and every social grouping. And so people make decisions as to what they belong to, and how politicaly salient that political belonging is, based on real circumstances.

Thats why I find it so dissatisfying to discuss this in the abstract. What real historical situation do you want to apply it to? Should country X join the EU? Should the US be more positive about international law? Should Japan allow more immigration? One can almost certainly find a "nationalist" argument on each side, and, more surprisingly find "universalist" arguements on more than one side (for ex many EU skeptics in France are Marxists, who dislike the EU not because they dislike "internationalism" per se, but because they fear imposition of market liberalism by the EU. I would suggest that many American Christian conservatives would have a very different view of the value of sovereignty and the UN if most member states were (non secularist) Christian, and if the US itself were more secularist. Those guys are really more devoted to (universalist) Christianity than to American Nationalism)

[Ramo]

The latter were inevitably brought into question by the rise of liberal democracy. Once you establish that the people should rule, it matters very much how you group the people. Democracy to work requires shifting coalitions and rotation in power - otherwise its simply dictatorship of the majority. When the issues in a polity run on lines of nationality and culture, there will be permanent majorities and minorities, and the minority has no stake in majority rule. Where that minority is large and strong enough, it will not be possible to enforce its staying inside an empire dominated by another group, at least not by liberal democratic means. Even in empires with multiple groups, the importance of identity, but especially of language, which more than most aspects of culture can NOT be excluded from the public sphere, made democratic politics problematic. A detailed study of the 19th century Hapsburg monarchy is very helpful in this regard. It is no coincidence that the "universalist" forces in the 19th century were almost always on the anti-liberal, anti democratic side.

That's never been an entirely satsifying explanation to me. Look at the birth of liberal nationalism - France (well one of them - I guess Cromwellian England could be described as nationalist). Culture hadn't been among the fault lines of politics at the time of Revolution. The Old Regim hadn't faced Breton, Flemish, Langue d'Oc, etc. seperatism. I mean, you have Nappy come to power as a Corsican... I think an important part of the model is the interest of the bourgeoisie in benefiting from nationalistic policies.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Wycoff


The German nationalists wanted a Grossdeutschland complete with Austria. It was excluded from the 2nd Reich for purely political reasons (foremost of which was because Bismarck didn't want to add so many more Catholics). The German nationalists, both in Germany and in Austria, never stopped believing that Austria was German.

I think that saying that all nations are complete constructs is overbroad. The national groupings aren't totally random. They're based on salient features such as shared language, culture & customs, and geographical proximity. A 19th century Saxon would have far more in common with a Swabian than a Spainiard, for instance. Nations are constructs, but, for the most part, they're not absurd constructs.

Cultural similarity is usually greatly exaggerated by the nationalists themselves. In 1400AD the people in Lower Saxony were more similar in language and culture to the Dutch then they were to Barvarians

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ramo
The Old Regim hadn't faced Breton, Flemish, Langue d'Oc, etc. seperatism.

Which is false. By the time of the Revolution, 50% of the French population already spoke French. Examples of the monarchy trying to assimilate regionalism are the creation of the Academy (in the 17th century) and imposing the protectorate of Bordeaux French as its legal language.