The bane of Nationalism

[Sandman]

That said, was the age of nationalism that followed the French Revolution crucial in the creation of modern Liberal democracy in Europe, or could modern Liberal Democracy in Europe have developed in Europe without it, driven by the forces of the Industrial and Agricultural revolutions?

If one imagines a pan-european state emerging in the C19th, the obvious conclusion is that it would be consumed from within by nationalist feuding before very long. That said, I don't think that nationalism helped liberal democracy along in any way.

Nationalists seem to value authenticity above pretty much anything else. There's pretty much always a small subset of capitalism devoted to servicing this demand for authenticity, churning out knick-knacks and romantic tosh. On the other hand, capitalism has anti-nationalist effects as well; the constant expansion of trade and the creation of powerful international bodies, for example. It also has a corrosive effect on tradition.

But one of the most capitalist states is also one of the most nationalist: the USA. Are these two linked (and what about the religiousness?). I find it strange that there's not more of a protectionist mood in America; free trade is an urban, intellectual ideology, it would be sooooo easy to damn its adherents as Unamerican, pro-China, non-salt-of-the-earth yuppies. There was a protectionist mood brewing during the early nineties against Japan - so where's the protectionist mood now?

The EU functions at least to the extent that it keeps europeans from making war on each other, but it certainly does not function adequately as a regional government.

Where do you get this idea? European societies are more than 'adequate' from a global POV.

[Blaupanzer]

I am not sure that liberal democracy could have emerged without nationalism, although I have not thought about this in depth prior to your question. Something was needed to coalesce various factions of political power outside of the failed Feudalistic lords and lieges used previously by kings to coalesce power against the Church. Using the concept of the nation-state was one method. However, the increasingly educated population wanted a say in how they were ruled. Given the existance of many rivals, kings traded some power in political decision-making for power in fund-raising. Thus, in reaction to the power of the King, various methods were tried to represent the commoners. If there had not been many states/nations in this process, the transition could have been a lot bloodier and more destructive to the capitalist basis of these territories (e.g. the 30 Years War vice the Napoleonic Wars). Admittedly, the rivalry between the emerging states got pretty bloody all on its own.

Can the nation-state and nationalism survive the advent of nuclear warfare? Perhaps not. But solutions attempting to unite the world based on force alone have failed repeatedly long before militaries had the power to obliterate one another.

On what other basis could liberal democracy have emerged? Would a more universalist feudal power have permitted this sort of "defiance" of "the word of God" or the "will of God's chosen emporer." Seems doubtful, not without further bloody incidents on a scale larger than what actually happened.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I have another question. Were you trying to say...

Then of course the Welsh and the Britons are supposedly part of the same "nation" as the French (Parisians) and Spanish (Castillians) respectively.

or...

Then of course the Welsh and the Bretons are supposedly part of the same "nation" as the French (Parisians) and Spanish (Castillians) respectively.

It doesn't make sense either way, but I'm curious as to what the word you mispelled was actually supposed to be.

Yes, Bretons, and I did not change the welsh to Catalans.

[GePap]

Originally posted by BeBro


I'm anti-nationalist in the sense that I don't buy into ideas which put my own nation/people above others.

However, even if I agree with you that "nation" is a construct - that does not make it irrelevant. The nation state is still the most important political unit on the internat. stage, and many people tend to identify themselves with their nations. This has lots of potential for both positive and negative use (or abuse, if you will). But that can be said for lots of other ideas.

That nationalism has been successful and that people now think in those terms does not affirm the validity of the notion, just the effectiveness of it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sandman

But one of the most capitalist states is also one of the most nationalist: the USA. Are these two linked (and what about the religiousness?). I find it strange that there's not more of a protectionist mood in America; free trade is an urban, intellectual ideology, it would be sooooo easy to damn its adherents as Unamerican, pro-China, non-salt-of-the-earth yuppies. There was a protectionist mood brewing during the early nineties against Japan - so where's the protectionist mood now?

The US is not nationalist. It might be jingoist and uber-patriotic, but in general it is not nationalistic. After all, the American "nation" is a hodgepot of different traditions and races. The founding ideology of the US is universalist (which probably has plenty to do with religiosity since Christianity is also universalist) and not related to the notion of "nation" as a single ethno-cultural group.

[Drake Tungsten]

Yes, Bretons, and I did not change the welsh to Catalans.

I guessed right then.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by GePap
The US is not nationalist. It might be jingoist and uber-patriotic, but in general it is not nationalistic. After all, the American "nation" is a hodgepot of different traditions and races. The founding ideology of the US is universalist (which probably has plenty to do with religiosity since Christianity is also universalist) and not related to the notion of "nation" as a single ethno-cultural group.

Virtually all nations are a hodge-podge of different traditions and/or races. The US is not particularly unique in this regard. The founding ideology may be universalist in your view, but it's easily adapted for nationalist purposes as well.

Americans like to call themselves one-eighth this or one-quarter that, but how many are really anything other than simply 'American' in their culture?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by GePap


That nationalism has been successful and that people now think in those terms does not affirm the validity of the notion, just the effectiveness of it.

What do you mean by "validity"? From what perspective would it be non-valid? It's certainly "valid" in the way that it's been put into "action", you have nation states, and you have people id-ing with them in quite big numbers.

[Sikander]

Re: The bane of Nationalism

Originally posted by GePap
I consider myself a complete anti-Nationalist. I despise the notion that sovereignty needs to come from the general will of a group of individuals that are linked by a shared ethno-cultural experience, as opposed to say, coming from some univeral political ideal.

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.

[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.


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)


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.

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.


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.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman


Americans like to call themselves one-eighth this or one-quarter that, but how many are really anything other than simply 'American' in their culture?

I would agree. Even hyphenated Americans are much more "American" than they realize, and NOT just on ideological grounds. It usually takes a visit to the "homeland" to realize this. I certainly never realized how unconsciously American I was till I spent several months in Israel. If Arrian were here, perhaps he could speak to his experiences in Southern Italy.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman

I find it strange that there's not more of a protectionist mood in America; free trade is an urban, intellectual ideology, it would be sooooo easy to damn its adherents as Unamerican, pro-China, non-salt-of-the-earth yuppies. There was a protectionist mood brewing during the early nineties against Japan - so where's the protectionist mood now?

Too many farmers, aircraft manufacturing workers, etc, etc, who KNOW they live on exports. You underestimate the rationality of ordinary Americans.

[Arrian]

If Arrian were here, perhaps he could speak to his experiences in Southern Italy.

Good food, good scenery, nice people, a bit poor (quite a difference from the North)... I didn't make it over to Sicily, though.

I'm American through and through. My ancestry is primary English (more than half, maybe 2/3), some Sicilian (1/4), some Croat and then bits of this or that. But other than a few quirks, I don't associate with the UK (or Italy, or Croatia). Culturally I'm nearly all American.

As for Nationalism... I think there is a sweet spot somewhere between the "love it or leave it/my country right or wrong" groupthink all hail the glorious leader crowd and Gepap's position. At some point, you have to figure out a way to cooperate with people who are not like you in some way (whether it be ethnicity, religious beliefs, or ideology that differs). Band < Tribe < Kingdom < Nation-State, in terms of power. The larger, more sophisticated political units tended to beat up on or absorb the smaller ones... this is simply historical truth. Is the nation perfect? Hell no. But it strikes me as better than tribalism.

-Arrian

[Wycoff]

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.


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)


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.

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.


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.

Great post, LoTM. Very thought provoking

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sandman
Virtually all nations are a hodge-podge of different traditions and/or races. The US is not particularly unique in this regard. The founding ideology may be universalist in your view, but it's easily adapted for nationalist purposes as well.

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.

Americans like to call themselves one-eighth this or one-quarter that, but how many are really anything other than simply 'American' in their culture?

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.