Metal Gear
08-14-2008, 02:05 PM
http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=81737
Most of the discussion on nationalism that goes on in this forum (either from the left or the right) is pretty poor on average. It's pretty frustrating for me, essentially as I'm starting a Ph.D on the subject.
Firstly, the the nation is best thought of as a large group of people which is self-conscious of its internal unity, recognizes limits (i.e., people and places which are outside the bounds of the nation), and (most importantly) conceives itself as being politically sovereign.
There are many different kinds of nationalisms, and subsequently different kinds of nations. Generally, the classical divide is between "Civic" (Western) and "Ethnic" (Eastern). In theory, the civic nation (examples, United States, France) is conceived as the community of citizens. Ethnic nationalism typically occurred in places without a preexisting national state. Generally speaking, peoples who conceived of themselves as a single nation but were politically divided (pre-unification Italy and Germany) or places that were under the domination of other empires (the nationalities of the Austrian and Ottoman Empires). That division isn't necessarily a clean one, nor always a good one. #1 objection is that nations we think of as "civic" can certainly exhibit "ethnic" characteristics and vice versa. #2 is that the division is inherently orientalizing, but that's a different beast altogether.
Nationalism is the ideology that "the nation" (that is, the people) is politically sovereign and thus deserves the right to govern itself. Carried out to its logical conclusion, it basically means that the nation deserves its own state (the nation-state) and that the nation-state should conform to the physical boundaries of the nation as closely as possible. Initially, this was a very romantic and liberal idea which saw (primarily) Europe as a group of independent and politically liberal states coexisting alongside each other. This made sense at the time (early 19th century) because it was part of a liberal reaction to rule by absolute monarchy. This began to shift later into various "integral nationalist" ideologies once the contradiction in romantic nationalism became apparent. Different nations can have a basis to lay claim to the same area (usually places with mixed populations) and that obviously leads to conflict.
The "nationalist state" is not really a term that is used and I'm not sure what you would call it. The nation-state is something like Germany, Hungary, or Poland. Generally, it's a state in which the majority of that nation lives and which sees itself as the political representative of that national community on the international scale. For example, Hungary would see itself as the international political advocate for ethnic Hungarian minorities living in Slovakia, Serbia, Romania etc. Of course, nation-states can have wildly different forms of governments. Liberal democratic Czechoslovakia was a nation-state, and Nazi Germany was a nation-state. They both derived their political legitimacy from the nation (Czech and Slovak or German respectively), but politically they were as different as night and day.
Today, nationalism is often equated to racism and the far right by some on the political left. Usually though, these are people with a quite superficial understanding of it. It's not that they're completely wrong because certain interpretations of nationalism (usually originating from people on the far-right) have had significantly racist connotations. My problem though is when people argue that nationalism is essentially racist and/or authoritarian, or that the nation was something imposed by elites to divide the laboring classes. It firstly displays ignorance of how and why the concept of the nation developed in the first place, ignores the long relationship between political liberalism and nationalism through the 19th century as well as the histories of the various national movements which were socialist or generally left-wing in their social content, and in general totally fails to acknowledge the staggering diversity of national ideologies that could (and would) develop within only a single nation (including sometimes very different ways of "imagining" the nation). There are definitely nationalist ideologies and movements which I perceive as fundamentally reactionary, but there are also many others that I definitely feel one would be justified in calling progressive (like any number of anti-colonial movements). Simply put, context and content are crucially important.
A very good overview of how nationalism is smeared and misunderstood.
Most of the discussion on nationalism that goes on in this forum (either from the left or the right) is pretty poor on average. It's pretty frustrating for me, essentially as I'm starting a Ph.D on the subject.
Firstly, the the nation is best thought of as a large group of people which is self-conscious of its internal unity, recognizes limits (i.e., people and places which are outside the bounds of the nation), and (most importantly) conceives itself as being politically sovereign.
There are many different kinds of nationalisms, and subsequently different kinds of nations. Generally, the classical divide is between "Civic" (Western) and "Ethnic" (Eastern). In theory, the civic nation (examples, United States, France) is conceived as the community of citizens. Ethnic nationalism typically occurred in places without a preexisting national state. Generally speaking, peoples who conceived of themselves as a single nation but were politically divided (pre-unification Italy and Germany) or places that were under the domination of other empires (the nationalities of the Austrian and Ottoman Empires). That division isn't necessarily a clean one, nor always a good one. #1 objection is that nations we think of as "civic" can certainly exhibit "ethnic" characteristics and vice versa. #2 is that the division is inherently orientalizing, but that's a different beast altogether.
Nationalism is the ideology that "the nation" (that is, the people) is politically sovereign and thus deserves the right to govern itself. Carried out to its logical conclusion, it basically means that the nation deserves its own state (the nation-state) and that the nation-state should conform to the physical boundaries of the nation as closely as possible. Initially, this was a very romantic and liberal idea which saw (primarily) Europe as a group of independent and politically liberal states coexisting alongside each other. This made sense at the time (early 19th century) because it was part of a liberal reaction to rule by absolute monarchy. This began to shift later into various "integral nationalist" ideologies once the contradiction in romantic nationalism became apparent. Different nations can have a basis to lay claim to the same area (usually places with mixed populations) and that obviously leads to conflict.
The "nationalist state" is not really a term that is used and I'm not sure what you would call it. The nation-state is something like Germany, Hungary, or Poland. Generally, it's a state in which the majority of that nation lives and which sees itself as the political representative of that national community on the international scale. For example, Hungary would see itself as the international political advocate for ethnic Hungarian minorities living in Slovakia, Serbia, Romania etc. Of course, nation-states can have wildly different forms of governments. Liberal democratic Czechoslovakia was a nation-state, and Nazi Germany was a nation-state. They both derived their political legitimacy from the nation (Czech and Slovak or German respectively), but politically they were as different as night and day.
Today, nationalism is often equated to racism and the far right by some on the political left. Usually though, these are people with a quite superficial understanding of it. It's not that they're completely wrong because certain interpretations of nationalism (usually originating from people on the far-right) have had significantly racist connotations. My problem though is when people argue that nationalism is essentially racist and/or authoritarian, or that the nation was something imposed by elites to divide the laboring classes. It firstly displays ignorance of how and why the concept of the nation developed in the first place, ignores the long relationship between political liberalism and nationalism through the 19th century as well as the histories of the various national movements which were socialist or generally left-wing in their social content, and in general totally fails to acknowledge the staggering diversity of national ideologies that could (and would) develop within only a single nation (including sometimes very different ways of "imagining" the nation). There are definitely nationalist ideologies and movements which I perceive as fundamentally reactionary, but there are also many others that I definitely feel one would be justified in calling progressive (like any number of anti-colonial movements). Simply put, context and content are crucially important.
A very good overview of how nationalism is smeared and misunderstood.