Nations and Nationalism
Although the term “nationalism” has different
meanings, it centrally covers the two phenomena:
(1) the attitude that the members of a nation have
when they care about their identity as members of that
nation and
(2) the actions that the members of a nation take in
seeking to achieve (or sustain) some form of political
sovereignty.
(1) raises questions about the concept of a nation or
national identity, about what it is to belong to a nation,
and about how much one ought to care about one's
nation.
Nations and national identity may be defined in terms
of common origin, ethnicity, or cultural ties, and while
an individual's membership in the nation is often
regarded as involuntary, it is sometimes regarded as
voluntary.
(2) raises questions about whether sovereignty entails
the acquisition of full statehood with complete
authority for domestic and international affairs, or
whether something less than statehood would suffice.
Although sovereignty is often taken to mean full
statehood, more recently possible exceptions have been
recognized.
Some authors defend even an anarchist version of
patriotism-moderate nationalism, foreshadowed by
Bakunin.
There are two major bodies of thought on the causes of
nationalism, one is the modernist perspective that
describes nationalism as a recent phenomenon that
requires the structural conditions of modern society, in
order to exist; the other is the primordialist perspective
that describes nationalism as a reflection of the ancient
and perceived evolutionary tendency of humans to
organize into distinct grouping based on an affinity of
birth.
Roger Masters in The Nature of Politics says that the
primordialist and modernist conceptions of
nationalism both involve an acceptance of three levels
of common interest of individuals or groups in
national identity:
The first level is that at an inter-group level, humans
respond to competition or conflict by organizing into
groups to either attack other groups or defend their
group from hostile groups.
The second level is the intra-group level, individuals
gain advantage through cooperation with others in
securing collective goods that are not accessible
through individual effort alone.
The third level is the individual level, where selfinterested concerns over personal fitness by individuals
either consciously or subconsciously motivate the
creation of group formation as a means of security.
Leadership groups' or elites' behavior that involves
efforts to advance their own fitness when they are
involved in the mobilization of an ethnic or national
group is crucial in the development of the culture of
that group.
The primordialist perspective is based on evolutionary
theory that perceives nationalism to be the result of
the evolution of human beings into identifying with
groups, such as ethnic groups, or other groups that
form the foundation of a nation.
Roger Masters describes the primordial explanation of
the origin of ethnic and national groups as recognizing
group attachments that are thought to be unique,
emotional, intense, and durable because they are based
upon kinship and promoted along lines of common
ancestry.
The primordialist evolutionary view of nationalism has its
origins in the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin that
were later substantially elaborated by John Tooby and Leda
Cosmides.
Central to evolutionary theory is that all biological
organisms undergo changes in their anatomical features and
their characteristic behavior patterns.
Darwin's theory of natural selection as a mechanism of
evolutionary change of organisms is utilized to describe the
development of human societies and particularly the
development of mental and physical traits of members of
such societies.
In addition to evolutionary development of mental and physical
traits, Darwin and other evolutionary theorists emphasize the
influence of the types of environment upon behaviour.
First of all there are ancestral environments that are typically longterm and stable forms of situations that influence mental
development of individuals or groups gained either biologically
through birth or learned from family or relatives, that cause the
emphasis of certain mental behaviours that are developed due to
their necessity the ancestral environment .
In national group settings, these ancestral environments can result
in psychological triggers in the minds of individuals within a
group, such as responding positively to patriotic cues.
There are immediate environments that are those situations
that confront an individual or group at a given point and
activate certain mental responses.
In the case of a national group, the example of seeing the
mobilization of a foreign military force on the nation's
borders may provoke members of a national group to unify
and mobilize themselves in response.
There are proximate environments where individuals
identify nonimmediate real or imagined situations in
combination with immediate situations that make
individuals confront a common situation of both subjective
and objective components that affect their decisions.
As such proximate environments cause people make decisions based on
existing situations and anticipated situations.
In the context of the politics of nations and nationalism, a political leader
may adopt an international treaty not out of a benevolent stance but in the
believe that such a treaty will either benefit their nation or will increase the
prestige of their nation.
The proximate environment plays a role in the politics of nations that are
angry with their circumstances, an individual or group that becomes angry in
response to feelings that they are being exploited usually results in efforts to
accommodate them, while being passive results in them being ignored.
Nations that are angry with circumstances imposed on them by others are
affected by the proximate environment that shapes the nationalism of such
nations.
Pierre L. van den Berghe in The Ethnic Phenomenon
emphasizes the role of ethnicity and kinship involving family
biological ties to members of an ethnic group as being an
important element of national identity.
Van den Berghe states the sense of family attachments
among related people as creating durable, intense,
emotional, and cooperative attachments, that he claims are
utilized within ethnic groups.
Van den Berghe identifies genetic-relatedness as being a
basis for the durable attachments of family groups, as
genetic ties cannot be removed and they are passed on from
generation to generation.
Van der Berge identifies common descent as the basis for
the establishment of boundaries of ethnic groups, as most
people to not join ethnic groups but are born into them.
Berghe notes that this kinship group affiliation and
solidarity does not require actual relatedness but can include
imagined relatedness that may not be biologically accurate.
Berghe notes that feelings of ethnic solidarity usually arise in
small and compact groups whereas there is less solidarity in
large and dispersed groups.
There are functionalist interpretations of the primordialist
evolutionary theory. The functionalists claim that ethnic
and national groups are founded upon individuals' concerns
over distribution of resources acquired through individual
and collective action.
This is resolved by the formation of a clan group that
defines who is accepted within the group and defines the
boundaries within which the resources will be distributed.
This functionalist interpretation does not require geneticrelatedness, and identifies a different variety of reasons for
ethnic or national group formation.
The first reason is that such groups may extend group identity and
cooperation beyond the limited of family and kinship out of
reciprocal altruism, in the belief that helping other individuals will
produce an advantageous situation for both the sender and
receiver of that help, this tendency has been noted in studies by
Robert Axelrod that are summarized in his book The Evolution of
Cooperation.
The second reason is that such groups may be formed as a means
of defense to insure survival, fears by one group of a hostile group
threatening them can increase solidarity amongst that group, R.
Paul Shaw and Yuwa Wong in their book The Genetic Seeds of
Warfare identify this as the foundation of xenophobia that they
identify as originating in hunter gatherer societies.
Modernist interpretation
Beginning in 1821, the Greek War of Independence began as a rebellion by
Greek nationalists against the ruling Ottoman Empire.
The modernist interpretation of nationalism and nation-building perceives
that nationalism arises and flourishes in modern societies described as being
associated with having: an industrial economy capable of self-sustainability of
the society, a central supreme authority capable of maintaining authority and
unity, and a centralized language or small group of centralized languages
understood by a community of people.
Modernist theorists note that this is only possible in modern societies, while
traditional societies typically: lack a modern industrial self-sustainable
economy, have divided authorities, have multiple languages resulting in many
people being unable to communicate with each other.
Karl Marx wrote about the creation of nations as requiring a
bourgeois revolution and an industrial economy.
Marx applied the modern versus traditional parallel to British
colonial rule in India that Marx saw in positive terms as he
claimed that British colonial rule was developing India, bringing
India out of its "rural idiocy" of its "feudalism”.
However Marx's theories at the time of his writing had little
impact on academic thinking on the development of nation states.
Prominent theorists who developed the modernist interpretation
of nations and nationalism include: Henry James Sumner Maine,
Ferdinand Tönnies, Émile Durkheim, Max Weber, and Talcott
Parsons.
Henry Maine in his analysis of the historical changes and
development of human societies noted the key distinction
between traditional societies defined as "status" societies
based on the legal position of the Individual in regards to
the rest of society, family association and functionally
diffuse roles for individuals; and modern "progressive"
societies defined as "contract" societies where social relations
are determined by contracts pursued by individuals to
advance their interests.
Maine saw the development of societies as moving away
from traditional status societies to modern contract
societies.
Ferdinand Tönnies in his book Gemeinschaft und
Gesellschaft (1887) defined a gemeinschaft (community)
as being based on emotional attachments as attributed
with traditional societies, while defining a gessellschaft
(society) as an impersonal societies that are modern.
While he recognized the advantages of modern
societies he also criticized them for their cold and
impersonal nature that caused alienation while praising
the intimacy of traditional communities.
Emile Durkheim expanded upon Tönnies' recognition of
alienation, and defined the differences between traditional
and modern societies as being between societies based upon
"mechanical solidarity" versus societies based on "organic
solidarity”.
Durkheim identified mechanical solidarity as involving
custom, habit, and repression that was necessary to
maintain shared views.
Durkheim identified organic solidarity-based societies as
modern societies where there exists a division of labour
based on social differentiation that causes alienation.
Durkheim claimed that social integration in traditional
society required authoritarian culture involving acceptance
of a social order. Durkheim claimed that modern society
bases integration on the mutual benefits of the division of
labour, but noted that the impersonal character of modern
urban life caused alienation and feelings of anomie.
Max Weber claimed the change that developed modern
society and nations is the result of the rise of a charismatic
leader to power in a society who creates a new tradition or a
rational-legal system that establishes the supreme authority
of the state.Weber's conception of charismatic authority has
been noted as the basis of many nationalist governments
The roots of the idea that nation is essentially an ethnic or
cultural entity can be traced back to late 18th Germany.
Herder argued that the main character of each national
group was determined by its natural environment, climate
and physical geography.
Herder also underlined the importance of language.
His nationalism can be described as a form of culturalism
that emphasizes an awareness and appriciation of national
traditions and collective memories.
On the other hand, Gellner's theory suggests that
nationalism is now ineradicable, as a return to premodern
loyalties and identities is unthinkable.
However according to Anthony Smith nations are
historically embedded: they are rooted in a common cultural
heritage and language that may long predate the
achievement of statehood or even the quest for national
independence.
Smith nevertheless acknowledged that, although ethnicity is
the precursor of nationalism, modern nations came into
existence only when established ethnies were linked to the
emerging doctrine of political sovereignty.
Regardless of the origins of nations, certain forms of
nationalism have a distinctively cultural, rather than
political, character.
Nations as Cultural Communities
Cultural nationalism commonly takes the form of
national self-affirmation; it is a means through which a
people can acquire a clearer sense of its own identity
through the heightening of national pride and selfrespect.
Nations as political communities
The view that nations are essentially political entities
emphasizes civic loyalties rather than cultural identity.
The nation is thus a group of people who are bound
together primarily by shared citizenship, regardless of
their cultural, ethnic and other loyalties.
This view of the nation is often traced back to the
writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
The form of nationalism that emerged from the French
Revolution therefore embodied a vision of a people or
nation governing itself, and was inextricably linked to the
principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.
The idea that nations are political, not ethnic, communities
has been supported by a number of theories of nationalism.
Rather than accepting that modern nations have developed
out of long-established ethnic communities, Hobsbawm
argued that a belief in historical continuity and cultural
purity was invariably a myth, and, what is more, a myth
created by nationalism itself. In this view, nationalism
creates nations, not the other way round.
Certainly, the idea of a 'mother tongue' passed down from
generation to generation and embodying a national culture
is highly questionable. In reality, languages live and grow as
each generation adapts the language to its own distinctive
needs and circumstances.
Benedict Anderson also portrayed the modern nation as an
artefact, in his case as an 'imagined community'. Anderson
pointed out that nations exist more as mental images than
as genuine communities that require a level of face-to-face
interaction to sustain the notion of a common identity. If
nations exist, they exist as imagined artifices, constructed for
us through education, the mass media and a process of
political socialization.
From the perspective of orthodox Marxism,
nationalism is a device through which the ruling class
counters the threat of social revolution by ensuring
that national loyalty is stronger than class solidarity,
thus binding the working class to the existing power
structure.
What such nations have in common is that, in theory,
they were founded upon a voluntary acceptance of a
common set of principles or goals, as opposed to an
existing cultural identity.
It is sometimes argued that the style of nationalism that
develops in such societies is typically tolerant and
democratic. If a nation is primarily a political entity, it
is an inclusive group, in that membership is not
restricted to those who fulfill particular language,
religious, ethnic or suchlike criteria.
Developing world states have encountered particular
problems in their struggle to achieve a national
identity. Such nations can be described as 'political' in
two senses. First, in many cases, they have achieved
statehood only after a struggle against colonial rule.
In this case, the nation's national identity is deeply
influenced by the unifying quest for national liberation
and freedom. Third world nationalism therefore tends
to have a strong anticolonial character. Second, these
nations have often been shaped by territorial
boundaries inherited from their former colonial rulers.
Varieties of nationalism
Nationalism is not a single or coherent political
phenomenon, but is a series of 'nationalisms': that is,
as a complex of traditions that share but one
characteristic - each, in its own particular way,
acknowledges the central political importance of the
nation.
Finally, nationalism is shaped by the political ideals of
those who espouse it. In their different ways, liberals,
conservatives, socialists, fascists and even communists
have been attracted to nationalism. In this sense,
nationalism is a cross-cutting ideology.
Liberal nationalism
Liberal nationalism can be seen as the classic form of
European liberalism; it dates back to the French
Revolution.
In common with all forms of nationalism, liberal
nationalism is based on the fundamental assumption
that humankind is naturally divided into a collection
of nations, each possessed of a separate identity.
Nations are therefore genuine or organic
communities, not the artificial creation of political
leaders or ruling classes.
Liberal Nationalism is a kind of non-xenophobic nationalism compatible with
liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights.
Ernest Renan and John Stuart Mill are often thought to be early liberal
nationalists.
Liberal nationalism lies within the traditions of rationalism and liberalism,
but as a form of nationalism it is contrasted with ethnic nationalism.
The characteristic theme of liberal nationalism, is that it links the idea of the
nation with a belief in popular sovereignty, ultimately derived from Rousseau.
Liberal nationalism underlines that all nations are equal. The ultimate goal of
liberal nationalism, then, is the construction of a world of sovereign nationstates.
In this light, nationalism is not seen as a source of distrust,
suspicion and rivalry. Rather, it is a force capable of promoting
unity within each nation and brotherhood amongst nations on
the basis of mutual respect for national rights and characteristics.
Liberal nationalists often defend the value of national identity by
saying that individuals need a national identity in order to lead
meaningful, autonomous lives and that liberal democratic polities
need national identity in order to function properly.
Civic-national ideals influenced the development of representative
democracy in countries such as the United States and France.
Criticisms of liberal nationalism tend to fall into two
categories.
In the first category, liberal nationalists may be
accused of being naive and romantic.
They see the progressive and liberating face of
nationalism; theirs is a tolerant and rational
nationalism.
Second, the goal of liberal nationalism may be
fundamentally misguided.
In practice, all so-called 'nation-states' comprise a
number of linguistic, religious, ethnic and regional
groups, some of which may consider themselves to be
'nations'.
However, it in fact consisted of a patchwork of ethnic
communities, religions, languages and differing
histories.
Moreover, as the disintegration of Yugoslavia in the
early 1990s demonstrated, each of its constituent
republics was itself an ethnic patchwork.
Indeed, as the Nazis and later the Bosnian Serbs
recognized, the only certain way of achieving a
politically unified and culturally homogeneous nationstate is through a programme of ethnic cleansing.
Conservative nationalism
During the 19th century the link between conservatism
and nationalism became increasingly apparent.
Conservative nationalism is concerned less with the
principled nationalism of universal self-determination
and more with the promise of social cohesion and
public order embodied in the sentiment of national
patriotism.
Above all, conservatives see the nation as an organic entity
emerging out of a basic desire of humans to gravitate
towards those who have the same views, habits, lifestyles and
appearance as themselves.
In short, human beings seek security and identity through
membership of a national community. From this
perspective, patriotic loyalty and a consciousness of
nationhood is rooted largely in the idea of a shared past,
turning nationalism into a defence of values and institutions
that have been endorsed by history.
Nationalism thus becomes a form of traditionalism.
Conservative nationalism tends to develop in
established nation-states rather than in ones that are in
the process of nation building.
It is inspired by the perception that the nation is
somehow under threat, either from within or from
without.
The traditional 'enemy within' has been class
antagonism and the ultimate danger of social
revolution. In this respect, conservatives have seen
nationalism as the antidote to socialism.
The 'enemies without' that threaten national identity
include immigration and Supranationalism.
Although conservative nationalism has been linked to
military adventure and expansion, its distinctive
character is that it is inward-looking and insular.
This leads to the criticism that conservative
nationalism is essentially a form of elite manipulation
or ruling-class ideology.
From this perspective, the 'nation' is invented and certainly
defined by political leaders and ruling elites with a view to
manufacturing consent and engineering political passivity.
A more serious criticism of conservative nationalism,
however, is that it promotes intolerance and bigotry.
By insisting upon the maintenance of cultural purity and
established traditions, conservatives may portray
immigrants, or foreigners in general, as a threat, and so
promote, or at least legitimize, racialism and xenophobia.
Expansionist nationalism
The third form of nationalism has an aggressive,
militaristic and expansionist character.
In many ways, this form of nationalism is the
antithesis of the liberal nationalism.
The aggressive face of nationalism first appeared in the
late nineteenth century.
To a large extent, both world wars of the twentieth
century resulted from this expansionist form of
nationalism.
The most destructive modern example of this form of
nationalism in Europe has been the quest by the
Bosnian Serbs to construct a 'Greater Serbia'.
In its extreme form, such nationalism arises from a
sentiment of intense, even hysterical nationalist
enthusiasm, sometimes referred to as integral
nationalism.
The term integral nationalism was coined by the
French nationalist Charles Maurras asserted the
overriding importance of the nation: the nation is
everything and the individual is nothing. The nation
thus has an existence and meaning beyond the life of
any single individual, and individual existence has
meaning only when it is dedicated to the unity and
survival of the nation.
However, integral nationalism breaks the link
previously established between nationalism and
democracy. An 'integral' nation is an exclusive ethnic
community, bound together by primordial loyalties
rather than voluntary political allegiances. National
unity does not demand free debate and an open and
competitive struggle for power; it requires discipline
and obedience to a single, supreme leader.
This led Maurras to portray democracy as a source of
weakness and corruption, and to call instead for the
reestablishment of monarchical absolutism.
This militant and intense form of nationalism is
invariably associated with chauvinistic beliefs and
doctrines. Derived from the name of Nicolas Chauvin,
a French soldier, chauvinism is an irrational belief in
the superiority or dominance of one's own group or
people.
National chauvinism therefore rejects the idea that all
nations are equal in favour of the belief that nations
have particular characteristics and qualities, and so
have very different destinies.
Typically, this form of nationalism is articulated
through doctrines of ethnic or racial superiority,
thereby fusing nationalism and racialism. The
chauvinist's own nation is seen to be unique and
special, in some way a 'chosen people'.
No less important in this type of nationalism, however,
is the image of another nation or race as a threat or
enemy. In the face of the enemy, the nation draws
together and gains an intensified sense of its own
identity and importance, achieving a kind of 'negative
integration'.
Chauvinistic nationalism therefore establishes a clear
distinction between 'them' and 'us'. This was most
graphically demonstrated by the virulent anti-Semitism
that was the basis of German Nazism.
A recurrent theme of expansionist nationalism is the idea of
national rebirth or regeneration. This form of nationalism
commonly draws upon myths of past greatness or national
glory. Mussolini and the Italian Fascists looked back to the
days of Imperial Rome.
If nationalism is a took for reestablishing greatness and
regaining national glory, it invariably has a militaristic and
expansionist character. In short, war is the testing ground of
the nation. At the heart of integral nationalism there often
lies an imperial project: a quest for expansion or a search for
colonies. This can be seen in forms of pan-nationalism.
However, Nazi Germany is again the best-known example.
Anticolonial nationalism
This form of nationalism came about during the decolonialisation
of the post war period. The irony of this form of nationalism is
that it has turned doctrines and principles first developed through
the process of 'nation building' in Europe against the European
powers themselves.
Early forms of anticolonialism drew heavily on 'classical'
European nationalism and were inspired by the idea of national
self-determination.
For African and Asian nations, the quest for political
independence was inextricably linked to a desire for social
development and for an end to their subordination to the
industrialized states of Europe and the USA.
Benedict Anderson argued that anti-colonial
nationalism is grounded in the experience of literate
and bilingual indigenous intellectuals fluent in the
language of the imperial power, schooled in its
"national" history, and staffing the colonial
administrative cadres up to but not including its
highest levels.
Post-colonial national governments have been
essentially indigenous forms of the previous imperial
administration.
The goal of 'national liberation’ had an economic as well as
a political dimension. This helps to explain why anticolonial
movements typically looked not to liberalism but to
socialism, and particularly to Marxism-Leninism, as a vehicle
for expressing their nationalist ambitions.
On the surface, nationalism and socialism appear to be
incompatible political creeds. Socialists have traditionally
preached internationalism, since they regard humanity as a
single entity, and argue that the division of humankind into
separate nations breeds only suspicion and hostility.
In this sense, nationalism and socialism are linked insofar
as both emphasize social solidarity and collective action.
By this standard, nationalism may simply be a weaker
form of socialism, the former applying the 'social'
principle to the nation, the latter extending it to cover
the whole of humanity.
More specifically, socialism, and especially Marxism,
provide an analysis of inequality and exploitation
through which the colonial experience can be
understood and colonial rule challenged.
In the same way as the oppressed and exploited
proletariat saw that they could achieve liberation
through the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism,
third-world nationalists saw 'armed struggle' as a means
of achieving both political and economic
emancipation, thus fusing the goals of political
independence and social revolution.
The 'socialism' proclaimed in these countries usually
takes the form of an appeal to a unifying national cause
or interest, typically proclaimed by a powerful
'charismatic' leader.
However, nationalists in the developing world have not
always been content to express their nationalism in a
language of socialism or Marxism borrowed from the
West. Especially since the 1970s, Marxism-Leninism
has often been displaced by forms of religious
fundamentalism, and particularly Islamic
fundamentalism.
Critics of nationalism have argued that it is often unclear what
constitutes a "nation", or why a nation should be the only
legitimate unit of political rule.
A nation is a cultural entity, and not necessarily a political
association, nor is it necessarily linked to a particular territorial
area - although nationalists argue that the boundaries of a nation
and a state should, as far as possible, coincide.
Philosopher A. C. Grayling describes nations as artificial
constructs, "their boundaries drawn in the blood of past wars". He
argues that "there is no country on earth which is not home to
more than one different but usually coexisting culture. Cultural
heritage is not the same thing as national identity”.
Much of the early opposition to nationalism was related to
its geopolitical ideal of a separate state for every nation. The
classic nationalist movements of the 19th century rejected
the very existence of the multi-ethnic empires in Europe.
Even in that early stage, however, there was an ideological
critique of nationalism. That has developed into several
forms of anti-nationalism in the western world naming it a
'theoretical and political challenge for the foreseeable
future’.
The Islamic revival of the 20th century also produced an
Islamic critique of the nation-state.
In the liberal political tradition there is widespread criticism
of ‘nationalism’ as a dangerous force and a cause of conflict
and war between nation-states.
Nationalism has often been exploited to encourage citizens
to partake in the nations' conflicts. Such examples include
The Two World Wars, where nationalism was a key
component of propaganda material.
Liberals do not generally dispute the existence of the nationstates. The liberal critique also emphasizes individual
freedom as opposed to national identity, which is by
definition collective.
The pacifist critique of nationalism also concentrates on the
violence of nationalist movements, the associated
militarism, and on conflicts between nations inspired by
chauvinism.
National symbols and patriotic assertiveness are in some
countries discredited by their historical link with past wars,
especially in Germany.
Famous pacifist Bertrand Russell criticizes nationalism for
diminishing the individual's capacity to judge his or her
fatherland's foreign policy. Albert Einstein stated that
"Nationalism is an infantile disease.... It is the measles of
mankind.”
The anti-racist critique of nationalism concentrates on
the attitudes to other nations, and especially on the
doctrine that the nation-state exists for one national
group to the exclusion of others.
This view emphasizes the chauvinism and xenophobia
that have often resulted from nationalist sentiment.
Norman Naimark relates the rise of nationalism to
ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Political movements of the left have often been
suspicious of nationalism, again without necessarily
seeking the disappearance of the existing nation-states.
Marxism has been ambiguous towards the nation-state,
and in the late 19th century some Marxist theorists
rejected it completely.
For some Marxists the world revolution implied a
global state (or global absence of state); for others it
meant that each nation-state had its own revolution.
A significant event in this context was the failure of the
social-democratic and socialist movements in Europe to
mobilize a cross-border workers' opposition to World
War I.
At present most, but certainly not all, left-wing groups
accept the nation-state, and see it as the political arena
for their activities.
In the Western world, the most comprehensive current
ideological alternative to nationalism is
cosmopolitanism.
Ethical cosmopolitanism rejects one of the basic ethical
principles of nationalism: that humans owe more
duties to a fellow member of the nation, than to a nonmember.
It rejects such important nationalist values as national identity and
national loyalty. However, there is also a political
cosmopolitanism, which has a geopolitical program to match that
of nationalism: it seeks some form of world state, with a world
government.
Very few people openly and explicitly support the establishment of
a global state, but political cosmopolitanism has influenced the
development of international criminal law, and the erosion of the
status of national sovereignty.
In turn, nationalists are deeply suspicious of cosmopolitan
attitudes, which they equate with eradication of diverse national
cultures.
Meanwhile, anarchists reject nation-states on the basis
of self-determination of the majority social class, and
thus reject nationalism. Instead of nations, anarchists
usually advocate the creation of cooperative societies
based on free association and mutual aid without
regard to ethnicity or race.
MULTICULTURALISM
The idea of the nation as a culturally and politically
united whole has, particularly since the 1960s, been
challenged by the rise of multiculturalism.
Nationalism has always been an example of the politics
of identity, in the sense that it tells people who they
are: it gives people a history, forges social bonds and a
collective spirit, and creates a sense of destiny larger
than individual existence.
Multiculturalism is also a form of identity politics, but
its stress is rather on the 'politics of difference',
stressing the range of cultural diversity and identityrelated differences in many modern societies.
Multiculturalism not only recognizes the fact of
cultural diversity, but also holds that such differences
should be respected and publicly affirmed.
Australia has been officially committed to
multiculturalism since the early 1970s, in recognition
of its increasing 'Asianization'.
The relationship between multiculturalism and
nationalism is complex. The nationalist traditions that
are most disposed to accommodate multiculturalism
are liberal nationalism and anticolonial nationalism.
This is because both traditions embrace an essentially
'inclusive' model of the nation as a political or 'civic'
entity rather than a cultural or 'ethnic' entity. Members
of the nation are thus bound together less by a unifying
culture and more by common citizenship and shared
allegiances.
Liberalism, indeed, can be seen to favor multiculturalism in
principle.
Liberal multiculturalism is rooted, most fundamentally, in a
commitment to freedom and toleration.
However, liberalism and multiculturalism are not entirely
compatible. In the first place, individualism, the core
principle of liberalism, conflicts with multiculturalism in
that it highlights the primary importance of personal or
individual identity over any collective notion of identity
based on ethnicity, race, language or whatever.
To this degree, liberalism looks beyond both
multiculturalism and nationalism, supporting, instead,
the principle of internationalism.
Second, liberalism is universalist in the sense that it
gives priority to a set of core values, amongst which
freedom and toleration clearly feature.
Liberals are therefore inclined to tolerate the tolerant,
but they find it more difficult to tolerate what they may
see as illiberal or intolerant cultural beliefs and
practices.
Multiculturalists, for their part, often view liberal toleration
as nothing more than cultural imperialism, that is, as an
attempt to impose western beliefs, values and sensibilities on
the rest of the world.
Firmer foundations for a theory of multiculturalism can be
found in the idea of value pluralism. Isaiah Berlin
developed a theory of pluralism that has been used by many
multiculturalists to justify a politics of difference.
An alternative basis for multiculturalism has been advanced
by Bhikhu Parekh. In Parekh's view, cultural diversity is, at
heart, a reflection of the dialectical interplay between
human nature and culture.
A recognition of the complexity of human nature, and
of the fact that any culture expresses only a part of
what it means to be truly human, provides the basis for
a politics of recognition and thus for a viable form of
multiculturalism.
However, multiculturalism is clearly incompatible with
conservative nationalism and expansionist nationalism.
This is because these nationalist traditions are based on
an 'exclusive' notion of national identity that
emphasizes cultural homogeneity and, in some cases,
racial purity.
However, conservative and far-right objections to
multiculturalism suffer from at least two drawbacks.
The first is that even if they are not explicitly racialist,
they may harbour implicit racialism in serving to
legitimize, and perhaps encourage, hostility between
different ethnic communities. The second is that they
revere an image of social, moral and cultural
homogeneity that has long ceased to exist in modern
societies and which could be re-established only
through widespread repression
A future for the nation-state?
As the twentieth century progressed, claims were
increasingly made that the age of nationalism was over.
This was because its task had been completed: the
world had become a world of nation-states.
History undoubtedly seems to be on the side of the
nation-state. The three major geopolitical upheavals of
the twentieth century (the First World War, the Second
World War and the collapse of communism in eastern
Europe) each gave considerable impetus to the concept
of the nation as a principle of political organization.
The great strength of the nation-state is that it offers
the prospect of both cultural cohesion and political
unity. When a people who share a common cultural or
ethnic identity gain the right to self-government,
community and citizenship coincide.
This is why nationalists believe that the forces that
have created a world of independent nation-states are
natural and irresistible, and that no other social group
could constitute a meaningful political community.
They believe that the nation-state is ultimately the only
viable political unit.
Nevertheless, just as the principle of the nation-state
has achieved its widest support, other, very powerful
forces have emerged that threaten to make the
nationstate redundant. A combination of internal
pressures and external threats has produced what is
commonly referred to as a 'crisis of the nation-state'.
Internally, nation-states have been subject to centrifugal
pressures, generated by an upsurge in ethnic and regional
politics. This heightened concern with ethnicity may,
indeed, reflect the fact that, in a context of economic and
cultural globalization, nations are no longer able to provide
a meaningful collective identity or sense of social belonging.
Given that all nation-states embody a measure of cultural
diversity, the politics of ethnic coherence cannot but present
a challenge to the principle of the nation. Unlike nations,
ethnic or regional groups are not viable political entities in
their own right, and thus look to forms of federalism and
confederalism to provide an alternative to political
nationalism.
External threats to the nation-state have a variety of
forms.
First, advances in the technology of warfare, and
especially the advent of the nuclear age, have brought
about demands that world peace be policed by
supranational and international bodies.
Second, economic life has been progressively
globalized. Is there a future for the nationstate in a
world in which no national government can control its
economic destiny?
Third, the nation-state may be the enemy of the natural
environment and a threat to the global ecological
balance.
Finally, distinctive national cultures and traditions, the
source of cohesion that distinguishes nation-states from
other forms of political organization, have been
weakened by the emergence of a transnational and
even global culture. This has been facilitated by
international tourism and the dramatic growth in
communications technologies, from satellite television
to the 'information superhighway'.