Introduction
Nationalism is often seen as a political doctrine, with an ideology of self-governing entity results in what is popularly known as “nation-state”. In other words, it is an ideology or a form of socio-cultural movement that drives a group of people towards forming a self governing state or nation (Smith, 1993, P.72).
Historically, however, there has been significant argument over the origin of nations and nationhood, with many specialists like (Smith, 1998, P. 39) agreeing that the ideology of nationalism has its roots in Europe, that came as a result of series of revolutions in the 19th century, preciously related to the French revolution that pushed for sovereignty in the late 18th century. More significantly, its emergence has been associated with the historical events like the World War I and II and consequential rise of many notable radicalism (Laqueuer, 1976. P. 15).
The socio-political ideology on nationalism dictates that the people who belong to a particular state or nation should be willing to adhere to the principle of nationhood and be ready to legitimize and defend their sovereignty (Laqueuer, 1997, P. 90). However, some of the attempts to pursue and defend the nations, which are mostly multinationals or multiethnic in nature, has led to numerous forms of both internal and external wars, secession, and at worst genocide or holocaust, scenarios that have led some pundits to believe that nationalism is simply “a divisive and destructive force in the contemporary world” (Goebbels, 1939, P. 18). But is this the case considering human nature to group together?
Nationalism theories
In the late 19th century, socialists like Carl Max and Rosa Luxemburg were the greatest critics of nationalists’ movements, in their critical socio-political analysis of the then nationalists’ movements in Europe, more specifically Central and Eastern Europe (Koln, Calhoun & Craig, 1942, p. 20). However, late socialists and communists alike are more supportive of the nationalism, describing it a form of self-defining factor (Anderson, 1991, p. 6).
But it is critical to observe that most theories related to nationalism originated mainly after the World War II, with emerging issues like, who is the real member of the state and who is not? And who came first, nation or the nationalism? In order to understand the nationalism aspects and its implications on the general welfare of the people, it is prudent to understand the classifications put down by scholars to explain its varied facets (Smith, 1986, p. 8-10)
Classification of nationalism
Nationalism may emerge as a result of an official ideology of state or just as a popular non-state movement that can be expressed in terms of ethno-cultural, religious, location, and/or ideological perspectives, where the people generally believe that they share some form of common understandings or cultural believes (Connor, 1994, p. 29). However, this concept is overruled by the classified form of understanding that reiterates that people and culture can be separated by national boundaries, which result into a self-defined nation or state. This brings us to different approaches to nationalism types of classifications such as; civic/ cultural, ethnic, irredentism, revolutionary, fascism, expansionist, liberation, and stateless nationalisms (Connor, 1994, p. 36-41)
Civic or cultural nationalism; this is a form of nationalism looks at the culture of the people who makes up the nation. In other words it does not dwell on any form of hereditary of family roots or connections of the people hence mainly focus and advocate the establishment of the common and binding cultural values (Connor, 1994, p. 43). This normally allows people from different backgrounds to get assimilated into one thing that gives a nation or a state its cultural identity
Ethnic nationalism; as opposed to civic nationalism, ethnic nationalism tends to bring the people of same ethnic group together. The people coming together are of similar ethic lineage or are hereditarily connected. It therefore seeks to unite all people of a particular ethnic heritage to achieve a particular purpose of unity that is mostly political and economic driven (Smith, 1986, p. 14-18).
Irredentism; according to Smith (1986, p. 16), irredentism is a form of nationalism that entails the believe of promoting annexation of territories, which used to have or currently have members of a particular group dwelling in them, and making then to be under the state or nation that have most of its members.
Expansionist nationalism; this is a form of nationalism that promotes the theory of expansion of a nation’s territories in an attempt to acquire more space or land to accommodate its people (Smith, 1986, p. 18)
Liberation nationalism; this from of nationalism involve an attempt by some movements within the nation who come together to protest or fight for the liberation of their state with the notion that some other people or nations are oppressing them in one way or another (Breuilly, 1994, p. 32). They therefore fight to have self-identity, separate from their oppressors. This form of ideology is closely linked to Marxism and Leninism which identifies that nationalism can be applied in an international context rather than regional where the liberators can fight for the freedom of their country without principally involving the racial or even religious divisions (Breuilly, 1994. p. 34)
Fascism; this category of nationalism is associated with the authoritative or dictatorial form of leadership ideology (Breuilly, 1994. p. 34 & Brubaker, 1996, p.18). It therefore supports and advocates for national revolutions, collectivism at national level, expansionism, and a totalitarian state with an aim of national unification and growth. It is therefore noted that fascists will always promote ethnic nationalism and at the same time promote cultural nationalism like the peoples’ assimilation without ethnic bias.
Stateless Nationalism; after the establishment of a recognized entity in the name of a state or nation, the first principle goal of nationalist’s movements is surely achieved (Timothy, 2005, p. 44). However, within this system, there are some discontented individuals or groups within the movements who will emerge and express their dissatisfactions in terms of how the mainstream political system is run. Considering the fact that the movements that brought this mainstream system of government did not die, they keep on inspiring quite many more political parties or movements (Brubaker, 1996, p. 56).
These movements therefore form the stateless movements within the state. They can either decide to fight for their own autonomy within the mainstream state or just fight to get their own state Brubaker, Rogers. 1996. In stateless nationalism, the proponents always advocate for the less strengthened national unity, challenging the laid down mainstream state policies that seem to reinforce a form of political behavior from the top hierarchy.
This makes it more open to be influenced by foreigners or other states that may have vested interests in the outcome of such conflicts. However, stateless nationalists are different from radical nationalism since they have civil liberation influence and do not agree with extremists’ idea of radical acquisition of power. They mainly strive to make everything flexible to collaborate with their neighbors whose interest may be common with theirs and redefining of national territory that is seen as way of opening their territory for foreign trade to strengthen economic base (Greenfeld, 1992, p. 197)
It is rational to argue that emotions that lead up to nationalism can be negative in nature, no matter what kind of nationalism is it, as the proponent may either in pursuit of a particular group interest or protecting their legitimacy. A particular sense of being threatened by another group can bring the nation and its people together and strengthen the sense of nationalism in the people, against all odds of political, ethnic, cultural or religious differences (Hobsbawm, 1992, p. 87).
A typical example is the September 11 bombing of the America world trade center. The people of America came together, despite the political parties varied views and differences. However, just like it has brought the people of America together, it has had substantial negative impact too on the relationship between America and the Muslim world, whose radical group claimed responsibility for the offence. Another case is if the state has lost a war. For example, the Germany’s loss of World War I, subsequent economic crisis, Treaty of Versailles humiliation led to the emergence of Nazism since the used to be bourgeois patriotism before this war was completely eroded (Goebbels, 1939, P. 27)
Nationalist proponents warn that nationalism should never be confused with radicalism, and that it should never be defined to suggest that some ethnic or any other group is superior over the other. This kind of belief is what leads to the emergence of conflicts and wars as has happened in many countries, where the ethnic cleansing takes the center stage in such a nation. As happened in Germany, the holocaust made some self proclaimed nationalists to use the term to do the ethnic cleansing, in what Goebbels (1939, P. 27) would call ethnocentric protectionism or ethnocentric supremacy.
The study of several ethnic and psychological studies has disapproved this notion. The revelation is that the behavior is somehow a derivative innate behavior of humans that begin at an infancy stage and therefore should never be associated with the sense of nationalism in any way (Greenfeld, 199, p.20). In the United States, there exist both the movements of non-indigenous people i.e. ethnocentric “black” and “white” peoples’ movements (Greenfeld, 199, p.26).
These kinds of “nationalisms” are everywhere all over the world and they tend to believe that some specific nations are doing better than their own nation and therefore should be taken as a positive success case study. In Germany, the movements of the so called “Nationalists” and fascists exploited the dominant biological race theory to advance the national policies such as the National Sociologist ideology.
However, Hobsbawm (1992, p. 92) states that “race” as a universal term is no longer relevant in any attempt to explain the varied cluster of human phenotype, and should therefore be referred to as ethnocentrism instead. That is, the ever infamous ethnic cleansings has on several occasions been regarded as representing nationalism, a claim that has been denied by many modern socialists who say that this phenomenon is purely ethnocentrism that is more of individual and personal feelings and not group or national collective behavior (99). This is because not all nations would expel or mistreat the minority communities or groups in their nation (101).
Many scholars accept that nationalism is sometimes a very misguided and controversial ideology that lead particular group of individuals using the term to demand more unrealistic or just a far reaching and unrealistic demands. For example, the Israel and Palestinian states, where each state has failed to recognize each other as legitimate entity, with Palestinians using history to back up their claim that such a state as Israel never existed in their current place, and Israel defending their legitimacy, thereby creating more rebellions and radical groups like the Hamas in Palestine (Delanty, Kumar & Krishan, 2006, p. 72).
In the past, the classical movements of nationalists criticized nationalism because it was associated with the empires that were seen as multi- ethnic, they were even against the geopolitical ideology that was seen to be prominent in every nation-separate-state structure (Motyl, 2001, p.34-36).
The subsequent rebellion led to more repression and autocracy by those emperors who felt that their authority was being threatened, a phenomenon that has persisted even today even though in a much smaller scale with basically smaller states being attacked by bigger states, in an attempt to control their aggression (37). The western world has bore the brunt of anti-nationalism in the past than any other part of the world, with the resurgence of Islamic radicals who criticize the presence of nation- state especially those that collaborate with the west.
Presently, many people who are critical of the nationalism concept say it is the cause of all the ills that affect states (both internally and externally). That is, accusing the theory as the cause of persistent wars between nations and states all over the world. They argue that it is the states have disguised under “nationalism” to convince their citizens to take part in conflicts and wars, 1998, P. 44). For example the World War II, nations and states used “nationalism” concept to spread propaganda against other states. However, it is clear to note that the freedom of individuals is more important than the national ideology of nations, which is by far collective in nature. As Smith (1998, p. 46) states, this is why many liberals are sympathizers of nation-state existence and are just opposed to some of its ideologies fronted by some proponents and nationalists.
In his Nationalism works, Pacifists like Bertrand Russell criticized nationalism since he viewed it as “diminishing individual’s capacity to judge his or her own fatherland’s foreign policy” (Laqueur, 1976. p. 88). It is such pacifists views that suggest that nationalism mainly dwell on violence movements with military actions, and the conflict between nations that is brought about by chauvinism and arrogance, tarnishing the whole concept of nationalism. William Blum sums it up, “if love is blind, patriotism has lost all its senses” (Snyder, 1990, p. 3].
On the other hand, anti-nationalist have also generally criticized the ideology basing their views on particular attitudes of other nations, who basically believe in the nationalism doctrine that nation-state purely exist for only a particular one group who have that right to execute or mistreat the other (Motyl, 2001, p. 11). This is backed by their claim that such states dwell on chauvinism as well as xenophobia that have basically resulted from individual “nationalist’s” sentiments or proclamations (12). But this generalization may not help much given that some states exist with homogenous ethnic or religious group, but still engage in conflict and wars. So how would one classify such states or nations?
Politically, nationalism has been treated with contempt especially the leftists who despite their unwillingness to embrace nationalism ideology, have never attempted to dismiss the existence of nation-states. Some looked at it as involving nation-state revolution ideology. This is why many Marxists criticized the ideology by illustrating the failure by the socialists’ movements and socio-democrats to mobilize the workers all over the world to oppose the World War I and II. Incidentally, most left acknowledge nation- state in pushing for their political agenda.
Conclusion
From these it would be prudent to conclude that nationalism concept has been adversely misused by the individuals pursuing personal interests, and the ideology is not generally divisive in nature. Nationalism should therefore include all and not only elites, that should have a legally constituted political institutions, true and justified ideologies, that can eventually be recognized internationally and drawing of borders to enhance competitiveness economic and social welfare.
References
Delanty, G., Kumar, K., eds. 2006. The Sage Handbook of Nations and Nationalism, London: Sage Publications, ISBN 9781412901017.
Goebbels, J. National-Socialism, Bolshevism and Democracy, Documents on International Affairs, vol. II, 1938, pp. 17-19. Accessed from the Jewish Virtual Library.
Smith, AD. 1993. National Identity. Reno: University of Nevada Press. p72. ISBN 0874172047.
Smith, AD. 1998. Nationalism and Modernism: A Critical Survey of Recent Theories of Nations and Nationalism. London: Routledge. ISBN 0415063418.
Laqueuer, Walter. 1976. Comparative Study of Fascismby Juan J. Linz. Fascism,A Reader’s Guide Analyses, interpretations, Bibliography. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, Pp. 15.
Laqueur, W. 1997. Fascism: Past, Present, Future. Oxford University Press. P. 90.
Koln, H & Calhoun, C. 1942. The Idea of Nationalism: A Study in its Origins And Background. Transaction Publishers, P. 20, University of California, Journal of Central European Affairs, Volume 2.
Connor, Walker 1994, Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. p.29. Web.
Billig, Michael (1995). Banal Nationalism. London: Sage. ISBN 0803975252.
Gellner, Ernest (2005). Nations and Nationalism (Second ed.). Blackwell. ISBN 1405134429.
Canovan, Margaret (1996). Nationhood and Political Theory. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. ISBN 1840640111.
Miller, David (1995). On Nationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198293569.
Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communities. ISBN 0-86091-329-5, p. 6.
Smith, Anthony D. 1986. The Ethnic Origins of Nations, London: Basil Blackwell. Pp 6–18. ISBN 0-631-15205-9.
Laqueuer, W. 1976. Comparative Study of Fascism, by Juan J. Lin Fascism, A Reader’s Guide: Analyses, interpretations, Bibliography. Berkeley and Los Angeles University of California Press, Pp. 15.
Laqueur, W.1997. Fascism: Past, Present, Future. Oxford University Press, P. 90.
Timothy G R. 2005. Non-Western Educational Traditions: Indigenous Approaches to Educational Thought and Practice, Routledge, p. 4–5 ISBN 0805848576, ISBN 9780805848571.
Greenfeld, L. 1992. Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity Cambridge: Harvard University Press, ISBN 0-674-60319-2.
Hobsbawm, E J. 1992. Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality. 2nd ed, Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-43961-2.
Motyl, A, ed. 2001, Encyclopedia of Nationalism, San Diego: Academic Press, ISBN 0122272307.
Snyder, Louis 1990, Encyclopedia of Nationalism, New York: Paragon House, ISBN 1557781672.