Introduction
What is “nationalism”? The answer to the question is as illusive as the concept itself. It is a common belief that it is just a means for governments to brainwash the people of the state to detest their neighbouring country. Instances of nationalism provided in the annals of history are the rise of Nazi Germany or the Arab nationalism. Consequently, the most common belief that such records generate is that nationalism is nothing but a simple tool for power-hungry leaders to motivate thousands of people to sacrifice their life for the cause called “nationalism”. Albert Einstein believed that nationalism is “an infantile disease, the measles of mankind”.
The question that follows this statement is that if it is really true? Political scientists believe that the rise of the civil wars and authoritarian governments has led to the rise of this belief. Territorial ambitions of authoritarian governments such as that in Nazi Germany and Napoleonic France or the civil wars in Yugoslavia and Sudan have led to the rise of this common belief. Consequently, these political thinkers believe that nationalism is a tool for the right-wing political thinkers to support authoritarian leaders and oppose liberty and social democracy. Economists believe nationalism creates hurdles for free-market principles, hindering growth and giving rise to corruption. An outbreak of war is always associated with nationalism, as it is popularly believed that it is the tool used by leaders to influence people to acquire mass support. Clearly, nationalism has often been judged for its perceived ill effects and shares a bad reputation in many quarters.
However, there is a separate group of political thinkers who strongly support the concept of nationalism. Nationalism, they believe, is a unified sentiment that brings people of different background under one umbrella i.e. the nation. Therefore, it forms an ethical community of people that becomes the source of national identity. These claims regarding nationalism seem quite harmless. The negative feeling towards nationalism often foregoes the harmless sentiment behind the idea. I believe nationalism or national identity is the source of community building for the all the people in a country irrespective of their ethnic origin. It is a necessary concept as this sentiment helps to integrate the multi-ethnic population of the state. In simpler terms, nationalism teaches the people to understand what it means to belong to a nation. Therefore, this essay is directed to show how the statement “infantile disease” made by Einstein is not completely true.
Nationalism and National Identity
Before we begin our discussion on nationalism and national identity, it is essential to understand what is a nation. Nation may be defined as a group of people marked by common characteristics, united together to form a political association (Miller 2002). Therefore, a nation is formed based on perceived beliefs. These beliefs are formed from perceived ideas and histories of the country. However, problem arises when the belief is false. David Miller suggests that there are no nations whose beliefs are completely and literarily false (Miller 2002). Benedict Anderson (2006) coined the term “imagined communities” formed from the cultural features of a community and the structure that emerge from its historical background.
This is because every nation has a myth behind the nation building process, which is idealised history of the land that creates the historical truth of the country (Bell 2003). Further, there is a tendency to create a homogeneous national history (Miller 2002). A projected history is created to match the work done in the past in order to create homogeneity in history. Thus, the stories of battles, revolutions, and massacres are reinterpreted to fit the historical ideals and project the glorious past of the nation. This glorification process results in the creation of national myths that may not be entirely true but are essential in construction of a sustained national identity. Therefore, a nation may be defined as a geographical territory constituting shared beliefs, common heritage and culture, and mythologised history and has an active political character. In simpler terms, it is a group of people with shared beliefs and history who desire to govern themselves (Miller 2002).
For Nationalism
Nationalism and national identity is created through this common sense of the nation. The formation of a unified sentiment created through the process of mythologizing the past history and formation of a unified group of people beyond familial and social affiliations is called nationalism. Anderson (2006) believes that nation-states are formed from the historical effect of nationalism. In other words, cultures first create the history, through myths and rewriting of the past, which is then tied to the creation of the nation-state. Once members of the community attest to the mutual beliefs, the community then must create history that is to a certain extent “imagined”. Miller’s argument that the history cannot be completely true for certain aspect of it must be mythologised supports the concept of “imagined community” created by Anderson. This contradicts the popular political idea that nationalism is a sentiment created among the people living in a nation. If the nation came after nationalism then the whole argument may become different. However, if we keep this argument aside, both Anderson and Miller point out that certain imagined or mythologised constructions help in the creation of nationalism or national identity.
Anthony D Smith defined nationalism as a process of formation of nations with the help of ideologies or doctrines that helps in the formation of “national consciousness or sentiment” (2010, p. 6). Smith too believes that nationalism is an amalgamation of myth and sentiments that helps to bring the nation together. He considers nationalism as a “language and symbolism”, a “socio-political movement”, and “an ideology” (Smith 2010, p. 6). Thus, this idea of nationalism encompasses cultural as well as political aspects of formation of national identity.
De Cillia, Reisigl and Wodak (1999) show how national identity and ‘imagined community’ can be formed through discourse. They believe employment of linguistic devices is an effective way of creating a national identity. They take the Austrian example to show how discursive strategies can help to create a national identity. They argue that through historical discourse of “sameness” the identity was created in Austria as opposed to the earlier studies that had concentrated in understanding the discourse of differences. Globalisation and nationalisation are two concepts that create a dynamic instability in the sustenance of a nation-state. The fear of the immigrants has given rise to the reinvention of national identity and created the modern sense of community.
Ernest Gellner (1994) believed that nationalism came from Kant’s theories and saw it as a tool for social development. He believed that nationalism was a social movement started by the intellectuals but it received immense support from the proletariat that helped in its spread. Gellner (2005) developed a theoretical model that provided a theoretical account of the transformation of nationalism through the nineteenth and twentieth century. Here he pointed out that in advanced industrialised societies that are different from the agrarian but educated society of the nineteenth century. The present age, Gellner believes, it is based on continuous innovation and exponential growth that are different from what the Malthusian theory had postulated. Thus, with the changes in time and society, the nature of nationalism has also changed. In the new society, due to the difference in lifestyle, technology, and societal norms, the idea of nationalism has also changed.
Against Nationalism
The shared sense of community by sharing of culture, history, and language has given rise to nation and national identity. This in itself cannot have a negative effect on the rise in fundamentalism in the name of nationalism. However, some critics of nationalism do believe that nationalism and this imagined community is formed only through creation of the ‘other’ who become the benchmark of all evils happening within the community and therefore, the sense of hatred towards the ‘other’ creates the national identity. Eric Hobsbawm (2012) point out that the nationalism and national identity underwent a transformation in the early twentieth century. He believes that the national identity in the post-communist era has taken the shape of ethnic identity, which has created a device to define the community of people who believe that all their predicaments are due to the guilty ‘other’. Therefore, the sense of national identity has transformed from being a shared community bonding from past history to that of hating the ‘other’. However, Hobsbawm (2006) point out that this is a universal phenomenon wherein the national identity of the people is now created by loathing the perceived fiend. Thus, he believes that the rise of fundamentalism in many quarters of the globe is due to the existing nationalist reactions.
Mabel Berezin (2006) believes xenophobia is a potent cause for the rise of modern national identity. He believes that the rise of the “ultra-nationalism” in the modern nation-state due to the challenges posed by immigration. Xenophobia is a socially and politically volatile situation especially when the sentiment of nationalism tries to safeguard the geographical boundaries of the country from alien immigrants. The concept of nationhood is formed by the rising xenophobia and closing of the borders. Berezin (2006) studies the political situation in Europe, especially France and Germany and shows the rise in reiteration of nationhood.
Critics of nationalism have often argued that it was an intellectual and social concept invented in the west. Most common among them was the argument presented by Elie Kedourie (1993) in his seminal book called Nationalism. Kedourie pointed out that nationalism is the creation of the European intellectual classical social theory. He believed that nationalism is a concept that started in the early nineteenth century in Germany. He believed nationalism was a concept developed by the German Romantics such as Immanuel Kant. He professed that the ideology developed in this case was done by application of the collectivization theory to develop a dissident revolutionary. Thus, he believed that the ideology of nationalism was actually a juvenile campaign by the alienated and educated European youth (Kedourie 1993). These assertions of Kedourie were criticised by Geller (2006).
Is Nationalism Evil?
The idea of nationalism has undergone massive changed over the years. It has been analysed and reconstructed by different theorists. Some supported the concept, while others believed that it was just another jargon created by the authorities to attain their desired ends (Habermas 2003; Huddy & Khatib 2007). This, in turn, curbed the liberties of the people, influencing them with nationalist policies to make them do things for the nation. These policies are in direct conflict with the core liberal values (Brubaker & Cooper 2000). It is argued that such adverse nationalism would increase the role of the state to promote the ideology of the majority in the country, undermining the minority interest (Huddy & Khatib 2007). This will therefore interfere with individual autonomy, restricting freethinking and creativity of the people. However, does historical study of nationalism show exclusive attitude of nationalist policies? Miller (2002) argues that nationalism can be inclusive, embracing foreigners and their culture and finding a new identity in their inclusiveness. For instance, a single national identity like being British or American can include varied ethnicities and cultural traits. Thus, liberal national identity can become both inclusive and diverse.
National identity is essential to incorporate values of liberty and give choices to the people. Liberty is essential for creation of national identity as this allows the people to make choices of their own. However, in order to make meaningful choices, an individual must have the support of the culture and the surrounding community that would help them to gain a better understanding of the significance of their life. So, it is only within the community that an individual can make sense of their life, thus, helping them to make meaningful choices. Further, individual liberty also helps to retrain people from interfering into the lives of the others. As nationalism helps to protest the culture, language, and values of the people, it also recognizes the social differences between people and embraces it. In other words, it is essential to bridge the gap between national identity and liberty of the people. Therefore, nationalism is essential for creating a unified national identity if it respects and embraces the heterogeneity of the masses.
Many political scientists believe that nationalism is a means to encourage inward looking policies that inculcate xenophobia and closing of borders. This would help the nationalists curtail trade and even wage war in other countries (Coles 2002). Essentially, it is believed that nationalism is a tool that helps leaders to influence the masses to garner popular opinion on certain international issues. For instance, both India and Pakistan has imbibed communalist thinking and hatred for the ‘other’ in its nationalist discourse that helps the countries to maintain a hostile relation with each other (Ganguly 2013). The German identity in the Nazi Germany was based on the belief of homogeneity of their race (Maier 2009). American identity, on the other hand, is based on immigration and creed (Huntington 2004). Therefore, it is essential to build a liberal and not inward-looking restrictive nationalism.
Conclusion
Ill effects of nationalism, as professed by many scholars, did not stop nations from trying to create a unique identity for its people. Why is it so? Are there no benefits of adopting a national identity that can unite the nation? Evans and Kelley (2002) studied the pride in the nation and nationalism in 24 countries from 1995 through 2001. The study showed that pride in a nation is higher in developed and older democracies like Norway and America and lower in nascent democracies such as Czech Republic and Slovakia (Evans & Kelley 2002). The study apparently shows that countries, which had a higher degree of nationalism, were wealthier. In poorer countries, the people are not patriotic enough (Evans & Kelley 2002). For instance, in Eastern European countries such as Latvia and Slovenia, people have less pride in their nation and historically are a source of the new form of hyper-nationalism. Even though these countries show strong jingoist traits, the people of these countries show very little pride in their country. Does this mean that the idea of nationalism that transcends pecuniary concerns has failed to be altruistic in nature? This may not be the case for the extreme form of national identity may also be found in the nationalism of the developed world. For instance, the rise of Islamic nationalism in Turkey and in the other Islamic countries like Iran and Iraq has opened a different facet to the study of nationalism that rests on the religious nature of nationalism. Here, the national identity is based on the religion that is followed and is not constrained by the geographical boundary of the country.
Nationalism is essential to give a sense of belonging to a group of people. This can be in the geographical boundary of the country, ethnicity, religion, history, language, or any other symbol. Nationalism is thus created of symbols and myths. It helps to create a sense of belonging. However, when there is a lack of belonging, and the national identity has not become mature enough to adopt liberalism, it gives rise to fundamentalism. Thus, nationalism is essential for building a nation if it also adopts liberty.
Reference List
Anderson, B 2006, Imagined Communities, Verso, London.
Bell, DS 2003, ‘Mythscapes: memory, mythology, and national identity’, The British journal of sociology, vol 54, no. 1, pp. 63-81.
Berezin, M 2006, ‘Xenophobia and the New Nationalism’, in G Delanty, K Kumar (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Nations and Nationalism, Sage Publication, London.
Brubaker, R & Cooper, F 2000, ‘Beyond ‘Identity”, Theory and society, vol 29, no. 1, pp. 1-47.
Coles, RL 2002, ‘War and the contest over national identity’, The Sociological Review , vol 50, no. 4, pp. 587-609.
De Cillia, R, Reisigl, M & Wodak, R 1999, ‘The discursive construction of national identities’, Discourse & Society, vol 10, no. 2, pp. 149-173.
Evans, MDR & Kelley, J 2002, ‘National Pride in the Developed World: Survey Data from 24 Naitons’, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, vol 14, no. 3, pp. 303-338.
Ganguly, S 2013, Conflict unending: India-Pakistan tensions since 1947, Columbia University Press, New York.
Gellner, E & Breuilly, J 2006, Nations and Nationalism, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, MA.
Gellner, E 1994, Encoutners with Nationalism , Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
Gellner, E 2005, ‘The Cominf og Nationalism, and its interpretation’, in S Bowles, M Franzini, U Pagano (eds.), The Politics and Economics of Power, Routledge, London.
Habermas, J 2003, ‘Citizenship and National Identity’, in R Robertson (ed.), Globalization: Global Membership and Participation, Taylor & Francis, New York.
Hobsbawm, EJ 2012, Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Huddy, L & Khatib, N 2007, ‘American patriotism, national identity, and political involvement’, American Journal of Political Science, vol 51, no. 1, pp. 63-77.
Huntington, SP 2004, Who are We?: The Challenges to America’s National Identity, Simon and Schuster, New York.
Kedourie, E 1993, Nationalism, John Wiley & Sons, London.
Maier, CS 2009, The unmasterable past: History, Holocaust, and German national identity, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Miller, D 2002, On Nationality, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Smith, AD 2010, Nationalism: Theory, Ideology, History, John Wiley & Sons, Cambridge, UK.