Nationalism

I

Introduction

Nationalism, an ideological movement for the attainment and maintenance of autonomy, unity, and identity of a human population deemed by some of its members to constitute an actual or potential “nation”.

The concept of nationalism is used in a variety of ways to mean: l) a doctrine or ideology of the nation; 2) a movement with social and political goals on behalf of a nation; 3) a language and symbolism of the nation; 4) a collective sentiment towards the nation; and/or 5) a process of growth of one or more nations.

This last usage is separate from the others; it refers to the much wider process of the development of nations. Similarly with “national sentiment”: widespread attachments to the nation, and a desire for its strength, welfare, and interest, can emerge with or without a nationalist movement or ideology, and to some extent even without the symbolism, if not the language, of the nation. Conversely, we may witness the emergence of nationalist ideologies, movements, and symbols in a tiny minority of the designated national population, without most of the members-to-be having much in the way of an attachment or identification with the emergent nation, as has occurred in several African colonial and ex-colonial states (see Decolonization). Nationalism can appear with or without “its” nation, and vice-versa.

For these reasons, it is best to confine the meaning of the term “nationalism” to ideologies, movements, and symbolisms. Of these, ideology should be accorded primacy; symbols and texts take their meaning from their place in an ideological framework, and while nationalist movements share with other kinds of movements their typical organizational features, they are distinguished by their specific goals, which in turn are set by the ideologies of nationalism.

We sometimes hear that it is impossible to give a unitary meaning to the term “nationalism”, either because it is too vague and inchoate or because there are so many different kinds of nationalism. However, while there are important differences between specific kinds of nationalisms, the central vision animating all of them is bold and clear, and it is one that stamps them as “nationalist” rather than socialist, conservative, Christian, or any other set of ideological movements and belief-systems.

That ideological movement and belief-system has three constituent parts: a core doctrine, a set of ideological goals and concepts, and a network of related motifs, myths and symbols.

II

The “Core Doctrine”

The `core doctrine' of nationalism can be stated in the following propositions: l) The world is divided into nations, each with its own character, history, and destiny; 2) The source of political power resides solely in the nation; 3) An individual's primary loyalty is to his or her nation; 4) To be free, every individual must identify with a nation; 5) Every nation requires full self-expression and autonomy; 6) World order and justice require a world of free nations.

These are the tenets of an underlying doctrine espoused by every kind of nationalist from the founding fathers—Rousseau, Herder, Burke, Jefferson, Fichte, Mazzini— to post-colonial and contemporary nationalists. They provide the basis and impetus for all kinds of nationalist activity and institutions, and cover moral, social, cultural, as well as political, domains. They also provide the foundations on which particular nationalisms seek to build their nations through the use of “secondary” motifs and theories, derived from and suited to the contexts and situations of given nationalisms; examples of the latter include the Sun Language theory of Turkish origins espoused by Kemal Ataturk, the Emperor-worship central to the nationalism in Meiji Japan, and the idea of a fusion of “races” in Mexican nationalism.

This “core doctrine” has been the object of both moral and intellectual assaults. Elie Kedourie excoriated nationalism for its subversive antinomianism and its irrational millennial yearnings for terrestrial perfectibility, which led nationalists to preach virtue through terror and, in ethnically mixed areas, to bring untold misery and suffering by uprooting or massacring populations in their efforts to make states congruent with nations. He also attacked the doctrine's intellectual incoherence and contradictions, a theme taken up by Michael Freeden for whom nationalism is at best a “thin-centred” ideology with a restricted core of concepts, and at worst not a distinct ideology at all, but a parasitic “fill-in” for developed, mainstream ideologies like liberalism and socialism.

Neither of these negative portraits does justice to the multi-faceted nature of nationalism. While nationalists have often trampled on the rights and interests of other nations and have been responsible for many atrocities, nationalism's first proposition explicitly recognizes the existence and commensurability of other nations, and in such “concerts of nations” as Mazzini's Young Europe or the post-colonial Third World, this recognition was translated into practice. Besides, unlike a pessimistic, deity-dependant millenarianism, nationalism is an earthy, practical, human-centred programme of auto-emancipation, building old-new nations on the ruins of ancien régimes.

III

Core Ideals

Intellectually, nationalism's credentials are not as straightforward as either its proponents or detractors claim. There is confusion among its adherents over the cultural elements or “signs” of nationhood, such as language, religion, customs, and territory. However there is no lack of themes and concepts, and all of them can be seen to flow from the basic ideals and goals of nationalist movements: national autonomy, unity, and identity.

Though it may translate into political independence and sovereign statehood, national autonomy is a much wider concept. Stemming from the notion of internal rhythms of the self, autonomy denotes the desire for self-determination, which can cover cultural self-expression like a free vernacular press, freedom of worship, retention of collective customs and institutions and the like, as well as a measure of economic freedom, if not autarchy. A number of recent West European ethno-national movements, such as the Catalan, Scots, and Flemish, have preferred these freedoms to outright independence; that is why scholars like Andrew Orridge term them “autonomist” nationalisms.

Closely linked to autonomy is the drive for unification. National unity is both territorial and social. On the one hand, nationalists strive to unite their homeland into a compact, bordered nation, and, from the time of the French Revolution, they have sought to destroy localism and curb regionalism in the interests of the nation “one and indivisible”. In some cases, such as the American Civil War, when the territorial integrity of the nation was at stake, they have been prepared to make huge sacrifices to maintain unity and overcome the nationalism of those prepared to secede. At the same time secessionists who base their claims on a sense of separate history, culture, and territory, aim to create a new compact nation that will serve as a homeland for all co-nationals. According to the same logic, those ethnic kin that are separated from the homeland, and hence “unredeemed” (irredenta), have to be reunited, they and the territories on which they reside, to the motherland (see Irredentism).

On the other hand, nationalists seek social unity—“fraternité” and latterly “sororité”. They aim to integrate the members of the nation, and unite every family in a common purpose and common values. This may produce a homogenizing drive, particularly with organic nationalisms (see below). Generally, however, nationalists require that co-nationals share the same sentiments and goals, and have complementary functions, rather than be similar. In fact, under conditions of modernity, in which the mingling of cultures is widespread, nationalism for the most part seeks the integration of polyethnic nations, notably in new states in Africa and Asia, and in immigrant societies.

There are, of course, limits to the pluralism of modern nations. This is where the third ideal of nationalism, national identity, acts as a vital counterbalance. (Here we should note the distinction between national identity as one of the ideals of every nationalism, discussed here, and “national identity” as a conceptual tool of the analyst.) The idea that every nation must possess a peculiar character or identity, that it must be genuine and unique, and that we must rediscover and cultivate that identity, has been central to nationalism in every continent and period, from the time of Rousseau and Herder to the newly independent national states of the former Soviet Union, and even to the “Eurofederalist” vision of the European Union.

This emphasis on an often elusive national identity helps to account for the many contributions of artists, poets, historians and educators to the articulation of nationalist ideals. It also helps to explain the close involvement of Romantics bent on rediscovering and depicting the “essence” of the nation, and on the use of scholarly disciplines from archaeology and history to anthropology and sociology, to tell us “who we are”, “whence we came” and “whither we are going”.

Underpinning these three central ideals of nationalism is what we may term the “quest for authenticity”. For nationalists, authenticity possesses several meanings: originality, a pristine state, indigeneity, purity, genuineness, uniqueness, or simply “our own” and nobody else's. The sheer variety of meanings poses a problem of ambiguity: is the indigenous necessarily pure, the original ipso facto unique? For nationalists, such complexities are irrelevant: they oppose the authentic and pure to all that is corrupt or cosmopolitan, and thereby determine the “true” inmost being of the nation, and from it they derive the moral imperatives of national education, mobilization, and destiny.

Nationalists support their quest with a number of other ideals. Perhaps the most important is that of national dignity. Authenticity of itself endows a population with moral worth, for the nation is revealed as a true “child of Nature”, in the romantic image of France described by Jules Michelet, and hence inwardly superior to all those mixed states and corrupt empires which nationalisms were bent on overthrowing. Autonomy and liberation may bring a measure of dignity, but true worth comes from within, summed up in the slogan 'Western arts, Eastern morality', used for so many aspirant national states in Asia, whom Western technological prowess had humiliated, but who could always retreat into the strongholds of their inner moral resources. This was especially marked in those cases like China, Japan, and India, which could boast a pedigree and antiquity to match the oldest and noblest of Western states.

Closely linked to the dignity of antiquity is the ideal of continuity. Historians may argue the toss over the degree of continuity or change in a given nation, but for the nationalist the idea of the nation as a slowly evolving community from rudimentary beginnings to its present state represents an ideal that can inspire devotion and action. There are, of course, nationalists who, like the Pharaonic movement in early 20th century Egypt, believe that, beneath the outward ravages of time the nation never really changes; it is always the same. However, for most nationalists, even when they espouse revolution and national liberation, continuity is growth, and hence change is built into national continuity.

This evolutionary view of the nation is reinforced by the nationalist idea of national territory. The very name, the “homeland”, resonates with familiarity, warmth, and stability. Everywhere else, as Michael Billig reminds us, is “abroad”, the place of adventure but also of danger. The homeland, by contrast, is a place of love and devotion—to its hills and valleys, its rivers and fields, its sacred sites and ancestral resting-places. The ancestral homeland has become an ethnoscape where land and people have become fused, where territory has become poetic landscape, where the folk may be extolled, and where we all can explore and celebrate “our roots” in the national soil.

Nevertheless the ideal of the nation is never static, and nationalism is nothing if not a salvation drama. If it seeks a return to roots and to the golden past, it is only to inspire the members to pursue a vision of glory. To this end, the collective future is transmuted into national destiny, and history serves to instruct the members of the nation in the tasks of their unique fate. This ideal of destiny carries with it quasi-religious notions of collective transcendence and immortality, not in another world, but through our posterity on this earth. Just as authenticity has become the new source of the sacred in modern nationalism, so destiny through biological posterity takes the place of the next life, binding the individual closely into the frame of the nation.

IV

A Symbolic Network

Together, these ideals have formed a rich conceptual field and have helped to produce a striking array of emotive images and symbols. Not only do we have a set of characteristic concepts and languages of nationalisms; there are also recurrent myths, symbols, and memories associated with nations and nationalism.

Take the well-known symbols of the nation, developed for the most part by nationalists. These include emblems and flags for each nation and each national state; the national songs and anthems which emerged in the 18th century and became a sine qua non of any “genuine” nation; the various national holidays (of independence, of the constitution, of decisive battles and revolutions, etc.); the emergence of capital cities of government; the delineation of fixed and policed borders; the growing use of passports and currencies; the establishment of national museums and galleries, academies and libraries, and of national heritage trusts; the proliferation of statues of heroes and heroines, personifications of the nation (Marianne for France , Deutsche Michel for Germany, etc.); national military parades; tombs of the Unknown Warrior; and especially national festivals of remembrance for the war dead. All these, openly displayed or just taken-for-granted, have been reinforced or inculcated by nationalists to underpin and map the nation in the hearts and minds of its members.

The same can be said for the myths and memories of the nation. Nationalism has given coherence and force to the various elements of myth and memory that were the legacy of usually pre-modern cultures and ethnic communities. In the historicist mythology of the nation, its origins are clearly located in time and place. In some cases, there is also a putative ancestor and/or founder, such Piast for the Poles, Oghuz Khan for the Turks, and Abraham for the Jews. There may also be a decisive founding moment or turning point: the Israelite Exodus from Egypt, Gregory's conversion of the Armenians in c.3l2, the creation of the Hungarian kingdom in 896, the Swiss Oath of the Rütli in l29l.

These moments become the stuff of nationalist legend but no less important are the high points, the “golden ages” of the nation. These may be political and military, as with the Han Chinese or the Serbian empires; or they be economic, like the civilization of Teotihuacán in first millennium Mexico; they may be religious, as with the rise of Islam among the Arabs, the Vedic age in India, or the Mosaic or rabbinic ages among the Jews; or they may be artistic and intellectual, like the “golden age” of classical Athens, or the Italian Renaissance. For nationalists, these heroic ages serve a purpose: to excite the imaginations, and stir the emulation, of their co-nationals, and to rouse them so that they may once more scale the heights which their “ancestors” had conquered, and renew the ancient days of national glory.

This rhetoric is reinforced by a myth of national decline. Creativity dried up, wealth was dissipated, the spirit of communion faded, the nation decayed and split into fragments, and sooner or later, it was conquered, its lands expropriated, its members dispersed, and its people sank into ignorance and apathy. This is, of course, the cue for the nationalists to break the spell, awaken the slumbering beauty of the nation, and, through re-education, toil, and struggle, set it once again back on its historic course.

For this purpose, the nationalists appeal to the power of collective memory. Of course, these are not first-hand memories, not even recent, well-attested memories. They are traditions, some of them documented, based on earlier interpretations of often distant events and personages. There is no clear line between such memories and myths, for both deal with popular imagination and widely believed tales of an heroic ethnic past or pasts, and both rely on chains of interpretation after the event. Their selection is guided by present concerns, usually those of this or that political faction, but only within certain cultural limits and the parameters of popular resonance. For all that, the myths, memories, symbols, and traditions of earlier ethnic communities, widely recognized as “ancestral” to the nation in question, have become the staple of nationalist mobilization, and, along with language codes, have provided the cultural framework and underpinning of the nation.