Nationalism is irrational

Tim Robbins

Hello,
I believe nationalism as defined as:
"
1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
3. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination."

(Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nationalism)

is not a rational concept.

My reasons are:
1. There is not much rational decision in what nation we choose.
We are usually just born into one. How can something be rational that involves no choice?

2. The only thing that is unique to a nation is a political system.
Accents, culture, music, humour and not unique to the nation concept.
Therefor "devotion" to this nation concept seems simply like devotion to an arbitary political system. Respect maybe, but I can't see how devotion to an arbitary nation can be rationalised.

3. I agree the nation concept, through collective action of people helps creates things like a welfare state and a legal system. However, surely the greater collective action, i.e. a collective action greater than the nation boundries, the more the benefit.

Your comments and thoughts please.

Dg101

I wouldn't consider myself a "nationalist", and I would agree that extreme nationalism is irrational. But surely you can be proud of your country?

I would dispute the notion that accents culture music and humour are not unique to a nation, they are part of what defines the nation. And yes, while you cannot choose your nation, isn't it the same as not being able to choose your family? Does that mean love or devotion to your family is irrational?

Finally, point 2 is not necessaily accurate in moderate nationalism. Perhaps in extreme nationalism, but, a country can act even when it's against what may perhaps be its own best interests for moral or other reasons such as France and Germany's opposition to the Iraq invasion which cost them economically. So on the point of greater collective action, I don't feel that nationalism and this idea have to be mutually exclusive.

People are sometimes irrational.

Dg101

Deleted User wrote:

People are sometimes irrational.

You know, that's actually really profound. And very true as well. Take a look at the cuckoo's nest for example.

Tim Robbins

Dg101 wrote:

But surely you can be proud of your country?

Why?

Dg101 wrote:

I would dispute the notion that accents culture music and humour are not unique to a nation, they are part of what defines the nation.

You could say the same about counties, or the Northside and Southside of Dublin.
The conept of different accents is not particular only to the nation
concept. It is particular to geographical zones, one of which is a nation.
So why does this zone, require devotion more so than a county or village.
Furthemore, accents also very with class? Does this mean we should be "devoted" to our class? Surely not.

Dg101 wrote:

And yes, while you cannot choose your nation, isn't it the same as not being able to choose your family? Does that mean love or devotion to your family is irrational?
[/QUOTE}
People generally love their family as a symbiotic relationship generally exists.
It's also a concept of nature and arguably a concept of evolution i.e. we have a better chance of survival as a race if we look after our offspring, and we have a better chance of survival if we love those who look after us.
Most species behave like this, not to the same extent as humans, but there are similarities.

The nation and nationalism is a man made concept. One could argue for example, that Ireland is far better off moving authority and control to Europe, than maintaining a nationalist ideology. The EU is not a concept of nationalism.

Dg101 wrote:

Finally, point 2 is not necessaily accurate in moderate nationalism. Perhaps in extreme nationalism, but, a country can act even when it's against what may perhaps be its own best interests for moral or other reasons such as France and Germany's opposition to the Iraq invasion which cost them economically. So on the point of greater collective action, I don't feel that nationalism and this idea have to be mutually exclusive.

I would argue there would be less wars if the human raced moved away from the concept of nationalism. This has been proven in Europe. Nations states were consitently fighting each other, until a stable cooperation framework was agreed with the European Union. Had nationalism prevailed, this would not have been achieved.

silverharp

It's a debate about who is "us" and who is "them", tied in with the "megapolitics" of the age, the state probably hit a high point with the fall of communism and is on a downhill slope in my opinion. The welfare state will probably fall apart over the next 30 years so peoples ideas of what the state is for will change.

Dg101

It's funny, I'm actually in favour of European integration, and I would agree with you that nationalism, in excessive amounts, is a cause of needless violence. As I said, I'm not a nationalist per se, but, I do feel that you can be proud of your country, or, as you point out, of your town or village. It is the same basic feeling of loyalty and pride for a communal organisation.

Why be proud of your country?
I'm not suggesting blind pride or faith, as we all know our country, like every other one, has its fair share of problems. But I think we cn all probably find something about it that appeals to us. Believe me, I'm not just suggesting pride for the sake of it, nor pride because it's our country. For example, I'm proud of the economic turnaround the country managed over the last century. But, I am ready to acknowledge the many flaws.

As to the symbiotic relationship with the family, doesn't the state have a symbiotic relationship with the individual? And don't we have a better chance of survival in a nation than as individuals? Perhaps not to the same extent, but the same connection exists, at least tenuously.

Alex S.

Dg101 wrote:

It's funny, I'm actually in favour of European integration, and I would agree with you that nationalism, in excessive amounts, is a cause of needless violence. As I said, I'm not a nationalist per se, but, I do feel that you can be proud of your country, or, as you point out, of your town or village. It is the same basic feeling of loyalty and pride for a communal organisation.

Why be proud of your country?
I'm not suggesting blind pride or faith, as we all know our country, like every other one, has its fair share of problems. But I think we cn all probably find something about it that appeals to us. Believe me, I'm not just suggesting pride for the sake of it, nor pride because it's our country. For example, I'm proud of the economic turnaround the country managed over the last century. But, I am ready to acknowledge the many flaws.

As to the symbiotic relationship with the family, doesn't the state have a symbiotic relationship with the individual? And don't we have a better chance of survival in a nation than as individuals? Perhaps not to the same extent, but the same connection exists, at least tenuously.

The economic turnaround Ireland made is based on amoral neoliberal economic policies. Multinationals pay very low tax here and can increase their pursuit of profit and disregard of everything else.
Furthermore, despite our wealth we have a pathetic health system and we are pretty much in the same situation as we were under British rule respect to land. A small amount of people make a fortune from the land, while the rest rent and are priced out of the market.
We're not 2nd class citizens anymore, but we have just imported and created immigrants and made them our 2nd class citizens. So the class divide still exists, it's just the people that play the roles have changed.

It is possible to have symbiotic relationship with the state. However, it doesn't have to be a nation, why the emphasis on nation? Athens was a city state for example, no need for nation then so why now? Why do people feel they need to be devoted to it?

Mad Finn

What's so great about being rational? Are emotions rational?

Maybe this does not apply to the original poster but the word rational itself has been hijacked by some of the most repulsive 'thinkers' to have emerged in the 20th century--the ultra-right ultra-capitalist followers of Ayn Rand who call themselves Objectivists and now tend to use the word 'rational' as a catch-all adjective to describe their philosophy.

The ultimate conclusion to which they seem to come--and they are very 'rational' so there is no such thing as a difference of opinion or a morally dubious case: it's either right or it isn't--is that if only all people acted purely in their own best interests then everybody would swim along in a little utopia of consensus.

There is no room for humanity with all its weaknesses and foibles and differences of opinion in this model. Those who transgress are beyond the pale and deserving of no mercy. There is no moral objection to carrying out the most unspeakable atrocity if it is in your best interest to do so. There is no such thing as concern for your fellow man, it is only concern for oneself that is of interest.

Google some of the big names in this philosophical movement if you want to find out how utterly repugnant they are as human beings: Leonard Peikoff, Yaron Brook or have a look at Capitalism magazine online. Truly scary people.

Maybe the OP is undeserving of this tirade but his/her use of the word 'rational' rang alarm bells.

On the narrow topic at hand: nationalism meets a social and emotional need to belong to a larger group and feel as one with a wide and disparate body of people. It's a basis for organising society in units of manageable size. As with anything to do with emotions it can be abused and used for evil purposes. It's not always black and white as to how to distinguish between good and evil in such events.

Man has to make his choices and bear the consequences of them when confronted with moments of crisis. But hey, That's Life.

flogen

Firstly; I don't think I'd consider myself a nationalist as such, but I do have a certain level of pride in my country; not because it's where I was born but because I think there is a lot of good in it and a lot to be proud of. I know it's not perfect and I'd go so far to say that I don't have nearly as much support for you country politically as I do personally.

Tim Robbins wrote:

1. There is not much rational decision in what nation we choose.
We are usually just born into one. How can something be rational that involves no choice?

Just to challenge your points however,
The same could be asked about family; why would anyone be devoted to a family that they had no decision in being a part of? You are born into a family (or a country) and it's just natural to feel that you have a place in it; it doesn't always happen in both family and nation I know...
Perhaps it's part of the debate of nature over nurture; if you believe that nurture has any sway in the personality of an individual then the persons surroundings, both immediate (family) and indirect (nation) has an effect on their person; if you've taken parts of who you are from things around you then you are bound to feel at home in that group... Your accent, perhaps language, complection, sense of humour, taste in art, level of manners and morals etc. may all be influenced from people and places around you; if that is the case then people living in Ireland are going to have influences from the nation that they are within, meaning they all share a similar source (but not always the same taste or opinion).

2. The only thing that is unique to a nation is a political system.
Accents, culture, music, humour and not unique to the nation concept.
Therefor "devotion" to this nation concept seems simply like devotion to an arbitary political system. Respect maybe, but I can't see how devotion to an arbitary nation can be rationalised.

I'm not sure if I understand this; our political system is as unique as our accent; that is to say that we have our own way of doing things just like everyone else... every country has a certain accent and political system, if anything political systems (republic, monarchy, democracy, etc.) are less unique than accents or culture; If you hear an accent or hear a piece of traditional music you would have a good chance of placing it, but if someone named a type of political system it might not be nearly as easy.

3. I agree the nation concept, through collective action of people helps creates things like a welfare state and a legal system. However, surely the greater collective action, i.e. a collective action greater than the nation boundries, the more the benefit.

Your comments and thoughts please.

I'm for EU intergration but only to a point; that is to say that one rule across 25 states doesn't work in every instance (for example Germany currently needs to get its economy back into shape, but EU rules that would help that would probably damage others, like Ireland... at the same time EU rules could be put in place that could extend the Irish boom but they would almost certainly damage other countries).
I don't believe the EU is damaging our culture, even the influx of foreign nationals can do little to dampen Irishness (I imagine that, just like the legendary line about British forces in Ireland, foreign nationals will eventually become more Irish than the Irish themselves) at the same time I don't think a flat out superstate, a kin to the US model will really be very beneficial for many countries.

Alex S.

Alex S. wrote:

The economic turnaround Ireland made is based on amoral neoliberal economic policies.?

Neo-liberal economics are consequentialist and directly utilitarian, not amoral.

It is possible to have symbiotic relationship with the state. However, it doesn't have to be a nation, why the emphasis on nation? Athens was a city state for example, no need for nation then so why now? Why do people feel they need to be devoted to it?

The state to some degree may decide the size of the community/society which it governs. The rise of the nation-state could be seen as a response to the unviability of most city states in military and economic terms.

The progress of technology means people thousands of miles away may have more in common than their respective neighbours. A community is no longer a matter of physical distance. Boards is a testament to this. The increasingly large size of a typical state could be connected to the constant progress in communications technology.

Both of these point to larger states in the future, which if you look at the advance of the EU, African Union, NAFTA, ASEAN, WTO etc. in recent decades, is not all that hard to imagine.

Dg101

The economic turnaround Ireland made is based on amoral neoliberal economic policies. Multinationals pay very low tax here and can increase their pursuit of profit and disregard of everything else.

Isn't that a wild swing off topic? It's just an example of something that I personally am proud of with regards to this country.

why the emphasis on nation?

As to the Athenian question, Athens when an independent city state was essentially a nation. And I did point out that you can have loyalty to towns and cities as well, so I don't think I put emphasis on the nation. As Mad Finn pointed out, we all have a need to belong, and towns and cities are as important to that as a nation really. Nationalism is not necessarily confined to a nation I suppose, despite what the name would suggest, I suppose what it boils down to is loyalty to whatever collective entity you identify yourself with.

Tim Robbins

Dg101 wrote:

As to the Athenian question, Athens when an independent city state was essentially a nation. And I did point out that you can have loyalty to towns and cities as well, so I don't think I put emphasis on the nation. As Mad Finn pointed out, we all have a need to belong, and towns and cities are as important to that as a nation really.
Nationalism is not necessarily confined to a nation I suppose, despite what the name would suggest, I suppose what it boils down to is loyalty to whatever collective entity you identify yourself with.

Thanks for getting back, DG.
The point about Athens is that an entity does not need to be a nation to be a state. As for loyalty to towns and cities, yes you can have that. However it's not as excessive as some people have to their nation. Have you ever heard of citism or townism?
Now, the point about needing to belong is interesting and the crux of the matter really.
Do we really need to belong?
What entities is it ok to belong to and what entities not?
How come it is okay to say I am proud of my great Irish nation and not ok to say I am proud of my great white race? Surely the "belong" argument is equally applicable to both.
It is for this reason I reject the "belong" argument.
Your thoughts...

Mad Finn

Tim Robbins wrote:

Do we really need to belong?

"No man is an island!"

Tim Robbins wrote:

What entities is it ok to belong to and what entities not?
How come it is okay to say I am proud of my great Irish nation and not ok to say I am proud of my great white race? Surely the "belong" argument is equally applicable to both.

The belonging argument is a double-edged sword. Yes, you want to identify with others, but a key part of this is distinguishing yourself from another group. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, so long as you recognise the limits this identity/distinguishing features.

Some nations ARE based on racial identity, although they tend to call it 'ethnic' identity now. Some are based on ethnic differences. Some on linguistic differences. Some on sectarian differences. Very few of them are completely exclusive and if they tried to be they would fail.

The difference between Britain and Ireland now is largely sectarian. So too is that between Serbia and Croatia. Same language (more or less) but the Croats are Catholic and the Serbs Orthodox. Bosnia is home to two sectarian groups: Moslems and 'Serbs' ie Christians. Slovenia is distinguished by a different language. So too is Macedonia.

A couple of hundred years ago there was a linguistic difference between much of Ireland and Britain.

It's natural to bond with others of like bent. It's also natural towant to be different. The important part is to recognise the limits.

oscarBravo

Mad Finn wrote:

"No man is an island!"

I hope not, I'm a dreadful swimmer.











The drink of your choice at the next Boards Beers for whoever can name that book!

InFront

MadFinns allusion to Donne is not unreasonable. Mankind is, of course interconnected. To move away from the Ireland example, consider the Eastern European Countries.
When these countries were created from one pan-slav identity, they were created in terms of corresponding national identities, countries sprung out of the single contrasting population.
Shaping these individual nations was language, culture, sometimes religion. Surely these were not irrational yardsticks to decide 'who went where'?
Uniting people by religious, social, cultural similarities to one another can aid in domestic stability. Surely this is rational.
If a culture in genuine, and a religion, and a language, why would it be irrational to unite a people under these parameters more so than the parameters and boundaries of geography: rivers, desert and mountain ranges?

Surely uniting people under traditional nationalistic auspices offers the benefit of practicality and domestic togetherness, and can awaken a national spirit.

It depends how far you want to take the bracket of inclusion. Do you see yourself as a Corkman? an Irishman? A Celt? A Germanic European? A European? You can be all of these things, but the question is at which point, moving from either end of the scale, are your interests best met, given the resources and infrastructure and population available at that point? Clontarf or Dundrum or Ballycotton or Galway City is not a rational or feasable unit, but Ireland is.
Whether Europe is a feasable unit for concentration of a type of national identity in terms of legislation, economics and social policy is not yet proven.

InFront

oscarBravo wrote:

The drink of your choice at the next Boards Beers for whoever can name that book!

Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions by John Donne?
Or are you talking about another text?

oscarBravo

InFront wrote:

Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions by John Donne?
Or are you talking about another text?

I was talking about my riposte, which was taken from a rather obscure work of fiction.

But I'll buy you the drink of my choice if I see you at the Beers.

InFront

Ah, I dont read the obscure stuff, its my downfall. I find nobody is familiar enough with their importance to warrant any literary adventures!

Dg101

I think that how far you draw those brackets depends on your own personal ethics and politics. It's become a choice at this stage. For example, I'm from Cork, but would have no problem calling myself a European. Others would then say what has Europe ever done for me, I'm Irish and proud. Still others might say I'm a proud citizen of the People's Republic of Cork. Nationalism in moderation is fine, and is perhaps even necessary to some small extent, just to be part of something bigger than yourself. Hell, there are probably some people that say I'm a proud citizen of boards.ie and nothing bigger. Nationalism doesn't always have to be in terms of a nation state, just a collective entity. As for the great white race, that question is heavily loaded.
*puts on flame retardant gear*
I suppose that it's okay to identify yourself on an ethnic level, as long as you don't think my race is better than everyone elses. The phrasing is fairly reminiscent of Nazi Germany, but, if ethnicity is what you identify yourself by, I don't really see how anyone can argue with you, assuming you don't discriminate against other ethnic groups. It's similar to the fact that someone who says I'm Irish is fine, as long as they don't go around saying I hate those <insert country here> scum, or Cork people going around saying I hate <insert county here> scum.

Dg101

Dg101 wrote:

Nationalism doesn't always have to be in terms of a nation state, just a collective entity.

I don't think there is a word for devotion to a collective entities in general (enlighten me), but it certainly isn't nationalism as that signifies a devotion to a particular collective entity, the nation.

I know what you're trying to say i just don't agree with the word you're trying to do to say it. Anyway this is all just semantics, so I'll stop now.

Dg101

Indeed, that way madness lies...

Well, the point i'm trying to make is that everyone's concept of a nation is going to be different. As was pointed out, some people would consider themselves more part of their town than their nation. I suppose it's patriotism maybe? Well, love of your collective unit. Where does city state end and nation begin for example. The difference is slight, and we could get bogged down in it for years, but I think this is all wandering off topic a little. I don't really see nationalism as inherently irrational, regardless of what kind of entity it is with respect to. While it doubtless *can* be irrational, it isn't any more irrational than other emotions.

DadaKopf

You're all confusing nationalism with different forms of association.

Nationalism isn't feeling part of your family, a local community, a town where those links are primarily to people and land through legal institutions of usufruct or ownership.

Nationalism also isn't ethnicity because ethnic identity is generally understood as "a human population whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry ... ". Ethnic groups are qualitiatively different on the basis of their 'boundary maintenance' customs, which may be very obvious or invisible to outsiders, and they do not have territorial and jurisdictional sovereignty. I personally don't believe there's anything necessary about ethnicity, it's all really a matter of interpretation and depends entirely on communities' responses to their material and cultural context.

The way I think about nationalism is that it's the 'ideology of ethnic identity' tied to specific historical factors, and while inevitably nationalism has powerful emotional content, I'm not happy to consider it 'irrational'.

Nationalism is a very specific historial phenomenon that emerged as a result of the decline of the feudal system, itself due to (the Renaissance and) the rise of the industrial class and industrial society, and, crucially, the decline in traditional forms of political authority in Europe from the early 19th century.

Benedict Anderson defines a nation as an 'imagined commuity', and emerged across Europe as a consequence of various Renaissance discoveries like the cartography which had the effect of dividing the world up into discreet territories. Eric Hobsbawm's historical analysis showed how 'nationalism' was created and popular demands answered by political elites as a new form of political allegiance/control through the 'invention of traditions' (like the kilt, or the British coronation, or the great Baroque building projects in France, Germany and Central Europs). Ernest Gellner thought nationalism was a necessary outcome of the processes of the industrial revolution and actually made the industrial revolution possible. He defines nationalism as "a political principle that holds that the political and the national unit should be congruent", but countered Hobsbawm's argument, saying "It is nationalism which engenders nations, and not the other way round".

Gellner had trouble (as other theorists) explaining nationalism in pre-industrial and post-industrial countries - for example, nationalist movements in sub-Saharan Africa. But in the case of Africa, ethnic identity (largely created by British and French colonialists) became fused with state institutions in the 1950s during decolonisation. In other countries, like India (and Norway), the state still cannot command a singular nationalist population because localism and regionalism persists.

Sgt. Sensible

Deleted User wrote:

I don't think there is a word for devotion to a collective entities in general (enlighten me), but it certainly isn't nationalism as that signifies a devotion to a particular collective entity, the nation.

No there isn't, but for the sake of convenience, Orwell (in 'notes on nationalism') used the word nationalism to describe an individual's loyalty to a religion or political philosophy as well as loyalty to a nation state.

Dg101

You're all confusing nationalism with different forms of association.

Nationalism isn't feeling part of your family, a local community, a town where those links are primarily to people and land through legal institutions of usufruct or ownership.

I am aware that there are differences, but I feel that a comparison with other communal entities is valid because the point of the thread is whether or not nationalism is rational. And since we can accept that in the case of smaller communal groupings it isn't inherently irrational then it can be used to work up logically to a bigger entity such as a nation. The differences between localism, regionalism and nationalism are primarily just in scale, though historical factors may become more dominant the larger you go.

Nationalism is a very specific historial phenomenon that emerged as a result of the decline of the feudal system, itself due to (the Renaissance and) the rise of the industrial class and industrial society, and, crucially, the decline in traditional forms of political authority in Europe from the early 19th century.

Incidentally, wouldn't the religous upheavals of the reformation have had impact on nationalism? Uniting nations under a common religion against their "heathen" neighbours? And Napoleon exploited the creation of a threat to the state to stir up nationalism, leading to the society being distracted from domestic problems. Just wondering, because your thorough ananlysis seemed to be missing that step.

DadaKopf

Sorry, DG101, I wasn't addressing you specifically, just the thread in general.

DG101 wrote:

since we can accept that in the case of smaller communal groupings it isn't inherently irrational then it can be used to work up logically to a bigger entity such as a nation

I agree with this to a degree, in the sense that we're all human.

The differences between localism, regionalism and nationalism are primarily just in scale, though historical factors may become more dominant the larger you go.

But I disagree here. I don't think it's an issue of scale. It's the precise form of nationalism engendered by particular factors related to the ascendance of the nation-state system, itself a response to structural changes in the world (first with European de-feudalisation, colonialism and later globalisation) associated with industrialisation and capitalism.

Interestingly, there are, however, two different kinds of nationalist traditions in Europe: Francophile - an assimilationist version where the nation is seen as identical to a specific sovereign territory in which all citizens must be absorbed into one cultural identity; and Germanophile - like Zionism or Arabism (historically, Germany) where a population recognises their difference and claim a state, but see themselves as a nation without a state. Today, Zionism complicates matters.

I don't like the setting up the discussion as an irrational/rational one, it's divisive and, heh, nationalistic, ideological, dogmatic. I think the discussion is better framed around exploring reasons for various forms of cultural and political identity and allegiance.

Incidentally, wouldn't the religous upheavals of the reformation have had impact on nationalism? Uniting nations under a common religion against their "heathen" neighbours? And Napoleon exploited the creation of a threat to the state to stir up nationalism, leading to the society being distracted from domestic problems. Just wondering, because your thorough ananlysis seemed to be missing that step.

Nono, any understanding of nationalism in Europe, at least, must take this into account. I fully agree. Sorry that I didn't make it clearer, but I hoped linking to Benedict Anderson would imply that. Still, I think there was a paradigm shift between, say 1614 (Treaty of Westphalia), the French revolution and Napoleon (leading, later to the Act of Union, Bismarck and Piedmont in Italy).

Pocari Sweat

I agree with that to a degree in so much as I disagree with it too.

The Corinthian

Tim Robbins wrote:

Have you ever heard of citism or townism?

Sure. Look at Italy, where people in many respect still identify with their town or city before they do with the country.

Do we really need to belong?

Realistically yes. Communities band together for great enterprises and self-defence. To do this they need a social glue that will popularise this cohesion, without being too complicated for the hoi polloi to comprehend. Nationalism fits the bill.

gaf1983

Here's an essay I did last May on the factors that affect national identity formation:

http://geocities.com/besac2004/blog.html

In my own opinion, the creation of nationalist myths by elites is a very rational act; subscribing to those myths perhaps not so.

New_Departure06

Tim Robbins wrote:

My reasons are:
1. There is not much rational decision in what nation we choose.
We are usually just born into one. How can something be rational that involves no choice?

2. The only thing that is unique to a nation is a political system.
Accents, culture, music, humour and not unique to the nation concept.
Therefor "devotion" to this nation concept seems simply like devotion to an arbitary political system. Respect maybe, but I can't see how devotion to an arbitary nation can be rationalised.

3. I agree the nation concept, through collective action of people helps creates things like a welfare state and a legal system. However, surely the greater collective action, i.e. a collective action greater than the nation boundries, the more the benefit.

Your comments and thoughts please.

I am a Nationalist and will not apologise. People want issues affecting them dealt with at a local level over the most sensitive policy-areas like taxation, defence etc. I want a United Ireland as a I feel a sense of ethnic-kinship with the Northern Nationalists and I do not trust a foreign govt to always look after their rights. I feel personally affronted when I hear of Loyalist killings and collusion with the security-forces in NI, and regard it as confirmation of the correctness of my believes that Irish people on the island should be under one govt. I regard our language - however frail - as important for our identity.

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

I am a Nationalist and will not apologise. People want issues affecting them dealt with at a local level over the most sensitive policy-areas like taxation, defence etc. I want a United Ireland as a I feel a sense of ethnic-kinship with the Northern Nationalists and I do not trust a foreign govt to always look after their rights. I feel personally affronted when I hear of Loyalist killings and collusion with the security-forces in NI, and regard it as confirmation of the correctness of my believes that Irish people on the island should be under one govt. I regard our language - however frail - as important for our identity.

Nice credo, but do you have an argument too?

m1ke

Nationalism is rational. Industrialism altered our social structure. Mass education, political participation and a high division of labour were required to service the new economy. It also required a central culture and state. It did not require this hundreds of years ago. Individual nationalists might be rational, depending on the individual. Sometimes it's rational to be proud of your country, if you gain something out of it personally.

sceptre

New_Departure06 wrote:

I am a Nationalist and will not apologise.

I don't believe anyone here asked you to apologise. I'm far more interested in the rationale behind people's views rather than an opener of chin out, middle finger extended. I suspect that the rationale-providers in general, some of whom I presumably don't agree with, would feel likewise.

The Corinthian

m1ke wrote:

Nationalism is rational. Industrialism altered our social structure. Mass education, political participation and a high division of labour were required to service the new economy. It also required a central culture and state.

I think what is essentially being argued is that the underlying purpose of nationalism, as you have described, makes sense, however in itself it is a simple credo that can be easily regurgitated without need of understanding of this underlying purpose (as kindly demonstrated by New_Departure06).

As such nationalism is not actually rational, per say. This is why we get jingoism, which uses nationalism while forgetting the underlying purpose that it is meant to serve. This is not to say that nationalism is a bad thing, but that we should take care not to take it at face value alone.

Individual nationalists might be rational, depending on the individual. Sometimes it's rational to be proud of your country, if you gain something out of it personally.

Actually that goes against the idea of nationalism (or any socially cohesive force) which tends to look to the greater good rather than personal gain.

m1ke

I think what is essentially being argued is that the underlying purpose of nationalism, as you have described, makes sense, however in itself it is a simple credo that can be easily regurgitated without need of understanding of this underlying purpose (as kindly demonstrated by New_Departure06).

As such nationalism is not actually rational, per say. This is why we get jingoism, which uses nationalism while forgetting the underlying purpose that it is meant to serve. This is not to say that nationalism is a bad thing, but that we should take care not to take it at face value alone.

Whatever 'credo' or (bull****) people attach to nationalism may or may not be rational. For instance, a nationalist party like Sinn Fein, is a power seeking entity that also controls various economic resources. It is rational for them to advocate extreme nationalism as it maintains their power and wealth as an organisation. Even the poster New_Departure06 might be a rational nationalist.... in that they gain something from their nationalistic views. For example, parental or community approval, job advancement, feeling good about supporting a 'greater cause'.

Actually that goes against the idea of nationalism (or any socially cohesive force) which tends to look to the greater good rather than personal gain.

The ideas that people attach to the social force are not relevant to whether or not it is rational overall.

DadaKopf

As gaf1983's essay notes, quoting Hobsbawm, 'nationalism' is a term that shifts in meaning and reality over time. It's worth reminding ourselves that the 'ideology of national identity' is highly context-dependent. Where it may be the result of "social structure ... Mass education, political participation and a high division of labour" in one setting (Europe), it may not have the same causes or exact realities as forms of nationalism in sub-Saharan Africa.

Pocari Sweat wrote:

I agree with that to a degree in so much as I disagree with it too.

Go on...

gaf1983 wrote:

Here's an essay I did last May on the factors that affect national identity formation:

http://geocities.com/besac2004/blog.html

Interesting, did you study nationalism in UCD? The reading list looks familiar .

Here's an essay I wrote on Arab nationalism in 2004 (and a bad essay on nationalism and globalisation for my degree in 2001). Around the time I wrote the Arab nationalism paper, I had been switched on to social-constructivism (Giddens etc.) as a way to bring together nationalism studies, globalisation/international relations studies and development theory. I'd like to discuss about your essay, cos some of the theorists you mentioned are interesting but also really dodgy - I suppose I mean Deutsch, Geertz and Talcott-Parsons (the most overtly politically motivated). Hylland-Eriksen is great, trough. And I'm fascinated with Gellner, even if he is an essentialist.

gaf1983 wrote:

In my own opinion, the creation of nationalist myths by elites is a very rational act; subscribing to those myths perhaps not so.

Makes sense, if the cause of nationalism is squared on elites, although I don't entirely buy this. It takes two to tango, etc. But structural power relations are definitely inextricably linked with nationalism. Interesting to note that the Communist International, and Marx specifically, disdained nationalism for being an ideology of the elite to draw energy away from the unification of the working class in common struggle, which would have caused trouble for them. Important perspective from the 'golden age of nationalism', eh?

The Corinthian

m1ke wrote:

Whatever 'credo' or (bull****) people attach to nationalism may or may not be rational.

Credo’s are never rational. They’re simply statements of belief. Essentially they’re saying “I believe this to be true, simply because I do”. There may be underlying rational reasons to these beliefs, but the person regurgitating the credo does not actually often know or perhaps even understand them.

For instance, a nationalist party like Sinn Fein, is a power seeking entity that also controls various economic resources. It is rational for them to advocate extreme nationalism as it maintains their power and wealth as an organisation.

What you’re describing is an abuse of nationalism, which while it may be perfectly rational on a Machiavellian level, still remains an abuse.

Even the poster New_Departure06 might be a rational nationalist.... in that they gain something from their nationalistic views. For example, parental or community approval, job advancement, feeling good about supporting a 'greater cause'.

He or she may be, but not from anything he or she has said. Simply regurgitating a series of nationalistic beliefs does not denote reason any more than a termite hill denotes a degree in architecture.

The ideas that people attach to the social force are not relevant to whether or not it is rational overall.

I don’t think we’re ultimately in disagreement here outside of the details. For me nationalism is an irrational and simplified application of a rational purpose. For you because the underlying purpose is rational, you consider nationalism to also be rational, which IMO does not follow.

New_Departure06

I accept that my support for Nationalism is largely emotional and based on the human need for a sense of "belonging" part of which entails "belonging to a nation". I think that's true of most people, regardless of what opponents of the nation-state would like. However there is also a rationale behind national-identity, in that it creates a context where people can feel they have responsibilities to others in the nation, which leads to social-welfare, taxation, public-spending, a justice system etc. It also serves the purpose of allowing decision-making to be closer to the people instead of far away.

DadaKopf

It also serves the purpose of allowing decision-making to be closer to the people instead of far away.

Not necessarily. Nationalism can just as easly me a method for political classes to give the illusion of closeness, or national purpose, to ensure that decisionmaking is actually disconnected from 'the people'.

You might call this 'reasons of state'. The state is the crucial ingredient in nationalism.

Diaspora

I agree with those sentiments and would go further and say that if an electorate can be distracted with the 'National Question' i.e. that their nation is being greviously wronged by a neighbour and that they are part of the team as part of the Nation State and are as a result less likely to look at the Govenments actions or their financial situation.

Although I feel this point has more relevance to the Second and Third Worlds than Europe / OECD

New_Departure06

DadaKopf wrote:

Not necessarily. Nationalism can just as easly me a method for political classes to give the illusion of closeness, or national purpose, to ensure that decisionmaking is actually disconnected from 'the people'.

You might call this 'reasons of state'. The state is the crucial ingredient in nationalism.

Well it creates at the very least a context in which people will want decisions to be made locally, and usually that is what happens (perhaps to a lesser extent in the EU but still the most sensitive issues are deciding locally).

DadaKopf

Then that's not nationalism. Nationalism is the claim of sovereignty by a self-identifying, imagined community. When a province, region or locality demands semi-autonomy or devolution, this isn't really nationalism because that community may at once feel local and national - Mainer and Irish-American and American, or Pakistani and Scottish and British. Until a local or regional community claim total sovereignty, it's not so much a question of nationalism as an expression of difference nested within an already established nation-state complex.

The 'national question' is, a base, a problem of the state's authority and its legitimate use of force over a people and territory. Therefore, the role and function of the state in capitalist society has to be understood to explain a significant part of nationalism. IMO, 'the state' (I'm excessively simplifying for the sake of argument) has a self-interest in maintaining a strong tax-base through ensuring economic growth. However, paradoxically, while it was once the case that nationalism sustained this, the forces that maintain the state's tax base and economic growth have changed because the structures of global capitalism have changed how people relate to each other. The new social relations of late-capitalism is at best transforming and at most dismantling nationalism.

Interesting that localism and regionalism are on the rise in rich and poor regions of the world.

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

Well it creates at the very least a context in which people will want decisions to be made locally, and usually that is what happens (perhaps to a lesser extent in the EU but still the most sensitive issues are deciding locally).

Historically nationalism has been a tool of central rather than local government. The more nationalistic the government, the less was decided at a local level.

The unifications of both Germany and Italy are examples of where nationalism led to the loss of local power. Central government was another characteristic of the Fascist and National Socialist governments of Italy, Spain and German. In the US the promotion of nationalism (in schools and on a community level) was largely born as a reaction to the regionalism that existed before the civil war and was designed to weaken local loyalties in favour of the Union.

So when you come down to it, the reality is the opposite to how you seem to perceive it.

Pocari Sweat

here, here.

New_Departure06

The Corinthian wrote:

Historically nationalism has been a tool of central rather than local government. The more nationalistic the government, the less was decided at a local level.

The unifications of both Germany and Italy are examples of where nationalism led to the loss of local power. Central government was another characteristic of the Fascist and National Socialist governments of Italy, Spain and German. In the US the promotion of nationalism (in schools and on a community level) was largely born as a reaction to the regionalism that existed before the civil war and was designed to weaken local loyalties in favour of the Union.

So when you come down to it, the reality is the opposite to how you seem to perceive it.

I don't think you can fairly lay the doors for Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany at the doors of "Nationalism" per se. They resulted also from economic collapse in both countries which tends to bring extremists to power. It should be remembered that the Communist Party soared in popularity around this time aswell. Mainstream nationalism let the unification of these 2 countries yes, but the German states retained significant autonomy. I agree that Italian unification would have centralised Italy to a greater extend to Germany in the immediate term. However centralisation is more acceptable to nations at national level rather than international level. As such I see nationalism as helping to keep more power in the hands of a seat of govt with which I am more comfortable, namely in Ireland and wielded by Irish people.

Yes I am being emotional about it again. But human beings are emotional and not solely rational beings. But I do believe I have also made a good rational case for "nations" and nationalism.

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

I don't think you can fairly lay the doors for Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany at the doors of "Nationalism" per se.

That’s why I cited numerous other examples.

However centralisation is more acceptable to nations at national level rather than international level. As such I see nationalism as helping to keep more power in the hands of a seat of govt with which I am more comfortable, namely in Ireland and wielded by Irish people.

You’re now contradicting your earlier assertion of local control.

Yes I am being emotional about it again. But human beings are emotional and not solely rational beings. But I do believe I have also made a good rational case for "nations" and nationalism.

You can believe what you want, and I’ve no doubt you will, but you’ve not. You’ve so far put forward one argument and then managed to contradict yourself. As such I can only treat you defence of being emotional as an admission of jingoism.

MeatProduct

Nationalism is another way to express our sense of separation. Another way to divide us from the whole. Why be proud of being from a town, county or country? It can only stem from insecurity and fear, simple misidenification of the self.



Nick

Tom Barry

MeatProduct wrote:

Nationalism is another way to express our sense of separation. Another way to divide us from the whole. Why be proud of being from a town, county or country? It can only stem from insecurity and fear, simple misidenification of the self.



Nick

It could also stem from a natural admiration and respect for people from your town, county or country, and their actions. Kinda like supporting your counties Gaelic team.

I am a nationalist, but not a blind patriot of the American kind. There's a need for rational nationalism, as long as it's rational. The world would be a dull, boring place without abit of cultural diversity. Think about it, without Nationalism there'd be no World Cup!

Diogenes

Tom Barry wrote:

It could also stem from a natural admiration and respect for people from your town, county or country, and their actions. Kinda like supporting your counties Gaelic team.

I am a nationalist, but not a blind patriot of the American kind. There's a need for rational nationalism, as long as it's rational. The world would be a dull, boring place without abit of cultural diversity. Think about it, without Nationalism there'd be no World Cup!

Hmmm thats a small price to pay if we lost the world cup but at the same time lost all the wars and violence. nationalism starts.

Tom Barry

Diogenes wrote:

Hmmm thats a small price to pay if we lost the world cup but at the same time lost all the wars and violence. nationalism starts.

But you'll never destroy Nationalism, it's ingrained too heavily in the human psyche. It's the same thing with violence. Man will always fight over something. He has done since the dawn of time. Taking away Nationalities won't change that. If you want to stop wars, you'd have to take away greed. And that's impossible.

All's I'm saying, is that I won't be throwing away my Wolfe Tone Cds anytime soon.

Jackie laughlin

I've read down through this thread and I'm trying to imagine life without any sense of belonging, without any sense of home or without some shared identity and it's not working!

Tom,
In the national interest destroy your Wolfe Tone albums!