Is a multinational nation possible?

LilOc

Sorry if the question is not asked in the right forum/section and feel free to move it to the appropriate one if so.

I've always asked myself this question. Starting from the idea that a nation is a group of people, speaking the same language, sharing the same history, the same culture and the will to keep sharing those, build a common history and keep developing their culture/language together in the future.

What would prevent a nation from 'containing' so to speak several nations?

I asked myself this question because of the situation in France, Spain and Italy regarding regional languages and cultures (many of whom are shared between those 3 countries in areas close to the borders) : Arpitans, Occitans (whether Provençaux, Auvergnats, Languedocians, Limousins, Gascons, Nissarts etc...), Bretons, Normans, Picards, Flemish, Basques, Catalans, Lorrains, Alsacians etc...

I think that if this view was more spreaded it could be the solution to all the centralistic / Jacobinist (in France) traditions that are only starting to be partially defeated now and have almost managed to destroy all those regional cultures and languages.

It's already accepted by the first person in the street (in those countries) that France / Spain / Italy are multi-ethnic countries culturally and historically, regardless of recent immigration waves (especially in Italy, the country that among those three respects its regional cultures the most, maybe because they all used to evolve in separate little kingdoms and that Italy as a nation-state was born way later than Spain and France).... But then, accepting that their nation could contain other nations willingly sharing their land and future with other nations within one would mean there would be a better will to preserve their roots from all those people instead of fighting them.

I'm not speaking about autonomy or independence other than in a way that would guarantee/enable that these regional cultures would be made to thrive and not repressed because of a fear of regionalism destroying the nation-state. In this condition it could even reinforce it.

Anybody understanding me or i'm just dreaming/expressing myself very badly/being absurd...?

Denerick

You raise an interesting quandry. In a broader sense, the 'nation state' is in slow decay and has been since the end of world war II. However a 'nation' is a constant entity, and takes several forms.

Spain is a nation state but contains several nations, some more independent minded than others.

Several cultures and nations can and do exist within states. Some countries are better at this than others. Germany for instance has big differences between north and south - for example, Saxons and Bavarians have many distinctions but they are happy to be 'Bavarian/Saxon first, but always German'.

rumour

LilOc wrote: »

Anybody understanding me or i'm just dreaming/expressing myself very badly/being absurd...?

Very interesting concept especially when nation states are having their authority challenged by multinational corporations. In most countries a company for example has a legal identity with jurisdiction despite not having physical land. Corporations are now so flexible now they can relocate anywhere(Dublin Corporation being the exception of course) on the globe and yet still carry significant power much the same way as the nation state used to.

Alternatively consider the Jewish nation (not an attack on Jews, some centuries ago you may have made the same argument about Catholics but that is increasingly irrelevant today). It has for centuries carried an identity but never been limited to physical boundaries. Few would deny the Jewish Nation carries significant influence.

Cannibal Ox

In strictly philosophical/legal terms, you could argue that the ideal modern liberal democratic state operates according to the principal of equality (fraternity and liberty being the other two principles). That principal of equality implies that everyone in a state is treated equally. For that condition of equality to be reached, we need some kind of standard, some kind beginning from which we can judge how the principal of equality works in actual society, and the modern liberal nation state finds that principle in a unified social body.

What that means, in terms of your question, is that the modern liberal state requires a single, or unified, social body so that it can treat everyone equally, and that unified social body is generally found in the nationality, and ergo the culture, of a nation state which posits a homogenous whole compromising a whole range of values and norms that they all agree to. In an ideal modern liberal nation state, everyone is treated as an individual, but an individual is still part of a homogenous social body, that has simillar values and norms, and operate according to an agreed set of laws.

Your question implies something different. It implies that a state could be made up of groups, rather then individuals. If the state weren't made up of individuals, it would be very difficult to implement the idea of equality. What you're suggesting, I think, is very close to multiculturalism, and the problems associated with multiculturalism, namely the difference between groups and which groups decides what norms and values of other groups are exceptable, would be the same problems that would make it very difficult for what you're talking about to work.

You would still need a basis, or a beginning, from which every group in that nation could be treated equally in, and the issue there would be, who decides what that basis or beginning is. You could, I suppose, argue that from an ideal state, all of the groups could gather together and hammer out a 'constitution' of sorts, which would outline the laws that they would all equally agree to abide by (the United Nations would be a good way of thinking through this, both the advantages and the problems). However, if you're of a more pragmatic leaning, you'll probably notice that we aren't starting from an ideal state, and that, in reality, one group will be present before the others and it will be that group that decides the laws, norms and values. The solution I suppose to that is that the original group is open enough to allow changes to accommodate new groups, but if you look at France, the USA, and even Ireland, you'll see how difficult it is to achieve that state.

goose2005

Denerick wrote: »

You raise an interesting quandry. In a broader sense, the 'nation state' is in slow decay and has been since the end of world war II.

Quite the opposite, there are far more nation states in Europe than there were in 1939.

Denerick

goose2005 wrote: »

Quite the opposite, there are far more nation states in Europe than there were in 1939.

I was referring to what a nation state is - ie, homogenous and coherent as opposed to dispirate and diverse. In some ways you are right. Given the population exchanges following the second world war many states became for the first time in their history ethnically homogenous, but the subsequent immigration diluted that and by the end of the 1980s the idea of what a nation state is had changed completely across Europe.

Mjollnir

LilOc wrote: »

Sorry if the question is not asked in the right forum/section and feel free to move it to the appropriate one if so.

I've always asked myself this question. Starting from the idea that a nation is a group of people, speaking the same language, sharing the same history, the same culture and the will to keep sharing those, build a common history and keep developing their culture/language together in the future.

What would prevent a nation from 'containing' so to speak several nations?

I asked myself this question because of the situation in France, Spain and Italy regarding regional languages and cultures (many of whom are shared between those 3 countries in areas close to the borders) : Arpitans, Occitans (whether Provençaux, Auvergnats, Languedocians, Limousins, Gascons, Nissarts etc...), Bretons, Normans, Picards, Flemish, Basques, Catalans, Lorrains, Alsacians etc...

I think that if this view was more spreaded it could be the solution to all the centralistic / Jacobinist (in France) traditions that are only starting to be partially defeated now and have almost managed to destroy all those regional cultures and languages.

It's already accepted by the first person in the street (in those countries) that France / Spain / Italy are multi-ethnic countries culturally and historically, regardless of recent immigration waves (especially in Italy, the country that among those three respects its regional cultures the most, maybe because they all used to evolve in separate little kingdoms and that Italy as a nation-state was born way later than Spain and France).... But then, accepting that their nation could contain other nations willingly sharing their land and future with other nations within one would mean there would be a better will to preserve their roots from all those people instead of fighting them.

I'm not speaking about autonomy or independence other than in a way that would guarantee/enable that these regional cultures would be made to thrive and not repressed because of a fear of regionalism destroying the nation-state. In this condition it could even reinforce it.

Anybody understanding me or i'm just dreaming/expressing myself very badly/being absurd...?

The red phone from Bern is ringing. It's for you!

Oh, there goes the line to Ottawa.