User:GeeJo/Sandbox/Nationalism

To what extent do Nationalists agree on what constitutes a nation?
Nationalism is a term both divided and divisive. Since its inception, proponents of the idea of the "nation" have argued over both its scope and its definition. The most basic disagreement is that of whether a national identity arises from natural or artificial causes. While discussions of Nationalism itself began in Western Europe only in the 18th Century (the term itself was coined by Johann Gottfried Herder in the late 1770s), proponents of the Primordialist viewpoint, such as Anthony Smith, hold that nations existed long before they were formalised through these discussions, that they arise from the long histories of pre-existing ethnic communities. It is their position that while Mediaeval peasants had no concept of a "nation", they nonetheless shared many "naturally defining" characteristics, such as loyalty to a particular lord or monarch, territory, language, race, religion, language, customs, values, common enemies, and mythology, etc, which later coalesced into a shared national identity. .

The Instrumentalist viewpoint, on the other hand, holds that nations are entirely artificial in nature. It doesn't particularly matter what the definition was, there is no historical justification for why particular clusters of qualities qualify people to group together one way rather than another. They hold that the collapsing power of traditional European monarchies and the push for the rule of "the people" meant that a definition of "the people" was needed, a group identity which could exist outside of the traditional feudal obligations. National identities sprung up as a response to Nationalist philosophy itself.

For example, the 19th Century German and Italian nationalist movements based their group identities at least partly on the languages shared by the residents of the areas. At the time of the French Revolution there were over 350 Germanic states, but all were united in their use of a common language: German. Similarly, while the various city-states of the Italian Peninsula had feuds and disagreements dating back nearly a millenium, a citizen of Florence could make himself understood readily in the streets of Naples. Thus, Primordialists argue that a larger "Italian identity" could be constructed, one inclusive of all speakers of the common Italian language.

Instrumentalists, on the other hand, argue that the importance of language as a "natural" element in a group identity was only important after Nationalists made it so. As Hans Kohn states in The Idea of Nationalism: "The masses rarely became conscious of the fact that the same language was spoken over a large territory. [...] The spoken language was accepted as natural fact. It was in no was in no way regarded as a political or cultural factor." Similar arguments can be made for every facet of a Nationalist identity; primordialists point to the unifying element existing throughout history, Instrumentalists point to the importance placed on the element being manufactured by nation-states or aspiring nation-states themselves. For example, the increasing importance placed on the celebration of the British Monarchy during the Victorian period - prior to this, the common man did not particularly identify with the Monarch. Personally, I agree with the Instrumentalist viewpoint. Nations arose not because they were in some way more "justifiable" than any other grouping, but because they were convenient, powerful, and relatively stable. A national group identity allows more powerful economic and political machinery, which allow it to naturally subsume less-cohesive identities until the boundaries of the state match those of the nation.

Along similar lines to the Instrumentalist/Primordialist split is the separation of "Ethnic nationalism" from "Civic nationalism", a distinction first made explicit by Hans Kohn in 1944. Ethnic nationalism is exclusive: national ties arise only from ancestry, and anyone who isn't born into the nation cannot participate fully as a member. Ethnic nationalism holds that the greatest influence on the identity of every individual is their ethnicity, that a person's ethnic identity holds primacy over any other identity that the person may have, such as ties to their country, friends, religion, etc. Israel, for example, legally recognises a Jewish ethnic nationality in its "Law of Return", granting everyone of Jewish descent the right to settle within its borders.

Civic nationalism, on the other hand, derives its philosophy from liberal traditions. It is largely inclusive, holding that a nation's identity comes from its people's shared ideals and allegiance to particular institutions, and thus, anyone can become a citizen if they wish (and can demonstrate that they agree with the principles held by the nation.) Many civic nationalists argue against the validity of ethnic components of national character. Ernest Gellner states: "Nationalism is not the awakening and assertion of these mythical, supposedly natural and given units." They point to the formation of the United States as a prime example of the ideals of civic nationalism: a nation formed of people who immigrated and joined the nation of their own volition, forming a community with a shared culture and ideals separate from their ethnic origins.

It is important to note that the distinction between ethnic and civic nationalities is not along a "good-bad" axis. All nationalism is by its nature antiliberal and authoritarian (placing the needs and rights of a particular group over those of others,) and while ethnic nationalism carries connotations of persecution and exclusion, civic nationality by its nature is tied to a state and its territory, and so must of necessity defend its borders aggressively from other nation-states. Also, in reality, no nation-state draws its identity solely from one strand or the other. France, for example, follows the ideals of civic nationalism by allowing immigrants to become French citizens, while it follows the ideals of ethnic nationalism by setting up institutions which discriminate against deviations from the French ethnic ideal of secularity, banning public symbols of faith-based identification such as the burqa.

So, Nationalists disagree on the historical basis of nations and how they form, and on whether an individual can become a member of a nation only through birth, through choice, or through some combination of the two. There are, however, areas where Nationalists agree on what constitutes a nation. The first is that, regardless of how it came about, a nation must of necessity comprise people with a shared culture. In his role as Commissar for Nationalities, Josef Stalin defined a nation as: "an historically constituted, stable community of people formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life and psychological make up manifested in a common culture", a view echoed by both Primordialists and Instrumentalists alike. However, this is not in itself sufficient. Many groups hold common cultures without being considered nations: ethnic groups, religious groups, even professional organisations.

Nationalists universally differ from these in that in addition to a common culture, they share a common purpose: sovereignty over a territory. They believe that the ideal nation is autonomous and self-sufficient - able to forge its own path towards its self-determined goals. From the anti-colonial movements in the New World to secessionist movements in countries such as the United Kingdom (Cornish, Welsh) and Spain (Basque), to movements whose members are scattered throughout the world (pre-1945 Zionists) all nations are defined by the goal of self-rule over a territory of their own. It is this link to a particular territory that allows people to identify as belonging to a nation even when they reside in another country. When one renounces this link, one ceases to be a member of the nation.

Beyond the ideals of cultural homogeneity and territorial hegemony, Nationalists agree upon a few core values when it comes to a nation's idealised form. They agree that where Liberals give primacy to the good of the individual, and Socialists to the good of the class, Nationalists by definition should place these needs subordinate to the needs of the nation. They agree that every nation is distinctive and unique, though they argue over the relative merits of their particular nations when compared to those put forward by other nationalists. They believe that the ideal nation speaks with a singular voice, with a common goal, though answers to the question of how to reach such a level of purity vary. In the end, however, it is clear from the numerous qualifiers to these "core values" that the lack of definition in Nationalism as a cohesive ideology makes it all but impossible to find universal points of agreement as to what constitutes a nation which go beyond.