User:Irmak4/sandbox

Bernard Yack's Thoughts on Community, Nationhood, and Conflict
Bernard Yack has a special concern on nationhood and community. In his one of the best-known books, Nationalism and the Moral Psychology of Community, Yack begins with explaining the rise of nationalism. According to Bernard Yack, the rise of nationalism can be seen as ‘‘one of modern history’s greatest surprises.’’ In his another well-known book The Problems of a Political Animal, Yack focuses on the reason for the emergence of conflicts in political communities by examining Aristotle's views. To Yack, the first notion that should be analyzed before examining nationality and the conflicts in political communities is the term, community.

The Moral Psychology of Community
Community is a social unit that consists of living things who share something in common, such as values, religion, or norms.For Yack, a community can be treated as a group of individuals who are bonded by cultural heritage, instead of considering it as a ‘‘special product of traditional family and village life’’. Bernard Yack suggests that the understanding of a community should be freed from societal assertiveness to avoid the confusion about the notion of nationalism. Yack describes this understanding as ‘‘a more flexible theory of community’’. According to Yack, using Benedict Anderson’s concept of imagined communities helps to understand the difference of Gemeinschaft from Gesellschaft. Benedict Anderson examines this topic in an anthropological spirit and treats the term, nation as if it dealt with kinship. By considering Anderson's understanding of communal membership, Yack suggests that during the process of becoming a community, individuals imagine themselves connected to the concerns of others'. The Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft theory was established by Ferdinand Tönnies. In English, these two terms mean community and society. This theory's main focus is the ways of human interactions, which are sometimes active sometimes passive. Scholars have various views in terms of whether these interactions are positive by unifying people and creating a social group, or negative by destroying the mental and physical well being through diversity. Tönnies’ study is based on the positive side by focusing on the balance between unity and diversity. Yack takes Tönnies’ gemeinschaft model which suggests that the subordination of individuals makes a social group, a community, and he creates his own alternative model of community which suggests that the moral relationship between individuals makes a social group a community. What Yack means is that rather than the subordination of individuals, a community is more about the share of special concerns between individuals. In this view, community can be in many different shapes because people share many different feelings, beliefs, or practices between them.

National Community
To Bernard Yack, the term nationalism must be examined after differentiating it from the notion of community. Yack explains what a nation is in six different principles. First of all, paradoxically, a nation is a community. The reason for this statement is that a nation can be considered as a group of individuals who somehow imagine themselves connected to each other by sharing special concerns and loyalty. Sharing skin colour, language or other culture-related practices make individuals the members of a set, but to be considered as members of a set, individuals must affirm that they share sources of mutual concern and loyalty, then they become a community and a nation. Secondly, and the most important of all for Yack, a nation is an intergenerational community. Yack takes Rupert Emerson’s characterization of a nation by considering a nation as an intergenerational community. In Emerson’s point of view, in a nation, individuals share significant elements of a common heritage and they feel that they will have a common future. In this view, the connection between members of a nation comes from the origin and forward into an indefinite future. The ideas of deepening the ties that bind these individuals and extending the sense of obligation to future generations invoked by the predecessors and the successors. Third, cultural heritage is the key to a nation. The members of a nation are linked to each other through the share of cultural artifacts such as language, stories of origin, relics, and traumatic experiences. People affirm the idea of being a nation through the shared inheritance of cultural artifacts. Fourth, a nation is a singular community and it is irreproducible. Each national community is identified by their unique cultural artifacts. Even though, different nations share common characteristics, they are divided by other lines of cultural inheritance. Fifth, members of nations affirm their cultural inheritance through the association of a land. Nations claim that they ‘own’ particular lands. Lastly, nations do not exist in a hierarchal form. Nationality does not mean the relationship between an ordinary person and a superior one. Yack states ‘‘every member of a nation is as much a member as any other.’’

Understanding Political Community and the Conflicts
‘‘Stranger may cheat you, but only brothers or sisters, comrades or colleagues can betray you.’’—Bernard Yack For Bernard Yack, political life should not only be examined by focusing on the proudest achievements. The problems in political communities should also be analyzed rather than treating them as consequences that rose by the weakening of communal bonds. By taking the Aristotelian view as the base of his study, Yack suggests that people need to understand the political conflicts to identify the nature of the good life in an Aristotelian way. Yack defends and explores Aristotle's definition of political community, which is a self-sufficient group of free and equal individuals who have the chance to participate in political discussions about laws and policies. Communities are the social groups that consist of the deepest conflicts. In Yack’s view, people who know each other too well are more likely to betray. In Aristotelian point of view, the intensity of conflicts increases or decreases according to the closeness of relationships between people. Aristotle’s understanding suggests that the feeling of anger is expressed by the individuals who think they are treated unjustly by their companions. Aristotle states, ‘‘Cruel is the strife of brethren’’ which means ‘‘Cruel are the wars of brothers.’’ Aristotle goes on ‘‘They who love in excess also hates in excess.’’ In this point of view, there cannot be a perfect political community and the process of living together always includes conflicts within itself.