Nationalism Flashcards
To what extent do different nationalists agree that nationalism promotes inclusive societies
Agree-
-national identity is a social identity and therefore ‘natural’- people have nationalism as an identity
-agree that the nation state is the thing which people should be included upon- it is the basis for inclusion eg. Hitler- if you were included it was incredibly included and America which is very inclusive towards American citizens but not those who are not eg. Building a wall
-think that everyone should be included in a nation state- this is the best way to organise people
-in order for societies to be free and inclusive, they need to have their own nation-states eg. Rousseau over Poland and Hegel believed that the formation of nation-states constituted the ‘end of history’
Disagree-
Liberal nationalists- very inclusive as based off of self-determination and civic nationalism- choose to be part of a state eg. America- each morning at school they pledge allegiance to the constitution- adhering to political values
Conservative nationalism- partially exclusive but not totally- if you speak the language and adopt the culture then you can be part of the nation eg. France encourage assimilation and dislike those who do not do this
Chauvinist and post-colonial nationalism- very exclusive as you have to belong to a specific ethnicity or race eg. Garvey- black people simply cannot peacefully coexist with white people
To what extent is nationalism regressive
To what extent is nationalism more united than divided
Intro-
-although it comes in many different forms, nationalism is one of the most common political ideologies held by political leaders. The world’s most powerful countries are governed by nationalists eg. Russia, the US, the UK, China
-if an ideology is to be described as as a single doctrine it follows that there is widespread agreement over fundamental principles amongst all nationalists
-there is some agreement over the importance of the collective and the nation-state and the fact that people are naturally nationalistic- however apart from this there is very little common ground among nationalists
- chameleon ideology = Anthony Smith
Disagreement about whether nationalism is a doctrine or an ideology. The doctrine of nationalism is the belief that all nations are entitled to self-government, which would mean that the world was divided into nation-states. However, if nationalism is regarded as an ideology in its own right, it is seen to encompass a diverse range of forms, political, cultural and ethnic.
United- on the importance of the collective- society and state
-agree on the importance of the nation state which may include shared identity, values, political system, language and defined borders
-self-determination- most nationalists, apart from colonialists agree on the importance of the nation-state governing itself free from outside influence eg. Rousseau
-most nationalists accept that the needs of society come before the needs of the individual- eg. For Maurras he though that the national identity was more important than individual identities
-JFK ‘ask not what your nation can do for you but what you can do for your nation’
-for Putin, the success of Russia is far more important that the success of individuals within Russia
-Maurras ‘a true nationalist places his country above everything’
-most nationalists are united in the view that nationalism is a romantic feeling eg. Mazzini in ‘The duties of man’ wrote that a country is ‘the sentiment of love, sense of fellowship which binds together the sons of that territory’, for Herder, Germans felt a German identity before it was established as a nation-state- the volksgeist- the binding spirit of the collective
Divided- whether nationalism is progressive or regressive
-liberal nationalism eg. Rousseau all about being progressive- creating nation-states, being freed from foreign rule and establishing new constitutions and political systems
-Herder- quite regressive as its based on the language of a country- against the idea that multiple languages can be spoken eg. By immigrants. He said ‘has a people anything dearer than the speech of its fathers’, all about keeping to the native language and reverting to this if necessary
-Mazzini looked back to the greatness of the Roman Empire and wished to return to this
-chauvinistic nationalism is regressive- Hitler- talks about the Germanic past and the Aryan German race before other people came to live in Germany, similarly Maurras thinks of a time where French people lived in France rather than people who identified as different races
-post-colonial is very regressive- go back to Africa- however, some post-colonial nationalists such as Gandhi was progressive- look forward to a time where Muslims and Hindus could coexist in India
Divided- whether nationalism is inclusive or exclusive
-liberal internationalism- very inclusive, based on blurring the boundaries between nation-states
-liberal nationalism- very inclusive, as long as you accept the political institutions you are welcome
-conservative nationalism- slightly exclusionary- based on language, but if you learn this language and assimilate into the culture then you are accepted eg. France
-chauvinistic nationalism- very exclusive- based on ethnicity
-post-colonial nationalism- very exclusive- based on ethnicity (apart from Gandhi and Mandela)
REMEMBER
irrational vs rational
inclusive vs exclusive
To what extent is nationalism more united than divided
Human Nature
conservative and expansionist’s are pessimistic and irrational
BUT
liberal and anti/post-colonial are rational and positive
Society
C and E exclusive and regressive
L and A inclusive and progressive
State
C and E reject nation-statehood
L and A support nation-statehood because of self-determination
united on views of society?
fundamentally disunited
1: agree on patriotism
- Rousseau = civic nationalism
- love their country as they are part of it and have civic duties
- patriotic fervour
- Herder and Mazzini = volksgeist, common spirit of the nation acts as a binding force
- patriotism a duty to the nation
- Mazzini “the country,,, is a sentiment of love”
- chauvinistic nationalism in expansionists
- submerged in it
- Maurras “a true nationalist places his country above everything”
- irrational, hysterical love for the nation
- love of nation binds society
2: inclusive vs exclusive
- liberal more inclusive
- common duty to the nation
- needs duties people are willing to respect
- willing to cooperate with other nations
CONTRASTS
- conservative exclusive
- volksgeist = Herder
- shared culture makes you a part of the nation
- common theme or experiences that bind the nation
- Mazzini “shared family ties” to create functioning nation
- expansionist = protection policies
- locked state of survival
3: how to run society
- liberal Rousseau = social contract
- act with general will of the people
- inherently rational
- society progressive and aim to promote democracy
CONTRAST
- expansionist and conservative = hereditary monarchy
- inherently backwards
- recreate golden era
- cannot make decisions for self, irrational
- regressive vs progressive
human nature
GREE
State point: Nationalists agree that it is natural for humans to exist as a society and cannot exist as individuals.
Discuss point, with reference to thinkers:
(Rousseau) Civic nationalism (liberalism) sees citizens and individuals in a rational light where everyone actively participates equally in society. This is a rational, inclusive and progressive view of human nature which promotes mutual respect for rights and national identities. Sovereign states should work to respect and further promote this positive view of human nature
(Herder) Culturalism sees a sense of ‘nation’ based more around shared cultures than civic loyalties or duties. It takes an emotional, irrational and at times mystical view of human nature centred around the notion of the volksgeist - the cultural spirit of the nation. It’s an exclusive view of human nature - you may not always be welcome
Analyse level of significance: Nationalists agree on the principle of humans belonging to a nation state, however this is all they agree on. Their large disagreement of whether human nature is based on rationality or emotion causes a large divide amongst the strands as there is no unified stance on how this influences society, the economy and the state. Therefore whilst they may be in agreement on the fact that humans naturally belong in a state it is merely superficial.
State point: Progressive v regressive
Progressive nationalism such as socialist or liberal nationalism: ✚ Believes that people can be united around common values. ✚ Supports the values of democracy, liberty and tolerance. ✚ Is an inclusive form of nationalism. ✚ Being committed to the nation’s values is the primary requirement for membership of that nation, so anyone who shares these values can join. Regressive or conservative nationalism: ✚ Tends to be more defensive and xenophobic. ✚ Favours militarism rather than cooperation. ✚ Is a more inward-looking form of nationalism. ✚ Historically conservative nationalism felt threatened by the French revolution. ✚ Believes that the state and associated institutions, such as the monarchy, can be used as a source of unity that embodies the spirit of the nation. National celebrations are therefore encouraged. ✚ Patriotism can be harnessed and exploited for the good of nationalism. Humans seek security and tend to be drawn to their ‘own’ people
Discuss point, with reference to thinkers:
Conservative Nationalists believe that humans are drawn to the familiar and tend to look to the past to determine how to be. Von Herder made the argument that humans shouldn’t disrupt the past too much.
Expansionist national thinker Charles Maurass agreed with this way of thinking and argued that humans should adopt a monarchy, an archaic form of government. A very regressive view of human nature.
In stark contrast, Liberal nationalists argue that individuals will naturally change over time to ensure protection of peoples peace over time and ensure peace. Rousseau believed that humans were naturally good and would help one another all the time.
Analyse level of significance: This shows a large disagreement amongst Nationalists as again their fundamental difference in opinion over what the nature of humans is leads them to taking more progressive or regressive stances on human nature. There is no agreement or compromise amongst the strands to where how or if human nature should or does change over time. This stark contrast proves to be substantial enough to refute any surface level agreement of the idea of a nation.
Mini-conclusion:
DISAGREE
State point: Disagree on what a nation should be as a result ot the human nature.
Discuss point, with reference to thinkers:
Liberal nationalists have the strong belief that humans have the ability to make decisions for themselves and their nations giving them individual autonomy and freedom. They also believe that a nation should be inclusive and progressive, so that anyone can join a nation if they choose too. Rousseau also argued that governments should be based on the invisible,collective will of the community which was the nation. Therefore a nation should be welcoming to new people.
Conservative nationalists however have a negative view of human nature and believe that people who have common characteristics such as language should be united together. Key conservative thinker Von Herder agreed with this and argued that there is a spirit of the people ‘Volksgeist’ .
Some post colonial nationalists agreed with this arguing that nation is bound by a shared sense of culture, language and ethnicity. Black nationalists such as Marcus Garvey, believed that there should be an African nation, and if you were not African you could not join it. Nation is predetermined as a result and should be exclusive.
Analyse level of significance: Again it is seen that the difference in views on human nature proves significant enough to impact their views on what a nation should be. Conservative and post-colonial nationalists are very exclusive and believe that if you can’t speak the language, don’t originate from the country then you cannot be a part of the nation. This is very unlike liberal nationalists who believe that anyone can be a part of a nation.
Conclusion (3 sentences recommended)
To what extent do nationalists agree on the core ideas and principles of the state
most natioanlkist movemnets want statehood, for various reasons:
- soverinty and self-dtermination (esp true of liberal and anti-colonial nationalism)
- internal socila cohesion, oder and stabiliu (esp true to cons nationalism)
- peace and protection : in a world of soverign nation sattes each should recohnise the rightful autonomy of the others and this oroves a path to world peace and harmony
Liberals like Rousseasu, embarced the rpicples of self-derminataiona nd popukar soverinty as challges to the politual authority and divin right of monarchies over their subjecst. Furthermore liberals like Mazzini, higjlts thst sll indifulasa re equally derving of freedom and self-dertmination as such it takes the form of civin nationalims expressed in the desire for some mesusre of autonomy in the form of devolution or fderalidsm - or most commonly im the fully devloped form of sevroiegn statehood
Liberalism lookes beyond the nation to embrace a form of interntaionalism and to suppotrt ‘supranational’ bodies the EU which exercise a degree of soverinty over memeber states.
liberals lik woodrw wilson, wilsonian doctrine founded the league of nations. this was the first intergivernmetal organisation with the primary mission of preseriving world peace following the horries of WW1 and it was a precursor to the UN
Conservatives adopted it as an adjunct to its defence of traditional heritgae, hierarchy and the status quo. linkeing nationalit sentimnet to humnas psychological need for secuirty and familiarity. it regards cultural unity, patritism and an emotional attachment to the trad symbols of the state - such as a flag and the monarchy - as sources of social stabiliyty and organic cohesion
conservtaives seek to defened the soverinty of existing sates rather than to create new ones
however con nationalism make by cultural rather than polityical seeking to defenda nation/s cultural heritage without nay string desire for politucal autonomy
Conservatives like Hereder was a strong advocate of german cultural nationalism, premised on the romatic mytholody of volksgeist (the spirit of the poepl) as a rejection of teh preogressive, inclusive rationalism of liberal nationalism
expansionait/chauvinist nationalist belivees in its own superrity and rightful dominance
Exansaionts like maurras exeplied this through intergral nationalism manifested mainly in european fascism. it was also influnced by Rousseau’s theory of the gebreal will
expaionst natiolaism is aggressive, milirtaist and thenocentric - this jsutfies the right to impose control and culture pon other states through war and conquest. this can lean into ethnic natioanlism and rasict assrrtions of biologucal superirity - german nazism. as such expamsionst natioanalism is unusual in not seeking to create or defenf a “nation-state” in ythe usual sense because its goal it to absorb and subjugate many nations and states
expansionst nationalism provides an excpeto=ion to the repcest of the nation state principle among natioanlit movements and its trampling on the wilsonian doctrine in the 1930s ultimmatley ;led to WW2
Anti-colonial nationalism like harrold macmillain during a speek in SA in 1960 “the wind of chnage is blowing through this contient. wthere we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact”
Mainly found in countries eeking freedom and soberignty from imperila rule togtehr with raoud econmic modernisation and revolutionary.
however since socilat and communist theories are internatioanlist (workers of the world, unite), communist forms of nationalism ahve a contradiuctory view of the state
anti colonial natioanlism like marcus garvey whose pan african idieas strongly influneced the balck natioanlism of rastatfranism and malcome x’s nation of islam
