What is a 'nation'?

DadaKopf

Has anyone noticed that the term 'nation' has now become synonymous with the terms 'country' or 'state'?

I've noticed that the Bush administration has been treading these words to mean the same thing and I'm curious as to the significance of this shift.

Is it just a sloppy shorthand for 'nation-state'? Or is it a US-devised rhetorical device appeal to statesmen as leaders of glorious imagined communities? Or is the shift from the use of the distinct words 'state', 'country' and 'nation' into one imprecise term, 'nation', been deliberately conjured to justify all kinds of American foreign policies? Have they deliberately intriduced a discourse that is changing the way we think of human communities and the territories they live in?

Bush refers to the Iraqi nation, but does he mean people, territory or state administration - or all of the above? I thought, going from the so-called tribal violence, that Iraq is composed of at least two, possibly four or more nations living within one state?

I'm wondering if anyone else has thought about this? What the hell is a 'nation'?

monument

I'm wondering if anyone else has thought about this? What the hell is a 'nation'?

Yea, I do, I *think* it’s a word... (sorry)… the text below is just to say it's alright to use it in place of state or country....

---

1. a) A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
1. b) The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out.

2. The government of a sovereign state.

3. A people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality: “Historically the Ukrainians are an ancient nation which has persisted and survived through terrible calamity” (Robert Conquest).

4. a) A federation or tribe, especially one composed of Native Americans.
4. b) The territory occupied by such a federation or tribe.

[Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.]

---

2. The body of inhabitants of a country, united under an independent government of their own.

[Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.]

---

nation

n 1: a politically organized body of people under a single government; "the state has elected a new president" [syn: state, country, land, commonwealth, res publica, body politic]

[Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University]

DadaKopf

This is what I mean. That's an American definition, referring to a "nation-state". Which parshly answers my question. We're having the American conception of nation as a "large group of people governed by a state, or federal state, within a contiguous and clearly demarcated territory" imposed on us. But what about nations without a state, or contiguous territory, or any terrirory at all?

The most commonly cited definition of a nation from what I've read is an "imagined community". A community of people who imagine themselves to identify with each other - "imagined" because it's impossible to engage with the entirety of the community so it must live on in people's imaginations.

Or it could be a self-realised community, sharing a set of common characteristics, biological and/or cultural, that give rise to a collective consciousness.

That's different to that dictionary definition. That's different to the way Bush and Blair have come to use it. Nations don't even have to involve states, governments or land. But they might want to obtain them. In which case, a nation develops a political consciousness and you have nationalism, the ideology of nationhood.

I'm worried that Bush's discourse is making trouble for the world by simplifying these complex issues into one particular, American, conception of nationhood and imposing it on the world. It's a subtle form of colonialism, and not the first time a world power has tried it. I think it's symptomatic of so much of the administration's blind arrogance. We probably should be careful not to be so gullible.

mike65

A nation once again...a nation once again...ah but which nation?

Mike.

PHB

A nation is a collection of people with common cultural heritages.
For example, you might have the Welsh nation.

However a state is a political entity, sometimes a collection of nations by choice(Germany for example), sometimes a collection of nations by the force of one or more main nations, like the old British empire.

The welsh nation would be part of the United Kingdom.

The idea of a nation-state is when a nation forms a state and does not expand to include other nations.

For example I would consider America to be a nation-state, as it is a nation with a state which has a sense of being American, rahter than being a Texan.

Sometimes political leaders of a state will try to impose a nation onto a collection of nations, e.g. the Soviet Union.

I just had a politics lecture in this

mike65

Originally posted by PHB
For example I would consider America to be a nation-state, as it is a nation with a state which has a sense of being American, rahter than being a Texan.

I just had a politics lecture in this

The United States is a Nation state, America is a name for a land mass.

Mike.

DadaKopf

I kinda meant, like, has anyone given thought to the possibility that America is attempting to affect the way we think about nationality and politics (as expressed through the Bush administration's rhetoric)? Like, trying to preserve/impose their (the administration's) conception of it? Imposing either an old fashioned conception of the nation-state, or trying to forge something new?

monument

Originally posted by DadaKopf
The most commonly cited definition of a nation from what I've read is an "imagined community". A community of people who imagine themselves to identify with each other - "imagined" because it's impossible to engage with the entirety of the community so it must live on in people's imaginations.

That definition was also in the US sources I quoted above; however I fail to see why ‘nation’ or its state/country definition is a US import, although nation-state probably is.

mike65

This from Collins -

nation
noun

1 an aggregation of people or peoples of one or more cultures, races, etc., organized into a single state
example: the Australian nation

2 a community of persons not constituting a state but bound by common descent, language, history, etc.
example: the French-Canadian nation

3
a a federation of tribes, esp. American Indians
b the territory occupied by such a federation
[ETYMOLOGY: 13th Century: via Old French from Latin natio birth, tribe, from nasci to be born]

nation-state
noun

an independent state inhabited by all the people of one nation and one nation only

Mike.

mike65

Originally posted by DadaKopf
I kinda meant, like, has anyone given thought to the possibility that America is attempting to affect the way we think about nationality and politics (as expressed through the Bush administration's rhetoric)? Like, trying to preserve/impose their (the administration's) conception of it? Imposing either an old fashioned conception of the nation-state, or trying to forge something new?

You could re-write the above substituting Bush with Adams or Paisley or with Napoleon or Disraeli etc...theres nothing new in the notion outlined above.

Mike.

jerenaugrim

Nation is people
Country is land
State is political set-up.

There is no iraqi nation as such- there are several nations in the state of Iraq, ie Kurds, Marsh Arabs, etc. The Kurds are supposedly the largest nation in the world without their own state. Their country is spread over a few states, ie Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Syria. A lot of the confusion is caused by states being set up on old colonial lines, rather than nationalities. Of course, a situation like the former Yugoslavia just confuses the hell out of all these classifications...

TomF

I'm pretty sure that politicians in the USA use the word "nation" strictly for its sound of elegance in a speech. If you go back and listen to John Kennedy's speeches, you will hear "nation" over and over again. It was at about that same time that "issue" came into prominence in speechmaking there, and for the same reason of sounding an elegant note.

ishmael whale

For what its worth, it has been suggested that the US has a different concept of nationhood to Europe. Europeans tend to think of a nation as something you’re born into, on whatever imagined basis. Perhaps because they are practically all descended from immigrants who cannot all claim the same imagined heritage, Americans tend to see nationhood as including a set of shared beliefs. Hence all that stuff about pledging allegiance to the flag. If nationhood involves a set of shared beliefs, it means that it can be acquired by anyone sharing those beliefs – i.e. Arnie becoming Governor of California. It can also be lost by anyone who rejects those beliefs – i.e. the concept of being ‘un-American’.

sovtek

Originally posted by TomF
I'm pretty sure that politicians in the USA use the word "nation" strictly for its sound of elegance in a speech. If you go back and listen to John Kennedy's speeches, you will hear "nation" over and over again. It was at about that same time that "issue" came into prominence in speechmaking there, and for the same reason of sounding an elegant note.

I have to agree here. I think a little too much is being read into it.
They put these impressive sounding terms in speeches to make themselves sound larger than life to the masses so people will admire them.

monument

Nation is a prefect word for politicians – it doesn’t mean just one thing, so after - if needed - they could possible give any meaning