Nationalism is irrational

m1ke

Nationalism is rational. Industrialism altered our social structure. Mass education, political participation and a high division of labour were required to service the new economy. It also required a central culture and state. It did not require this hundreds of years ago. Individual nationalists might be rational, depending on the individual. Sometimes it's rational to be proud of your country, if you gain something out of it personally.

sceptre

New_Departure06 wrote:

I am a Nationalist and will not apologise.

I don't believe anyone here asked you to apologise. I'm far more interested in the rationale behind people's views rather than an opener of chin out, middle finger extended. I suspect that the rationale-providers in general, some of whom I presumably don't agree with, would feel likewise.

The Corinthian

m1ke wrote:

Nationalism is rational. Industrialism altered our social structure. Mass education, political participation and a high division of labour were required to service the new economy. It also required a central culture and state.

I think what is essentially being argued is that the underlying purpose of nationalism, as you have described, makes sense, however in itself it is a simple credo that can be easily regurgitated without need of understanding of this underlying purpose (as kindly demonstrated by New_Departure06).

As such nationalism is not actually rational, per say. This is why we get jingoism, which uses nationalism while forgetting the underlying purpose that it is meant to serve. This is not to say that nationalism is a bad thing, but that we should take care not to take it at face value alone.

Individual nationalists might be rational, depending on the individual. Sometimes it's rational to be proud of your country, if you gain something out of it personally.

Actually that goes against the idea of nationalism (or any socially cohesive force) which tends to look to the greater good rather than personal gain.

m1ke

I think what is essentially being argued is that the underlying purpose of nationalism, as you have described, makes sense, however in itself it is a simple credo that can be easily regurgitated without need of understanding of this underlying purpose (as kindly demonstrated by New_Departure06).

As such nationalism is not actually rational, per say. This is why we get jingoism, which uses nationalism while forgetting the underlying purpose that it is meant to serve. This is not to say that nationalism is a bad thing, but that we should take care not to take it at face value alone.

Whatever 'credo' or (bull****) people attach to nationalism may or may not be rational. For instance, a nationalist party like Sinn Fein, is a power seeking entity that also controls various economic resources. It is rational for them to advocate extreme nationalism as it maintains their power and wealth as an organisation. Even the poster New_Departure06 might be a rational nationalist.... in that they gain something from their nationalistic views. For example, parental or community approval, job advancement, feeling good about supporting a 'greater cause'.

Actually that goes against the idea of nationalism (or any socially cohesive force) which tends to look to the greater good rather than personal gain.

The ideas that people attach to the social force are not relevant to whether or not it is rational overall.

DadaKopf

As gaf1983's essay notes, quoting Hobsbawm, 'nationalism' is a term that shifts in meaning and reality over time. It's worth reminding ourselves that the 'ideology of national identity' is highly context-dependent. Where it may be the result of "social structure ... Mass education, political participation and a high division of labour" in one setting (Europe), it may not have the same causes or exact realities as forms of nationalism in sub-Saharan Africa.

Pocari Sweat wrote:

I agree with that to a degree in so much as I disagree with it too.

Go on...

gaf1983 wrote:

Here's an essay I did last May on the factors that affect national identity formation:

http://geocities.com/besac2004/blog.html

Interesting, did you study nationalism in UCD? The reading list looks familiar .

Here's an essay I wrote on Arab nationalism in 2004 (and a bad essay on nationalism and globalisation for my degree in 2001). Around the time I wrote the Arab nationalism paper, I had been switched on to social-constructivism (Giddens etc.) as a way to bring together nationalism studies, globalisation/international relations studies and development theory. I'd like to discuss about your essay, cos some of the theorists you mentioned are interesting but also really dodgy - I suppose I mean Deutsch, Geertz and Talcott-Parsons (the most overtly politically motivated). Hylland-Eriksen is great, trough. And I'm fascinated with Gellner, even if he is an essentialist.

gaf1983 wrote:

In my own opinion, the creation of nationalist myths by elites is a very rational act; subscribing to those myths perhaps not so.

Makes sense, if the cause of nationalism is squared on elites, although I don't entirely buy this. It takes two to tango, etc. But structural power relations are definitely inextricably linked with nationalism. Interesting to note that the Communist International, and Marx specifically, disdained nationalism for being an ideology of the elite to draw energy away from the unification of the working class in common struggle, which would have caused trouble for them. Important perspective from the 'golden age of nationalism', eh?

The Corinthian

m1ke wrote:

Whatever 'credo' or (bull****) people attach to nationalism may or may not be rational.

Credo’s are never rational. They’re simply statements of belief. Essentially they’re saying “I believe this to be true, simply because I do”. There may be underlying rational reasons to these beliefs, but the person regurgitating the credo does not actually often know or perhaps even understand them.

For instance, a nationalist party like Sinn Fein, is a power seeking entity that also controls various economic resources. It is rational for them to advocate extreme nationalism as it maintains their power and wealth as an organisation.

What you’re describing is an abuse of nationalism, which while it may be perfectly rational on a Machiavellian level, still remains an abuse.

Even the poster New_Departure06 might be a rational nationalist.... in that they gain something from their nationalistic views. For example, parental or community approval, job advancement, feeling good about supporting a 'greater cause'.

He or she may be, but not from anything he or she has said. Simply regurgitating a series of nationalistic beliefs does not denote reason any more than a termite hill denotes a degree in architecture.

The ideas that people attach to the social force are not relevant to whether or not it is rational overall.

I don’t think we’re ultimately in disagreement here outside of the details. For me nationalism is an irrational and simplified application of a rational purpose. For you because the underlying purpose is rational, you consider nationalism to also be rational, which IMO does not follow.

New_Departure06

I accept that my support for Nationalism is largely emotional and based on the human need for a sense of "belonging" part of which entails "belonging to a nation". I think that's true of most people, regardless of what opponents of the nation-state would like. However there is also a rationale behind national-identity, in that it creates a context where people can feel they have responsibilities to others in the nation, which leads to social-welfare, taxation, public-spending, a justice system etc. It also serves the purpose of allowing decision-making to be closer to the people instead of far away.

DadaKopf

It also serves the purpose of allowing decision-making to be closer to the people instead of far away.

Not necessarily. Nationalism can just as easly me a method for political classes to give the illusion of closeness, or national purpose, to ensure that decisionmaking is actually disconnected from 'the people'.

You might call this 'reasons of state'. The state is the crucial ingredient in nationalism.

Diaspora

I agree with those sentiments and would go further and say that if an electorate can be distracted with the 'National Question' i.e. that their nation is being greviously wronged by a neighbour and that they are part of the team as part of the Nation State and are as a result less likely to look at the Govenments actions or their financial situation.

Although I feel this point has more relevance to the Second and Third Worlds than Europe / OECD

New_Departure06

DadaKopf wrote:

Not necessarily. Nationalism can just as easly me a method for political classes to give the illusion of closeness, or national purpose, to ensure that decisionmaking is actually disconnected from 'the people'.

You might call this 'reasons of state'. The state is the crucial ingredient in nationalism.

Well it creates at the very least a context in which people will want decisions to be made locally, and usually that is what happens (perhaps to a lesser extent in the EU but still the most sensitive issues are deciding locally).

DadaKopf

Then that's not nationalism. Nationalism is the claim of sovereignty by a self-identifying, imagined community. When a province, region or locality demands semi-autonomy or devolution, this isn't really nationalism because that community may at once feel local and national - Mainer and Irish-American and American, or Pakistani and Scottish and British. Until a local or regional community claim total sovereignty, it's not so much a question of nationalism as an expression of difference nested within an already established nation-state complex.

The 'national question' is, a base, a problem of the state's authority and its legitimate use of force over a people and territory. Therefore, the role and function of the state in capitalist society has to be understood to explain a significant part of nationalism. IMO, 'the state' (I'm excessively simplifying for the sake of argument) has a self-interest in maintaining a strong tax-base through ensuring economic growth. However, paradoxically, while it was once the case that nationalism sustained this, the forces that maintain the state's tax base and economic growth have changed because the structures of global capitalism have changed how people relate to each other. The new social relations of late-capitalism is at best transforming and at most dismantling nationalism.

Interesting that localism and regionalism are on the rise in rich and poor regions of the world.

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

Well it creates at the very least a context in which people will want decisions to be made locally, and usually that is what happens (perhaps to a lesser extent in the EU but still the most sensitive issues are deciding locally).

Historically nationalism has been a tool of central rather than local government. The more nationalistic the government, the less was decided at a local level.

The unifications of both Germany and Italy are examples of where nationalism led to the loss of local power. Central government was another characteristic of the Fascist and National Socialist governments of Italy, Spain and German. In the US the promotion of nationalism (in schools and on a community level) was largely born as a reaction to the regionalism that existed before the civil war and was designed to weaken local loyalties in favour of the Union.

So when you come down to it, the reality is the opposite to how you seem to perceive it.

Pocari Sweat

here, here.

New_Departure06

The Corinthian wrote:

Historically nationalism has been a tool of central rather than local government. The more nationalistic the government, the less was decided at a local level.

The unifications of both Germany and Italy are examples of where nationalism led to the loss of local power. Central government was another characteristic of the Fascist and National Socialist governments of Italy, Spain and German. In the US the promotion of nationalism (in schools and on a community level) was largely born as a reaction to the regionalism that existed before the civil war and was designed to weaken local loyalties in favour of the Union.

So when you come down to it, the reality is the opposite to how you seem to perceive it.

I don't think you can fairly lay the doors for Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany at the doors of "Nationalism" per se. They resulted also from economic collapse in both countries which tends to bring extremists to power. It should be remembered that the Communist Party soared in popularity around this time aswell. Mainstream nationalism let the unification of these 2 countries yes, but the German states retained significant autonomy. I agree that Italian unification would have centralised Italy to a greater extend to Germany in the immediate term. However centralisation is more acceptable to nations at national level rather than international level. As such I see nationalism as helping to keep more power in the hands of a seat of govt with which I am more comfortable, namely in Ireland and wielded by Irish people.

Yes I am being emotional about it again. But human beings are emotional and not solely rational beings. But I do believe I have also made a good rational case for "nations" and nationalism.

The Corinthian

New_Departure06 wrote:

I don't think you can fairly lay the doors for Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany at the doors of "Nationalism" per se.

That’s why I cited numerous other examples.

However centralisation is more acceptable to nations at national level rather than international level. As such I see nationalism as helping to keep more power in the hands of a seat of govt with which I am more comfortable, namely in Ireland and wielded by Irish people.

You’re now contradicting your earlier assertion of local control.

Yes I am being emotional about it again. But human beings are emotional and not solely rational beings. But I do believe I have also made a good rational case for "nations" and nationalism.

You can believe what you want, and I’ve no doubt you will, but you’ve not. You’ve so far put forward one argument and then managed to contradict yourself. As such I can only treat you defence of being emotional as an admission of jingoism.

MeatProduct

Nationalism is another way to express our sense of separation. Another way to divide us from the whole. Why be proud of being from a town, county or country? It can only stem from insecurity and fear, simple misidenification of the self.



Nick

Tom Barry

MeatProduct wrote:

Nationalism is another way to express our sense of separation. Another way to divide us from the whole. Why be proud of being from a town, county or country? It can only stem from insecurity and fear, simple misidenification of the self.



Nick

It could also stem from a natural admiration and respect for people from your town, county or country, and their actions. Kinda like supporting your counties Gaelic team.

I am a nationalist, but not a blind patriot of the American kind. There's a need for rational nationalism, as long as it's rational. The world would be a dull, boring place without abit of cultural diversity. Think about it, without Nationalism there'd be no World Cup!

Diogenes

Tom Barry wrote:

It could also stem from a natural admiration and respect for people from your town, county or country, and their actions. Kinda like supporting your counties Gaelic team.

I am a nationalist, but not a blind patriot of the American kind. There's a need for rational nationalism, as long as it's rational. The world would be a dull, boring place without abit of cultural diversity. Think about it, without Nationalism there'd be no World Cup!

Hmmm thats a small price to pay if we lost the world cup but at the same time lost all the wars and violence. nationalism starts.

Tom Barry

Diogenes wrote:

Hmmm thats a small price to pay if we lost the world cup but at the same time lost all the wars and violence. nationalism starts.

But you'll never destroy Nationalism, it's ingrained too heavily in the human psyche. It's the same thing with violence. Man will always fight over something. He has done since the dawn of time. Taking away Nationalities won't change that. If you want to stop wars, you'd have to take away greed. And that's impossible.

All's I'm saying, is that I won't be throwing away my Wolfe Tone Cds anytime soon.

Jackie laughlin

I've read down through this thread and I'm trying to imagine life without any sense of belonging, without any sense of home or without some shared identity and it's not working!

Tom,
In the national interest destroy your Wolfe Tone albums!

Tim Robbins

New_Departure06 wrote:

I am a Nationalist and will not apologise. People want issues affecting them dealt with at a local level over the most sensitive policy-areas like taxation, defence etc. I want a United Ireland as a I feel a sense of ethnic-kinship with the Northern Nationalists and I do not trust a foreign govt to always look after their rights. I feel personally affronted when I hear of Loyalist killings and collusion with the security-forces in NI, and regard it as confirmation of the correctness of my believes that Irish people on the island should be under one govt. I regard our language - however frail - as important for our identity.

How do you feel about King Billy being surported in the Pope in the Battle of the Boyne?
How do you feel that Irish lockout strikers were supported by English trade union movements and were rubbished their own national newspapers?

If you feel an ethic kinship with your nationalistic friends, who else do feel an ethic kinship with, your white race, by any chance?

How serious do you take this ethic bond? Do you believe people you do not share your ethnicity should be allowed to work and live in Ireland? Or do you believe they can come here, but you are ethnicity should be allowed to control them and keep them as under class?

Language has nothing to do with nationalism anymore, it pertains to culture.
I love the Irish language btw.
I am pro culture, and art however nationalism, right now is stupid. It comes from an insecurity and a fear, I believe. You didn't make the decision to be Irish, justlike you didn't make the decision to be part of white race.

Mad Finn

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Tom,
In the national interest destroy your Wolfe Tone albums!

In the interest of music destroy your Wolfe Tone albums!!!

More wolf than tone, as they say.

Jackie laughlin

Tim,
Your average Irish nationalist and "pseudo republican" can't cope with such complications. He prefers to bleat, "Irish good; British bad". I was pleased to read your attitude to cultural nationalism and Irish culture in particular. I was recently advised on a thread here to leave Ireland because I was a West Brit! That was after I posted a comment about the beauty and strength of Irish culture: Gaelic, Anglo-Irish and Hiberno-English. I think it's time to turn the tables and start calling the "pseudo republicans" West Brits or East Yanks. The problem is encapsulated in a Taoiseach who "supports" Manchester United while ignoring two Eircom league clubs in his own constituency. A second idea would be to ask anyone who accuses an Irish person of being a West Brit to continue the abuse in the Irish language and if they failed to do so, march them off to live in England!!!!

history_buff

Tim Robbins wrote:

Hello,
I believe nationalism as defined as:
"
1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
3. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination."

(Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nationalism)

is not a rational concept.

Man is not a rational being, he is irrational, so your Enlightenmentesque argument is flawed from the word go.

My reasons are:
1. There is not much rational decision in what nation we choose.
We are usually just born into one. How can something be rational that involves no choice?

Here's a thought... nature is irrational by definition. We cannot "set the rules" of that which is natural. Birth is natural (but outside our power to control), therefore the opposite suggests something unnatural. Is this what you'd rather embrace?

2. The only thing that is unique to a nation is a political system.
Accents, culture, music, humour and not unique to the nation concept.

All nations are formed by a community of people of common culture and nationality. The most obvious exception to this rule is the United States - does this mean that all nations should be modelled on this monstrosity?

Therefor "devotion" to this nation concept seems simply like devotion to an arbitary political system. Respect maybe, but I can't see how devotion to an arbitary nation can be rationalised.

I don't understand the substance of that argument. Does respect not denote loyalty and affection? For instance, is it possible for you to have respect for your mother if you turn your back on her? Or betray her? Or go around saying you're not happy with her, so you're adopting another one as your own?

3. I agree the nation concept, through collective action of people helps creates things like a welfare state and a legal system. However, surely the greater collective action, i.e. a collective action greater than the nation boundries, the more the benefit.

History has proven that most fair thinking people are nationally minded, not internationally minded. Contrast the brave souls defending the scorched earth of Lebanon with the ****es pushing globalisation, and compare those who fought for Irish independence between 1916 and 1921 to those police state bureaucrats who slaughtered tens of millions in the name of the Communist "International".

Jackie laughlin

HistoryBuff,
"man is irrational", "nature is irrational"!!!! What, in the name of God, are you saying? The rest of the posting is even more obscure.

Tim Robbins

history_buff wrote:

Man is not a rational being, he is irrational, so your Enlightenmentesque argument is flawed from the word go.

Incorrect. Man is both rational and irrational.

history_buff wrote:

Here's a thought... nature is irrational by definition. We cannot "set the rules" of that which is natural. Birth is natural (but outside our power to control), therefore the opposite suggests something unnatural. Is this what you'd rather embrace?

??? No sense.

history_buff wrote:

All nations are formed by a community of people of common culture and nationality.

Incorrect, various reasons.This reason is illogical how can they be forming a nation if they already have a common nationality ????


I don't understand the substance of that argument. Does respect not denote loyalty and affection?

history_buff wrote:

I don't undertand your's.

history_buff wrote:

History has proven that most fair thinking people are nationally minded, not internationally minded.

This is just absolutely ridiculous.

history_buff wrote:

Contrast the brave souls defending the scorched earth of Lebanon with the ****es pushing globalisation, and compare those who fought for Irish independence between 1916 and 1921 to those police state bureaucrats who slaughtered tens of millions in the name of the Communist "International".

Utterly ridiculous. Have you heard of the UN? Have you heard of Kofi Annan.
Do you know anything about 1916 History buff? It didn't have popular support at the time, and 300 innocent people died in Dublin. Are you one of those people that airbrush out facts that you don't want to know about?

Who are these brave souls defending Lebanon? Do you support Hizbullah?
Could you be more specific?

Surely nationalism is part of the root cause of the conflict in the Middle East?
There seems to be a difference of opinion between the state of Israel?
Surely if the emphasis was on common humanity and not nationalism, there would be less wars, less killings. Surely this is a more rational argument to save lifes as opposed to being devoted to a man made concept.

dermot_sheehan

In this world there is basically a tug of war between economic/cultural/poltical diversity and experimentalism and conformity.

Basically in a nation you need to enforce a great deal of conformity. You have to have the same law for everyone, in general promote the same culture, language and in previous centuries religion to ensure the cohesiveness of the nation state.

This enforced conformity however discourages radicalism and experimentalism. For example if your nation staunchly believes the sun orbits the earth, it will surpress astronomy. If your nation state has adopted an inefficient economic system (communism for example) it will act less efficiency. These negative results of conformity can however be compartmentalised and stopped from holding all of humanity back by having multiple nation states conforming to different economic and cultural norms.

The nation state for example contained the spread of communism, limited the reach of christianity suppressing science in the middle ages (science prospered in that time in the middle east), limited the spread of facism.

Cultural and political discoveries however that are found to be objectively successful over time will spread due to natural communication between states. This is because other states will either see the benefits and adopt, or else become so economically and culturally weak that they will be conquered by the stronger states and will have an enforced adaption. An example of this could be the industrialisation of Japan at the end of the 19century or China abandoning communism in the 1980's. Conquest could include colonialism which spread industrialisation and the idea of the rule of law around the world.

By being nationalistic, you're basically saying that the polity you are part of is carrying out the most successful economic/cultural experiment. This could be natural pride due to you being part of that polity. It could be genuine belief that your countries system of society is superior and should spread. It's the belief that you think your society is on the right track for the benefitting of humanity.

Jackie laughlin

Gabhain,
That degree of cohesion is not necessary for a nation state.

There were no nation states in the middle ages.

dermot_sheehan

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Gabhain,
That degree of cohesion is not necessary for a nation state.

There were no nation states in the middle ages.

So there's no conformty in a state? Really? So there's no such thing as irish cultural identity associated with irish nationhood?

Also re: middle ages, I accept the idea of the autonomous soverign nation state was born out of the treaty of westphalia, but in the middle ages one could regard the influence of the church as enforcing certain cultural norms continent wide thath allowed lower level (baron level) political clumpings to form. It was only really when the national kings battle the papacy for supremacy did the powers of the feudal barons diminish.

The Corinthian

Jackie laughlin wrote:

There were no nation states in the middle ages.

The emphasis of identity and loyalty was different, but in practice it amounted to the same thing.

The concept of a nation state is very much centred upon the idea of something that is greater than the individual (history, race, language, ethic background, etc) and this too existed in the middle age through the concept of monarchy and fealty to a leader.

It’s no coincidence that nationalism as a force rose at around the same time as the divine right of kings lost popularity.