Nationalism
- this is another of these difficult terms to define; it means many different things.
- in general, we might say that it is a feeling among a group of people that they form and belong to an entity known as a ‘nation’; this is, of course, circular and begs the critical question, “What is a nation?” There is no one answer to this; all we can do is look at some of the answers and get some idea of the range of possible answers. In effect, there are different kinds of nationalism.
How is the ‘nation’ defined?
How is membership in the ‘nation’ described or defined?
Inclusive
- at the simple (and perhaps legal) level, we sometimes use the term ‘nation’ to refer to states which are recognised by and are members of the United Nations (i.e., are recognised internationally as existing). Moreover, we define such nations (states) in terms of geographical boundaries. In inclusive forms of nationalism, everyone born within those boundaries (regardless of race, religion, skin colour, language or culture) is accorded membership in the ‘nation’.
- usually in this approach, the nation is conceptualised as an association of individuals (a voluntary association—like a club such as Kiwanis, Lions, etc.—but on a large scale) who come together on the basis of common principles: in the French Revolution, those principles were encapsulated in the slogan, ‘liberty, equality, and fraternity’ ; they were set out explicitly in the U.S. constitution—“We hold these truths to be self-evident..” and “... desiring a more perfect union...”
- usually, citizenship is extended to heterogeneous individuals (i.e., they may differ on religion, skin colour, ‘race’, language or ethnicity) as long as they give allegiance to the national state and to the principles for which it explicitly or implicitly stands. Thus, such nations may be relatively open to accept immigrants and to extend citizenship (membership) to them also.
- the nation tends to be defined by those who create the nation and who, collectively, form the nation; to this extent, the nation is created by those who join and become its members. The ‘nation’ is the sum total of its members.
- this kind of nation can change over time as its membership changes (e.g., Canada was in 1867 perceived as essentially a white, dual national entity—French and English—but has increasingly become a multinational, multiracial nation).
- Canada and the US stand as examples of the most broadly inclusive nations in the world. It has not always been that way. As we know, African Americans were until recently denied many rights; African Canadians were only slightly better off. Anti-Asiatic racism in both countries denied most rights to those of Asian origins until after 1945. In both countries, there was a strong preference for blond, north Europeans and discrimination against south and eastern Europeans until after the 1950s.
Exclusive
- in this conception, membership is defined on the basis of specific criteria (language, colour, race, culture, religion, history etc.); at the extreme, possession of all the criteria are required for membership. Thus, the nation becomes a very exclusive, homogeneous group.
- for example, Jews in Germany spoke German, were indistinguishable in the basis of skin colour and physical appearance, not only shared but contributed in major ways to German culture and artistic creation. Yet German nationalists (not just the Nazis) declared that their different religion and even more their different ‘race’ meant that Jews were not and never could be Germans!
- Afrikaners in South Africa (in addition to a list that included religion, language, skin colour/race, history and culture) even added ‘hygienic’ habits as a criterion for membership!
- the nation so defined need not have an independent state or geographical boundaries although both are desirable and a goal to be aimed for. E.g., the Palestinians have not had a state, but claim to be a ‘nation’. This is the claim of the separatists in Quebec—they form a ‘nation’ and deserve and must have an independent state.
- it is the nation which is the repository of the distinguishing criteria (especially language and culture, but when ‘race’ is added, genetic inheritance); the ‘nation’ is believed to have a unique character and personality. Individuals receive their characteristics from the nation, not vice versa. Individuals are moulded by and subordinate to the nation.
- exclusiveness is seen as necessary to preserve the unique character and characteristics of the ‘nation’—i.e., its ‘purity’.
- nationalists of this type may want to root out or perhaps eliminate anyone or any group which threatens exclusivity or purity of the ‘nation’—e.g., the Nazis and the frenzy against the Jews or the ‘ethnic cleansing’ taking place in Yugoslavia and parts of the former Soviet Union.
- this usually involves a mystical conception of the ‘nation’. It is like God; it is a bit transcendent and non-material; while not necessarily eternal, it has a long existence.
Nationalism up to 1900
- we shall examine some forms of nationalism in Europe. Modern nationalism emerged first in England and France; these tended to be more inclusive and less extreme than other nationalisms. German nationalism stands as an example of a very exclusive nationalism.
England and France
- they were united politically under a single government at an early period and each had a good deal of cultural homogeneity which was enhanced over the centuries.
- in both societies, a consciousness and sense of identity which cut across class lines, regional identities, etc. developed “We are Englishmen (Frenchmen).”
- at first, the common loyalty and identity centred around and was symbolised by the monarch (we are subjects of King ______); the kings would often be referred to as ‘England’ or ‘France’. Later, the idea developed that Englishmen (Frenchmen) collectively formed a group in their own right above and beyond their leader, the monarch.
- there were similar developments in other parts of Europe;
England
- in England the notion went further to develop the concept of a partnership between the monarch and the collectivity, the nation. There was a series of agreements—Magna Carta, Petition of Rights, Bill of Rights, etc. In fact, eventually, every monarch had to sign an accession agreement or contract on coming to the throne.
- there was a series of stages:
- the king was subject to the law;
- the king could not change the law, pass new laws or levy new taxes without the consent of the important people—the Lords and Commons or Parliament;
- control of the government or bureaucracy should be shared with Parliament;
- eventually, Parliament took complete control.
- by the end of the 17th century, the idea of nation being supreme over the king was established (execution of Charles I and deposing of James II).
- the English never dispensed with the monarch, especially as a focus of loyalty; e.g., they swear allegiance to the monarch, not to the ‘nation. Thus, the ‘nation’ never became the be-all and end-all; perhaps this was aided by forming the United Kingdom and by the idea of ‘Britain’; this was much more inclusive than England, Scotland, etc. would be. People talked about ‘the English nation’, ‘the Scottish nation’ and ‘the Irish nation’.
- also, perhaps the emphasis on individualism and individual rights aided this. There was more tendency to see the ‘nation’ as the sum of the individuals rather than something beyond and above the ‘membership’; individual rights were not easily or lightly superseded by the rights of the collectivity. Alternately, the ‘nation’ was the guarantor of the rights of the individual; i.e., the nation serves the interests of the individual members, not the other way around. At any rate the concept of the collectivity, the ‘nation’, was always being counter-balanced by a strong emphasis on individual rights as the chief social good.
France
- monarchs and their advisors had tried to build and model the monarchy on Roman absolutism (i.e., the emperor’s will was law) with its large bureaucracy, the state; this effort had been only partly successful but it had achieved a great deal—Louis XIV’s comment, “L’Etat, c’est moi” was an expression of this claim.
- however, the idea of the ‘nation’ emerged in French Revolution; e.g., in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen: “The principle of sovereignty resides essentially in the Nation; no body of men, no individual, can exercise authority that does not emanate from it.” The ‘nation’ is the supreme authority. Here, it is joined with the idea of the ‘social contract’.
- we have the notion of a collective entity which somehow transcended the individuals and components and which had asserted itself in the Revolution; it was supreme and could even dispense with the monarch. It was a self-determining entity although that term was perhaps used only later. La France, the nation, was almost always depicted as a beautiful woman; c.f. German ‘Fatherland’. Is this significant?
- however, there was also a strong emphasis on individuals as citizens of the nation and on their rights; citizenship involved the principles of ‘liberty’, ‘equality’ and ‘fraternity’.
- citizenship was not too narrowly defined—anyone who shared French language and culture; thus, citizenship was extended to freed slaves and mulattos of West Indies and to the residents of the cantons of Senegal in Africa.
- the French were not always so generous. There were in fact two nationalisms in France. The republicans tended to be more inclusive while the monarchists were more exclusivist; citizenship was given and taken away from the Senegalese three or four times during the 19th century depending upon who was politically dominant.
- Catholic monarchists wanted a large, even dominant role for the Catholic Church in public affairs and this would have gone some way to making Catholicism a requirement of citizenship; they also tended to be strongly anti-Semitic as showed very starkly in the Dreyfus Affair in the 1890s. Jews were on the margins of citizenship.
- republicans usually favoured a secular state although there was one attempt during the Revolution to have a form of Deism made the state religion.
Nation and State
- except perhaps in the early phase of Revolution, the French have always distinguished between the ‘nation’ and the ‘state’
the nation, was something all believed in and to which all were devoted.
the state or government was a different matter; the French were never in agreement about what kind of state they should have—monarchy, republic, or empire.
- they have often fought very bitterly and whatever form was adopted at any particular time, there was always a significant portion of French people who were disaffected from the government and the state; usually (not always), they rallied behind the state in the face of a foreign threat for the sake of La France, the nation. For example, the French were still engaged in bitter political struggles regarding the role of the Church in education and other areas of society, but they closed ranks in 1914 to fight the war and maintained the unity (barely) during W.W.I; however, the unity was more fragile and fell apart in 1940 in the wake of the defeat by the Germans.
- in both England and France there was a congruence of cultural and linguistic similarity and a political framework in a recognised territory.
- in most other areas of Europe, this was not the case at the beginning of the 19th century. The main dynasties usually had more than one linguistic-cultural group under their control (especially the polyglot Hapsburg Empire).
- alternately, most linguistic groups were not unified into a single political unit (e.g., Italians, Germans, Poles) but were divided among more than one state; Spaniards had been united into a personal union but the particularist or regional tendencies of the separate kingdoms had remained and there was little national feeling in our terms.
Continental Nationalism—several sources
- the French Revolution itself: in some cases it was the spread of ideas; more frequently it was stimulated by a reaction to conquest and occupation by French troops in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars (in some cases it was purely a patriotic defence of one’s homeland (e.g., Spain) but in other cases, it was a deliberate fighting of fire with fire—build a German or Italian nationalism to fight French nationalism; this is what Metternich was concerned about in the ‘secret societies’).
- Liberalism—attacked old dynasties, artificial barriers and privileges, and restraints on trade; the ‘social contract’ almost inevitably involved an idea of a collectivity (a ‘nation’) which empowered and legitimised authority in the hands of rulers (England was often the example that liberals on the continent hoped to copy).
- also, the existing political entities seemed illogical and irrational.
- Romanticism: romanticism tended to take many forms and it is not easy to define briefly (see George Mosse, The Culture of Europe )
- it involved a reaction to the rationalism of the Enlightenment; romantics argued that ‘feeling’ and ‘intuition’ were better sources of knowledge than was ‘reason’.
- they believed passionately in ‘freedom’ however defined (whether freedom for individual or freedom for the group) and in ‘commitment’ (the cause was sometimes secondary).
- Lord Byron was seen as the great romantic hero who went off to help the Greeks get independence from the Turks. Garibaldi and Mazzini were seen as romantic heroes fighting for Italian nationalism and unity.
- Kant and German philosophic and religious thought (see Elie Kedourie, Nationalism ).
- Immanuel Kant’s (1724-1804) epistemology (theory of knowing) questioned the possibility and validity of achieving knowledge by sensory perceptions; the mind, where knowledge resides, is able to gain information of the world only indirectly and remotely, never at first hand. Thus, the ‘empirical’ approach in gaining information and knowledge via the senses (Newtonian science) was rejected.
- revelation was an alternative but it too was uncertain; even if God speaks, do we know that we have understood correctly. Otherwise, it is necessary to rely upon other people’s accounts and assertions and these are at best second hand.
- as his alternative, Kant argued that knowledge could be gained by introspection. We are part of the universe; the laws that apply there (the macrocosm) apply to us and to our bodies (the microcosm); by studying the microcosm, we can gain knowledge about the macrocosm as well.
- however, we are relatively impermanent and are only a model of the much greater and more permanent reality of the macrocosm.
- Kant and other philosophers began to argue that what was true of the physical, material world applied also to the spiritual and cultural domain as well; the spiritual macrocosm to which individuals as microcosms related was the ‘nation’.
- again, individuals are impermanent and transitory while the nation is relatively permanent and enduring.
- moreover, clergymen in this philosophical tradition argued that ‘nations’ were created by God and thus embodied aspects of Divine Will and intention; the nation came to represent a supernatural entity, perhaps with a unique character and personality.
- mysticism is very frequently an element of nationalism,but in England and France, the mysticism was tempered by practical problems.
Characteristics
- in this German tradition, individualism was increasingly denigrated; only the nation was real. F.W. Schelling (1775-1854), a disciple of J.G. Fichte, “Individuals are only phantoms like the spectrum. They are not modifications of the absolute substance, but merely imaginary apparitions.” Individuals are too transitory to be ‘real’; only nations are ‘real’.
- the inclusive conception of the nation sees it as a reflection of the members who make it up and therefore as a product of the its membership. In this German tradition, we see the opposite conception. Individuals are mere reflections of the nation and receive their most important characteristics from the nation; individuals are largely a product of the nation rather than the reverse.
- each nation is separate, unique and divinely ordained; F. Schleirmacher (another theologian and philosopher), “Each nationality is destined through its peculiar organisation and its place in the world to represent a certain side of the divine image .... For it is God who directly assigns to each nationality its definite task on earth and inspires it with a definite spirit in order to glorify Himself through each one in a peculiar manner.” (peculiar in this context means special or unique).
- this identical argument has been used by Afrikaner nationalists in South Africa as their justification for apartheid; they went on to argue that apartheid was necessary to ensure that the uniqueness of the Afrikaner nation, which is divinely created, can be preserved and maintained. Afrikaner nationalists borrowed heavily form German nationalism in the inter-war period.
- language and culture are the prime unique distinguishing features of each ‘nation’; it is the duty of individuals to preserve, perpetuate and maintain the purity of those national qualities. (Some German nationalists argued that even to learn another language was treasonous; doing so corrupted structure, meanings and words.) At times in Quebec and among native peoples in Canada, one hears very similar arguments.
- individuals increasingly were seen as mere atoms of the national organism; the biological analogy asserted that like atoms in the body (which are constantly being exchanged), individuals come and go but the ‘nation’ remains. The ‘nation’ is much more than just the sum of its parts.
- Johann Fichte (1762-1814), “Between the isolated man and the citizen, there is the same relation as between raw and organised matter .... In an organised body, each part continuously maintains the whole, and in maintaining it, maintains itself also. Similarly, the citizen with regard to the state.” Except as an integral part of a ‘nation’, an individual is inert and useless matter. Individuals have identity only as part of a nation; they have purpose only as far as they serve the ‘nation’.
- thus, increasingly, the ‘real’ entities are nations; individuals are too ephemeral. As ‘real’ entities, nations need ‘freedom’ to realise and express themselves; they need and have a right to ‘self-determination’.
- in this view, the nation increasingly acquires characteristics of a supernatural entity; it is both immanent and transcendent in respect to the individual. Immanent means part of and inherent in; transcendent means above and beyond. Because this is similar to the characteristics ascribed to God, this form of nationalism has been labelled worship and is, therefore, a form of idolatry in Christian terms.
- also, the inculcation of language and culture through rearing and education is the major means by which characteristics and attributes of the ‘nation’ are imparted into individuals; however, some nationalists even began to argue that some national traits and characteristics were transmitted genetically —i.e., they were ‘in the blood’. This last was inescapably racist.
Effects
- for these extreme, exclusivist nationalists, the European situation was regarded as abominable; most states lumped more than one nationality together with a high probability of mutual contamination both biologically through intermarriage (bastardisation as they saw it) and culturally. Alternately, many nationalities were divided in different states.
- they came to argue that each nation required its own separate state into which all people of that nationality were collected in order to realise itself and in order to determine its own destiny.
- both Lutheranism and Calvinism had granted a divine authenticity to the state to which obedience was required as a Christian obligation; it had been argued that the state was a surrogate for God in trying to achieve a degree of order. Civil order is an intimation of divine order.
- now this idea of obedience to the state as a divine intention was reinforced by the notion that the state was the means by which a nation exercised its rights of self-determination, self-protection, perpetuation, etc.; the state with its bureaucracy, armed forces, education system, etc. was regarded as essential. While the ‘nation’ could exist without a state, the ideal was for the ‘nation’ to have its own state.
- the nation could also became the measure of all things; individuals were significant only in so far as they contributed to the well-being of the nation. Morality was a function of the needs of the nation (i.e., whatever promotes the interests of the ‘nation’, and the state where the two coincide, is good and legitimate—and vice versa); thus violence and terrorism can be regarded as legitimate and even good or admirable if done for the ‘nation’ and if necessary for its welfare and preservation. Even horrible crimes such as genocide, mass murder, mass rape, etc. are justified as ‘good’; we see this in the holocaust and in ethnic cleansing.
- individual rights, freedom and even well-being frequently become secondary and unimportant. In fact, they might even be inimical to the interests of the ‘nation’ and therefore need to be suppressed. For these nationalists, ‘freedom’ was primarily a attribute for the ‘nation’, not the individual.
- this can often be seen in regard to language and education. Among both Afrikaner nationalists in South Africa and Québecois nationalists, it was argued that allowing parents to choose the language of instruction for their children clashes with the rights and needs of the ‘nation’; thus, both passed laws which took that right away. Of course, the language laws go further than that in Quebec.
- increasingly, individuals took pride in themselves or were humiliated according to the status and prestige of their nation; concepts (such as: ‘national honour’, ‘national humiliation’) became sufficiently important in imperialism and in international relations in the period leading up to 1914 that they were regarded as worth going to war.
- individuals came to be defined by the collectivity and not the other way around.
- in Germany and Italy, the middle classes, especially the intellectuals, were confronted by political disunity; there was a strong desire to unite all Italians or all Germans into one state.
- in Germany, liberal nationalists had opposed both the Hapsburgs and the Hohenzollerns (Prussia) because both were autocratic and both states contained non-Germans. The liberal attempts to unite Germany culminated in the Revolutions of 1848 and the constitutional convention at Weimar; they failed.
- under Bismarck, autocratic conservatism took up the cause of German unification and more extreme German nationalism shed much of its remaining liberalism.
- similarly, liberals Mazzini and Garibaldi failed to achieve Italian unification; again, it was a conservative monarchist, Cavour, who ultimately united Italy.
- the main obstacles to unification in both cases were France and the Hapsburgs. The Prussian army, which defeated the Hapsburg empire (1866) and then France (1870-71), made both unifications possible; thus, it introduced the age of ‘blood and iron’—’might is right’. Nationalists saw violence and bloodshed as the means to achieve their goals.
Eastern Europe
Magyar or Hungarian Nationalism
- it began as a movement among Magyar nobles who wanted equality with the German aristocracy in the Hapsburg Empire.
- during the revolution in 1848, it became a mass movement including the lower classes of Magyars demanding equal status with Germans in a joint domination of Slavic peoples. A few years later, it was successful with the creation of the Dual Monarchy; there were separate governments in Vienna (governing the northern half of the empire and dominated by Germans) and Budapest (governing the southern half and dominated by Magyars); imperial matters (e.g., international relations and the military) were administered jointly although the imperial ministries were located in Vienna.
Slavic Peoples
- they were mostly dominated, subordinated peoples (until near the end of the 19th C in Prussia, Dual Monarchy, Russia and Turkey; in the Balkans, Serbs, Rumanians, and Bulgarians had gained independence from Turkey by the beginning of the 20th C, but each had ethnic minorities of other Slavic peoples). They were not only confronted by disunity but were also exploited and often subjected to assimilation policies.
- once they began to perceive of themselves as ‘nations’, their sense of grievance was multiplied.
- by the late 19th century, all of eastern Europe was a hot bed of extreme, aggrieved nationalisms (against Turks, against the Hapsburgs, against the Prussians and, among Poles at least, against the Russians); these nationalists were frequently fanatical in demands, in hatred, and in intolerance; it was a very difficult situation when different ethnic groups which had been roused to nationalist fervour tended to overlap and be intermingled.
- Polish nationalism also had a powerful messianic dimension—a divine mission (almost a chosen people); Poles saw themselves as representing Roman Catholicism against Russian Orthodox Christianity and against Prussian Lutheranism. There was a similar messianic dimension in the nationalism/separatism which emerged in Quebec in the late 19th C.—French Canada as a bulwark of Catholicism in a hostile sea of North American Protestantism.
National Manias in Late 19th Century
- most European peoples tended to become more or less unhinged.
- national status and prestige (‘face’) began to take on irrational importance.
- the concept of ‘Great Power’ evolved; it was essential to be member of the club. To be a ‘second-rate power’ was an intolerable block to the national psyche.
- ‘national honour’ must be defended—i.e., war (similar to 18th century code supporting duelling for individuals).
- one of the best examples of this was the Fashoda incident and crisis in 1896. Britain, involved in Egypt since the early 1880s, had been content to allow the Mahdi and his followers dominate in the Sudan. However, when the French sent a small contingent from west Africa across to the upper Nile, the British collected an Anglo-Egyptian army to conquer the Sudan. The French arrived at the small town of Fashoda just as the British were completing the defeat of the Mahdist forces. The British and the French confronted each other. In spite of the fact that there was very little of value in the Sudan and the French faced enormous military disadvantages, nationalists in France demanded a war to satisfy ‘national honour’; nationalists in Britain were also prepared to respond with war unless the French withdrew their little contingent. Eventually, the gov’ts settled the issue without war, but it was a near thing.
- these concepts led to ‘jingoism’ in England and to ‘chauvinism’ in France and came to prominence during the ‘new’ imperialism of the late 19th C.
- in Germany, the creation of the Empire (i.e., the unification) did not slake but rather whetted the appetite; nationalists made even more exaggerated claims. Germany must ‘take her place in the sun’ (a nice primordial Darwinist image) and demanded a colonial empire as well. Increasingly, they demanded that Germany be Britain’s equal in everything, including its navy.
- many people were already aware that two new ‘world powers’ (what we came to call ‘superpowers’) were emerging on the periphery of Europe—Russia and the United States. There was increasing concern (especially in Britain and Germany) to acquire the means (the extra chips) to remain in the game. At the end of the 19th C., this was an important factor in the scramble for colonies and the attempt by Germany to become dominant on the continent.
- Italy lagged behind in industrialisation and Italians were uncertain of ‘Great Power’ status. Italian nationalists felt that Italy must prove itself in acquiring colonies and this led to the Ethiopian disaster, 1896.
How Pervasive was Mass Nationalism?
- it is difficult to determine how deeply the masses were affected (there weren’t public opinion polls) and this is still a matter of dispute.
- almost certainly, mass nationalism was not very strong in Italy.
- it is difficult to gauge this pervasiveness because most indications are from the press; this was the age of yellow journalism which tended to place great emphasis on jingoism and similar issues. The traditional assumption is that the mass circulation newspapers were responding to the moods and wishes of the masses and giving them what they wanted. This is supported by some of the recent research on popular culture which shows that nationalism and imperialism had a great deal of popular support.
- the counter-argument is that the newspapers were creating or exaggerating the mood of nationalist hysteria. Thus, nationalism was not really a natural or inherent element for the majority of the population.
- however, there were often large crowds and demonstrations and almost certainly there was a mass base even if it is not possible to measure it precisely
- Marxists have not usually been willing to accept this because it contradicts their picture of the proletariat. They have usually argued that the proletariat were not really devoted to nationalism/ imperialism (they could not be because it was not in their economic interest to do so; this is reductionism—i.e., everything is reduced to economic interest); rather, it is argued, the masses were misled or bamboozled.
- as we have seen in the past few years, nationalism survived 45 years of Marxist dominated societies and education systems in eastern Europe, including Yugoslavia, and almost 65-70 years in the Soviet Union. This is an area that Marxists have persistently misunderstood and undervalued. Nationalism is not simply a confidence game devised by the ‘capitalists’ to bamboozle the mass of the people. The masses seem to take to it like ducks to water. When given a choice of class identities and national identities, nationalism and national identities win every time, hands down.
- in failing to understand the appeal of nationalism to the masses, Marxists underestimated its potency and thus failed to understand fascism and Nazism.