Random thoughts on nationalism,inspired by a few posts in the blog still angry
Just finished reading Hagen Schulze's: States, Nations, Nationalism which tracks the development of the aforementioned institutions and concepts from middle-ages to the present. On the whole, it turned out to be much too complex a work to be absorbed in one go, but it did raise some questions I found fascinating. Jotted down a few notes a few notes on it for your amusement (note that it's hardly fluent prose. If you find any omissions or errors you consider important,do comment or email).
Birth of Nations
This will be a gross generalisation, but I think one can say with a reasonable accuracy that either states gave birth to nations, or nations gave birth to states. In case of the former, it applies mostly to the states in Europe that developed a central rule early, in particular France and England. France in particular would be an easy example as they were the first in a lot of things dealing with creation of state organs and institutions, whether it is a central bureucracy or a standing army. It's also worthwile to notice the status of language as a binding factor, Cardinal Richelieu founded the Academy of France in as early as 1635, and one of it's main functions was the standardization of the French language which lasted literally for centuries. In it's own way, religion played it's part here as well, as in the protestant christian countries the translated bible played a significant part in getting a head start with language consolidation (most striking example would be Martin Luther and german language).
Then there's the "other part" religion played, whether it's Spain of Isabella and Ferdinand expelling first the moors and then the jews or France expelling it's protestants (the huguenots). In any case, by the standards of the time each was quite an expedient move as it provided a single unifying factor:Catholicism. The 30-years war was in it's way the first pan-European war and last major one over religion (protestants vs. counter-reformation) and even then it wasnt that simple: France first under Richelieu and then Mazarin subsidized protestant Sweden with one hand while oppressing their own protestant huguenots with the other. But on the whole it can be said there was a strong tendency towards religious uniformity until 20th century, and even then religion was used as a nationalistic tool or a weapon when expedient (Northern Ireland,anyone?). In essence, in most places where uniformity could be achieved,it was aimed for. There were some notable exceptions to the rule, particularly Poland-Lithuania (which as a multicultural and multireligious empire was forced to be remarkably tolerant in order not to compromise it's internal stability). As you might notice from the name references, at this point (17th century) religious policies were primary tools of the monarchs and could be enforced only if the central government could impose it's will on the periphery.
In both cases ,with Spain and France, the tendency was toward one religion as fractuous minorities placed a lot in the way of additional burden on the state, and revolts were rather common. It's also noteworthy that the 30-years war was the main event when religion exited from the political landscape of foreign relations in Europe. As per usual,it took a destructive war to learn a lesson.
To sum up: In France,England.. perhaps Sweden in the north and other strong countries the strongest early influence to creating a national identity was a strong state (for it's time,anyway).
On the opposite end of the spectrum would be the current day states which were born as a result of nationalism, a pull created by unifying factors binding people living under different states and governments. Yet again, language was a big influence,and later on it's influence was further increased by a variety of cultural phenomena; whether English tales of King Arthur,French tales of Roland, or German national mythology. Also noteworthy was a kind of institutional historical revisionism, if the histories produced at the early half of 19th centuries are to be believed,Europe's a 50/50 split between descendants of Troy and Athens (with a little Sparta thrown into the mix). Germany in particular created a sort of "neo-pagan" history for itself,reaching back to the tribes mentioned by Romans,waxing poetic about the superiority of the german race (interestingly enough, of "germanic" peoples the english were by far the most successfull at that time. A minor fact people rather preferred to not to pay attention to). Note that in general nations forged by strong states were born earlier than states created by nationalist sentiment.
Like any political or cultural paradigm shift, nationalism also changed the wider political landscape, the power of the sentiment manifesting itself became abundantly clear in western europe by the era of Napoleon and levee en masse, which harnessed the rising national sentiment and produced something of a military revolution as a second order side-effect. And finally, the shift caused by the new French strategy forced their targets to follow, mostly evident in the flood of political and propaganda pamphlets of the era (by that time propanganda was already a relatively refined instrument). However, in Germany and Austria-Hungary where the "forced wakeup" of nationalism was tried hardest,it still failed to catch during the early half of 19th century. As a more or less direct result of that, the Vienna Congress was virtually the last time the traditional Westphalian "balance of powers" could be practiced in Europe (Metternich etc.). By late 19th century, the rules had already changed.
So.. the question to the audience would be: Which case would US fall under? If I had to pick myself,it'd be the first one, ie. State created the Nation. At least would make sense in view of the "constitution worshipping" and the fact the state started as multicultural so there were fewer unifying factors than Old World states which had already formed centuries before (Well,France and England,anyway. US is in real terms an old state.). Also: Civil War era in the US was fairly close to the era when nationalism started raising it's head in Europe "for real".. was there ever a kind of "European style" situation where nationalistic (or partisan?) feelings were exploited for political purposes, whether for demonising one's enemies or leveraging it for domestic purposes? Ie. How did the North vs. South conflict pan out in terms of nationalism.
Militant Nationalism
If I had to pick an example of it on a large scale,something that changed the face of Europe, it'd have to be the aftermath of German unification and the humiliating defeat of France in the Franco-German war of 1870-1871. If there ever was a lesson to be had from that particular war it would have to be this : Humiliation is fuel for extreme nationalism.The lesson was enforced quite strongly by WW1, enough so that the lessons had sunk in by the time WW2 peace treaties were concluded. After Alsace-Lorraine was annexed by Germany ,they became a kind of a rallying cry for nationalism in France(revenge is one of the more powerful motives around) as well as the spark for an arms race which eventually set the stage for World War I some 45 years later. The indoctrination reached the classrooms(Say, Maps of Alsace-Lorraine on classroom walls,showing the said provinces as an everpresent reminder, or a monument in Paris representing Strasburg draped over, just standing there,covered), and it reached the newspapers, in short, nationalism was being built up as a tool to unleash on one's enemies.
Among the more recent examples would be of course the whole nationalistic pressure cooker from 1870 until the end of World War 2, and in recent days the Serb Nationalism. Serb nationalism also ties up nicely with the history part. Note the references to battle of Kosovo Polje, or Field of Blackbirds: A battle between Serbs and Turks in 1389. Serbs lost. Of course Turks,The Ottoman Empire, were muslim,and it's muslim population settled throughout the Balkans. Which established a convenient tie to the "muslims as invaders" mindset and where it went. And this was in 1990s.
Differences in nationalism between US and the "Old World".
After a while of thinking, I think at least one thing stands out: Homogenization. It's worthwile to pay attention to some manifestations of that particular feature today, whether it's Pim Fortyun expressing doubts about the wisdom of muslim immigration, or Seville summit ponderings on immigration legislation. One of the overarching themes seemed to be European wariness (or hostility) towards those immigrants who commit the cardinal sin of "not being like us", or even worse still, those who do not even want to become like us. Whether it's about culture or increasingly,religion, which is one of the ironies of today's increasingly atheist Europe: Religion making a comeback as a political issue.
Finally: types of nationalism.
- Cultural Nationalism , the nation as a positive focus of identity
- Liberal Nationalism , the nation as a basis/means of national/individual self-rule. democracy.
- Triumphal Nationalism,the nation as a claim to superiority (militancy could be considered a negative form of this one.).
I think of these options, Europe would probably focus strongest on cultural nationalism which also includes a sense of continuity , in a way. Liberal nationalism certainly plays it's part, particularly in UK, but also on the continent though there's less emphasis on individual liberties than in UK or US. And finally, triumphal nationalism.. a couple world wars went a long way towards removing much of the triumphalism from European scene (ever wonder why europeans dont fly their flags a whole lot,as opposed to US?) though it seems it's starting to increasingly manifest itself in a negative sense, namely resentment towards those more powerful than us. Or in other words: The United States. And thus the constant chafing and quiet resentment at what is perceived as US pushing aside the local interests.
As for US.. I'd wager cultural nationalism would be lower on the scale, but liberal and triumphal nationalism very high. What do you think?
PS. Check out Michael Trossman's Patriotism and Pop Culture essay at www.stillangry.org.
Update v0.5 I suspect I'll be rewriting this one constantly until I bow to the inevitable and decide it's too wide a topic to fit in one page.
Just finished reading Hagen Schulze's: States, Nations, Nationalism which tracks the development of the aforementioned institutions and concepts from middle-ages to the present. On the whole, it turned out to be much too complex a work to be absorbed in one go, but it did raise some questions I found fascinating. Jotted down a few notes a few notes on it for your amusement (note that it's hardly fluent prose. If you find any omissions or errors you consider important,do comment or email).
Birth of Nations
This will be a gross generalisation, but I think one can say with a reasonable accuracy that either states gave birth to nations, or nations gave birth to states. In case of the former, it applies mostly to the states in Europe that developed a central rule early, in particular France and England. France in particular would be an easy example as they were the first in a lot of things dealing with creation of state organs and institutions, whether it is a central bureucracy or a standing army. It's also worthwile to notice the status of language as a binding factor, Cardinal Richelieu founded the Academy of France in as early as 1635, and one of it's main functions was the standardization of the French language which lasted literally for centuries. In it's own way, religion played it's part here as well, as in the protestant christian countries the translated bible played a significant part in getting a head start with language consolidation (most striking example would be Martin Luther and german language).
Then there's the "other part" religion played, whether it's Spain of Isabella and Ferdinand expelling first the moors and then the jews or France expelling it's protestants (the huguenots). In any case, by the standards of the time each was quite an expedient move as it provided a single unifying factor:Catholicism. The 30-years war was in it's way the first pan-European war and last major one over religion (protestants vs. counter-reformation) and even then it wasnt that simple: France first under Richelieu and then Mazarin subsidized protestant Sweden with one hand while oppressing their own protestant huguenots with the other. But on the whole it can be said there was a strong tendency towards religious uniformity until 20th century, and even then religion was used as a nationalistic tool or a weapon when expedient (Northern Ireland,anyone?). In essence, in most places where uniformity could be achieved,it was aimed for. There were some notable exceptions to the rule, particularly Poland-Lithuania (which as a multicultural and multireligious empire was forced to be remarkably tolerant in order not to compromise it's internal stability). As you might notice from the name references, at this point (17th century) religious policies were primary tools of the monarchs and could be enforced only if the central government could impose it's will on the periphery.
In both cases ,with Spain and France, the tendency was toward one religion as fractuous minorities placed a lot in the way of additional burden on the state, and revolts were rather common. It's also noteworthy that the 30-years war was the main event when religion exited from the political landscape of foreign relations in Europe. As per usual,it took a destructive war to learn a lesson.
To sum up: In France,England.. perhaps Sweden in the north and other strong countries the strongest early influence to creating a national identity was a strong state (for it's time,anyway).
On the opposite end of the spectrum would be the current day states which were born as a result of nationalism, a pull created by unifying factors binding people living under different states and governments. Yet again, language was a big influence,and later on it's influence was further increased by a variety of cultural phenomena; whether English tales of King Arthur,French tales of Roland, or German national mythology. Also noteworthy was a kind of institutional historical revisionism, if the histories produced at the early half of 19th centuries are to be believed,Europe's a 50/50 split between descendants of Troy and Athens (with a little Sparta thrown into the mix). Germany in particular created a sort of "neo-pagan" history for itself,reaching back to the tribes mentioned by Romans,waxing poetic about the superiority of the german race (interestingly enough, of "germanic" peoples the english were by far the most successfull at that time. A minor fact people rather preferred to not to pay attention to). Note that in general nations forged by strong states were born earlier than states created by nationalist sentiment.
Like any political or cultural paradigm shift, nationalism also changed the wider political landscape, the power of the sentiment manifesting itself became abundantly clear in western europe by the era of Napoleon and levee en masse, which harnessed the rising national sentiment and produced something of a military revolution as a second order side-effect. And finally, the shift caused by the new French strategy forced their targets to follow, mostly evident in the flood of political and propaganda pamphlets of the era (by that time propanganda was already a relatively refined instrument). However, in Germany and Austria-Hungary where the "forced wakeup" of nationalism was tried hardest,it still failed to catch during the early half of 19th century. As a more or less direct result of that, the Vienna Congress was virtually the last time the traditional Westphalian "balance of powers" could be practiced in Europe (Metternich etc.). By late 19th century, the rules had already changed.
So.. the question to the audience would be: Which case would US fall under? If I had to pick myself,it'd be the first one, ie. State created the Nation. At least would make sense in view of the "constitution worshipping" and the fact the state started as multicultural so there were fewer unifying factors than Old World states which had already formed centuries before (Well,France and England,anyway. US is in real terms an old state.). Also: Civil War era in the US was fairly close to the era when nationalism started raising it's head in Europe "for real".. was there ever a kind of "European style" situation where nationalistic (or partisan?) feelings were exploited for political purposes, whether for demonising one's enemies or leveraging it for domestic purposes? Ie. How did the North vs. South conflict pan out in terms of nationalism.
Militant Nationalism
If I had to pick an example of it on a large scale,something that changed the face of Europe, it'd have to be the aftermath of German unification and the humiliating defeat of France in the Franco-German war of 1870-1871. If there ever was a lesson to be had from that particular war it would have to be this : Humiliation is fuel for extreme nationalism.The lesson was enforced quite strongly by WW1, enough so that the lessons had sunk in by the time WW2 peace treaties were concluded. After Alsace-Lorraine was annexed by Germany ,they became a kind of a rallying cry for nationalism in France(revenge is one of the more powerful motives around) as well as the spark for an arms race which eventually set the stage for World War I some 45 years later. The indoctrination reached the classrooms(Say, Maps of Alsace-Lorraine on classroom walls,showing the said provinces as an everpresent reminder, or a monument in Paris representing Strasburg draped over, just standing there,covered), and it reached the newspapers, in short, nationalism was being built up as a tool to unleash on one's enemies.
Among the more recent examples would be of course the whole nationalistic pressure cooker from 1870 until the end of World War 2, and in recent days the Serb Nationalism. Serb nationalism also ties up nicely with the history part. Note the references to battle of Kosovo Polje, or Field of Blackbirds: A battle between Serbs and Turks in 1389. Serbs lost. Of course Turks,The Ottoman Empire, were muslim,and it's muslim population settled throughout the Balkans. Which established a convenient tie to the "muslims as invaders" mindset and where it went. And this was in 1990s.
Differences in nationalism between US and the "Old World".
After a while of thinking, I think at least one thing stands out: Homogenization. It's worthwile to pay attention to some manifestations of that particular feature today, whether it's Pim Fortyun expressing doubts about the wisdom of muslim immigration, or Seville summit ponderings on immigration legislation. One of the overarching themes seemed to be European wariness (or hostility) towards those immigrants who commit the cardinal sin of "not being like us", or even worse still, those who do not even want to become like us. Whether it's about culture or increasingly,religion, which is one of the ironies of today's increasingly atheist Europe: Religion making a comeback as a political issue.
Finally: types of nationalism.
- Cultural Nationalism , the nation as a positive focus of identity
- Liberal Nationalism , the nation as a basis/means of national/individual self-rule. democracy.
- Triumphal Nationalism,the nation as a claim to superiority (militancy could be considered a negative form of this one.).
I think of these options, Europe would probably focus strongest on cultural nationalism which also includes a sense of continuity , in a way. Liberal nationalism certainly plays it's part, particularly in UK, but also on the continent though there's less emphasis on individual liberties than in UK or US. And finally, triumphal nationalism.. a couple world wars went a long way towards removing much of the triumphalism from European scene (ever wonder why europeans dont fly their flags a whole lot,as opposed to US?) though it seems it's starting to increasingly manifest itself in a negative sense, namely resentment towards those more powerful than us. Or in other words: The United States. And thus the constant chafing and quiet resentment at what is perceived as US pushing aside the local interests.
As for US.. I'd wager cultural nationalism would be lower on the scale, but liberal and triumphal nationalism very high. What do you think?
PS. Check out Michael Trossman's Patriotism and Pop Culture essay at www.stillangry.org.
Update v0.5 I suspect I'll be rewriting this one constantly until I bow to the inevitable and decide it's too wide a topic to fit in one page.
posted by Teemu at
05:30
