As a historian, I am acutely aware of the development and impact of nationalism on European and world history. As part of the modernizing 19C, nationalism was a force for broadening of horizons and for a positive sense of personal identification with a community that extended beyond the traditional and parochial when those older modes were being increasingly overrun by deeper trade and communication with an integrating world. It was a step towards a more ecumenical (in multiple senses) perspective; even if not embracing the global cosmopolitanism of the most avant-garde of the era.
There is no doubt that the idea has been taken to extremes and was a frequent source of horrific acts taken by governments and populations over the past 200 years. Its fetishization at the international political level resulted in further instability, rigidity, and oppression of minorities across the 20C and 21C.
It’s no wonder that I’ve been rather cosmopolitan in my outlook, as a result of the education, resources, and information flows to which I’ve been a party most of my life. A streak of idealism, too—a touch of the “brotherhood of man”—has also encouraged me to see nationalism as a passing phase in human socio-political development; a way station en route to a global culture.
In taking this stance, I’ve come to realize, I have perhaps let my ideals get ahead of the realities of the world and one of my key learnings as a historian: the slow, almost glacial, pace of social change (a phenomenon which is not “inevitable, but certainly without much contrary historical evidence). In other words, just because I’d like folks to think “sensibly and go with the “tides of history,” doesn’t mean that they will rush to it: aspirations need to be in contact with the real world if they’re to come about.
I’ve been thinking about this recently in the context of immigration. An issue of global importance and impact which has spurred reaction and reactionaries into political power in many countries; not just here in our own “nation of immigrants.”
My belief in democracy holds that we must start with a cohesive community (i.e. “we the people”) combined with a respect for the views of the other members of that community. I then have to take seriously apparent fear held by many members of that community of being overrun/diluted/disrupted by “others”. At least if by “others,” I mean those who are not yet part of our community. This highlights the tension between the dream of human universality and the continued presence of countries/nations/states (most of whom are not very democratic) as the basis of how our societies are currently organized.
If, while we are working on toleration and inclusion, we wish to have functioning political societies—including (not cheap) social services—supported by the breadth of that society, then we can’t take an absolutist stand on the issue of who’s “in.” This, however, is not a defense of unbridled, simplistic tribalism. That too is pretty deeply embedded in human culture (if not human nature). In its more common forms in democratic cultures, it manifests not just in racism and misogyny, but more benignly in sports team affiliations and language/dialect/accent signals. It can also turn ugly on a global scale, as articulated by Carl Schmitt’s “Concept of the Political.”
So, as an ameliorative measure (or muddle, as some might say), perhaps we can try to keep our country going as a functioning community; not with harsh absolute rules and xenophobia, but with some incremental steps towards allowing some others in under a regime which accommodates the evolution of our culture (the “melting pot”) and the security of knowing that we are controlling the pace of immigration. To some degree, this will be facilitated by the core economics of the labor market, accelerated by declining birth rates and extended lifespans. Those market drivers will, likely over time, ease cultural accommodation, toleration, and integration.
When I read Karl Marx’ comments on other flavors of socialism in the 19C, I had to laugh at his critiquing them as “utopian.” This was the same guy who talked about leaping towards a workers’ paradise and the withering away of the State without any real sense of how that particular nirvana was to emerge out of the heap of ordinary human affairs and existing power structures. It’s now wonder that Lenin’s attempt to short-circuit the process went awry.
We, too, have to maintain our sense of utopia, at least directionally, while allowing the normal processes of human social evolution to grind forward incrementally. The “nation” may be all we can handle at this point. And before we rush to grant non-citizens the vote, much less throw down borders and dissolve local/regional/national communities into a grand global continuum over the course of a few decades, we may be better off taking it slow. We can—I would argue that we have to—respect he views of our fellows (the basis of democracy), address their concerns at a world seemingly spinning much too fast, and still make progress.
So much for the view from the US and other more-or-less mongrel nations. There are, however, a bunch of places where there is more-or-less ethnic homogeneity. Several grew up in central Europe amid the collapse of the Russian, Austro-Hungarian, and Turkish empires. Others arose out of domination of a particular ethic group as arbitrary lines were drawn in the aftermath of European empires in Asia and Africa. The challenge in those countries is the protection of minorities—both in terms of law/security and political power; i.e., the need for limits on majoritarianism. Particularly where the dominant group has a long history of being persecuted in larger, imperial contexts, there is a fine line between defensive ethno-nationalism and the exercise of newly-found power vis-à-vis even smaller minorities. Rwanda, Israel, and Bhutan (in decreasing order of barbarity) all come to mind in this regard.
There is no doubt that the idea has been taken to extremes and was a frequent source of horrific acts taken by governments and populations over the past 200 years. Its fetishization at the international political level resulted in further instability, rigidity, and oppression of minorities across the 20C and 21C.
It’s no wonder that I’ve been rather cosmopolitan in my outlook, as a result of the education, resources, and information flows to which I’ve been a party most of my life. A streak of idealism, too—a touch of the “brotherhood of man”—has also encouraged me to see nationalism as a passing phase in human socio-political development; a way station en route to a global culture.
In taking this stance, I’ve come to realize, I have perhaps let my ideals get ahead of the realities of the world and one of my key learnings as a historian: the slow, almost glacial, pace of social change (a phenomenon which is not “inevitable, but certainly without much contrary historical evidence). In other words, just because I’d like folks to think “sensibly and go with the “tides of history,” doesn’t mean that they will rush to it: aspirations need to be in contact with the real world if they’re to come about.
I’ve been thinking about this recently in the context of immigration. An issue of global importance and impact which has spurred reaction and reactionaries into political power in many countries; not just here in our own “nation of immigrants.”
My belief in democracy holds that we must start with a cohesive community (i.e. “we the people”) combined with a respect for the views of the other members of that community. I then have to take seriously apparent fear held by many members of that community of being overrun/diluted/disrupted by “others”. At least if by “others,” I mean those who are not yet part of our community. This highlights the tension between the dream of human universality and the continued presence of countries/nations/states (most of whom are not very democratic) as the basis of how our societies are currently organized.
If, while we are working on toleration and inclusion, we wish to have functioning political societies—including (not cheap) social services—supported by the breadth of that society, then we can’t take an absolutist stand on the issue of who’s “in.” This, however, is not a defense of unbridled, simplistic tribalism. That too is pretty deeply embedded in human culture (if not human nature). In its more common forms in democratic cultures, it manifests not just in racism and misogyny, but more benignly in sports team affiliations and language/dialect/accent signals. It can also turn ugly on a global scale, as articulated by Carl Schmitt’s “Concept of the Political.”
So, as an ameliorative measure (or muddle, as some might say), perhaps we can try to keep our country going as a functioning community; not with harsh absolute rules and xenophobia, but with some incremental steps towards allowing some others in under a regime which accommodates the evolution of our culture (the “melting pot”) and the security of knowing that we are controlling the pace of immigration. To some degree, this will be facilitated by the core economics of the labor market, accelerated by declining birth rates and extended lifespans. Those market drivers will, likely over time, ease cultural accommodation, toleration, and integration.
When I read Karl Marx’ comments on other flavors of socialism in the 19C, I had to laugh at his critiquing them as “utopian.” This was the same guy who talked about leaping towards a workers’ paradise and the withering away of the State without any real sense of how that particular nirvana was to emerge out of the heap of ordinary human affairs and existing power structures. It’s now wonder that Lenin’s attempt to short-circuit the process went awry.
We, too, have to maintain our sense of utopia, at least directionally, while allowing the normal processes of human social evolution to grind forward incrementally. The “nation” may be all we can handle at this point. And before we rush to grant non-citizens the vote, much less throw down borders and dissolve local/regional/national communities into a grand global continuum over the course of a few decades, we may be better off taking it slow. We can—I would argue that we have to—respect he views of our fellows (the basis of democracy), address their concerns at a world seemingly spinning much too fast, and still make progress.
So much for the view from the US and other more-or-less mongrel nations. There are, however, a bunch of places where there is more-or-less ethnic homogeneity. Several grew up in central Europe amid the collapse of the Russian, Austro-Hungarian, and Turkish empires. Others arose out of domination of a particular ethic group as arbitrary lines were drawn in the aftermath of European empires in Asia and Africa. The challenge in those countries is the protection of minorities—both in terms of law/security and political power; i.e., the need for limits on majoritarianism. Particularly where the dominant group has a long history of being persecuted in larger, imperial contexts, there is a fine line between defensive ethno-nationalism and the exercise of newly-found power vis-à-vis even smaller minorities. Rwanda, Israel, and Bhutan (in decreasing order of barbarity) all come to mind in this regard.
RSS Feed