Society/Culture So what is so wrong with 'Nationalism'?

[Carringbush2010]

The word simply doesn't mean what you want it to mean. That's not an inconsistency.

That's where the criticism of nationalism arises. That is the answer to your question.

Ask a different question if that's what you want people to answer.

Your questions are ridiculous.

What's wrong with nationalism, excluding the specific reasons it's bad?

Yeah been over this a few times with others, we'll just leave it there.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Yeah been over this a few times with others, we'll just leave it there.

If only words had different meanings.

 

[raskolnikov]

Currently doing my Phd on nationalism. Will share my thoughts in about four years when I've finished.

 

[RobbieK]

Currently doing my Phd on nationalism. Will share my thoughts in about four years when I've finished.

I hope it is a long-overdue thesis on the conundrum of the "inconsistent definitions" between nationalism and patriotism.

 

[raskolnikov]

I hope it is a long-overdue thesis on the conundrum of the "inconsistent definitions" between nationalism and patriotism.

Not at the moment but FWIW I'd say patriotism is more passive, nationalism more aggressive.

 

[Gethelred]

Welcome to "So what is wrong with nationalism?", the thread where an adult human being struggles to come to terms with why two different words with different meanings have "inconsistent definitions" and can't be used interchangeably.

Challengers from a variety of nations have appeared, attempting to enlighten our hapless hero, but all have failed in their task, succumbing to his circular reasoning and unintelligible syntax.

Will a new challenger appear? Will our protagonist ever overcome this inexplicably crippling confusion?

To find out hit "subscribe to thread" and stay tuned to:

SO

WHAT

IS

WRONG

WITH

NATIONALISM?

Can you post more often, please?

 

[RobbieK]

Can you post more often, please?

To be honest I'm close to doing myself a favour and deleting my account

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Nationalism and the closely related "patriotism" are both predicated on a blind loyalty.

The problem with this is self-evident as it forgives all manor of sins.

 

[LFTWNG11]

The term bootlicker immediately springs to mind.

 

[Malifice]

Not at the moment but FWIW I'd say patriotism is more passive, nationalism more aggressive.

Patriotism is an individual choice.

Nationalism is State mandated, stands in direct contrast to liberalism (and has received a mostly negative view from both classic and modern liberals), and it's all but accepted that strong nationalism and ultra-nationalism is a precursor to war (as has been evidenced every time nationalism has swept through a particular region).

George Orwell summed up the distinction thus:

In his classic essay on the topic, George Orwell distinguishes nationalism from patriotism which he defines as devotion to a particular place. More abstractly, nationalism is "power-hunger tempered by self-deception". For Orwell, the nationalist is more likely than not dominated by irrational negative impulses:

There are, for example, Trotskyists who have become simply enemies of the U.S.S.R. without developing a corresponding loyalty to any other unit. When one grasps the implications of this, the nature of what I mean by nationalism becomes a good deal clearer. A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist—that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating—but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations. He sees history, especially contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the upgrade and some hated rival is on the downgrade. But finally, it is important not to confuse nationalism with mere worship of success. The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#Criticism

 

[juzz88]

I'm gonna steal something from the left wing playbook and say that democratic nationalism is not the same thing as nationalism.

In all seriousness, my ears prick up when I hear that word too. However, context is important.

If it's being used in terms of national sovereignty, like Brexit, I have no issue.

If politicians start using it to try and justify reducing individual liberties (patriot act, Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, etc.), that's when I start to worry.

 

[Malifice]

I'm gonna steal something from the left wing playbook and say that democratic nationalism is not the same thing as nationalism.

But it is. Democratic Nationalism infers a 'tyranny of the majority' whereby if you dont conform to the majority view of nationalist or nativist ideals, ethnicity, cultural values and so forth, you're marginalised or persecuted.

See also: 'We grew here, you flew here' or '**** off we're full'.

I have no problem with an individual expressing a love for their country (patriotism). But that's a very different kettle of fish to nationalism, which presumes a certain cultural, racial or nativist norm for its expression to function, excludes others who don't fit that norm, and is State mandated (rather than an individual choice).

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I have no problem with an individual expressing a love for their country (patriotism). But that's a very different kettle of fish to nationalism, which presumes a certain cultural, racial or nativist norm for its expression to function, excludes others who don't fit that norm, and is State mandated (rather than an individual choice).

Isn't that jingoism as opposed to nationalism?

I consider nationalism to be simply the counterpoint to globalism i.e. an approach that idealises the nation state and emphasises individual sovereignty and unilateralism over any kind of internationalism, multilateralism etc. Naturally that has knock-on effects domestically but it needn't necessarily be racial or nativist. It just so happens that it generally finds expression or common cause with those ideas vis-a-vis national identity.

Of course, you can then have certain types of nationalism that further emphasise this ethnic or cultural identity i.e. Hindu nationalism in India or white nationalism in parts of the US or even among the National Front in France. But in those cases, it's the emphasis on the Hindu or white identity that makes the nationalism racist or nativist. I don't think nationalism has to be racist or nativist in its conception, it just seems to bend that way.

Although I suppose in any kind of nation-building, there is likely a process of casting off the bits and pieces that don't assimilate.

 

[Seeds]

The very definition of nationalism is a oxymoron. the reasons that justify going from city states to nations are exactly the same as the reasons to justify going from nations to global order.

yet nationalists are for those reasons in one case but against them in another for no obvious reasons. Over the course of history Nationalism is nothing more but a stepping stone to globalism. It is not an end point.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

The very definition of nationalism is a oxymoron.

Huh?

 

[RobbieK]

Although I suppose in any kind of nation-building, there is likely a process of casting off the bits and pieces that don't assimilate.

As a policy of exclusion and opposition, defining policy in terms of a unitary state in competition with external enemies, I would say it is just about inevitable that that same discrimination turns in on itself and you end up with some sort of discriminatory domestic politics targeting "internal enemies", be it based on race or religion or political ideology, justified as necessary for the preservation and promotion of state interests.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

As a policy of exclusion and opposition, defining policy in terms of a unitary state in competition with external enemies, I would say it is just about inevitable that that same discrimination turns in on itself and you end up with some sort of discriminatory domestic politics targeting "internal enemies", be it based on race or religion or political ideology, justified as necessary for the preservation and promotion of state interests.

I'm not sure it is this ugly by necessity.

Surely you can believe generally in the primacy of the nation state as a unit of governance without ganging up on minorities.

 

[RobbieK]

I'm not sure it is this ugly by necessity.

Surely you can believe generally in the primacy of the nation state as a unit of governance without ganging up on minorities.

I can't really think of a state that has engaged in a serious nationalist agenda that hasn't had a problem with internal minorities...

Ultimately there needs to be some sort of unifying concept around which the nation state justifies its primacy. It is hard not to see that creating problems for elements within the state that do not conform.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I can't really think of a state that has engaged in a serious nationalist agenda that hasn't had a problem with internal minorities.

I guess that depends what you mean by "a problem".

What about Scottish nationalism? Perversely, the Scottish nationalists favour unilateralism in the form of EU membership, which now means ditching the UK.

Turkish nationalism under Kemal Ataturk after the Ottoman Empire collapsed?

Wasn't the reunification of Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall a pretty successul example of nation building, or rebuilding? Does that not constitute a form of nationalism, implemented successfully and peacefully?

Even Thailand, during the middle of the 20th century, embarked on a reasonably successful nationalist project. It required the assimilation of certain minorities and quite a bit of propaganda but I'm not sure that's a total deal-breaker?

 

[Taylor]

Does state mandated mean that protectionist laws such as import tariffs are Nationalism?

I would expect that now the unions are feeling the effect of the cost saving measures granted to a global market that more collectively minded people will turn to more patriotic and isolationist positions on distributed labor. They've seen their jobs disappear to sell TVs slightly cheaper at the corner store and are now wondering if that's what is best for them, but they don't have any power as an individual against the corporations so instead it becomes a political issue where people who are promoting policy that pushes their nation away from the rest of the world enough to protect the nation from having jobs picked out of it by cheaper labor markets.

The corporations managed to push the conservatives and the unions together into a "nation first" attitude, protectionist and isolationist platform.

Ultimately I think it will be the downfall of the more left wing politics if they lose their working class supporters in that fashion, especially in more regional areas.

 

[RobbieK]

I guess that depends what you mean by "a problem".

What about Scottish nationalism? Perversely, the Scottish nationalists favour unilateralism in the form of EU membership, which now means ditching the UK.

Turkish nationalism under Kemal Ataturk after the Ottoman Empire collapsed?

Wasn't the reunification of Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall a pretty successul example of nation building, or rebuilding? Does that not constitute a form of nationalism, implemented successfully and peacefully?

Even Thailand, during the middle of the 20th century, embarked on a reasonably successful nationalist project. It required the assimilation of certain minorities and quite a bit of propaganda but I'm not sure that's a total deal-breaker?

I think there is a distinction to be made between the desire for national/regional autonomy for a minority group (such as the Scots within Great Britain) or secular democratic nation building (Turkey and post-reunification Germany) and a nation state pursuing a nationalist agenda.

Taking the example closest to me, as a resident in Germany I would say that while there was a lot of effort pull together east and west after the Cold War, it came at a time when Germany was quite clearly not pursuing a nationalistic policy agenda. Germany has long been at the forefront of efforts to strengthen international cooperation through the European Union and other international organisations. That has been a consistent policy for some time, to the extent that arguably Germany is currently the most powerful nation in the world that actively supports international cooperation.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Does state mandated mean that protectionist laws such as import tariffs are Nationalism?

I'd say tariffs are an expression of economic nationalism.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I think there is a distinction to be made between the desire for national/regional autonomy for a minority group (such as the Scots within Great Britain) or secular democratic nation building (Turkey and post-reunification Germany) and a nation state pursuing a nationalist agenda.

Sure, but there are still elements of nationalism at work in all of the above.

You can't define nationalism narrowly as "all the bad stuff that happens when people get carried away" while ignoring its more benign examples.

What about an anti-colonial nationalist like Gandhi? Or Nelson Mandela, who was a champion of African nationalism?

Taking the example closest to me, as a resident in Germany I would say that while there was a lot of effort pull together east and west after the Cold War, it came at a time when Germany was quite clearly not pursuing a nationalistic policy agenda. Germany has long been at the forefront of efforts to strengthen international cooperation through the European Union and other international organisations. That has been a consistent policy for some time, to the extent that arguably Germany is currently the most powerful nation in the world that actively supports international cooperation.

Sure, but the impulse to reunify is still an expression internally of German nationalism. How else would you characterise it?

 

[RobbieK]

Sure, but there are still elements of nationalism at work in all of the above.

You can't define nationalism narrowly as "all the bad stuff that happens when people get carried away" while ignoring its more benign examples.

What about an anti-colonial nationalist like Gandhi? Or Nelson Mandela, who was a champion of African nationalism?

Sure, but the impulse to reunify is still an expression internally of German nationalism. How else would you characterise it?

Can a nation state do anything in its own interests without it being nationalistic, then? If so, then we end up with a concept with little explanatory value.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Can a nation state do anything in its own interests without it being nationalistic, then?

Of course.

If so, then we end up with a concept with little explanatory value.

Huh?

I've given you a bunch of examples that could be accurately described as expressions of nationalism. Or is nationalism only "the bad stuff"?

Flirting with Carringbush2010 territory here, starting with an opinion and then editing the definition to match.

Nationalism is automatically bad so anything people describe as nationalism but isn't bad therefore isn't really nationalism.