Joined: 04-Mar-2006
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
QuoteReplyTopic: Nations, nation-states and nationalism. Posted: 04-Mar-2006 at 02:42
In the 20th century we saw the full force of what we know as
'nationalism'; highly-organised attempts by an elite to dupe a mass of
people into fighting, working or otherwise for their country. However,
this begs the question, 'what is a nation?' How is it classified and
when did the concept really come into being?
[I should point out at this point, that many people, myself included,
believe that there was no real concept of 'nation' before the
early-modern period, due to a vast array of factors and historical
phenomena. But that really deserves a topic in its own right, so I
won't discuss it here, even though the topic will probably come up if
anybody decides to reply to this thread ]
In contemporary society we are surrounded by so-called nation-states,
so let's begin with what a 'state' is; fairly simple really, a state is
territorially limited and has within it an infrastructure which
pervades the existence of the people within it. It is important to
note, then, that, in theory, one can have a 'state' without a 'nation'
(whatever a nation is defined as), but this is virtually never the
case, the only exception really being the Vatican City, which is a
state filled with Italian nationals... so, really, this isn't an
exception at all, it's just a sovereign state made up of the Italian
nation, but I'm sure you see my point here.
However, a state can contain multiple nations. Take Canada, with its
English-speaking and French-speaking peoples, or the United Kingdom,
which contains four nations under the banner of a single-state.
Conversely, one can be a nation without having a state, like the
Palestinians who, of course, have no officially recognised (that is to
say, according to the earlier definition of state) state but clearly
there is a unique nation in existence.
So what, then, is a nation? A simple definition would appear to be that
of a people unified by some common characteristic. But what are these
characteristics? Language surely cannot count as a basis of describing
a nation, otherwise the UK and the USA would be part of the same nation
(which inherently is not the case), and, closer to home for me, Wales
would not be seen as a distinct nation from the rest of the United
Kingdom (Wales has two official languages, each of which is spoken to
different extents depending on the location). So, having ruled language
out, what about history or other elements thereof? This is probably the
most clear indication of what makes a nation what it is; again, I use
the United Kingdom as an example of this, where the English and the
Scottish have a clear national difference due to the fact that for the
better part of the 13th to 15th centuries, the two countries were at
war. This not only makes the two peoples different, but also defines
the people within the particular self-defined 'state'. However, this
doesn't apply completely; take Italy, which was formed in the late 19th
century from a series of disparate and, one might say, distinct
city-states. In the early 20th century a variety of liberal Italian
governments had huge difficulty spurring the Italians into being
patriotic and loving their country, particularly those from the south
of Italy and Sicily who didn't believe they were part of the same
country as the rest (there was even a revolt by a Sicilian to prove
this point), and the government had to resort to invading various other
countries to try to improve nationalism through war. Even under
Mussolini patriotism wasn't exactly at its height. So, Italy had a
state, but did it really have a nation, despite the fact that the
people were, on the whole, in the same history (Romans, Gaulish
invasion, Renaissance etc)? What exactly was missing in the early years
of the nation-state's formation?
So here I am, still struggling to define 'nation'; one thing I do know,
however, is that nationalism cannot exist without a 'nation', so the
earlier model I described would apply to the colonial states of the
18th and 19th centuries (such as the United States which, despite not
being a 'state' before the War of Independence, probably was its own
distinct nation as the people shared a common background etc, hence the
nationalism), but, really, defining 'nation' is tough, even though we
throw the word around nonchalantly in every-day speech.
...the English and the Scottish have a clear national difference due to the fact that for the better part of the 13th to 15th centuries, the two countries were at war.
You're right it's tough defining 'nation' but it doesn't help when you confuse the issue with terms like 'country' which is different again. the wars between Scotland and England were dynastic wars for territory rather than wars between 'nations' or 'states'.
In fact Scotland has always incorporated at least two nations: the English-speaking, Anglo-Saxon-descended Lowlanders and the Gaelic-speaking, British or earlier, Highlanders
...many people, myself included, believe that there was no real concept of 'nation' before the early-modern period
Then what did the Greeks see themselves as? They certainly saw Greeks, no matter from what city or 'state' as distinct from the barbarians outside. Same goes for the Chinese. And the Jews. And lots of others.
If you're analysing the concept of the 'nation-state' then I think you have to restrict yourself to the concept of 'nation' as it is generally used in the phrase 'nation-state'. That I think refers to a situation in which all the members ('citizens') of a independent state see themselves as sharing a common heritage and, in effect, an extended family relationship.
Much of the early modern period was spent (in Europe anyway) bolstering the concept that the members of each political grouping belonged to the same 'nation'. But that's a matter of propagandising and acculturation more than one of objective racial classification.
Many advocates of 'nation-states' later extended it to the political goal of combining various people all seeing themselve as so sharing into one state, so that all the peoples of one 'nation' were united in one 'state'. Again that usually meant a barrage of propaganda to try and convince them of that identity.
(This reply is a bit muddled. I guess I lack clear definitions here as much as anybody.)
...the wars between Scotland and England were dynastic wars for territory rather than wars between 'nations' or 'states'.
Yes, they were, I was just citing one example of why people in each country/province, or whatever, might consider themselves to be of a different nationality. Obviously there are other differences, such as those you listed, but the fact remains that the Scots and English will consider themselves to be of different nationalities.
Then what did the Greeks see themselves as? They certainly saw Greeks, no matter from what city or 'state' as distinct from the barbarians outside. Same goes for the Chinese. And the Jews. And lots of others.
As far as the Greeks go, yeah they considered themselves to be Greek, sharing a common language and religion, but the Peloponnesian War can highlight to some extent the differences in approach of the different city-states and, therefore, could point towards the lack of a definitive 'nation' status.
Many advocates of 'nation-states' later extended it to the political goal of combining various people all seeing themselve as so sharing into one state, so that all the peoples of one 'nation' were united in one 'state'. Again that usually meant a barrage of propaganda to try and convince them of that identity.
This is a good point and, again, can be related to language; the development of the printing press would have standardised language within states with the appropriate infrastructure, thus drawing the people closer to become more of a unit. How many people in England/France/Spain, or any other country, do you think spoke the same language? As with the example I gave with Italy, which even in the 19th century had vastly different dialectal forms of the same language which could have been construed as entirely distinct linguistically, it's not as if regards language people in medieval societies or before actually considered themselves to be part of a wider 'nation'... in relation to, say, a member of a parish. And, nor was any government really at liberty technologically to tell its people that they belonged to this one distinct 'nation'.
My knowledge of extra-European history is woeful, so any examples or case studies which could redress this balance would be appreciated!
I agree that there were no nations before modernity. Ancient Greeks, Chinese etc. were not nations in the modern sense. They were relatively coherent ethnic groups, but that's not enough to be a nation. Nation, above all, is a political concept.
One problem in defining the nation arises from the two different philosophies on the nature of nation, I believe. Namely, the civic nation ideal and the ethno-cultural nation ideal. The civic nation ideal emphasises political allegience and common ideals as the basis of nation. Originates from France, and prime example is USA, for obvious reasons. Ethno-cultural nation ideal emphasises common ethnicity, language, culture and history as the basis of nation. Originates from the German romantic-volkisch tradition, I guess.
However, we should keep in mind that it is the state which creates the nation, not vice versa. Even Mussolini said the same thing. It is important that which model a state (basically the sum of institutions who run the infrastructure in a given territory) adopted at the point of creating its nation, or which model the state uses to perpetuate the national sentiment.
I think the notion of a "nation" rose during the French revolution.
A "nation" being an entity where each citizen has its duty for his
nation. In the case of the French Revolution every citizen had to bear
arms to support the Republic. Before the revolution as benzs_s had
pointed out the war were between clans/families/dynasties for land,
especially in mainland Europe.
States of Italy and Germany were early cases of Nationalist movements,
which in the end unified the both countries (the movements accelerated
by Napoleon, when he swept aside 100 or so small Germanic kingdoms).
It was the same trend in the Balkans, Serbian nationalism against Austria-Hungary and Bulgarian nationalism the Ottoman Empire.
So maybe a "nation" has the same concept as a "republic"?
I disagree: nations are self-identified communities, normally united by language (and other customs). Nations have existed always and they have been able to identify themselves as such - examples: Greeks made a clear distinction between Hellens and Barbarians, Basques did (and do) the same distinction between Euskaldunak (Basque speakers) and Erdeldunak (speakers of any other language). Cherokees or Egyptians were also perfectly able to identify their nations without doubt, as were Hebrews or Irish.
This did not mean that nation and state were a single thing and that one could not be at war with connationals or allied with foreigners. The motherland in reference to which treason and heroism was measured wasn't always the nation but the tribe or the state.
But nations have existed always, what is diferent of equating them to the state. It is this: the asociation of nation and state what becomes strong in the 19th century (Romanticism). Nevertheless, many states had before been organized along national lines: Vasconia (and later Pamplona-Navarre) is a clear example of early nation-state... but there are many others that equate the state to a dominant nation/ethnicity: England, Germany (there was formally a Kingdom of Germany, associated to the Empire), France (after the crusade against the Cathars and specially since the Hundred Years' War), Hungary, Poland, Serbia, Bulgaria, Byzantium (Greek nation), Russia, Denmark, Sweden, Islam (Arabian nation), Persia, Portugal, etc.
That the nation-state has not been the ideal nor the dominant form it doesn't mean that it did not have existence before the Burgueoise era.
I think the notion of a "nation" rose during the French revolution.
The concept - and indeed that of the nation-state - was certainly alive in Elizabethan England: "I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too."
"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers. For he today that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother. Be he ne'er so vile, This day shall gentle his condition. And gentlemen in England now abed Shall think themselves accursed they were not here, And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks That fought with us upon St. Crispin's Day."
may not exactly represent what Henry V and his soldiers felt, but it certainly expresses what Shakespeare and his audiences felt.
(In fact it's arguably part of that "barrage of propaganda" I talked about.
I think the notion of a "nation" rose during the French revolution.
The concept - and indeed that of the nation-state - was certainly alive in Elizabethan England: "I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too."
"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers. For he today that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother. Be he ne'er so vile, This day shall gentle his condition. And gentlemen in England now abed Shall think themselves accursed they were not here, And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks That fought with us upon St. Crispin's Day."
may not exactly represent what Henry V and his soldiers felt, but it certainly expresses what Shakespeare and his audiences felt.
(In fact it's arguably part of that "barrage of propaganda" I talked about.
Absolutely true! Elizabethan theater (OK, theatre) was just as much a propaganda instrument as film during WWII. And why not? It kept the "home front" in the wars.
Don't get me wrong, it was not centrally directed, and didn't reach much beyond the right parts of London, but that is where the important opinions were located. If the good folk of Sandwich had been introduced to cinema, perhaps they would not have kept on trading with the Spanish Netherlands!
Mamikon's point that "nation" dates from the Fr. Rev. is interesting for modern concepts of nationhood. But as an adjunct to the Elizabethan theatre post, in the same period, (1580s to 1609) and even later, the armies of the Dutch and Spanish tended to segragate Irish, Scots, Germans, Frenchmen (and English) into separate regiments and called those the "nations."
I don't know the etymology in that case, but it was more based on language than anything. There were Catholic Scots in the Spanish army and Calvinist Scots in the Dutch, etc.
The conceptions of nation were already discussed by 16th century Polish philosofers. Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania was even called "Republic of two nations". I think that first polish political thinker who touched this problem was Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski who was known in Europe as Andreus Fricius Modrevius.
Lots of people claim that the modern nation-state was born at the peace of Westphalia.
What Westfalia did was to end the wars of religion. Without religion to serve as propaganda, leaders needed a new ideal to light the fire in the hearts of their soldiers: that became nation.
But nation had existed before: one could well say that it started with Joan d'Arc, with the Swiss rebellion, with the Etruscan or Hebrew uprisings maybe...
It's not so much weapons what make nations but peoples in arms. Mercenary or Imperial armies can hardly build them.
In fact, what Westphalia brought was the acceptance of the existence of "equal" independent states which were "sovereign" in their domestic affairs.
The process of "being a nation" didn't take place simultaneously all over the world and each process had characteristics of their own. One definite thing is that even if there was a concept of nation before the rise of capitalism, it was much narrower than the modern concept of "nation". The ethnic and linguistic similarity might be the basis for some small nations within a small region like Basques but in general we can not speak of ethnic and linguistic homogenity for larger nations. They are constructed entities. As for England and France, the history of the modern concept of nation may be seen earlier but this is just because they are the central countries.
One of the most important reasons of the formation of nations was thedevelopment of the trade between different cities. The main aim was the integration of different markets within the boundaries of a state.Another important thing was to encourage the trade by abolishing domestic customs charges between different cities of a state. These developments can be elaborated through the fact that capitalism always has the tendency to "globalise". Though city states - -> nation states --> .... all the world
At the cultural level, as indicated above, press and theaters were of utmost importance. These organs constructed such "common cultural heritage".
You confuse nation with state. Taxes and all that paraphernlia are things of the state, while language, etc. are what define a nation.
A nation has little to do with a state... only in modern thought the idea of nation-state has been born.
Ancient Greeks were a single nation while they had a plurality of states - you can argue maybe wether Dorians and Jonians were separate nations but you can't pretend that Thebes was a nation on its own right: it was just a polis: a state.
You confuse nation with state. Taxes and all that
paraphernlia are things of the state, while language, etc. are what
define a nation.
A nation has little to do with a state... only in modern thought the idea of nation-state has been born.
Ancient
Greeks were a single nation while they had a plurality of states - you
can argue maybe wether Dorians and Jonians were separate nations but
you can't pretend that Thebes was a nation on its own right: it was
just a polis: a state.
The comeback to that, of course, is that the concept of 'nation' is an
anachronism... that it didn't exist prior to the nation-state era.
Since people have always banded in tribal groups, however, this becomes a bit of an etymylogical question.
I know in the Jewish tradition, etc, the 'children of israel' go back
quite a while... then again, they're just a bunch of related tribes.
There are words in hebrew that correllate to a 'people' ('am' ... 'uma'
... they come from the same root as the word for mother... [sound
familiar, arabic speakers?]) ... these days, they are used to mean 'nation'... but this seems
like an anachronistic translation to me.
Anyone have any insight, here?
Edited by Halevi
"Your country ain't your blood. Remember that." -Santino Corelone
Ok, here we go... apparently the English word nation has its roots in an old French word first recorded c.1300:
Originally posted by Online Etymology Dictionary
Nation:
c.1300, from O.Fr. nacion, from L. nationem (nom. natio) "nation, stock, race," lit. "that which has been born," from natus, pp. of nasci "be born" (see native).
Political sense has gradually taken over from racial meaning "large
group of people with common ancestry." Older sense preserved in
application to N.Amer. Indian peoples (1650). Nationality "the fact of belonging to a particular nation" is from 1828.
"people of common descent," c.1500, from M.Fr. razza "race, breed, lineage," possibly from It. razza, of unknown origin (cf. Sp., Port. raza).
Original senses in Eng. included "wines with characteristic flavor"
(1520), "group of people with common occupation" (c.1500), and
"generation" (c.1560). Meaning "tribe, nation, or people regarded as of
common stock" is from c.1600. Modern meaning of "one of the great
divisions of mankind based on physical peculiarities" is from 1774
(though even among anthropologists there never has been an accepted
classification of these). Klein suggests these derive from Arabic ra's "head, beginning, origin" (cf. Heb. rosh). O.E. eode meant both "race" and "language;" as a verb, geeodan, it meant "to unite, to join." Racial is first attested 1862. Race-riot attested from 1890.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=race
Note how, as late as the 1500's, race was still used to mean 'people of
a common occupation' or 'generation' (or even to differentiate between
wines!) ...
Interesting.
Edited by Halevi
"Your country ain't your blood. Remember that." -Santino Corelone
You confuse nation with state. Taxes and all that paraphernlia are things of the state, while language, etc. are what define a nation.
A nation has little to do with a state... only in modern thought the idea of nation-state has been born.
Ancient Greeks were a single nation while they had a plurality of states - you can argue maybe wether Dorians and Jonians were separate nations but you can't pretend that Thebes was a nation on its own right: it was just a polis: a state.
I think you are confusing the concepts of "nation" and "ethnicity".A nation has much to do with state. The states construct their own nations. Even in the Basque example, what makes you a nation in the modern sense is the desire to establish a nation-state of your own. You associate the "freedom" of your nation with an independent nation-state. Because you don't have a nation-state of your own (although you have an autonomous one) you claim that Basques are the slaves of Spain.
As for the trade, taxes, military service for the "nation", etc. all reflect the development of capitalism, need for easing trade, accumulation of capital, expansion, etc. Replacement of the professional armies with the compulsory military service for the "nation" are all related with the expansion impetus of capitalism; because the capital accumulation has to be endless. This is also the real dynamics under imperialism.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum