Essay Instructions: Nationalism
Questions: Why is nationalism relevant to the experience of ethnic conflict? What are the main points Perlmutter highlights about nationalism and ethnic conflict? Which emotions does Moïsi identify with specific regions of the world in his clash of emotions analysis?
o Foulie Psalidas-Perlmutter, “The Interplay of Myths and Realities,” Orbis (Spring 2000): 237-244.
o Neal G. Jesse and Kristen P. Williams. Ethnic Conflict. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2011, pp. 1-22.
Carnegie Council YouTube Channel, Dominique Moïsi: Humiliation, Hope, & Fear, http://www.youtube.com/carnegiecouncil#p/search/0/grC5XSzSCFM
? Dominique Moïsi, “The Clash of Emotions,” Foreign Affairs January/February 2007 86 (1): 1-3 online, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/62267/ dominique-mo%C3%83%C2%AFsi/the-clash-of-emotions
N.B. The Foreign Affairs article complements the Carnegie video for those members particularly interested in Moïsi’s analysis.
? Read Perlmutter and reflect on the following definition:
• Nationalism is generally used to describe two phenomena:
(1) the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their national identity and
(2) the actions that the members of a nation take when seeking to achieve (or sustain) self-determination.
(1) raises questions about the concept of nation (or national identity), which is often defined in terms of common origin, ethnicity, or cultural ties, and while an individual’s membership in a nation is often regarded as involuntary, it is sometimes regarded as voluntary.
(2) raises questions about whether self-determination must be understood as involving having full statehood with complete authority over domestic and international affairs, or whether something less is required.
It is traditional, therefore, to distinguish nations from states ??" whereas a nation often consists of an ethnic or cultural community, a state is a political entity with a high degree of sovereignty.
While many states are nations in some sense, there are many nations which are not fully sovereign states. As an example, the Native American Iroquois constitute a nation but not a state, since they do not possess the requisite political authority over their internal or external affairs. If the members of the Iroquois nation were to strive to form a sovereign state in the effort to preserve their identity as a people, they would be exhibiting a state-focused nationalism.
• Realists, like Robert Gilpin, ‘the fundamental nature of international relations has not changed over the millennia. International relations continue to be a recurring struggle for wealth and power among independent actors in a state of anarchy.’
• Innovators, like K.J. Holsti, ‘War today is not the same phenomenon it was in the eighteenth century, or even in the 1930s. It has different sources and takes on significantly different characteristics.’
• Max Weber ??" a compulsory political organization with continuous operations will be called a state insofar as its administrative staff successfully upholds the claims to the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force in the enforcement of its order
Source: Christopher Pierson. The Modern State. London and New York: Routledge, 1996, p. 7.
? Let us consider the features to identify the mechanisms of the state:
• (monopoly) control of the means of violence
• Territoriality
• Sovereignty
• Constitutionality
• impersonal power, i.e., leaders not seen to act on a personal basis, but rather because of their public position as occupants of particular offices of state
• the public bureaucracy
• authority/legitimacy
• citizenship
• taxation
Is human nature a cause of conflict? Is conflict rooted in the nature of man? Waltz’s first image in Man, the State and War ??" nature versus nurture
In our discussions, the learning community will go beyond human nature to explore roots of nationalism, analyze contexts: historical, cultural and economic explanations
Find general explanation for existence of nationalism
Human nature ??" instinctive behavior
Contexts ??" historical, cultural and economic explanations
“Identity and behavior are partly genetic, but they are also shaped by context and choice. In politics, they are resources waiting to be used by politicians and their supporters for their own advantage. Human nature provides the necessary condition for ethnocentric behavior, but politics converts this into the sufficient conditions for nationalism as we understand it today.”
James G. Kellas. The Politics of Nationalism and Ethnicity. Second Edition. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998, p. 26.
• Consider the contextual conditions in which nationalism, as we understand it, developed from ethnocentrism, and ethnicity became nationhood.
• Focus on three distinct though related facets of society: politics, economics and culture.
• Politics is essentially about power and authority. We are especially interested in the nature of ‘the polity’ (the state, principality, clan, etc.) and how it relates to ‘the nation.’ In particular, the politics of nationalism is about control over that state. Exclusion from power, and discrimination, affects particular nations in multinational states. Nationalism is a struggle to get power for the nation, against the forces that exclude and discriminate. This is encapsulated in the principle of national self-determination.
• The focus on economics concerns the pursuit of wealth and how the economy divides people into occupational classes. Are there economic explanations for nationalism? Exclusions and discrimination can be economic as well as political, and will lead to nationalism if these are perceived as directed against particular nations. (the ‘greed’ factor, modernization explanation)
• Culture is about identity and status in terms of birth, family, language, religion and so on. Ethnicity and nationalism - usually considered to be more clearly related to culture than to anything else. Thus national identity forms the basis of nationalism, and exclusions and discrimination operate against people whose national identity is unacceptable to the state or to other nations. It is probably true that ethnocentrism is universal, but nationalism is the result of particular patterns of political power involving nations in superior and subordinate positions in the state.
To enter the period of nations and nationalism, with a world based on the legitimacy of “nation-states,” all three dimensions of politics, economics and culture had to be transformed, indeed constructed. Thus the polity had to become a centralized state, the economy had to be modern not feudal, and culture had to replace ethnicity with something which can become nationhood. This is a “constructionist” view of nations and nationalism, and implies that a non-national, non-nationalist alternative exists, and can be constructed.
Nation-State Failure
o nation-states fail because they can no longer deliver political goods to their people ??" their governments lose legitimacy and, in the eyes and hearts of a growing plurality of its citizens, the nation-state itself becomes illegitimate
o failed states are tense, deeply conflicted, dangerous, and bitterly contested by warring factions ??" in most failed states, government troops battle armed revolts led by one or more rivals ??" official authorities in a failed state sometimes face two or more insurgencies, varieties of civil unrest, differing degrees of communal discontent, and a plethora of dissent directed at the state and at groups within the state
o failure for a nation-state looms when violence cascades into all-out internal war, when standards of living massively deteriorate, when the infrastructure of ordinary life decays, and when the greed of rulers overwhelms their responsibilities to better their people and their surroundings
o the civil wars that characterize failed states usually stem from or have roots in ethnic, religious, linguistic, or other inter-communal enmity
o the fear of ‘the other’ that drives so much ethnic conflict may stimulate and fuel hostilities between ruling entities and subordinate and less-favored groups ??" avarice also propels antagonism, especially when discoveries of new, frequently contested sources of resource wealth, such as petroleum deposits or diamond fields, encourage that greed
• Nationalism ??" which 19th century thinkers clearly foretold the influence this movement would have in history and in the present century? Isaiah Berlin identifies Moses Hess, who, in 1862, in his book Rome and Jerusalem, affirmed that the Jews had the historic mission of uniting communism and nationality. But this was exhortation rather than prophecy, and the book remained virtually unread save by Zionists of a later day.
• Nationalism was, by and large, regarded in Europe as a passing phase. The desire on the part of most men to be citizens of a state coterminous with the nation which they regarded as their own, was considered to be natural… Nationalism as a sentiment and an ideology was not equated with national consciousness.
• The need to belong to an easily identifiable group had been regarded since ancient times as a natural requirement on the part of human beings: families, clans, tribes, estates, social orders, classes, religious organizations, political parties, and finally nations and states, were historical forms of the fulfillment of this basic human need. No one particular form was, perhaps, as necessary to human existence as the need for food or shelter, security or procreation, but some form of it was indispensable.
• Common ancestry, common language, customs, traditions, memories, continuous occupancy of the same territory for a long period of time, were held to constitute a society. This kind of homogeneity emphasized the differences between one group and its neighbors, the existence of tribal, cultural or national solidarity, and with it, a sense of difference from, often accompanied by active dislike or contempt for, groups with different customs and different real or mythical origins; and so was accepted as both accounting for and justifying national statehood.
• Nationalism ??" the elevation of the interests of the unity and self-determination of the nation to the status of supreme value before which all other considerations must, if need be, yield at all times, an ideology to which German and Italian thinkers seemed particularly prone ??" was looked on by observers of a more liberal type as a passing phase due to the exacerbation of national consciousness held down and forcibly repressed by despotic rulers aided by subservient churches.
• There was a common belief that nationalism was the ephemeral product of the frustration of human craving for self-determination, a stage of human progress, due to the workings of impersonal forces and the ideologies thereby generated by them. The supposition was that the phenomenon of nationalism itself would disappear with its causes, which in their turn would be destroyed by:
• the irresistible advance of enlightenment, whether conceived in moral or technological terms ??" the victory of reason or of material progress or of both ??" identified with changes in the forces of relations and production, or with the struggle for social equality, economic and political democracy and the just distribution of the fruits of the earth
• the destruction of national barriers by world trade or by the triumphs of science and a morality founded on rational principles, and so the full realization of human potentialities which sooner or later would be universally achieved.
• Nationalism ??" the conviction, in the first place, that men belong to a particular human group, and that the way of life of the group differs from that of others; that the characters of the individuals who compose the group are shaped by, and cannot be understood apart from, those of the group, defined in terms of common territory, customs, laws, memories’ beliefs, language, artistic and religious expression, social institutions, ways of life, to which some add heredity, kinship, racial characteristics; and that it is these factors which shape human beings, their purposes and their values.
• (levels of analysis ??" individual level not just elites, masses to consider ??" as well as political leaders utilizing rational calculations (cost-benefit in their own self-interest: power and prestige) elites foster mass hostility ??" help to form mass perceptions about others as the enemy ??" instrumentalism ??" manipulation dependent on the depth/extent of grievances ??" in attempts to end ethnic conflict, there are individuals not satisfied with a peaceful resolution of the conflict ??" assess the role of “spoilers” on the insider/on the outside (external to the peace process) elite and communal involvement necessary for peace to evolve into conflict resolution
• Secondly, that the pattern of life of a society is similar to that of a biological organism; that what this organism needs for its proper development, which those most sensitive to its nature articulate in words or images or other forms of human expression, constitutes its common goals; that these goals are supreme; in cases of conflict with other values, which do not derive from the specific ends of a specific ‘organism’ ??" intellectual or religious or moral, personal or universal ??" these supreme values should prevail, since only so will the decadence and ruin of the nation be averted.
• Thirdly, this outlook entails the notion that one of the most compelling reasons, perhaps the most compelling, for holding a particular belief, pursuing a particular policy, serving a particular end, living a particular life, is that these ends, beliefs, policies, lives, are ours. Rules are to be followed because these values are those of my group ??" for the nationalist, of my nation; these thoughts, feelings, this course of action, are good or right, and I shall achieve fulfillment or happiness by identifying myself with them, because they are demands of the particular form of social life into which I have been born.
• Finally, full-blown nationalism has arrived at the position that, if the satisfaction of the needs of the organism to which I belong turns out to be incompatible with the fulfillment of the goals of other groups, I, or the society to which I indissolubly belong, have no choice but to force them to yield, if need be by force. If my group ??" let us call it a nation ??" is freely to realize its true nature, this entails the need to remove obstacles in its path. Nothing that obstructs that which I recognize as my ??" that is, my nation’s ??" supreme goal, can be allowed to have equal value with it.
Nationalism has assumed many forms since its birth in the eighteenth century, especially since its fusion with étatism, the doctrine of the supremacy in all spheres of the state, in particular the nation-state, and after its alliance with the forces making for industrialization and modernization, once its sworn enemies.
Nationalism retains four characteristics:
• the belief in the overriding need to belong to a nation;
• in the organic relationships of all the elements that constitute a nation;
• in the value of our own simply because it is ours;
• and finally, faced by rival contenders for authority or loyalty, in the supremacy of its claims.
• These ingredients, in varying degrees and proportions, are to be found in all the rapidly growing nationalist ideologies which at present proliferate on the earth.
Domestic level ??"
Theories - domestic actors ??" interests to differentiate actors ??" Protestant community in Northern Ireland ??" preference for British rule
powers ??" a distribution of resources used to achieve goals ??" Chinese in Malaysia who possess a great deal of the economic wealth of the country while the Malays maintain most of the political control and occupy the political offices
organization ??" groups organize in a way that best suits their interests and powers ??" main organizational expression of the ethnic group is the political party ??" exist mainly to contest elections
state responses to ethnic conflict ??" in a hegemonic state, the state is partisan ??" apartheid in South Africa
international level ??" when USSR collapsed and Cold War ended, the US no longer had need for Yugoslavia to serve as a buffer ??" lack of interest by world’s remaining superpower and deteriorating conditions in Yugoslavia led to a struggle for power among three main ethnic groups, each seeking to gain territory and power at the expense of the others
diasporas and ethnic ties across borders ??" ethnic kin that love in a different state or states are potential international factors in ethnic conflict ??" can provide material and emotion support for ethnic groups ??" alternatively by withholding support, the diaspora community makes it more difficult for ethnic conflict to erupt and continue ??" diasporas are among the most prominent actors that link international and domestic spheres of politics
non-ethnic ties and external intervention as a contributing factor of ethnic conflict ??" realism ??" 1970s India support for Bengalis in East Pakistan ??" contributed to break up of Pakistan and creation of Bangladesh ??" support for Bengali Muslims ??" India weakens its regional rival ??" security dilemma
• While the infliction of a wound on the collective feeling of a society, or at least of its spiritual leaders, may be a necessary condition for the birth of nationalism, it is not a sufficient one; the society must, at least potentially, contain within itself a group or class of persons who are in search of a focus for loyalty or self-identification, or perhaps a base for power, no longer supplied by earlier forces for cohesion ??" tribal, or religious, or feudal, or dynastic, or military ??" such as was provided by the centralizing policies of the monarchies of France and Spain, and was not provided by the rulers of German lands.
• In some cases, these conditions are created by the emergence of new social classes seeking control of a society against older rulers, secular or clerical. If to this is added the wound of conquest, or even cultural disparagement from without, of a society which has at any rate the beginnings of a national culture, the soil for the rise of nationalism may be prepared.
• For nationalism to develop in a society, that society must, in the minds of at least some of its most sensitive members, carry an image of itself as a nation, at least in embryo, in virtue of some general unifying factor or factors ??" language, ethnic origin, a common history (real or imaginary) ??" ideas and sentiments which are relatively articulate in the minds of the better educated and more socially and historically minded, a good deal less articulate, even absent from, the consciousness of the bulk of the population.
• This national image, which makes those in whom it is found capable of resentment if it is ignored or insulted, also turns some among them into a conscious intelligentsia, particularly if they are faced by some common enemy, whether within the state or outside it ??" a church or a government or foreign detractors. These are the men who speak or write to the people, and seek to make them conscious of their wrongs as a people ??" poets and novelists, historians and critics, theologians, philosophers and the like.
• Thus, resistance to French hegemony in all spheres of life began in apparently remote region of aesthetics and criticism. In the German lands it became a social and political force, a breeding ground of nationalism. Among the Germans it took the form of a conscious effort by writers to liberate themselves ??" and others ??" from what they felt to be asphyxiating conditions ??" at first from the despotic dogmas of the French aesthetic legislators, which cramped the free development of the spirit.
• The wounds inflicted upon one society by another, since time immemorial, have not in all cases led to a national response. For that, something more is needed ??" namely, a new vision of life with which the wounded society, or the classes or groups which have been displaced by political and social change, can identify themselves, around which they can gather and attempt to restore their collective life. Thus both the Slavophil and the populist movements in Russia, like German nationalism, can be understood only if one realizes the traumatic effect of the violent and rapid modernization imposed on the country by Peter the Great, as it has been, on a smaller scale, by Frederick the Great in Prussia ??" that is, the effect of technological revolutions or the development of new markets and the decay of old ones, the consequent disruption of the lives of entire classes, the lack of opportunity for the use of their skills by educated men psychologically unfit to enter the new bureaucracy, and, finally, in the case of Germany, occupation or colonial rule by a powerful foreign enemy which destroyed traditional ways of life and left men, and the most sensitive and self-conscious among them ??" artists, thinkers, whatever their professions ??" without an established position, insecure and bewildered. There is then an effort to create a new synthesis, a new ideology, both to explain and justify resistance to the forces working against their convictions and ways of life, and to point in a new direction and offer them a new centre for self-identification.
• In the early twentieth century, Asians and Africans were thought of almost exclusively in terms of their treatment by Europeans. Whether they are imperialists, or benevolent paternalists, or liberals and socialists outraged by conquest and exploitation, the peoples of Africa and Asia are discussed either as wards or victims or Europeans, but seldom, if ever, in their own rights, as peoples with histories and cultures of their own; with a past and present and future which must be understood in terms of their own actual character and circumstances; or if the existence of such indigenous cultures is acknowledged, as in the case of, let us say, India or Persia, China or Japan, it tends to be largely ignored when the needs of these societies in the future is discussed. Consequently, the notion that a mounting nationalism might develop in these continents was not seriously allowed for.
