Nationalism?
So, what does everybody think? I am interested to know whether you think Nationalism is a good thing or a bad thing to happen to the human race.
Is it inherently good for the world, or is it inherently bad for the world?
psci250.blog
This is the course weblog for my section of PSCI 250 (International Relations) at Western Michigan University.
nav links
Previous Posts
- Quiz 1 Answers
- Paper advice
- Polar Systems
- The Fog of War
- Treaty of Westphalia
- Notes on Chapter 2
- Back Wednesday
- Notes on Chapter 1
- Welcome
Contributors
13 Comments:
I get confused with Nationalism. I know you can have a nation without a state, but why can't you have a state without a nation? What if the state is lead by a dictator? Just cutious.
This post has been removed by the author.
Actually, I think you can have a state w/o a nation. Keep in mind that nationalism began in the 1800s, while the states system was born a few hundred years earlier (a product of the Thirty Years War).
Of course, it's a chicken-or-egg problem. Which came first? But remember that states are political systems, nations are cultural constructs. It is theoretically possible for a state that doesn't represent a single nation (or, more precisely, that acknowledges its representation of more than one nation).
But wouldn't an aristocracy/monarchy count as a nation, as they are familial/hereditary ties?
I could see that a state could theorhetically exist without a nation, but has there ever been a case of it?
Well, one of the problems is that it's too easy to label something a "nation". But in political science, we usually have a slightly stricter definition. There have been numerous non-nation states in history. The small city-states of Florence, Bavaria, San Marino, Hohenzolleren, etc. were clearly states in 1500s and were recognized as such by the Treaty of Westphalia. But they made no claim of themselves to represent a "nation". That type of idea, to link a state to a nation only developed w/ the ideas of popular sovereignty.
Today, we could argue that countries like Rwanda are non-nation states. W/ a clear antagonism between Hutus & Tutsis, there doesn't appear to be a "Rwandan" nation. Another exmaple might be Switzerland, which is a collection of numerous indepdenent cantons (some are ethnically French, German, Italian) who've historically bounded together as a confederation to prevent themselves being absorbed by the French, German, Italian nation-states. Or perhaps some microstates are examples, like Monaco or San Marino. W/ French & Italian people (respectively) these tiny states have retained their independence (San Marino is the oldest republic in history) as states, though no one would argue that places smaller than Kalamazoo are "nations".
Finally, the best example of a non-nation state is the Holy See (the Vatican). It sits at the UN, makes treaties w/ countries, has a flag, has territory, and has passports for its citizens. But w/ only a few hundred "citizens" comprised entirely of Catholic clergy from around the world, it certainly isn't a "nation". But it's clearly a state.
I thought I'd post the history of San Marino. It's not listed in that entry, but apparently San Marino & Sweden didnt' sign the Treaty of Westphalia (ending their war against each other) until 1996. And San Marino is not a member of the EU, remained neutral during WW2, and doesn't accept ICJ jurisdiction. Here's the little republic's official website. The tiny state (pop. 28,000) dates its existence back to the year 301 AD. Here's the CIA factbook.
I'm curious about Puerto Rico, as my family comes from there. It is a nation, but it is also a commonwealth of the United States, so where does that fit in to the whole scheme of things? Is it kind of like Austrailia and Great Britain? What makes it a commonwealth and not a territory?
I understand this. Nation seems to be an ambiguous term. Have political scientists developed some sort of test to decide which groups of people would count as nations/which states represent nations?
David:
Actually, there's not a clear defintion of what a "nation" is in political science. That is, definitions of many of our terms as a discipline depend entirely on who's defining them. There's not official "dictionary" that everyone can just turn to. Even the Oxford Dictionary of Politics basically refers to define "nation" (there's no entry) and points out that the term "nation-state" tends to just confuse things more than anything else.
In political science, we do have pretty clear definitions of what a "state" is. It's definition usually defines it as something along the lines of the organization that exercises a legitimate monopoly over the means of coercion in a specific territory.
Natalia:
The problem of Puerto Rico is one shared by many places. But the issue of names isn't really too important. There are states (that is, in the international sense) and there are non-states. Now, some states call themselves "republics" or "people's republics" or "kingdom" or "sultanate" or whatever they want, but they're still States. Other places can be called whatever they are, based on the naming conventions of the state that controls them (we use "territory" for places that don't govern themselves and "commonwealth" for places that do, the Russians use the term "oblast", etc.).
Puerto Rico isn't a State because it doesn't exercise soverignty. But it's also not an official member of the US federation, so it has to be given a different name. BTW, Washington DC also falls into the rather ambivalent category, since it's called a "district" and isn't a US state, territory, or commonwealth.
I don't know why this hasn't been brought up yet.
What about the U.S. - are we a nation?
We are most definitely a state, and could possibly be defined as a nation-state as spelled out by political science, but would you say that the US is a nation as a whole?
I would say that we are a nation and that the biggest evidence of this was after 9/11. Everyone banded together and there was an immense show of patriotism and nationalism as a huge majority of Americans flew their flags and were proud to be Americans. I would say that this was also the case after Pearl Harbor and then after World War II. However, I think the nation can be also be greatly divided in crucial times such as the depression, Vietnam, and right now with Iraq.
The events that you gave as examples however, in the end reflect a true American society. After the "buzz" has worn off people are no longer a nation. Yeah, after Pearl Harbor, the public banded together to win the second world war. After 9/11 yeah, we were pissed off and wanted action. Now- two years after that horrible day, what are we doing that is keeping us together as a nation? Voting in an election- which usually does nothing more than split the country in at least two. Let us not forget the profiteering gluttons capitolizing on the 9/11 incident- and SELLING coins minted from the Silver that was found in the bank underneath the wreckage. True nationalism- American Nationalism right there. We believe in hype and not steadfast faith. The REAL american way.
FYI: A new nationalism on the rise speaks about nationalism in America and argues that the tendency for a new kind of nationalism already developed before 9/11. Maybe worth checking it out.
Post a Comment
<< Home