Nationalism as a concept, just like many other important concepts in the social sciences lacks a precise and generally accepted definition. That of nationalism is more glaring because of the centrality of the concept to an understanding of international relations generally and international politics in particular. Thus Sharp & Kick (1944) quoted in Palmer & Perkins (1985) posit that;
For students of international politics, an understanding of nationalism is as indispensable as the possession of a master key to a person seeking to enter all the rooms in a building. Indeed, the total behaviour of the state system in our day may largely be explained in terms of national hopes, national fears, national ambitions, and national conflicts (p. 18).
Palmer & Perkins add that if nationalism is unmentioned in any serious discussion of international problems it is because its significance is assumed. In order to be able to understand the concept of nationalism adequately, we need to first of all explain some important concepts that pertain to nationalism. These concepts are nation, nation state, nationality, and ethnicity.
Nation:A nation according to Muir (1919) is abody of people who feel themselves to be naturally linked together by certain activities which are so strong and real for them that they can live happily together, are dissatisfied when disunited and cannot tolerate subjection to peoples who do not share these ties.
More elaborately Barker (1927) says a;
nation is a body of men, inhabiting a definite territory, who normally are drawn from different races, but posses a common stock of thoughts and feelings acquired and transmitted during the course of a common history; who on the whole and in the main, though more in the past than in the present, include in that common stock a common religious belief, who generally and as a rule use a common language as the vehicle of their thought and feelings, also cherish a common will, and accordingly form, or tend to form a separate state for the expression and realization of that will
What creates a nation according to Rourke & Boyer (1998) are less tangible elements such as similarities among the people, a sense of connection, and a desire of their people to control themselves politically.
The interesting thing about the above defining characteristics of a nation, is that they are not water tight. It is still easy to identify a people who lack some of these characteristics but which can no doubt be referred to as a nation. Arguing in this vein, Hague & Harrop (2001)posit that:
Seeking to reduce the idea of a nation to a shared ancestry or indeed any other single factor, is a fruitless exercise. A shared language for example is taken as evidence of a common nationality but, if so, it is a misleading guide. Switzerland is indisputably a single nation even though French, German and Italian are spoken there. Similar claims that nationality can be reduced to a shared history or common ethnicity are equally misleading. Even territory is not a perfect marker: Irish people who seek their living oversees don't necessarily cease to belong to the Irish nation or people, even though they have left the territory of the Irish state. Since nations are 'imagined communities', a nation can really only be defined as any group which upholds a claim to Jer be regarded as such.
In concurrence with the above position, Rourke & Boyer (1998) stress that "a feeling of community is the second element that helps define a nation. Perception is the key here, for all the similarities that a group might have, it is not a nation unless it feels like one" (p.89). What this means, is that those within a group must perceive that they share similarities and are bound together by them. This idea is also shared by Thomson (2004), who argues that a nation is not so much a physical entity as a sentiment. He consequently defines a nation as "a collection of people bound together by common values and traditions, often sharing the same language, history and an affiliation to a geographical area "(p.35). Going further, he posits that individuals within the group will identify with fellow members of the nation, and define themselves in contrast to outsiders belonging to other nations. This according to him is in line with Benedict Anderson that talks of nations as "imagined communities". This is because even though that: no viotair
The smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion. Using interpretations of the past and symbols such as flags, anthems and ceremonies, the people of the nation generate social cohesion based on their shared national values and way of life. In this sense, individuals gain psychological and material protection
from a sense of belonging. What is more, this security can be greatly enhanced if the nation is united with political power (p.35).
In conclusion, we adopt the statement by Danziger (2001), that "the concept of the nation has a psychological and emotional basis rather than a legal or functional basis (like the state)" (p. 106). It was on this premise that he says that "a nation is defined by a deeply shared fundamental identification among a set of people" (p. 107). The factors that might constitute the basis of such identification according to him include: scared descent (belief in a common kinship or history), shared culture, shared geographic space, shared religion, shared language, or shared economic order. Based on this, "a nation is a community of understanding, of communication, of trust"
Nation State
A nation-state is in theory, the natural out growth of a nations desire to have its own state and to govern itself independently. The nation state is represented by many symbols, such as flags, national anthems, or animals' (eagles, bears, dragons etc). It is the object of patriotic loyalty and most people view it as the highest form of political authority (Rourke & Boyer 1998, p.90).
Palmer & Perkins (1985) argue that in modern parlance, the term nation and state are used almost interchangeably and the major political units which exist today may appropriately be called nation-states. In buttressing their argument, they relied on Morgenthau's (1962) suggestion that "the nation needs a state. One nation-one state is thus the political postulate of nationalism; the nation state is its ideal".
Nationality
This concept implies a people who because of their common descent and their mission in the world, by virtue of their common cultural heritage and historical carrier aspire to sovereignty over a territory or seek to maintain or enlarge their political or cultural influence in the face of opposition (Wirth 1936). Hague & Harrop (2001) have tried to distinguish between nationality and state. While one can apply to become a citizen of a specific state, a nation usually conceived not as "an association that one joins but as a group into which one is born, yet nationality and statehood are related in mainly two ways.
First, nations like states are creatures of the modern world; they owe their emergence to the need to provide a common identity for people newly subject to direct rule. Second, today, national loyalties emerge not from the need to strengthen an existing state but rather from opposition to its rule by a territorial group within its domain.
In conclusion, we submit like Toynbee (1915) that nationality is a subjective psychological feeling in a living people.
Nationalism:
The concept of nationalism as stated initially still lacks a generally accepted definition despite its wide spread usage and application. We therefore take a few definitions from some scholars. First, Joireman (2003), sees nationalism as politicized ethnicity, meaning that it is an ethnic group with a political agenda. Rourke & Boyer (1998) see it as an ideology that at its core, holds that the nation embodies in its agent, the sovereign nation state, should be the only object of the political loyalty of individuals. As such nationalism is a central part of the traditional path, down which the world has traveled. It is further defined as:
a product of political, economic, social and intellectual factors at a certain stage in history, is a condition of mind, feelings or sentiment of a group of people living in a well defined geographical area, speaking a common language, possessing a literature in which the aspiration of the nation have been expressed, attached to common traditions and common customs, venerating its own heros and in some cases having a common religion.
Further still, Gould & Klobb (1964), provided three definitions of nationalism. First it denotes a form of group consciousness. That is a consciousness of membership or attachment to a nation. Such consciousness is often called consciousness of nationality and it identifies the fortunes of group members with that of a nation-state, desired or achieved. Second, nationalism denotes ideologies seeking to justify nation-state as the ideal form of political organization. Finally nationalism is the modern historical process whereby nations have been established as independent political urrts in the international political system.
To Thomson, (2004), nationalism is "the desire that the nation should be housed in its own sovereign state" (p.35). He posits that nationalism occurs: When members of a nation desire to be united as one political unit. This gives the nation political organization and power. Only then is it likely that a nation can enjoy self-determination, with tailor-made state institutions serving its interests and controlling its destiny. State power can protect the nation from the unwanted influences of other nations, as well as guarding national values internally.
Rourke (2008) sees nationalism as today's most important sense of political identity and one that interconnects people, governments and territory. After a review of various definitions of nationalism, Ojo andSesay (2002) posit that a number of points can be drawn from most of the definitions. These are"nationalism denotes separateness, independence and a 'nation' defined as the largest society of people united by a common culture and consciousness". Besides that, nationalism has been propelled by one or more of the following factors: a common language, value system or belief system, a common religion, literature, common economic and political creed, common government, common historical traditions, symbols and experiences, conflict, common enemies and finally, the revolution in communication technology.
a ethnicity. This a concept that has been described by Nnoli(1978) as a very complex phenomenon, and incidentally this complexity has not been adequately reflected in sociological thought. According to him, ethnicity "is a social phenomenon associated with interactions among members of different ethnic groups.... It is behavioural in form and conflictual in content....... It is characterized by a common consciousness of being one in relation to other relevant ethnic groups" (pp.5-6). To him, ethnicity arises from the desire of individuals to organize themselves in ways to enhance their competitive efficiency in a situation where they perceive themselves as competing for resources and positions.
Joireman (2003), sees ethnicity as "a somewhat term which did not come into common usage until the latter part of the twentieth century". It is also " aterm that is strongly contested in the academic literature" (p.9). Yet still, she sees ethnicity as subjective, and constructed of memories, culture and a sense of solidarity, and its all about the politics of belonging. Because of the contested nature of the term, she tries to clarify what it entails by borrowing and amending the characteristics of ethnic groups from Hutchinson and Smith
e. A link with a geographical homeland.
f. A sense of common cause or solidarity among some members of the bes population.
Obi (2012), argues that for most multi-ethnic states, the major problem or bottleneck that hinders the process of nation-building is ethnicity This is because integrating the heterogeneous ethnic groups in a state is often not easy as these groups see themselves as competitors and not partners.
Evolution of Nationalism
Though Nationalism is often seen by most scholars as a modern phenomenon, Holsti (1995) has argued that rudimentary nationalism existed in the feudal Chou Dynasty during the period 771 to 483 B.C. Also Rourke & Boyer (1998) relying on the studies by Hall (1995) argues that there have always been distinctive cultures. It is also the case that in some very old societies the upper classes have had some sense of the shared ethnic solidarity. From the mid-800's onward, the low but firm consolidation of national languages followed a continuous development that created a framework within which national consciousness and a sense of fatherland took gradual hold. What is modern, however, is the nationalist idea, the belief that people who share a culture, should be ruled by someone co-cultural with themselves (p.91).
The study of nationalism, has best been done using chronological approach. Hages (1931) has identified five successive types of nationalism. These are humanitarian, Jacobin, traditional, liberal and integral. While the first four types originated in the eighteen century during the French Revolution and Napoleon, and the nineteenth century, the last (integral) was witnessed during the twentieth century.
In his own classification, Wright identified medieval monarchical, revolutionary, liberal and totalitarian nationalism. Snyder (1954) identified four stages in the development of nationalism thus;
Integrative nationalisn (1815-71)
1.
II.
Disruptive nationalism (1871-90)
III.
Aggressive nationalism (1890-1945)
IV.
Contemporary nationalism since 1945
Integrative nationalism was a unifying force and made possible the unification of Italy and Germany. The second (disruptive) saw the subject nationalities of Austria-Hungary and other multinational states clamouring for independence, while during the third, nationalism became synonymous with
aggressive imperialism and the collusion of opposing national interest's which led to both the first and second World Wars. In this contemporary period "political nationalism asserted itself in the form of wide-spread revolts against European masters", while communism in its Stalinist form took on the trappings of nationalism in the defunct Soviet Union (Palmer & Perkins 1985).
The Two Faces of Nationalism
Nationalism is simply a two-edged sword. It can and indeed has been used for good and bad depending on the motive of its promoters. Thus, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist depending on the side of the divide that one finds himself. So for those who out of nationalist feelings are fighting for self-determination, may be branded terrorists by the government in power and those on their side, whereas those from the same ethnic or religious background with those fighting for self-determination and all who believe in their cause see them as freedom fighters or revolutionaries.
For instance Bell (1975), posits quite intelligently that:
Nationalism joins culture and politics in a common purpose. It brings together the high-born and the low and gives those, even of the meanest circumstances, a pride in being able to feel one with the highest classes in the country, and in a common culture and history (cited by Joireman 2003, p.9).
We now take a look at both sides of it, starting with the benefits. Benefits of Nationalism
Nationalism surely has numerous merits.
First, it encourages self-determination. In the past 50 years, many Third World nations have been able to fight and gain independence due to the drive or pull of nationalism.
Secondly, by leading to the creation of states, it has to (using Burgress's phrase) rescued the world, from the monotony of the universal empire. He argues further that, we advance politically as well as individually, by contact, competition and antagonism. The universal empire suppresses all this in its universal reign of peace, which means in the long run stagnation and despotism. Appadorai (1975) has argued further that "Just as the destruction of individuality may destroy genius, so the attempt to make all groups of men exactly alike in their customs or creed may destroy some special character of endurance or wit which may be developed even in a small nation" (pp. 145-146). He further relied on Burn's (1929) argument that:
there is some special quality in every group which it would be for the sake of the whole of humanity to preserve. But this can only be preserved if the group has an opportunity for particularistic development of its own laws and institutions, for the human race is not at its best when every man or every group is a copy of every other. Civilization progresses by differentiation as well as by assimilation of Interests, and character.
He concluded by asserting that nationalism is but a recognition of the principle that states should vary in their methods of law and government reflecting each in their variety the distinctions of human groups. Not only does each nation gain in its individuality, but humanity as a whole, thereby adding to its cultural wealth. no Pril rage Echoing this same sentiment, Rourke $ Boyer (1999)
Diversity of culture and government promotes experimentation. ninen Democracy, for instance, -was an experiment in America in 1776 that in might not have occurred in a one world system dominated by ow monarchies. Diversity also allows different cultures to maintain their own values.
Thirdly, the national sentiment that holds a state together, makes it more stable and its people more obedient to its laws. This contrasts sharply with a state held together by force, like the colonized states, where subversion was the order of the day. As Appadorai (1975) argues, "it's only in nation states that the institutions of self-government can ever work properly, because it's only in these states that the people can sympathize with one another sufficiently to be willing to submit to the decisions of majority" (p.140).
Fourthly, nationalistic sentiments create in people that love for their country that makes them willing to sacrifice for it. In fact, people have in the past paid the supreme price for the benefit of their countries.
Defects of Nationalism
The major defect of nationalism is that it has been the major cause of wars all over the world. Writing on this defect, Appadorai (1975) states that it has been the most fruitful cause of wars, divided nations striving for unity, subject nations fighting for freedom; triumphant nations aspiring after domination. It has fostered national arrogance; each nation looks upon itself as the bearer of the only true civilization. It has almost obliterated the sense that civilization is a collective achievement and common responsibility. It becomes aggressive and regardless of the rights of other nations and becomes a menace to the peace of the world.
Secondly and arising from the first is the position of Joireman (2003), that nationalism so often leads to violence, he posits that:
Violent manifestations of nationalism in the 1990's and the early twenty-first century have been surprising in their brutality. The collapse of Yugoslavia and the attempt to establish states in which one ethnic group was in the majority led to the practice of 'ethnic cleansing' (p.13) Thirdly nationalism makes people develop a sense of oneness for their people and indifference to others. As far as we are concerned, whatever doesn't affect our nation, no matter how horrible, doesn't matter. As a matter of fact, Rourke & Boyer (198) stated that the 1.3 billion people that the UN classifies as people in absolute poverty constitute about 23 percent of the world's population yet posses a scant 1.4 percent of the world's wealth. Their squalid lives is a sharp contrast to that of the wealthiest 15 percent that have 80 percent of the world's wealth. While those rich countries try so hard to help their own poor, such cannot be said about their efforts in helping the poor countries. Though in 1995 the economically developed countries donated $85.9 billion in aid to poor countries, this figure is approximately 0.0033 percent of their collective GDPs. This indeed is appalling, in a world where humanity is supposed to be one.
Finally, Sohn (2018), opines that while nationalism is decidedly not racist, inherently, it has in some cases been associated with extreme ethno- nationalism, as was the case of Nazi Germany and Italy under Benito Mussolini. In cases like the above, it was associated with fascist policies in which opposition that was defined by racial or other categories was singled out for eradication, physical and other forms of extreme oppression.
Conclusion
Thus, far, we've been trying to explain what nationalism means. This we've done by first trying to define some other concepts that are integral to nationalism. Nationalism in itself is both a sentiment and an ideology as well. As a sentiment it is simply an individuals attachment to his nation thus a nationalist accords the highest priority to his national interest. As an ideology, nationalism postulates that the structure of a state or its political organization should be founded on nationhood. In other words, each nation should constitute an independent state and each state should represent a particular nation. The people who identify themselves as a natural community and to be members of a nation must live under a political system of their own choice, they should enjoy an equal status with other nations in the world community, and no nation should be kept under the domination or supremacy of any other nation (Gauba 2003, p.131).
Nationalism we have pointed out is both a builder and destroyer. What it turns out to be depends largely on the uses to which it is deployed. However, despite its destructive effects, there is no gainsaying the fact that the world is better off with it than it would have been without it.
Post a Comment