The subject of nationalism touches upon philosophy, sociology, culture, and political ideology. We can describe it generally as a process, a movement, and even as related to a subconscious human tendency. I think the term has been made to carry too much weight. It is in desperate need of trimming so that the useful parts can find their place fitfully under the umbrella of other more suiting terms, and the damaging portions can be properly disposed of.
Merriam-Webster’s simple definition of nationalism is “loyalty and devotion to a nation.” It’s more detailed definition explains it as “a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interest as opposed to those of other nations.”
The online Encyclopedia Britannica adds that nationalism has a “premise that the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests.”
The Wikipedia entry for nationalism adds a few more positive aspects by pointing out that nationalism has the “aim of gaining and maintaining the nation’s sovereignty (self-governance)” and it “holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for polity, and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power (popular sovereignty).”
From these general definitions, we can deduce the chief elements that make up the current use of nationalism as a term. These can include nationism, tribalism, and patriotism. In this article, we will discuss nationism and tribalism while leaving patriotism for future treatment.
The Rise of Nations
The modern idea of a nation is unique because it denotes a far more contiguous connection between government, culture, language, and religion than does the traditional notion of the state. Pre-modern ideas of the state were defined by ideas of realms and fealty to a sovereign authority.
For most of human history, political boundaries chiefly followed geographical features, natural lines of defense, or simply the reach of a sovereign entity’s authority. It wasn’t until the enlightenment and the subsequent revolutionary periods in the 18th and 19th centuries that true nations began to form with borders that marked cultural and ethnically homogeneous regions.
The rise of nations, long considered the process of nationalism, can be better termed as nationism because it was simply something that occurred as a natural response to events. There are no set ideological features linked to the rise of nations. Using the term nationalism for this process when nationalism is also used to denote distinct political movements and ideas creates a false notion that there is a natural flow from the inevitable rise of nation-states to the notions of political and ideological nationalism. As we can see in the distinct histories of modern nations, there is no such connection.
Nationism involves the idea of sovereign peoples, self-determination by those sovereign peoples, and the nation-state as the legitimate source of political power. We can regard this as wholly separate from the other traditional aspects of nationalism and we should treat it as a distinct idea.
Nationalism’s Step Backward
While nations were a new turn of events in the 18th Century, the process that led to their creation was basic to the human condition. The primary result of the enlightenment era and the American and French revolutions was a shocking and sudden tearing down of the institutions of monarchy and the ideas of the divine right of kings.
While the salutary neglect of the British Crown had conditioned Americans for self-governance, the people of Europe at that time had little to no enduring tradition of governing authority beyond the crown. As wars and revolutions tore down kingships and empires over the next two centuries, nations arose from their ashes, not necessarily in a grand step forward in human progress, but as a regressive move reflecting the primal urges of tribalism.
In other words, the early thrust of nationalism in Europe had nothing to do with the liberalizing ideas of self-governance, self-determination, or popular sovereignty. Instead, it was a reactionary effort to place the old mantle of absolute power and the divine right of kings upon the geopolitical realities that had endured beyond the monarchs: language, culture, and religion.
France rose up against the Ancien Régime, but neither Robespierre’s Reign of Terror nor Napoleon’s French Empire looks like liberal governance. The German nationalism that arose with the abdication of Wilhelm II not only toppled the Weimar Republic but culminated in the conquests and crimes of Nazism. Russian nationalism appropriated Marxism as a vessel for internal purges, regional hegemony, and ideological imperialism.
If nationism is the process that led to the rise of nations, then it is abundantly clear that the process leads to highly varied ends based upon geopolitical realities. The rise and subsequent history of the American nation bear little to no likeness with early European nations. Nations in Europe took steps backward as they indulged in ancient notions of tribalism to justify a renewal of autocratic rule and central authority. The American Republic tempered and offset the negative tendencies of human nature by championing universal ideals.
Naturally, the next article in this series will deal with the exceptional and unique nature of the American nation.