Define a "nation"

[Marla_Singer]

Well golly.
Everyone in the entire world is going to die. That's our common destiny. Do you consider the whole world one nation?

There's no exclusivity in the national feeling. Our national feeling is made of different layers which are adding to one another.

One is from Atlanta, from Georgia, from America and from the world. At each level, there's a specific destiny making him feel closer to those sharing it. In the current organization of the world, made of powerful and independent nation states with a very weak supranational governence, yes, our national feeling is the strongest at the level of the administrative entities which are recognized as independent.

So I repeat and confirm. A nation is defined as a a group of people sharing a common destiny.

 

[Mirc]

Standard definition: a group of people with a similar history, culture, language, religion, etc., usually concentrated in a certain geographic area.

Exactly my definition. Geographic proximity is definitely not a must, but it does help.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Exactly my definition. Geographic proximity is definitely not a must, but it does help.

This is actually a very empirical definition of what is a nation. This is what most can touch of it, but it doesn't represent its core principle.

A good example is Monaco. What is the common culture, the common History, the common language or the common religion of Monaco ? There's none. However, there's a genuine feeling of being Monegasque. Empirically, we tend to define a nation towards the past, but actually, it is defined towards the future. It's only because some people like to base their future in the continuity of their past that it makes sense for them to do it this way. It is because these people can't imagine their future made with other people than those with whom they've built their past.

Check for instance when do the national feeling is the strongest. It is in time of war, when soldiers are fighting together for a common destiny, or it is in time of elections, when people are chosing who will lead their common destiny. The national feeling is defined by the future, not by the past. It is the common destiny which comands our national feeling.

 

[Mirc]

This is actually a very empirical definition of what is a nation. This is what most can touch of it, but it doesn't represent its core principle.

A good example is Monaco. What is the common culture, the common History, the common language or the common religion of Monaco ? There's none. However, there's a genuine feeling of being Monegasque. Empirically, we tend to define a nation towards the past, but actually, it is defined towards the future. It's only because we like to base our future in the continuity of our past that it makes sense to do it this way, because most people can't imagine their future made with other people than those with which they've built their past.

Check for instance when do the national feeling is the strongest. It is in time of war, when soldiers are fighting together for a common destiny, or it is in time of elections, when people are chosing who will lead their common destiny. The national feeling is defined by the future, not by the past. It is the common destiny which comands our national feeling.

Tiny states are a special case. Monaco has 32,410 inhabitants. With enough resources, I could group that many people on the Internet, from all over the world, and form my own nation - only this forum is 3 times as big! The strong feeling of being Monegasque is only there because so little people can have it - it's a privilege! It doesn't have anything to do with the actual concept of nation.

BTW, just thought of a question: do you view Moldova as a nation?

 

[Babbler]

We'd all be alot better off if we did.

I figure we should give up the whole nation bit altogether.

A question for everybody: Does a person need to belong to a "nation"?

 

[Marla_Singer]

Well, don't take it bad Mirc, but I think this tends to show Eastern European societies are more tribal than Western European societies. This isn't something necessarily bad, but once being raised in a country such as France (and I guess it's the same for the US, the UK or even Australia), it's very tough to summarize the national feeling to a simple tribal feeling. We necessarily make a difference between where we come from and where we're going.

Despite the fact my family roots are from Germany, North Africa and Burgundy, I feel French. Hence it's something simply impossible to me to reduce my national feeling to something tribal. Even outside this, pick a big country such as Switzerland. Swiss people don't share the same language, they don't share the same culture, and despite this, there's a strong Swiss national identity. The only reason for this is that they all agree in a common destiny.

As for Moldova, the country is split in half. Trandniestrians have chosen autonomy and hence it's very tough to consider that Moldovans share a common destiny. Obviously, people living in Moldova agree in only one thing, it is that they would be happier if Transdniestria would become a Russian enclave and the rest of Moldova would unite with Romania. Hence, they don't consider they share a common destiny, and thus can't be considered as a nation.

 

[Marla_Singer]

A question for everybody: Does a person need to belong to a "nation"?

No, a person doesn't. He or she only feel such a need once he or she considers that other people shares a same destiny as he or she does.

Inside a same nation, people don't necessarily all feel as strongly belonging to that nation than others. Some people consider their own destiny depends more on themselves alone than on the collectivity, some others have a more complex identity. Such a feeling is far to be binary or exclusive.

 

[sysyphus]

A question for everybody: Does a person need to belong to a "nation"?

I feel attachments to certain things, like Canada and Toronto because it's where I live, the UK and Germany due to heritage, but I personally don't feel like I'm a part of any nation.

There are so many people in Canada, Toronto, the UK and Germany with whom I share very little in common, and many people outside of those places who I do seem to have alot in common with.

 

[Mirc]

Well, don't take it bad Mirc, but I think this tends to show Eastern European societies are more tribal than Western European societies.

I won't take it bad, sure. It's a very good discussion, and you know to play nicely with the words.

This isn't something necessarily bad, but once being raised in a country such as France (and I guess it's the same for the US, the UK or even Australia), it's very tough to summarize the national feeling to a simple tribal feeling. We necessarily make a difference between where we come from and where we're going.

I can understand that.

Despite the fact my family roots are from Germany, North Africa and Burgundy, I feel French. Hence it's something simply impossible to me to reduce my national feeling to something tribal.

I can understand that too, of course. However, that does not disprove my idea of a nation: you do share a common culture, identity, geographical location (and possibly religion, though this is clearly your choice) with the rest of the French people. I wasn't talking about genetics here (if I go by genetics, well I don't even look like most Romanians, I look like a German or a Swede), and even if my quoted post contained something about this, I don't think that's essential, at all.

As for Moldova, the country is split in half. Trandniestrians have chosen autonomy and hence it's very tough to consider thar Moldovans share a common destiny. Obviously, people living in Moldova would be happy if Transdniestria would become a Russian enclave and the rest of Moldova would unite with Romania. Hence, they don't consider they share a common destiny, and thus can't be considered as a nation.

That's very close to my feelings too. Not exactly what I believe, but very close.

Edit: After reading our posts again, yours seem as the ones of a writer, while mine seem like the ones of a miner... At least I have the native language excuse.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Well, if we check which elements are the strongest in the definition of specific nations, we will realize that there are strong differences.

In China, most of the national feeling is based in belonging to a specific group : Han people. Han people don't necessarily speak the same language and don't necessarily share the same religion, but they make a clear distinction between themselves and people from minorities living in China, they even aren't officially recognized by the country as the same kind of citizens.

In Iran, there's a huge cultural diversity, there's also a strong differences in the language being spoken, but the Iranian national feeling remain very strong, and it is mainly based on one religion : shi'a islam.

As you can see, there's a strong diversity in what people consider as important in their national identity. However, there's one thing they all agree with, it is that they share a common destiny. The fundamental definition of a nation is a group of people sharing a common destiny. Now this being said, the reasons why they believe they share a common destiny can be extremely diverse from a place to another. As such, this is not those specific reasons which define a nation, but the fact they agree in a common destiny.

 

[innonimatu]

Ernest Renan wrote what is probably the most influential text on the subject. You can find an excerpt here. The whole site is dedicated to the topic of nationalism, what it is and how it operates.

 

[Stylesjl]

When a group uses force to enforce their will upon a geographic area. Though that's more along the lines of a state

 

[Goonie]

There's no exclusivity in the national feeling. Our national feeling is made of different layers which are adding to one another.

One is from Atlanta, from Georgia, from America and from the world. At each level, there's a specific destiny making him feel closer to those sharing it. In the current organization of the world, made of powerful and independent nation states with a very weak supranational governence, yes, our national feeling is the strongest at the level of the administrative entities which are recognized as independent.

So I repeat and confirm. A nation is defined as a a group of people sharing a common destiny.

Well you are wrong, and definitions such as the one you are espousing would make the study of comparative politics quite difficult, vague, and ambiguous.

The way scholars define a nation is precise and narrow for a reason. Under your definition, as I jokingly pointed out earlier, the entire human race could be considered one nation. A term like that has little use and is simply a misrepresentation.

The very concept of the nation is one of exclusion. It defines a group of people and perpetuates the us vs. them mentality.

You claim that people identify with their nation at the various levels of government. That is simply absurd. National identities do not always correspond with a government's boundaries. The very idea of nationhood is that one owes his or her ultimate loyalty to the nation and that that cannot be divided. Not all nations correspond to borders. What of the Basque? What of irrendentist movements throughout history? The nation seldomly matches territorial lines, thus resulting in some of history's brutal warfare. Administrative entities, states, have nothing to do with a nation.

 

[Perfection]

What about a group of people who in the past ganged up to be kicked by someone else?

I dunno, moronland?