Is it possible to get rid of nationalism?

[Gucumatz]

Well I don't think there is thaaat much inherently wrong with nationalism. Just it ought to be a tool for further unification rather than subdivision of peoples. I would be curious to know what would happen if we could colonize other planets tomorrow, 100 years from now, or when/if powers had fully/mostly consolidated - would we see countries colonizing the same planets only for the peoples of these new planets to feel more in common with each other than their counterparts on earth? Would nationalism/multi-borders persist on multiple planets at the same time?

Nationalism is a means to an end. As long as we don't have any societal shocks for a while (like the ability to colonize other planets ) I think as a whole people will slowly move closer together and lose some nationalism.

 

[Winner]

As Leoreth has said, this tribal "us vs. them" mentality is human nature. I'm not sure it'll ever go away, but as Camikaze has noted, it can be shifted. Probably only sustained relations with an alien race will unite humanity and give it an "other" to unite against. People may be white or black, Muslim or Hindu, Turkish or Greek, but at least they won't be aliens, the thinking will go.

Well, I tend to agree with the view that "tribal mentality" as the underlying basis of nationalism is probably a part of human nature. I am interested how can we effectively neutralize it, i.e. to give this psychological need another, benign outlet. Sports have been mentioned, but the way I see it they only exploit nationalism as a parasitic meme. If there was no nationalism, people wouldn't really enjoy the Germany vs. England match so much, would they? Sports can of course be regionalised and we can instead hate the team from the other city, but that's hardly much different.

As for needing an alien threat to unite humanity - that's a postponement of the problem, or its transference to an even bigger theatre.

 

[bhsup]

Is every state a nation state in your opinion? Can states only exist because of nationalism?

Well... Bear in mind when I think of nation, I don't think of ethnic tribes of people banded together because of history or whatever. The aboriginal American tribes, for example, are not true nations even though they tend to get called that. They were just stone age tech tribes of people who hadn't advanced sociologically to the point of forming true nations. I personally view nation/country/state as interchangeable. Yeah, I know that's not how most of the rest of the world views it, but I wanted you to understand where I am coming from.

So that said, yes I think every State is a nation. The second question of yours I would have to say no. I think most do, but some were forced together through artificial ideology and those just don't last. Yugoslavia being a prime example. There was no true sense of nationalism keeping the country together. Just the iron rule of Tito. Things started falling apart after his death.

That's a very nationalist point of view (when all you have is a hammer ...).

As I am unabashedly a nationalist, that makes sense.

 

[Leoreth]

If there was no nationalism, people wouldn't really enjoy the Germany vs. England match so much, would they? Sports can of course be regionalised and we can instead hate the team from the other city, but that's hardly much different.

Not necessarily. You don't have to be born into your favorite sports team, even if most people still kind of are. In national sports leagues, not everyone is automatically a fan of the closest city's team. Of course these people are traitors and opportunists, but I digress

Well... Bear in mind when I think of nation, I don't think of ethnic tribes of people banded together because of history or whatever. The aboriginal American tribes, for example, are not true nations even though they tend to get called that. They were just stone age tech tribes of people who hadn't advanced sociologically to the point of forming true nations. I personally view nation/country/state as interchangeable. Yeah, I know that's not how most of the rest of the world views it, but I wanted you to understand where I am coming from.

So that said, yes I think every State is a nation. The second question of yours I would have to say no. I think most do, but some were forced together through artificial ideology and those just don't last. Yugoslavia being a prime example. There was no true sense of nationalism keeping the country together. Just the iron rule of Tito. Things started falling apart after his death.

Okay. But working from this point of view, can you really say that it's nationalism that enables states and not that it's states that create nationalism?

For instance, would you say that there are separate German and Austrian nations? If so, did these nations already exist in say 1848? If not, where did they suddenly come from?

Are nations just a convenient narrative created by states to legitimize themselves?

 

[gangleri2001]

It's rather funny to read the OP. That nationalism equals total war? What the hell?! There's no causation there. That nationalism is one of the two human-controled main factors of unnecessary death (the other being religion)? Lol! Right now the human-controled main factor of unnecessary death given the lack of big wars is the economic system. By that standard you should, therefore, be an anti-capitalist, but I don't see you protesting against capitalism at all.

So, if you're going to evaluate how necessary nationalism is or if it's just a remnant of history we must first have a good description of it, but we haven't. The best (and most neutral) description of it that we have is that nationalism is the ideology by which the public and politic life (i.e. the state and society) of any given place should organize itself having a group of people that claims to be a nation as its reference framework. And what is a nation? Just a group of people that seems to have affinity enough to claim to be one. No other criteria (religion, language, territory, history, culture or whatever you might think of) seem to be valid as a description of a nation other than people willing to be one.

Now that we see what nationalism in its most elementary form is, tell me what's so evil about it? Isn't this way of thinking that got us away from feudalism and that keeps us from ending up being corporatist societies in which corporations would decide everything? Nationalism is nothing but an ideology on how public life must be organized and the way I see it is, for the time being, the better way of organizing it we have invented. All the alternatives availble just give all the power to a minority while nationalism states clearly that its the whole of the nation (i.e. the whole members of the group) what matters, not just the interests of a few.

Adscribing to nationalism the problems caused by the we > them way of thinking that the human being has is just plain wrong because this way of thinking predates nationalism by millenia so I'm not going to enter in that discussion because I consider it a waste of time.

Now, to answer the question of the OP, I must say: No, I don't think it's gonna disappear anytime soon. In fact, we're witnessing a rather interesting stage of evolution of nationalism in which is evolving from the nation-state of the 20th century into transnationalism defined by the construction of supranational "nations" meant to coordinate better the efforts of the nation-states of a given region. However, this transnationalism, which we don't know if it's going to succeed or fail, still complies with the description of nationalism given above as we can clearly see in the EU whose main reference framework is the people who adscribe to themselves the european identity. Being it nothing but a set of affinities that allow different people to share a common trait by which organize the public and politic life of a given area. And that's what makes europeism essentialy a nationalist ideology.

 

[bhsup]

NOkay. But working from this point of view, can you really say that it's nationalism that enables states and not that it's states that create nationalism?

For instance, would you say that there are separate German and Austrian nations? If so, did these nations already exist in say 1848? If not, where did they suddenly come from?

Are nations just a convenient narrative created by states to legitimize themselves?

That's the problem with the old world. They've got the tech advances okay, but they still haven't completely shed themselves of that whole ethnicity mindset. The new world is free of such backwards thinking. Our nations are truly nations independent of all that "oh well my bloodline stretches back a gazlillion generations so I'm a -true- German/Frenchman/Russian/etc" nonsense.

True nationalism, built on love of country and not love of ethnicity, should be the goal you guys should be reaching for. And the EU is really a step in the right direction.

As for your questions about whether it is the state that creates nationalism or vice versa, I'd say it's more a symbiotic growth but that nationalism is the first and core requirement. Take the United States. We wouldn't have broken free to form the State without some nationalism to kick start it, and we even had a civil war before we truly stabilized into one nation. I think without nationalism, we'd fall apart. And yet, the very existence of the State helps maintain that nationalism. Hence the whole "USA! USA! USA!" rah rah

 

[Kyriakos]

(edit: decided it was maybe a bit too much as a 'mischievous' comment )

 

[Hygro]

That's the problem with the old world. They've got the tech advances okay, but they still haven't completely shed themselves of that whole ethnicity mindset. The new world is free of such backwards thinking. Our nations are truly nations independent of all that "oh well my bloodline stretches back a gazlillion generations so I'm a -true- German/Frenchman/Russian/etc" nonsense.

True nationalism, built on love of country and not love of ethnicity, should be the goal you guys should be reaching for. And the EU is really a step in the right direction.

As for your questions about whether it is the state that creates nationalism or vice versa, I'd say it's more a symbiotic growth but that nationalism is the first and core requirement. Take the United States. We wouldn't have broken free to form the State without some nationalism to kick start it, and we even had a civil war before we truly stabilized into one nation. I think without nationalism, we'd fall apart. And yet, the very existence of the State helps maintain that nationalism. Hence the whole "USA! USA! USA!" rah rah

We might have let go of political units based on ethnicity, but we certainly have politics based on race discrimination.

But your "true nationalism" is still not the best goal. It should be a love of humanity--the freedom and wellbeing of the individual and the group. And to love humanity means to love our environment, respect our differences whenever possible, and support going to outer space

 

[Tahuti]

I used to be strongly anti-nationalistic but then I also realized nationalism won't go away as long as humans are tribalistic creatures. In fact, you can make nationalism for any group that can appear distinctively from other groups (like Queer Nationalism, yes, that exists). And besides, this isn't necessarily bad, at least as long as it isn't blood and soil gibberish, as it may unite people within a given territory (with all the political, linguistic and geographical constraints) or political goals to not allow themselves to be crushed due to vastly differing interests of "foreign" rulers. One should be able to secede from an oppressive international polity, should such an entity ever come into existence, if it isn't possible to destroy it wholesale, which is of course preferable.

However, that said, it can be very terribly abused, as the World Wars made abundantly clear. Nationalism should never be used as an excuse to kill innocents. Nor should states necessarily be coterminous nations. However, it is an illusion to say that eliminating nationalism will solve the problems typically associated with nationalism. Wars will be fought for more reasons than inter-nation conflicts.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Not only do I think it's possible, I think it is as near to inevitable as things can get.

The problem is, we tend to think of historic trends as objects, and then see them as subject to inertia. Can we generated enough force to dislodge them.

This sort of thinking leaves us continuously surprised at how quickly stuff disappears: The Christian basis of European Politics, the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and it leaves us frustrated when tremendous force and pressure can't unseat relatively weak and small "objects".

The problem is, nationalism isn't a thing, it's a process. It's something people do.

Despite nearly every civilizations attempts otherwise, it is impossible to stop change. Situations are always naturally erratic. As such, anything we have to do, we have to do differently to match the situation.

Eventually, we find a situation where we can't do that thing anymore, or there's something else we want to do, or the thing we're doing is no longer recognizable as what we once did.

It's not a question of "how can Humans ever cast off nationalism" it's a question of "How long will humans make nationalism work?"

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Voted a clear "Yes" out of sheer desire.

 

[Borachio]

I don't see it going away any time soon.

All the time, I hear talk on the radio about the national interest: how the UK should be seeking (or not seeking) investment from China, how the UK is the 7th (?) richest (depending how you measure it) nation in the world, how the UK must become more competitive in the global economy, and on and on.

I see no reason why the same sorts of things aren't discussed the world over. Just substitute the nation of your choice for UK in the sentence above.

Moreover, ever see how much a sporting success increases national productivity?

 

[sophie]

Poles will be proud of Polish butter and Californians will be proud of Hollywood blockbuster movies

Now wait just a minute there! Californians aren't proud of Hollywood movies, let alone Blockbuster video! We're proud of our: wine, cheese, cows, weather, women, surfing, ski resorts, cities, countryside, flag, vibrant tech culture, Apple, amazon, large number of delegates relative to the rest of the country, music, architecture, and sports teams (except for the cursed Dodgers).

But don't you DARE ever imply that we're proud of Hollywood!

 

[Giftless]

Nationalism (and Regionalism, to a lesser extent) is a good thing; no one can seriously expect another country or a greater governing power to have their best interests at heart. You'd have to change human nature, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

 

[Winner]

It's rather funny to read the OP.

Rather, it's very sad.

That nationalism equals total war? What the hell?! There's no causation there.

I invite you to watch the documentary I linked, or at least the first episode starting with:


Link to video.

Just think about it. The causation is really obvious.However, this transnationalism, which we don't know if it's going to succeed or fail, still complies with the description of nationalism given above as we can clearly see in the EU whose main reference framework is the people who adscribe to themselves the european identity. Being it nothing but a set of affinities that allow different people to share a common trait by which organize the public and politic life of a given area. And that's what makes europeism essentialy a nationalist ideology.

Not really. The very fact that it reaches above national identity and fosters a transnational, continental identity that's reasonably non-exclusive makes it (potentially) a model for getting rid of nationalism globally. One step at a time. Once you train your mind to see beyond the traditional defining features of national identity (the same language, appearance, customs, etc.) and accept other Europeans are your "brothers", maybe your children or the children of their children will be able to do the same with people from other regions.

 

[bathsheba666]

Small steps: you'd have to do it one country at a time....

 

[Tahuti]

Now wait just a minute there! Californians aren't proud of Hollywood movies, let alone Blockbuster video! We're proud of our: wine, cheese, cows, weather, women, surfing, ski resorts, cities, countryside, flag, vibrant tech culture, Apple, amazon, large number of delegates relative to the rest of the country, music, architecture, and sports teams (except for the cursed Dodgers).

But don't you DARE ever imply that we're proud of Hollywood!

See, that's why North California needs to be split from SoCal.

 

[Hygro]

Nationalism (and Regionalism, to a lesser extent) is a good thing; no one can seriously expect another country or a greater governing power to have their best interests at heart. You'd have to change human nature, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

See, that's why North California needs to be split from SoCal.

haha this is not un-talked about... but the truth is as different as our socal brothers and sisters are, they are still hella californian too. They have the thing. We just channel it better up here.

 

[Leoreth]

Hm. I think VRCWAgent is on to something with his separation of ethnic/socio-lingual nationalism and civic nationalism. In fact the differences between the two seem so large that it almost doesn't make sense to use the same word for them both.

At least if we accept the latter as part of nationalism that it is indeed possible for something like European nationalism to exist. Although at the moment, such a thing is mostly an academic construct that doesn't really permeate our societies.

I agree that civic nationalism is at least preferable to its cousin that this thread seems to be mainly targeting.

 

[Hygro]

Hm. I think VRCWAgent is on to something with his separation of ethnic/socio-lingual nationalism and civic nationalism. In fact the differences between the two seem so large that it almost doesn't make sense to use the same word for them both.

At least if we accept the latter as part of nationalism that it is indeed possible for something like European nationalism to exist. Although at the moment, such a thing is mostly an academic construct that doesn't really permeate our societies.

I agree that civic nationalism is at least preferable to its cousin that this thread seems to be mainly targeting.

Yeah he's right to draw a distinction. You'll be happy to know that the difference has made its way into the AP World History curriculum--I think. One of my professors used to be one of the chief writers of the exam and we discussed this in his class a fair bit.

Both are still imagined communities.