Is it possible to get rid of nationalism?

[Traitorfish]

That certainly seems to be the favoured argument in their defence, yes. It's not an issue I have enough investment in to bother weighing up all the pros and cons, merely to observe that today's democratic common sense is more novel than we realise.

Likewise, conservatives traditionally preferred their upper houses to be unelected, and have since come to accept direct election of membership. (Except in Britain, of course, because we are ridiculous.) "Common sense" tends to be pretty plastic on all sides.

 

[Winner]

Permanent election campaign resulting from too frequent elections is absolutely non-conducive to ANY kind of functioning democratic society.

 

[Flying Pig]

Devil's advocate, but if you reduce the term length, you also reduce the value of the prize, since a defeated candidate can give it another go. Admittedly, this may be more true at local MP level than presidential level, in which very few candidates go on to win having been defeated, but one would surely expect a corresponding reduction in the length of the election season.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Constructing "nationalism" as a plausibly transhistorical phenomenon means diluting your concept to the point of "nationalism" to the point where it ceases to exist as a distinct phenomenon

Perhaps the trouble is that you are more concerned with neat tidy taxonomy while I am more concerned with understanding. Because it is true - the way I used nationalism it stops to be distinct. It becomes universal. But ey, I also don't mean to replace the label of nationalism with the label of nationalism 2.0. Rather, I wanted to demonstrate that crucial aspects of nationalism are perfectly ordinary and have been established to be expected human behavior well before the rise of nationalism while those aspects actually new are just the dress of historic circumstances wrapped around an old phenomenon. A dress not that interesting or special as some seem to be lead to believe.

I said old phenomena, but also agreed it was not distinct. But that doesn't mean not useful or real, just not good for tidy taxonomy. Rather, it requires a narrative instead to become distinct and useful. So you see, it actually is distinct. Just not in a tidy way.

The narrative of human group identity and how it unravels when human groups exceed their natural size (natural meaning people actually know each other). When I follow this narrative, groups who acted as one only stopped to serve as sources of identity when its members stopped to matter to the sovereign of those groups. Which makes sense. Why should I identify with a group which doesn't give crap about me? "Why should I identify with medieval kingdom x?" comes down to the same question.
However what happened at the time of the rise of nationalism was that the members of a given unit of sovereignty did start to matter again as they once had in city states or tribes. So they were tied to a group of people acting as one (aka unified under one sovereignty) and they did matter. Group identity is the next logical step. Nationalism is the logical life of this identity just as tribal folklore is of tribe identity, extra-large.

 

[Winner]

Devil's advocate, but if you reduce the term length, you also reduce the value of the prize, since a defeated candidate can give it another go. Admittedly, this may be more true at local MP level than presidential level, in which very few candidates go on to win having been defeated, but one would surely expect a corresponding reduction in the length of the election season.

One of the chief problems of the Western society these days is its inability to plan ahead, to plan for the next 10 or 20 years, or 50 years, instead of 2 years (America) or 4 years (most of Europe).

I am not saying election terms should be that long, but if the representatives are constantly afraid of losing their chair to somebody else if they're not popular enough (as result of saying and doing necessary, but unpopular things), democracy becomes a parody of itself, a pollocracy. They need some sense of security encouraging them to govern responsibly.

 

[Tahuti]

One of the chief problems of the Western society these days is its inability to plan ahead, to plan for the next 10 or 20 years, or 50 years, instead of 2 years (America) or 4 years (most of Europe).

I am not saying election terms should be that long, but if the representatives are constantly afraid of losing their chair to somebody else if they're not popular enough (as result of saying and doing necessary, but unpopular things), democracy becomes a parody of itself, a pollocracy. They need some sense of security encouraging them to govern responsibly.

Which is why some countries have upper houses that are not directly elected: They may not have such long election cycles, but they are immune from populist shorttermism.

 

[Traitorfish]

Perhaps the trouble is that you are more concerned with neat tidy taxonomy while I am more concerned with understanding.

"I can't grasp basic analytical categories because I'm too smart."

Which is why some countries have upper houses that are not directly elected: They may not have such long election cycles, but they are immune from populist shorttermism.

The Home Rule Crisis tends to suggest otherwise.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

"I can't grasp basic analytical categories because I'm too smart."

I grasp them just fine, which is why I think there is a place for labels (aka taxonomy) and there is a place for narratives.
You said my interpretation of nationalism wouldn't work as a label as it would be too encompassing. I agreed and then explained that it is not supposed to be a label but a narrative. You were concerned with formality, I continued to argue on the actual topic.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's not about labels. It's about categories. Without a coherent analytical framework, your "narrative" is just an extended gurgle.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Sorry but to me it looks like you are just hiding behind "coherent analytical framework" to say "I think you are wrong but don't care to explain or explore why". I can not extract any more worthwhile meaning for our discussion anyways.

 

[Kyriakos]

^You would have saved some time and concluded that faster if you had seen his actual tartan form

 

[Traitorfish]

Sorry but to me it looks like you are just hiding behind "coherent analytical framework" to say "I think you are wrong but don't care to explain or explore why". I can not extract any more worthwhile meaning for our discussion anyways.

I'm not really sure what explanations I'm supposed to offer. Your entire argument is composed of sweeping generalisations, built with undefined categories and unexplained mechanisms, without anything in the way of historical reference or even simply illustration.

Take your repeated reference to "tribes". The "tribe" forms a central part of your argument, because it constitutes a "natural" form of human community, and that all large-scale social identities are in essence an expanded analogy to tribal identity. But what sort of community does the category "tribe" actually describe? There's a vague sense of primordiality in your usage, but the only clear characteristics we get are "not a state". And you claim that it is identification with this "tribe" that underlies all large-scale identities, but what is the nature of "tribal identity", how is it communicated, how does it persist, and by what mechanism does it acquire its expanded form? And, above all else, how do we know that any of this is the case? You offer us nothing, here, nothing but confusion, in this or any other respect.

It's hopeless, Miss Wormwood, hopeless.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

To be less general, to be more defined, to better or in the first place explain mechanisms, all just different ways to say "You will have to explain that better if you want to convince me".
So as I thought what it comes down to is that you find my POV simply not convincing.
Please simply say so next time instead of blabbering about analytical frameworks.
But I gladly follow suit.

The tribe may appear central because it makes my sweeping generalizations plastic and concrete + offers evolutionary and by extension emotional explanation of the nature of group identities. What I mean by tribe? Well in all actuality the word only serves as an umbrella term for all kind of groups of natural size (i.e. everyone knows each other or perhaps even better the size of a group our brain is said to be able compute in a way so to see all members as individuals, something in the range of 100 - 300 members give or take, don't remember the exact findings) and which act as a unit.
That can be a group of hunter and gatherers or a small ancient community or a soccer team. All those groups act as one and develop a group identity and tend to think of themselves as special in some or another way. They develop their own folklore, customs etcetera.
Now note that a group which does not act as one does not do that or to much lesser extent. And the more unity, the more they do that.
A school class less so than a soccer team, a soccer team less so than a group of hunter and gatherers.
Now why is that so? I think the answer is evident: Those things emotionally bound the members of a group and hence strengthen the group as a whole. The greater the unity of the group, the greater do the members depend on each other to make the group function hence the stronger the emotional bound should be.

What all that tells me is that humans who are part of a unit naturally seek to identify with this unit. And the thing now is that we can witness the workings of this every single time in every single unit of whatever scale. Be it tribes or city-states or nations. They are all units as they act as one. And they all do the same general stuff tribes do with regards to group identity.
Before nationalism, states were often very ununited. The peasant did not depend on the peasant in some other village, there was no relation. All what united them was the will of the ruling class. In the wake of nationalism, this unity rapidly grew for which I would name two main reasons:
(1) Economic development which increased interdependencies and means of communication
(2) Something I shall label philosophical development: I.e. the idea that the members of the unit state actually mattered (democracy), which of course requires those members to get organized = greater unity (though I suppose for a Marxist (2) can not be separated from (1), which I may agree with)

So why should we just extrapolate the inner workings of a tribe to unnatural big groups up to states of millions? Because observation/history says it gets extrapolated.

 

[Winner]

Which is why some countries have upper houses that are not directly elected: They may not have such long election cycles, but they are immune from populist shorttermism.

They don't define policy, usually; governments based on majorities in the short-term lower houses do that. In Czech rep., the election term is 4 years, but in the past 12 years no government has lasted that long. The fact we have a 6-year senate (1/3 of seats up for re-election every 2 years) is irrelevant, as Senate really plays mostly an obstructionist role in our political system, especially if controlled by the opposition. We should consider abolishing it altogether.

 

[Tahuti]

The fact we have a 6-year senate (1/3 of seats up for re-election every 2 years) is irrelevant, as Senate really plays mostly an obstructionist role in our political system, especially if controlled by the opposition. We should consider abolishing it altogether.

That's the strength of having a senate. I don't want a populist zealot to have the ability to hijack the parliamentary system, even if good initiatives sometimes fail because of that.

 

[Hygro]

On the plus side, they want to ditch the euro

On the down side, they want to ditch the immigrants

 

[Traitorfish]

To be less general, to be more defined, to better or in the first place explain mechanisms, all just different ways to say "You will have to explain that better if you want to convince me".
So as I thought what it comes down to is that you find my POV simply not convincing.
Please simply say so next time instead of blabbering about analytical frameworks.
But I gladly follow suit.

The tribe may appear central because it makes my sweeping generalizations plastic and concrete + offers evolutionary and by extension emotional explanation of the nature of group identities. What I mean by tribe? Well in all actuality the word only serves as an umbrella term for all kind of groups of natural size (i.e. everyone knows each other or perhaps even better the size of a group our brain is said to be able compute in a way so to see all members as individuals, something in the range of 100 - 300 members give or take, don't remember the exact findings) and which act as a unit.
That can be a group of hunter and gatherers or a small ancient community or a soccer team. All those groups act as one and develop a group identity and tend to think of themselves as special in some or another way. They develop their own folklore, customs etcetera.
Now note that a group which does not act as one does not do that or to much lesser extent. And the more unity, the more they do that.
A school class less so than a soccer team, a soccer team less so than a group of hunter and gatherers.
Now why is that so? I think the answer is evident: Those things emotionally bound the members of a group and hence strengthen the group as a whole. The greater the unity of the group, the greater do the members depend on each other to make the group function hence the stronger the emotional bound should be.

What all that tells me is that humans who are part of a unit naturally seek to identify with this unit. And the thing now is that we can witness the workings of this every single time in every single unit of whatever scale. Be it tribes or city-states or nations. They are all units as they act as one. And they all do the same general stuff tribes do with regards to group identity.
Before nationalism, states were often very ununited. The peasant did not depend on the peasant in some other village, there was no relation. All what united them was the will of the ruling class. In the wake of nationalism, this unity rapidly grew for which I would name two main reasons:
(1) Economic development which increased interdependencies and means of communication
(2) Something I shall label philosophical development: I.e. the idea that the members of the unit state actually mattered (democracy), which of course requires those members to get organized = greater unity (though I suppose for a Marxist (2) can not be separated from (1), which I may agree with)

So why should we just extrapolate the inner workings of a tribe to unnatural big groups up to states of millions? Because observation/history says it gets extrapolated.

This is re-iteration, not explanation. The logic of your categories and mechanisms are still absolutely obscure to us. You talk about "units", without any effort to explain what that means or what it could mean, you repeatedly conflate "nation" with "state", which even in everyday parlance are two different things, you blithely declare that X becomes Y without bothering to explain how or why, and, again, none of this isnsupported with historical illustration, at least beyond some vague reference to "peasants". Honestly, it's like your just throwing words and hoping they stick.

 

[Kyriakos]

It has to be noted that 'nationalism' is a term used in many ways, and tends to always be employed with impossibly negative connotation when it is projected onto someone spoken against. Not all "nationalism" is about "my country, right or left/wrong". Neither do all people who like the idea of a nation state have some problematic view according to which all people of that state, or ethnicity, are something good.
It is one thing to be of the opinion that a nation-state is a net positive, and another thing to actually believe that all people of a nation, race or ethnicity, are a net positive. The latter is obviously false.

That said, it is equally ludicrous anf false to think that all nation-states are the same. Some civilizations produced more notable positive effects than others. It is not about genetics, i suppose it is about the relative difficulty of one studying math, philosophy or art, while living in a cave or on top of some borean tree

And ceterum censeo eutago delenda est.

 

[Traitorfish]

That said, it is equally ludicrous anf false to think that all nation-states are the same. Some civilizations produced more notable positive effects than others. It is not about genetics, i suppose it is about the relative difficulty of one studying math, philosophy or art, while living in a cave or on top of some borean tree

(Guys, I think he might mean Greece.)

 

[Kyriakos]

^Get out of the Loch habitat, TF. Erosion is endemic to it