What exactly happened after the fall of Rome?

[frekk]

What is the difference between, say, modern day Italy and the Roman Empire? They don't both count as nations?

No, a nation is a state that is an expression of the self-determinism of a particular nationality or identity group. An empire can't really be a nation. Rome was just a city-state with an empire. Rome did feature the development of an ethnic identity that spread to the provinces, but it wasn't attached to any notion of statehood for that identity group; they remained provinces subordinated to the rule of the city-state of Rome, and never became a national federation. There are some elements that resemble the concept of nation there, but not closely enough to really call it one.

Italy, on the other hand, is a federation of formerly disparate territories that united under the pretext of an existing Italian nationality that required unified expression as a federal state.

 

[Plotinus]

After reading these definitions of the modern concept of "nation", I'm starting to think that I simply don't have it at all myself.

 

[civ_king]

I've been interested in this for awhile, but everything I've looked up about it basically just told me that a bunch of barbarians took over the area and united under Christianity. That doesn't really help me. How did all of these countries that were around at the Renaissance(England, France, Spain, Ottomans, Italy) even come about? I know a little bit about Charlemagne and the Crusades, but other than that my knowledge of Western Europe in the Middle Ages is very limited.

Basically I'm asking, from after the fall of Rome(5th century I guess) what happened in Europe that made all of these huge powerful countries rise up. Just a general outline would be good.

define when Rome fell

 

[bob bobato]

No, a nation is a state that is an expression of the self-determinism of a particular nationality or identity group. An empire can't really be a nation. Rome was just a city-state with an empire. Rome did feature the development of an ethnic identity that spread to the provinces, but it wasn't attached to any notion of statehood for that identity group; they remained provinces subordinated to the rule of the city-state of Rome, and never became a national federation. There are some elements that resemble the concept of nation there, but not closely enough to really call it one.

Italy, on the other hand, is a federation of formerly disparate territories that united under the pretext of an existing Italian nationality that required unified expression as a federal state.

Where do countries like Portugal come in? Portugal has only ever had one language or nationality, unless you count Mirandese, which is only spoken in one tiny municipality and is really a glorified dialect. There has been an ethnic identity for a fairly long time; the major nationalist poem, Os Lusíadas , was written in 1572. Were the Portuguese centuries ahead of their time, or have I completely misunderstood 'the nation'?

 

[Agent327]

No, frekk confuses nation* with nation-state (which is a state supposedly built upon a common nationality; most modern states, however, contain multiple nationalities and cultures - which BTW at least partly explains some of the problems nodern states are facing).

*a nation is a state that is an expression of the self-determinism of a particular nationality or identity group: a nation ofcourse is not a state - and a state based upon such a principle will face serious problems in the long run, because nationalities and cultures are not static entities (it was, for instance, one of the major challenges of the Austro-Hungarian empire in the late 19th century as nationalism was on the rise), nor are states.

 

[frekk]

*a nation is a state that is an expression of the self-determinism of a particular nationality or identity group: a nation ofcourse is not a state

Of course, I meant "nation" there in its usage as shorthand for a national state, but you're exactly right. The nation precedes the state and the state (theoretically, at least) is just an expression of a supposedly existant nation. In theory. Of course, many times the state has created the nation in order to justify its existance, but we're off on a tangent there.

The essential point is that the national state expresses the will of a nation that pre-exists. Theoretically.

and a state based upon such a principle will face serious problems in the long run, because nationalities and cultures are not static entities (it was, for instance, one of the major challenges of the Austro-Hungarian empire in the late 19th century as nationalism was on the rise)

Austro-Hungary was explicitly not a national state, though. Nobody self-identified as "Austro-Hungarian" ethnicity. There were Austrians, and Hungarians, plus a slew of other nationalities like Serb etc.

Even in national states, you do of course have minority groups. But the fiction of nation grips a signifigant portion of the population, and then you get the formation of a national state (the unification of Italy or Germany is a good example - you can clearly see, in these cases, that the nation is something of a fiction but no less potent a political force than many other widely-believed fictions).

 

[civver_764]

No, a nation is a state that is an expression of the self-determinism of a particular nationality or identity group. An empire can't really be a nation. Rome was just a city-state with an empire. Rome did feature the development of an ethnic identity that spread to the provinces, but it wasn't attached to any notion of statehood for that identity group; they remained provinces subordinated to the rule of the city-state of Rome, and never became a national federation. There are some elements that resemble the concept of nation there, but not closely enough to really call it one.

Italy, on the other hand, is a federation of formerly disparate territories that united under the pretext of an existing Italian nationality that required unified expression as a federal state.

So in the British Empire, the colonies wouldn't be part of the United Kingdom nation?

Who's generally considered the first nation then? Was the USA even considered a nation when it was formed?

define when Rome fell

In the 5th Century.

 

[frekk]

So in the British Empire, the colonies wouldn't be part of the United Kingdom nation?

No. The colonies weren't part of the United Kingdom, they were separate entities.

As the people went, recent arrivals considered themselves British for a few generations; but in most colonies, the vast majority of the population was native (India, the African holdings, etc) and didn't consider themselves British.

Even in the so-called "White Dominions" (Australia, Canada, and New Zealand), within just a generation or two, people came to identify as Australian, Canadian etc rather than British. At such times as self-determination manifested itself, it was for the creation of sovereign national states rather than incorporation into the United Kingdom.

 

[frekk]

Where do countries like Portugal come in? Portugal has only ever had one language or nationality

Oh? So where is it on this map of Iberia in the second century BC?:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Ethnographic_Iberia_200_BCE.PNG

 

[Plotinus]

Of course, I meant "nation" there in its usage as shorthand for a national state, but you're exactly right. The nation precedes the state and the state (theoretically, at least) is just an expression of a supposedly existant nation. In theory. Of course, many times the state has created the nation in order to justify its existance, but we're off on a tangent there.

The essential point is that the national state expresses the will of a nation that pre-exists. Theoretically.

This, to me, is quite literally meaningless. I have no concept whatsoever of a nation that isn't a state. What's your definition of it?

 

[frekk]

This, to me, is quite literally meaningless. I have no concept whatsoever of a nation that isn't a state. What's your definition of it?

Wikipedia puts it as well as I might:

A nation is a body of people who share a real or imagined common history, culture, language or ethnic origin, who typically inhabit a particular country or territory.[1] The development and conceptualization of the nation is closely related to the development of modern industrial states and nationalist movements in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries,[2] although nationalists would trace nations into the past along an uninterrupted lines of historical narrative.[3]

Benedict Anderson argued that nations were "imagined communities" because "the members of even 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", and traced their origins back to vernacular print journalism, which by its very nature was limited with linguistic zones and addressed a common audience.[4]

Though "nation" is also commonly used in informal discourse as a synonym for state or country, a nation is not identical to a state. Countries where the social concept of "nation" coincides with the political concept of "state" are called nation states.

That's why leaders "address the nation" - they are obviously not addressing the state, but the supposed community which the state is intended to reflect or represent.

 

[Plotinus]

But it's possible for two people to have the same nationality and yet not share a common history, culture, or any of the other things.

 

[Masada]

I've always liked Maximillian Webers definition of the 'state':

a 'state' if and insofar as its administrative staff successfully upholds a claim on the monopoly of the legitimate use of violence in the enforcement of its order

 

[innonimatu]

Wikipedia puts it as well as I might:

A nation is a body of people who share a real or imagined common history, culture, language or ethnic origin, who typically inhabit a particular country or territory.[1] The development and conceptualization of the nation is closely related to the development of modern industrial states and nationalist movements in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries,[2] although nationalists would trace nations into the past along an uninterrupted lines of historical narrative.[3]

If that first phrase is the definition of nation, then nations go a long way back in history, not just the 18th century.

Benedict Anderson argued that nations were "imagined communities" because "the members of even 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", and traced their origins back to vernacular print journalism, which by its very nature was limited with linguistic zones and addressed a common audience.[4]

Better argument, if one wants to make the case for an origin only by the 18th or 19th centuries. But I don't believe that newspapers were a necessary condition to have an "imagined community".
So long as the educated classes of a nation all share the same beliefs, you have that community. The uneducated are usually easily controlled by the upper classes, but also easier to "capture", in wartime of during social upheavals, by other nations. What the 19th century changed was making this last thing more difficult, as education expanded.
Even so, as far back as the 14th century there were some examples of popular identification with one particular "imagined community" against invaders from another: after years of war the french were not too fond of the english, nor the portuguese of the castilians, not the italians of the french, etc. By the 16th century it was also already an idea of "nation" which led to the portuguese and catalan rebellions against the centralization policies of its the spanish king. The previous dutch rebellion may be partially attributed to religion, but those cannot. And all of those originated very long wars and had clear popular support.

 

[frekk]

If that first phrase is the definition of nation, then nations go a long way back in history, not just the 18th century.

Not as state entities, or politically organized bodies seeking a state entity. With the possible exception, as you pointed out, of the Portuguese and Catalan rebellions.

For example, France, as I've already pointed out, was not the France of today but a collection of different groups with different cultures and languages: Bretons, Aquitanians, Burgundians, and so on. Likewise England was Cumbrian, Danish, and what we call "Saxon" which originally was a collection of different cultures (Jute, Angle, Saxon, etc). There was no particular cultural hostility between French and English aristocracy in the 14th century either; they had competing claims because it so happened that the Plantagenets, who ruled England at the time, were of the House of Anjou - a French dynasty that orignated as Counts of Anjou (descended from a Frankish lord by the name of Ingelger). They held a number of vassals in France not as a result of invasion, but as a result of the fact that they were from France and had collected a number of vassals through marriage, subinfeudation, and so on.

It was about the ancestral claims of two houses, not a war between "nations" as we understand the term. Loyalty was to the king, and it had characteristics of both a war and a civil war if we try to think of it, incorrectly, as a batte between nations; most of Burgundy and Aquitaine were loyal to the Anjou dynasty, not the Valois dynasty.

It was a causal factor in the development of the notion of nation - cause precedes effect, not the other way around. After the war, the Angevin Empire was gone and the Plantagenets were restricted to holding England alone - an insular siege mentality developed. In France, consolidating control of the feudal nobility and binding them more strongly to the Valois crown was imperative and this entailed a long-term program of regional cultural suppression and assimilation, particularly of Burgundy and Aquitaine.

So long as the educated classes of a nation all share the same beliefs, you have that community.

Yes, but it's not a universal one in any particular territory. Classes aren't nations. The aristocracy had far more in common with their opposite numbers in other countries than they did with their own countrymen. The nation is a concept that deals with the population as a whole, not the rulers.

But it's possible for two people to have the same nationality and yet not share a common history, culture, or any of the other things.

Hmmmm ... how so? Someone who self-identifies as, say, "American" may not have the same biological heritage as another American, but they generally share cultural aspects and identify with the culture, perspective, and history of the nation.

 

[Verbose]

But it's possible for two people to have the same nationality and yet not share a common history, culture, or any of the other things.

That would seem to fit the Germans and Italians through most of their history.

One traditional way to put it is to talk about "cultural nations" as different from "political nations". The UK, Britian, is a political nation then. Germany and Italy have been cultural nations for most of their history, before belatedly becoming political nations as well. Sometimes a group of "old nation states" is referred to, being both cultural and political nations for a long time, when talking about pre-19th c. nationhood, and then includes places like Denmark, Sweden, Portugal etc.

 

[Plotinus]

Hmmmm ... how so? Someone who self-identifies as, say, "American" may not have the same biological heritage as another American, but they generally share cultural aspects and identify with the culture, perspective, and history of the nation.

"Generally" - but hardly necessarily. Someone can become a naturalised citizen of a country without having anything in common with those who are citizens by birth. And it's even perfectly possible for two people to be citizens by birth and yet have virtually nothing in common with each other. For example: there are plenty of people in Britain who are the children of immigrants who have been brought up with almost no interaction with mainstream British culture, who are culturally Middle Eastern or South Asian or whatever, and who may not even speak English, at least not as a first language. Such people are British but they share none of the characteristics you mentioned as constitutive of nationality with other British people. And this will obviously be true, to varying degrees, in any multicultural society. The characteristics you mentioned are constitutive of culture, not of nationality. The only thing that makes someone British is the fact that they are a citizen of Britain, the state, and it's perfectly possible for two people to be citizens of the same state and yet have nothing else in common (just as it's possible for two people to be citizens of different states and yet be culturally very similar). That is why the notion of nationality without any reference to the state is just meaningless; to the extent that it has meaning, it does so only because nationality is being confused with culture.

 

[frekk]

"Generally" - but hardly necessarily. Someone can become a naturalised citizen of a country without having anything in common with those who are citizens by birth.

Sure, but then they usually don't consider themselves "American" or what have you. They consider themselves Iranian or Chinese or whatever nation they came from. Not until they've identified somewhat with what it means to be "American" (or British or whatever) do they consider themselves primarily American. At that point, they DO have something in common.

Having citizenship is just a legal status, it is not necessarily the same thing as being a member of that nation (despite the fact they are legally of that nationality). To really be a constituent member of the nation, you must identify first and foremost as a member of that nation, and not as something else. Citizenship is entirely irrelevant; a person can consider themselves primarily of a particular nationality without even having citizenship (children born in refugee camps, for example).

there are plenty of people in Britain who are the children of immigrants who have been brought up with almost no interaction with mainstream British culture, who are culturally Middle Eastern or South Asian or whatever, and who may not even speak English, at least not as a first language. Such people are British

Only legally. They don't consider themselves "British" or "Englishmen" and nobody else does either, except in a purely legal sense. If a group of them are in some foreign country, nobody will describe them as "those British guys" even if they know their citizenship, will they? If they adopt some of the civic values of the British, then they might be considered that way by some (those who favour civic nationalism over ethnic nationalism).

The perceived legitimacy of extending citizenship to foreigners comes from the notion that civic and cultural values will eventually be adopted by second or third generation immigrants. When you see opposition to immigrant communities in Britain, this is the basis for the argument: they are not adopting the civic values associated with the British, and therefore, they should be removed or stopped from coming in or whatever. This is a nationalist concept; they perceive that these people are not part of the 'imagined community' and don't feel that they should remain in the country.

That is why the notion of nationality without any reference to the state is just meaningless

Well, you're confusing legal status and cultural status. Nation is a cultural reference, not a legal one (keeping in mind that "nation" to mean "state" is a colloqualism, shorthand for "nation-state"). A state is a legal fiction, a nation is a cultural fiction. There need not be a state in existance for people to believe they are members of a particular nation; that's what self-determination is all about. Kurds, for instance, consider that there exists a Kurdish nationality and that there should exist a national state for that nationality. You've got the horse before the cart; the state doesn't bring the nation into existance (at least, not in the minds of nationalists) but the other way around.

On the other hand, yes, nationalism is tied into the concept of the state. But not in a synonymous way. It's related to it through the idea of self-determination, the notion that every nationality deserves its own state (whether it currently has one or not). Nationalism is inextricably linked in this way to the concept of the state.

 

[Plotinus]

Sure, but then they usually don't consider themselves "American" or what have you. They consider themselves Iranian or Chinese or whatever nation they came from. Not until they've identified somewhat with what it means to be "American" (or British or whatever) do they consider themselves primarily American. At that point, they DO have something in common.

What difference does it make what they "consider" themselves as? We all know the stereotype of Americans who claim to be pretty much anything (Irish, Italian, Scandinavian, Asian, African...) - anything other than American - on the basis that their great-great grandparents were. Obviously they're not any of those things, they're American with ancestors of whatever nationality, no matter how they think of themselves.

Having citizenship is just a legal status, it is not necessarily the same thing as being a member of that nation (despite the fact they are legally of that nationality). To really be a constituent member of the nation, you must identify first and foremost as a member of that nation, and not as something else. Citizenship is entirely irrelevant; a person can consider themselves primarily of a particular nationality without even having citizenship (children born in refugee camps, for example).

Why? Where do you get this principle that nationality comes from self-identity?

Only legally. They don't consider themselves "British" or "Englishmen" and nobody else does either, except in a purely legal sense. If a group of them are in some foreign country, nobody will describe them as "those British guys" even if they know their citizenship, will they? If they adopt some of the civic values of the British, then they might be considered that way by some (those who favour civic nationalism over ethnic nationalism).

I don't understand the concept of "only legally" in this context. You might as well say that something is "only legally" a crime. It's the law that determines whether something is a crime or not; and it's the law that determines someone's nationality. If someone's passport says they're British, then I would certainly consider them British no matter what they sound like.

The problem with the view you're defending is that it plays right into the hands of people like the BNP. They too believe that nationality and culture are identical, and conclude that people who don't match their understanding of "British culture" are not really "British" and have no business being in Britain at all. Which is why they want to deport everyone who follows a "non-British" religion or has skin of a "non-British" colour.

This is an extreme example but it illustrates the fatal flaw of this "nationality equals culture" view, because how do you define culture? How do you decide whether two people are sufficiently culturally similar to count as having the same nationality? Do they have to speak the same language? With the same accent? Do they have to like the same music? Do they have to have the same political views? Presumably not. But then what is to stop (say) a British person and an Irish person - or a Canadian and an American - from counting as having the same nationality, if they are culturally very similar? Yet they don't have the same nationality, do they? The intellectual psychiatrist from Seattle may have far more in common with the intellectual psychiatrist from Vancouver than he does with the redneck cowboy from Texas, but he shares a nationality with the latter and not with the former. That indicates that nationality is not determined by culture.

The same goes for self-identity. What if you have two people from Glasgow, one of whom regards himself as proudly British, and the other is a staunch Scottish nationalist who wants to break away from Britain? Would you say that they are of different nationalities - one counts as British and the other doesn't? Yet they could be brothers with exactly the same upbringing!

The perceived legitimacy of extending citizenship to foreigners comes from the notion that civic and cultural values will eventually be adopted by second or third generation immigrants. When you see opposition to immigrant communities in Britain, this is the basis for the argument: they are not adopting the civic values associated with the British, and therefore, they should be removed or stopped from coming in or whatever. This is a nationalist concept; they perceive that these people are not part of the 'imagined community' and don't feel that they should remain in the country.

Exactly - this is the kind of intolerance that the view you're defending can lead to. If you think that being of a certain nationality entails holding certain views or behaving in a certain way, then inevitably you're not going to want people who hold different views, or who behave in a different way, in your country. But I don't see any reason to allow that kind of person to dictate the meaning of words such as "nationality".

Well, you're confusing legal status and cultural status. Nation is a cultural reference, not a legal one (keeping in mind that "nation" to mean "state" is a colloqualism, shorthand for "nation-state"). A state is a legal fiction, a nation is a cultural fiction. There need not be a state in existance for people to believe they are members of a particular nation; that's what self-determination is all about. Kurds, for instance, consider that there exists a Kurdish nationality and that there should exist a national state for that nationality. You've got the horse before the cart; the state doesn't bring the nation into existance (at least, not in the minds of nationalists) but the other way around.

Well, I would simply say that the Kurds are not a nation, they are an ethnic group many of whom want to be be a nation. And yes, in the minds of nationalists, the nation precedes the state, not vice versa; but as I say, I don't see why nationalists should dictate how we use these words, any more than sexists should dictate how we use gender-related language or homophobes should dictate how we use sexuality-related language.

On the other hand, yes, nationalism is tied into the concept of the state. But not in a synonymous way. It's related to it through the idea of self-determination, the notion that every nationality deserves its own state (whether it currently has one or not). Nationalism is inextricably linked in this way to the concept of the state.

The problem with that is that you haven't really given a clear definition of nationality. If you say that every nationality deserves its own state then you are making a moral claim about every nationality, and that commits you to the view that these nationalities are real entities, not simply convenient fictions that people choose to believe in for whatever reason. But the very vagueness of national identity on your definition of it makes that highly implausible. Should Scotland break away from the UK because many Scots are nationalists? What about those Scots who are not nationalists? What about Northern Ireland, where only a minority want to break away? If Kurds deserve a state because they are a nation, what about Texans? Don't they count as a nation, and if not, why not? Or Cockneys? Or Millwall supporters? Once you start hypostasising culture groups and assigning them first the status of nation and then rights of statehood, where do you stop?

 

[frekk]

double post