You are a nationalist.

[Traitorfish]

I think Unionism, at least, is a bit more complicated than that. If you ask a Unionist if they're British, they'll say yes, but they won't agree that that stops them from being Irish. The Nationalist argument certainly is, well, nationality, but the Unionist one is built on something slightly different. The same is true in Scotland - even the most ardent No voter would never have argued that the Scottish nation didn't exist.

National identity can be layered, though, particularly in cases like this, where the lower-level identity is imagined as necessarily entailing the higher-level identity. Unionists don't imagine themselves to have a dual-nationality, they're very clear that because they are Scottish or Ulster (and I wouldn't understate the distinction between Irish and Ulster, at least no so far as the Ulstermen are concerned), they are therefore and necessarily British. All it requires is a belief that political and civic institutions should be structured so as to reflect this, and British Ireland has always had that; the only thing it ever lacked was a parliament, and then only sometimes. This may be unusual, but that that doesn't suggest that it's a contradiction of nationalism, only that most nationlisms are not secure enough to permit potentially-competing identities, at least not ones that are specifically framed in national terms. Britain isn't unusual in being a multi-national state, only in making it explicit.

What does it mean in practice?

It means that nations are self-creating. They're something that people decide to act as if they are a part of, and in doing so realise it.

I don't agree that it's so simple as a collective assertion, that in the first place, the "act like it" part entails more complexity than a simple statement like that really acknowledges, and secondly that it's rarely a single, coherent assertion of identity, but several or dozens or hundreds of overlapping assertions, so what is realised is not going to be a coherent or stable entity. But, if nations exists, and that's the popular wisdom, they exist as acts of collective imagination. Besides the supremely unpopular alternative that nations don't exist, that they're just mass hysteria with flags, what's the alternative?

 

[sophie]

Mah boy Traitorfish killin it in this thread

 

[Angst]

When isn't he?

 

[Mouthwash]

So at least 48% of people aren't nationalists?

It seems to me like you're making the same error you starting off highlighting, the conflation of nationalism-in-general with a specifically exclusionary and aggressive form of nationalism.

I made clear in the OP that there were different degrees to which nationalism could be taken.

I think that if nationalism universally means loyalty to state or civic coherence (constituting elements in all forms of states) it's kind of useless as a political ideology, and as such useless as an ideological argument.

National groups often have something in common justify their solidarity. You're right that it's harder for faux-liberals to label nationalists a bunch of cross-eyed racists, but it's not really my problem.

 

[Angst]

Uh, I'm not sure what you're calling faux-liberals, or why their labeling of racism is relevant at all. You didn't actually answer my post at all.

The point is that as you are equating nationalism to cohesion it actually isn't a counter-point to anything. There's no reason to politically identify as a nationalist if nationalism is the foundation of being political at all (by virtue of making a state possible). Now, it's a very problematic stance to have - apparently you cannot get your head out of the late modern zeitgeist and appreciate that perhaps people at different times thought about things in a different way than you - but that's not really relevant to your point is it? You render nationalism to be such a bland concept that it's impossible to support or be adverse to in any meaningful way. You proudly march up and claim everyone is a nationalist, even "faux-liberals", whatever they are, but that just makes your point meaningless, as "faux-liberals" or any other "faux" political ideology have a different approach to how to achieve stability and prosperity than you. So you just remove nationalism from the equation and dig into the fact that there are vastly different ways to achieve prosperity.

That said, everything=nationalist is still a very wrong claim. There's just a heap of irrelevance of the claim even in its own warped logic.

EDIT: Oh, but of course, nationalism as cohesion is a counter-point to anarchism or internationalism, but I'm not discussing any of those ideologies; I'm discussing individual states as entities in respect to the above argument.

 

[Mouthwash]

Uh, I'm not sure what you're calling faux-liberals

IYIs who think that the world needs to dissolve into a post-identity soup.

You didn't actually answer my post at all.

'Me not answering your post' and 'you not wanting to listen to the answer' both fit the same set of observations here. Maybe take some time and think about it.

The point is that as you are equating nationalism to cohesion it actually isn't a counter-point to anything. There's no reason to politically identify as a nationalist if nationalism is the foundation of being political at all (by virtue of making a state possible).

Nationalism describes a set of relations among a community, whereas ideologies like anarchism and monarchism are, at best, agnostic to such.

Now, it's a very problematic stance to have - apparently you cannot get your head out of the late modern zeitgeist and appreciate that perhaps people at different times thought about things in a different way than you -

The irony is just killing me.

but that's not really relevant to your point is it? You render nationalism to be such a bland concept that it's impossible to support or be adverse to in any meaningful way. You proudly march up and claim everyone is a nationalist, even "faux-liberals", whatever they are

Not really. There are clearly different types of nationalism, and the level they're taken to can vary massively. I'm not saying that hardcore UKIP voters and EU elitists are the same thing, I just don't like it when the latter claim to be 'non-nationalists' as a way to dismiss the popular backlash against them as the mere animal reaction of the bigot.

 

[Angst]

Last post because I have better things to do.

Nationalism describes a set of relations among a community, whereas ideologies like anarchism and monarchism are, at best, agnostic to such.

Look, you're right here. But what you don't get is that you're only right because you state it describes a set of relations, not all of them.

The irony is just killing me.

What the hell are you talking about? I'm specifically acknowledging that different people identify as different things in different times. It's you who's misappropriating high school level late modern history upon Ptolemaic Egypt.
Your claim: All identities as commonality and cohesion anywhere ever were nationalistic in nature.
My claim: Different people from different areas of different time periods sometimes think different things.
How is this ironic in any way? It's you who universalizes 200 years of history to mean everything ever.
Any common scrutiny of your notions would defeat them in a heartbeat. This is not because of a cruel, overreaching "faux-liberal" and/or academic paradigm that you remain a bastion against, you know. But I have a feeling that's what you feel, and as such, you can consider my retreat from this thread the "success" of your hard work. Good job, you were too self-absorbed for me to get through to you.

 

[Mouthwash]

Last post because I have better things to do.

Can't say I blame you. I'd also be hard-pressed to argue a subject I knew nothing about with someone who does.

Look, you're right here. But what you don't get is that you're only right because you state it describes a set of relations, not all of them.

I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make here and strongly suspect there isn't one.

It's you who's misappropriating high school level late modern history upon Ptolemaic Egypt.
Your claim: All identities as commonality and cohesion anywhere ever were nationalistic in nature.

Dude, are you running my posts through Google Translate before reading them?

 

[Agent327]

Nationalism describes a set of relations among a community, whereas ideologies like anarchism and monarchism are, at best, agnostic to such.

Nationalism doesn't 'describe' anything. Least of all 'a set of relations among a community'. And describing anarchism and monarchism as being 'agnostic' of community relations is only marginally less ignorant of a statement. Especially from someone who claims to know about a subject, but clearly hasn't even done a web search on the terms he is using.

 

[Traitorfish]

I made clear in the OP that there were different degrees to which nationalism could be taken.

But you're also saying that the EU is an anti-national project, and that support for it doesn't simply represent moderate or even lukewarm nationalism, but anti-nationalism. It undermines your initial claim that most people are nationalists, as does your identification here,

National groups often have something in common justify their solidarity. You're right that it's harder for faux-liberals to label nationalists a bunch of cross-eyed racists, but it's not really my problem.

Of "nationalists" with right-wing populists. What's the point in starting a thread declaring that the reader is very likely a nationalist, then introducing qualifications which mean at least three quarters of your readers are not?

 

[Flying Pig]

National identity can be layered, though, particularly in cases like this, where the lower-level identity is imagined as necessarily entailing the higher-level identity. Unionists don't imagine themselves to have a dual-nationality, they're very clear that because they are Scottish or Ulster (and I wouldn't understate the distinction between Irish and Ulster, at least no so far as the Ulstermen are concerned), they are therefore and necessarily British. All it requires is a belief that political and civic institutions should be structured so as to reflect this, and British Ireland has always had that; the only thing it ever lacked was a parliament, and then only sometimes. This may be unusual, but that that doesn't suggest that it's a contradiction of nationalism, only that most nationlisms are not secure enough to permit potentially-competing identities, at least not ones that are specifically framed in national terms. Britain isn't unusual in being a multi-national state, only in making it explicit.

It means that nations are self-creating. They're something that people decide to act as if they are a part of, and in doing so realise it.

I don't agree that it's so simple as a collective assertion, that in the first place, the "act like it" part entails more complexity than a simple statement like that really acknowledges, and secondly that it's rarely a single, coherent assertion of identity, but several or dozens or hundreds of overlapping assertions, so what is realised is not going to be a coherent or stable entity. But, if nations exists, and that's the popular wisdom, they exist as acts of collective imagination. Besides the supremely unpopular alternative that nations don't exist, that they're just mass hysteria with flags, what's the alternative?

This deserves a proper response: I apologise for leaving it somewhat late, and if this is not it.

I think you're right in the specific case, though would be careful about turning that into a general argument. I can certainly accept that Ulster nationalists (again, an important point of terminology) believe that the Ulster nation exists, and that the Ulster nation is naturally part of the British state: that seems an acceptably nationalist argument, though I'm sure that a certain strand of die-hard original-flavour nationalism would say that you cannot simultaneously recognise a nation and not demand its independence, and would thus call Ulster 'national' identity something else. On the other hand, I can think of examples where that doesn't apply: you can easily imagine a citizen of, say, Sicily being convinced that the Sicilians are a distinct people and not imagining that being Sicilian means being Italian. That person might be perfectly happy with rule from Rome: in other words, believe that the 'Italian' state should be imagined as more than a line drawn around the places where Italians live. Once you're there, I think you've probably stopped being a nationalist. There are plenty of other states where the same sort of argument holds up: you're right that in Britain there's a more-or-less believable layering to do (though remember that people who self-define as 'British' tend to live in England, even adjusting for total population), but that certainly isn't possible in every multinational state, and in other cases (Greek Cyprus springs to mind) you have to actively suppress the layering in order to make the political and national maps line up.

 

[uppi]

I don't agree that it's so simple as a collective assertion, that in the first place, the "act like it" part entails more complexity than a simple statement like that really acknowledges, and secondly that it's rarely a single, coherent assertion of identity, but several or dozens or hundreds of overlapping assertions, so what is realised is not going to be a coherent or stable entity. But, if nations exists, and that's the popular wisdom, they exist as acts of collective imagination. Besides the supremely unpopular alternative that nations don't exist, that they're just mass hysteria with flags, what's the alternative?

I do not think there is any question about the existence or the advantage of an identity linked to membership of a state. But in my opinion, Nationalism is more than that, because it postulates that this identity should be linked to membership to a cultural group. It assumes that the identity is there first and the state should be built around it. A Nationalist would reject the idea that you could take people from different nations and form a transcultural civic identity without one culture dominating all others.

I think the difference between a Nationalist and a non-Nationalist is whether or not you believe that a foreigner that integrates, but not assimilates into a state can become a first-class member of that state.

 

[Agent327]

All you need to become a citizen (not 'member') of a state is a passport. Anything beyond that is ideology - usually some kind of misguided nationalism - or patriotism, as they say in the US. Like the fact that some people have two passports. Oh, the abomination! How dare anyone have more than one passport...

 

[uppi]

All you need to become a citizen (not 'member') of a state is a passport. Anything beyond that is ideology - usually some kind of misguided nationalism - or patriotism, as they say in the US. Like the fact that some people have two passports. Oh, the abomination! How dare anyone have more than one passport...

We are specifically discussing ideology here. That is why I used the word 'member' (in lack of a better word) and not the legal term citizen.

 

[Mouthwash]

But you're also saying that the EU is an anti-national project, and that support for it doesn't simply represent moderate or even lukewarm nationalism, but anti-nationalism.

No, support for it is a weaker form of nationalism (but the other side is simply more nationalistic, hence it appears that the former are 'against' it).

 

[uppi]

No it is not, because even the most ardent supporter of European unification does not believe that Europe or the EU is a nation. This belief would be a requirement for nationalism.

 

[Mouthwash]

No it is not, because even the most ardent supporter of European unification does not believe that Europe or the EU is a nation. This belief would be a requirement for nationalism.

No, I meant that they still accept the existence of nationalism to some degree.

 

[Flying Pig]

Is there not quite a jump from accepting/being resigned to the existence of nationalism to being a nationalist?

 

[Traitorfish]

This deserves a proper response: I apologise for leaving it somewhat late, and if this is not it.

I think you're right in the specific case, though would be careful about turning that into a general argument. I can certainly accept that Ulster nationalists (again, an important point of terminology) believe that the Ulster nation exists, and that the Ulster nation is naturally part of the British state: that seems an acceptably nationalist argument, though I'm sure that a certain strand of die-hard original-flavour nationalism would say that you cannot simultaneously recognise a nation and not demand its independence, and would thus call Ulster 'national' identity something else. On the other hand, I can think of examples where that doesn't apply: you can easily imagine a citizen of, say, Sicily being convinced that the Sicilians are a distinct people and not imagining that being Sicilian means being Italian. That person might be perfectly happy with rule from Rome: in other words, believe that the 'Italian' state should be imagined as more than a line drawn around the places where Italians live. Once you're there, I think you've probably stopped being a nationalist. There are plenty of other states where the same sort of argument holds up: you're right that in Britain there's a more-or-less believable layering to do (though remember that people who self-define as 'British' tend to live in England, even adjusting for total population), but that certainly isn't possible in every multinational state, and in other cases (Greek Cyprus springs to mind) you have to actively suppress the layering in order to make the political and national maps line up.

What you're describing here is tendencies, though, rather than rules: how people tend to imagine national identities and nationalist projects, rather than what distinguishes a national identity from another kind of identity. National identities tend to be exclusive because they're fragile, they have shallow historical roots, and states deriving their legitimacy from a declared "national" character are not inclined to leave an already unsteady ideological basis up for debate. It's plausible that a person might imagine themselves as both "nationally" Sicilian and "nationally" Italian, just as they might imagine themselves as Welsh and British or Catalan and Spanish- or, historically, Croat and Yugoslav, or Virginian and American- but the novelty and instability of an Italian national state has placed the Italian state in opposition to expressions of non-Italian national identity, whether from lower levels of government or from civil society organisations. Britain is unusual in that achieved a fairly stable compromise, in which

The trick with a "national" identity is that it's basically insuperable from nationalism as a political project, and a claim to national identity becomes, more or less automatically, a claim to self-government, whether full independence or some form of autonomy within a larger state, and that's usually very politically charged, because states don't like sharing power.

No, support for it is a weaker form of nationalism (but the other side is simply more nationalistic, hence it appears that the former are 'against' it).

If the EU is an anti-national force, surely support for the EU translates to opposition to nationalism? Or, if supporters of the EU are simply more moderate nationalists, then the EU isn't fundamentally anti-national, just incompatible with more strident nationalisms. You can't really have both claims.

 

[Agent327]

We are specifically discussing ideology here. That is why I used the word 'member' (in lack of a better word) and not the legal term citizen.

That's precisely what I pointed out as the issue. Assigning anything else than citizenship to being part of a state is ideology. Nothing defines 'membership' of a state other than your passport. Of which one can have more than one.

Is there not quite a jump from accepting/being resigned to the existence of nationalism to being a nationalist?

Indeed. But it seems to me people are confusing populism with nationalism. Populism may have nationalistic under- or overtones, but it's not the same thing.