NATIONALISM AND THE ROLE OF THE NATION STATE
BY
OLUBUKUNOLA AROBIEKE
MA MEDIA PRODUCTION
M36CMC – INFORMATION SOCIETIES
Task
Making use of specific examples and appropriate theoretical and conceptual resources, respond by using textual, image-based and other means, to one of the following claims/assertion:-
• the role of the nation state will change dramatically and there will be no more room for nationalism than there is for smallpox.
(Negroponte 1996 Being Digital, London: Hodder & Stoughton: 236)
Table of Contents
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.0 – What is a Nation
1.1 – What is a State
1.2 – The Nation State
CHAPTER TWO: THE NATION STATE AND NATIONALISM
2.0 – The Role of the Nation State
2.1 – Nationalism
CHAPTER THREE: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
3.0 – The Future of Nation States
3.1 – National Development through the Nation State
References
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.0 – What is a Nation
The roots of a nation are to be found in kinship. A nation grows by a process of differentiation and opposition. A nation is not simply a cultural togetherness or an ethnic group, neither is it an economic togetherness but also a political togetherness. It is a political togetherness concerned both with the structure and the exercise of power. A nation co-exists together with other nations. And because other nations exist, they complement one another.
A nation is a togetherness which gives expression to the shared aspirations of the people for equality and freedom, to establish, nurture and maintain the institutions necessary for that purpose (Mill1872 cited in Tamilnation 2007).
1.1 – What is a State
A state is a legal and political organisation, with the power to require obedience and loyalty from its citizens. A state is a community of people, whose members are bound together by a sense of solidarity, a common culture and national consciousness.
“…states can exist without a nation, or with several nations, among their subjects, and a nation can be coterminous with the population of one state, or be included together with other nations within one state, or be divided between several states. There were states long before nations, and there are some nations that are much older than most states which exist today. The belief that every state is a nation, or that all sovereign states are national states, has done much to obfuscate human understanding of political realities (Methuen 1977 cited in Tamilnation 2007)”.
1.2 – The Nation State
A nation state is commonly viewed as a ‘country,’ a ‘nation’ or a ‘state.’ But technically, it is a specific form of sovereign state, a political entity on a territory that governs a nation and derives its legitimacy from successfully serving all its citizens. In the nation state, generally, everyone would speak the same language, probably practice the same or similar types of religion, and share a set of cultural, ‘national’ values. Although citizens share the same border and territory, in the sense of the nation state, one does not share a common nationality (Ellis-Christensen 2008 cited in Wisegeek 2008).
Information in some form has existed and has been highly valued in every age. Where people think about issues is more likely to be in terms of democratic or totalitarian societies, or societies characterised by affluence, poverty or unemployment, rather than by information (Martin 1978).
Special attention must be given to the role of the nation state in the making of the modern world and in the expansion of surveillance (Giddens 1985). An equation of ‘society’ and ‘nation states’ may be satisfactory for everyday conversations and even for a good deal of sociology. However, it must be acknowledged that the nation state is a particular kind of society, one created very recently in world history. The nation state is not a ‘society’, but a particular kind of society that has distinctive characteristics (Anderson 1991).
CHAPTER TWO
THE NATION STATE AND NATIONALISM
2.0 – The Role of the Nation State
The state as an entity has form and structure. There is a universal, bureaucratic structure to the administrative arm of the state. Achieving a sense of common nationality and a sense of community with the rest of the people living in the state means involving the maximum number of citizens in the governance process.
For example, the United States and Canada with similar heritage have organised their representative governance process quite differently. The Constitution of the United States and the experience of the Civil War have restricted state governments to affairs within their borders. Under the Canadian Constitution provinces, their participation in national governance is restricted.
The state also has an intangible factor. As Ortega Gasset said, it begins as a work of imagination offering people something they have not previously had. Prior to having a form, a state has a goal, a direction. With popular acceptance of a direction, a state becomes the will to do something in common. When this goal or direction loses its appeal or can no longer be achieved, the state loses its unity and momentum.
John Breuilly traced the expansion of authority to the hands of the state in Europe, and stated that the process of concentrating authority in the state produced the political concept of the nation. He proceeded to use the two terms interchangeably. He further distinguished nationalism as arising out of a minority movement tied to characteristics such as ethnicity, religion or language, as well as nationalism being used by the state to promote a sense of national identity. Ultimately, he said nationalism is a form of politics.
Realism is an approach to the study and practice of international politics. It emphasises the role of the nation state and makes a broad assumption that all nation states are motivated by national interest disguised as moral concerns (Lauletta 1996 cited in Towson 1996).
The national interest must be defined in terms of power. National power has an absolute meaning since it can be defined in terms of military, economic, political, diplomatic, or cultural resources.
At its most fundamental level, the national interest is generic and easy to define. All states seek to preserve their political autonomy and their territorial integrity. Once these two interests have been secured, however, national interests may take different forms. Some states may have an interest in securing more resources or land, other states may wish to expand their own political or economic systems into other areas and some states may merely wish to be left alone (Lauletta 1996 cited in Towson 1996).
2.1 – Nationalism
Nationalism is a sense of identity with the nation. It is similar to tribalism, and like the family, is held together by a sense of kinship.
Nationalism is an image of a social order involving the people as a sovereign elite and a community of equals. The original use of the term nationalism refers to elite groups, but in modern times, it refers usually to a very large group, sometimes as large as an empire.
Nationalism may be collectivistic or individualistic depending upon whether or not the community or the individual is considered to be more important. A collectivistic nationalism tends to be authoritarian. An individualistic nationalism tends to be liberal.
Also, nationalism may be either ethnic or civic. Ethnic nationalism must also be collectivistic because it is based upon blood or race or ethnic group. Civic nationalism is usually individualistic, but it can also be collectivistic (Greenfield n.d cited in Talmination 2007).
England and the United States are examples of civic, individualistic nationalisms. France is an example of a civic, collectivistic nationalism. Germany and Russia are examples of ethnic, collectivistic nationalisms.
CHAPTER THREE
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
3.0 – The Future of Nation States
A nation is more than the state. It consists of the apparatus of the state, the people and their culture in all of its diversity, and their state of mind. John Breully does not include culture in his definition of nationalism because he feels it unnecessarily complicates the issue. His state of mind is stocked only with political issues. While politics can be stretched, people’s thoughts and actions about the nation do involve more than political issues.
A nation, then, is as much a set of ideas, beliefs and expectations as it is a geographic entity and a structure of governance. These ideas and beliefs, rooted in the past, and giving direction to present activity, also gives rise to expectation for the future. From Ortega Gasset’s point of view, to have common glories in the past, a common will in the present, to have done great things together, and to wish to do greater are the essential conditions which make up a people.
Since state and nation are not the same, logically the state does exist separately from the people but not from the nation. Modern political philosophy takes for granted that authority flows from the people. The fact of the state as a bureaucratic entity whose civil servants are appointed and judged on technical qualifications is a challenge to the idea that the people and their government are indistinguishable. The immediate response to this concept of bureaucratic monopoly of authority is that the elected representatives of the people exercise the delegated authority of the people in controlling the civil servants. For this situation to become a reality, the ‘General Will’ of the people must be evident.
However, continuous study shows that it reveals a myriad of interests based on individual affiliation with intermediate groups. While these groups are subordinate to the modern state, they work through combination and lobbying to influence the direction of state policies.
In addition, the elected representatives of the people come to office with agendas of their own for which they seek allies among interest groups and the state bureaucracy. Therefore, the state stands out as the organised entity asserting that it embodies the nation and serves as an advocate for the people (Kidd 2000 cited in Boswell 2000).
A state is absolute when it claims the right to a monopoly of all the force within the community, to make war, to make peace, to conscript life, to tax, to establish and disestablish property, to define crime, to punish disobedience, to control education, to supervise the family, to regulate personal habits, and to censor opinions (Lippmann 1929 cited in Boswell 2000).
These statements revel that the state is much different from being the repository of the ‘General Will’, much more than an advocate for the people, and much less than the nation.
3.1 – National Development through the Nation State
The elements of national development appear to be common to relevant processes, but adapt themselves to different circumstances. As Sorokin noted in this regard, by process means any kind of movement, or modification, or transformation, or alteration, or ‘evolution’. In other words, any change of a given logical subject in the course of time, whether it is a change in its place, in space or a modification of its quantitative or qualitative aspects. This definition applies to the terms ‘state’ and ‘nation’ as they have taken on different meanings through history.
All of the activities of modern nation states in promoting national development fall under the four categories, namely:
• producing an economic surplus,
• promoting social and cultural integration,
• governance, and
• education.
References
Anderson, B. (1991) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread
of Nationalism. Verso: 2nd edition
Boswell, J. (2000) The Role of National Development in Determining the Policy and
Structure of Education [online] available from [7 March 2008]
Giddens, A. (1985) The Nation State and Violence: Volume Two of a
Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism. Cambridge: Polity
Tamilnation (2007) What is a Nation [online] available from [7 March 2008]
Towson (1996) Political Realism [online] available from [7 March 2008]
Wisegeek (2008) What is a Nation-State [online] available from [7 March 2008]
