I stand by what I have said all along; nationalism has some inherent positive sides, but there is inevitably a downside that will arise from the division between peoples it creates. If one outweighs the other is beyond me. I can only say that I see a possible remedy within sight, one that eliminates the negative sides and still leaves the essence of the positive sides in place. Meanwhile I still find it fascinating that nationalistic emotions exist even in a limited way within me.
Off the board ETHIC indicated that such emotions in him and a newfound vague sense of nationality in the US has made him rethink his position on nationalism somewhat, which I guess is why sic my own usually more radical brother is suddenly arguing on the side of the opposition. I might add that meanwhile I have reconciled this emotional side on my side as re sports. I also root for Munchen Bayern in German football and PSG in French football, teams from places to which I have strong emotional ties, neither makes me a local patriot for Paris or Munich though. The only bitch is when they meet in the UEFA and I have to shout opposing slogans at myself (glad I’m not a hooligan). I digress…
I have previously addressed the political aspects of this duality. It seems like MrT and ETHIC do no not disagree that self-determination and sovereign principles can be maintained while embracing universalism. It also seems that we agree that nationalism, for all the good it might entail does not serve the purpose of rationality. I take MrT’s closing paragraph in his most recent post as a case in point:
Up until the last couple of decades there has indeed been an active and conscious effort from a broad base of interests to foster a sentiment of British particularism opposed to European universalism. At present time this is somewhat of a fly in the ointment for the pro-EU lobby in the UK and the rest of EU trying to apply European identity politics. In all cases it seems to be that we agree that this is largely an emotional and not a rational issue.
Our disagreement now boils down to the usefulness of nationalism on two fronts, as a positive way to foster a desire to ameliorate society and the necessity to rally people in times of crisis.
This would be the essence of the ‘for a better and better place to live in’ argument I suppose. The only problem I see with it is that it is yet another case of imagined national culture. The good things that for instance the UK claims to have created were often enough done in the name of universalism. To go elsewhere for a moment; ask a Swede and a Dane what nationality the astronomer Tycho Brahe was and they will answer quite differently. In fact his home was in Denmark at the time, but is in Sweden nowadays. By those standards one might as well say that ETHNIC and I are Danish nationals, since our ancestral home is a stones throw away from Tycho’s old place.
Great thinkers, men and women of science, artists and good few admirable politicians have often embraced universalism for a very long time indeed. Hence, universalism shouldn’t negate our capacity to appreciate and claim as ours the good things of past.
To the contrary, since they largely serve the purpose of universalism we can say that as universalists we admire and take pride to embrace the same principles that brought about some of the greatest achievements in the history of humanity.
Originally the opponent was inequality of society and oppression of ideology. Post 1648 we have added the strife towards national supremacy. Maybe we should get back to the roots on this one?
This takes for granted that there is need to generally fear conflict from outside. In fact I think it’s a catch 22 in some mild way. My three evils of nationalism will foster dissent; this will lead to conflict, which makes unity in opposition a necessity. Thereby not said that there aren’t real and imminent dangers posed by conflicts that are not based in nationalism, but other forms of ‘us and them’ mentality, the events of the last eleven months should serve as a clear example.
As a matter if fact this is a perfect example of when identity politics were used to some degree in a universalistic context. September 11th was very much perceived as an attack on the free world, especially outside the US. In Europe this was consciously used as rhetoric to rally public opinion behind the War on Terrorism, with much success I might add. In fact nationalism on the other hand posed and still posses a threat to that struggle. At a time when we should be united as one front against oppressive and deadly particularism parts of the Coalition are quibbling over nationalist issues.
Bush is playing the ‘they attacked us, so we get to do what we want’ card. Part of the European opposition is playing the ‘hey it’s a US problem and they bitch and moan about the Balkans, so why should we bother?’ card. In principle I agree with the majority of the leaders of the EU who stand fast in the middle on this one, while Bush and the European nationalists are just shooting themselves in the foot by weakening our chances to effectively beat down the biggest threat to freedom and world stability since WWII.
Such threats directly target the universal principles that we embrace as a premise to qualify as part of the free world. Any nation that actively and consciously embraces the principles of universalism, cannot pose such a threat without abandoning those principles whereupon they are no longer part of the free world. I think you see where I am going with this by now.
In fact for the sake of world stability and security the type of conflicts we have seen arise in the beginning of this century demands that we reevaluate the concept of unity so as to take into account that conflicts of the 21st century are far less likely to originate from a nation and far more likely to be a supra national conflict between particularism and universalism. Nationalism in as much as that it resists supra national unity will be counterproductive to the identity politics needed to unite us against those threats.
The Europeans might sit around and bitterly discard simpleminded libertarian Americanism over a Gauloise and an espresso while the Americans roast marshmallows, drink Mountain Dew and scoff at the liberal muttonheads in the old world. I hope we enjoy our smokes, snacks and drinks and the imagined differences they create for it to be worth serving the agenda of those that wish to destroy the very principles that unite us far beyond any food stuffs or detailed financial and social politics.
Sparc