REVISION TASKS
NATONALISM REVISION – EXAM QUESTIONS
SMALL MARK QUESTIONS
- Why have nationalists viewed the nation-state
as a political ideal?
The nation-state is a sovereign political association within
which citizenship and nationality overlap. The boundaries of the nation
therefore coincide with the borders of the state. Liberal nationalists in
particular have viewed the nation-state as a political ideal. This has happened
for a number of reasons. The first is that the nation-state embodies the goal
of political freedom, giving expression to the principle of national self-determination.
Democracy and self-government can therefore only operate within a nation-state.
Second, nation-states are uniquely stable and cohesive, all other political
forms being defective and impermanent. This is because nation-states are united
by a combination of political allegiances (via citizenship) and a high level of
cultural cohesion (via nationality). All members of such a state therefore
'belong' to it in a civic and a cultural sense. Third, nation-states are
believed to be inherently peaceful, whereas multinational empires are restless
and expansionist, nation-states tend to respect the sovereign independence of
neighbouring states. This applies, if for no other reason, because the members
of the nation-state do not want to sacrifice their civic and cultural cohesion
through expansionism and conquest.
- Distinguish between nations & races,
& explain why the 2 terms have been confused.
Nations are cultural entities, groups of people who share a common
language, religion, traditions and culture generally. However, as no nation is
culturally homogeneous, nations are ultimately defined subjectively through the
existence of a national consciousness, reflected in patriotism or civic
loyalty. Races by contrast, are defined genetically; they are groups of people
who share a biological descent and so are characterised by physical
similarities such as skin or hair colour. (Some deny that race is a meaningful
or coherent social category.) Nations & races are confused when usually
right-wing nationalists define the nation on organic rather than civic grounds,
seeing nations as historically rooted and therefore as exclusive entities. This
confusion may be implicit in conservative nationalism but is explicit in racial
nationalism of National socialism
- Distinguish between the nation and the state,
and explain why the two are often confused.
Nations are cultural entities, groups of people who share the same
language, religion, traditions and so on. States are political associations
that establish sovereign jurisdiction within defined territorial borders. The
terms are confused for two reasons. First, national consciousness (a subjective
awareness of national identity) is usually reflected in the desire to achieve
or maintain statehood – the nation, in effect, seeks to become a state. This is
especially the case with classical political nationalism. Second, as a
consequence of the success of nationalism, most modern states are
nation-states. This means that the boundaries of the nation usually coincide
with the borders of the state. This explains common confusions, such as that
the United Nations is really an organisation of states and not nations. You
need sophisticated analysis of both the nature of the nation and the state and
a clear explanation of the sources of confusion between the terms. Nations are, in their most basic sense, cultural entities,
groups of people who share the same language, religion, traditions and so on.
The state, on the other hand, is a political entity; it is a political
association that establishes sovereign jurisdiction within defined territorial
borders. Nations and states are often confused for two reasons, both linked to
nationalism itself. First, thanks to the success of nationalism, nations and
states tend to overlap in the modern world in the form of the nation-state.
Organisations like the United Nations reflect this confusion, being an
organisation of states rather than nations. Secondly, national identity has
traditionally been expressed in the desire to establish or maintain sovereign
statehood. In this sense, nations are nations because they seek to become
states, thereby blurring the distinction between nations and states. Nations
may thus be thought of as politico-cultural entities.
In answering this question, consider the following issues: • Understanding of the nation (AO1)
• Understanding of the state (AO1) • Analysis and explanation of confusion
between the nation and thestate (AO2)
- Distinguish
between nationalism and racialism.
Nationalism, broadly, is the belief that the nation
is the central principle of political organisation. The nation is a collection
of people bound together by shared values and traditions, common language,
religion and history, and usually occupying the same geographical area.
Nationalism is therefore based upon two core assumptions. First, humankind is
naturally divided into discrete nations and, second, the nation is the most
appropriate, and perhaps the only legitimate, unit of political rule. Classical
political nationalism set out to bring the borders of the state into line with
the boundaries of the nation, creating nation-states within which nationality
and citizenship would coincide. Nationalism, in this sense, is associated with
a principled belief in national self-determination. However, nationalism is a
complex and highly diverse ideological phenomenon, encompassing a range of
political manifestations as well as cultural and ethnic forms.
Racism, broadly, is the belief that political or
social conclusions can be drawn from the idea that humankind is divided into
biologically distinct ‘races’ whereas nations are cultural entities, races are
genetic or biological entities. Strictly speaking, racial origin is irrelevant
to national identity, at least for inclusive forms of nationalism. Racialist
theories are based on two assumptions. First, there are fundamental genetic or
species-type, differences amongst the peoples of the world and, second, these
divisions are reflected in cultural, intellectual and moral differences.
Politically, it either implies racial segregation (for instance, apartheid) or
doctrines of racial superiority or inferiority. The idea of a racial hierarchy
leads to the systematic subordination of peoples on the basis of their ethnic
origin, sometimes also providing the justification for conquest and
expansionism.
·
In
what ways is nationalism compatible with liberalism? (& as a separate
question – ways it is not compatible)
Nationalism is
compatible with liberalism in a number of ways, as demonstrated by the
existence of liberal nationalism.
ü
Liberal
nationalism is based upon the transference to the nation of moral and political
concerns that liberalism has traditionally associated with the individual.
Nations are therefore regarded as moral entities entitled to certain rights,
just like individuals.
ü
The
liberal concern with individual liberty is therefore embodied in the quest for
national self-determination, with all nations being entitled to equal status
and basic rights, reflecting the liberal commitment to formal equality.
Self-determination, moreover, is taken to imply constitutional rule and
political democracy on liberal lines.
ü
The
liberal belief in balance and harmony is also reflected in the Wilsonian
liberal nationalist idea that a world of sovereign nation-states will be
peaceful and stable.
- Distinguish between political nationalism
and cultural nationalism.
Political nationalism is a form of nationalism
that is explicitly orientated around the pursuit of sovereign statehood. It is
based on the principle of national self-determination. This was the classical
form of nationalism, it tends to be culturally and ethnically inclusive, and
its goal is the creation of the nation-state. Political nationalism is also often
portrayed as rational and progressive. Cultural nationalism, by contrast, is a
form of nationalism that places primary emphasis on the regeneration of the
nation as a distinctive civilisation rather than on self-government. Its
concern is therefore to defend, for example, a language, religion, set of
traditions or a national ‘way of life’. Cultural nationalism often has a
mystical or emotional basis as opposed to the rational and principled character
of political nationalism, at least in its classical, liberal form, and it tends
to be exclusive, even, at times, overlapping with racialism.
ESSAY QUESTIONS – BASIC CONENT (you
need to develop these points
- Is nationalism a progressive or a
reactionary political doctrine?
Nationalism has both a progressive and a reactionary face. A
progressive doctrine is one that is committed to change, based on the belief
that history is marked by progress or improvement. Nationalism is progressive
to the extent that it is orientated around projects of political change, aimed
at liberating nations form subordination or oppression. Such forms of
nationalism thus look forward to the construction of a nation-state, and thus
take root within nations that have yet to gain self-government. The most
prominent forms of progressive nationalism are liberal nationalism and
anti-colonial nationalism. Reactionary doctrines are ones that look back to,
and attempt to recreate, a lost past (strictly speaking reaction differs from
tradition, in that the former attempts to ‘turn the clock back’). Nationalism
is reactionary in that it is often based on historical images and symbols, a
nation’s identity being defined by its common past. The most prominent forms of
reactionary nationalism are conservative nationalism and expansionist
nationalism. Conservatives are drawn to nationalism as a means of ensuring
social stability and order often based on the notion of an idealised past. Expansionist
nationalism has sometimes been explicitly reactionary; for instance, in the
tendency of fascist nationalism to be orientated around the reestablishment of
past national greatness. Arguably, though, fascist nationalism blends
reactionary themes with progressive ones (linked, for example, to world
domination). In answering this question, consider the following issues:
• Understanding of the progressive and
reactionary political doctrines (AO1) • Analysis of the progressive features of nationalism (AO2) • Analysis of the reactionary features of
nationalism (AO2)
• Evaluation of the significance of
contrasting positions within nationalism (AO2)
- Does nationalism inevitably breed
rivalry and conflict?
Nationalism has a variety of contrasting manifestations, some of
which breed rivalry and conflict because
of their tendency towards expansionism and destruction. Others, however, are
dedicated, at least in theory, to peaceful co-existence and international
understanding. The expansionist and destructive character of nationalism is
evident in national chauvinism, a form of nationalism that emphasises the
superiority or greatness of one nation over others. Chauvinism both stimulates
and helps to legitimise expansion, conquest and empire, linking it to destruction.
However, liberal nationalism and anti-colonial nationalism openly reject
expansionism and destruction in this sense. Liberal nationalism, for example,
holds that all nations are equally entitled to self-determination and implies
that a world of sovereign nation-states would be ordered and peaceful as no
nation would have an incentive to conquer and subordinate any other nation. In
that sense, nationalism is not inherently expansionist or destructive. Some may
argue, nevertheless, that since nationalism draws attention to divisions within
humankind, it embodies a potential for expansionism and destruction whatever
its theoretical character. There are two main perspectives on this question.
Critics of nationalism often argue that its chief defect is that, in
highlighting the differences between and amongst the peoples of the world, it
inevitably breeds rivalry and conflict. In this view, the aggressive
manifestations of nationalism found in its expansionist forms are merely the
explicit face of features that are implicit in all forms of nationalism. On the
other hand, liberal nationalist in particular argue that there are major
differences between progressive and regressive forms of nationalism.
In this view, progressive nationalism id often associated with
international cooperation and harmony, a world of independent nation-states
being a recipe for peace not conflict. You need a comprehensive knowledge and
understanding of breadth of nationalist traditions and of contrasting
implications for rivalry and conflict. Sophisticated analysis of political
information, arguments and explanations. Confident application of
well-developed concepts and theories. Full and reliable evaluation of arguments
in the light of the evidence available. Clear identification of parallel and
connections or similarities and differences.
‘Nationalism looks to the past, not to the future.’
Discuss.
Nationalism has a complex political character. It
has both progressive and reactionary characteristics, but these are emphasised
to different degrees by different forms of nationalism.
It can be
said that all forms of nationalism look to the past, rather than the future.
This is because nations themselves are grounded in history, based on
traditions, customs and established identities. In that sense, nationalism
seeks to establish continuity with the past. However, such traditionalist and
reactionary tendencies are most evident in conservative nationalism and in
chauvinist or expansionist nationalism. Conservative nationalism is essentially
nostalgic and backward-looking, providing a defence for traditional
institutions and a traditional way of life. It often reflects on a past age of
national glory or triumph. Similarly, it is often used to resist change,
particularly to defend a sense of national identity that is felt to be
threatened or in danger of being lost. This is evident in concerns about
immigration and growing cultural diversity, as well as in trends towards
supranationalism, as in the tendency of European integration to weaken British
national identity. Expansionist nationalism is often overtly reactionary in
drawing on myths of a past ‘golden age’ which exemplifies national glory or
superiority. This is evident in fascist nationalism and the glorification of,
for instance, Imperial Rome or the First or Second Reich.
However, other forms of nationalism look to the
future rather than the past. Liberal nationalism, for instance, has often been
associated with the quest for sovereign independence, involving either or both
the overthrow of foreign domination and oppression and the establishment of
self-government through constitutionalism and democracy. More widely, liberal
nationalists have looked to the future in the sense that they have sought to
forge a world of independent nation-states, thereby reordering international
politics as well as domestic politics. Anti-colonial nationalism has a
similarly progressive character in that it was typically characterised by quest
for political independence and social development. Political independence
involved the overthrow of colonial rule, while social development was often
understood in terms of the collectivisation of wealth and the establishment of
a rationally-based planning system. Other forms of nationalism can also be said
to look to the future. For example, expansionist nationalism may draw
inspiration from historical myths but it also has aspirations for the future,
not least in terms of the creation of empires and even world domination. In
some cases, the past and the future are brought together in myths about the
cyclical regeneration of a particular nation.
‘Nationalism is inherently expansionist &
destructive’. Discuss. Nat has a variety of contrasting manifestations some
of which are clearly expansionist & destructive, while others are
dedicated, at least in theory, to peaceful co existence & international
understanding. The expansionist & destructive character of nationalism is
evident in the national chauvinism, a form of nationalism that emphasis the
superiority or greatness of one nation over others. Chauvinism both stimulates
& helps legitimise expansion, conquest and empire, linking it to
destruction. However LN & Anti-C openly reject expansionism &
destruction in this sense. LN, for example, holds that all nations are entitled
to self determination & implies that a world of sovereign nation states
would be an ordered existence and peaceful as no nation would have an incentive
to conquer & subordinate any other nation. Some may argue, nevertheless,
that since Nat draws attention to divisions (& states that are contested)
within humanity, it embodies a potential for expansionism & destruction
whatever its theoretical character. Top marks = Full K&U of the different
traditions, the significance of ‘inherently’ in the Q & full understanding
of the contrasting character.
- To what
extent is nationalism a single doctrine?
Nationalism is a single doctrine to the extent that
all forms of nationalism treat the nation as the supreme principle of political
organisation, nations being communities bound together by shared cultural
characteristics such as a common language, religion, traditions and so on.
However, in most other respects nationalism is characterised by significant
divisions, making nationalism appear to be a collection of distinct, & in
some respects, sharply conflicting traditions. Lib Nat is orientated around the
goal of self determination and sovereign independence for all nations. nations
being viewed as equal moral entities. This form of nationalism promises to deliver
international peace & harmony and is compatible with cosmopolitanism and to
some extent supranationalism. Con Nat stress the organic character of national
identity, placing greater stress than LB Nats on national unity and cultural
cohesion, even legitimising prejudice and perhaps harbouring implicit racism.
This form of nationalism is essentially insular and implies that distrust and
tension amongst nations is to some degree inevitable. Expansionist nat’s are
characterised by chauvinism. The assertion of national superiority linked to
myths of national greatness and plans for conquest and territorial expansion.
This form of Nat clearly over laps with militarism & imperialism. Anti
colonialism forms of nationalism have harnessed the liberal idea of independent
sovereignty to the Marxist goal of social revolution. In post colonial
countries, post colonialism have given way to non western or anti western
creeds, most importantly associated with religious fundamentalism. You need the
common features, the different approaches, an analysis of the differences
No comments:
Post a Comment