January 20, 2005
Nationalism
I’m not really sure what nationalism is. Are there many types of nationalism? Can it be good as well as bad? How does it relate to the concept of the nation? Does nationalism define a nation or can a nation exist and continue to do so without a nationalistic element? More questions. Consider this an admission that my education is lacking in this respect.
I ask for a few reasons.
Firstly, due to a blog ad run by the chaps over at The Campaign for an English Parliament I have been made aware of a certain lack of parity or symmetry in Britain. In this response to Austin Mitchell (MP for Grimsby) Phil Evans wrote:
We had a constitutional settlement before Devolution which over-represented Scotland and Wales in a broadly acceptable system of 'asymmetry'. The Scots elected to change the status quo and opted for a Parliament. This shifted the degree of imbalance to an unacceptable extent and created unworkable anomalies such as the 'West Lothian' question. An English Parliament addresses these anomalies in a fair and democratic way. The stated aim of the CEP is to establish an English Parliament with powers similar to those already granted to Scotland.The issues raised by the CEP seem reasonable to me. The lack of parliamentary representation for the English as a nation bugs me enough that I have written about it on occasion and have given my support to the campaign cause. Does this make me a nationalist?
…
Mitchell and his ilk obstinately refuse to accept that it is Scottish and Welsh devolution that has already undermined the viability of the UK by rendering the previous 'asymmetry' unworkable. They must now reconcile themselves to the English dimension; they have no choice if they wish to maintain the Union.
Secondly I am anti-EU. The reasons for this are varied and my opposition was initially through instinct. I don’t like the fact that I have not been asked to vote specifically on the question of further unification. I don’t like the lack of accountability to me as a voter. I don’t see it as necessary and think we can do perfectly well with generally open trade agreements. I am completely unconvinced about the political and much of the legislative aspects of the project. I tend to see it as another manifestation of The Conspiracy of the Toads. I don’t think, however, that all nationalists are inherently anti-EU but is nationalism a pre-requisite for being so? To ask in another way, can you be anti-EU but not a nationalist? I think you can be, for instance if you think the EU is corrupt or a breeding ground for corruption and corruption is one of your bug bears. Or, perhaps, you see it as an inefficient way of doing business.
Thirdly because I have read, on occasion, a number of writers/bloggers that I respect state that they have contempt for or a dislike of nationalism. As recently as yesterday Perry de Havilland wrote that he shares Einstein's distain [sic?] for nationalism. Laban Tall once wrote Nationalism, that force which is so evil in a Western nation…. I understand that nationalism can be used as a force for evil. History has shown how true this can be. But is it generally the case? Can nationalism be a force for good? Does it come in different calibres?
Miroslav Hroch defines has this to say about the nation:
Now the 'nation is not, of course, an eternal category, but was the product of a long and complicated process of historical development in Europe. For our purposes, let us define it at the outset as a large social group integrated not by one but by a combination of several kinds of objective relationships (economic, political, linguistic, cultural, religious, geographical, historical), and their subjective reflection in collective consciousness. Many of these ties could be mutually substituable - some playing a particularly important role in one nation-building process, and no more than a subidiary part in others. But among them, three stand out as irreplaceable: (1) a 'memory' of some common past, treated as a 'destiny' of the group - or at least of its core constituents; (2) a density of linguistic or cultural ties enabling a higher degree of social communication within the group than beyond it; (3) a conception of the equality of all members of the group organized as a civil society.If you believe and support these ties and objective relationships does this make you a nationalist and, perhaps to some, worthy of distain?
The complexity of the issue of nationalism can be born out, I suspect, by the amount that has been written about it. The Nationalism Project carries some of this material.
This blog is called The England Project not specifically because it is about England. It often isn’t. It is, I suppose, named after me. I am The England Project. Like I have said before, my mother is Italian and my father is a Greek Cypriot and I was born in London. I should be more European than any political project can ever pretend to be. Having said that I have turned out to be more a product of my environment than one of my ancestry and that environment is England. Its affect on me and my willingness to allow it to affect me, what with the other cultural injections I get from family, is the project. If you were to meet some of my English born cousins you would be in no doubt that they are (or consider themselves to be) Italian. However, I feel English. The project has worked out differently for me than it has for the more well dressed and stylish members of my family.
I suspect that I am a nationalist by some definitions of the concept but quite possible not by others. For instance there are concepts that I believe in passionately that I would not give up for the idea of the nation. I would not give my unconditional support to England under all circumstances, though it has usually been forthcoming.
There is a lot here to think about and, perhaps, others might like to wade in. For this reason I once again leave comments open.
In the comments Gareth points to this (Understanding Patriotism and Nationalism) which contains this attempt at a brief and easy to understand explanation:
The ordinate principle of nationalism is simply belief in the concept of "the nation".If true then I find it even harder to comprehend any disdain in general for nationalism. Nationalism is as nationalism does the article says. Posted by John at January 20, 2005 10:09 AM | TrackBackThere is nothing else implied politically by the term "nationalism".
To be a nationalist does not imply any particular political point of view other than a belief in the nation as a fundamental organising principle in politics.
As it happens my support for the EU is largely based on the fact that I have been extremely fortunate to have benefitted from many of the opportunities it has given people across the union. It is interesting that you mention your background. The notion of national identity is very different in Britain from many other parts of Europe. You have clearly benefitted from that sense of inclusiveness that has been built up over a very long time. You can consider yourself to be English, even though neither of your parents was born in Engliand.
Oddly enough, I am British living in Cyprus. On and off, I have spent almost half my life here. However, as I have seen from friends who were born and brought up here, you cannot be Cypriot unless you are born into it. Foreigners can never really hold a place in society. We have always been outsiders - until now. The existence of the European Union gives us a right to be a part of the country in ways that were hitherto impossible because of the way that the Cypriots viewed those who lived here. Suddenly, they are Cypriot and I am British, but we are all European citizens living in an EU member state. It creates a link that was never there before.
Posted by: James at January 20, 2005 11:12 AMGood point Mark, why not indeed? I guess it's because I haven't really noticed any great influence in myself from the other countries in Britain (though accept that noticing these things is not necessarily the right measure).
I am more interested in England and in English history than any other part of Britain. Perhaps these interests and following them up is why I feel more influenced by England.
Posted by: JohnJo at January 20, 2005 11:41 AMOoo, comments....how exciting!
Interesting article John. This article may clarify your thoughts.
http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/articles/edit1.html
My ancestors for several centuries don't appear to have got out much and I live in the same county as members of my paternal line did in 1680! My mother's family appear to have migrated all the way from Sussex, Surrey and Norfolk. Does this make me English? Yes, but no more or less than anybody else born here. The reason I love England is because of its diversity. If everybody had ancestors like mine, then England would be a sadder place!
The term "British" came about to cover the English, Scottish and Welsh post Act of Union. Now the Scottish and Welsh seem to have separated, I think the term is becoming outdated. Why not white/English, black/English etc on forms? England is a country with citizens, not a race - the English never have been a race.
I think the term "Britain" used by this government holds us back and is meant to convince us that not much has changed post devolution. This means the WLQ, non representative MPs and Barnett Formula do not get questioned too much. But on various forms we are now seeing options like "British" and "Scottish". So they are separate? Oh no, the Scottish are Scottish/British, says Mr Blair, but Mr Prescott's office informs us that we are British/English.
Another card played by the government is mention the words England/English then you are racist. This does not apply to me or many other people I know who want a better deal for England.
So, end result, the people of England endure lower public spending, non representative MPs and the WLQ.
If England had no incomers, it would be boring. We're all people and we're not here that long. England, modern England, has the potential to be a better, happier place. Our people should be working together to govern themselves.
I'm not anti-integration with other countries, but as far as the EU set up is concerned, I don't really trust it. I haven't trusted politicians for a long time! Things need to change.
Posted by: Maria at January 20, 2005 12:26 PM'Nationalism' was originally a 'left-wing' phenomenon - it was the philosophy that was in opposition to multi-national Empires (e.g. the Hapsburg Empire). Nowadays, the left wing likes multi-national empires (e.g the EU), so nationalism is in bad odour as a 'right-wing' manifestation. Clearly, then, nationalism is neither intrinsically left wing or intrinsically right wing.
Posted by: Jamie Young at January 20, 2005 01:39 PMNationalism in the 19th Century was certainly seen as a 'Good Thing' and it still is, mostly. Most people identify with their own nation. It is the most comfortable form of government. Nations will survive the EU.
A modern nationalist does not hate people of other nations. If you love your own nation you appreciate that others feel the same about their nations. There is mutual respect. Alec Salmond has said more than once that Scottish nationalism should not be anti-English. The trouble is that the UK government requires the English to stifle their own national identity in the interests of a British nationality - while the Scots and Welsh are allowed to be - well, Scots and Welsh. This is unacceptable.
Nationalists are not necessarily anti-immigration either. It is a great compliment if someone from another nation chooses to come and live among us. If some immigrants wish to become English, they do us a great honour. No matter what your background, you can become English. No-one need abandon their origins - Norman Tebbit's 'cricket test' does not apply. We only ask that you support England against anyone other than your mother country.
But it really is now becoming urgently necessary for all the people of England to stand up for England and demand recognition for our nation. England's voice must be heard again - in defence of our liberties, our laws,our currency, our democracy.
and this is what is also known as the Anglosphere!
Excellent post! I have been enjoying your blog for some time.
You know what confuddles me in a conversation that I wish we could find a verbal means of deflecting : every time the subject of nationalism comes up, someone, usually of the Leftist/Anarchist/Communist persuasion throws up in the face of the defender of nationalism the word "jingo" and all variations thereof. I hate that word with a passion, because it automatically silences any constructive debate about the matter, thereby leaving a void that is usually filled with smug verification that nationalism is a bad thing. I so appreciate your words on this.
Posted by: Sharon Ferguson at January 20, 2005 07:21 PMAn interesting post.
In addition to the comments about whether nationalism is an intrinsically left- or right-wing thing, there are a couple of things that confuse me about nationalism.
Firstly, it has intrigued me why some people in, say, the libertarian right, are nationalists. I know I may be simplifying greatly here, but libertarianism is often about small state, the power of the individual, anti-collectivism, etc. So why abandon all of this when it comes to nationalism?
It's never bothered me what nationality I am. I don't care whether the place I come from is called Scotland, the United Kingdom, Europe or whatever. So long as it works, that's all that matters to me. Being proud of your country is a bit of an odd thing to me. To me, it seems a bit like tossing a coin and being very proud of the fact that it came up 'heads'.
Posted by: doctorvee at January 20, 2005 07:58 PMDoctorvee,
I think, perhaps, if a nation's political state is small, individual rights are respected, minority interests protected etc. then these things are just more reason for the libertarian to incline towards pride in that nation. From what I have read in the blogosphere, British Libertarians spend a great deal of time deriding the current state of affairs and, perhaps, are less nationalistic than they might otherwise be.
Put in different terms, the very things many Libertarians claim to love do not exclude them from having nationalistic tendancies. I think anyway, as I said I'm quite new to trying to understand this.
That is not to say that they are not nationalistic to some extent now (I have no idea really either way).
Posted by: JohnJo at January 21, 2005 08:03 AM
