Nationalism: A Romantic Wreck Worthy of Salvation?

The crux of nationalism covers the intersections of citizenship, religion and identity. This article’s debate navigates the problems of nationalism, refugees, inclusion and exclusion that surround these concepts.

My interlocutor, Felix Hohlfeld, has been a thorn in my side since first year. As the consistent no to my yes, the idealist to my cultural relativism, and the sun to my dark cave, when we were both accepted for Edges of Europe, honestly, I thought we were in for another series of debates between two white cishet men. This may be true.

For the purposes of the ensuing debate, we have defined the nation as a social construction in which a given group of people identify themselves as such.

The week’s culmination was the celebrations during the Greek Independence Day. Shrouded by the dark clouds of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, a conversation about the importance of the flag, nation, and nation-state seemed not only pertinent, but necessary.

As fighter jets roared overhead and proud soldiers marched past with guns gleaming in the March sun. Many of our party were struck by a tragedy unfolding behind us. A group of young Greek boys enthusiastically cheered and patriotically shouted their support for the cause. This image of children embroiled in the world of tanks, guns and bombs left a lasting impression.

Why is it that the innocent are swept up with the nationalist fervour?

Why do we sell the naïve a romantic fervour for the same weapons of horror we see in the Donbas?

The central question that guides all this is as such; should we abandon the nation-state?

FELIX: Now I concede that the nation state is responsible for much of the bloodshed which has occured in history. Colonialism, imperialism, violent warfare and the chauvinist idea of the superiority of one’s own nation undoubtedly serve as equally illustrative and sad examples of this. But isn’t it nevertheless true that people need a sense of stability, an identity rooted not in the individual itself but a common group?

CHARLIE: What you say is true, wise Felix.

FELIX: And is it not true that the nation-state - although obsolete in some respects - is still the most prevalent source of common identification in the world today?

CHARLIE: Perhaps I misunderstand - you’re saying though evil, the national identity can be a force for good?

Felix: Exactly, wise Charlie. Often a source of evil in past and present, the adoption of a national identity, so I think, is no malum in se. For it can offer people a vital source of collective identification.

CHARLIE: I see your point. But let me outline mine; now in turn I concede, thanks to your impressive sophistry and rhetoric, that common identity is not only important, but necessary.. Identity politics - a means to unite a group towards a common political goal - is often the best and even only way to pursue various forms of justice. Stonewall is a fine example. But, my noble friend and interlocutor, what I am asking you is why save the national? Do we not agree that the nation is indeed a construct, constructed of course by humanity?

FELIX: What you say is true, grand Charlitos.

CHARLIE: Very well. I’m clearly no conservative, but let’s use their logic; ‘If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.’ Well I am sorry, but the nation was broken to begin with. You say the nation-state is no malum in se, but I staunchly contest this. I believe the very concept of the nation, coupled with a state, is in itself a problem.

The ideas that undercut the nation-state claim that there is a given nation that deserves to have the power (state) in that nation. My claim is that this not only denies the heterogeneity that characterises human existence, but it is fundamentally anti-democratic because it prioritises one nation over all others.

The nation-state was a lie upon conception at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. It was long dead by the time it’s invasion reached the gates of Moscow, and it was shattered, gassed and buried in the trenches and artillery fire of WW1. And today, the undead nation now returns to the Donbas. The nation lies; it constructs the imaginary as essential; that is its very core. And that is why it should not be salvaged.

FELIX: Well.. I must say…

CHARLIE: Firstly, let’s discuss the anti-democratic nature of the nation state. In Who Sings the Nation State, Judith Butler, drawing from Hannah Arendt, argues that the nation-state as a political model prioritises a single nation over the others. This is fundamentally anti-democratic because it prioritises a single demos over all others. The logic of the nation state posits that there is a given space designated for a given group. I must begin by asking, is it not true that a multi-national society is an inevitability, and an ever-present reality? Is there really such a thing as a one-nation state?

FELIX: Indeed, when one considers the fact of human society and its heterogeneous nature, it is true that all societies are multinational.

CHARLIE: Hannah Arendt’s Origins of Totalitarianism attacks the nation-state in this same way; at the very heart of the nation-state lies the idea that the political community requires national homogeneity. This is why I argue, Felix, that the nation-state must be scrapped altogether.

I ask you then, why are we trying to salvage the nation-state, when it is clear that the mechanism of prioritising one group not only excludes national Otherness, but even denies its very existence?

Can we not begin anew, create a more human identity that does not carry the heavy history of dehumanisation?

FELIX: A more human identity, devoid of the sinister history of colonialism and bloodshed is necessary indeed. Yet we must realise that constructedness, and ambivalent pasts, are not singular attributes of national forms of collective identification, but of all collective identities - be they national or otherwise. What is imaginary then, is not only the construct of the nation state - but also the illusory dream of ever arriving at a non-constructed, untainted and authentic form of collective identification. Thus, the question is not how to transcend socially constructed and previously problematic identities but how to adequately realign them in order for them to become less hermetic, less exclusivist, and more inclusive. Perhaps this is my central claim: National identities can be reconvened in a non-exclusionary manner and its previously chauvinist and colonial elements can be stripped from common national narratives. What we need for this is a form of national identity that organises its citizenry not around essentialised ethnic characteristic but around a minimal set of shared liberal-democratic principles. Think of pluralism, freedom of speech or freedom of association. We thus need a Rawlsian overlapping consensus, or Habermasian constitutional patriotism, if you will: A convergence on and identification with the fundamental values of pluralist democracy. This, consequently, will yield a form of national identity that is reconcilable with rather than opposed to other, arguably more progressive, forms of political identification - like a European and cosmopolitical political identity.

Certainly, collective reflection, critical awareness of citizens and a problematisation and re-evaluation of the nation’s often-shadowy past are necessary to meet these aims. Not at all easy tasks, so much is clear.

Yet aren’t these tasks still eminently achievable for a democratic citizenry? The cheering children, I have to concede, are not at all fitting examples of the requisite critical and reflective ethos. Rather, they show what still needs to be done - they shed light on the path many Greeks have not yet, but may very well embark on in the future.

CHARLIE: I concede, reluctantly, thanks to your impressive sophistry and rhetoric argument, that there is a need for identifications around which a political community can organise. But I suppose we have reached somewhat of an impasse; though we agree that the nation-state as it stands is a problem, we disagree as to whether we should reform or remove it altogether.

You think we should reform the bad parts while keeping the good. But according to my position, and this faulty start that Anya Topolski analyses, to remove the negative aspects of the nation-state is to remove the nation-state altogether; because the very logic at its heart is both anti-democratic and a denial of human heterogeneity.

It is a violent logic that is thrust upon even those too young to understand what it means. It seems abundantly clear, that these children who are the subject of this debate, in having their Greekness thrust upon them, will one day succumb to the same nationalist tendencies upon which both we international and Dutch students have come to critically reflect - only with the benefit of hindsight. That, I argue, is the real tragedy of this case.

FELIX: I agree that ‘pre-reflective’, and exclusivist forms of nationalism are profoundly harmful. For Greek’s in general and these children in specific. Yet this does not provide, I claim, conclusive evidence for the inherent destructiveness or irreparability of the nation state. As with other tainted concepts - like modernity, rationality or justice - we should not throw the ideomatic baby out with the bath water. There is much positive to be retained in the construct of a nation-state that a straightforward dismissal of nationhood simply cannot account for. I alluded to the nation as one of the protective entities for liberal-democratic principles already (although the EU, for example, fulfills this task too in a measure). The emotional and cultural capital that a nation can offer, however, should also not all-too hastily be discarded. Despite, or more likely, precisely because of increasing globalisation, people yearn for a sense of cultural identity - which the nation-state is often able to provide. The big conundrum, then, is to reconcile the twofold status of the nation as both a source of cultural identity and as an inclusive space for those who identify with its underlying democratic-liberal-principles. Greece does not currently manage this balancing act particularly well. Yet its not managing this balancing act doesn’t suggest the impossibility of the act in any way - or so I believe. Maybe herein lies our disagreement?

Conclusion

As the parade drew to its close, the last Souvlakis were digested, and the last Uzos imbibed, it was time for us to make our much-lamented way back home (if, in light of the many international students in our group, the word ‘home’ is even appropriate here). While saddened by the inevitable end of our trip, a number of things did ultimately offer us a modicum of solace. Namely, the prospect of bitterballen, kaassouflé and frikandel speciaal to be eaten upon our arrival in the Netherlands. Granted, not everyone was equally enthusiastic about this prospect. What everyone was enthusiastic about, however, was the week that laid behind us - the memories it created, the culture it introduced us to and the insights it unearthed. We learned about the practicalities of field-research, the importance of being prepared even for the unpreparable, and the relevance of inter-cultural knowledge. Located as it is at the margins of Europe, we experienced that Greece is not just like any other Western European country, but shaped - in culture and cuisine, politics and geographic position - by a split between Europe and the East.

This article was published in print on Splijtstoff Philosophical Journal and online at https://www.splijtstof.com/archive/philosopher-abroad-edges-of-europe/

Image: The Economist, David Parkins.