QUESTION 1 - Do you agree that nation is a modern political and cultural construct? Substantiate your answer by referring to the primordialist approach, modernist and ethno-symbolist theories.
In the beginning, in my opinion, nation is a modern and political concept, if it is not constructed. My understanding of nations modernity is not derived from the idea that ‘there was no nation(s) before the modern times; it just abruptly flourished with it’, like many modernist scholars claimed. The question that, which time that the concept of nation belongs to; is it modern or not? It’s quite hard to answer because of the ambiguous definition and starting date of nation. However, it is necessary to answer for explain my view on nation’s modernity.
…show more content…
This difference is important. Because treating to something as a concept means that considering that thing as it is something abstract and need to be explain. Considering something as a construct can also need to be explain and in social sciences probably be an abstract, but the difference is that construct is cumulative of systematically arranging ideas or terms/concepts; something bigger and complex than a concept; and something made or aforethought by a person. However, in here, primordialist approach, nation is considered as natural, something already a part of our biology. It is not constructed or it is not a concept. It is concrete in our blood that no needs to be explained which nation does or should you belong. Naturalist perspective of primordialist approach restricts the discussion on the age of nation and nationalism by affiliate nation to the birth. Besides, its assertion that the root of nation should be sought in our blood makes the discussion ahistorical and …show more content…
On the other hand, those who equates it as a political aspect, sees it as a new product of modernism. In my view, nations, national sentiment, national ideology, political or cultural aspect of a nation and all other considerations should take into account in la longue dureé: “the formation of nations needs to be examined in la longue dureé.”
By doing so, and considering different conceptualizations of the terms nation and nationalism, it is obvious to me that nation is a modern political but not cultural construct. National sentiments or national identifications (may be under the name of ethnicity but still close to today’s meaning, without connoting political aspects), can be found, not initially but subsidiarily, even before the modern times. This kind of understanding let me say that nation is a product of nationalism and vice versa.
I did not mention about all primordial, modernist or ethno-symbolist approaches one by one. There are several perspectives and their critiques on nationalism and its age are also various. It is almost impossible to exemplify all those approaches in this work. Therefore I used specific ones which related to my claim, and affirm or contest them according to my
YouTube Video. November 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7ESRBMk36E Linda McNenly. " "What Is a Nation?" "Imagining Canada"" Lecture, University of Toronto, Mississauga, January 21, 2016.
Though a belief called “nationalism” grew slowly and led to the Old Order's demise. Nationalism upholds the belief to have self pride and confidence in one's nation, and to work for their nation rather than a king. This belief is what challenged the Old Order of Europe and gave birth to new nations. Firstly, nationalism lead to the birth of new nations.
There are still many who consider nationality on the terms of mere physical attributes, cultures, languages, religion and so on. Today is a jumble of pandemonium. And most individuals do not even realize it. Nationality itself is a doubtful entity, for nations are only political boundaries divided by abstract lines that do not really exist. If stripped to its basest, the concept of nations is another variation of the Self and the Other all over again.
In the 1800s Africa was an uncolonized country. Europe wanted to imperialize Africa. King Leopold of Belgium was one of the first to colonize parts of Africa for himself. Europe however found out a way to help split up Africa equally, this led to war within Europe. King Leopold was interested in money, not nationalism or culture attitude.
Both nationalism and sectionalism emerged after the War of 1812. Nationalism grew in the United States because of the victory at New Orleans. Americans were proud to be called Americans. America might have seemed like they were united; however, they were divided also by a growing belief of sectionalism. Sectionalism spread like a disease, affecting the minds of Americans.
How Nationalism Shaped Our Wold Nationalism has had an arguably equal effect on the world as war, depression, militarism and other worldly issues have. During both world wars nationalism was a key spark in igniting tensions between Germany and Russia, Austria-Hungary and Serbia, China and the United States, and many other nations and colonies involved in the war. The people and establishments of each country united out of pride and determination to protect their way of life. French-Canadian nationalism has been present for hundreds of years as well, although it wasn’t directly affiliated with a war, events during both wars caused the intensity to surge. The conflict started in the early 1520’s and still has significant presence in Canadian society.
Nationalism is the pride for one’s country, the love that one has for its country and it is the want for the good of all people in the nation. This love is not conditional, it does not depend on race religion or economic standing. When a leader is chosen, when a country is coming out of great national change, this requires a particularly strong leader who only wishes for their countries greatness and success in the future. However, this can quickly turn into ultranationalism, or expose ultranationalistic motives. The two concepts of one’s love for their country have similarities, one is formed from the other, or that each can be provokers of change in either direction in the political spectrum.
Nationalism as stated in our textbook is the idea that members of a shared community called a “nation” should have sovereignty within the borders of their state. Racism is the belief that certain races of people are by birth inferior or superior to others promoting hatred and discrimination to others based on race. Some have misinterpreted the term nationalism and turned it into an excuse to attack other groups of people. We can see it clearly in the Holocaust and how the Japanese treated their “inferiors”.
During the early nineteenth century the idea of nationalism was born. Nationalism is a strong feeling of pride in your country. It is the idea of one country being better than all others. Before the idea of nationalism took shape, cultures living in Europe were spread throughout large multi-cultural empires. These cultures didn't feel any ties to other people of the same culture, they only felt loyalty to the king or queen.
When we think of nationalism we often associate a sense of identity with stare and nation, for some the idea of there identity being connected to their nation is a positive notion, but for others this association to nation raises worry of alienation and violence.1 Nationalism can be seen as a network where individuals of a nation can have shared values, expectations and sense of self. These negative associations of nationalism “occurs when, in the process of seeing ourselves as uniquely Australian others suffer. ”2 An example of this would be the Cronulla riots where violence was inflicted upon those people that Australians born residence did not deem then worthy of being identified as Australian due to their ethnic background and the colour
Nationalism is defined as a patriotic feeling, principles, or efforts. In the 1800s Nationalism had causes and great effects on europe and Latin America. One cause being the want to have a greater nation. An effect could be a song or a mural done in honor of the nationalism in these great countries. Nationalism caused populations throughout Europe to unite in order to overthrow existing power structures and develop new ones based on liberty and national identity, the causes, for a greater nation as a whole.
It does not seek to provide a “new” theory on nationalism per se. Instead, its theory is based on the objection to pre-existing schools of thought. Paradoxically, this unique feature of the book is also one of its two major flaws, alongside
A nation stems from a pre-existing history. It does not require that all the members be alike but they must have a bond of solidarity to the other members of the nation. Nationalism is a movement for the attainment and maintenance of unity, identity and autonomy of a population that its members consider a nation. Nations are a product of modernity but it is likely to find ethnic elements that exist in these nations.
Moving on to the idea of nationalism, Ernest Gellner (1997) understood nationalism as a product of industrial society. He defines nationalism as “primarily a political principle, which holds that the political and national unit should be congruent” (Guibernau and Rex 1997: 52). Nationalism, Gellner says is either a product of feeling of anger when the principle discussed above is not fulfilled or a product of feeling of satisfaction aroused by its fulfilment. Therefore, “nationalism is a theory of political legitimacy” (Guibernau and Rex 1997: 52). Gellner justifies the repercussions of the idea of “nationalism is a theory of political legitimacy” by discussing how the political effectiveness of national sentiment impairs the sensibility of the nationalists to realise the wrong committed by the nation.
Nationalism is the idea that a people who have much in common, such as language, culture and within the same location ought to organize in such a way that it creates a stable and enduring state. Nationalism is tied to patriotism, and it is the driving force behind the identity of a culture. Nationalism had many effects in Europe from 1815, The Congress of Vienna and beyond. Nationalism brings people together in a way and people can feel belong to something. Factors include Prince Metternich, the middle class in countries get involved, and ideas of imperialism and many others brought people together as one to be called nationalism.