Nationalism has too often been dismissed as an irrational creed due to its association with disastrous results over the decades. But undeniably, it is a dominating force in contemporary international politics. It is important to understand nationalism if we want to understand global political developments. Many books have been written on this subject, but David Miller’s On Nationality stands out. This book takes on a distinctive approach to the study of nationalism, rendering it one of a kind in this field.
Social Darwinism itself is the ideology of Herbert Spencer. Spencer was another historian that justified imperialism. He believed in survival of the fittest. In order to survive America had to keep conquering and gaining territory, money, power and resources so that she could be the fittest. Spencer was known as the revolutionist of society.
Hobson argue that imperialism is dangerous and a detriment to British nationalism? Hobson argues that imperialism is severely threatening and a disadvantage to the British nationalism because the policy they have adopted puts people in charge of the right accreditation. The British nationalism accordingly divides the classes explaining that people who are separated and from other groups based on their wealth. This basically states that the British society has much more faith a belief to imperialism. Document two: Cecil Rhodes, Confession of Faith 1.
On the one hand, aspiration is provided by outside institutions (government, media, schools, etc.) which pushed a person to the particular ethnic group. On the other hand, hostility, discrimination and conflicts helped to consolidate a group of people against adversities and provided ground for group identity. According to the theory, the creation of ethnic identity depended on the larger societies. Hence, one can see that constructionist school focus mainly on historical force and social influence on ethnicity.
What effect are they likely to have on the future? These questions will be answered during this essay. The role of nationalism in the twentieth century throughout history has played a big role in many of the situations that have shaped the world, in the twentieth century. In the twentieth century it can be characterized by three distinct phases: Sabotage Nationalism, Aggressive Nationalism and Modern Nationalism. Sabotage nationalism is the thought or the idea that the nation will be benefited from working independently rather than collectively, and it makes people work together to achieve success, and there is a view to have a national independence, in a country under foreign domination.
Ethnocentrism occurs when one culture comes into contact with another. It the evaluation of one culture based on preconceived ideas that have derived from the customs and traditions from one’s own culture. William Summer, an American sociologist, believes that an ethnocentrism is “A view of things in which one’s own group is the centre of everything and all others are scaled and rated in reference to it” (Sorrells 2013). This phenomenon can have detrimental outcomes; such as stereotyping and prejudice both of which may hinder intercultural relations and assimilation therefore impacting on societal cohesion. We, as humans, are naturally drawn to people of similar nature; be it language or culture (Jackson 2014).
Whether through art or language, representations of identity ensue from processes that communicate what manners of being are considered culturally valid within a society. The expression of these expected conditions of existence depends on normative forms of social conditioning, and it is from within this fixed set of self-reproducing actions that hegemonic apparatuses possess power over people. Owing to an ideological foundation situated among various terms pioneered by Gloria Anzaldúa in her piece titled Borderlands/La Frontera, José Esteban Muñoz develops an ability to comprehend how the performance of intersubjective queerness disturbs essences of normativity, and comforts those who disidentify with mainstream perception. The following concepts
Max Weber’s concept of “monopolistic closure” has been extremely influential in the analysis of ethnic relations in contemporary societies. Malesevic (2004) best describes Weber’s theory of monopolistic closure as a way of distinguishing between the open and closed relationships within society. Weber believed that ethnicity played a vital role in the identification of individuals as it was used as a device to distinguish between groups in modern society. However, through the works of Durkheim and Marx, it can be suggested that the concept of monopolistic closure holds limited analysis when understanding ethnic relations in contemporary society. The constant evolution of society now means ethnicity no longer plays such a vital role in the identification
This, allows the authors to critique multiculturalism; which they perceive as another colonial attempt to whip out indigenous narratives. Brascoupé and Waters argue that the idea of a nation built in immigration (mainly by white/Caucasians) undermines indigenous history. Under this line, they also analyze how color-blind and race-blind policies perpetuate systemic violence by denying the rampant discrimination and marginalization that non-white communities (broadly) and indigenous communities (specifically) are subjected to. The authors defend that decolonization is based on self-determination, which inherently would empower indigenous communities and would bolster the healing process by helping them overcome the legacy of
Memory is an essential part of an individual’s identity, as it connects with the past and defines the present. However, memory is important on an individual level as well as on a level of a collective. According to many theorists such as Maurice Halbwach, individual memory is “fragmentary and incomplete”, and therefore is “guided by the script that collective memory provides” (Sturken 4). Thus, the term collective, cultural or social memory as Astrid Erll has mentioned refers to “the interplay of present and past in socio-cultural contexts” that may concern either “individual acts of remembering in a social context to group memory” (2) or national memories which are based on a specific narrative. Additionally, a cultural memory is rather distinct from “personal memory and history”, as it is “a field of contested meanings” (Sturken 2), constantly under social construction and ongoing debates about the historical accuracy and credibility.
While those who argue in favor of assimilation possibly argue from a position of National preservation, those who argue against it potentially argue from the perspective of immigrant preservation. However, in his essay “Assimilation & the persistence of culture”, James Bennett suggests that anti-assimilation sentiments can also originate from a place of Nationalism in that, “By global standards, the culture and social systems of the English-speaking nations are some of the most individualistic. Interactions with other cultures therefore inherently involve a challenge to those features of our culture and a challenge by our culture to the less individualistic, less free features of theirs” (Bennett). Further anti-assimilation arguments claim