But this negative publicity confuses what is more often than not an innocuous sentiment. Nationalism is a feeling of unity with a group beyond one's immediate family and friends.
In and of itself, it is not conducive to disastrous wars. The bad rap on nationalism relies almost exclusively on cherry-picked exceptions. These conclusions were drawn without considering the far-more-common cases in which nationalism was not the root of some evil. Moreover, many previous studies on the causes of war lacked one key component: an adequate measure of nationalism.
Absent this measure, it is impossible to tell if the brand of nationalism of, say, the Axis powers was more intense than others in the years leading up to Yet, scholars are quick to blame nationalism for a host of ills. Why this haste? Part of the reason lies in the scholarly reverence to homo economicus, the cool-headed and self-interested person thought to make optimal decisions at all times.
This assumed rational egoist stands in direct opposition to the stereotypical nationalist. After all, the nationalist is often anything but coolheaded. Thus, many scholars conclude, if nationalism does exist, it would only disturb the God-given rationality of humanity, and that meant trouble in politics and economics.
But the deeper roots of antinationalism seem to lie in the value system of scholars. Success in academia is often gauged by how coldly logical one can be.
Intense emotional content is frowned upon. So your run-of-the-mill academic, devoted to library stays, will naturally view nationalism as unintelligent and primal. And being so, nationalism could not possibly produce better countries. Or could it? This perception is supposed to make it easier for nationalists to, say, curtail trade with others and even wage war. But there is a problem with this logic. If nothing else, nationalism is a sense of collective unity that turns large groups into extended families.
In itself, this says nothing about how one nation should treat another. In everyday life, we usually love and identify with our own family. That certainly does not make us believe that neighboring families pose a threat. The same goes for nationalism. In other words, nationalism makes people less selfish. Granted, the altruism that nationalism provides is not the cosmopolitan sort that philosophers dream about. Members of a nation may not care about all the people in the world, but they do exhibit a selective altruism in caring about their fellow compatriots.
And this selective altruism, when shared by all citizens, makes for a better country than one populated by purely selfish individuals. Consider economic life, where self-interest is assumed to reign supreme. Any economy comprises millions of everyday transactions. In many of these transactions, a citizen can easily shortchange another and get away with it. Yes, cheaters are somewhat deterred by the law and the fear of gaining a bad reputation.
But there are many ways to skim off the top without getting caught. A simple case: Your favorite restaurant can charge you higher prices — say, from a few cents to a dollar — than those printed on the menu. If caught, your waiter can say it was a mistake. But how many people ever bother to remember the exact menu prices when the bill lands on the table?
Very few, if any. This window of opportunity for cheating exists in thousands of activities in every conceivable industry. And if citizens actually exploited it, interpersonal trust would disintegrate. Business activity would slow to an inefficient crawl as people spent additional time and effort deterring cheaters. On the other hand, when citizens are nationalistic, those who might cheat will face an unpleasant trade-off: to help themselves at the expense of their brethren.
Surely, nationalism will never stop all cheating. Interview by Andy Heintz. For young girls across the Muslim world, social media has become a therapeutic medium. Hussein Kesvani reports. Colonizing civil society. The persistence of patriarchy. The roots of patriarchy, how it is sustained, and how to go about challenging it.
By Cynthia Enloe. West Papuans sign banned freedom petition. Can Brexit be stopped? Momentum for an exit from Brexit is building, writes Vanessa Baird. Barney Cullum reports. Lost in exile: The forgotten Chagos Islanders. Katie McQue Declaring the year of sisterhood. Reflecting on a dismal year for women, Kate Smurthwaite proposes a New Year's resolution. The art of being a good Indian woman. Is the system equally damaging to both men and women?
Amit Singh thinks so. A newborn brings hope. Sidi Sarro and Francis Odhiambo ask a group of Maasai women in Kenya about the challenges they encounter in a community slow to We should learn from and link to the unions, says Rebecca Winson: solidarity works! Ten books to feed your feminist imagination. As chosen by our readers Israel has punished Palestinians for the past 66 years. Resist or surrender, this oppressed population always loses.
Ella David Women on the edge of time. Can plastic surgery be liberating? Facts for feminists. An infographic guide of gains and work-to-do. Is there a feminist spring?
Hazel Healy takes stock of the challenges ahead. Cupcakes can fuck off. Our new columnist Kate Smurthwaite tires of weird infantilizing representations of women. What is your top feminist read? Tell us which book inspires you the most. Fighting sexism — 30 years on. Once a flight attendant, now an activist-writer, Mari Marcel Thekaekara reflects on feminist tactics. Human rights abuses, such as the case of Meriam Ibrahim, keep piling up, says Nahla Mahmoud.
The land of milk and honey, and wanton destruction. Standing up to inspire change. Rosa Parks' act of courage sixty years ago is an example for women challenging oppression today, says Lydia James. It is often said that nationalism can elicit such a powerful sense of community that it can motivate people to die on behalf of others they will never meet.
If we can tap into the more inclusive, community-building side of nationalism, it can help to bring a sense of common-purpose to our individual efforts. A more open, liberal nationalism also has a paradoxical power to facilitate international collaboration. Our current international order is the result of stable, sovereign nation-states being secure enough in their autonomy to band together.
Nationalism and international collaboration do not need to be opposed. There are indications that this other side of nationalism is emerging.
Many thousands have also been inspired to volunteer in their communities, helping in any way that they can. Queen Elizabeth II encapsulated this approach in her recent address to the nation , reinforcing an inclusive and open vision for the UK.
Perhaps where this sense of national togetherness is needed most right now is America. There, the spread of Covid increasingly risks enflaming old divisions rather than bringing people together. Americans need to rediscover this spirit in the battle against Covid The main thing we can do right now to fight this virus is to shelter in place and avoid social contact.
These actions come at great personal and economic cost. Nationalism can help convince people to do this for their fellow citizens and to help other countries in similar situations, while we wait for a vaccine and a return to normal.
Please read our comments policy before commenting. He researches and teaches on the intersection of federalism, constitutional law and the politics of national identity and diversity.
He researches and teaches in the areas of cultural and political sociology. Click here to cancel reply. Facebook Facebook. How nationalism can be a force for good in the struggle against Covid How nationalism can be a force for good in the struggle against Covid Share this:. How we can we harness a more positive nationalism in the fight against Covid As the Covid pandemic gathers strength, we therefore need to be alert to the perils of further embracing an exclusionary, inward-looking nationalist politics.
Previous post Next post.
0コメント