While writing about the benefits and disadvantages of nationalism, I would like to consider some fundamentals of patriotic principles. So, first of all, there is a need to point out that “Nationalism, the most potent principle of political legitimacy in the modem world, holds that the nation should be collectively and freely institutionally expressed, and ruled by its co-nationals” (O’Leary 191). In other words, the quotation reflects the meaning of political independence for every country. In our days, nationalism is considered to be the most important element of political legitimacy. When speaking about widespread patriotic principles, one is to keep in mind that material prosperity is recognized to be a less important principle of a stable political order. Nationalism seems to be rather an ambiguous issue, as it can be considered both – positively and negatively.
The most well-known advantage of nationalism in relation to the need of the community is considered to be national interest protection. In other words, one is to understand that personal and sectional needs are not supported by nationalism. Generally, nationalism determines two phenomena. On the one hand, it is used to show the ways the members of the social care about their national identity. On the other hand, patriotic principles can be applied to the actions of the members of the society to express the so-called principle of self-determination. When speaking about the main purposes of the phenomenon, one is to keep in mind that the concept of national identity is closely related to the origin and cultural ties of a certain society. The concept of self-determination, in its turn, is related to the question “whether self-determination must be understood as involving having full statehood with complete authority over domestic and international affairs, or whether something less is required” (Miscevic par. 1). For this reason, one can make a conclusion that the issue of self-determination seems to be one of the phenomena nationalism is based on.
It seems that classical nationalism seems to be the most beneficial patriotic movement. It is necessary to point out that classical nationalism supports the idea of a sovereign state, which is to be governed by a nation. In other words, every member of a society must perform certain duties. Therefore, one is to keep in mind that classical nationalism was “the most successful political force of the 19th century. It emerged from two main sources: the Romantic exaltation of “feeling” and “identity” and the Liberal requirement that a legitimate state is based on a “people” rather than, for example, a dynasty, God, or imperial domination” (Halsall par. 2). Of course, this aspect cannot be regarded negatively.
Nationalism is considered to be the deep need for all members of society. For instance, it is a well-known fact that cultural proximity is one of the key characteristic features of nationalism. The members of various ethno-national communities (African-American, Arab, Anglo-Irish, Chinese American, etc.), “who share certain traditions and customs, seem to be typically closer to one another in various ways than they are to those who don’t share the culture” (Miscevic par. 56). In other words, unity is recognized to be one of the advantages of nationalism.
The second advantage is the idea of flourishing. Every member of ethno-national community can be happy and healthy within a community. It means that when a person can understand and accept the community’s cultural life, he or she is provided with crucial values, which seem to be the basic elements of flourishing. On the other hand, understanding and accepting the individual’s life should be also taken into account.
According to nationalism, numerous social settings form the character of the person. However, there is a need to point out that it is communal life, which determines the identity of every member of the society. This is also one of the advantages of nationalism.
The most interesting examples concerning national identity include German and Italian unification. Thus, when Prussia and Austria were consolidated, Germany became one indivisible state; the same can be said about Italy. When small kingdoms of Italy were consolidated, the country of southern Europe was transformed into a nation. Thus, when smaller kingdoms were consolidated, the country got an opportunity to defend its territories. Moreover, it became possible to establish foreign economic relations. So, nationalism of the 19th century seems to be really important.
Another important point, which is to be highlighted, seems to be moral understanding. As far as mostvalues are common, the nation is able to offer the so-called background for moral traditions, and thus, for the concept of morality. Miscevic is of the opinion that “moral values are too abstract and “thin”. The rich, “thick” moral values are discernible only within particular traditions, to those who have wholeheartedly endorsed the norms and standards of the given tradition” (par. 56). Moral understanding is considered to be one of the key issues of nationalism, as moral traditions form the so-called character of a nation.
The diversity of cultures is also associated with the kind of political order. In other words:
The carrier of basic value is thus the totality of cultures, from which each national culture and style of life that contributes to the totality derives its own value. The argument from diversity is therefore pluralistic: it ascribes value to each particular culture from the viewpoint of the totality of cultures available (Miscevic par. 64).
Another advantage of nationalism in relation to the issues of justice is the right to self-determination; however, one is to keep in mind that it is collective self-determination, which makes sense in nationalism; the right to self-defense means that the members of the society can fight against injustice, if it takes place.
Equality is another important principle of nationalism. According to the principle, the majority of the society is to moderate and differentiate rights among various cultural groups, as minority groups are usually subordinated to certain dominant cultures.
There is an opinion that nationalism is a force for a good. For instance, “When Armenians living in America contribute from their own limited resources to help Armenian earthquake victims, when Eritreans sacrifice their lives to liberate their country from a colonial power” (Brilmayer p.7). Thus, mutual respect and support are considered to be the driving force of any society.
Generally, it is necessary to state that nationalists protect the interests of the whole nation. On the other hand, it is not so easy to define the attributes of nationalism. For instance, Brilmayer is of the opinion that “A nation is an entity that is fairly homogeneous with respect to some particular variable-it is a community that shares some attribute-but it is difficult to say precisely which attribute that should be” (p. 10). In other words, the author states that it is rather difficult to find certain counterexamples to the most common attributes, including language, race, religion, etc.
Moral independence seems to be the basic principle of nationalism, as in most cases, it determines the acts of nationalists. In the 19th century, the nationalism movement became an extremely important political force. The symbols of nationalism include not only flags but also national anthems, which reflect the history of every nation. National pride and unity are considered to be the final aim of the nationalism movement.
Nationalism: Divisive or Beneficial?
Generally, it should be pointed out that nationalism as a kind of political order is mostly associated with moral significance. However, one is to keep in mind that it is not so easy to disclose the meaning of the term. For instance, many scientists speak about numerous contradictions nationalism includes. Thus, first of all, it is not so easy to define the characteristic features of the nation. In other words, some historians cannot say whether the nation is determined by its language, culture or ethnicity. Others are sure that a nation can be defined by numerous issues. Some scientists say that nationalism is considered to be a force for good; others do not support the opinion; on the contrary, they say that such patriotic principles are mostly related to great evil.
The philosophical authors sympathetic to nationalism are aware of the evils that historical nationalism has produced, and usually distance themselves from these. They usually speak of various accretions that have given nationalism a bad name, and they are eager to separate the idea of nationality itself from these excesses (Miller 87).
In my opinion, nationalism is really a force for evil. For instance, there is a need to point out that in most cases, nationalism is associated with the legacy of the war. Thus, one is to keep in mind numerous military operations, which took place in Rwanda, Chechnya or even former Yugoslavia. In the above-mentioned countries, nationalism was the key reason for the war. It is also necessary to keep in mind that such negative phenomena as genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc. seem to be derived from nationalism. They say that the synonym of the kind of political order seems to be barbarism.
Some historians and politicians do not take into consideration the fact that nationalism is mostly associated with a force for evil; however, they say that certain patriotic principles can coexist. In other words, there is a variable, which equalizes the good and evil of nationalism. Thereby, genocide, rape, etc. are recognized to be morally wrong; but it is not because of nationalism; on the contrary, the above-mentioned unpleasant consequences are mostly related to moral features of certain events. One of the most vivid examples of nationalism (as a force for evil) is considered to be the Holodomor (translation is Killing by Hunger) in Ukraine (1932-1933).
So, as far as nationalism has numerous contradictions, it is necessary to state that the kind of political order cannot be regarded as an all-pervasive political force. The assumption that one culture, one polity seems to be really ambiguous. For instance, when speaking about Switzerland, Canada and Belgium, one is to keep in mind that nationalism as the kind of political order will die. In other words, one can make a conclusion that nationalism has no future and seems to be less stable in multilingual countries. Bilingualism and multilingualism are not compatible with nationalism.
Of course, there is a need to be objective. Thus, I suppose that “The major political benefit is that nationalism has preserved pluralism in the world, and thereby, preserved political liberalism” (O’ Leary 197). However, some negative consequences are also to be considered, in order to see to the odds in favor of nationalism opposite views. One of the most obvious negative consequences seems to be the fact that those, who control the flow of funds, possess state power.
National entity status determines the acts of nationalists. In other words, nationalists do not consider or analyze the motives, but they act to defend the rights of the nation. In my opinion, this means that nationalism is not based on logic. It is only based on the so-called moral approach; so, it seems to be inappropriate for modern society. The absence of logic is mostly associated with outdated political issues. Our days, logic and rationalism determine the success of a certain policy. It is not enough to be a gung-ho conservative or a stickler for some policies. For instance, as far as bilingualism and multilingualism are recognized to be the signs of developed societies, nationalism seems to be the echo of the 19th century and must be annihilated. It is obvious that the kind of political order hampers modernization.
Originally, the main purpose of nationalism was to advocate the rights of the nation. However, it is evident that in our days the struggle for justice was transformed into a force for evil. Today, nationalism is mostly used in a negative sense. For instance, people speak about nationalism, when they discuss the issues of the war. Generally, World War I, World War II took place on the basis of nationalism. Moreover, nobody will deny the fact that nationalism can cause imperialism. In other words, the political ideology imperialism (a policy of extending a country’s power using various means, including military actions, i.e. arm) is closely related to nationalism issues.
The analysis of Tolkien’s fiction as well as some other sources, “including essays and personal letters, suggests that he felt that separate nations should co-exist without imposing on one another and that the nation taking over others would lose its own identity, whether gradually or suddenly” (Johnston p. 3). Tolkien considered national property as the basic reason for the loss of cultural identity. In other words, the policy of nationalism is at variance with its own principles.
Taking into account the above-mentioned information, it becomes obvious that nationalism leads to powerlessness and a sense of loss.
Works Cited
Brilmayer, Lea. The Moral Significance of Nationalism, 1995.Web.
Halsall, Paul. The Century of Ideology and Power, 1998. Web.
Johnston, Amanda. J.R.R. Tolkien, War, and Nationalism. 2010. Web.
Miller, Scott. On Nationality, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Print.
Miscevic, Nenad. Nationalism, 2010.Web.
O’ Leary, Brendan. On the Nature of Nationalism: An Appraisal of Ernest Gellner’s Writings on Nationalism, 1997.Web.