• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Distinguish between the nation and the state and explain why the two are often confused

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Hayley Gibson Distinguish between the nation and the state and explain why the two are often confused. (15 Marks). A nation is a grouping of people who consider them selves to have similar circumstances of cultural, political and psychological factors. An example of a common cultural factor nations share is people being grouped mutually by religion, history, tradition or a shared language. There are two types of nations, one being political and the other cultural. A state is a political reality, it either exists or doesn?t. It exercises complete and unrestricted power in that dominates all other associations and groups in society. We can firstly acknowledge confusion between clearing up the difference between a state and a nation, due to the fact that even though the state often holds the nation, a nation actually conveys people?s state of mind of emotions. ...read more.

Middle

Furthermore, when speaking about a nation or a state we are often confused, because the structure of the modern world means nations and states are often considered essentially linked. The nation is seen to form an ordinary political unit and consistent society and so provide the basis for a stable state, which furthers the idea that nations and states are confusing concepts. As well as this we are often confused when differing the two, as even though a state as previously mentioned is a ?political concept?, a nation is viewed differently by liberals and socialists, as they support the civic concept of nationhood as it is it inclusive in the sense that it places heavier emphasis upon political allegiance that upon cultural unity, undermining the idea that a nation is just about people who regard themselves as a natural political community, blurring the distinction between the nation and the state. ...read more.

Conclusion

a people who have a just claim to nationhood should be granted the right to form their own government), and the new political community was to guarantee individual rights. This was the first concept of a nation-state as the political community was bound together by the overlapping bonds of citizenship and nationality. In conclusion we can acknowledge that a nation and a state are evidently different due to the obvious reasons being that a nation is a coherent population with a single language, culture, religion etc. and a state being a region of land controlled by a single government. However we are confused when the liberals and socialists support the civic concept of nationhood, which blurs this before obvious distinction. As well as the state holding a nation, which we automatically think is the same thing. 1. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Political Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Political Philosophy essays

  1. How and why does Locke explain the creation, value and protection of property?

    carrying out of such a policy impracticable due to the express consent required from each individual that the government wishes to appropriate property from. Furthermore, Locke does not seem to address this problem fully, simply assuming that "every one who enjoys his share of Protection, should pay out of his Estate his proportion of for the maintenance of it."

  2. Explain why the Liberals were electorally so successful so often, 1868-85?

    Gladstone, a devout Christian, had had trouble from early in his career in not just reconciling his religious beliefs with politics, but, much more practically, where his party allegiance should lie. Throughout his wanderings through Westminster first as a Tory, then as a Peelite (and later, to a lesser extent,

  1. What exactly is religion?

    It is capitalism, and before that all the other exploitative systems of production, which have given birth to religions. Religion is the opium of the people, that is, it acts as a kind of pain killer. Religion makes bearable the unbearable, such as: poverty, hunger, inequality and repression.

  2. If the state is not a voluntary organisation, how can one be under any ...

    The above argument is Lockean to the extent that it "appeal[s] to the idea of individual consent."2 It is also in part my own view, which is (I think) essentially individualist in nature, though not libertarian. The relevance of my own view to this essay is that when thinking about

  1. Assess what should be the role of the state

    The view's economics lie in a centrally directed economy1- although theoretically sound, practical examples of command economies suggest it usually serves as a catalyst for shortages and poverty - again, undesirable and unpleasant connotations. Ultimately, this project of suppressing civil society2 sees all personal freedoms removed: everything and everyone must

  2. What were the most important factors in the rise of the modern state?

    These technological developments put kings in an advantageous position as they were much more capable of raising large armies than the local feudal vassals. Kings also had the ability to build the forts and tools necessary in order to defend themselves against other standing armies.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work