Nationalism has surfaced as one of the dominant issues in contemporary politics. This co-insides with the ever increasing plural society that exists today. It is this very fact that has brought nationalism to the forefront of politics. Every state in the world is becoming more multi cultural with modernisation in transport and communication. This leads to states having a wealth of identities every one as distinctive as the next. However, it is the holding to of national identity so strong that has thinkers confused. There is a multitude of ways in which people could claim identity such as their gender, their class, religion, ethnicity, party allegiance or sexuality. There is something about nationalism that manages stir up emotion more than the above mentioned.
When determining why nationalistic loyalties are so strong, the element of history has to be taken into account. Despite the fact that many societies live under the nation state, history dictates that at one time, there were smaller societies within these supranational entities. This can be seen in the former Yugoslavia where many cultures such as Croats, Slovenians, Serbs, Bosnians and others made up the sovereign nation. However, it was inevitable that this situation was incompatible with the resulting break-up in the mid 90’s, which unfortunately involved two wars and heavy loss of life. It was apparent that there was one dominant figure in the form of Serbia. This in turn led the other regions to feel as if they were being controlled by an outsider. A classic example of the source of nationalism as it was clear that they felt that they were not represented in their own ruling. Ultimately, their ‘tribal’ loyalties shone through which resulted in conflict. The Yugoslav problem sums up the argument put forward by Sumner, “Loyalty to the group, sacrifice for it, hatred and contempt for outsiders, brotherhood within, warlikeness without-all grow together, common products of the same situation”.
Another example of this type of war which has be labelled ‘total war’, was in Chechnya. Again, the nationalistic ideal of breaking from the state caused heavy conflict with Chechen rebels fighting a bloody war with the Russian military in which many died and the capital city Grozny, was virtually annihilated. This is one form of conflict that arises from nationalism. Another, and one which is probably a larger threat to world peace is in the form of terrorist groups. Terrorist groups are a result of a group of individuals who strive to obtain independence for their nation by extreme methods. Their methods can be devastating to society with innocent citizens often being killed in the process. It is their inability to wage ‘total war’ that leads to the resorting of bombing, whether it be car bombing or suicide bombing. This form of nationalism seeks more than anything, to grasp the attention of international and national media. It rests on the ability to make the state vulnerable and incapable of functioning peacefully. Over the past thirty years, cases of these activities have been clear to see. Perhaps the most extreme is in Israel where Palestinian liberation forces have for many years have used terrorism to establish their nation of Palestine. The problem is also evident in the western world in the form of Northern Ireland and even Spain. The IRA and ETO have both fiercely fought for independence from the British and Spanish governments respectively. These groups are often regarded as populist nationalists as reinforced by Roger Griffin.
The sheer addictiveness that nationalism possesses strengthens the claim that it ultimately leads to conflict. People are more likely to act irrationally if they are under the influence of an emotional sentiment such as nationalism. Furthermore, nationalism is a cause that is very appealing and therefore attracts more people. Guibernau provides an explanation of why this might be the case, “An essential strategy in the generation of national identity consists of uniting people against a common enemy”.
Nationalism does not necessarily involve violent conflict in today’s society. Perhaps the most common form of conflict that is a result of nationalism, is quite simply the negative attitude that nationalists adopt to people of other nationalist identity. This is perhaps the cause for the classic scenario of a rivalry that exists between neighbouring nations. This certainly can be said for the general attitude that Scots possess in regards to their English counterparts. Although an element of history accounts for this, it appears that showing nationalist passions towards Scotland, goes hand-in-hand with displaying negative feelings towards England. This is no more evident than at football matches where the basis of nearly all the Scottish football songs, is to be derogatory towards England.
Despite all the apparent downsides of nationalism and the undoubted conflict that it produces, there is room for argument to suggest that it is actually a good thing and not a source of conflict. As already stated, many believe that nationalism accounts for the industrial society which exists today. Following on from this argument, it can be stated that legitimacy is given to the state in which its citizens develop an emotional attachment to. “It can be a source of creativity in the arts and enterprise in the economy,” as stated by James G Kellas.
Gellner is keen to throw support to nationalism. Is arguments include the fact that nationalism helps in sustaining the educational system which can keep a literate culture going. Nationalism is good in the sense that creates a sense of belonging to the individual within society thus encouraging the individual to work to their maximum potential. It is also comforting to the individual to feel closely knit into a community hence making them happy.
A final argument that has to be considered is the claim that nationalism is in fact dying out. If this were so, nationalism could not account for the most recent cases of conflict. There are those that believe post World War Two politics suggest that nationalism no longer plays a part in society. This can be confirmed in the nation-state building that occurred in Europe at the time and the decolonisation in Africa, Asia and other parts of the world. Andrew Heywood makes light of this topic and continues, “Moreover as the twentieth century progressed it appeared that the nation had been made redundant by the progressive internationalisation of economic and political life”. This point is justified as it can be claimed that supranational organisations such as the European Union, World Trade Organisation and the International Monetary Fund dictate contemporary world politics. This in turn is leading to smaller and smaller emphasis on decision-making by the individual nation.
On the whole, the magnetism of nationalism in current world politics is justified. It is a very contentious issue that often creates very contentious circumstances. This goes some way to determining whether or not, in a pluralist society, nationalism has the affect of creating conflict. There is a wealth of evidence to suggest that this is the case. Perhaps the most incriminating evidence is quite simply the cause of many of the wars in the last thirty years or so. It is clear to see that in the cases of Yugoslavia, Chechnya and Rwanda, nationalism was the catalyst for violence. Furthermore, nationalism is directly culpable for much of the terrorist threat that exists today. That is particularly true of the current affairs in Northern Ireland and Israel where conflict is commonplace. With regards to the claim that nationalism promotes negative feelings towards neighbouring countries, this is clearly displayed in countries such as Scotland whereby being avidly Scottish, entails also being anti-English. The same could be said for the bordering countries of the USA and Canada. The arguments highlighting the positive factors of nationalism do go some way to justifying nationalism. However, they cannot hide the fact that nationalism, ultimately in a pluralist society, is a recipe for conflict.
Bibliography
Doob L W, Patriotism and Nationalism, 1964, Yale University Press
Eatwell R and Wright A, Contemporary Political Ideologies, 1999,
Gellner E, Nations and Nationalism, 1983, Basil Blackwell Ltd
Guibernau M, Nationalisms, 1996, Polity Press
Guibernau M and Hutchinson J, Understanding Nationalism, 2001, Polity Press
Heywood A, Political Ideologies, 1998, Macmillan Press Ltd
Kellas J G, The Politics of Nationalism and Ethnicity, 1991, Macmillan Press Ltd
Miller D, On Nationality, 1997
Smith A D et al, 1982, Pg17
Sumner in Doob L W, 1964, Pg249
Eatwell R and Wright A, 1999, Pg172
Guibernau M and Hutchinson J, 2001, Pg263
Heywood A, 1998, Pg183-184
