Nationalism is an inherently expansionist and destructive force. Discuss.

It could also be argued that nationalism is a potentially self destructive force when applied on a universal level. Firstly, the fact that there is no limit placed on the fragmentation of nation, in that there is no natural minimum size on which independence can be claimed. On a universal level then, it would be impossible to assume that all the nations in the world would not feel different cultural or ethnic separatism within itself. Their loyalties would not necessarily lying with the ‘main’ nation, but could instead be with another smaller nation within this.

Similarly there is the ever present problem of divided loyalties within the nation. This means that some people may feel a stronger loyalty toward their religion or ethnic background than toward the nation. In multiethnic nations (such as those in middle east; Iran, Afghanistan etc) where different loyalties are forced to coexist nations can often be on the brink of civil war because the subjective loyalty to the nation above all else is absent. For this reason ‘artificial’ nations can be assumed to be ineffective,

with the idea of nationalism only being effective if there is significant subjective loyalty.

Nationalism is however, not necessarily a strictly destructive force. The idea of Anti Colonialist Nationalism is something which, while still embodying the ideals of nationhood is used for a goal of national liberation. It is an anti oppressive branch of nationalism which embodies a somewhat socialist opposition to inequality and exploitation within the ideas of community and cooperation. This is an example of nationalism being used to unite people (or a nation) under a common goal of liberation and anti oppression, and in opposition to the militarist expansionist branches of the ideology. This demonstrates two things. Firstly that that western nationalism, in the expansionism brought with them “the seed of their own destruction”, with those in the developing world using their own nationalist ideals in retaliation to unify themselves in opposition. Secondly that nationalism is not “inherently” destructive and expansionist, as its fundamental ideas can be used in ways that are liberating and essentially good.

This idea is similarly reflected in the early forms of liberal nationalism. Early nationalism was focused less on expansion and militarism more on concepts within the nation, such as the defence of popular sovereignty and national freedoms and liberties. As liberalism itself was written in “the language of rights” it is inivitable that Liberal nationalism would seek not to destroy but to internally protect the rights of the nation and so those within it. Liberal Nationalism, like Anti Colonial Nationalism, opposes all forms of foreign domination and oppression, and perhaps more significantly pulls focus away from the unification or independence of the nation. These two concepts are often at the heart of  the need to expand or rather more obviously “purify” a nation, and so can be assumed to be much of the destructive force behind nationalism.

Nationalism as an ideology, is one which is divided along different extremes, and so as a result cannot realistically be ‘inherently’ anything. While the cases which have seen nationalism become expansionist and destructive (such as Nazi Germany) were fundamentally based on the nationalist ideals of patriotism, strength and prominence of the nation, it is the individual interpretation of these ideals taken to massive extremes that resulted in their destructive nature. It clear however that the idea of the nation and, more importantly its rights is present in many areas of the ideology, from the early liberal ideals, to later with the anti-oppressive Anti Colonial Nationalism, something which suggests that its ideas (at a basic level at least) can fundamentally be good and anti destructivist.