On the one hand it might be argued that nationalism is inherently expansionist and destructive because nationalism dictates that people should be divided into different nations, the citizens of each nation are bound together by a common culture (language, religion, history and traditions) and patriotism. Such divisions and loyalties can result in inter-nationalist conflict, xenophobia and intolerance of diversity which might result in war.
However, nationalism has many separate branches and one should not pigeon hole aggressive Chauvinist nationalist with progressive inclusive forms of nationalism because they as, I will demonstrate, they are very different. Aggressive chauvinist forms of nationalism usually project ideas of national inferiority or superiority. Whereas progressive inclusive forms of nationalism are more concerned with the idea of harmonious community of nations which compete in economic and political terms for prestige and prosperity.
Liberal nationalism was established in the nineteenth century which emphasised the need for the nation and the state to coincide. Liberal nationalists view nations as ‘moral entities’ which acts as a force to join citizens of a state on the basis of universal rights and freedoms. The nation itself became a symbol of universalism and progress as shown in the French revolution.
Nationalism however has been used by extremists as a means by which to achieve political power, this distorted form of nationalism reared its ugly head at the start of the twentieth century. Germany’s Nazism and Italy’s Fascism warped Nationalism into an extreme interpretation based on ideas of the eternal struggle between nations for survival and ultimate domination. Fascists believe in honour and the importance of war as a test of national character, which led to the tragedy of the Second World War and the use of genocide in countries such as Yugoslavia.
The question is: is aggressive, expansionist nationalism inherent in liberal nationalism, or are the two processes fundamentally different? Unfortunately it seems (as was the case in Yugoslavia) that nationalism usually entails a darker side. By definition, a doctrine which emphasises the differences rather than the similarities between humans must inevitably lead to rivalry and competition, though not necessarily expansionism and total destruction.
To what extent is nationalism rationalism or irrationalism?
