Is Patriotism Obsolete?
Nemesis_Zero
Old European Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 75Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
Old European Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 75Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Bit of states theory...</div> This one popped up when I went through some newssites and noticed the penetrant nationalism they served with their stories - it reminded me a little of manieristic art. Any kind of artistic school of thought sooner or later reaches the point when it's past its prime and can only recycle its ideas while making them step by step more grotesque and pointless. This late stage of cultural decay is often called 'maniersitic', and I can't help but to think that we're at a point when traditional nations have reached the same situation.
Let me elaborate.
Why did people start forming communities that extended the frame of cities and villages? Because they had something that united them. In the maybe oldest case of a civilization uniformly enough to describe it as 'country', Egypt, it was the river. The need for dams and irrigation systems that were too compilcated for single communities to maintain made nearby cities unite, the need to organize the constant defense and adaption to natures threats created a countrywide bureaucracy, and at its top, a government.
Most countries began like this - certain factors controlled the everyday lives of many, which then joined to face those more effectively.
In the beginning - and this term can be loosely applied to all time between the antique empires and the end of the Dark Ages - these uniting factors were usually of geographic nature. A river that threatened to drown your crops, mountains that had to be secured and mined, thick forests that had to be burned - such things were the saplings of countries.
These countries grew, and often grew larger than the old common denominator. This led in some cases to their decline - the Ottomanic Realm or Germany during the Dark Ages, for example - while others created new factors that were strong enough to unify the country, and be it only the unified military that would uniformly kill whomever happened to decide that the kings reign wasn't as holy as it was said. China would be the perfect example here.
The actual idea of 'nations' and 'national identity' is much younger. It's an invention of the 18th century, during the transition between extended Renaissance and Industrialization.
The European countries had grown big - bigger than Europe, in fact - and their governments had achieved bigger power than any other entity before them. Their countries had however become so big and diverse that geographic or similiarly 'real' factors couldn't lend unity to the whole of the population.
Thus, 'national identities' developed, abstract factors that created a feeling for unity where there was none in everyday life. Cultural heritage and physical characteristics, common history and the common reciever of ones taxes were cited to create this feeling. Above all, these new nations were however negative definitions - definitions against <i>other</i> nations. German, thus not French, Russian, or British. British, thus not German, French or Irish. French, thus nothing other.
The invention of nations was accompanied by a new kind of warfare. Suddenly, armed conflicts stopped being something between two feudal sovereigns, and became something between two populations. They weren't fought by mercenaries for money, but by soldiers for their nation. WW1 or 2 wouldn't have been possible without of nationalism and patriotism.
And today? Todays nations are in almost all cases too big to be based on common geographic characteristics anymore, but also the abstract values crumble. Globalization is not a soley economic process, it extends into culture. This does, contrary to shortened anti-/pro-americanistic rethoric not mean the export of one nations cultural identity into other nations, it means a constant im - <i>and</i> export, although not in equal amounts. But even if all nations <i>were</i> to become 'small Americas', this would still mean the end of the American nation.
Why? Because this nation defines itself as much as being different from the rest of the world as every other nation. If all national images start equalling, and they do, just look at Europe, this definition becomes obsolete.
Even more, the creation of international broadband communication like the internet means that people are no longer forced to search for people of equal everyday life or opinion, which is, as I already explained, the beginning of a common identity, in the geographical proximity.
Look around yourself. How many of the people you see on the street, which're most probably of your nationality, are truly 'like you'? How many of them have an identity that's even remotely comparable to yours? I for mine know that there are people in Boston, York, North Carolina, Egypt, and Australia I share more interests, ideas, and thus identity with than with my neighbours.
Thus, nations that extend the frame of direct problem solutions - where to build a street, how to organize a hospital, how to build that damn - will in my opinion decline in the near future as they just aren't necessary anymore.
Let me elaborate.
Why did people start forming communities that extended the frame of cities and villages? Because they had something that united them. In the maybe oldest case of a civilization uniformly enough to describe it as 'country', Egypt, it was the river. The need for dams and irrigation systems that were too compilcated for single communities to maintain made nearby cities unite, the need to organize the constant defense and adaption to natures threats created a countrywide bureaucracy, and at its top, a government.
Most countries began like this - certain factors controlled the everyday lives of many, which then joined to face those more effectively.
In the beginning - and this term can be loosely applied to all time between the antique empires and the end of the Dark Ages - these uniting factors were usually of geographic nature. A river that threatened to drown your crops, mountains that had to be secured and mined, thick forests that had to be burned - such things were the saplings of countries.
These countries grew, and often grew larger than the old common denominator. This led in some cases to their decline - the Ottomanic Realm or Germany during the Dark Ages, for example - while others created new factors that were strong enough to unify the country, and be it only the unified military that would uniformly kill whomever happened to decide that the kings reign wasn't as holy as it was said. China would be the perfect example here.
The actual idea of 'nations' and 'national identity' is much younger. It's an invention of the 18th century, during the transition between extended Renaissance and Industrialization.
The European countries had grown big - bigger than Europe, in fact - and their governments had achieved bigger power than any other entity before them. Their countries had however become so big and diverse that geographic or similiarly 'real' factors couldn't lend unity to the whole of the population.
Thus, 'national identities' developed, abstract factors that created a feeling for unity where there was none in everyday life. Cultural heritage and physical characteristics, common history and the common reciever of ones taxes were cited to create this feeling. Above all, these new nations were however negative definitions - definitions against <i>other</i> nations. German, thus not French, Russian, or British. British, thus not German, French or Irish. French, thus nothing other.
The invention of nations was accompanied by a new kind of warfare. Suddenly, armed conflicts stopped being something between two feudal sovereigns, and became something between two populations. They weren't fought by mercenaries for money, but by soldiers for their nation. WW1 or 2 wouldn't have been possible without of nationalism and patriotism.
And today? Todays nations are in almost all cases too big to be based on common geographic characteristics anymore, but also the abstract values crumble. Globalization is not a soley economic process, it extends into culture. This does, contrary to shortened anti-/pro-americanistic rethoric not mean the export of one nations cultural identity into other nations, it means a constant im - <i>and</i> export, although not in equal amounts. But even if all nations <i>were</i> to become 'small Americas', this would still mean the end of the American nation.
Why? Because this nation defines itself as much as being different from the rest of the world as every other nation. If all national images start equalling, and they do, just look at Europe, this definition becomes obsolete.
Even more, the creation of international broadband communication like the internet means that people are no longer forced to search for people of equal everyday life or opinion, which is, as I already explained, the beginning of a common identity, in the geographical proximity.
Look around yourself. How many of the people you see on the street, which're most probably of your nationality, are truly 'like you'? How many of them have an identity that's even remotely comparable to yours? I for mine know that there are people in Boston, York, North Carolina, Egypt, and Australia I share more interests, ideas, and thus identity with than with my neighbours.
Thus, nations that extend the frame of direct problem solutions - where to build a street, how to organize a hospital, how to build that damn - will in my opinion decline in the near future as they just aren't necessary anymore.
Comments
Oh, also, in response to your "Governments have grown big geographically" argument, I believe that's why Europeans stopped their colonialism, and why people are so opposed to "American neo-colonialism".
A strong national identity leads for example to centralized governments, whereas weak nationalism creates federative structures, but my main point was that both, strong <i>and</i> weak nationalism, are just obsolete nowadays. I'm thus not making a statement in favor of one of the two governmental systems.
Do you mean they will be federalist goverment instead of being unitarian?
Federalism would be the answer to the problem of countires being to large. Just let there be more then 1 goverment in a nation <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Nowadays, there <i>is</i> an American identity - the reverence to the flag, the support to ones troops, the American Dream, this kind of stuff. It is what is exported <i>by</i> consumption - just take all the patriotic Hollywood flicks that have big turnouts abroad.
My thesis is that <i>this kind of mindset</i> is about to vanish, governmental changes are only an effect of it.
But governments + big business == all bets are off. Have you seen what the big three have been saying lately?
<a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030415/ts_nm/iraq_opponents_dc&cid=564&ncid=1473' target='_blank'>PLLEEEAAASEEE DON'T TAKE AWAY OUR MONEY, WE'RE SOORRRRYYYY...</a>
Far more than the colors of brown, black, white, or yellow - green is the real influencer.
If anything, it only perpetuates the process of the end of patriotism because one of its foundation - faith in the own government - crumbles.
ive never felt very patriotic, and i can agree that i find more in common with people on the internet than people around me (then i was always a little introverted)..
if peoples expectations of nations are defined by difference to other nations, or some other common bond, [pushed by whatever media or social factor] why should this be changing now when these kinda of differences are highlighted so stongly. what exactly do you think is causing peoples ideas of nations to change? apathy..?
and if traditional ideas of nations are abandoned, what do you think will take their place?
I'm not suggesting that there will be a "global village" *shudder*, or that IRC will ever replace real human interaction, but it does erode the traditional boundaries of what we consider communities and nations to be. This is a defintie trend from history. To return to Nem's post, inital placement of communities was (usually) around an area of fresh water, think about all the major cities that have rivers running through them (the Thames, the Seine, the Danube and so on....). With the advent of decent water supplies to outlying areas the population expands to take advantage of other raw materials, previously inaccessible. I'd attribute the early success of the Roman Empire to its control of water. technology moves forward again, you have improvents in travel, infrastructure, basic standards of living etc. All improvements that allow expansion because our physical needs are met.
We in the first world are lucky enough to have scaled Maslow's hierarchy of needs (in general - I'm aware of the way the hierarchy works) and now technology has provided us with a way to extend communities even further, communities without physical presence.
In an age where free movement of peoples is permitted (in the EU) Europe is leaning towards federalism, and a single currency, is it unthinkable that the trend will continue and nations lose their physical definitions?
Americans live in a nation of majority of immigrants.
Nations are the communities you create, not where you are.
I don't know how many opposing responses this post is going to get, Nem. It's sort of like saying 'I hate Serial Killers! Agree or disagree?'. Nationalism has been a dirty word ever since Europe killed 8 million of its own citizens and wounded 21 million more in WW1...
edit: And my point above was that patriotism and nationalism are already dead. It's now commercialism...
I doubt that any national image could ever be brought to a constant state - historic movement has always changed how we percieve our country, my homeland is the maybe most drastic example of it (in fifty years from 'We are superior!' to 'We are done for!' to 'We are divided!' to 'We are an economic wonder!' to 'What the hell <i>are</i> we?'). Everything, and be it the GI your girlfriend ran away with, can change your personal opinion about certain elements of the national image, and in effect on a microscopic scale the popular perception of the own nation.
The bigger the influence (think 9/11), the more drastic the impact on our national self-understanding.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and if traditional ideas of nations are abandoned, what do you think will take their place? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a highly interesting question, and Beast already presented one possibility - the formation of loose federative structures soley based on practical necessity, a little like medieval trading organisations.
I'd by the way like to point out that the EU is not the perfect example for such a structure, because it currently experiences two developments at the same time: On the one hand, it gives the old European nations a forum in which they can equallize and thus sooner or later abandon the idea of nationalism altogether, but at the same time, it tries to create a new, artificial European nationalism that inflates itself proportionally to its real pointlessness (see my 'manierism' comment). It remains to be seen how it'll work out.
There are however other possibilites.
Maybe, consumption will turn out to be the ultimately strongest unifying interest. In this case, the communities of the future could be closely connected to the entities that can satisfy the need for consumption at best - corporations. Maybe, we're steering into a future of 'Nike Nations'.
[edit]
MonsE summed this possibility up nicely:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And my point above was that patriotism and nationalism are already dead. It's now commercialism... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[/edit]
Maybe we'll simply see our current nations shatter into a multitude of smaller structures that're so close and easily comprehensible to their populations that a new nationalism of a smaller scale can develop.
Maybe we'll see the current inflated nations purposely create new paradigms to keep their nationalism alive - the whole 'Homeland Security' campaign in the USA, which clearly leads to a demonization of Muslims, can be percieved as one such attempt.
Maybe, and this is the most probable outcome, it'll be completely different to what we expect.
[edit]<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't know how many opposing responses this post is going to get, Nem. It's sort of like saying 'I hate Serial Killers! Agree or disagree?'. Nationalism has been a dirty word ever since Europe killed 8 million of its own citizens and wounded 21 million more in WW1...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, while semantically correct, I used the wrong word. Changed to 'Patriotism' in the topic.
I had however always the impression that patriotism is still alive and well - especially in the US, as your first paragraph shows. Ironic, but the whole 'melting pot' mythology which seems to perpetuate the decline of nationalism at first glance is indeed in itself a sophisticated form of nationalism, because it claims this role of the 'equalizer' of all nationalities for a single nation. Enough to disagree? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
This 'meta-patriotism' is of course as incorrect as any other. Great Britain, France, and to some extent also Germany are just as much 'melting pots' as the US. The whole idea is just a slightly incorrect description of the constant imigration in and amongst the Western World (yet another meta-nationalism).
I'd by the way like to point out that <i>no</i> national identity is much older than 200 years. France got its with the French Revolution and Napoleon, the British pretty much reinvented theirs after the complete occupation of India, and let's don't even begin with Germany.[/edit]
[edit2]Just read Jammers post. And you said we had nothing to disagree on....[/edit2]
Finally, a nice, non-confrontational discussion!
EDIT
I agree with Nem- consumption, more specifically economic ties, will control the world, not armies. And I certainly don't fear corporation states ala EVERY OTHER SCI-FI GAME!
The image that springs to mind straight away is Robocop's OCP. How long before democracy is replaced by an AGM - or am I pushing it too far?
Hmmm... as you yourself love to point out, there were 200,000 people marching in NYC in februrary against the war (against the government, against US policy, against the American direction - in some ways of saying 'unpatriotic', so to speak, although not in a bad way). I rather doubt that more than a few thousand people TOTAL in the US have marched in 'patriotic' support of the government. So I'm not sure if your theory bears up.
As for the melting pot thing, don't kid yourselves that Germany is ethnically diverse as opposed to the US, or has experienced massive waves of hundreds of millions of immigrants for several hundred years. German experience is mostly providing those outgoing waves AWAY from your country. Ditto France, the UK, etc. I'm not trying to say that's bad or good, but all countries have limited immigration. The USA on the other hand is composed almost entirely of recent immigrants, from the past 100 years mostly. It's a bit hard to comprehend what it's actually like unless you live here.
I don't know how this is nationalism. To say that America is a melting pot of various foreigners is just a statement of demographics and census taking...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'd by the way like to point out that no national identity is much older than 200 years. France got its with the French Revolution and Napoleon, the British pretty much reinvented theirs after the complete occupation of India, and let's don't even begin with Germany.[/edit]
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am going to have to hammer you on this one. For one, you use a silly absolute that instantly negates your argument. And I would say that British national identity, as well as french, has survived pretty much unchanged for a thousand years. Perhaps I am finding fault with your phrase 'national identity'. Germany - no disagreement here. You went from the 2nd worst murders on earth (statistically) after the Soviets to being cuddily kittens in a few short years. Quite an amazing transformation.
The whole idea of a 'national identity' can't be dated further back than in the 18th century because the word 'nation' didn't even exist in todays meaning before that.
More to follow later.
IIRC Mao murdered more than Hitler and Stalin put together, although the transformation to Kittens is admittedly slower.
National Identities very in their origins and time frame. The US has always had a idealistic national identity. Though we've had ups and downs, over all the US sees itself as a light of freedom in an other wise dark world. Americans beleive they are an exceptional people with a duty to spread their way of life. Not saying its good or bad, but thats the national identity.
China is different. China developed its national identity after the Communist took over and more or less forced a certain breed nationalism on its people. Right now there is a sense of competition in China. After years of being, as they see it, shafted by the West, China is seeking recognition and presitge.
Japan still is different. Japans current identity was established in New Imperialism and World War II...
It should be obvious you can't generalize the development of cultural identities. We can discuss the future of nationalism though.
I personally see nationalism being replaced with Americanism. America will retain its cultural identity, but other countries, unable to stop the import of culture, will have their patriotic situations stifled by consumerism. Again, not good or bad (I think good... see my earlier post about Planet America).
I personally like the idea of Planet America. I have an idealistic view of my country and the good (I beleive) it embodies.
Although I guess I'm kinda biased on this one since I despise nationalism and can't deal very well with patriotism either, seeing in which country I grew up.
The one thing I don't see so far is this actually happening. Sure, Europe is slowly opening its borders with a unified currency and in a few years maybe even a unified language which would make Monse jump up and down in joy for a week at least, America is gaining more and more influence in every country in the world, but somehow I fear that people will cling to their precious patriotism and national identities.
In opposition to what Monse said about patriotism in the US declining as well with the example of the protests, I too think that the American national identity is just as strong as always. 9/11 and the thirst for vengeance really fused the nation back together. I somehow have the ipression that American patriotism is the one thing that will survive the collapse of global borders. As Jammer pointed out, part of the national identity is being the light in a dark world and somehow I doubt that will change even after the whole has been lit up.
On an unrelated note, part of my Matrix just crumbled, seeing that I could agree with Jammer on pretty much everything he said. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I think it terms of seeing patriotism and nationalism decline I'd probably disagree. If anything these factors seem to be quite alive and well. As a recent example I'll look at support for the Iraq war here in Australia. It went from 80% opposition prior to the conflict to 70% support a mere 2 days after the fighting started. There was a belief that if you opposed the war whilst it was happening then you were "unpatriotic"; you weren't supporting your country or it's troops. And we here in Oz arn't what you'd call very passionate about patriotism.
The thing is that national identities have become so defining since their creation that they have aquired new meanings on their own. The nation of America is fiercly independant; the country still draws heavily from it's revolutionary heritage. Hence any attempt to destroy this independance of America is met with feirce opposition from the country itself. However, the same would apply for France, also China. Even Britian, who has resisted repeated attempts by Europe to assert more control over the island. If you travel around the world and look at the nations that have been either born from colonial withdrawl or fought to achieve their independance from another country then you find a very strong sence of national identity and a resistance to any sort of external control. The nations in the above classification encompass a quite significant portion of the globe.
Hence from such feelings of independance patriotism and nationalism find good support. I think that eventually we may see corperations begin to completly transcend borders, but the current problem lies in that more corperations themselves have national identities, be they real or percieved. Halliburton (spelling?) in the US may not be controlled by the US itself but it is percieved by much of the external world as an "American Corperation". As such, it's entry into somewhere like Iraq is seen by some as an infringement of national sovereinty. That's just an example; the entry of a major British corperation into India would be likely viewed the same way. Once corperations aquire a truely "global" identity could we see them begin to break down borders.
Doubtless with the increase in communications, the growth of the internet, and the ease of travel around the world cultural and national boundaries are starting to slowly erode. However, history is still lurking in the background, providing fodder for nationalism and patriotism. People will still see themselves as part of a state or nation for a very long time to come. Indeed, despite what has been mentioned above about borders eroding recent events might give us an insight into this. The US has just undertaken an action which was contrary to world opinion but which it undertook in the name of it's own national security. Underlying this is the history of the US: independant and shaped by the revolution. The belief that the national intrest of the US superceeds the wishes of the world community. I think as long as such beliefs remain with us the true breakdown of nationalism and patriotism can never truely occur nor even begin.
IIRC Mao murdered more than Hitler and Stalin put together, although the transformation to Kittens is admittedly slower. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Superduper sidenote: Sort of depends on how you look at it. Here's a decent reference material on the subject (don't let the URL fool you, the numbers are, best I can tell, factually correct).
<a href='http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/tyrants.htm' target='_blank'>Who was the Bloodiest Tyrant of the 20th Century?</a>
And I can find absolutely nothing wrong with what Ryo said. And Believe me, I was trying!!! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
It's an ebb and flow. Take France - they have citizens that throw bricks through windows of mcdonalds, they are so nationalistic (should I mention that they also deface graves of British WW1 soldiers to voice their opposition to war? Oops, I just did). And yet the popular French slang for a pen is Le Bic. Modern nationalism is the ability to hold two opposing views in your head at the same time - down with the USA, but up with Jerry Lewis! It certainly is going to prevent the EU from ever reaching even a tiny fraction of its potential, for one. Perhaps when commercialism becomes the truly overwhleming pan-global force of sci-fi, it can just cause mergers between the various countries and create something new. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> But 6000 years of nationalism (yes, you heard me say it - I can easily prove that the Roman empire was nationalism in action, or that the Sumerians, Manchurians, Egyptians, etc. all excercised very recognizable nationalism) is going to be a hard habit to break...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Weak! I thought if anyone would find fault it would be you Monse. Don't make me find another arch-nemesis <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Surfice it to say that nationalism and patriotism won't ever die (mankinds roots are too tribal for me to believe that). I'm betting on the definitions of what a nation is, and what defines it changing in the long run. I think that this can be seen in the fracturing of nations into smaller groups: the balkans, the former USSR, Scotland getting its own parliament, Wales its own assmbly. People who feel disenfranchised in the nations they find themselves in will strive to create a nation with other like minded individuals, an when that number hits a critical mass (of lobbying pressure or military might) then a breakout happens.
I guess its the flipside of the "Ethnic cleansing" thing. Setting up your own nation, or removing those that are ruining your utopia.
Anywho it would be logical to think that 'in the end' we had a world of free trade, all countries being reasonably equal with technology, status and government. Basic peace on Earth. The ideal government could be one of many so I won't touch that. Physical towns will have cultures and mini societies like we do now but people won't have to move physically to feel at home. People will keep their opinions to themselves (no more raving priests yelling 'you're going to hell') outdoors, but can express them indoors to their community with their advanced nano-3d whatever system. This and that and it will be nice and everything and peacefull. This will discourage physical movement but that's not such a bad thing, oil is running out you know <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->