Ethics of Nationalism
Just Pride, Just Cause, or Just Wrong?
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Nationalism has been a relatively popular position throughout most of the modern era. Indeed, much of what passes for modernity can be closely associated with the pursuit of nationalist aspirations, nationalist goals, or nationalist principles. Is nationalism, however, really the sort of ideology we should be promoting and encouraging?
That is a very controversial question that is likely to raise all sorts of objections, especially when we point out that the ever-popular patriotism is a type of nationalism. Part of the problem here is the variety of ways in which nationalism can be conceived - we need to separate them in order to see if or how nationalism might be justified.
And what is nationalism? In whatever sense it is being used, the common denominator is always some sort of pride a person feels in connection to the nation they happen to live in. I say "happen" because it is rare that a person chooses their nation, even rarer than a person choosing their religion. Instead, a person's nation is almost always a consequence of whatever geographic region they happen to have been born in and they society in which they were raised.
Nationalism is, then, at its most basic a sense of pride in one's nation, but in what way is such pride actually justified? Pride makes sense when it is attached to one's own accomplishments, but not to the accomplishments of others - at least not when a person has had little or not impact upon those accomplishments. Pride in a local sports team, to cite one example, is normally a false pride that serves as a substitute for pride in real achievements.
People who don't vote certainly can't have national pride because they don't have even the remotest association with the achievements of their nation; while people who do vote may experience satisfaction at participating in the democratic process, but that doesn't rise to the level of nationalism. Only a few extraordinary individuals who substantially influence the course of a nation's events for the better might be justified in a level of pride that would justify a sense of nationalism, but such long-term effects wouldn't be known for sure until long after they died, so ultimately it's a moot point.
For some, nationalism might be a label they attach to their sense of devotion or pride to their ethnic and cultural heritage. At its worst, this devotion can devolve into ethnocentrism and cultural chauvinism; at it's best it's nonsense. The problem for such nationalists is that the geographic territory encompassed by a "nation" is not identical to the territory where a particular culture can be found. Not only can the much-loved culture be found outside those borders, but within the borders many "foreign" cultures find a home. Quite a few of the wars of the 19th and 20th century involved attempts to make the borders of nation and the borders of culture identical, and with disastrous results.
Finally, nationalism might be identified as a devotion to or pride in the ideals and principles upon which the nation was founded. When those ideals are good and positive, it can be difficult to find fault in such a position, but it can be equally difficult to understand just how it comes to be associated with nationalism in the first place. So grounded, devotion to one's nation should only go as far as that nation embodies those ideals - but that makes nationalism quite secondary to the devotion to ideals. Why even bother calling it "nationalism" in the first place?
Even if we grant an acceptability to this sort of "nationalism," we quickly find that political demagogues will blur the distinction between it and the other senses of the term, allowing them to lead us down the road to the horrors which have been made possible by nationalist extremism. Ultimately, nationalism becomes a process of propping up an artificial construct called a "nation," walling it off to separate insiders from outsiders, and then declaring that everything on the inside is good, pure, and righteous while everything on the outside represents corruption and decay against which we must fight in order to protect our way of life.
All of this is great for building up a group identity in the face of the uncertain tides of history, but it's terrible for building up peace and understanding among human groups. There may have been a time when the former was a necessary goal, but today the latter must take priority in our lives. Devotion to one's culture and certain ideals may be fair, but they do not fairly lead to nationalist sentiments or nationalist actions.
Furthermore, it is unethical for anyone to confuse the various senses of the term in an effort to draw people from a reasonable devotion to ideals to an unreasonable devotion to a "nation," but it is perhaps even more unethical for anyone to allow themselves to be hoodwinked in such a manner. Devotion to proper ideals and goals does not require devotion to one's nation; it does, however, require a devotion to holding one's nation accountable to the standards created by those ideals. If people manage to do that, then perhaps some pride in their nation might be warranted.
-->