What is a nation-state ?

[Invictus_88]

Maciamo,

How would you counter the argument that the nation-state is a much more substantial entity than an ethnicity or culture, and that it is in our present day still of significant importance?

[Maciamo]

Maciamo,
How would you counter the argument that the nation-state is a much more substantial entity than an ethnicity or culture, and that it is in our present day still of significant importance?

Firstly, what is your definition of nation-state ?

[Invictus_88]

Nation State as defined by Scruton. A body of people existing through time, in a specific geographic area, under a government they (broadly) accept.

[Maciamo]

Nation State as defined by Scruton. A body of people existing through time, in a specific geographic area, under a government they (broadly) accept.

Then ancient Egypt was a nation-state. This is completely anachronistic as the idea of nation-state dates from 19th-century Europe.

100 years ago, the Austro-Hungarian Empire was a nation-state. Now it's been divided in 6 countries with bits belonging to yet other countries. But would you say that the Czech Republic or Croatia are not nation-states ? Or was it Austro-Hungary that wasn't one. If it wasn't one, what makes you think that Germany or Italy or Spain are more culturally or genetically uniform that Austro-Hungary ?

If genetics and regional culture define the nation-state, then nation-states should be small, about the size of modern Austria, or Bavaria, or Flanders, or Catalonia, or Wales...

If the common language is what matters, then France, Germany, Italy or Austro-Hungary were not nation-states to start with, because people used to speak many languages or unintelligible dialects. 100 years ago, over 90% of the people in the southern half of France could not speak or understand Parisian French and did not identify with France as a nation. Same in Italy. How many Austro-Hungarian spoke German or Hungarian or both ?

It doesn't matter how long look at it, big countries like France or Germany cannot be logically considered as nation-state. This was all late 19th-century propaganda to enrol people in the army.

Even a small country like Belgium isn't a nation-state because it has two distinct linguistic/cultural groups that do not see each other as one nation but two under a central government.

Add to this the modern population movement. People marry outside their country borders, work abroad, settle abroad... There are about 10% of "foreigners" (people born and raised in another country, even if later naturalised) in most Western European countries nowadays. In Switzerland it is over 20%.

Then it is becoming commonplace in Europe for people to speak several languages. So even being united under a common language doesn't mean much nowadays. Culture is also increasingly globalised. There is less difference in lifestyle between Cologne and Bordeaux nowadays than there was between Cologne and Munich 100 years ago. The difference is even more flagrant when you compare life in Europe and Japan 150 years ago and now. We passed from 2 completely separate world to places where you could have pretty much the same lifestyle, values and hobbies once the language barrier is removed.

So at what level do you place the nation-state in modern society ? Does it still exist ? Are all countries nation-states for you ? If not give examples, please.

[LeBrok]

Good write up Maciamo. This is a great example how complexity of real life, and nature in general, escapes and defies human mind loving to label, compartmentalize, segregate and define things, in order to better understand the world around us. It is a daunting task to put parts of our life into one bag and stick one label on it. Pretty soon a whole bag is covered with text of many definitions and exceptions. A while later we notice that things from one bag overlap with contents of other bags. One label turns into spectrum of things. Now people are lost again, lol.

[Invictus_88]

That's a pretty good explanation of the complexity of nationality, I'm glad you took the time.

Though, I still don't see that it makes nations obsolete. What should replace nations, and why would this be beneficial?

[Maciamo]

That's a pretty good explanation of the complexity of nationality, I'm glad you took the time.

Though, I still don't see that it makes nations obsolete. What should replace nations, and why would this be beneficial?

The EU is a good example of what the future will be like, states that aren't pegged to an imaginary concept of nation. The EU is not only a supranational entity, it could be seen as a new form of multi-tiered federal state, with up to 5 levels of government (EU, country, state/region, province, municipality). It is beneficial to get rid of the idea of ethnico-cultural nation and relegate it to some semi-autonomous region/state level because it prevents nationalism, wars and racism. I think we have learnt our lessons from WWI and WWII.

[Invictus_88]

Is it strictly necessary to have a super-State in order to avoid European war?

[Wellington]

Is it strictly necessary to have a super-State in order to avoid European war?

No!, I think the way the EU is going, it is likely to start a war than to prevent one, all this EU nationalism and jingoism

[edao]

100 years ago, over 90% of the people in the southern half of France could not speak or understand Parisian French and did not identify with France as a nation. Same in Italy. How many Austro-Hungarian spoke German or Hungarian or both ?

Interesting point about the diversity of language in the early formations of these nations. It would be interesting to know what those percentages stand at today(for fluencey in French, German and Italian) for those countries probably in the 90% region I would imagine. I'd argue that the success of these countries in developing a coherent, stable nation was dependant on establishing a common tongue amongst its people.

In the same way the EU will never be a real community until we establish a common language. The amount of cultural exchange between european countries is very poor. I doubt I have ever watched a German film, I know of no French comedians, and I couldn't think of any Italian rock bands. I'm sure there are loads of funny French men, great German films and rockin Italian bands, but does the average European man on the street care, not really because he can't understand a word of it. I see more American new on our TV(British) than European, I turn over to Euronews to see all sorts of interesting things happening all over Europe but it is completely ignored by the British press. It would be interesitng to know how biased other national news stations are toward coverage related to countries that speak the same language. I feel this kind of media black out only helps to alienate the general British population towards Europe, why would you be accepting of people you know very little about?

The southern people of France who spoke their local dialect or language I'm sure were outraged and angered when a parisian rode into town and told them to start speaking the French we know today, but that was progress and it brought people together. Surley the loss in diversity of language is a price worth paying for greater unity?

I would make the point as a native English speaker (forgive the poor typing) that this is no agenda for Enlgish as a common tongue. If the EU leader announced tommorw that French was to be the common language of Europe I'd be the first to say "Bonjour!" .

[Wellington]

Interesting point about the diversity of language in the early formations of these nations. It would be interesting to know what those percentages stand at today(for fluencey in French, German and Italian) for those countries probably in the 90% region I would imagine. I'd argue that the success of these countries in developing a coherent, stable nation was dependant on establishing a common tongue amongst its people.

In the same way the EU will never be a real community until we establish a common language. The amount of cultural exchange between european countries is very poor. I doubt I have ever watched a German film, I know of no French comedians, and I couldn't think of any Italian rock bands. I'm sure there are loads of funny French men, great German films and rockin Italian bands, but does the average European man on the street care, not really because he can't understand a word of it. I see more American new on our TV(British) than European, I turn over to Euronews to see all sorts of interesting things happening all over Europe but it is completely ignored by the British press. It would be interesitng to know how biased other national news stations are toward coverage related to countries that speak the same language. I feel this kind of media black out only helps to alienate the general British population towards Europe, why would you be accepting of people you know very little about?

The southern people of France who spoke their local dialect or language I'm sure were outraged and angered when a parisian rode into town and told them to start speaking the French we know today, but that was progress and it brought people together. Surley the loss in diversity of language is a price worth paying for greater unity?

I would make the point as a native English speaker (forgive the poor typing) that this is no agenda for Enlgish as a common tongue. If the EU leader announced tommorw that French was to be the common language of Europe I'd be the first to say "Bonjour!" .

I see the Auld alliance is still strong as ever

[Tautalos]

The EU is a good example of what the future will be like, states that aren't pegged to an imaginary concept of nation.

The concept of Nation is not immaginary. Actually, it is quite real, and ancient.

It is beneficial to get rid of the idea of ethnico-cultural nation

No, it is not. It's a way to genocide - slow and «painless» death of identities.

I think we have learnt our lessons from WWI and WWII.

Yes... the oppression of nationalities under a same political entity caused WWI. That happened again in Yugoslavia in the early nineties of the past century. It happens whenever, or in several situations, when more than one racial/ethnic/national group is under the same «roof» or State. But it seems that many people did not understand it...
Moreover, to say that the suppression of nationalities would end conflicts, pure imperialistic propaganda, is like saying that the solution to end all rapes is to castrate all men.

[Starship]

"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"

What was the difference between the terrorists attack 9/11 in the US and the 7/7 attack in the UK ? the Muslims who attacked the US were from abroad, the Muslims involved in the UK attacks were British.

Why have there been no home grown terrorist attacks by Muslims in the US ? well one argument put forward was patriotism.

But how do you make a vast country like the US with over 350 million people with different languages, ethnic make up and social positions feel patriot to the same one Nation?

I dont know,
Is it the one dollar, the education system, the president, a shared culture, a shared experience of history, or the opportunity, the American Dream up for any one whos prepared to work for it?
I dont know, but there must be something to this nation state.

[Neander]

I think there is no patriotism in USA.

Thay are slaves, who work all the day, pay taxes, and it is another group of people who make propagande, create artificial culture, feed artificial identity etc.

Remove american government, and the so-called "american nation" will not exist.

[Neander]

The country cannot be base of identity, just like Wolf of India, is not the same as hindu people, but it is very similar to European Wolf.

[Invictus_88]

"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"
What was the difference between the terrorists attack 9/11 in the US and the 7/7 attack in the UK ? the Muslims who attacked the US were from abroad, the Muslims involved in the UK attacks were British.
Why have there been no home grown terrorist attacks by Muslims in the US ? well one argument put forward was patriotism.
But how do you make a vast country like the US with over 350 million people with different languages, ethnic make up and social positions feel patriot to the same one Nation?
I dont know,
Is it the one dollar, the education system, the president, a shared culture, a shared experience of history, or the opportunity, the American Dream up for any one whos prepared to work for it?
I dont know, but there must be something to this nation state.

JihadJane, Anwar al-Awlaki, Adam Yahiye Gadahn, Wadih el-Hage, Ziyad Khaleel, Colleen LaRose, Sharif Mobley, José Padilla, Bryant Neal Vinas, and the Buffalo Six?

[LeBrok]

It was just a matter of time till Muslim clerics stepped up indoctrination in USA, and here we go, the home grown terrorists are popping up like daises even in America.

[iapodos]

The fate of Yugoslavia, the land of South Slavs should be very good example to Europe too. If someone thinks that maniacs from Balkan made one more war and that cultural Europe had nothing to do with that, is quite wrong. For fifty years Comunist Party of Yugoslavia promoted so called "Brotherhood and Unity", inspiring peacefully and sometimes forcefully Serbs, Croats, Bosnian Muslims, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Slovenians to be more Yugoslav. There have been whole one elite of cultural workers, writers, artists, scientists who declares themselves Yugoslavs. All hostility and unsolved problem among South Slavic nation which escalated bloodly in WW2 were pushed into the background, all in effort to create Yugoslav nation. But in essence it was artificial effort to make people of different cultural, ethnic, religious and socio-economic backgrounds to live together in a national state. The differences between Slovenia and Kosovo for example in any of these characteristics were so significant, not very different than differences between Ireland and Mauretania, to expect that they can coexist in one state.
There is people who thaught that Yugoslavia needed one more generation to be raised in Yugoslav spirit to avoid its destruction , there is also people who believes that Yugoslavia was devasteted from outside.
I believe that Yugoslavia haven´t got clasicall national and cultural identity to be saved, because all particular national and religious identities were stronger than Yugoslav one.
Why am I writing this story about Yugoslavia?
Because Europe is being created on the same artificial way as Yugoslavia did. It is not organic wish of European nations to be united, but idelogy of ruling elites, both cultural and economic. They must have some material to create that European identity, I naively thaught that it would be Christianity, but as we know it was rejected. Actually they do the same things like Comunists in Yugoslavia did, supressing national and religious identities in favour of some regional, economically based entities. And what happens when first problems appears, northern Europeans called southern Europeans PIGS, advising Greece to sold islands to pay debts, just few years ago there were usual story about Old Europe and New Europe. Division and particular interests could lead to dissatisfactians, dissatifactions to riots, riots to war. Very familiar scenario from Yugoslavia.
And if you believe that Europe is mature, immune of those Balkan adolescent behaviours, it would be interesting to watch just few original shots from WW2 which was just 60 years ago.

[Mako]

A nation-state is a state, or country, that has defined borders and territory. It is additionally a country in which a nation of principally the same type of people exists, organized by either race or cultural background. In the nation-state, generally, everyone would speak the same language, probably practice the same or similar types of religion, and share a set of cultural, “national,” values.

[Gusar]

Great discussion here guys. Everyone has great points.

Maciamo,
How would you counter the argument that the nation-state is a much more substantial entity than an ethnicity or culture, and that it is in our present day still of significant importance?

I would definitely counter this. An ethnicity/culture is far more substantial since it is less superficial. This definitely relates to my people - the Serbs. We are an ethnicity from whom even in earliest times existed in states which did not use the name Serbia. We share an identity across different nation states and if anything those nation states have served to divide us and eventually even cause changes to our identity. Why for instance should we as Serbs serve a Bosnian state which is completely superficial? Should we forget that we share the same culture and beliefs with other Serbs across a river in Serbia or a mountain range in Montenegro simply for the benefit of Bosnia? That is what the nation is essentially asking us to do.


"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"

As a Serb I would change the above to the below to make it more applicable;

"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your people/ethnicity"