is Nationalism rational?

It's rational in some ways - putting the interests of one's immediate surroundings first - but when carried to its logical conclusion a massive fallacy emerges.

Reply 2

cottonmouth

question_everything

Is nationalism best understood as a rational phenomenon?

what do you think?

No. It isn't. And it isn't really a phenomenon is it?

Reply 3

Well, it could be described as such.

Cottonmouth, you say it's not rational as if there's a rational alternative. Whatever position a person takes on this, they are not being motivated solely by logic.

I agree to an extent with Agent Smith to an extent, but why would you put your immediate surroundings first when it would be somewhat more logical to put yourself first?

Reply 4

City bound

That would assume the idea of a "nation" to be rational, which it isn't.

Reply 5

Renal

I agree to an extent with Agent Smith to an extent, but why would you put your immediate surroundings first when it would be somewhat more logical to put yourself first?

That's the logical fallacy coming into view. If you apply nationalism to smaller and smaller nations, restricting "immediate surroundings" to smaller and smaller groups (as is currently happening to the UK and Yugoslavia) the ultimate result is simply Looking After Number One.

Reply 6

City bound

Agent Smith

That's the logical fallacy coming into view. If you apply nationalism to smaller and smaller nations, restricting "immediate surroundings" to smaller and smaller groups (as is currently happening to the UK and Yugoslavia) the ultimate result is simply Looking After Number One.

When it becomes logical to trade and interact with people outside of the "unit", to further your own interest, nationalism runs headfirst into a brick wall.

Autarky ftw?

Agent Smith

That's the logical fallacy coming into view. If you apply nationalism to smaller and smaller nations, restricting "immediate surroundings" to smaller and smaller groups (as is currently happening to the UK and Yugoslavia) the ultimate result is simply Looking After Number One.

I don't think you can claim that. Because if you can take "nationalism" one way and apply it to smaller and smaller groups, so it's eventually down to individuals, that breaks the concept of nationalism. You may as well say that you can take nationalism in the opposite direction, up to region, continent, hemisphere and on to the world. By saying what you do, you simply peg "nationalism" as one point on a continuum that you say runs from nationalism -> looking after number one. But nationalism isn't the start point, on the other side of it you have the things I have already mentioned (region, continent etc.) - in the construction of such a continuum, you place every ideology (from some sort of global-communism down to complete individualism - "looking after number one") on the same continuum*. And once you're in that position, why should any one position on the continuum be more "rational" than any other, why does it make more sense to put the point of "looking after" in one place than another?

*Something like:
World -> hemisphere -> continent -> region -> nation -> ethnic group -> family -> individual

(That's not meant to be accurate or comprehensive, it's a basic diagram)

Reply 9

City bound

That would assume the idea of a "nation" to be rational, which it isn't.

As opposed to tribe or some other form of grouping? Tribes, and subsequently nations, were extremely logical solution to the problems faced by humans in the past.

Nations only seem to stand for less in the face of global travel and mass emigration. However, if we assume that some form of governance is required, which it is, then why is the concept of nation any less logical than the concept of regional, continental or global governance?

Reply 10

City bound

When it becomes logical to trade and interact with people outside of the "unit", to further your own interest, nationalism runs headfirst into a brick wall.

Why?

You're assuming that because there's an amount of emotional behaviour in nationalism that there's no realism and rationalisation.

If you take the example of Nazi Germany, one of the more obviously nationalist governments, do you have any idea how much trade they did (and how economically reliant they were) on Communist Russia.

If you want to look at it on a smaller scale, I reckon it's fairly safe to say that your (very) stereotypical British nationalist would rather buy his B&H and Daily Mail from a shop run by an Indian than not buy it at all.

Reply 11

L i b

19

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
- Albert Einstein.

Agent Smith

It's rational in some ways - putting the interests of one's immediate surroundings first - but when carried to its logical conclusion a massive fallacy emerges.

I could understand it if it was just that - selfishness on a grander scale, yet it isn't. It's associating people as being of your kind on some bizarre criteria which makes them somehow worthy of preference.

Renal

Well, it could be described as such.

Cottonmouth, you say it's not rational as if there's a rational alternative. Whatever position a person takes on this, they are not being motivated solely by logic.

I believe internationalism is a perfectly logical position to take. Men are all created equal and given individual sentience: it is individuals that should be regarded equally and that can only happen in a world where identity politics are totally rejected.

Renal

Nations only seem to stand for less in the face of global travel and mass emigration. However, if we assume that some form of governance is required, which it is, then why is the concept of nation any less logical than the concept of regional, continental or global governance?

That's assuming a rejection of federalism. There will always be things better and more efficiently organised on a global scale - it's quite simple: economies of scale and what have you. Nationalism rejects any possibility of realising that; internationalism allows for devolved and decentralised structures within the world to govern in the most efficient way possible.

Reply 12

Bismarck

13

Nationalism is the basis for democracy, so anyone who things the former is irrational must also think the same about the latter.

Reply 13

Lib North

I believe internationalism is a perfectly logical position to take. Men are all created equal and given individual sentience: it is individuals that should be regarded equally and that can only happen in a world where identity politics are totally rejected.

That only works if the world accepts socialism, as it stands, where people are not created equal (except maybe before God) and so, some form of identity politics is required.

To bring the example down to a national level, are you suggesting that the residents of Tower Hamlets be given the same treatment by the government as those living in Richmond or Kingston-upon-Thames?

Would a global government charge the citizens of the former nation of ethiopia the same for their big mac and fries (or council tax) that they charged someone from the former nation of the US? Would you not require some form of identity politics to prevent this?

That's assuming a rejection of federalism. There will always be things better and more efficiently organised on a global scale - it's quite simple: economies of scale and what have you.

That's assuming that everyone has the same needs and wants, and the same means. Which is clearly not the case.

Reply 14

Bismarck

Nationalism is the basis for democracy, so anyone who things the former is irrational must also think the same about the latter.

Not really. I can appreciate things that arose from something without having much respect for the something itself. Arguably feudalism is the basis for nationalism, and so on. Besides, to a certain extent democracy is irrational.

Reply 15

Thud

a comrade of mine once said:

"patriotism is the last bastion of those with nothing else to be proud of".

and I totally agree with him.

Reply 16

What's the difference between being proud of a country and being proud of a political system Thud?

Reply 17

JonathanH

I don't think you can claim that. Because if you can take "nationalism" one way and apply it to smaller and smaller groups, so it's eventually down to individuals, that breaks the concept of nationalism. You may as well say that you can take nationalism in the opposite direction, up to region, continent, hemisphere and on to the world. By saying what you do, you simply peg "nationalism" as one point on a continuum that you say runs from nationalism -> looking after number one. But nationalism isn't the start point, on the other side of it you have the things I have already mentioned (region, continent etc.) - in the construction of such a continuum, you place every ideology (from some sort of global-communism down to complete individualism - "looking after number one") on the same continuum*. And once you're in that position, why should any one position on the continuum be more "rational" than any other, why does it make more sense to put the point of "looking after" in one place than another?

*Something like:
World -> hemisphere -> continent -> region -> nation -> ethnic group -> family -> individual

(That's not meant to be accurate or comprehensive, it's a basic diagram)

One could argue that it's the extremes of that scale that are the ridiculous ones; overall, though (the examples of UK and Yugoslavian fragmentation notwithstanding), I think there is a trend through history whereby the average size of the base political unit, be that the city state, republic, nation or whatever, has increased. Consequently, viewing this as parallel to the gradual civilising process and advancement that has occurred in a broadly (although not uniformly) upward direction throughout history, one could equally well conclude that the most "rational" position is that of the world state, and that the world is simply not ready for it yet.

Reply 18

Bismarck

13

Agent Smith

Not really. I can appreciate things that arose from something without having much respect for the something itself. Arguably feudalism is the basis for nationalism, and so on. Besides, to a certain extent democracy is irrational.

Except nationalism is a necessary precondition for democracy. What is democracy but not a desire by a self-contained group to rule itself? Now check the definition of nationalism; they're identical. Without nationalism, you don't have self-contained groups. And since democracy requires that only a specific population on a specific territory be allowed to participate in the electoral process, it is simply not possible if people don't have very strong attachments to the rest of the group and the territory they occupy.

Why do you think we engage in nation-building in places like Bosnia or Iraq? It's because a joint sense of nationalism is necessary for people to stop killing each other and to stop voting for ethnic-based parties.

Reply 19