PS1101

Introduction to Political Science

2008/2009 Semester 1
Tutor: Dr. Reuben Wong

Nationalism is exclusionary by definition. Compare the positive and negative effects of

nationalism within a multicultural/multiethnic society. Discuss the problems that a

multicultural society poses to the formation of a national identity and why you do or do not

believe that nationalism is compatible with the liberal state‟s emphasis upon individual rights

and freedoms.

Page | 1
 Nationalism has attracted much controversy as a defining term, due to the difficulty in

objectively determining it as a concept. This is due to the different perceptions by various

group identities on what they perceive as a nation. According to Heywood, Nationalism is

regarded as an ideology that puts the nation as the central pillar that holds up a political

organization, although it is subject to differing goals.1 The definition, thus, is subjective as it

places emphasis on promotion of culture and/or interests by its members as opposed to other

nations or supranational groups. Thus, it could be regarded as exclusionary in such terms.

However, I propose to qualify the statement, as I argue that Nationalism is not conclusively

exclusionary, due to another factor: The key difference of nationalism between that of

cultural and political communities. Cultural nationalism is exclusionary in the sense that it

subscribes to the membership of ethnic identity which is inherited, such that of being German

or Irish, thus excluding other ethnic groups.2 Political nationalism, on the other hand, looks

toward ideals of shared citizenship and civic loyalties of an “Imagined community”3 ,

building upon a focus on popular sovereignty and general will, doctrines which originated

from the French Revolution 1789, and which is apparent in the constitution of nations such as

United States and France. This seems to suggest an inclusionary stance of a common

acceptance of principles and goals for members within the state itself, no matter the cultural

identity, thus not restricting membership. In practice however, ideals are difficult to achieve.

Thus, I seek to argue the increasing mutual exclusion between formation of national identity

in a multicultural society, with that of the liberal ideals of freedom and rights.

1
Andrew Heywood, Politics: Third Edition (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), p110.
2
Stephen Iwan Griffiths, Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), pp12-13
3
Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities (New York: Verso, 1983)
Page | 2
 An ethnic group is defined as those who share a common culture and historical

identity, thus united by such emotional bonds.4 This would thus pose a risk if certain types of

nationalism are developed in such a multiethnic society, one of them being ethnic

nationalism. A situation where a multiethnic state derives its legitimacy as a homeland for the

dominant ethnic group would provide various avenues for conflict, due to the fundamental

incompatibility between such nationalism and multiethnic community building5 .The idea of

Staatsvolk, where a particular ethnic group constitutes the bulk of the elite and dominates the

interest of a state,6 would create a somewhat ethnocentric belittling of minority ethnic groups.

This certain hegemony, if imposed upon as a formation of a “national identity” according to

their ethnocentric terms, would lead to the threatening of the minority‟s existence, pushing

them to resorting to conflict if left unabated.7 Examples abound in the international context,

with the current sub-state nationalism issue of Basque nationalist terrorist group ETA

(Euskadi Ta Askatasuna) demanding self-determination from Spain via violent means, and

also the terrorist LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) in Sri Lanka, a classic example of

ethnocentricity gone violent. The Official Language Act of Sinhala- Only 1956 was widely

regarded as a goal to enhance the socioeconomic possibilities of the Sinhalese majority vis-à-

vis the deprivation of minorities, especially the Tamils.8 That precipitated into the 1983 riots

targeted at Tamils, leading to the struggle for a separate Tamil state, with so far 70,000

deaths.9 This type of ethnocentrism of “Tyranny of the Majority”, where politics blatantly

4
‘Capotorti Report’. U.N. Document E/CN 4 (Sub. 2/L. 564, June 19, 1972, cited in Uri Ra’anan, Maria Mesner,
Keith Armes and Kate Martin, State and Nation in Multi-ethnic Societies (Oxford: Manchester University Press,
1991) p 79.
5
Etienne Balibar and Immanuel Wallerstein, Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities. Translated by Chris
Turner (New York: Verso, 1991)
6
Ra’anen, Mesner, Armes, Martin, State and Nation in Multi-ethnic Societies, pp. 7-9
7
Robert Hudson and Fred Reno, Migrants and Minorities in Multicultural States (London: Macmillan Press,
2000) Intro.
8
Neil Devotta, Blowback: Linguistic Nationalism Institutional Decay and Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka (California:
Stanford University Press, 2004) pp73-91
9
Ibid., p.157-62
Page | 3
favours the majority and discriminates others, leads to the loss of confidence in the state‟s

institutions by the minority.10

Another negative manifestation of such could be expansionist nationalism, where

exaggerated ideals of national prestige or ethnic or social superiority11 would prove to be

disastrous in a multiethnic society. The myth of a past glory of an expanded Reich resulted in

the precipitation of Nazism and consequent anti-Semitic persecution of Jews during Hitler‟s

reign. In a more contemporary context, the ethnic conflict in the Balkan States,

predominantly in former Yugoslavia, led to atrocities of ethnic cleansing by Serbians over

Bosnian and Croats due to their views on creating an expansionist Greater Serbia.12 Why did

it happen? If traced back in history, it could be pointed out that the lumping of a dozen major

ethnic groups as a “Land of Slavs” during the Versailles Treaty could be a myopic view of

the actual realities of differences between the “Slavs” and could be seen as a reason for

precipitation of Serbian “superiority”. This could also relate as being one of the problems in

creating a national identity, in which the imposition of it in a multiethnic state could lead to

its eventual break-up.

There are however, also some positive effects of nationalism, in the form of civic

nationalism. Such a form is based on a common citizenship according to united set of

political values, rather than culture.13 Such is seen as a direct contrast to ethnic nationalism,

in which civic membership is voluntary and which influenced and facilitated the creation of

representative governments of America and France. With such, it creates a common

perception of the legitimacy of a state without much likelihood of a single dominant ethnic

10
Samuel P. Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968) p.191
11
Heywood, Politics: Third Edition, p.119-21
12
Iwan Griffiths, Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict, p.38-42
13
David Brown, Contemporary Nationalism: Civic, Ethnocultural and Multicultural Politics (London : Routledge,
2000) p.52
Page | 4
group rising up in control of the state.14 This would prove to be advantageous in a

multicultural state in the creation of a shared ideology, thus eliminating conflict and also

presenting avenues in social mobility for people of differing backgrounds to pass on the basis

of individual achievement.

The Swiss principle of neutrality and co-existence as a basis for nationalistic ideals

could be a useful case study of an ideal example of positive results of consensual

multiethnicity. Swiss political terminology of Konkordanz (consociation), recognition and

cohabitation of the German, Italian, French and Romansh groups, is an ideal example of

proportionality, where differences are settled via compromise and not the imposition of

majority determination.15 The protection of minorities is apparent in the recognition of

Rhaeto-Romansch, spoken by only 0.9% of the population, as the 4th national language16.

Over the course of history, states have often resorted to collective identity tools of

state in consolidation of power17. However, the identity tools vary in the sense that different

created national identities exist, with widely differentiated cultural and civil components18,

proving to be even so more difficult in a multicultural society. National identity, if espoused

as a universal form across a multicultural state, as often advocated by some liberal

nationalists, would only serve to be a highly romanticized and myopic view of the inherent

nationalist aspects of different ethnic groups19, and could even drive them to secessionist

14
Sandra F. Joireman, Nationalism and Political Identity (New York: Continuum, 2003) p.50
15
Theodor Hanf, Reducing of Conflict Through Cultural Autonomy: Karl Renner’s Contribution in Ra’anen,
Mesner, Armes, Martin, State and Nation in Multi-ethnic Societies pp.41-42
16
Kurt R. Spillmann, Ethnic Coexistence and Cooperation in Switzerland, in Andreas Klinke, Ortwin Renn and
Jean-Paul Lehners, Ethnic Conflicts and Civil Society: Proposals for a New Era in Eastern Europe (Aldershot:
Ashgate, 1997) p.212
17
Hubert Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow , Michel Foucault, The Subject and Power : Afterward to Beyond
Structuralism and Hermeneutics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983)
18
M. Lane Brumer, Strategies of Remembrance: The Rhetorical Dimensions of National Identity Construction
(Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2002) pp.1-6
19
Heywood, Politics: Third Edition, p.116-117

Page | 5
demands if their sense of own identity is being imposed upon. Thus, there is no standard,

one-size-fits-all solution to the subjective issue of such creation of national identity.

I argue that Nationalism is mutually exclusive with the liberal state‟s individual rights

and freedoms due to a few concerns. The idea that liberalism looks beyond identity politics as

a collective20, thus places a strong emphasis on human equality of rights and an ethos of

universalism. Thus, Liberalism looks beyond the nation in the sense of the belief of a right to

violate the national sovereignty of a state if human rights are abused21. Examples of such

could be seen in the pressure on white South African nationalism to discard their policy of

apartheid through U.N. sanctions and economic boycotts in 1970s and 80s. Nationalism in a

multicultural society poses an even bigger obstacle to liberal ideals on the issue of tolerance.

Tolerance in practising one‟s culture is advocated, thus amplifying the minority‟s belief in

their own practices.22 However, herein lies the discourse: What if such cultural belief

compromises the fundamental aspect of human rights itself? (eg. customs of arranged/forced

marriages). The liberal state also views nationalism as “liberating”. 23. However, their views

of nationalism do not take into account those of “expansionist and integral”, where the power

of such emotions can commit individuals to a collective movement in fighting for their

nationalist cause no matter the morality (Nazism), especially if there are cultural aliens in

their own state. Such incompatibility thus undermines the rights of the individuals of the

ethnic group regarded as the „other‟, who are subject to subjugation or even atrocities.

20
Ibid.,
21
Andrew Vincent, Nationalism and Particularity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002) pp.6-87
22
Heywood, Politics: Third Edition, p.215
23
Ibid.,
Page | 6
 I thus restate my theme in which I seek to assert the mutual exclusion between

nationalism in a multicultural society and the liberal state‟s emphasis on human rights and

freedom, and also propose to qualify the statement in which I argue that nationalism is not

fully exclusionary by definition, with my abovementioned arguments.

Page | 7
Bibliography

Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities. New York: Verso, 1983.

Armes, Keith; Martin, Kate; Mesner, Maria and Ra‟anan, Uri. State and Nation in Multi-
ethnic Societies. Oxford: Manchester University Press, 1991.

Balibar, Etienne and Wallerstein, Immanuel. Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities.
Translated by Chris Turner. New York: Verso, 1991.

Brown, David. Contemporary Nationalism: Civic, Ethnocultural and Multicultural Politics.

London : Routledge, 2000

Brumer, M. Lane. Strategies of Remembrance: The Rhetorical Dimensions of National

Identity Construction. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2002.

Devotta, Neil. Blowback: Linguistic Nationalism Institutional Decay and Ethnic Conflict in
Sri Lanka. California: Stanford University Press, 2004.

Dreyfus, Hubert and Rabinow, Paul. Michel Foucault, The Subject and Power: Afterward to
Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983.

Hanf , Theodor. Reducing of Conflict Through Cultural Autonomy: Karl Renner’s

Contribution in Ra‟anen, Mesner, Armes, Martin, State and Nation in Multi-ethnic Societies.
Oxford: Manchester University Press, 1991.

Heywood, Andrew. Politics: Third Edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.

Hudson, Robert and Reno, Fred. Migrants and Minorities in Multicultural States. London:
Macmillan Press, 2000.

Huntington, Samuel P. Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1968.

Iwan Griffiths, Stephen. Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1993.

Joireman, Sandra F. Nationalism and Political Identity. New York: Continuum, 2003

Spillmann, Kurt R. Ethnic Coexistence and Cooperation in Switzerland, in Andreas Klinke,

Ortwin Renn and Jean-Paul Lehners, Ethnic Conflicts and Civil Society: Proposals for a New
Era in Eastern Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997.

Vincent, Andrew. Nationalism and Particularity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

2002.

Page | 8