Why can nationalism be considered inclusive and exclusive,

destructive and constructive?

Nationalism has been described as the most powerful force in the

world (Lind, 1990’s); it has the potential to create new states, move

borders and to start wars. The term ‘nationalism’ has been

described as a modern term as it has only been throughout the past

century that nationalism began to acquire the meanings that today

are associated with it (Smith, 2010). According to Smith (2010) the

most important of these meanings include: the growth process of

nations, a sense of belonging to a nation, symbolism or language

associated with the nation, a political or social movement on behalf

of the nation and a doctrine or ideology of the nation. There have

been a variety of definitions of nationalism over the years but the

most common theme throughout them all is the overriding concern

with the nation (Smith, 2010). Nationalism has therefore been

described as a group of people who are claiming to constitute a

nation to establish a sovereign state in a given territory (Ahmad,

2010). A state must then develop the factors outlined by Smith i.e.

language, symbolism and a sense of belongingness in order to

distinguish itself from other states (Ahmad, 2010). However, history

has shown that nationalism can take on many different forms and

two quite distinct constructs are visible, the civic-political and the

cultural/ethnic type of nationalism (Ahmad, 2010). It is from within

these two constructs that it is possible to understand and see how

nationalism can take on many forms and may be considered as

inclusive and exclusive, destructive and constructive.

Hans Kohn (1944) has described civic nationalism as ‘western’

nationalism as it is associated with the French revolution and the

European Enlightenment (Ahmed, 2010; Drobizheva, 2009). Civic

nationalism is also known as rational or liberal nationalism as it is

said to be based on a loyalty to the state and free self-identification

(Drobizheva, 2009). Hans Kohn’s work on ‘western’ and ‘eastern’

nationalism has been a vastly celebrated typology of nationalism

(Smith, 2010). Kohn (1944) believed that ‘western’ forms of

nationalism could be considered rational as the citizens were bound

by laws and a common territory (Smith, 2010). Within civic

nationalism the emphasis is on the society, societies can be

constructed to control resources, solve problems and to defend

against enemies (Breton, 1988). The basis of inclusion or exclusion

under this form of nationalism is civic; meaning that it is by birth or

based on legal criteria (Breton, 1988). Under this approach

theoretically anyone who meets the criteria has the potential to

become a member (Breton, 1988), which is the opposite of ethnic

nationalism. Civic nationalism is considered to be voluntary as

described by an early theorist of civic nationalism Ernest Renan

(1882) in his influential lecture “What is a Nation?” Civic nationalism

has also long been linked, throughout academia, with constitutional

democracy (Ipperciel, 2007). Habermas has said that the ‘nation-

state and democracy are twins born of the French Revolution’

(Habermas 1996). There has been little evidence of civic

nationalism being described as destructive, which is another

difference between it and ethnic nationalism. In fact history has

shown how civic nationalism can be described more as a

constructive construct. Under civic nationalism there is no desire to

destroy another nation or to increase and assert ones own power.

Liberal nationalism is based around the idea of freedom for nations

and self-identification, resulting in free citizens and a respect for

individual nations. After World War I new states emerged based on

a self-determination ideal of nationalism (Drobizheva, 2009). This

occurred again after World War II after the liberation of many

nations from the Nazis (Drobizheva, 2009). The construct is viewed

as a positive and a constructive force rather than a destructive one.

Liberal nationalism however has been criticized for being ‘naive’ and

‘romantic’ and that its view of nationalism in promoting a peaceful

stable world order is misguided.

In comparison to civic nationalism ethnic nationalism or

‘eastern’ forms of nationalism are based on the idea of a common

culture and having ethnic origins and takes the view that people are

born with their national character and this cannot be changed

(Smith, 2010). Ethnic nationalism is said to have originated in the

German Romantic Movement which emerged from the expansionist

ideas of Napoleon which attempted to spread universalism and

rationalism throughout Europe (Ahmed, 2010). The logic behind this

was that a sense of belonging to a nation could only develop out of

common descent and culture, meaning that individuals were not the
bearer of rights it was the community or nation that had the rights

over its members (Ahmed, 2010). Ethnic nationalism is on the

kinship and blood that people are excluded from groups and this is a

central part to ethnic nationalism (Hobsbawm, 1990). Ethnic

nationalist believe that culture cannot be learnt or acquired, it is

simply in your blood (Hobsbawm, 1990). Ethnic nationalism has

been described as irrational it appeals to the ‘call of the blood’ and

is based on a loyalty to a certain cultural base (Drobizheva, 2009).

German Romantics, however, did not see common language

as a cultural base; they thought that only people with German blood

could be considered as ‘proper Germans’ (Ahmed, 2010). Ethnic

nationalism basis for inclusion and exclusion is therefore based on

ethnicity. This ethnocentric view of nationalism, therefore, is the

kind where destructive forces are likely to emerge. Nazism is an

example of nationalism becoming a destructive force. Adolph

Hitler’s regime grew out ethnic nationalism and is an example of

how ethnic nationalism can lead to wars and be an extremely

destructive force resulting in the death of millions of innocent

people. Hitler believed that Germany surpassed other nations in

terms of culture and society and it was this nationalistic pride, which

drove his desire to dominate and gain power. Hitler’s beliefs are

described as ethnic nationalism as he believed only one particular

race, Aryans with blue eyes and blonde hair, were superior to all

other nations and his goal was to irradiate all other undesirable

races. Hitler’s ethnic nationalistic views are therefore considered as

exclusive to non-Aryans based on ethnicity and also vastly

destructive as it was the driving force behind World War II. Hitler’s

desire to dominate over other races is what also led to the invasions

of Poland and Czechoslovakia.

When considering ethnic nationalism it makes it more difficult

to understand states, which are both multilingual and multicultural

(Breton, 1988). From an ethnic nationalism perspective these are

the states, which are unstable as discrimination across nationalities

is more likely to occur and therefore it is likely there, will be a

greater potential for internal conflict (Breton, 1988). However, in

reality history has shown that a large majority of conflicts are born

out of ethnic nationalism; a belief that one nation is superior over

another based on ethnicity and a view of outside nations as

threatening.

Nationalism has often been viewed as a destructive force as

history has shown how certain forms of nationalism have led to

conflict. An example of Nationalism that can be seen as creating

detrimental and largely negative and destructive effects is in China

during the first half of the 20th century. Nationalism was viewed by

the Chinese as ‘patriotic devotion’ with the main objective of

protecting the homeland (Weishi, 2007). In response to Japans

efforts to transform China inappropriate measures were taken which

meant that instead of rational decisions taken with the wellbeing of

the state in mind ‘patriotic zeal’ took over resulting in disastrous

consequences (Weishi, 2007). An example of this was during the

May fourth Movement of 1919, students beat to death others who

they labeled ‘national traitors’, set peoples homes on fire and

destroyed public property (Weishi, 2007). This is another example of

how nationalism can be described as inclusive to those with the

same national interest and exclusive to those without it, which has

resulted in a destructive outcome. However, China is an example of

how the construct of nationalism can change within a country over

time. The reform of China in 1979 meant that its foreign policy was

changed from power seeking to a more peaceful approach (Weishi,

2007). During this time nationalism was gained more naturally

rather than through government campaigns like that seen during

the Anti-Japanese War of 1931-1945 such as “the people first, the

nation first’ (Weishi, 2007). However, nationalistic voices are been

becoming progressively louder in movements supporting the return

of ‘Chinese natural culture’ (Weishi, 2007). China is an example that

shows that nationalism is a flexible construct that can be seen in

many different forms and how it may be constructed through the

political leaders of a country. Therefore, scholars have emphasized

the importance of context and that nationalism cannot be

understand apart from the state (Drobizheva, 2009). This explains

why there are so many types of nationalism and how so many

outcomes, both positive and negative, can arise from it.

Expansionist nationalism is another form of nationalism that

can be considered as undoubtedly destructive and aggressive.

Expansionist nationalism promotes the expansion into other nations

with the chauvinistic view that their nation is superior; therefore it

does not matter if they are taking over another nations territory.

Examples of this form of destructive nationalism have been the

regimes of Germany, Japan and Italy in the 20th century. This type of

nationalism is again exemplified by the regime of Hitler and was the

driving force behind the invasions of Poland, Czechoslovakia and

Austria. In this form of nationalism inclusion and exclusions are a

practically strong mechanism, in that in the face of an enemy the

nations comes together and intensifies its own sense of identity to

the exclusion and discrimination of all outsiders.

Nationalism is therefore outlined as a construct that is

extremely powerful and has huge ramifications ranging from

shaping public policy to the destruction of entire nations. One must

not forget that nationalism is a construct that must be considered in

the context of the state and it is within these varying contexts that

different forms of nationalism can be seen. Nationalism can be

considered as both inclusive and exclusive, but it is to what degree,

which determines the form the nationalism will take. It has been

shown that nationalism, which is inclusive to only a small subset of

people and exclusive to large amounts, is likely to cause conflict and

be detrimental to the state. This ethnic nationalism is characterized

by racism, chauvinism and fascism and often a fear of foreigners.

This is the type of nationalism that is likely to be labeled

destructive; history has shown the extent of the detrimental

consequences that can occur. Nationalism may also be considered

constructive in that history has also shown how the unification of

identities can create and support the emergence of new states.

Therefore, nationalism is a broad construct that can be considered

to be inclusive and exclusive, destructive and constructive.

 References

Ahmad, I., 2010. Daily Times - Nationalism – inclusive versus

exclusive. Available at:

http://pakteahouse.net/2010/07/10/daily-times-nationalism-

inclusive-versus-exclusive-—-I/. Retrieved on 20/03/2011.

Breton, R., 1988. From ethnic to civic nationalism: English Canada

and Quebec. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 11 (1), pp. 85-102.

Drobizheva, L., 2009. Is “Constructive Nationalism” Possible? The

Negative Potential and Creative Construction. Russia in Global

Affairs, 7 (1), pp.152-165.

Gellner, E., 1983. Nations and Nationalism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Greenfield, L., 1992. Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity. United

States of America: Harvard University Press.

Hewstone, M., and Brown, R., 1986. Contact and conflict in

intergroup encounters. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Hobsbawm, E. J., 1990. Nations and Nationalism since 1780.

Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.

Hutchinson, J. and Smith, A. D., 1994. Nationalism. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Ipperciel, P., 2007. Constitutional Democracy and Civic Nationalism.

Nations and Nationalism, 13 (3), pp. 395-416.

Kohn, Hans., and Calhoun, C., 1944. The Idea of Nationalism: a

Study of its Origins and Backgrounds. New York: The

 Macmillan Publishing Company.

Mummendey, A. and Klink, A., 2001. Nationalism and patriotism:

National identification and out-group rejection. British Journal

of Social Psychology, 40, pp. 159-172.

Renan, E., 1882. What is a Nation? Available at:

http://www.cooper.edu/humanities/core/hss3/e_renan.html.

Retrieved on 20/03/2011.

Smith, A., 1971. Theories of Nationalism, London.

Von Benda-Beckman, K. and Verkuyten, M., 1995. Nationalism,

ethnicity and cultural identity in Europe. Netherlands: Utrecht

University.

Weishi, Y., 2007. Nationalism in a Transforming China. Global Asia,

2(1), pp. 21- 26.