Traditionally, nationalism is understood as the nation-state’s efforts to create “unity out of the diversity that the nation-state finds within its borders” (Suvarierol 2012). More specifically, it is a doctrine that indicates the attitudes of members of a nation when they come to care about their identity as members of this specific nation. The concept of nationalism also encompasses the actions such individuals take to achieve or maintain political authority. In this essay I will argue that nationalism and measures taken on the national level for nation-building lead to conflict rather than social cohesion, but that in the last few years globalisation has bought to light other dimensions of nationalism which tend to encourage social cohesion than conflict. Firstly, I will look at how the methods of nation building within a country have changed and now lead to conflict: the increase of popular support for nationalist parties and the transition to “nation freezing” as well as the change of social norms and acceptance of foreigners have led to the exclusion of minorities and (social) conflict. However on the international level we seem to be observing quite the opposite phenomenon. Indeed, if the nation is understood like Anderson (2006) as “imagined communities”, then in specific examples nationalism does indeed lead to social cohesion, not necessarily limited by borders – this is true in the case of foreign migrant workers, who are very close and form a community outside of their home. This phenomenon can be attributed to the recent globalisation and the increase in immigration and foreign workers. But globalisation also revealed new dimensions of nationalism: I will specifically look at how nationalism undertook by the EU at the European level led to social cohesion and not conflict. These new forms of nationalism seem to question the importance of borders in a globalised world.
First and foremost, nationalism is understood to concern a nation, but on the national level nation-building attempts lead rather to conflict through “nation freezing” according to Anderson (2006). According to my first definition, the concept of nationalism concerns the actions a nation-state takes in order to bring its members closer and create a “we” feeling, traditionally by creating one single identity and unity out of the initial diversity. However, recent attempts to nation building have led to conflict instead of social cohesion. Anderson (2006) claims this is due to the fact that instead of building unity out of diversity, states try to reconstruct national identity through a nationalist discourse defining elements of its national culture as if it were static. For instance, French politician member of Les Républicain (French centre-right party) Nadine Morano, said a few weeks ago: “France is a white, Judaeo-Christian country”. In effect in new forms of nationalism, diversity and social changed are ignored, the national identity” if fixed as homogeneous and stable entities, and the national community is closed to additional transformations. Therefore there is a growing distinction between “natives” (Anderson 2006) and new or prospective citizens, who most of the time are migrants. But ignoring social change and trying to make each citizen fit in the same mould does not create social cohesion but conflict – this is reinforced but eh fact that some countries require prospective citizens to pass a citizenship test (Michalowski 2011). This phenomenon is particularly striking in France, where Maghrebi workers and their children, even though most of them have French citizenship, remain discriminated and therefore social cohesion for them is impossible – instead of achieving social cohesion within the French society they achieve social cohesion between themselves, partly because they feel they have to change in order to integrate and achieve social cohesion in French society. This has created tensions and conflicts between the “insiders” and the “outsiders” (ibid.), and between the “outsiders” and the state, which is blamed for the lack of effective measures to integrate them into the French society, and on the other hand the “insiders” blame the state for giving out citizenship too fast, demonstrating to some extent fear of social and societal change and consequently the the support for nationalistic and extremist parties increase and fuel social conflict between both sides. This fear is caused by the state because it defines French society as homogeneous, stable and constant. Therefore, attempts to nation-building and nationalism by the state lead today to conflict because the state ignore social change as part of nation building and closes its eyes on society’s diversity.
It is therefore clear that nationalism and attempted nation-building and the means taken by states to achieve these goals clearly lead to conflicts instead of social cohesion. However, globalisation has brought about new dimensions of nationalism and new ways or new conceptions of national community.
On the one hand, Anderson (2006) refers to nations as “imagined communities”, mainly because each member will never get to know the other members in depth or meet them, therefore one must simply imagine his peers based on what he already knows about this community. This makes the nation itself an imagined concept, but an imagined concept with borders, united members and a common vision for the future. This concept can be applied to particular groups such as diasporas or certain communities living abroad. The Filipina migrant workers’ community is a striking example of this. Indeed, Parreñas (2001) describes this community as an imagined one,to fit Anderson’s (2006) definition, and shows that nationalism and social cohesion can occur within communities which are not limited by institutional borders. Parreñas claims that the imagined community of Filipina workers emerged from the construction of nationalist-based affiliation with those similarly displaced from their homeland through soft power: magazines and press especially targeted towards this group, which exacerbates similar feelings regarding their homeland and gives them a common vision for the future. Therefore like the nation, Filipina migrant workers have built an “imagined community” based the common identity of migrant workers coming from the same homeland, they have a common vision of the future, a common language, a common culture and a common feeling regarding their nation. This can thus be associated to some form of nationalism, as defined in the introduction, and offers a new dimension of nationalism which leads to social cohesion, as opposed to conflict.
On the other hand, and on a broader scale, new dimensions of nationalisms have appeared with globalisation and they transcend the dimension of the state, instead they incorporates several states. This is typically the case of the European Union and its attempt, in my opinion successful, to create a European identity and realise European nationalism. European authorities have achieved so by using mass media, by creating a common passport (and therefore citizenship), currency, institutions and symbols such as the European flag and motto: ‘Unity in Diversity’. It has been shown by Bruter (2005) that the level of European identity increased in European states in correlation with the incorporation of these symbols and principles by states and European authorities: the feeling of being part of the European community or being a European citizen increases as the symbols are introduced to society. Like states proceed to nation building, the EU has created national symbols, values and given to European citizens a common vision for the future. These nationalistic measures have led to social cohesion as opposed to conflict: indeed the European integration process resembles one of a nation according to Anderson (2006): by introducing symbols and creating unity out of diversity to build social cohesion, there is now in Europe a strong sense of community, more than in any other international organisation. This example, as well as my previous one, questions the legitimacy of borders: nationalism leads to social cohesion when performed by independent imagined communities, not defined by borders, as well as supranational organisations such as the EU which erases borders and unites members of various nations to form one larger and solid community that is the European community. It indeed seems like borders are gradually losing their relevance in the light of globalisation and the development of the international community.
Overall, it has been shown that nationalism is a source of conflicts when it is undertaken in nations by their respective national authority. Indeed, new nation-building methods involve “nation-freezing” (Suvarierol 2012), when the state ignores the diversity within society and sees it as a static entity. This is fuels conflicts between social groups because there is an increasing distinction between ‘natives’ and prospective or new citizens (mostly immigrants). Society becomes closed to change. However, in the last few years globalisation has brought to light new dimensions of nationalism. As Anderson (2006) defines nations as “imagined communities”, some groups are not defined by their belonging to a particular territory: this is the case of Filipina migrant workers, who have used the same means of nation building a state could use, and as a consequence have built social cohesion within their group. Furthermore, globalisation has also brought about a supranational form of nationalism, giving the feeling of being part of an international community: this is the case of the EU, which has built a European identity and therefore built social cohesion within members of the EU. But the fact that nationalism within states leads to conflict while nationalism outside or above the state leads to social cohesion seems to question the relevance of state borders in out globalised world.
Bibliography
Anderson, Benedict. 2006. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Verso: London. Read pp.5‐7.
Bruter, M. (2005). Citizens of Europe – the emergence of a mass European identity. Palgrave Macmillan.
Haut Conseil À l'Intégration,. 2011. La France Sait-Elle Encore Intégrer Les Immigrés?. Paris: La documentation française.
Michalowski, Ines. 2011. “Required to Assimilate? The Content of Citizenship Tests in Five Countries” in Citizenship Studies, Vol. 15, No.6‐7. Read pp. 756‐766.
Parrenas, Rhacel Salazar. 2001. “Transgressing the Nation‐State: The Partial Citizenship and ‘Imagined (Global) Community’ of Migrant Filipina Domestic Workers” in Signs, Vol. 26, No. 4. Read pp. 1139‐1151.
Suvarierol, Semin. 2012. “Nation‐freezing: Images of the Nation and the Migrant in Citizenship Packages” in Nations and Nationalism, Vol. 18, No. 2. Read pp.210‐213, 221‐225.