There are at least two distinct, different, and mutually exclusive definitions for ‘nationalism’ and this ambivalence is responsible for misunderstandings, disagreements, and quarrels.
One the one hand, ‘nationalism’ can refer to a malignant ideology: a value system in which the power and growth of the nation-state are the ultimate goals, transcending all other potential morals. To understand this malign type of nationalism, the reader must understand first what a nation-state is.
A “nation” is a group of people who have a shared cultural identity — an ethnic group. This mutuality often relates to a shared language, history, or religion, as well as other aspects of culture: food, clothing, holidays, and the arts — music, architecture, literature, etc.
A “state” is a geographical territory with an independent and sovereign government: a piece of land with its own ruling system.
A “nation-state” is when a nation and a state are coextensive. There are nations which are not states, and there are states which are not nations. But in some cases, the state is the nation, and the nation is the state: the two are identical.
When an individual embraces the malevolent form of nationalism, the nation-state becomes the highest goal and value for this person. In such a case, all other potential values are demoted to lower rankings. The practical effect of this system is that the individual will sacrifice anything if by so sacrificing, the nation-state is strengthened.
Because this malicious type of nationalism demands that the nation-state is the ultimate value, it stands opposed to any other value which people might ordinarily cite as an ultimate value: family, friends, duty, honor, God, faith, religion, art, etc. Therefore it is impossible for a person who embraces this dangerous form of nationalism to accomplish the true duties of friendship, family, religious faith, etc., because such a person will ultimately be required to oppose those things when the needs and desires of the nation-state demand such opposition.
This harmful type of nationalism can even lead to wars and to cruelty. It can lead the nation-state to violate the human rights and civil rights of both its own citizens and citizens of other nation-states.
On the other hand, there is a benign and beneficial type of nationalism which is akin to a healthy patriotism. This form of nationalism enables the individual to appreciate and celebrate the culture and accomplishments of her or his nation-state. This kind of nationalism is an affection for one’s own nation-state. Importantly, this sort of nationalism does not oppose, but rather even requires, a respect and even an affection for other nation-states. It is impossible to truly respect one’s own nation-state without also respecting other nation-states.
This wholesome type of nationalism creates unity as together the citizens of the nation-state honor and work toward the maintenance of their nation’s culture. This cheerful variety of nationalism is edifying because it seeks to build the nation, and is peaceful, because, being constructive, it must necessarily oppose war, which is essentially destructive.
Such a gladdening kind of nationalism encourages each individual to find self-respect and self-worth, because respect for one’s self and one’s nation are coextensive. Even in circumstances in which one might disagree with one’s government, one can still have affection for one’s nation. To hate one’s nation is indirectly but inevitably to hate one’s self; to hate one’s self will eventually lead one to hate one’s nation. If one opposes one’s government, one can do so out of fondness for the nation: one desires the best for one’s nation, and in some conditions, that could include adjustments to the government.
So the word ‘nationalism’ can refer to two different things — things which are not only different, but opposed to each other. It is inevitable that disagreements and misunderstandings will arise around this term, given its ambiguity.
To look then specifically at the United States, one must first pose the question, whether the USA is a nation-state or not. It is in any case a state, but is it a nation? This is a debatable question. One the one hand, the extent of diversity among heritages, religions, spoken languages, and ethnic cultures might point to the conclusion that rather than being a nation, the United States is a collection of nations. On the other hand, one could argue that, since 1776, a diverse group of nations have built a common heritage which transcends the cultural backgrounds from which they came, and have thereby produced a new nation.
If one adopts the view that the USA is a patchwork of multiple nations, then one can say that what Americans created, fostered, nurtured, and celebrated since 1776 is a state. Rather than building an identity around a nation, according to this interpretation, Americans built an identity around ideas like liberty and equality. On this understanding, then, the United States would not have embraced nationalism, because there is no nation-state to be the centerpiece or raison d’etre for a nationalist ideology.
But if the USA isn’t a nation in this sense, and so can’t have nationalism in this sense, the question poses itself, about a mere state — a state which is a state without simultaneously being a nation: what can it have as a source of encouragement for its people? For what can they have affection? What concept will show them their place among the other nations in the world?
If one is not a part of a nation-state, of what is one a part? What will substitute for the patriotism and esprit de corps which allow one to build diplomacy and alliances with other nations?
The options may not be appetizing, as historian Jill Lepore writes:
The United States, thought by some to have never known nationalism, was now said to be beyond nationalism. A politics of identity replaced a politics of nationality. In the end, they weren’t very different from each other. Nor did identity politics dedicate a new generation of intellectuals to the study of the nation or a new generation of Americans to a broader understanding of Americanism.
If the USA isn’t a nation-state, and as such can’t have a nationalism, then the space left empty by the absence of nationalism might be filled by a divisive and bitter “identity politics.” Nationalism provides a narrative. Identity politics provides no narrative, or rather provides only a narrative of sins and grievances: there is no forgiveness in the narratives provided by identity politics.
Jill Lepore goes on to say that if a healthy patriotism is absent, then identity politics will provide only a “history that can’t find a source of inspiration in the nation’s past and therefore can’t really plot a path forward to power.”
The confused and confusing discussions about nationalism arise because there are two different types of nationalism: On the one hand, there’s a violent and warlike nationalism which demands the supremacy of the nation-state. On the other hand, there’s a peaceful and diplomatic nationalism which teaches the individual to appreciate her or his own nation and have affection for it, which in turn leads to appreciation for other nations and a diplomatic desire for peace.
Clearly, the belligerent version of nationalism is to be avoided, but in the absence of the healthy patriotism which is the desirable form of nationalism, something quite dangerous can emerge.
