Of Recognition Essay, Research Paper
`?The best political arrangement is relative to the history and culture
of the people whose lives it will arrange??
Michael Walzer.?? Although we live in a particular world, we
can still aim toward a juridical ethic that would function as a critical authority against the history
which determines us so deeply? Andre Van de Putte .??????????? A common perception is that
nationalism is in decline world-wide.?
It is very easy to list factors that contribute to such an apparent
decline, or as some would have it, lead inexorably to it.? For instance, we recognize the large role
that international corporations play in the world of finance and business; we
recognize the interdependence of economic systems, and a virtual free market in
certain basic commodities.? The effects
of the internationals are felt not only in the economic realm but also bleed
into the cultural arena ? culture follows money or chases money.? These effects may be seen in? how local talents, whether they are Latvian
opera divas or? Russian hockey players
or Lithuanian basketball stars, follow the dictates of the international market
place. In other words, they end up where the money is.? Furthermore,? cultural creations such as films, recorded music and popular
novels are themselves commodities promoted by a world-wide culture industry
largely dominated by the United States. (I understand that Latvia used to
produce as many as seven or eight films a year and now the industry is on the
verge of extinction.)? Such factors
internationalize culture and threaten the very ground on which national
identity may be based.? It may also be
thought that national cultural identities are to some extent compromised by
being subject to international human rights as promoted by the United States,
and as embodied in UN doctrines, requirements for membership in the EEC and
elsewhere.? Issues such as gender
relations or sexual mutilation in fundamentalist Moslem states are criticized
as are civil liberties and democratic rights violations in China and in Cuba,
ethnic relationships in East Timor and in the Balkans, and possibly, human
rights issues dealing with language rights in Latvia. The national identities
we forged over the past centuries with so much sacrifice are in many ways
slipping away from us. Is nationalism a dying phenomenon, or worse, is it,
where it rears its head, a force for evil, an excuse for vindictiveness???????? ????? When we turn on the television news or
look at the political page of our newspapers we are constantly reminded that
nationalism is ?the refuge of a scoundrel?, that its appeals are ?essentially
sub-human or primitive in character, a deformity that no civilized person would
have anything to do with?.[1]
Such a sentiment was expressed by Albert Einstein. The recent events in the
Balkans attest to this ? Serbian ?ethnic cleansing? in Kosovo is but the latest
event in a troubled world.? Who can say
that the core of the problem, i.e., that which drives such events lies in
nationalism rather than in religious conflicts, or simply in vindictiveness
drawing upon a long memory of perceived wrongs inflicted on the people; perhaps
a social memory extending back over centuries. But whatever value attaches to
being a member of a dominant ethnic community which practices marginalization
and demeaning of ethnic minorities, such value is clearly overridden by the
suffering inflicted upon the minorities. ? However, nationalism represents a range or
family of views and need not take such extreme form.? Nationalism, if it is to gain acceptance within liberal
democratic communities, must recognize human diversity in a number of
parameters ? religious, cultural, racial, ethnic, and in a more qualified form,
linguistic diversity.? Such a version of
nationalism is defensible within the parameters alluded to above. Indeed, in
qualified form, it has found concrete expression in the world today, not in the
Balkans, as I think we can surmise, but, to a large extent in Canada and in a
more qualified way in the Baltics ? Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.? ????? Let me begin? my presentation of a defensible version of nationalism by
providing an account of the? three? main forms that nationalism may take. Of the
three forms, two are commonly recognized, and the third has recently been
advanced in contemporary writings on the subject. I shall discuss, in brief,
the two forms and then proceed to a more systematic characterization and
evaluation of the third.? The three
forms are labelled ethnic, civic, and cultural nationalism. We might begin by
asking what is it about the three conceptions of nationalism that binds them
together, that unifies them as one general type of human social
phenomenon.? Do they all share common
characteristics, or is there, in a sense, a family resemblance; do they answer
or address for a people the same deeply felt need? Is nationalism a response to
?some kind of deep elemental force outside human control?[2]
, or is it a phenomenon which we can shape to our purposes???? Let us keep such questions in the back of
our minds as we survey the three conceptions. ?In essays by Van de Putte, De Wachter, and
Schnapper[3]
we find a sustained challenge to the two traditionally recognized forms of
nationalism based on the ?ethnic? and ?civic? conceptions of the nation after
Hans Kohn et al.? The former is
characterized as the ?kulturnation?, identified with Eastern nationalism. The
latter, based on liberal ideals of a union under a doctrine of human rights and
the ideals of the enlightenment, is identified with Western nationalism.? Ethnic nationalism is commonly identified
with German nationalism which arose in the period of German Romanticism with
people like Herder and Goethe, and is ?largely based upon language, culture,
and tradition.?[4]? A nation, according to the ethnic
conception, has an identity apart from individual wills; it is an entity that
exists as an objective reality through history.? One belongs to the nation when one shares the same language,
culture, and history.? But more so, the
tendency has been to see ethnic nationalism as focusing on racial identity, on
biological ancestry or in a word, ?on blood? as in, we are the same people, we
share the same blood-line. While the ethnic conception? of nationalism is based on a shared history
and language, ethnic nationalism has commonly been identified with racial
homogeneity ? with racism.? Civic
nationalism, on the other hand, grows out of the philosophy of Jean Jacque
Rousseau with his emphasis on the sovereignty of the people, and is supported
by the ideals of the French Revolution with its ?Declaration of the Rights of
Man and the Citizen?.? The civic
conception of the nation has been conveyed to us through its able exponent,
Ernest Renan.? As Renan wrote in What is Nation: it is ?le plebicite de
tous les jours? ( a daily plebiscite)[5].
The civic conception of a nation is, in the words of Van de Putte,
?constructivistic (an artifact), individualistic, and voluntaristic?[6].? Civic nationalism, then, is a political
creation through the wills of the people, embodying a legal code and generally
a bill of rights.? It is, in the Lockean
sense, a nation ruled and defined by the ?the consent of the people?.
Interestingly, the two major historical manifestations of civic nationalism,
Revolutionary France and the United States, saw themselves as missionary states
with the mandate to bring their particular kind of enlightenment to the world. The
cultural conception of nationalism arises as a result of certain problems that
lie at the very heart of both the ethnic and the civic conceptions of the
nation.? The ethnic conception is simply
not acceptable since it may violate basic human rights and? has led to extreme repression of minorities.? The civic form of the nation, however
welcome? it may seem at first sight,
does not by itself create loyalty to the nation-state, a willingness to
sacrifice oneself for the nation and its fellow citizens, sufficient to secure
social stability.? In this connection,
we are all familiar with the communitarian criticism of pure (Rawlsean) constitutional
liberalism (Michael Sandel, Alisdair McIntyre, Michael Walzer et al.).? Loyalty is not felt to an abstract set of
principles. The civic state is an ideal in search of a concrete interpretation.
It is not any actual existing state.?
For instance, the constitutional democratic state is not a mere
collection of individuals subscribing to democratic principles and a
constitution; it exists, where it exists, as a ?democratic culture?. The ideals
of democracy are always culturally interpreted. ? Accordingly, we have a reason now for
positing a new conception of nationalism which does not just take bits and
pieces from civic and ethnic nationalism, but forms a new synthesis in which
the ideals of a civic state are integrated in a concrete cultural arena. De
Wachter?s preferred conceptualization of nationalism as ??the ideology which
pursues congruity between both the political and the pre-political?[7]
avoids the two stools of the ethnic and civic conceptions. It opens the door to
a certain kind of cultural/multicultural nationalism, which recognizes a public
sphere in which exists? ?…the
possibility of all forms of attachment by all sorts of people in a
multicoloured life-world?[8]
to one nation state. Civic nationalism may be seen as transcending itself, giving
birth to a ?culture of democracy?, viz., to ?cultural nationalism?. Such themes
are further developed in both Tamir?s[9]
and Miller?s work, who both argue for revamping the old conceptual geography. Should we
buy into this new conceptualization of cultural nationalism?? It is tempting to answer in the affirmative,
but there are questions that we may raise. First, is cultural nationalism,
broadly conceived, really different from civic nationalism?? In the case of the United States (which,
arguably, is a paradigm of civic nationalism) we find a strong sense of? loyalty among its citizens, which involves,
what is? described as, a
?quasi-religious worship of the Constitution? (reminiscent of Jurgen Habermas?
?constitutional patriotism?). This suggests that it is not the culture of
democracy? which promotes loyalty to the
civic state, but rather, loyalty is secured through a kind of ?constitutional
ideology?. On the other hand, we may find that ?constitutional patriotism? is
not an intelligible notion apart from some cultural expression of it, some
practice of democracy at work or, indeed, a variety of practices relative both
to geography and time. Secondly,
Martha Nussbaum, in her short but much discussed essay, ?Patriotism and
Cosmopolitanism?,[10] raises some
issues which may undermine cultural nationalism.? Her arguments for cosmopolitanism and ?world citizenship? lead us
to question whether the ideal of cultural nationalism is internally consistent.
Citizens of modern constitutional democratic states which adopt doctrines of
human rights based on some conception of natural human rights, find themselves
asking Nussbaum?s question:? ?? are?
(we) above all citizens of a world of human beings ??? The political doctrine here, by its very nature, viz., by its
commitment to human rights, makes a universal appeal.? The liberal multicultural democratic state exercises sovereignty
over a geographical region (this after all, is the sine qua non of its very existence as a state), but its commitment
to a doctrine of human rights pulls it towards, what Martha Nussbaum calls,
?the substantive universal values of justice and right?, in a word, towards
?world citizenship?. But what, then, keeps the political state in continued
existence; where does the sense of the oneness (unity) come from? As De Wachter
has pointed out, loyalty to the state (the totality) must be stronger than that
to its ?intermediate structures?– its religions, professions, and in the
context of the multicultural state, to the polyglot of its cultural minorities.? How does the liberal democratic
multi-cultural state (in this context, we may recognize a multiplicity of
democratic cultures), which takes seriously its political and social doctrines,
preserve its stability and continuity, given its commitment to universal
values?? What stops it? from becoming the global community? ?For an answer, we need to turn to David
Miller?s On Nationality.? Miller believes that a stable nation cannot
adopt what he calls, ?radical multiculturalism?. A national identity must unite
the polyglot of minorities under one unifying conception of the nation.? Miller accepts the conservative tenet ?that
a well-functioning state rests upon? a
pre-established political sense of common nationality?[11],
but he does not believe that nationality should be viewed as something
static? to be protected and preserved by
all means.? Rather, he allows that the
sense of national identity will be an evolving phenomenon. All that needs to be
?asked of immigrants is a willingness to accept current political structures
and to engage in dialogue with the host community so that a new common identity
can be forged?[12]. The view
that Miller characterizes as radical multiculturalism reaches far beyond mutual
tolerance and the belief that each person should have equal opportunities
regardless of minority status and that the purpose of politics is to affirm
group differences. Radical multiculturalism, in fact, comes very close to
Nussbaum?s ?world citizenship?, a perspective which would lead to the rejection
of all forms of nationalism.[13]
Thus, cultural nationalism when freed from radical multiculturalism is not
subject to the above criticism. It seems
to me that cultural nationalism differs in essence from ethnic nationalism,
with which it shares a minimal connectedness, in that we find an ideal of
inclusion and toleration of minority cultures in cultural nationalism which is
ostensively absent in ethnic nationalism. Cultural nationalism implicitly
recognizes the ideals of liberal democratic society and preserves a doctrine of
human rights.? Yet within this broader
ideal of toleration, it also recognizes a basic need of? humanity for a sense of? identity which is shared and communal.? Cultural nationalism is a regime of
toleration.? But, we must not think that
toleration follows a formula, a fixed pattern according to set principles.? Toleration has to be interpreted in a
historical context with due reference to time, place and history.? This is the insight that Michael Walzer
gives us in his recent valuable book, On
Toleration .? Walzer writes:? ?? there are no principles that govern all
regimes of toleration or require us to act in all circumstances, in all times
and places, on behalf of a particular set of political or constitutional
arrangements.? Proceduralist arguments
wont help us here precisely because they are not differentiated by time and
place; they are not properly circumstantial?.[14] Charles
Taylor?s defence of? ?multiculturalism
and the politics of recognition? allows us to anchor our preferred sense of
nationalism in a basic human need viz., the need to be recognized. Perhaps the
most basic thing Taylor tells us is that there is a fundamental human need to
be recognized, that the essence of self identity is a communal/cultural affair.
My identity is not something I work out in isolation, in a vacuum as it were,
but something that I negotiate in dialogical relations with others.[15]
?Who am I?? cannot be adequately answered within the ideology of the civic
conception unless it is enriched in ways that go beyond the purely
political.? That is, my identity is not
fully defined within the individual realm but necessarily invokes a social
dimension.? My worth as a human being is
found here, within my culture, and is reflected by the placement of my culture
within the political sphere as a whole.?
Cultural nationalism does precisely this by allowing individuals from
diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds to find their worth. Let us
see how the situation in the Baltics exemplifies the kind of nationalism I am
supporting. ?The elements we observe in
the Baltics are first of all that there is an indigenous majority culture, a
literature and national language, in each of the Baltic countries.? The three Baltic nations have undergone a
tumultuous history, and have been subject to occupation and domination by major