Nationalism: Unity and Divisions

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Culture And Identity In Nationalism
Nationalism and Ethnic Identification
Ethnonationalism in the Cultural Community
The theory of primordialism and self -determination
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Nationalism is a complex concept that has been studied and debated extensively in anthropology, sociology, and political science. Nationalism is a core concept in anthropology that encompasses the desire for a collective identity and the belief in the value of one’s social, political, and cultural group. It has been described as expressing people’s sense of belonging to a nation or state and as an ideology that seeks to bind individuals into a unified nationality. In anthropological fields, it is considered a powerful force in the construction of collective identities and can be seen as a way of consolidating cultural, social, and political power within the nation-state. It has been linked to various forms of violence, oppression, and exclusion, yet it also serves to unite people in times of adversity. Additionally, nationalism has been utilized by indigenous peoples to construct identities of resistance, reclaiming and reviving traditional practices and cultures. In countries such as India, nationalism has been characterized by intolerance of differences and a belief that those who live in the region share a common culture, identity, and historical past (Girvin 2022). It is thus often used to promote feelings of patriotism, collective pride, and belonging among citizens of a particular region. In some cases, this belief can be a powerful engine for increasing civic participation and fostering a sense of belonging among members of a national community. However, when nationalism is framed as ethnonationalism, it can be a divisive force that erects boundaries between them and us, creating exclusivity and intolerance. This paper will support this statement with two arguments. The first part will argue that nationalism is important in fostering a sense of belonging and patriotism by focusing on the theory of social identity and ethnic identification. The second part of the paper will argue that although nationalism is an important approach in fostering unity and participation, it can be a divisive factor using the concepts of the cultural community, primordialism, and self-determination. The paper will use multiple case studies to affirm these arguments

Culture And Identity In Nationalism

One anthropological theory that supports nationalism as a powerful engine for increasing civic participation and belonging is the theory of social identity. This theory suggests that individuals are part of the self-concept and have a natural desire to belong to a group and that this desire can be fulfilled through national identity (Sanchez-Mazas and Licata 2015). When individuals identify as part of a nation, they become part of a larger community with shared values and goals, and this can increase their sense of belonging and engagement in civic activities. One recent case study demonstrating the anthropological theory of social identity is the controversy surrounding Confederate monuments in the United States.

Proponents of removing Confederate monuments argue that these statues honor individuals and ideologies that were rooted in slavery and white supremacy and that they continue to serve as symbols of racism and oppression. They further state that these statues are constant reminders of a dark chapter in American history and that their continued presence in public spaces sends a message that this history is not to be condemned (Walsh, 2020). Opponents of removing Confederate monuments argue that they are a part of American history and culture and that removing them is an attempt to erase this history. They argue that a great nation does not hide its history, and these statues represent Southern heritage and pride and serve as a reminder of the sacrifices made by those who fought in the Civil War (Nelson, 2017). They also argue that removing the statues is a form of censorship and an attack on free speech and expression. Moreover, many proponents contend that taking down statues does not solve racism; rather, it creates more division.

From an anthropological perspective, the controversy surrounding Confederate monuments is a clear example of social identity. Both sides of the debate are heavily invested in their own identities, and their arguments reflect this. Those who support the removal of Confederate monuments see themselves as fighting against racism and oppression, while those who oppose it see themselves as defenders of Southern heritage and culture. Furthermore, the debate over Confederate monuments reveals symbols’ role in shaping social identity. The statues themselves are symbols of a particular identity – that of the Confederacy and its values – and their continued presence serves as a constant reminder of this identity. For those who see the statues as symbols of racism and oppression, their continued presence reinforces their identity as victims of this oppression. Additionally, those who see the statues as symbols of Southern heritage and pride present that their removal attacks their identity.

Nationalism and Ethnic Identification

Nationalism can be viewed as a powerful unifying force, with its core values of patriotism and loyalty to one’s nation providing an important source of social cohesion and shared identity. This is especially true in the digital world where media has been at the forefront in ensuring citizens’ a sense of togetherness and belonging (Mihelj and Jiménez‐Martínez 2020). In this regard, anthropology has long been interested in understanding how nationalism affects civic participation and belonging. Multiple anthropological concepts explain this phenomenon, and one is ethnic identification. This theory holds that individuals are more likely to become involved in activities related to the nation when they identify strongly with an ethnic group. One case study that illustrates the anthropological theory of ethnic identification is the controversy surrounding the Washington Redskins football team. In 2013, a group of Native American activists launched a campaign to pressure the team to change its name, arguing that it is a racist and offensive term that perpetuates stereotypes and undermines the dignity of Native American culture.

The Washington Redskins name has been controversial for decades, with critics arguing that it is a slur that perpetuates negative stereotypes of Native Americans and reinforces the marginalization and oppression of indigenous peoples. The team’s owner, Dan Snyder, has consistently defended the name, arguing that it is a “badge of honor” and a tribute to the team’s history and traditions (Shapira 2020). The debate over the organization’s name has sparked a heated national conversation about the meaning of ethnicity and identity and the extent to which public institutions and organizations should be held accountable for promoting cultural sensitivity and respect. Proponents of the name change argue that the term “Redskins” is a racial slur that should be eliminated from public discourse, while opponents argue that it is a harmless term representing a proud and noble heritage. The anthropological theory of ethnic identification posits that ethnicity is a social construct and that individuals and groups derive their sense of identity from shared cultural traits, such as language, religion, and customs. The opponents base their argument on ethnic absolutism, which suggests “nations as culturally homogeneous ‘communities of sentiment’ in which a sense of patriotic belonging can and should grow to become an important source of moral and political ideas” (Gilroy 1987, 59-60). This means that the team’s name is a unifying factor that represents the team’s values.

On the other hand, the proponents present that ethnicity is not a fixed or essential characteristic but rather a dynamic and fluid concept shaped by historical, political, and economic forces. This can be supported by Anderson’s concept of imagined communities that affirm that the dreams of racism originate from the ideologies of class which in this case is the team rather than a nation (Gilroy 1987). However, the team’s name has become a symbol of identity and belonging for many fans, who see it as a way to connect with the team’s history and traditions, thus abolishing their ethnic identification. For Native American activists, however, the name reminds them of the violence and oppression their ancestors endured at the hands of European colonizers.

The controversy over the Washington Redskins name highlights the different perspectives and experiences that individuals and groups have regarding ethnic identification. For some, the name is a source of pride and identity; for others, it is a painful reminder of the legacy of discrimination and violence, especially for native Americans (Bowman 2022). The debate over the name has also raised questions about the role of public institutions and organizations in promoting cultural sensitivity and respect. Many argue that the team has a responsibility to consider the impact of its name on Native American communities and to take steps to avoid perpetuating stereotypes and offensive imagery. However, others argue that the name is an important part of the team’s history and traditions and that efforts to change it attack their identity and construction.

Ethnonationalism in the Cultural Community

The idea of ethnic nationalism, as proposed by Benedict Anderson in his book Imagined Communities, provides an interesting insight into how a nation can be understood as a cultural community. In particular, Anderson’s notion of nations as imagined communities speaks to the fact that nations are often constructed around shared values and commonalities such as language, religion, or culture (Eriksen 2010). However, Anderson further emphasizes that although countries may tend to imagine themselves, they are modern (Eriksen 2010)). This paper will explore this concept further by discussing one recent case study – the rise of ethnic Nationalism in Russia – highlighting how ethnonationalism can influence a nation’s politics, identity, and social dynamics. Russia provides an interesting example for analyzing the effects of ethnic nationalism because it has experienced both resurgences and declines in levels of nationalistic sentiment throughout its history. A strong sense of Russianness has been present for centuries, but this identity was strengthened greatly following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, which marked a new era for Russia as an independent state. Since then, there have been resurgences in both ethnic and civic nationalism that have had significant implications on various aspects of life within the country.

The resurgence of ethnonationalism in Russia is largely driven by Vladimir Putin’s government beginning in 2000. In particular, Putin sought to strengthen national unity and pride through a policy known as ‘Russification’ which aimed to promote cultural homogeneity throughout the nation by privileging Russian language and culture over those of other ethnicities or minorities such as Ukrainians, Tatars, and Jews. According to Benussi (2020, p. 92), “Putin’s national restoration belief brought considerable concerns about russification with the erosion of Tatar autonomy and uncertainty of Institutional Tatar-medium culture.” It can be argued that this policy reflects an underlying sentiment that ethnic Russians are superior to other groups within the nation and should be prioritized in terms of cultural representation, political power, and social status. Therefore, this aspect has led to a significant rise in xenophobia, prejudice, discrimination towards minority populations, and resentment by non-ethnic Russians who feel their culture and identity have been sidelined or overlooked.

Though it can be argued that the policies enacted by Putin’s government have had tangible effects on various aspects of Russian society, it is important to note that many elements of the country’s ethnic nationalism predate his presidency. For instance, there has long been a sense among many ethnic Russians that they constitute the backbone of Russia – particularly during times of crisis or turmoil – and have therefore been entrusted with preserving the nation’s culture, traditions, and values. Further, this notion has been presented as one of the major causes of inequalities in education and quality of life for other groups residing in the region (Gladkova et al., 2020). This notion has been perpetuated by state-sponsored media outlets as well as literature, art, and other forms of cultural expression emphasizing a strong sense of Russian identity. For example, in the painting “Defenders of the Fatherland” by Viktor Vasnetsov, ethnic Russian soldiers are depicted as heroic and brave, standing tall and proud against their enemies. Similarly, in Russia, ethnic Russians often refer to themselves as ” Russky,” which means “Russian” in English. This language reinforces the idea that ethnic Russians are the core of Russian society and culture.

The theory of primordialism and self -determination

Primordialism is an anthropological theory suggesting that national identity and loyalty are innate and inherited rather than being constructed or learned. According to this theory, individuals are born with a deep attachment to their national group, rooted in their genetic makeup, cultural traditions, and shared history. This implies that individuals have a natural and innate loyalty to their national group and that this loyalty cannot be changed or altered. The anthropological theory of national self-determination is based on the idea that people have a right to consider themselves different and distinct from others and thus have the freedom to dictate the state and form of government of their choice (Connor 1973). This theory is closely linked to nationalism, which is the belief in the inherent value of a particular national identity and the need to protect and promote it. Anthropologists argue that nations have a unique collective identity shaped by their history, culture, language, and social institutions. This collective identity is seen as a source of pride and dignity, and it is considered to be a fundamental human right. One recent case study that exemplifies the anthropological theory of primordialism and national self-determination at the center of ethnonationalism is the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been ongoing for decades, with both sides claiming national self-determination and sovereignty over their territories. At its core, the conflict is centered on the territorial dispute between the two sides, with Israel and Palestine claiming control over the same land. Israel has been accused of occupying the Palestinian territories, including the West Bank and Gaza Strip (Shafer 2018). They state that they have a deep connection to the land of Israel, which they consider their ancestral homeland. This attachment is rooted in their religious beliefs and traditions, which hold that God gave the land of Israel to the Jewish people. This has led to widespread resentment among the Palestinian population, who have been subject to restrictions on their movement and other human rights abuses such as limited access to land (Shakir 2021). In recent years, the conflict has also taken on a religious dimension, with both sides using religious rhetoric to justify their actions and claims to the land. Israel, as a predominantly Jewish state, sees itself as fulfilling a divine promise of the land of Israel to the Jewish people. This belief is rooted in the Bible and has been used to justify establishing and expanding Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories. For Palestinians, the conflict is a struggle for self-determination and the right to live in their ancestral homeland. Many Palestinians see themselves as the guardians of the land of Palestine and view Israeli actions as a violation of their religious and cultural rights. In addition, both sides have used religious rhetoric and symbols in their political discourse and propaganda, often invoking their respective holy texts and religious figures to support their positions and demonize the other side. This has contributed to the religious and cultural divisions between the two sides and fueled the ongoing conflict.

In this case, Israel and Palestine have claimed a primordial connection to the land using religion as a justification, leading to a zero-sum conflict over territory and national self-determination. The anthropological theory of primordialism suggests that national identity and self-determination are based on deep-seated, primordial ties to the land and culture rather than being constructed or negotiated through political processes. According to Coakley (2018), it emphasizes countries’ deep historical and cultural roots and assumes their quasi-objective behavior. However, one of the counterarguments to this approach is that national identity and self-determination are not fixed or inherent but rather are constructed and negotiated through political processes. One of the theories that support this argument is social constructivism. According to this perspective, how people understand and experience the world is not determined by objective facts or universal laws but rather by the social and cultural frameworks created and negotiated through interactions with others. This theory thus emphasizes the dynamic and fluid nature of national identity, arguing that it is not fixed or predetermined but rather is constructed and negotiated through ongoing social and political processes experienced in the case between Israel and Palestine. This perspective challenges the notion of national identity as something fixed or inherent and highlights how national identity is shaped and influenced by various social and political factors.

Conclusion

In conclusion, nationalism is a complex concept nationalism is a complex concept that can both foster unity and civic participation but can also lead to divisions and exclusion if not carefully managed. It is considered a powerful force in the construction of collective identities and can be seen as a way of consolidating cultural, social, and political power within the nation-state. However, it can also be a divisive force when framed as ethnonationalism, creating boundaries between “us” and “them” and fostering exclusivity and intolerance. This paper has supported this statement with two arguments: nationalism is important in fostering a sense of belonging and patriotism through the theory of social identity and ethnic identification, but it can also be a divisive factor through the concepts of the cultural community, primordialism, and self-determination. Multiple case studies have been used to support these arguments.

References

Benussi, Matteo. 2018. “Ethnic Muslims and the ‘Halal Movement’ in Tatarstan.” Anthropological Journal of European Cultures 27 (1): 88–93. Web.

Bowman, Emma. 2022. “For Many Native Americans, the Washington Commanders’ New Name Offers Some Closure.” NPR. NPR. Web.

Coakley, John. 2017. “‘Primordialism’ in Nationalism Studies: Theory or Ideology?” Nations and Nationalism 24 (2): 327–47. Web.

Connor, Walker. 1973. “The Politics of Ethnonationalism.” Journal of International Affairs 27 (1): 1–21. Web.

Eriksen, Thomas Hylland. 2010. “Nationalism.” Essay. In Ethnicity and Nationalism. London: Pluto Press.

Gilroy, Paul. 1987. There Ain’t No Black in the Union Jack: The Cultural Politics of Race and Nation. London: Routledge.

Girvin, Brian. 2022. “From Civic Pluralism to Ethnoreligious Majoritarianism.” State and Majority Nationalism in Plurinational States, 27–45. Web.

Gladkova, Anna, Elena Vartanova, and Massimo Ragnedda. 2020. “Digital Divide and Digital Capital in Multiethnic Russian Society.” Journal of Multicultural Discourses 15 (2): 126–47. Web.

Mihelj, Sabina, and César Jiménez‐Martínez. 2020. “Digital Nationalism: Understanding the Role of Digital Media in the Rise of ‘New’ Nationalism.” Nations and Nationalism 27 (2): 331–46. Web.

Nelson, Sophia. 2017. “Opinion: Don’t Take down Confederate Monuments. Here’s Why.” NBCNews.com. NBCUniversal News Group. 2017. Web.

Raviv, Omri Shafer. 2018. “Studying an Occupied Society: Social Research, Modernization Theory and the Early Israeli Occupation, 1967–8.” Journal of Contemporary History 55 (1): 161–81. Web.

Sanchez-Mazas, Margarita, and Laurent Licata. n.d. “Social Identity Theory.” Social Identity Theory – an Overview | ScienceDirect Topics. Web.

Shakir, Omar. 2022. “A Threshold Crossed.” Human Rights Watch. Web.

Shapira, Ian. 2020. “A Brief History of the Word ‘Redskin’ and How It Became a Source of Controversy.” The Washington Post. WP Company. Web.

Walsh, Colleen. 2020. “Historian Puts the Push to Remove Confederate Statues in Context.” Harvard Gazette. Harvard Gazette. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!