6 ms·

What Is a Nation? (2015)

46 points by brandonlc 7y ago

docdeek 7y ago
When I taught first year International Relations one of the early lectures covered the difference between state, country, and nation. Although used interchangeably by politicians, in IR the state is a political structure of which there are only about 200 in the world, mostly recognized by other states as being such, and with the legitimate recourse to the use of force (plus a couple of other factors). A country was a geographic reference - think Wales or the Basque Country, or Switzerland because a country and a state can share the same geography (and often do). A nation was not about political organisation or geography but a shared identity - sometimes ethnic, sometimes religious, sometimes nationalist - between a group of people. Hence the US could be a single state and country, while being inhabited by many nations (American, Sioux, Apache etc). The UK could be a single state made up of multiple countries and inhabited by people identifying as members of many nations. And occasionally you'll have a case where you have a distinct nation that has a well defined country (say Tibet) but is not recognized as a state.
- burfog 7y ago
  So you'd say West Virginia is a country but not a state, and every Chinatown is a nation? I don't think your definitions match the accepted reality in the American English language.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    The definitions given are well-established: Country: A tract of land; a region; the territory of an independent nation; (as distinguished from any other region, and with a personal pronoun) the region of one's birth, permanent residence, or citizenship. http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=country http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=cou... State: A political body, or body politic; the whole body of people who are united under one government, whatever may be the form of the government; a nation. http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=state http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=sta... Nation: A part, or division, of the people of the earth, distinguished from the rest by common descent, language, or institutions; a race; a stock. http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=nation http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=nat...
  - simonh 7y ago
    Terminology used by specialists within their area of expertise often don’t.
  - dabbledash 7y ago
    I’m a native English speaker, and that’s how I would define those words. E.g., we call people who supported the break up of the Austro-Hungarian empire in favor of self-rule by its constituent ethnic groups “nationalists.”
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- 1996 7y ago
  > the state is a political structure (...) mostly recognized by other states as being such, and with the legitimate recourse to the use of force What makes it legitimate, except that other states will recognize it? The status quo. This is why China can crack down on HK, or Spain on Catalonia. In a sense, it is not much different from organized crime: gangs recognize each other, sometimes fight but most of the time stay within their borders, and exert violence to punish their members that deviated from the rules. The gang members recognize that the use of violence to punish fellow members is legitimate.
  - docdeek 7y ago
    In practice, most states recognize all other states. There are exceptions (Israel lacking recognition from some states, a few edge cases owing to long-ago treaties etc) even if they don't have good relations. The US and Iran, for example, might not have diplomatic relations but they both recognize the other as existing. In some ways it is a little arbitrary. A new state like East Timor or South Sudan can be declared and immediately recognized by most everyone, and then admitted to the UN. Kosovo can déclaré itself a state, be recognized by a lot of other states, but lack a seat at the UN and 'real' statehood. And then there's a case like Taiwan which does more or less everything a state would or could do...but is recognized by almost nobody. While it's not perfect, a good rule of thumb as to whether a state is really a state is if they are full members of the UN. It's not perfect - the Holy See and Switzerland were non-member states for a long time - but it's close.
    - necovek 7y ago
      In reality, it seems that those rules are bound for a change. UN at large needs to recognize that the current nationalistic movements are not going to die out, and go back to the core goal of preventing violent conflicts, which current arrangement is anything but helping. I am not sure what the solution is, but providing a predetermined cost for separation of a part of the country is a simplistic framework that might work. Eg. Catalonia gets their independence, owes Spain ~20 billion euros over the next 20 years, and they each guarantee to each other that it will not raise taxes to opposing products in the next 30 years[1]. For Kosovo it's a bit late to avoid violence. But as state separation becomes common and accepted as "normal", there will be less of "this is terrible" storylines that politicans thrive on, so harder to pull people into violent wars. Oh well, one can only hope. FWIW, I am sure that will lead back to unification efforts (you know, to share costs and optimise development: eg. it's hard to design a good railroad if you are governing only your tiny county), but as long as we define clear uniting and separating guidelines, I hope we can reach acceptable terms for all parties. [1] Not saying this is a fair arrangement, but I am sure there could be a way to define something that is fair and probably written onto thousands of pages :)
lixtra 7y ago
A long text that comes to a trivial conclusion: What is a nation? I argue that it is a group label that is invented and sustained in so far as it serves to further the goals of elites. Within an individual’s lifetime they appear unchanging, but from a historical perspective they are fluid and are frequently created, killed, or reborn as needed. When conversing about geopolitics we cannot ignore national identity, but we must keep in mind that in the long run nationality can be, and is, molded to suit political goals. Nations are a political entity. What else would you expect. The same thing can be said about laws or morals or religion or ...
- incompatible 7y ago
  The argument is that states are a political entity, nations are a cultural entity. I'm more attached to the English language than I am to any particular state. Edit: Apart from language, I can't think of any other cultural attribute which is strong enough to define a nation.
  - golemiprague 7y ago
    Religion can be, see the Jews, although there is some language element there, but yeah, I would assume common language is a must.
  - tasogare 7y ago
    Yet you have nations with members speaking different languages (Switzerland, Belgium) as well as people speaking a common language split into multiple nation state (Germany/Austria, Romania/Moldova).
    - incompatible 7y ago
      Switzerland and Belgium are both states. I don't think it would be much of a stretch to consider the Flemish and Walloons to be different nations, although then I'd wonder if they'd merge with the Dutch and French instead. If you'd consider the Dutch and Flemish to have enough difference to define nations, then what about other regions of the Netherlands, or the different counties of the UK?
nkkollaw 7y ago
Horrible article. Elites want to destroy nations, not create them, so that point he got completely wrong. In general, what is the point exactly? Nations are a container to protect ideas and people, to have an economy, to have laws.
- kristianov 7y ago
  I think the point is that Elites create whatever concepts or social constructions to further their goals.
  - incompatible 7y ago
    Elites being people with sufficient power to create or destroy nations?
  - TomMckenny 7y ago
    I believe you two have different definitions of "elite". I am guessing that you define "elite" as the powerful (and therefore rich) and he defines it as the cosmopolitan-intellectual, the anti-nationalist and liberal minded (but not necessarily the top level of power or wealth). I'm also guessing there's a difference of opinion as to whether nation-hood is a transitory social construct or an intrinsic unalterable eternal reality.
- sbmthakur 7y ago
  Could you tell me why elites want to destroy nations? A strong nation ensures regulations that protect the power of elites. The article is also making the same point.
  - ahje 7y ago
    No, a strong state ensures that the regulations are in place. A _nation_ is an identity assumed by a group of people.
    - nkkollaw 7y ago
john_d0e 7y ago
> What Is a Nation? "A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture." https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913...
rayiner 7y ago
> What is a nation? I argue that it is a group label that is invented and sustained in so far as it serves to further the goals of elites. I’m pretty tired of hearing thoughts on nations and nationalism from a generation of westerners who are privileged enough not to remember why we have nations and nationalism. Ask the Uyghurs or Tibetans or Kurds what is a nation. Ask Israelis or Bangladeshis. You’ll get a sensible answer.
- alexro 7y ago
  Kurds aren't a nation, they're different tribes. Have different views, speak different languages/dialects
stereolambda 7y ago
This is an interesting article depending, among others, on how your (personal? "national"?) language defines nations and states. I find it hard to map my concepts into English words "ethnicity", which seems related to race, and "nationality", which seems related to states, while nations are ultimately neither. If your nation used to make you a second-class citizen in foreign states, which is somewhat typical in Eastern Europe, you do have a sharp distinction between nations and states. I.e. nations can live under yoke of different states. In this states, your nation can/could make you an "invader" (funny how it's hard in English to find a word emotional enough to call someone who formerly conquered you!) or a "traitor" (Poles in Russian Empire), or a primitive "barbarian" unworthy of fully participating in our, you know, higher civilization (Poles in German Empire). Intuitively, your nation is defined partly by your name (see Lithuanian actions to lithuanize Slavic names of citizens) and received language and culture. Funny how the OP seriously considers a "blood and race" understanding of nation, which I think in Europe is a fast road to Godwin law. Aside from being nonsensical, it just feels morally repulsive. For the record, I do think that the European concept of nation does more harm not good, and in an ideal world we should replace it with civic identification with your free republic. But it does serve as an instrument to organize people for political action. This can be sometimes legitimately good. Especially I find the OP's critique of American Revolution trite. For a long time now it's fashionable ot thrash both American and French Revolutions, while without them there would be no strong examples for people throughout the world to question power. (They were themselves based on ancient examples, but for them you need classical education.) Our world would be much more horrible without that.
buboard 7y ago
And let's remember that nations are based on our ability to willingly forget our dark past https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_a_Nation%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_a_Nation%3F

46 points by brandonlc 7y ago

When I taught first year International Relations one of the early lectures covered the difference between state, country, and nation. Although used interchangeably by politicians, in IR the state is a political structure of which there are only about 200 in the world, mostly recognized by other states as being such, and with the legitimate recourse to the use of force (plus a couple of other factors). A country was a geographic reference - think Wales or the Basque Country, or Switzerland because a country and a state can share the same geography (and often do). A nation was not about political organisation or geography but a shared identity - sometimes ethnic, sometimes religious, sometimes nationalist - between a group of people. Hence the US could be a single state and country, while being inhabited by many nations (American, Sioux, Apache etc). The UK could be a single state made up of multiple countries and inhabited by people identifying as members of many nations. And occasionally you'll have a case where you have a distinct nation that has a well defined country (say Tibet) but is not recognized as a state.

burfog 7y ago
So you'd say West Virginia is a country but not a state, and every Chinatown is a nation? I don't think your definitions match the accepted reality in the American English language.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  The definitions given are well-established: Country: A tract of land; a region; the territory of an independent nation; (as distinguished from any other region, and with a personal pronoun) the region of one's birth, permanent residence, or citizenship. http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=country http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=cou... State: A political body, or body politic; the whole body of people who are united under one government, whatever may be the form of the government; a nation. http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=state http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=sta... Nation: A part, or division, of the people of the earth, distinguished from the rest by common descent, language, or institutions; a race; a stock. http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=nation http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=nat...
- simonh 7y ago
  Terminology used by specialists within their area of expertise often don’t.
- dabbledash 7y ago
  I’m a native English speaker, and that’s how I would define those words. E.g., we call people who supported the break up of the Austro-Hungarian empire in favor of self-rule by its constituent ethnic groups “nationalists.”
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
1996 7y ago
> the state is a political structure (...) mostly recognized by other states as being such, and with the legitimate recourse to the use of force What makes it legitimate, except that other states will recognize it? The status quo. This is why China can crack down on HK, or Spain on Catalonia. In a sense, it is not much different from organized crime: gangs recognize each other, sometimes fight but most of the time stay within their borders, and exert violence to punish their members that deviated from the rules. The gang members recognize that the use of violence to punish fellow members is legitimate.
- docdeek 7y ago
  In practice, most states recognize all other states. There are exceptions (Israel lacking recognition from some states, a few edge cases owing to long-ago treaties etc) even if they don't have good relations. The US and Iran, for example, might not have diplomatic relations but they both recognize the other as existing. In some ways it is a little arbitrary. A new state like East Timor or South Sudan can be declared and immediately recognized by most everyone, and then admitted to the UN. Kosovo can déclaré itself a state, be recognized by a lot of other states, but lack a seat at the UN and 'real' statehood. And then there's a case like Taiwan which does more or less everything a state would or could do...but is recognized by almost nobody. While it's not perfect, a good rule of thumb as to whether a state is really a state is if they are full members of the UN. It's not perfect - the Holy See and Switzerland were non-member states for a long time - but it's close.
  - necovek 7y ago
    In reality, it seems that those rules are bound for a change. UN at large needs to recognize that the current nationalistic movements are not going to die out, and go back to the core goal of preventing violent conflicts, which current arrangement is anything but helping. I am not sure what the solution is, but providing a predetermined cost for separation of a part of the country is a simplistic framework that might work. Eg. Catalonia gets their independence, owes Spain ~20 billion euros over the next 20 years, and they each guarantee to each other that it will not raise taxes to opposing products in the next 30 years[1]. For Kosovo it's a bit late to avoid violence. But as state separation becomes common and accepted as "normal", there will be less of "this is terrible" storylines that politicans thrive on, so harder to pull people into violent wars. Oh well, one can only hope. FWIW, I am sure that will lead back to unification efforts (you know, to share costs and optimise development: eg. it's hard to design a good railroad if you are governing only your tiny county), but as long as we define clear uniting and separating guidelines, I hope we can reach acceptable terms for all parties. [1] Not saying this is a fair arrangement, but I am sure there could be a way to define something that is fair and probably written onto thousands of pages :)

lixtra 7y ago

A long text that comes to a trivial conclusion: What is a nation? I argue that it is a group label that is invented and sustained in so far as it serves to further the goals of elites. Within an individual’s lifetime they appear unchanging, but from a historical perspective they are fluid and are frequently created, killed, or reborn as needed. When conversing about geopolitics we cannot ignore national identity, but we must keep in mind that in the long run nationality can be, and is, molded to suit political goals. Nations are a political entity. What else would you expect. The same thing can be said about laws or morals or religion or ...

incompatible 7y ago
The argument is that states are a political entity, nations are a cultural entity. I'm more attached to the English language than I am to any particular state. Edit: Apart from language, I can't think of any other cultural attribute which is strong enough to define a nation.
- golemiprague 7y ago
  Religion can be, see the Jews, although there is some language element there, but yeah, I would assume common language is a must.
- tasogare 7y ago
  Yet you have nations with members speaking different languages (Switzerland, Belgium) as well as people speaking a common language split into multiple nation state (Germany/Austria, Romania/Moldova).
  - incompatible 7y ago
    Switzerland and Belgium are both states. I don't think it would be much of a stretch to consider the Flemish and Walloons to be different nations, although then I'd wonder if they'd merge with the Dutch and French instead. If you'd consider the Dutch and Flemish to have enough difference to define nations, then what about other regions of the Netherlands, or the different counties of the UK?

nkkollaw 7y ago

Horrible article. Elites want to destroy nations, not create them, so that point he got completely wrong. In general, what is the point exactly? Nations are a container to protect ideas and people, to have an economy, to have laws.

kristianov 7y ago
I think the point is that Elites create whatever concepts or social constructions to further their goals.
- incompatible 7y ago
  Elites being people with sufficient power to create or destroy nations?
- TomMckenny 7y ago
  I believe you two have different definitions of "elite". I am guessing that you define "elite" as the powerful (and therefore rich) and he defines it as the cosmopolitan-intellectual, the anti-nationalist and liberal minded (but not necessarily the top level of power or wealth). I'm also guessing there's a difference of opinion as to whether nation-hood is a transitory social construct or an intrinsic unalterable eternal reality.
sbmthakur 7y ago
Could you tell me why elites want to destroy nations? A strong nation ensures regulations that protect the power of elites. The article is also making the same point.
- ahje 7y ago
  No, a strong state ensures that the regulations are in place. A _nation_ is an identity assumed by a group of people.
  - nkkollaw 7y ago

john_d0e 7y ago

> What Is a Nation? "A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture." https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913...

rayiner 7y ago

> What is a nation? I argue that it is a group label that is invented and sustained in so far as it serves to further the goals of elites. I’m pretty tired of hearing thoughts on nations and nationalism from a generation of westerners who are privileged enough not to remember why we have nations and nationalism. Ask the Uyghurs or Tibetans or Kurds what is a nation. Ask Israelis or Bangladeshis. You’ll get a sensible answer.

alexro 7y ago
Kurds aren't a nation, they're different tribes. Have different views, speak different languages/dialects

stereolambda 7y ago

This is an interesting article depending, among others, on how your (personal? "national"?) language defines nations and states. I find it hard to map my concepts into English words "ethnicity", which seems related to race, and "nationality", which seems related to states, while nations are ultimately neither. If your nation used to make you a second-class citizen in foreign states, which is somewhat typical in Eastern Europe, you do have a sharp distinction between nations and states. I.e. nations can live under yoke of different states. In this states, your nation can/could make you an "invader" (funny how it's hard in English to find a word emotional enough to call someone who formerly conquered you!) or a "traitor" (Poles in Russian Empire), or a primitive "barbarian" unworthy of fully participating in our, you know, higher civilization (Poles in German Empire). Intuitively, your nation is defined partly by your name (see Lithuanian actions to lithuanize Slavic names of citizens) and received language and culture. Funny how the OP seriously considers a "blood and race" understanding of nation, which I think in Europe is a fast road to Godwin law. Aside from being nonsensical, it just feels morally repulsive. For the record, I do think that the European concept of nation does more harm not good, and in an ideal world we should replace it with civic identification with your free republic. But it does serve as an instrument to organize people for political action. This can be sometimes legitimately good. Especially I find the OP's critique of American Revolution trite. For a long time now it's fashionable ot thrash both American and French Revolutions, while without them there would be no strong examples for people throughout the world to question power. (They were themselves based on ancient examples, but for them you need classical education.) Our world would be much more horrible without that.

buboard 7y ago

And let's remember that nations are based on our ability to willingly forget our dark past https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_a_Nation%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_a_Nation%3F