18 ms·
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 fur
by 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 agoThe 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 agoReligion can be, see the Jews, although there is some language element there, but yeah, I would assume common language is a must.
- tasogare 7y agoYet 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 agoSwitzerland 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?
- necovek 7y agoUhm, I read tasogare's response as an argument contradicting your original summary how language is a good criteria to define nations. You now seem to be diving into their examples to, in essence, agree with them: language itself is not a good common property to define a nation. Coming from Serbia and speaking Serbian (but not Croatian or Bosnian, though we'd understand each other as if we are speaking the same language ;)), even language is a term used for political purposes, but what you make of it in relation to defining a "nation" is up to you.
- incompatible 7y agoI think basically, we know what states are, and often use "nation" as a synonym for state. But some people try to use "nation" to mean something else, such as Wikipedia would have it: "A nation is a stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, history, ethnicity, or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture." Although, personally, I'd find language to be the only thing there that I'd care about
- squiggleblaz 7y agoI don't think that's right. I think, for the most part, we're familiar with nation states, so we've changed the meaning of nation to mean "the people of a nation state". But in other parts of the world, for instance in Eastern Europe, you have people who are clearly Russians but citizens of other post Soviet states. There, you have a question about a nation and a state that do not correspond. States speak of administration; nations speak of common bonds. States seek to turn their diverse populations into a common nation because it will create stability. But when some of the people who are subject to your administration feel a common bond with hundreds of millions of people on the other side of a somewhat arbitrary line, this may be an impossible or undesireable task.
- incompatible 7y agoYes, we also have situations where a group of people have decided that they are a nation and really want an independent state: such as in Scotland, Catalonia, the Kurds, or Tibet: supporters of the existing state may even accuse them of wanting to "split the nation". The idea of nationalism, that states and nations should coincide, was only partly implemented. There are numerous groups, including indigenous peoples of the Americas and Pacific or the numerous groups of India which never obtained their own states.
- bloak 7y agoPerhaps for you and me language is the only major attribute, but for many people there's also religion, and sometimes religion is even more important than language.
- incompatible 7y agoPerhaps you could speak of a Jewish nation, which is defined mostly by religion? But I don't think it's done in general: Catholics in Canada and the Netherlands aren't considered members of the same nation, they just happen to share a religion.
- bloak 7y agoThinking of nationality, I would guess it's easier to find cases in which religion divides people with a common language than cases in which religion unites people with different languages.
- cookieswumchorr 7y agoYes, in theory it should be like this. But in real-life "Nation" is 99% used to describe a group of people who have the same passports. Which kind of ruins the concept of a nation to me. I feel more connection to people in the same industry, or the same hobbies then based on citizenship
- squiggleblaz 7y agoBut what's a language? Swedes and Norwegians and Danes can, basically, understand each other. Hindi and Urdu or Indonesian and Malaysian are the same day-to-day language but they have different technical and formal terms. Is there a language boundary between Scots and English, or is Scots a dialect? Language is just as fraught politically as anything else.
- incompatible 7y agoI'm only attached to language for practical communication reasons, and mutual intelligibility is good enough. I don't care about accents or minor spelling variations.