3 ms·

What kind of narrative can realistically serve as a foundation for a "healthy nationalism"? Abstract inclusive concepts like "Unity in Diversity", and "human

by danans 6y ago

What kind of narrative can realistically serve as a foundation for a "healthy nationalism"? Abstract inclusive concepts like "Unity in Diversity", and "human rights" seem to have less ability to unify people than exclusionary identities like religion, race, language, or tribe. Arguably, the things that have kept those exclusionary narratives somewhat at bay in the last half century have been (1) the memories of the previouos horrors committed in the name of nationalism (though they are fading) (2) advances in common welfare after WWII due to the the combination of industrial/technological advances and the government policies. For example, would we have had the civil rights movement in the US if the standard of living for many white Americans didn't dramatically increase in the decades just prior? Hard to say for sure, but I doubt it. This is why growing inequality is so dangerous - it makes people less amenable to "healthy" nationalism and far more susceptible to "unhealthy" kinds.

rayiner 6y ago
You need to cultivate tribal ties that are real, concrete, and meaningful and to some degree exclusionary. In the United States, we venerate the Constitution. We have a pantheon that includes founding fathers, Neil Armstrong, MLK, etc. We teach our children their stories. We have shared rituals, such as being conspicuously patriotic on the Fourth of July. We have shared objects of derision, such as French “surrender monkeys.” We have a bottomless well of national pride, even when we don’t. The New York Times is ashamed of America in many instances, but will happily turn on a dime and condemn the French as racists and sexists for not conforming to American precepts of race and sex relations.
- bhupy 6y ago
  Until the mid-2010's the US's creedal flavor of "nationalism" was arguably the most principles-based in the world; something I take great pride in as a brown American son of immigrants. It was a paragon of what nationalism should look like. Unfortunately, in 2021, we've lost that collective nationalism, and I'm not sure we're better off for it.
- danans 6y ago
  > You need to cultivate tribal ties that are real, concrete, and meaningful and to some degree exclusionary A somewhat exclusionary tribe that extends across an entire diverse country? Not likely. The only thing more tribalism will do is strengthen the existing stark tribal groups we have (which are primarily racial, religious, and class). > In the United States, we venerate the Constitution. We have a pantheon that includes founding fathers, Neil Armstrong, MLK, etc. As important those famous figures are, you (correctly) describe it as a pantheon, AKA the idolization of these individuals more for their surface appearance than what they represent. The amount of lip service paid to MLK in particular is astounding, especially by politicians who actively undermine his movement for racial and economic justice. I agree that having such a pantheon is part of a national identity, but at best it is set of symbols that matter only because of an underlying broadly shared sense of economic well being. > We have shared objects of derision, such as French “surrender monkeys.” I think this is the example you are presenting as "exclusionary", but I'm not sure what makes it redeeming as a basis of national identity, nor is it as widely shared an object derision as you suggest.
  - xyzzyz 6y ago
    > A somewhat exclusionary tribe that extends across an entire diverse country? Not likely. Worked fine for most of the US history.
    - danans 6y ago
      The victims of slavery, Jim Crow, and other tribal institutions of American history might beg to differ.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    > he amount of lip service paid to MLK in particular is astounding, especially by politicians who actively undermine his movement for racial and economic justice. I half agree with you, but I think it's the side of the aisle you're probably not talking about that's paying "lip service". MLK's entire philosophy was peaceful civil disobedience as contrasted with Malcolm X's approach of radicalism ("So early in my life, I had learned that if you want something, you had better make some noise"). Today, I'm afraid that we've lost sight of MLK's philosophy and have decided to try Malcolm X's approach to solving our social problems. Time will tell if that was a wise choice. It's also not clear if MLK ever believed in enforced equality of outcomes (as opposed to just equality of opportunities). In some circles today, not judging people "by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character" and not believing in strictly equal outcomes is insufficiently anti-racist.

by danans 6y ago

rayiner 6y ago

You need to cultivate tribal ties that are real, concrete, and meaningful and to some degree exclusionary. In the United States, we venerate the Constitution. We have a pantheon that includes founding fathers, Neil Armstrong, MLK, etc. We teach our children their stories. We have shared rituals, such as being conspicuously patriotic on the Fourth of July. We have shared objects of derision, such as French “surrender monkeys.” We have a bottomless well of national pride, even when we don’t. The New York Times is ashamed of America in many instances, but will happily turn on a dime and condemn the French as racists and sexists for not conforming to American precepts of race and sex relations.

bhupy 6y ago
Until the mid-2010's the US's creedal flavor of "nationalism" was arguably the most principles-based in the world; something I take great pride in as a brown American son of immigrants. It was a paragon of what nationalism should look like. Unfortunately, in 2021, we've lost that collective nationalism, and I'm not sure we're better off for it.
danans 6y ago
> You need to cultivate tribal ties that are real, concrete, and meaningful and to some degree exclusionary A somewhat exclusionary tribe that extends across an entire diverse country? Not likely. The only thing more tribalism will do is strengthen the existing stark tribal groups we have (which are primarily racial, religious, and class). > In the United States, we venerate the Constitution. We have a pantheon that includes founding fathers, Neil Armstrong, MLK, etc. As important those famous figures are, you (correctly) describe it as a pantheon, AKA the idolization of these individuals more for their surface appearance than what they represent. The amount of lip service paid to MLK in particular is astounding, especially by politicians who actively undermine his movement for racial and economic justice. I agree that having such a pantheon is part of a national identity, but at best it is set of symbols that matter only because of an underlying broadly shared sense of economic well being. > We have shared objects of derision, such as French “surrender monkeys.” I think this is the example you are presenting as "exclusionary", but I'm not sure what makes it redeeming as a basis of national identity, nor is it as widely shared an object derision as you suggest.
- xyzzyz 6y ago
  > A somewhat exclusionary tribe that extends across an entire diverse country? Not likely. Worked fine for most of the US history.
  - danans 6y ago
    The victims of slavery, Jim Crow, and other tribal institutions of American history might beg to differ.
- bhupy 6y ago
  > he amount of lip service paid to MLK in particular is astounding, especially by politicians who actively undermine his movement for racial and economic justice. I half agree with you, but I think it's the side of the aisle you're probably not talking about that's paying "lip service". MLK's entire philosophy was peaceful civil disobedience as contrasted with Malcolm X's approach of radicalism ("So early in my life, I had learned that if you want something, you had better make some noise"). Today, I'm afraid that we've lost sight of MLK's philosophy and have decided to try Malcolm X's approach to solving our social problems. Time will tell if that was a wise choice. It's also not clear if MLK ever believed in enforced equality of outcomes (as opposed to just equality of opportunities). In some circles today, not judging people "by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character" and not believing in strictly equal outcomes is insufficiently anti-racist.