4 ms·

Does the article ever explain why it matters whether the US is a “nation”? What is the significance of distinguishing between whether it is a nation or a hegemo

by cudgy 5y ago

Does the article ever explain why it matters whether the US is a “nation”? What is the significance of distinguishing between whether it is a nation or a hegemony? Does that have some obscure implications that requires a word-salad article to lay it out for everyone? From the definition of nation, it would seem that when George Washington said it, it would be accurate but the author disagrees. Currently, one could argue that the backgrounds and birthplaces of many citizens of the US vary so much that it is not a nation. Why does it matter?

afthonos 5y ago
The author argues (towards the end) that by misunderstanding the US as a nation, we are going to try to do things that make sense for a nation, but not for a citizenship-based polity. And we are also likely to be upset when those things don’t work out.
- cudgy 5y ago
  It seems that democracy which would be a Natural form of government that supports citizenship based polity would also be congruent with the concept of a nation. The majority in a democracy would most likely come from a similar background and therefore have similar ideals politically Which meets many of the requirements of a nation. I’m having a hard time seeing how these things are mutually exclusive, which is what the author appears to be concluding.
  - afthonos 5y ago
    The author says they are not congruent in the specific case of the US.
notacoward 5y ago
The author doesn't take on that issue head on, because its focus is more on terminological precision, but it does hint at an answer. > National identities are, after all, not merely about inclusion but also about exclusion > the nation is an exclusive identity, but citizenship co-exists more easily with other identities Calls to nationalism are often not so much calls for unity as they are calls for exclusion of or opposition to some "other" who does not share that nationality. This is not necessarily a bad thing. When it's a minority nation seeking independence from a larger state/empire (e.g. Scotland from the UK) it can even seem noble. When it's a powerful nation seeking to exert its will over other "lesser" nations (e.g. Russia in any of its imperial/Soviet/current forms) not so much. In general, "nationalism" has negative connotations, is part of the standard definition of fascism, etc. "Civic" identity (what the author suggests the US actually has) is generally more positive and supports more humane policy. To the extent that words matter in general, this one certainly does.
- cudgy 5y ago
  Interesting. Thanks for your assessment. My impression was that the author thought of the US as a hegemony Which explains more about the relationship between the US and other areas of the world. The explanation that you laid out regarding civics explains more of the way that people within the United States see themselves. I am not a political science expert, but these definitely seem like two different concepts. It would’ve been nice for the author to have expressed the importance of why he was making the distinction earlier in the article. I found the article to be quite obtuse.

by cudgy 5y ago

afthonos 5y ago

The author argues (towards the end) that by misunderstanding the US as a nation, we are going to try to do things that make sense for a nation, but not for a citizenship-based polity. And we are also likely to be upset when those things don’t work out.

cudgy 5y ago
It seems that democracy which would be a Natural form of government that supports citizenship based polity would also be congruent with the concept of a nation. The majority in a democracy would most likely come from a similar background and therefore have similar ideals politically Which meets many of the requirements of a nation. I’m having a hard time seeing how these things are mutually exclusive, which is what the author appears to be concluding.
- afthonos 5y ago
  The author says they are not congruent in the specific case of the US.

notacoward 5y ago

The author doesn't take on that issue head on, because its focus is more on terminological precision, but it does hint at an answer. > National identities are, after all, not merely about inclusion but also about exclusion > the nation is an exclusive identity, but citizenship co-exists more easily with other identities Calls to nationalism are often not so much calls for unity as they are calls for exclusion of or opposition to some "other" who does not share that nationality. This is not necessarily a bad thing. When it's a minority nation seeking independence from a larger state/empire (e.g. Scotland from the UK) it can even seem noble. When it's a powerful nation seeking to exert its will over other "lesser" nations (e.g. Russia in any of its imperial/Soviet/current forms) not so much. In general, "nationalism" has negative connotations, is part of the standard definition of fascism, etc. "Civic" identity (what the author suggests the US actually has) is generally more positive and supports more humane policy. To the extent that words matter in general, this one certainly does.

cudgy 5y ago
Interesting. Thanks for your assessment. My impression was that the author thought of the US as a hegemony Which explains more about the relationship between the US and other areas of the world. The explanation that you laid out regarding civics explains more of the way that people within the United States see themselves. I am not a political science expert, but these definitely seem like two different concepts. It would’ve been nice for the author to have expressed the importance of why he was making the distinction earlier in the article. I found the article to be quite obtuse.