Human beings should always contemplate and discuss big issues. While details matter, we should encourage people to rethink existing ideologies and institutions.
“Our true nationality is mankind.” ― H.G. Wells
Today, the scourge of nationalism continues to infect the human species. Without doubt, in some circles, people hotly debate the topic. For most people, however, the concept of nationalism is rarely questioned. In fact, it’s a foregone conclusion that people should love the nation in which they reside. Some people even take great pride in the fact that they were arbitrarily born in a specific geographical location. Unfortunately, like religion or capitalism, nationalism is alive and well in the 21st century.
Throughout the history of human civilization, people have been creating, critiquing and altering institutions. For instance, people have condemned religion for centuries, indeed millennia. Yet the institution of religion still remains a dominant force in modern society. Without question, religious institutions and practices have morphed, dare I say, evolved, over the centuries. But the fundamental concept that human beings exist within an abstract framework of Gods, mythologies, symbols, and so forth, still remains.
In short, it takes an extremely long time to change ideologies and practices. On the other hand, that doesn’t mean conversations about such topics should be off-limits or discouraged. Quite the contrary: such conversations are essential, especially today. As the legendary science fiction writer Ursula K. Le Guin recently said, “We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings.” Of course, the same could be said of nationalism. The real question is: can we imagine something different?
Often, people focus on the details, as opposed to bigger, broader questions concerning humanity. For instance, when discussing economics, people rarely question whether or not we should replace capitalism. Usually, the conversation is focused on how to reform, or tweak, existing economic institutions and arrangements. Indeed, most people have basically accepted the fact that institutions such as banks and governments are permanent fixtures in society.
The truth is, no one in their right mind believes that humanity is going to abolish capitalism and its many institutional apparatuses in my lifetime (I’m 31 years old). Unfortunately, this grim reality makes a conversation about economic alternatives quite difficult, as humanity is lacking political movements capable of seriously challenging capitalism. Without doubt, it’s easy for people to be dismissive or cynical when there’s no real prospect for alternatives on the horizon.
However, ideologies start with ideas. And ideas are fueled by conversations and reflections. Nationalism, like all ideologies, was created by the human mind. It’s a social construct, not a biological reality. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, nationalism is, “loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially: a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.”
The first part, “loyalty and devotion to a nation,” would largely depend on context. For example, it’s easy to imagine someone defending a nationalist political project if that particular undertaking embodied worthwhile values, ethics and principles. However, I would never expect someone to be completely loyal and devoted to an arbitrary concept, even in the most ideal of circumstances.
For instance, many leftists were critical of the Cuban revolution prior to the communists taking power in January, 1959. The vast majority of these critics remained loyal to the political cause of emancipation from the Batista regime, but simultaneously denounced the repression and crimes of the newly formed revolutionary government, including its Leninist ideology. On the other hand, there are those who’ve remained unapologetic regarding the Castro government. Indeed, the urge to defend Cuba’s revolutionary history can be taken to absurd extremes, for dogmatic supporters often fail to acknowledge basic truths and uncomfortable facts.
The same could be said of other political movements and nations. In 2011, I routinely heard leftists defend Gaddafi’s regime. And while NATO and outside forces had no business bombing and destroying Libya, leftists were naive to think that an enemy of their enemy was their friend, ally or comrade.
Again, nuance is important. Hence it’s difficult to wholeheartedly condemn nationalism, as it’s played a positive role in mobilizing individuals and communities around the world to resist violence and oppression. At the same time, however, the concept itself should always be questioned. As we’ve seen in the past, what begins as a potentially emancipatory political project, often ends with repression and more of the status quo.
As a result, the practice of “exalting one nation above all others” has produced horrific consequences. Furthermore, to suggest that a nation should “[place] primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations” is inherently flawed. As H.G. Wells reminds us, there is one human race.
Nonetheless, the question remains: what would a new political project look like? Humanity has already experimented with the concept of a ‘global working-class.’ That project, at least in its traditional form, is all but dead. Few people are excited by the concept of identifying as workers, especially in today’s multimedia-driven world. Yes, it’s a simple, and sometimes effective way to categorize people, but the majority of humans do not primarily identify as workers (and that’s not because they have false consciousness), nor do I.
Some people have been using the Occupy framework: the 99% vs. the 1%. Yet, as various thinkers and commentators have noted, this ideological framework lacks nuance. It’s rather simplistic to tell people that the source of their problems can be clearly identified and categorized. Indeed, some of humanity’s problems are objective, but others are subjective in nature. Moreover, the 99% is not a homogenous entity; it’s filled with managerial types, lawyers, garbage pickers and fast food employees. These segments of society have very little in common, regardless of what the orthodox Marxists espouse.
Right now, various political projects around the world are grappling with the concept of continental political arrangements. Obviously, Europe is a prime example. Others, including those in Latin America, have been pushing for continental cooperation and codification. In some ways, these developments pose alternatives to the traditional nation-state.
In the end, humanity requires an international political project of epic proportions to successfully combat the many ills of the modern world. People should always discuss big ideas and critique ideological orthodoxies in the aim of hopefully creating a more just a peaceful world. However, the actual process of changing institutions and ideologies can take centuries.
Meanwhile, can continental political arrangements eventually morph into international political arrangements? Without doubt, the only way these arrangements will be successful is if they develop in an organic fashion. As we’re seeing with the European Union, when political projects are imposed from the top-down, undesirable results will always take form.
Vincent Emanuele is a writer, activist and radio journalist who lives and works in the Rust Belt. He can be reached at vincent.emanuele333@gmail.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate