Dr Goebbels’ Total war conference of 1944 is a prime example of nationalism at its worst. Goebbels was mobilising what remained of the German nation, the elderly, children, unfit, to commit what was effectively mass suicide as a last effort to win the war, putting up thousands of innocent people to fight against strong armies. The fact that they mindlessly followed this propaganda in one last push is what is so scary about nationalism.
As Arendt points out, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were prime examples of problematic totalitarianism; the population was no longer made up of individuals, but were a mass there to be manipulated by the state as puppeteer.
Chris Horrie’s theory of nationalism as he put forward in today’s lecture is that the more over the top and superficial the nationalist attitude, the more it will be a problem. He put forward that Great Britain has a pretty balanced idea of nationalism, whereas other attitudes such as in the US where the flag is sacred, they seem to be trying to gloss over the fact that their country is made up of immigrants, from the time of settlement to today. He also said that German nationalism is so strong because their nation has been constantly changing throughout history; the borders of Germany were constantly in flux throughout the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries. However, it can be argued that if you go far enough back through history, everyone is a migrant.
Nationalism has been argued to be a product of the 19th century literary movement of Romanticism, for example built up by the ‘legends’ of Robin Hood and King Arthur, products of nineteenth century literature. It was designed to justify territorial demands at times of war and supported by both popular culture (newspapers, music halls and patriotic songs) and state directed education systems. This development of Our Island Story, as Chris puts it, is not unique to Britain. Every nation has its own nation history which portrays that country as uniquely civilised among a world of barbarians who must be tamed and transformed into images of the home country. In this way, the major nations of Europe are highly artificial and mythological. Great Britain, for example , is made up of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, all of which are in turn made up of many different ‘nationalities’ and authority groups. Take England; originally made up of Anglo-Saxons (themselves a mix of national identities), Scandinavians, Celts and other mixed origins. Another example would be the Romany group which can be found throughout Europe.
However, Chris points out that there is no such obsession with nationality in the Muslim world. Instead, they are divided into theological loyalties and allegiances, with each city having its own tendencies. In contrast, China has a very diverse ‘ethnic polity’ meaning that rather than national or theological allegiances, it is based on politics, which can even be seen in the origins of the name, China, which comes from the Chin dynasty. China therefore has a very non-nationalist ideology, despite its imitation of many customs of the Western world. Also, in the Roman Empire there were few very nationalist people and many sovereign authorities all competing for jurisdiction. It has been argued that the wars of the 17th Century increased sovereignty.
One very prominent artefact of European culture is that modern nation states present themselves as servants of the nation, however it is pointed out that this is likely to be a passing phase in human development. In the middle ages, sovereignty was divided, which marks a point of contrast with what it is today: total command. In the middle ages, politics was a matter of negotiation between land owners and the church, meaning that political power was limited and therefore wars were limited in scope and inconclusive and could often carry on for generations. Kings had to beg for money from other Kings, which is how the first state was accidentally come across: in an attempt to combat this.
Max Weber said that “The state is a monopoly of legitimate violence”, which is supported by the fact that we pay taxes and obey laws in return for the state’s protection from external enemies and for things such as education and health care. Thus the concept of ‘civil society’ was introduced; the idea that an activity is completely voluntary and not effected or controlled in any way by the state; doing something simply because you want to. However, this is not possible in the totalitarian state.
The French Revolution marked a turning point in nationalism, sweeping away all forms of traditional feudal links to the state. The state as a system is all that remained, so that the King is the only thing, really, that was swept away. Therefore the state keeps reasserting itself, showing that ‘artificial man’ (as Hobbes put it) will always remain. Louis xvi created the absolute state, but when he was taken away there was a crisis of legitimacy, as well as the inevitable economic crisis, as the people of France did not know who to obey. The formerly coerced regions tried to break free and rule themselves, including both those within ‘France’ and the colonies. However, the first act of the new republic was to attack the regional autonomy, very violently, which was seen as a monarchist counter-revolution. Through this, centralisation began to be associated with progress, liberty, equality and fraternity. However, it turned out that the idea that the nation is One and Indivisible turned out to be largely fictional. This clearly shows that the collapse of monarchy leaves huge problems as to the legitimacy of state.
Key philosophers and their views on nationalism:
Hobbes
Author of ‘The Leviathan’ (a symbol of the force of nature which humans cannot control and simply have to live with), in which he outlines his theory of power: that our state of nature means living in fear because if left to our own devices we will be barbarians. His solution was to alienate our rights to supreme sovereignty in order to live in peace. The ‘artificial man’ that is the state would be a ‘war machine’, organised for war against subjects who resist and against rival states. He argues that the emerging state is already so vast and artificial that opposition would be folly. Hobbes’ logic is ‘impeccable’ but false at the level of reducto ad absurdum, according to Chris, because once you have submitted to the state, rational man wants that state to be as powerful as possible. Hobbes argued that the greatest good arises when the whim of state is automatically law, no matter how cruel or irrational it may be. Chris emphasises the importance of Hobbes’ stance by saying that how you think about Hobbes defines your social view; you are either a realist or a dreamer. However, I think that this is too black and white.
Rousseau
Wrote the Social Contract and believed in a rational ethno-linguistic homeland where regional differences would be eliminated, creating a state that is a single voice. However, his arguments create the problem of who is a man, who counts in the state, and who decides who counts? Rousseau’s view is quite prominent in the 20th Century state in that the state will take care of everything from education to housing to emotional support for its citizens.
Hegel
Said that “the state is God on earth” and believed that the Prussian state was the German homeland and that the state does the work of God. However, he did acknowledge that the state and the nation are not natural.
Hume
Said that “authority is based on nothing but opinion”.
Charles Darwin
Wrote the Origin of the Species and came up with the theory of evolution through natural selection and the survival of the fittest. This led to ‘social darwinism’, the adoption of these ideas by the state to argue that if you do not triumph over the rival claimants of power, they will destroy you. This idea suggests that there is no negotiation, especially if they have the potential to outbreed you. Here we can see the justification for European racism and the origin of many of the worst atrocities ever carried out by humanity, such as the holocaust. It suggests that the state exists to protect the race, promoting violence against minorities or people who may potentially ‘infect’ or hurt the race.
John Carey
Argued that England has become weak because of the masses. This originates from the Crimean War of the 1860s, after which a survey of the nation was carried out which found poor health and education which were blamed for the failures of the English army, the creation, it was argued, of cramped, unsanitary, city conditions. In Darwinian terms, the nation was dying. This revelation led to the development of the welfare state.
Totalitarianism is therefore present in every society and shown in the ability to implement wards. War is argued to impel totalitarianism as nation myths are seen as the source of consolation and solidarity in the face of external threats. However, in philosophy, the belief is that all that the state has control of is the law.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment