The Identity of Nations

Montserrat Guibernau

• Publisher: Polity
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9780745657158
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Política y relaciones internacionales
• Subtopic: Nacionalismo y patriotismo

What is national identity? What are the main challenges posed to national identity by the strengthening of regional identities and the growth of cultural diversity? How is right-wing nationalism connected to the desire to preserve a traditional image of national identity? Can we forge a new kind of national identity that responds to the challenges of globalization and other deep-seated changes?

In this important new book, Montserrat Guibernau answers these and other compelling questions about the future of national identity. For Guibernau, the nation-states traditional project to unify its otherwise diverse population by generating a shared sense of national identity among them was always contested, and was accomplished with various degrees of success in Europe and North America.

Such processes involved the cultural and linguistic homogenization of an otherwise diverse citizenry and were pursued by different means according to the specific contexts within which they were applied. At present, the impact of strong structural socio-political and economic transformations has resulted in greater challenges being posed to the idea that all citizens of a state should share a homogeneous national identity.

Diversity is increasing, and plans for further European integration contain the potential to generate significant tensions, casting greater doubt on the classical concept of national identity.

As a result, we are faced with a set of new dilemmas concerning the way in which national identity is constructed and defined. The book offers a theoretical as well as a comparative approach, with case studies involving Austria, Britain, Canada and Spain, as well as the European Union and the United States of America.

The Identity of Nations will be essential reading for advanced students and professional scholars in sociology, politics and international relations.

1

What is National Identity?

This chapter explores the meaning of national identity and the relevance it has achieved in contemporary Western societies by examining its definition, components and origin. It begins by briefly analysing the processes around the nineteenth century that initially gave prominence to the concern for identity and resulted in turning it into one of the most significant features of late modernity. The chapter then moves on to study the psychological, cultural, historical, territorial and political dimensions I attribute to national identity. Some of the key issues considered include the role of elites in the construction of national identity, the relevance of antiquity, the constructed or immemorial origin of nations and national identity, matters regarding the legitimizing role of history, and the significance of territory in the construction of national identity. The chapter concludes by providing an original examination of the strategies traditionally employed by the nation-state in the construction of national identity. In so doing, it points out how some of these traditional strategies are being transformed under the influence of a growing intensification of the globalization processes.

Identity

The concern with individuality is a relatively recent phenomenon connected with the emergence of modern societies and the differentiation of the division of labour.¹ By the late Middle Ages, people increasingly learned to think in individual terms and slowly solidified concepts of the single human life as an individual totality. Before that, society operated on the basis of lineage, gender, social status and other attributes. Baumeister’s analysis recalls that of Durkheim: ‘The “individual”, in a certain sense, did not exist in traditional cultures, and individuality was not prized.’²

In the nineteenth century, the prestige of the individual self reached an all-time high, but it declined in the early twentieth century when ‘new social arrangements and events dramatized the relative powerlessness of the individual leading to a devaluation of the self’.³ However, a process giving special significance to the ‘uniqueness’ of each individual led to a particular concern about identity reflecting the individual and collective (group) desire to be ‘different’.

The key questions with regard to identity are ‘Who am I?’ ‘Who are we?’ Identity is a definition, an interpretation of the self that establishes what and where the person is in both social and psychological terms. All identities emerge within a system of social relations and representations. As Melucci observes, all identities require the reciprocal recognition of others; they involve permanence and unity of a subject or of an object through time.⁴ Melucci connects identity with action. In his view, actors must have a perception of belonging, a sense of temporal continuity and a capacity for self-reflection informing a process of constant reaffirmation of one’s self-identity and differentiation from others. He argues: ‘We might define identity as the reflexive capacity for producing consciousness of action (that is, a symbolic representation of it) beyond any specific contents. Identity becomes formal reflexivity, pure symbolic capacity, the recognition of the production of a sense of action within the limits posed at any given moment by the environment and the biological structure.’⁵

In my view, the defining criteria of identity are continuity over time and differentiation from others – both fundamental elements of national identity. Continuity springs from the conception of the nation as a historically rooted entity that projects into the future. Individuals perceive this continuity through a set of experiences that spread out across time and are united by a common meaning, something that only ‘insiders’ can grasp. Differentiation stems from the consciousness of forming a distinct community with a shared culture, past, symbols and traditions, attached to a limited territory. Continuity and differentiation from others lead to the distinction between members (those who belong) and ‘strangers’, ‘the rest’, ‘the different’ and, sometimes, ‘the enemy’.

National Identity

The French love cheese and are proud of the Enlightenment and the changes brought about by their Revolution. The English enjoy cricket, tea and the countryside. They are also pleased about their old democratic legacy. US citizens are proud of the founding fathers of their nation; they love steaks and big cars. Spaniards appreciate good wine and paella and are content about Columbus’s discovery of America under Castilian sponsorship.

But do all citizens of each one of these countries share such features? Surely not, and those who share them do so with different intensity and focusing on various specific features in each case. Are they ‘less’ French, English, Spanish or American citizens in this case? The response depends on the value attributed to national stereotyping. If we were to look deeper into these definitions, we might discover that stereotypes have an origin, and, up to a point, they direct us to a set of characteristics which are believed to be shared by those who belong to particular nations. Stereotyping consists of selecting and often exaggerating some distinctive features of certain nationals. But is there a relationship between the attributes which are singled out to define certain nationals and the so-called national identity of these peoples?

National identity is a collective sentiment based upon the belief of belonging to the same nation and of sharing most of the attributes that make it distinct from other nations. National identity is a modern phenomenon of a fluid and dynamic nature. While consciousness of forming a nation may remain constant for long periods of time, the elements upon which such a feeling is based may vary.

Belief in a common culture, history, kinship, language, religion, territory, founding moment and destiny have been invoked, with varying intensity, by peoples claiming to share a particular national identity. At present, such a national identity is generally attributed to citizens of a nation-state. However, distinct national identities may also be shared among individuals belonging to nations without states, such as Quebec, Catalonia, the Basque Country and Scotland. Collective memories of a time when the nation was independent, endured oppression, or attained international leadership tend to strengthen a sense of common identity among those who belong to the nation, even if it lacks a state of its own.

The Dimensions of National Identity

National identity is constituted by a set of attributes shared by those who belong to a particular nation. The nature of these attributes stems from the specific way in which the nation is defined. Yet, in referring to the nation as a human group conscious of forming a community, sharing a common culture, attached to a clearly demarcated territory, having a common past and a common project for the future while claiming the right to self-determination,⁶ I am implying that national identity has five dimensions. These are psychological, cultural, territorial, historical and political.

Psychological Dimension

The psychological dimension of national identity arises from the consciousness of forming a group based on the ‘felt’ closeness uniting those who belong to the nation. Such closeness can remain latent for years and suddenly come to the surface whenever the nation is confronted with an external or internal enemy – real, potential or imagined – threatening its people, its prosperity, its traditions and culture, its territory, its international standing or its sovereignty.

Some scholars of nationalism insist on the subjective nature of national identity’s components.⁷ In my view, the most relevant quality of those components is not whether they are subjective or not, but rather whether they are felt as real by those sharing a common identity. Across the globe we find countless examples of people prepared to make sacrifices and ultimately to die for their nations, and this proves that, at least for them, national identity is real and worth fighting for. But why is this so? Sharing a national identity generates an emotional bond among fellow nationals and, as Connor puts it, this is fundamentally psychological and non-rational. It is not irrational, only ‘beyond reason’.⁸ This is so because, basically, a nation is a group of people who feel that they are ancestrally related. In Connor’s view, the nation ‘is the largest group that can command a person’s loyalty because of felt kinship ties; it is, from this perspective, the fully extended family.’ However, ‘the sense of unique descent need not, and in nearly all cases will not, accord with factual history’,⁹ since nearly all nations originate from the mixing of peoples from various ethnic origins. For this reason, what matters is not chronological or factual history but sentient or felt history.

The attributes, real as well as invented, sustaining the belief in common ancestry make up national identity and foster a sense of belonging which generally engenders loyalty and social coherence among fellow nationals.

The internalization of national identity, and in particular of a distinct culture specific to the nation, results in individuals charging it emotionally. In certain circumstances, sentiments of love of the nation and hatred of those threatening it are intensely felt by fellow nationals. Political leaders and agitators are fully aware of the power of national identity, and it is not uncommon for them to mix rational arguments with the appeal to shared sentiments of belonging and love of the nation while trying to mobilize the population. Calls for action and sacrifice in the face of threats to the nation and of defeat are accompanied by appeals to the ‘unique character’ and ‘qualities’ of those who belong. Such assertions have the capacity to lift people beyond their daily lives and routines, to raise them to a higher level in which their actions acquire a novel meaning and are qualified as crucial for the survival and prosperity of the nation. The strength of emotions overrides reason, because it is through a sentimental identification with the nation that individuals transcend their finite and, at least for some, meaningless lives. Their efforts and sacrifices become decisive, even heroic, and the conviction of having contributed to a higher aim, that of preserving and enhancing the nation, increases the individuals’ self-esteem as well as their own image in the minds and memory of fellow nationals.

National institutions honour some of those who defend and promote the nation within the international arena. Commemorations of heroic war actions, medals and other awards, and special receptions organized by the nation’s dignitaries as a gesture of recognition to distinguished athletes or national sports teams exemplify this. Of course, some could argue that individuals endure sacrifices and seek success for their own personal sake, but most contests, in particular sports ones, are organized according to national teams, and generally only representatives of nation-states are allowed to participate.

Cultural Dimension

Values, beliefs, customs, conventions, habits, languages and practices are transmitted to the new members who receive the culture of a particular nation. As mentioned above, the process of identification with the elements of a specific culture implies a strong emotional investment. Two major inferences deriving from this possess a particular significance when considering national identity. First, a shared culture favours the creation of solidarity bonds among the members of a given community by allowing them to recognize each other as fellow nationals and to imagine their community as separate and distinct from others.

Second, individuals socialized within a distinct culture tend to internalize its symbols, values, beliefs and customs as forming a part of themselves.

Deutsch defines the nation as a cultural entity and refers to the processes of communication as fundamental in creating coherent societies and cultures. In his view, ‘Membership in a people consists in wide complementarity of social communication. It consists in the ability to communicate more efficiently, and over a wide range of subjects, with members of one large group than with outsiders.’¹⁰

Communication requires the use of a specific language known by the members of the nation. To a great extent, vernacular languages are employed, though there are some exceptions. For instance, where the vernacular language has been lost, this is often replaced by the state’s language. In Scotland the practical disappearance of Gaelic, primarily due to the imposition of English, resulted in the latter becoming Scotland’s national language. There are cases where more than one language is official within the nation and both are employed; this is the case in Quebec (French and English) and Catalonia (Catalan and Spanish). Yet, while French is official within Canada (together with English), and not only in Quebec, Catalan’s official status is restricted to Catalonia, where it is co-official with Spanish (Castilian), the only official language in the whole territory of Spain.

The power of language springs from its ability to create unified fields of exchange and communication, which contribute to the strengthening of national identity. Two people who do not understand each other cannot be said to share a national identity.

Three recurrent questions when considering national cultures concern, first, their antiquity, that is whether they are ancient or modern; second, their origin – whether they have emerged spontaneously out of certain given attributes specific to each nation or have been constructed; and, third, whether they constitute a mass or an elite phenomenon.

Antiquity

There is a poignant confrontation between perennialists, eager to trace back the roots of contemporary national cultures to immemorial times, and modernists, who emphasize their recent origin. Perennialists do not perceive nations or ethnic groups and the cultures making them up as natural; rather, they regard them as the product of a historical and social process. As Smith mentions, for Armstrong, the collective identity defining the nation is ‘a modern equivalent of pre-modern ethnic identity’.¹¹

Modernists offer an altogether different picture, by arguing that a national culture is a relatively recent occurrence associated with the emergence of industrial society,¹² the advent of print capitalism and the spread of vernacular languages.¹³ Others stress the recent origin and invented nature of most traditions presented as rooted in ancient times.¹⁴ The ethnosymbolist perspective propounded by Anthony D. Smith endorses a middle-way approach to the antiquity of national culture. He acknowledges the modernity of nations and nationalism (and those elements forming them, for instance national culture), while insisting on the ethnic origins of nations. He confers great relevance on the values, myths, symbols, holy places, memories and traditions embedded in the ethnic community, as a social formation which, in pre-modern times, did not normally act as the basis of alternative polity formation.¹⁵

Antiquity is employed as a source of legitimacy for a nation and its culture. It binds individuals to a past stretching over their own lifespan as well as those of their ancestors. Antiquity stresses one of the key elements of identity, that is, continuity over time, and in so doing it contributes to the preservation of the collective self. Acknowledging and documenting cultural antiquity is a modern activity which also provides nations and their cultures with a distinguished pedigree, so that when individuals look back in time they are not confronted with a meaningless vacuum about their own collective origin, but reassured by the deeds of their ancestors. Antiquity feeds the subjective belief in a kinship relation right at the heart of the nation, while culture is perceived as the particular wa...