Our contemporary societies are increasingly diverse and interconnected. These developments have, on the one hand, brought up questions of how to manage the ensuing diversity and, on the other, of how to retain people’s sense of community and belonging . Increased diversity has spurred a range of schemes bent on multicultural accommodation and “soft” forms of integration. At the same time, in recent years, we have witnessed significant nationalist reactions against globalisation, immigration, cultural diversity and multiculturalist visions and policies. Brexit , the election of Donald Trump as US President and the general rise of right-wing populist parties are part of a new nationalism that propounds an exclusivist—ethnic—nationalism that is deeply committed to reducing immigration and the ensuing cultural diversity.
How to make sense of these apparently conflicting or contradictory tendencies? There are both increased difference and diversity and significant efforts to reduce them. Underpinning this tension, we find qualitatively different visions of contemporary societies and the role and salience of nationalism. The issue is not merely one of identity; it also includes the political organisation of territory and the relationship between nationalism and the state. One powerful line of argument refers to the “crisis” of the nation-state in today’s globalised world. Prominent analysts have noted that, since the end of the Cold War, the transformations that our states and societies have undergone are so profound that they weaken or perhaps even undermine our familiar national attachments and affiliations. The claim to the effect that these transformations may be engendering a post-national constellation is a case in point (Habermas 2001 1; Ferry 2005). Another line of argument underlines the role of a distinctive form of transnational nationalism . This is not, strictly speaking, a new phenomenon. Historically speaking, as several of the chapters in the book underline, the transnational dimension to nation-building has largely been ignored. It deviated from the hegemonic account, which underlined the role of the territorially based nation-state, which refers to a fusion of nationalism and the state. Wars, disruptions and instability on Europe’s borders are giving rise to waves of asylum -seekers and immigrants. They form part of broader changes in patterns of immigration and emigration in the Western world and give added salience to transnational accounts. Thus, we see that important changes in states are closely associated with altered conceptions of identity and community, which have given rise to both post-national and cosmopolitan, as well as transnational, accounts of what is unfolding around us.
At the same time, and, as was noted above, far from all the developments that we are currently experiencing, are pointing in the same - national - direction. Changes may operate differently in different states or regions of the world. In Europe, there are significant national reactions and reassertions, especially but, far from exclusively, by right -wing movements and parties. They protest against immigration, multiculturalism and globalisation.
At present, we are therefore faced with quite different interpretations of the magnitude and direction of state and societal transformation. It is not clear whether the patterns of transformation are taking place within a nationalist framework or whether that framework itself is part of the transformation. With the term “nationalist framework”, we refer to the ideas, the concepts, the sentiments and identities and the communal configurations that are associated with nationalism.
In order to address this, we need to establish more precisely what contemporary nationalism is and how it is contested. Do we need to revise our conception of nationalism’s sociopolitical embedding? Are we better served by abandoning nationalism, opting instead for an alternative frame of reference, such as cosmopolitanism, for instance? Given that a key aspect of transformation is heightened diversity, where, for instance, would multiculturalism figure in this picture?
This book addresses these questions by including chapters on all three main developments: transnational nationalism , cosmopolitanism and nationalist reactions. It provides a range of case studies and reflections aimed at obtaining a clearer view of the overall directions, including the magnitude of these transformations and the reactions to the transformations. The questions posed in this book are very large; our objective is to lay some of the groundwork for further studies to build upon when grappling with these important questions.
1 Community, Identity and Territory
Our point of departure is the particular constellation of territory and identity that we associate with the nation-state. Even if there are very few “real” nation -states around, in the sense of perfect contiguity between those sharing the same national identity and the state’s bounds, the nation-state forms the point of departure for all transformative accounts. The notion that the world is composed of nation-states is the master narrative in today’s political world. We will spell out the core components of this master narrative by unpacking the nation-state and approach the nation-state as a model. What we are interested in are the underlying constitutive principles and institutional and procedural arrangements.
The nation-state is made up of the state as a political institution and an organisational form and the nation, which is a cultural community and an idea. To Max Weber , the state is “a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory” (Weber [1948] 1991: 78). This definition only applies to the nation-state (Kaldor 1995: 73). The state is sovereign.2 It is a powerful organisation in the sense that it organises and wields power. Through a distinct combination of force and socialisation effected through state formation and nation-building , the Westphalian state system that now spans the globe highlights nationalism within territories designated and internationally recognised as states. In nation-states , nationalism enjoys status as a kind of umbrella over, and a form of unifying device for, a range of sources of identification that could, under other ideological and structural conditions, have given rise to alternative ways of thinking and organising communal co-existence. History holds numerous examples of how the key markers of culture, language, religion, gender , ethnicity and tradition have been configured in widely different ways and have helped to give rise to a broad range of forms of communal co-existence.
Nation refers to a specific type of community based upon a form of
solidarity . This is the common designation that has been extended in different directions to underline a common destiny (Otto Bauer), a common project and will (Ernest Renan) and a set of common ancestors (Johan Gottfried Herder). The form of
solidarity translates into a sense of community—and both the sense of community and that of
solidarity are maintained and shaped by patterns of communication and interaction
(Anderson
1991; Deutsch
1994). A nation is an invented or even
imagined community
(Anderson
1991), that is, some symbols and aspects of a community’s past are highlighted at the behest of other:
Only the symbolic construction of ‘a people’ makes the modern state into a nation-state . (Habermas 2001: 64)
National identity derives
from
historic
territory:
common myths and historical memories; common, mass public culture; common legal rights and duties for all members; [and] a common economy with territorial mobility for members. (Smith 1991: 14)
National identity
is based
upon the concep...
