Liberal Nationalism

10 Key excerpts on "Liberal Nationalism"

• 

  eBook - PDF

  Internationalism and Nationalism in European Political Thought

  • C. Holbraad(Author)
  • 2003(Publication Date)
  • Palgrave Macmillan

    (Publisher)

  Distinguished by a fundamental belief in the free action of individuals, Liberal Nationalism was, at least in its purer forms, people- and nation- rather than state-centered. At its heart was the concept of a national community that was held together by common memories—of historic achievements as well as of past suffering—and shared values, and sometimes also shared goals. Its earliest expressions often took a literary or cultural rather than an eco- nomic or political form. Once such nationalism was manifested politically, it tended to focus on national life rather than on international politics. If, how- ever, an extra-national power presented a challenge or a particular juncture of international politics offered an opportunity, it could turn outwards in defense or pursuit of liberal nationalist values or goals in a wider political context. In the process it sometimes changed character, becoming more ardent and self-assertive. Yet, Liberal Nationalism, like liberal international- ism, could reasonably be said to rest ultimately on the principle of the primacy of domestic politics. In its original form, the liberal nationalist philosophy of international pol- itics was based on a theory of harmony, peace and progress. Believing with Mazzini that the nation was “the God-appointed instrument for the welfare of the human race” and that fatherlands were “but workshops of humanity,” 1 many of the early liberal nationalists thought that each nationality ought to form a national state of its own. All states formed in accordance with the national principle, they further believed, would be compatible with each other. Each pursuing its own goals, all of them would live peacefully side-by- side and together contribute to the general progress of humanity. Thus, the doctrine of national self-determination became basic to liberal nationalist thought.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  The Prospects for Liberal Nationalism in Post-Leninist States

  • Cheng Chen(Author)
  • 2007(Publication Date)
  • Penn State University Press

    (Publisher)

  51. Tamir, Liberal Nationalism, 4. 52. Vincent, Nationalism and Particularity, 91. liberalism, leninism, and the national question 31 tionality) provides the wherewithal for a common culture against whose background people can make more individual decisions about how to lead their lives; it provides the setting in which ideas of social justice can be pursued, . . . and it helps to foster the mutual understanding and trust that makes democratic citizenship possible.’’ 53 The identification of citizenship with national identity serves both to legitimize the state pro- tection liberalism needs and to provide the cultural environment in which liberal rights might be exercised. 54 Ernst Haas stresses the func- tionality of tolerance in terms of improved learning and adaptability in changing conditions, and hence, the long-term viability of liberal nation- alism. 55 In general, liberal nationalists advocate political and cultural tol- erance. They are against coercive means to promote a common national identity and are tolerant about political activities aimed at giving public space a different national character. 56 Liberal Nationalism typically has a more open definition of the nation, and the membership of the nation is more inclusive. Claiming that liberal theory can give explicit recognition to the fact that individuals are rooted in a social context, liberal national- ists generate arguments with significant implications for politics in most contemporary multinational liberal states, as they provide justifications for some group rights and the preservation of minority cultures. 57 In broader theoretical and political terms, however, Liberal Nationalism provokes more questions than it answers. First of all, the epistemologies of liberalism and nationalism are so different that to critique nationalism in the rationalist language of liberalism is to critique it in ways to which it is, for the most part, indifferent.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Nations and Nationalism

  A Reader

  • Philip Spencer, Howard Wollman(Authors)
  • 2005(Publication Date)
  • Edinburgh University Press

    (Publisher)

  Nationalism is a contemporary inevitability which should be minimized. It is not a virtue to be promoted. 75 The central arguments of recent Liberal Nationalism are both confusing and unpersuasive. The complex character of the social constitution of the individual is assumed as unproblematic. The arguments for transferring respect from individuals to nations appear unsatisfactory. In addition, self-determination is a profoundly difficult and elusive notion, particularly if carried over into nations and states. It is certainly not impossible to deploy the term and it may, of course, be used in a trivial sense by international relations theories, indicating that states appear to act in a unitary manner. However, liberal nationalists want the idea to work harder for them. This `harder' application is unconvincing, if not irre-sponsible. Self-determination, by individuals or states, does not lead to or A PPROACHES TO N ATIONALISM 92 guarantee, any particular institutional arrangements. Autocracy or liberalism are equally possible outcomes. In sum, Liberal Nationalism still needs to explain itself. Notes 1. I would like to thank all my referees on this article for their liberal and open-minded responses. 2. One of the more popular theories, which is widely quoted in the recent literature, is by Miroslav Hroch. He sees three definite historical phases. First, nationalism is embodied in nineteenth-century folklore, custom and the like. This is essentially a cultural idea, fostered by the middle and upper classes, with little or no political implication. Secondly, nationalism is pursued as a political, campaign. It is usually connected with and fostered by political parties. Finally, nationalism becomes translated into mass support and mass movements.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Modern Political Ideologies

  • Andrew Vincent(Author)
  • 2009(Publication Date)
  • Wiley-Blackwell

    (Publisher)

  However, integral nationalism, unlike Liberal Nationalism, was self-consciously imperialistic, illiberal, irrationalist and militaristic and was often premised on the superiority of particular peoples or nations. In other words, integral nationalism was premised upon a hierarchical understanding of nations. As in most ideologies, certain formal regulative ideas can be identified within nationalism. Various schools of nationalism interpret these ideas differently. Formally, nationalism asserts that the world is divided into distinct nations, each with its own historical continuity, language, beliefs, symbols and destiny (see Smith 2001, 9ff). The nation is seen to be deeply rooted in the past. It is the source of political and social power and can only be fulfilled when embodied in a state. Nationhood is also commonly identified with a territory with identifiable boundaries. Each nation pur-ports to have its own distinctive customs, traditions, folklore and symbols which structure the basis of its solidarity. Religion can be a force within nationalism – Poland, the USA or Iran, for example, would be difficult to understand without religious categories entering somewhere into the national equation – but this is by no means always the case. 24 The nation also becomes the political and moral sovereign, and thus the ultimate ground of legitimacy and loyalty. Loyalty to the nation tends to override other allegiances, although this varies with the type of nationalism. Human beings must identify with their nation if they wish to be free and realize themselves. The idea of nationalism can give rise to the ideas of equality and frater-nity among nationals, although these ideas are more immediately prevalent in Liberal Nationalism. Finally, nations must be free, independent and secure from external threat if peace and justice are to prevail in the international order.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Handbook of Political Theory

  • Gerald F Gaus, Chandran Kukathas, Gerald F Gaus, Chandran Kukathas(Authors)
  • 2004(Publication Date)
  • SAGE Publications Ltd

    (Publisher)

  The definition, and also the sources, of national-ism are much disputed, some seeing it as the prod-uct of modernity and others as its cause. (See the differing historical accounts of Gellner, 1983; Greenfeld, 1992; and Anderson, 1993.) Similarly, the question of the justifiability of nationalism has been much argued about among political theorists. Among liberal theorists in particular, nationalism is viewed with suspicion, since its emphasis on com-munity and belonging puts it at odds with liberal commitments to individual rights and to freedom and equality as universal values. Often, they are inclined to give it only a qualified endorsement (see McMahan, 1997; Hurka, 1997; Lichtenberg, 1997). Increasingly, however, liberal theorists (though not only liberal theorists) have begun to look more sympathetically at nationalist aspirations (Tamir, 1993; Kymlicka, 1995a; Kymlicka, 2001: 203–89). This has led to a reconsideration of the claims of nationality in two respects. First, there is the claim for national self-determination, often associated with demands for independence or secession. And second, there is the claim for the importance of the principle of nationality for the coherence of the state and the pursuit of liberal values in particular. Both kinds of arguments in defence of nationality reveal important conflicts of value with which political theory – and liberal theory in particular – continues to grapple. National Self-Determination and Secession National self-determination has re-emerged as an important issue in part because the 1990s saw the break-up of an Eastern European empire as well as the rise of secessionist movements around the world, from Kashmir to East Timor. But the ques-tion is an old one, not only in the politics of the twentieth century (which saw the redrawing of the maps of Africa, the Middle East and South East Asia to accommodate nationalist demands for inde-pendence), but also in liberal thought.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Culture and Order in World Politics

  • Andrew Phillips, Christian Reus-Smit(Authors)
  • 2020(Publication Date)
  • Cambridge University Press

    (Publisher)

  As abstract principles of order, they are not tied to a particular people or geographic space. Openness, multilateralism, rights and protections, progressive development, cooperative security – these are all ideas that can be seen as universal or global in scope. Yet they are also ideas that are deeply rooted – and tied – to the Western experience. The Westphalian and liberal inter- nationalist projects are both manifestations of the centuries-long Euro- pean and Western political and economic ascendancy. Western Christendom, the European state system, the Industrial Revolution, the rise of Western liberal democracy, and the eras of British and American hegemony provide the foundations for modern liberal international order. Put differently, liberal internationalism has emerged and gained dominance within a historically unique political formation. Liberal inter- nationalism has only existed in the two centuries of Anglo-American dominance. The great question is: do the principles and ideas of liberal internationalism have wider relevance outside this political formation? Or are they really simply expressions of American and Western values and interests? Liberal internationalists argue that the ideas and principles are arte- facts – not of Anglo-America or the rise of the West, as such, but of the deeper unfolding forces of the Enlightenment and modernity. They are not ideas and principles that are ‘invented and owned’ by the West, but are more generic ideas that adhere to humanity and the universal search for human betterment. But is this right? Liberal internationalism emerged in its current phase after World War II as an organizing vision for the Western-led order. Paradoxically, in doing so, it both became framed as a more universalistic project and became more deeply tied to American hegemonic power. This duality became all the more glaring in the aftermath of the Cold War, and it is at the heart of the crisis of liberal internationalism today.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Classical Liberalism and International Relations Theory

  Hume, Smith, Mises, and Hayek

  • Kenneth A. Loparo, Edwin van de Haar(Authors)
  • 2009(Publication Date)
  • Palgrave Macmillan

    (Publisher)

  The existence of different nations and states also means that the relations between nations are and will remain perpetual political phenomena. Classical liberals have no problem with the expression of positive national feelings in the form of patriotism, which comes down to harmless pride in one’s nation. It starts to become troublesome when patriotism degenerates into nationalism. This is in essence a collectivist and in many instances violent theory, which poses a serious threat to individual freedom. Classical liberalism and nationalism are antithetic, as Hayek and Mises made clear. One of the worst features of nationalism is its strong relation with imperialism. If one holds one’s country superior to others, it is indeed a small step to go out and attempt to improve the world and to rule “the infe- rior barbarians.” This is encouraged by perceptions, as those of John Stuart Mill, that imperialism offers geopolitical gains and chances for economic exploitation. 7 Anti-imperialism has been a prominent feature of classical lib- eral international relations, from the support for American independence by the Scots to the support for decolonization by the Austrians. There is no need to start or keep an empire and secession is warranted to a large degree. Groups of people that can sufficiently support themselves should be free to leave an existing empire or country, as long as there is overwhelming pop- ular support among themselves and all issues with the remaining people are satisfactorily settled. Thus the classical liberal view of human nature is the basis for the most important differences with other forms of liberalism in IR theory. It has some commonalities with the views of classical realists like Morgenthau and Niebuhr, but compared to them, classical liberals attach far greater moral and practical value to individual liberty.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Wrestling with Diversity

  • Sanford Levinson(Author)
  • 2003(Publication Date)
  • Duke University Press Books

    (Publisher)

  10. See Kymlicka, supra note 3, at ch. 8, for a similar suggestion. Is Liberal Nationalism an Oxymoron? 261 (as, in this example, to the United States itself). ∞∞ Political and cultural identities, even like contemporary marriages, are not necessarily forever; should they not be fulfilling, divorce is an ever present, in fact theoretically desirable, option. Whether one is interested primarily in preserving the nation or the family, one apparently need not worry about the implications of allowing relatively free exit. ‘‘Not only,’’ says Tamir, ‘‘are our communal affiliations—or, for that matter, our marriages—not weakened by the constant exercise of choice, they are in fact strengthened by it’’ (p. 22). This strengthening is presumably the joint product of the recognition reached by one spouse, while considering exit, that the marriage really is desirable and the pleasure taken by the spouse’s partner in the affirmation of the relationship. This is, of course, an empirical rather than a conceptual point; to put it mildly, I am more than a little curious how one would try to demonstrate its validity to a skeptic worried about the contribution of such attitudes to either national or marital disintegration. Finally, as already suggested, Tamir distinguishes between the socio-cultural nation and political state. Consider in contrast the definition of nationalism recently proferred by Michael Ignatieff: ‘‘Nationalism is a doc-trine which holds (1) that the world’s peoples are divided into nations, (2) that these nations should have the right of self-determination, and (3) that full self-determination requires statehood.’’ ∞≤ Whether or not full self-deter-mination requires a state, Tamir makes clear her belief that a sufficient degree of self-determination can be found even in a state dominated by other nationalities, at least if respect is paid to the principle of cultural rights.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  The Balkans Beyond Nationalism and Identity

  International Relations and Ideology

  • Pavlos Hatzopoulos(Author)
  • 2007(Publication Date)
  • I.B. Tauris

    (Publisher)

  First, on the free and active participation of the peoples themselves in establishing close relations with their neighbours. Second, on the creation of a powerful org-anization…that will popularize all the necessary elements for the attain-ment of union’. 70 Liberal Internationalism and Nationalism in the Balkans Along these lines, we should not view the material dimension of liberal in-ternationalist ideology as merely invoking the possibility of alternative in-stitutional arrangements. Instead, the novel institutions and practices that liberal internationalism introduced or hoped to introduce functioned as interpellative structures. Liberal internationalist ideology aimed at interpel-lating individuals as particular kinds of subjects. The material manifesta-tions of liberal internationalist ideology were, in other words, vital ele-ments of an interpellative process. The constitution of a liberal internationalist identification was not an effort constrained in the realm of ideas. 71 Instead, liberal internationalism imagined the building of a new identity springing from a variety of social practices, whilst it especially paid attention to the sites were nationalist ideology was primarily reproduced. As, for instance, many teachers and university professors attended the Balkan conferences, education was ana-lysed as an open site of potential struggle between the competing nationa-list and liberal internationalist interpellations. 72 Education was considered as central to the constitution of subjects, and regrettably as being domina-ted by the outward propagation of nationalist views. 73 The teaching of history was carefully studied by the Balkan conference since it was con-sidered as a test case for the struggle against nationalist ideology.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Liberalism and Pluralism

  The Politics of E pluribus unum

  • C. Carr(Author)
  • 2010(Publication Date)
  • Palgrave Macmillan

    (Publisher)

  Third, he thinks that people belonging to a nation “have a good claim to political self-determination.” That is, nations have justifiable and powerful reasons to claim sovereign authority over their internal affairs and thus to be independent, self-governing units. 7 Except for the existential condition contained in the first point, none of these conditions are necessarily antithetical, in principle, to practical liberalism. Practical liberalism expressly endorses the second and third conditions, at least in some form and perhaps with some (not insignif- icant) qualifications, and it also accepts, and even insists upon, the theoretical component of the first condition. 8 By accepting the liberal principle, groups in the liberal polity agree to govern themselves accord- ing to the standards expressed by the principle, and this means resolving intergroup disputes accordingly. This standard of dispute resolution cov- ers two general areas of intergroup conflict. First, groups may legitimately claim those fiscal and territorial resources necessary for them to practice their ways and live as they wish, but where resources are too meager or limited to enable all groups to have and enjoy the resources they need, allocational rivalries will emerge that give rise to coordination problems. Second, and as we have seen previously, groups may find the ways and practices of outgroups immoral and feel the need to intrude into their affairs to prevent perceived wrongdoing, and this will give rise to tolerance problems. Acceptance of the liberal principle and the political morality that follows from it thus commits group members to special duties of deference (to address coordination problems) and toleration (to address tolerance problems). 9 But these three conditions give only a partial and somewhat mis- leading picture of the notion of nationality as Miller understands it.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book