Send us feedback. See more words from the same year. Although treated as synonyms, there is a distinction. But it's more complicated than "'patriotism' good; 'nationalism' bad. Accessed 11 Nov. More Definitions for nationalism. Nglish: Translation of nationalism for Spanish Speakers. Britannica English: Translation of nationalism for Arabic Speakers.
Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free! Log in Sign Up. Save Word. Essential Meaning of nationalism. Full Definition of nationalism. Synonyms for nationalism Synonyms chauvinism , jingoism , superpatriotism Visit the Thesaurus for More. Frequently Asked Questions About nationalism What is the difference between nationalism and patriotism?
Is nationalism a proper noun? What is nationalism? Christopher R. Fardan and Cathrine Thorleifsson Nationalism is an ideology which holds that the state and the nation should be unified. Published Aug. E-mail this page Share on Facebook Share on Twitter.
Key concepts What is right-wing extremism? What is right-wing radicalism? What is fascism? What is populism? What is racism? What is Islamophobia? What is antisemitism? What is a conspiracy theory? What is hate crime? What is fundamentalism? What is radicalization? What is terrorism? Key questions What characterizes the far right scene in Europe and beyond?
What are the psychological characteristics of people holding far right beliefs? What explains far-right mobilization? What explains far-right violence? What explains why people join and leave far-right groups? They appeal to actual or alleged circumstances that would make nationalist policies reasonable or permissible or even mandatory , such as a the fact that a large part of the world is organized into nation-states so that each new group aspiring to create a nation-state just follows an established pattern , or b the circumstances of group self-defense or of redressing past injustice that might justify nationalist policies to take a special case.
Some of the arguments also present nationhood as conducive to important political goods, such as equality. These political arguments can be combined with deep communitarian ones.
More remote from classical nationalism than the liberal one of Tamir and Nielsen, it eschews any communitarian philosophical underpinning. Given the variety of pluralistic societies and intensity of trans-national interactions, such openness seems to many to be the only guarantee of stable social and political life see the debate in Shapiro and Kymlicka In general, the liberal nationalist stance is mild and civil, and there is much to be said in favor of it.
It tries to reconcile our intuitions in favor of some sort of political protection of cultural communities with a liberal political morality. Very liberal nationalists such as Tamir divorce ethno-cultural nationhood from statehood. Also, the kind of love for country they suggest is tempered by all kinds of universalist considerations, which in the last instance trump national interest Tamir ; passim, see also Moore and Gans In the last two decades, the issues of nationalism have been increasingly integrated into the debate about the international order see the entries on globalization and cosmopolitanism.
The main conceptual link is the claim that nation-states are natural, stable, and suitable units of the international order. A related debate concerns the role of minorities in the processes of globalization see Kaldor Moreover, the two approaches might ultimately converge: a multiculturalist liberal nationalism and a moderate, difference-respecting cosmopolitanism have a lot in common. This section will pay attention to right-wing populist movements, very close to their traditional nationalist predecessors.
This corresponds to the situation in the biggest part of Europe, and in the US, where nationalist topics are being put forward by the right-wing populist. Populism, so defined, has two opposites: elitism and pluralism. First, there is the elite vs. The second, horizontal dimension distinguishes the predominantly left-wing from the predominantly right-wing populisms and leaves a place for a centrist populist option.
Take classical strong ethnic nationalism. The relation between right-wing populism and such a nationalism is very tight. The term captures exactly the synthesis of populism and the strong ethnic nationalism or nativism.
From nationalism, it takes the characterization of the people: it is the ethnic community, in most cases the state-owing ethnic community, or the ethno-nation. In his work, Mudde documents the claim that purely right-wing populists claim to represent the true people who form the true nation and whose purity is being muddied by new entrants.
In the United States, one can talk about populist and reactionary movements, like the Tea Party, that have emerged through the recent experience of immigration, terrorist attacks, and growing economic polarization. We have to set aside here, for reasons of space, the main populist alternative or quasi-alternative to national populism.
In some countries, like Germany, some populist groups-parties e. Others combine this appeal with the ethno-national one.
Interestingly, liberal nationalism is not very attractive to the populists. The rise of populism is changing the political playfield one must work with. The tolerant liberal nationalist or anti-nationalist views are confronting new problems in the populist age marked by migration crisis, etc. The dangers traditionally associated with military presence are gone; the national populists have to invent and construct a presumed danger that comes into the country together with foreign families, including those with children.
In short, if these conjectures hold, the politicians and theoreticians are faced with a change. The important element is the promiscuous character of the populist choices. It is probable that the future scholarship on nationalism will mainly focus on this new and challenging playfield, with an aim to address the new contrast and locate kinds of nationalism in relation to it.
The migration crisis has made the nation-state in global context the central political topic concerning nationality. Before moving on to current events, the state of art before the crisis should be summarized. First, consider the debates on territory and nation and issues of global justice. She nevertheless stresses that more than one ethnic group can have formative ties to a given territory, and that there might be competing claims based on settlement.
Stability might therefore require that the pluralist society envisioned by liberal culturalists promote quite intense intra-state interaction between cultural groups in order to forestall mistrust, reduce prejudice, and create a solid basis for cohabitation. But where should one stop?
The question arises since there are many geographically open, interacting territories of various sizes. Here, the tough nationalistic line is no longer proposed seriously in ethical debates, so the furthest pro-national extreme is in fact a relatively moderate stance, exemplified by Miller in the works listed. Here is a typical proposal of his concerning global justice based on nation-states: it might become a matter of national pride to have set aside a certain percentage of GDP for developmental goals—perhaps for projects in one particular country or group of countries This brings us to the topic of migrations, and the heated debate on the present scene.
So, immigration plus the nationalist-populist reactions to it are in the current decade the main testing ground for nationalist and cosmopolitan views. Liberal nationalists, in particular Miller, have put forward some thoughtful pro-nationalist proposal concerning immigration. Miller argues against the defensibility of a global standard for equality, opportunity, welfare, etc. If we agree with the liberal nationalists on the positive side, we can ask about the dynamics of the help required for the immigrants.
Distinguish at least three stages, first, the immediate emergency starvation, freezing, urgent medical problems and catering to it, second, settlement and learning on the host and the immigrant newcomer side , and third, the stage of some kind of citizenship, of relatively stable life in the host country.
In the first phase, the immediate help comes first, both normatively and causally: just accept the would-be refugees indeed, the would-be refugees should be helped in leaving their countries and travelling to the host country.
In longer term, staying should involve opportunity for work and training. But there is more. The Samaritan obligation can and should function as a preparation for wider global activity.
The model is geared to the dramatically changed playground in which the nationalism issues are played out in the context of populism and refugee crisis, raising issues that were not around two decades ago. In presenting the claims that the pro-nationalists defend, we have proceeded from the more radical towards more liberal nationalist alternatives.
In examining the arguments for these claims, we have presented metaphysically demanding communitarian arguments resting upon deep communitarian assumptions about culture, such as the premise that the ethno-cultural nation is the most important community for all individuals.
This is an interesting and respectable claim, but its plausibility has not been established. The moral debate about nationalism has resulted in various weakenings of culture-based arguments, typically proposed by liberal nationalists, which render the arguments less ambitious but much more plausible. They have equally become sensitive to trans-national issues and more willing to embrace a partly cosmopolitan perspective.
Liberal nationalism has also brought to the fore more modest, less philosophically or metaphysically charged arguments grounded in concerns about justice. The events in the current decade, the refugee crisis and the rise of right-wing populism, have dramatically changed the relevant practical and theoretical playground. The traditional nationalism is still relevant, but populist nationalism attracts much more attention: new theories are being produced and debated, coming to occupy the center stage.
On the other hand, migration crisis has replaced the typical cosmopolitan issue of solidarity-with-distant-strangers with burning issues of helping refugees present at our doors. Of course, the causes of the crisis are still the same ones that cosmopolitans have been worrying about much earlier: wars and dramatically unequal global distribution of goods, and of threats, like illnesses and climate disasters.
The task of the theory is now to connect these deeper issues with the new problems occupying the center-stage of the new playground; it is a challenge now formulated in somewhat different vocabulary and within different political conceptual frameworks than before. This is a short list of books on nationalism that are readable and useful introductions to the literature. First, two contemporary classics of social science with opposing views are:.
Three presentations of liberal nationalism, two of them by the same author, Yael Tamir, offer the best introduction to the approach:.
The two best anthologies of high-quality philosophical papers on the morality of nationalism are:. Interesting critical analyses of group solidarity in general and nationalism in particular, written in the traditions of rational choice theory and motivation analysis, are:.
There is a wide offering of interesting sociological and political science work on nationalism, which is beginning to be summarized in:. The most readable short anthology of brief papers for and against cosmopolitanism and nationalism by leading authors in the field is:.
What is a Nation? Varieties of Nationalism 2. Liberal: The Centrality of Nation 3. The Moral Debate 3. Although sovereignty is often taken to mean full statehood Gellner ch.
Some authors even defend an anarchist version of patriotism-moderate nationalism foreshadowed by Bakunin see Sparrow First, the descriptive ones: 1a What is a nation and what is national identity?
Second, the normative ones: 1e Is the attitude of caring about national identity always appropriate? They raise an important issue: 2a Does political sovereignty within or over a territory require statehood or something weaker? Once this has been discussed, we can turn to the related normative issues: 2b What actions are morally permitted to achieve sovereignty and to maintain it?
Let us now turn to liberal nationalism, the most discussed kind of moderate nationalism. Liberal: The Centrality of Nation We now pass to the normative dimension of nationalism. The philosophically most important variations concern three aspects of such normative claims: The normative nature and strength of the claim: does it promote merely a right say, to have and maintain a form of political self-government, preferably and typically a state, or have cultural life centered upon a recognizably ethno-national culture , or a moral obligation to get and maintain one , or a moral, legal, and political obligation?
The strongest claim is typical of classical nationalism; its typical norms are both moral and, once the nation-state is in place, legally enforceable obligations for all parties concerned, including for the individual members of the ethno-nation. The strength of the nationalist claim in relation to various external interests and rights: to give a real example, is the use of the domestic language so important that even international conferences should be held in it, at the cost of losing the most interesting participants from abroad?
The force of the nationalist claim is here being weighed against the force of other claims, including those of individual or group interests or rights. Variations in comparative strength of nationalist claims take place on a continuum between two extremes. At one rather unpalatable extreme, nation-focused claims take precedence over any other claims, including over human rights. Further towards the center is the classical nationalism that gives nation-centered claims precedence over individual interests and many needs, but not necessarily over general human rights see, for example, MacIntyre , Oldenquist On the opposite end, which is mild, humane, and liberal, the central classical nationalist claims are accorded prima facie status only see Tamir , Gans , and Miller ; and for applications to Central Europe Stefan Auer For which groups are the nationalist claims, classical or liberal, meant to be valid?
What is their scope? One approach claims that they are valid for every ethno-nation and thereby universal. To put it more officially Universalizing nationalism is the political program that claims that every ethno-nation should have a state that it should rightfully own and the interests of which it should promote.
The Argument From Intrinsic Value. Each ethno-national community is valuable in and of itself since it is only within the natural encompassing framework of various cultural traditions that important meanings and values are produced and transmitted. The members of such communities share a special cultural proximity to each other. By speaking the same language and sharing customs and traditions, the members of these communities are typically closer to one another in various ways than they are to the outsiders.
The Argument from Flourishing. The ethno-national community is essential for each of its members to flourish. There has been much debate on the pro-nationalist side about whether divergence of values is essential for separateness of national groups. The Argument from Identity. Communitarian philosophers emphasize nurture over nature as the principal force determining our identity as people—we come to be who we are because of the social settings and contexts in which we mature.
This claim certainly has some plausibility. Therefore, communal life should be organized around particular national cultures. The Argument from Moral Understanding. A particularly important variety of value is moral value. Some values are universal, e. The nation offers a natural framework for moral traditions, and thereby for moral understanding; it is the primary school of morals.
The Argument from Diversity. Each national culture contributes uniquely to the diversity of human cultures. The Argument from the Right to Collective Self-determination. A group of people of a sufficient size has a prima facie right to govern itself and decide its future membership, if the members of the group so wish.
It is fundamentally the democratic will of the members themselves that grounds the right to an ethno-national state and to ethno-centric cultural institutions and practices. This argument presents the justification of ethno- national claims as deriving from the will of the members of the nation. It is therefore highly suitable for liberal nationalism but not appealing to a deep communitarian who sees the demands of the nation as independent from, and prior to, the choices of particular individuals.
Oppression and injustice give the victimized group a just cause and the right to secede. If a minority group is oppressed by the majority to the extent that almost every minority member is worse off than most members of the majority simply in virtue of belonging to the minority, then nationalist claims on behalf of the minority are morally plausible and potentially compelling.
The argument establishes a typical remedial right, acceptable from a liberal standpoint see the discussion in Kukathas and Poole , also Buchanan ; for past injustices see Waldron The Argument from Equality. Members of a minority group are often disadvantaged in relation to the dominant culture because they have to rely on those with the same language and culture to conduct the affairs of daily life.
0コメント