Nationalism

What is nationalism? Where does it come from? How does it differ from patriotism? What are its benefits and drawbacks?

The Nature of Nationalism

Nationalism is the belief that the major source of human identity, perhaps even the ultimate source of human identity, is membership in a cultural grouping called a nation. Often the defining cultural parameter is language, but this is by no means always the case. Territory, political arrangements, purported common ancestry, common history in war and other cultural characteristics can be important. Sometimes the parameter is religion, which always plays some role as a shaper of other facets of human culture.

By themselves cultural characteristics are never enough to mark out a nation. Some people with common characteristics see themselves as a nation; others do not. Consequently many suggest that a nation is simply a group of people that thinks it is a nation. In this sense nationalism is simply a view we take of ourselves and who we are. This is one reason most nationalists point to shared important events in their history—usually of battle, either lamenting an unjust defeat that the nation lives to rectify or celebrating a victory that marks the worth of the nation. War itself is often a great boost to nationalism. When people share powerful experiences, they develop a shared identity.

A common, though not universal, feature of nationalism is that proponents want to see their peoplehood embodied in a political structure. This reflects the belief that the best political structure is somehow the expression of a particular nation. At other times political leaders try to shape the people in their territory into a nation by trying to overcome differences between members of the population based on tribe or religion or language. Both of these are efforts to produce a nation-state. All too often the terms country, state and nation are used interchangeably.

Nationalism (the love of a people) is, however, not the same as patriotism (the love of a country). Attachment to a particular country may stem from its beauty, belief in its peaceful history, admiration for its political institutions or any of a thousand reasons that have little to do with nationalism. Nationalism, including political nationalism, is an attachment to a people themselves.

The Origins of Nationalism

There is an ongoing dispute as to whether nationalism is an ancient or modern phenomenon. Clearly there have always been peoples, and peoples have always had an attachment to particular lands and to those who live there. People have always distinguished themselves from others and have marked off distinct territories: biblical (and modern) Israel is an example of this. But Israel’s identity did not spring from being a people but from following the Lord, the one true God. Peoplehood was a manifestation of something else, which was much more important and which could even challenge peoplehood itself.

In the ancient world this produced transnational empires, such as Babylon or Rome, that were the embodiment of a religious idea or of the will of a king. In the medieval period the idea of Christendom was in principle more important than any local cultural grouping or political order. Marriage and education were demarcated not by a local political authority but by a transnational church, which even used its own distinct languages. Language did not represent a people but the more universal ideals of Latin or Greek Christianity. Islam has followed the same pattern with its emphasis on the Umma, the peoplehood of Islam, and with Arabic as the language of divine revelation.

In the modern age the identity provided by the traditional religions has been severely weakened, and political ideologies such as communism and fascism have filled the gap. The most potent of these new ideologies is nationalism, which has certainly appeared in a much more developed form since the nineteenth century, especially in Europe after the 1789 French Revolution’s glorification of the “people.” From there it has spread to Eastern Europe and Latin America, and as a result of twentieth-century decolonization, to the rest of the world. In the era of the United Nations, with its doctrine of “the right of self-determination of peoples,” nationalism has since become the major political organizing force in the world.

The Dangers of Nationalism

Any state will and should be a reflection of the particular people or peoples who live in its territory. Nevertheless, the notion that political boundaries should coincide with nations should be resisted strenuously. There is no state anywhere in the world that contains only one people of one nation. Consequently any nation-state necessarily has within its borders people who would then be regarded as not of the nation and so as second-class citizens.

Since modern states exert so much power over economic, social and cultural life, the idea that political life is the expression of a people will have negative consequences both inside and outside the state. Inside it means that attachment to the cultural or political unit overwhelms other attachments. This can happen in dramatic ways, such as in persecution of or discrimination against strangers or noncitizens (see Immigration). It can also be more subtle, involving the common assumption that the key parameter of social welfare, trade, language or church organization should be national or state boundaries. In marked contrast to the example of earlier Christians, most denominations have their own borders drawn along the boundaries of the state. Most of us simply take it for granted that our worship should be in the language of our people, such as English, rather than seeing language as the expression of a religious peoplehood, such as Latin in Catholicism or Arabic in Islam. The common habit of placing national flags in churches betrays the same mindset.

Outside, it creates conflicts with other states, since there will always be members of one nation inside the boundaries of another nation-state. Consequently there is a huge incentive to expand the state to incorporate members of one’s own nation in the state next door or to exert pressure on neighboring states to protect them or to eject one’s own “foreigners” and create refugees (a process now becoming known as ethnic cleansing). At the same time, if national self-interest is accepted normatively as the highest good, then there are fewer reasons of principle to restrain the nation-state’s actions in pursuit of its goals. In this sense nationalism is the chief cause of war in the modern world.

Nationalism and Religion

The settlements concerning religion after the Reformation illustrate some of the dangers of nationalism and religion. The European religious wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries contained a complex of competing goals and powers. Apart from struggles between Catholics and Protestants and among Protestants themselves (such as Lutherans, Calvinists and Anabaptists), there were struggles between and within the rising political powers. European rulers wished to control, and defend themselves from, each other and also to consolidate their control in their own territories. This involved not only subjugating other political forces but gaining control over the other influential and powerful institution in society—the church. The result was a struggle between church and church, between state and church, and between state and state.

The dominant formula for peace coming out of this poisonous stew was one that divided the church along national and political boundaries. The treaties of Augsburg and Westphalia adopted the formula cuius regio, eius religio (whoever is the ruler, that will be the religion), though they did not use the saying per se. Those of a different religion were given the option of conforming or moving to live in a different territory, one where their own religious persuasion held sway. (While this clearly creates problems, we should at least note that it is a step up from simply killing or imprisoning religious dissenters.)

While this was a formula relating church forms to political power rather than nations per se, it reinforced the tendency to see political, religious and cultural boundaries as the same thing. Consequently religion and religious freedom became hostage to the growing nation-states.

The same patterns continue in the modern age: religion is often treated as if it were a national or state possession. This is often a problem within Christianity, especially Orthodoxy. The Orthodox churches gave cohesion and identity to many eastern nations when they suffered under centuries of Islamic occupation. The church was almost the heart of the nation. But this brave stance means that Orthodoxy too often identifies itself with the nation, and the nation with it. Other religious bodies are castigated as foreign interlopers.

For example, Serbs view conversions to Catholicism as “surreptitious movements toward Croatization.” Even Lutherans are regarded as “Croats.” In Armenia those outside the Armenian Apostolic Church are increasingly being described as “foreign.” In Bulgaria the head of the Baptist Union says those in the Orthodox Church “believe evangelicals . . . are destroying their culture.” The Cretan Orthodox Bishops have claimed that “there is no bigger gift . . . to . . . our nation than safeguarding this national treasure [the Orthodox faith] at any cost against all efforts of adulteration. This has a direct relation to our culture and identity” (Network News International, Sept. 1994).

Regional or national religions, such as Hinduism and Shintoism, argue that religions are tied to particular regions and peoples. Some Indians and Nepalese argue that their country is Hindu (which means “the religion of the Indus Valley”); hence other religions are foreign and imperialist. State assistance is denied to those who convert to non-Hindu religions.

The identification of religion with nation and nation with religion is something Christians should avoid at all costs. It is a direct violation of the growth of a body in which there is “neither Jew nor Greek” (Galatians 3:28).

Sensitivity to Nationalism

While we need to be suspicious of nationalism, we need to recognize that its root is often not a desire to dominate but rather a desire to resist a history of discrimination, persecution or defeat. Nationalism thrives when its supporters feel that their freedom as a people is under threat. All nationalisms contain within themselves the spark that, for example, ignites Jews remembering the Holocaust to vow, “Never again.” As Michael Ignatieff has said in conversation, “For a people who have known genocide, there is only one thing that will do: a nation-state of their own.” This fear continues as a fear of what one’s neighbors will do if the state collapses. For those who live in the tortured areas of the world such as central Africa, the Balkans or the Caucasus, this fear is amply justified and illustrated. In this sense antinationalism is too often simply the view held by those who can take a stable political order for granted. We need to be careful of uniformly condemning the actions of those who live in chaotic areas. They know that unless they have something of strategic significance like oil, neither the United Nations nor any other world power will defend them. So they are prepared to do it themselves.

Ambiguities of Nationalism

Distinct peoples are very real entities and need to be properly acknowledged. Their national identities must never be taken as ultimate and will be given a varying weight depending on whether they are in the United States, South Africa, Israel or Belgium. The Bible itself shows this tension. On one hand, it places great stress on the common origin and peoplehood of humankind (Genesis 1; 1 Peter 2:9-10). It was God’s will to fill the earth through the scattering of the descendants of Noah (Genesis 9:9; Genesis 10), a divine intention that preceded the fall (Genesis 1:28). The sin of Babel (Genesis 11) was not the scattering of the peoples but the seeking of a homogeneous unity in revolt against God. So, on the other hand, the origin of distinct peoples is depicted at Babel as a means to divide humankind to limit the effect of its sinful pride (Genesis 11:1-9). In this sense nations are seen as a manifestation not of creation but of human sin. They are also described subsequently, however, as bearers of human historical responsibility. Cultures and nations also have a place in the end times (Isaiah 60; Rev. 21-22). As so often happens, God takes the results of sin and turns them to blessing.

Consequently, although nationalism as an ideology should be rejected, we need to be aware that it can also be a type of survival mechanism. This means that we should have some sympathy with its gentler forms, especially when people are under threat or are attempting to shake off the control of a colonial power.

We must avoid and fight idolatrous forms of nationalism and even many of its gentler, but equally seductive, elements in more peaceful lands. We need to forsake the paraphernalia of nationalism within our church structures, and when we consider matters of war, trade, language and immigration, to do so in dialogue not only with our nation-state but also in conversation with fellow believers around the world. Christians should not easily fight against one another at the behest of national leaders.

» See also: Civil Disobedience

» See also: Ethnocentrism

» See also: Multiculturalism

» See also: Pluralism

» See also: Racism

References and Resources

Boston Review 19 (October-November 1994) 2-34 (special issue on “Patriotism or Cosmopolitanism?”); E. Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990); M. Ignatieff, Blood and Belonging: Journeys into the New Nationalism (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1993); O. R. Johnston, Nationhood: Toward a Christian Perspective (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980); H. Kohn, The Idea of Nationalism: A Study of Its Origin and Background (New York: Macmillan, 1967); News Network International, January 1994, September 1994 and September 1995.

—Paul M. Marshall