Why Nationalism
Page 4
ing for their position in the front; the winning ones are on the
defense. If there is a lesson to be learned from the last hundred
years, it is that nothing ends or begins as abruptly as it seems.
Ideologies don’t die out or disappear; they put on new garments,
some makeup, adopt new slogans, and come back in a new
guise. Ideological debates are, therefore, here to stay.
It is for the reader to decide whether this is good or bad news.
It certainly reassures political theorists that in the foreseeable
future they will not be out of work. A time- worn Jewish story
Never Say Never • 21
summarizes their situation wel . A man comes to the rabbi look-
ing for a job. The rabbi suggests he should sit at the nearest
crossroads. “And what will I do?” asks the man. “You will wait
for the Messiah, and when he comes make sure he doesn’t skip
over our little town.” “And how much will I earn?” “The pay,” says
the rabbi, “is modest but the job is permanent.”
3
Untidy Compromises
The history of the last century teaches us that in the ideological
world there are few victories and defeats; as circumstances
change, ideas plunge and surface. A captivating image of this re-
ality is offered by Michael Freeden,1 who uses the analogy of
pieces of furniture arranged in a room, each time in a different
order according to the owner’s taste. At times, freedom or au-
tonomy occupy the central space, at others they are shoved to
the background, replaced by other ideas like solidarity or com-
munity. Some balance between the old and the new will save us
from making the most dangerous mistake of all: taking ideas, at-
tractive as they may be, to their logical ends, or, to carry on the
analogy, emptying the room of all but one kind of furniture.
One of the purposes of this book is to remind ourselves that
one- sided political theories are bound to lead to moral and po-
litical calamities and to encourage a search for a set of compro-
mises that fit the needs of our age.2 We have a lot to learn from
the failures and successes of the last century; the most impor-
tant lesson of all is to be more critical of our own beliefs and more
open to those of others. In what follows, two of the leading ide-
ologies of the last century, liberal democracy and nationalism,
are reviewed; from each of them, worthwhile human values and
social strategies are exerted. Neither is dismissed by identifying
it with its most extreme expressions: brutal neoliberalism on the
one hand, Nazism and fascism on the other.
Untidy
Compromises • 23
Balancing different ideas is a necessary moral and political
skil . In the wise words of Sir Isaiah Berlin, given the variety of
human needs that pull in different directions, the only way for-
ward is by constantly searching for:
some logically untidy, flexible, and even ambiguous compromise.
Every situation calls for its own specific policy, since out of the
crooked timber of humanity, as Kant once remarked, no straight
thing was ever made. What the age calls for is not (as we are often
told) more faith, or stronger leadership, or more scientific organi-
zation. Rather it is the opposite— less Messianic ardor, more en-
lightened skepticism, more toleration of idiosyncrasies, more
frequent ad hoc measures to achieve aims in a foreseeable future,
more room for attainment of their personal ends by individuals and
by minorities whose tastes and beliefs find (whether rightly or
wrongly must not matter) little response among the majority.3
Political theory seeks bearable, livable concessions. This is
why political deliberations are so important. They provide us
with an opportunity to think and act, allowing for active social
and political participation. If no one true answer could be revealed
by either rational deliberation or religious epiphany, political free-
dom is essential. We must therefore keep engaging with a wide
range of worthwhile ideas drawn from different (sometimes con-
flicting) political theories, borrowing from each of them valuable
insights and words of caution, thus creating a sphere of common
discourse from which a more balanced set of practices can emerge.
Many may wonder: should nationalism be included in this
balancing act? In order to answer this question I draw out some
of the valuable and constructive aspects of nationalism, arguing
that they reflect a scope of human needs and aspirations that
should be considered. I do not attempt to beautify nationalism;
I am well aware of its harmful aspects and destructive powers
24 • Chapter
3
(much has been written on these issues, and readers can find a
better analysis elsewhere). In this text I wish to present the case
for nationalism, trying to highlight its importance in any future
social construct.
Like every other idea, nationalism can be pulled in different
directions. At its worst it has a devastating and destructive power;
at its best, it is one of the most constructive and creative political
forces. We should then try and benefit, as much as possible,
from the national experience while keeping our eyes wide open
to the risks that lie ahead. My defense of nationalism is therefore
conditional, but political theory misses a lot when out of fear of
the extreme it ignores ideas essential for our collective future.
Why nationalism now? In the developed world two related
processes transformed the social and political landscape: the po-
litical pendulum swung too far to the individualist pole, leaving
behind generations suffering from social alienation and anonym-
ity, while the economic balance tilted too far to the free- market
side, leaving too many individuals vulnerable. These transforma-
tions raise new challenges and call for new responses.
Political theory asks eternal questions, but its answers are con-
text related. As the great American philosopher John Rawls
taught us, even behind the “veil of ignorance” individuals must
know general facts about their society. They must:
understand political affairs and the principles of economic theory;
know the basis of social organization and the law of human psychol-
ogy. Indeed the parties are presumed to know whatever general
facts affect the choice of the principles of justice.4
What are these facts? What are the basic organizing principles
of our society? Was the last half decade one of progress or re-
gress? There is no lack of facts, yet we look at these facts through
an ideological and institutional prism. While many are now
Untidy
Compromises • 25
captivated with the issue of “fake news” and “fact checking,” it is
difficult to admit that some of the most basic social and economic
facts remain contestable, and that some of the most firm political
debates are grounded in our inability to agree on a description of
the present state of affairs.
With this remark in mind it may be less
obvious who is a reactionary and who is a social critic.
The two kinds of nationalism presented in this book chal enge
the present political paradigms and dare to demand that we re-
visit the facts we know, as we have followed a one- sided inter-
pretation of the social and economic developments. One of the
chapters in Joseph E. Stiglitz’s book The Price of Inequality: How
Today’s Divided Society Endangers Our Future 5 is captivatingly
titled “1984 Is Upon Us.” In clear prose Stiglitz demonstrates
how the 1 percent has used its advantages “to alter perceptions and
achieve its aim— to make our inequality less than it is and more
acceptable than it should be.” This is well known to anyone who
ever read Marx or Gramsci; the ruling classes control not only
the material means of production but also the intellectual ones,
allowing them to present their positions as a universal truth. The
social and political outcomes of intentional misrepresentation
of facts are often devastating. Many of the recent events that took
the world by surprise could have been prevented if the accumu-
lating evidence refuting the ruling paradigm would have been
more thoroughly evaluated.
It takes disruptive moments like the one we live in to force
individuals to examine the match between their social concep-
tions and the present social and economic actualities and rethink
their beliefs. It’s time for political theory to admit that reality
developed in surprising ways, hence the terms of the social and
political debate must be altered, justice lies no longer on one side
of the theoretical fence, and different voices must be given a place
around the discussion table.
4
The Two Faces of Janus
Nationalism is a deceptive ideology; one of its faces looks to the
past, the other looks to the future. Hence, the tendency to iden-
tify nationalism solely with reactionary views, overlooking its
modernizing and liberating powers, represents a deep misunder-
standing of the modern world, or maybe it’s no more than a
polemic stand meant to debunk nationalism, pushing it out of
the political playing field.
Negative descriptions of nationalism that emphasize its
backward- looking face are very common: Karl Popper described
nationalism as a regressive force, a revolt against the open soci-
ety, an emotive power that “appeals to our tribal instincts, to pas-
sion and to prejudice, and to our nostalgic desire to be relieved
from the strain of individual responsibility which it attempts to
replace by a collective or group responsibility.”1
Indeed, nationalism often tries to revive (or invent) an image
of a magnificent past. Seeing the past in all its splendor, Marc Lil a
argues, places the reactionary “in a stronger position than his ad-
versary because he believes he is the guardian of what actually
happened, not the prophet of what might be. . . . And the reac-
tionaries of our time have discovered that nostalgia can be a pow-
erful political motivator perhaps even more powerful than
hope. Hope can be disappointed. Nostalgia is irrefutable.”2
While this may be a good definition of reactionaries, one must
be careful not to conflate a criticism of the present with a desire to
The Two Faces of Janus • 27
go back to some imaginary glorious past. Criticizing the current
social order, claiming that some things have gone fundamentally
wrong or worked better in the past, isn’t necessarily nostalgia; it
can be a mere fact. Describing a certain trend of social criticism
as nostalgia is tantamount to dismissing it without ever examin-
ing the content of its claims. This is particularly problematic
when the dismissal is voiced by those who benefit from the pres-
ent state of affairs rather than by those who are harmed by it.
Despite its conservative image, when examining the history
of nationalism, one of its most fascinating features is its modern-
izing powers. The basic characteristic of the modern nation and
everything connected with it, writes Eric Hobsbawm in the pref-
ace to his seminal book on nationalism, “is its modernity.”3 He
goes on to argue that at the end of the nineteenth century and
the beginning of the twentieth the only historically justifiable
nationalism was that which fitted with progress that “enlarged
rather than restricted the scale on which human economies, so-
cieties and cultures operated.”4
Ernest Gellner, another highly regarded scholar of national-
ism, makes a similar claim:
Nationalism is not the awakening of an old, latent, dormant force,
though that is how it does indeed present itself. It is in reality the
consequence of a new form of social organization, based on deeply
internalized, education- dependent high culture, each protected by
its own state.5
Despite its romantic and nostalgic appearance, he adds, nation-
alism is integral to modernity and progress; it was born in the
bosom of the industrial society, which is
the only society ever to live by and rely on sustained and perpetual
growth, on an expected and continuous improvement. Not
28 • Chapter
4
surprisingly, it was the first society to invent the concept and ideal
of progress. . . . Many societies in the past have on occasion discov-
ered innovations and improved their lot, and sometimes it may even
be true that improvements came not as single spies but in battal-
ions. But the improvement was never perpetual, never expected to
be so.6
In her important book Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity,
Liah Greenfeld makes the most radical claim regarding the con-
nection between nationalism and modernity. The nation, she
argues, is the constitutive element of modernity. “Rather than
define nationalism by its modernity, I see modernity as defined
by nationalism.”7
It is therefore safe to conclude that despite the common per-
ception of nationalism as identified with primordial, tribal feel-
ings, the true power of nationalism in modern times is grounded
in its ability to promote processes of modernization and indus-
trialization that go hand in hand with the universalization of
education, information, and technology. Although it was the
most efficient agent of modernization, nationalism managed to
present social and political change as an expression of fate and
continuity. The move toward the future was to be seen as an ex-
tension of the past, change and mobility as a stroll within the
old family yard. Never was a mobilizing ideology marketed in
such gentle and comforting tones, pleasing to the ears of those
members of society for whom change and uncertainty seem a
frightening prospect. Nationalism not only helped the process
of political modernization, it also answered the needs of the
modern mind. To begin with, it is grounded in concepts such as
self- rule and self- expr
ession. Emperors and kings expect their
subjects to be obedient; democrats demand that they become
active political agents; nationalists aspire to induce in them the
The Two Faces of Janus • 29
will to use cultural and creative tools to express themselves in
both the private and the public sphere. The modern nation- state
thus invited individuals to partake in the political, ethical, and
cultural sphere. Its goals were forward looking; when it looked
back to the past, it did so in order to set goals for the future. In
Nietzsche’s words, the vision of the past is used to kindle in in-
dividuals “the hope that justice will yet come and happiness is
behind the mountain they are climbing. They believe that the
meaning of existence will become ever clearer in the course of
its evolution, they only look backward at the process to under-
stand the present and stimulate their longing for the future.”
Nietzsche understood well the motivating power of a past
constructed and made fit to produce a prototype for the
future. History is an activating power, and nationalism made
good use of this quality in harnessing individuals to its social and
political goals. Identifying nationalism with a reactionary spirit
is therefore a basic misunderstanding rather than a descriptive
claim; it is a normative statement meant to conceal national-
ism’s mobilizing powers.
Another way of dismissing nationalism is by portraying it as
an expression of a populist state of mind. Populism is such a
vague term that it can be applied to a wide range of political
movements. Despite their many differences, both the Tea Party
and Occupy Wall Street are considered to be populist move-
ments. No wonder that in 2017 the Cambridge Dictionary de-
clared populism the word of the year, describing it as a set of
“political ideas and activities that are intended to get the support
of ordinary people by giving them what they want.”
The dictionary further claims that people tend to use the term
with reference to “the implied lack of critical thinking on the part
of the populace, and the implied cynicism on the part of the lead-
ers who exploit it.” In other words, populism is a political ploy
30 • Chapter
4
to mobilize “ordinary people” by echoing their demands. In their