Observations on the Present-Day Nation-State

In 1964 Bob Dylan released an album entitled The Times They Are a-Changin’.  I was 9 years old.  I have witnessed many changes since then.  Yet when I consider the geopolitical milieu, I borrow from a BTO album released ten years later: You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet.  Even in the turbulent 1960’s when nearly 30 African states gained their independence from colonial rulers, it is interesting to note that almost no borders changed, nor the total number of countries. 

In most cases when one speaks of a state or a country, the concept described is a “nation-state.”  A “state” is defined as a self-governing political entity and we often use the word “country” interchangeably.  A “nation” is a tight-knit group of people that share a common culture.  The former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, and today’s Lebanon, and Spain are examples of multi-national states.  Canada and Belgium are examples of two-nations in one state.  The Kurds, Tartars, and the Roma are examples of stateless nations.  Palestine finds itself in a gray area of not being completely stateless, but certainly not a fully recognized state, with a geographically and politically divided nation.  States require a level of cohesiveness, a common identity, for successful functioning.  This is typically achieved through shared values, norms, and expressive symbols of it nation(s) within that state.  See my posts on 11 August, 21 July, 16 July, 7 July, 28 June, and 5 June of 2009 for further discussion of these elements.  In Renan’s lecture at the Sorbonne in 1882, he explained,

 A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things that actually are one come together to build this soul or spiritual principle. One of them lies in the past, the other in the present. One is the common possession of a rich heritage...; the other is a present accord, the desire to live together, and the will to continue to accumulate and build the common heritage.

One insight expressed by Renan was the “present accord, the desire to live together, and the will to continue to accumulate and build the common heritage,” is an essential element in today’s modern nation-state.  When that accord is not present, no matter the past shared heritage, the nation-state is in jeopardy of change.  We see these dynamics in the rise of nationalism.  Seneca, George Orwell, and Charles de Gaulle all expressed the same thought when they explained that patriotism is the love of one’s country (nation-state), where as nationalism is the hatred of another country (nation-state).  That nationalism finds many forms.  Possibly the xenophobia of the Soviet Union, the frustrations in some European countries with some norms practiced by Islam, France’s expulsion of the Roma, and the Middle East’s general love-hate relationship with the decadent West, are some examples of fear of potential change of a nation or nation-state status.  In the United States, some might suggest the Tea Party Movement and the plethora of political pundits on both side of the political spectrum who spend most of their time pointing out the flaws of the other side, but not much time building a common identity among themselves.  They sure know what they are running from, but not quite sure what they are running to.  

In this interdependent world where information, products, services, and raw materials flow almost effortlessly across borders, nation-states find themselves in peril.  Back in the 1960’s and early 1970's that peril was thought to be the demise of the nation-state because the concept has run its course.  Imagine there's no countries, It isn't hard to do, Nothing to kill or die for, And no religion too, Imagine all the people, Living life in peace, John Lennon penned in 1971.  Today, however, it appears the nation-state is in peril because of this interdependent flow, but for a completely different reason.  Meaning has been lost in the present size and capacity of the nation-state to support a common identity.  Instead of an enlarged common identity, in this era of the “long-tail” and niche markets, we are beginning to see the break-up of nation-states into smaller or sometimes unidentifiable entities.  Scotland and Wales stand on the edge of leaving the United Kingdom.  Greenland moves closer every year to independence from Denmark.  China is farming in Africa and shipping the bounty home.  These farms are almost treated like they are a part of China, not the host countries.  There are only 6 million Russians living in the vast interior of Siberia, with hundreds of millions of Chinese not only on the border, but migrating to that resources rich part of northern Central Asia.  Countries up-river from the Egyptian portion of the Nile are claiming new water rights that could threaten Egypt’s future.  Some suggest a key part of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is really about the flow of water rights as much as religion, culture and heritage. 

We will continue to see inter- dependence grow between countries, but we will also see new pressures put on the present nation-states in the form of common identity fractures.  Those countries that are successful in “running to” shared values, norms, and expressive symbols by realizing they are in a non-zero sum scenario have a better chance of survival.  Those that believe in and practice the historical scenario that: in order to win, someone must lose (a zero sum scenario) may find a common identity in a smaller group, but in so doing will exacerbate the demise of the nation-state they now live in.  It is very possible to see the present number of 195 nation-states break the 200 barrier in the next decade.  Some of those transitions will be peaceful and even be applauded on the world stage (such as the probable creation of Southern Sudan).  Other changes may be accompanied by civil strife, civil war, or regional conflict.  Taken completely out of context I will close with another song, this time from the 1978 movie Grease, sung today by the nation-state: “I got chills, they're multiplying, And Im losin' control…”

 

U.S. National Interest: Toward a Common Identity

The concept of national interest presupposes a common identity within a political community. Common identity is the “social cement” that binds people together. It answers the basic questions: How do I define “self”? How do I fit in? How is this society different than others? Who is the enemy and who is our friend? What are “good” goals? How do we achieve goals? In other words, common identity is the focal point for all civil interactions. Edward Shills defines common identity as the “central zone” of society. He explains that this central zone:

is a phenomenon of the realm of values and beliefs. It is the center of the order of symbols, of values and beliefs, which govern society. It is the center because it is the ultimate and irreducible.... The central zone partakes of the nature of the sacred. In this sense, every society has an “official” religion, even when that society or its exponents are interpreters conceive of it, more or less correctly, as a secular, pluralistic, and tolerant society. (Charles F. Andrain, Political Life and Social Change, Belmont: Duxbury Press, 1975, p. 55)

To understand the Untied States’ national identity, we need to look closer at the “ultimate, irreducible official religion” of this country. Rarely, even in a homogeneous society, can one pinpoint a single identity. The problem is even more complex with the Untied States due to the pluralistic and complex nature of its civil society. Yet every society, including the United States, must make assumptions, either purposely or subconsciously through their actions, about what is reality, what is “good,” ad how (if possible) is “the good” achieved. Answers to these concerns are provided by shared values, norms, and expressive symbols. Each of these ideas exist on separate planes of understanding and together provide the superstructure of the common identity that defines society.

Shared values characterize the irreducible metaphysical assumptions of society and set the course for norms and symbols. These are highly general concepts of the desirable and set the criteria for deciding courses of action. Society may never fully realize these values in actual situations due to their abstract nature and the complex linkages that connect them to specific application. Values are also complex in themselves as they stem from four separate sources: 1) primordial values (first order attachments—biological family), 2) sacred values (religious, ideological), 3) personal values (common attachments that are not biological), and 4) civil values (political, civil society).

Values set society on a trajectory that directly defines the second level of common identity, norms. These represent more specific statements of the more general values of the first level. They are the generally accepted intellectual attitudes about reality and “the good,” which set general guidelines, rights and obligations indicating how society and its members may realize values. Norms are tightly interwoven into the fabric of society and become part of the culture.

The third level of common identity is described by expressive symbols which are the manifestation, in specific form, of values and norms and convey the meaning of these more abstract concepts to civil society. These symbols are instruments, not answers, in connecting desirable values, mobilizing society and resources toward a specific goal, stimulating group cohesion and serving as a societal memory bank with which to weigh actions. Expressive symbols take form as people, such as George Washington; songs, such as “America the Beautiful;” symbols, such s “Old Glory;” holidays, such as Veteran’s Day;” and the written word, such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America; to name a few.

To fully comprehend the American national interest than, we need to look closer at these three levels of the American common identity. I will investigate these issues in my next blog post.