Search Results

This chapter reviews the definitions or types of nationalism, including the distinction between ‘ethnic’ and ‘civic’ nationalism, and the less common and apparently self-contradictory concept of ‘multicultural nationalism’. It argues that identities are not only chosen, multiple, and fluid, but also used for purposes, for integration, as well as for differentiation. This chapter also describes two key Scottish minorities: ethnic Pakistani Muslims and English immigrants, reviews the historical and political setting, and describes the plan of the book.

What should political actors and state institutions be permitted, encouraged, required, or forbidden to do in the attempt to shape people’s national identities? This is the central question in the ethics of nation-building, and has been vastly understudied in recent normative political theories of nationalism. This chapter answers this question by discussing more than a dozen components of an individual’s national identity. It considers the many legitimate and illegitimate ways in which political actors and the state can shape or alter these components, and the content of the identity itself. It also considers the soundness and relevance of the seemly age-old distinction between so-called ethnic and civic national identities.

This chapter takes issue with what has been described as the integrationist, nation‐building, or civic nationalist approach to the Northern Ireland conflict. It shows that the problem with this approach is that there are two national communities in Northern Ireland, and no sign that either of them is prepared to accept the other's identity or state. The chapter argues that what Northern Ireland needs are political institutions, like those in the Agreement, that cater to the bi‐national nature of Northern Ireland's society.

This chapter focuses on recent literature on nationalism. It reviews the books ‘Blood and Belonging’ by Michael Ignatieff and ‘The Wrath of Nations’ by William Pfaff. It argues that both overlook the cultural component of civic nationalism. Liah Greenfield’s book is recommended for an understanding of the historical origins of nationalism, and Yael Tamir’s book for insights on why national identity matters to people.

Many writers conceive of ethnocultural nationalism as necessarily collectivist, illiberal, and regressive, as opposed to civic nationalism, which is commonly associated with individualism, rationalism, liberalism, and progress. This conception motivated many of the objections to Zionism. It also underpinned numerous attempts to ascribe civic components to Zionism, especially by invoking the writings and policies suggested by Herzl. Nonetheless, Zionism is fundamentally an ethnocultural nationalism. The chapter explains this in Section 1. Section 2 explains why ethnocultural nationalism and hence Zionism need not necessarily be illiberal and regressive. Section 3 explains and rejects objections to ethnocultural nationalism and thus to Zionism that are based on cosmopolitan and neutralist interpretations of liberalism.

This chapter considers how the worldly orientation of Du Bois's political thought might inform political theory as it turns toward the global. The central text in this case is an unlikely one. While scholars increasingly appreciate the extent of Du Bois's transnational activism and writing in the mid-20th century, this chapter concentrates on The Suppression of the African Slave-Trade the United States of America, 1638–1870 (1896). It argues that Du Bois's first book, although thoroughly American, nonetheless demonstrates the impossibility of constructing a theory of democracy that restricts its concern within US boundaries. Using a contrast between “black world” and “white nation,” it suggests how a close reading of Suppression in conjunction with Martha Nussbaum's For Love of Country reveals the unacknowledged racial politics of recent appeals to cosmopolitanism, on the one hand, and civic nationalism, on the other.

This chapter conceptualizes the nation and nationalism, placing them in context with issues of wealth and income inequality, immigration, xenophobia, and diversity. The term “nation” may be defined in several ways, but generally a nation refers to a distinct, usually geographically or regionally bound people. Likewise, depending on academic discipline, nationalism has varied definitions, though the concept generally refers to the emotions wrapped up in a shared national identity. There are two dichotomous types of nationalism: civic and ethnic. Civic nationalism was found in Western societies, where individuals are seen as belonging to a political community consisting of people with equal rights and duties. People in these societies unite around political precepts, values, and respect for institutions. Conversely, in countries where ethnic nationalism is the norm, citizens belong to an ethnic community based on blood ties. Although this dichotomous view has its share of critics, the notion that civic meanings of nationhood correlate with a positive attitude toward immigrants while ethnic-based ideas of the nation promote xenophobia still holds currency. Meanwhile, although there is little empirical research concerning factors that influence nationalist thinking, one study found poor citizens’ national pride rises as income inequality increases, especially in countries where there are many migrants in the lower class.

This chapter examines the political activities of the relatively obscure nationalist Kilsoo Haan. Through what he called “constructive Americanism,” Haan believed Koreans on the U.S. mainland and Hawaii could serve as valuable allies of America in combating what he claimed to be Japan’s threat at home and abroad. His rhetorical strategies and actions articulated a distinct U.S.-based ethnic identity as he sought to advance the interests of Koreans in America and abroad simultaneously. Haan not only lobbied for U.S. material aid for the nationalist cause of Korean independence, but his organizing efforts conspicuously positioned Koreans in America as a part of U.S. state structures and society. Korean nationalism thus facilitated the development of a collective identity as ethnic Americans. This identity was not solely rooted in cultural ties to the homeland or imagined notions of a Korean nation-state, but also emerged from the daily experiences of living in the United States. Ethnicity was not an intrinsic cultural identification carried over from Korea that was to be preserved or maintained. Rather, it was an ongoing process emerging from the daily interactions between immigrants and the dominant host society as immigrants adapted to specific historical realities at particular moments in time.

The introduction states the book’s thesis—that throughout the Civil War and Reconstruction many northern white evangelicals subordinated particular concern for the four million African-American slaves (and then ex-slaves) to a larger vision for the Union’s persistence and continued flourishing as a specifically Christian nation. It defines evangelicalism, which was centrally important to both North and South, and suggests that the Civil War may be understood in part as a clash of competing visions for a properly Christian America. The introduction then situates the book within the context of current scholarship on northern evangelicalism and the Civil War and Reconstruction. Finally, the introduction relates northern evangelicalism to the concept of Union and contends that evangelical devotion to it may be understood more as a form of ethno-cultural nationalism than civic nationalism.

The chapter explores how forms of nationalism have interacted with Brexit, focusing primarily on the Scottish Nationalists (SNP), UK Independence Party (UKIP) and the Brexit Party. The chapter outlines how the SNP opposed a hard Brexit and UKIP and the Brexit Party militantly agitated for such an outcome. Scottish nationalists believed a hard Brexit would inevitably revive support for independence but sought to avoid a hard Brexit by advocating that Scotland should retain close links or even membership of the EU and campaigned for a more cosmopolitan and egalitarian vision of the future through a form of civic nationalism. In contrast UKIP and the Brexit Party through forms of exclusionary nationalism advocated for a Britain free from the restraints of EU regulation and free to limit migration. A vision for the future that some would argue is nativist and monocultural. Key personalities in the discussion include Nicola Sturgeon and Nigel Farage

Pax Gandhiana requires three conditions for its flourishing. First, the support of the state must be based on consent. The state is needed because of Gandhi’s realistic view of the human condition. Humans are body-soul composites; both brute force and soul force are operative in them and in society. The state is needed for the maintenance of internal order and external security. The capacity to defend itself from external threats by legitimate military means is rooted in the natural right of states. Second, Pax Gandhiana requires the ethic of civic nonviolence. Third, it requires the support of national unity based on civic nationalism.

The current rise of nationalism in Europe and elsewhere is often said to pose a threat to liberal values. Liberal nationalists argue in reply that nationalism can take a liberal form, and in doing so provide support for both democracy and social justice. The chapter uses empirical evidence to show that people continue to identify strongly with their countries; such identities can exist alongside local, regional, and continental ones. Nor are those who feel close to their country only those who are less educated or politically conservative. The chapter explores whether national identities can be classed as either ethnic or civic, concluding that the prevalence of cultural factors shows that no such sharp distinction can be drawn. Finally, survey evidence is used to show that having a stronger national identity does not correlate with having more authoritarian (and therefore less liberal) views on matters such as civil rights and religious tolerance.

People define the membership of their national groups in a variety of more or less inclusive ways. This has implications for how immigrants and minority groups are treated. Traditionally, variation national boundaries has been understood as a distinction between ethnic and civic nationalism. However, despite a developed empirical literature, it is difficult to find strong defenders of this distinction or its ability to capture the empirical reality of popular conceptions of nationhood. This chapter explores some of the deficiencies of the ethnic–civic distinction, arguing that these problems arise because when people report the importance of various criteria to national belonging, they are not selecting from philosophically derived ideal types on nationhood but rather are positioning themselves within the particular and local debates about nationality relevant in their time and place. The chapter proposes a situated and bottom-up investigation of how national boundaries are constructed and contested in particular places and how this differs across what this chapter will call ‘argumentative contexts’.

The concluding chapter rehearses the principal arguments set out in each of the preceding chapters. It focuses on the question of why English nationalism has not developed as a mass phenomenon in this period, and points to the enduring force of an understanding of Englishness as intertwined with an affiliation to Britain. It also draws attention to the growing political and cultural salience of appeals to English nationhood, and points to the prospects for greater engagement by the main political parties with this trend. It finishes by considering two relatively unexplored, but increasingly vital, questions. These are, first, from what sources might a civic idea of English nationhood be cast? And, second, how might politicians and policy-makers reconcile the growing emphasis upon sub-state communities of attachment — including to the imagined community of England — and the imperative to legitimate the multi-national unions to which the English appear increasingly reluctant to belong?