The Future of Nation States

Questions concerning the future of the nation state and of nationalism filled our readings this week. I personally disagree with those who say that the nation state will dissolve, and certainly disagree with the idea that populations will form under a large global government or into a cosmopolitan reality. I would also disagree with those who hold opposite opinions that the nation state will continue to exist as is, even in the face of globalization and media expansion. I think that, instead, we must look for a middle ground that views the nation state as a shifting being that is adapting in the new age to hold its control.

As Castells explains in his article on the new public sphere, the nation-state is undergoing a series of crises. These include, as he defines them, a Crisis of Efficiency, Crisis of Legitimacy, Crisis of Identity, and Crisis of Equity. Waisbord explains in his article “Media and the Reinvention of the Nation”, that the nation has been challenged “from outside” through globalization and “from inside” by multiculturalism. Media and globalization have allows for public actors and civil society to increasingly gain a larger voice and ability to push for political and social change. Similarly cultures have been able to thrive and gain international strength and unity, especially, as Karim explains in his article on international communication and diasporas, in the cases of diasporas and formation of “imaginary nations.” Control is a powerful desire, however, and the nation-states have needed to and will continue to use media to their advantage and adapt in order to maintain their influence and authority.

The solution for nations, according to Castells, has been to become a network-state. In the same way that civil society has networked across the globe to create a new global public sphere, nation-states have also had to create network-state organizations that link multiple countries and international institutions that address cross-national and global issues. Karim explains how some nations, such as India and Israel, have worked with their diasporas through governmental positions as a result of their own national self-reassessments. While some nation-states, such as China, have banned media uses and tools in order to maintain their control and fight against current trends, other nation-states have embraced media and tried to work with new NGOs, grassroots organizations, diaspora populations and the like.

The common threads between Castell’s, Waisbord, and Karim’s arguments, in my opinion, are that nations are challenged as they are becoming more imagined, interconnected, and complex as a result of media’s influence. As Hayden said I don’t believe that society is ready for or interested in an international government, but I do believe that slowly civil society is gaining increasing control and that nation states must learn to incorporate civil society into their decision making to keep their overall legitimate existence. I think that more than anything, nation-states must increasingly look beyond borders as they redefine the concept of nationhood; as people become more globally interconnected, they are being exposed to increasingly more complex histories and cultural stories that appeal to their desire for belonging. People are assimilating and moving around the world completely differently than they were decades ago because of their ability to use media to determine their own senses of nationhood. Nations must take all of this into consideration as they too transform.