From an academic perspective I've always found nationalism fascinating, mostly because it's not been something I've been able to understand that well on a personal level - at least not nationalism in terms of "hyper-patriotism." Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities was the first academic reading I ever undertook, though being in high school at the time I missed the significance and meaning behind the "imagined" concept. A couple years ago I did a short study abroad session to some countries in central Europe, and the trip's focus was on late 19th and early 20th century nationalism in those states. The strength of nationalism's force from a psychological perspective - what it can make people do - is unbelievable. But I've never felt that sense of hyper-patriotism, and while I understand what it does, I still am learning how it can develop.
I really don't want to give the Tea Party credit as a "nation," but it is a group of people who share similar political interests and goals. That is what unites them, though they also tend to have language, socioeconomic background, and a religion in common. Nations aren't centralized organizations, and neither is the Tea Party. As a group the media has been critical in bringing together tea partiers, through blogs, YouTube, Twitter, and larger outlets such as Fox News. The Tea Party movement has its spokespeople, i.e. Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, who use their television shows and writings to unite the Tea Party Nation, as other members of the group share their messages as well. Whether or not the Tea Party can actually be considered a nation (and I really don't want to give them that much credit), the way people have united under it and use the media to bring themselves together under this banner of an imaginary community of which they are members is a contemporary example of media influence on nation development.
As for cosmopolitanism, I think the concept is admirable. Yet I wonder if the very idea of "global ties" defeats the purpose of people having the common bonds that the nation (or nation-state) provides. I'm reminded of one of the reasons why people join sororities and fraternities in college - "to make a large community feel smaller." Cosmopolitanism seems to defeat the purpose of nationalism: people feel less connected to one another on a personal level when part of a larger group, even if they are more connected on a technical level. Waisbord references Calhoun when he mentions that cosmopolitanism lacks an "emotional grip." Nationalism is about connections that people feel, not just ones that exist. One can be part of a nation but not feel nationalism. Therefore, cosmopolitanism is not a strong alternative or heir to nationalism.
I like feeling a part of something, having something culturally in common with other people. But part of what makes being a member of a nation (in the interest of full disclosure: I consider myself part of what New Englanders call "Red Sox Nation") is not just the ability to be connected by technology: it's language or jargon, religion, culture, background, or location. Nationalism will never change - it will always exist in one form or another. It's an emotion turned theory that cannot be replaced, but can be studied further from multiple dimensions.
Nationalism is an emotional state which is always used by ideologues. I think it is based on fear which is then turned into chauvinism. Nationalism, in short term, leads to coherence in a group of people, channel their energy in a particular direction (mostly an enemy--imagined or real). In the long-term, nationalism restrict cosmopolitanism, which is a sense of belonging to humanity. Problems of the day are more global like terrorism, environment and 'globalization' that affect the poor more, we need to rise above nationalism and embrace cosmopolitanism.
ReplyDelete