We’re living in the age of nation-states. In contemporary political science and international relations, nation-states are (among) the basic unit of analysis. We talk about Turkey? We talk about Turks. What Turkey is shapes Turks and vice versa: we look at the country to understand its people and by looking at the people, we come to understand what the country is like. This is the reason and the result of nationalism, yet there’s a problem about nation itself:
What is Nation Anyway? Anderson, Hobsbawm and Ranger
In 1983 were written two important books. The first is Anderson’s classic Imagined Communities[1]2016.. In the book Anderson argued that it’s print capitalism that created nations: folk that spoke dialects came to understand each other, which in a way helped them to move on from gemeinschaft to gesellschaft[2]Tönnies, 2001., and find some commonalities that later came to shape what they were, are, and will be. For it’s not natural but artificial, created than emerged, and reshaped daily, or even momentarily than let be, he called nations imagined communities: they’re no more real than imaginary numbers, yet they exist just in front of us.
Second is a seven article collection, The Invention of Tradition[3]2007., which is well summarized by the third sentence of its first article:
Traditions which appear or claim to be old are often quite recent in origin and sometimes invented.
When we try to define a nation, we (almost) always put common history and shared culture, traditions and customs in the definition. Combined, the three scholars tell us a simple thing: nations, hence nationalism and nationhood are things that we need to think on. This is mostly because of the dilemma that’s born out of one defining herself: no one denies herself of qualities that she deems good. “Turks have always respected their elders since time immemorial” is an argument that’d be shared by any nation out there. What is a Turk, then? What she says or what she is if there’s discrepancy between the two?
Honor, Pride, More Honor, and More Pride
My research has never focused on nationalism, because of which my knowledge on the topic is rather limited. Yet, being a sociologist, and a traveling one at that thanks to my wife, I’ve had the chance to see rather than meet at a sterile environment like the streets of Europe or a university campus people from different countries, I came to see that when they are to define their nations, they always use the two magic words: we the people of the country X value our honor and pride greatly. You know what they say: if something is owned by everyone then it’s owned by none. If everyone values their honor and pride, well, no one does it as such.
There’s a funny story from Georgia (the country from Caucasus and not from the US state) which goes as follows:
God created the world and nations, and started distributing the land. Brits were given here, Russians were given there and so on. Georgians were having supra, dinner and enjoying each other during this process. When distribution was over they came to realize that they hadn’t a land of their own, went to God and asked for a land for themselves. God said “oh, there’s a bit of land that I spared for myself. For you haven’t any, here, I give it to you”. Georgia, hence, is the wonderful land and Georgians are its proud owners.
A funny one, no? But the ordinary man on the street has more to tell. They’re a great nation as any other, that’s no news. But let’s ask him: why is Georgia, well, not that developed?
His answer? Because of Turks, Persians, Arabs, and Russians – all those invaders. Had they not invaded Georgia, the country would compete with Switzerland and Germany and Sweden and… Georgians surely fought back with honor and pride, and didn’t lose their nationhood. But it’s harmed enough to have such lingering pain even 30 years after independence.
Alternative Histories
This dual identity, one answering what is and the other what ought to be creates such discrepancy which leads to some sort of schizophrenia: what should you do when reality doesn’t agree with the myth? Well, create an alternative history – and one that’s in the present than the past. Remember: history both creates and (re)shapes the myth. Our Georgian guy was totally right historically: he took the fact from history (Georgia is often invaded) and enriched it with some imaginary facts to reach his desired conclusion (Georgians are great). This may not be the only method, but it’s the primary one for it’s simple enough for the rather small mind.
Alternative histories are just a form of invented traditions: they create (or shape) the people for what the people are supposed to be. Moreover, this alternative history needn’t be made of lies as in our Georgian guy’s case: Turks, for example, once were about to capture Wien, for which Turks today are superior to them damn Europeans. They can be richer, more prosperous, a lot happier, have little to no safety issues, be respected… but these don’t matter even slightly. Istanbul, the capital of Ottoman Empire not only been sieged but occupied for years, yet this doesn’t matter. If it would, his Turkishness would be harmed greatly.
But, why? Why does this harm his Turkishness? Definitions don’t only tell us what the defined is but also what it is not. Turks are soldiers, soldiers win and not lose wars. If you don’t include this in your definition of Turk, then you’re not defining Turk at all. In the end, nationalism is being pro-national, national means related to nation, hence it means being for anything related to the nation. This probably is why patriotism and nationalism aren’t used interchangeably and patriotism has a more positive connotation.
Two Photographs
Our visit to Nepal has struck me greatly, which I’ll share later in the blog, but none was as striking as this. Yes, Nepal is a Hindu country. Yes, I thought that they were Buddhists like Bhutan or Tibet, and I was badly mistaken. Hence yes, there’s caste system in Nepal. Yes, caste system means bold lines between castes and Nepalese know what it means even though it doesn’t hold sway that much in everyday life.
And above photo says a simple thing to me: Nepalese! You’re so unworthy that your pee and poo shouldn’t be in the same place with foreigners’ pee and poo. Isn’t this a form of calling one’s own people dalits, untouchables, the lowest class in caste system while holding others above?
Now let’s travel couple of thousands of kilometers westwards and see another one:
Turkey’s GDP has been steadily declining since 2013 and Covid-19 pandemic made things even worse. What was the solution of the state? A clip in which staff that serves the foreigners wear masks saying “enjoy! I’m vaccinated”. I don’t see any difference with the above two vaccinated people and a vaccinated stray dog. Do you?
Now, ask Nepalese and they’ll tell remind you Manekshaw’s words: If a man says he is not afraid of dying, he is either lying or he is a Gurkha. Ask Turks and I already told you what they’ll say. Georgians? The same. Russians still think Russian Federation is Russian Empire. Is it any different in Cambodia or Thailand? Ah, also look at Hungarians. Kazakh, Azeri, Tajik, Armenian… Only the latter has some differing idea, but all share the same thing: They all value honor and pride for these are the virtues of a good soldier. But, why so?
Price of a Wo/Man
It was rather striking for me to first hear and read, then see with my two eyes that as long as you’re willing to pay the price, in Uzbekistan you can do many things that normally are not permitted by law. In Cambodia and Thailand, though, it’s vice versa: The police uses the law’s most absurd interpretation to charge you for a crime you committed. In Georgia the folk will try to extort the most that they can, just like in Turkey or Morocco. Bulgaria is changing but it still is an ex-communist country and corruption is deep in their minds despite EU – and Kazakhstan, albeit a developing and comparably rich country, at least to those that I mentioned so far, is no different. We couldn’t spend enough time in Tajikistan for me to get how things work there, yet I’m kind of sure that it’s not much different than the pack.
What’s common among these countries? Poverty and inequality. And, of course, valuing honor and pride.
A poor man is striped of his honor and pride in capitalist system, and poor nations are the same. Above photos and stories just tell us that: They (we) know what is, we’re not happy with it, and it’s a bitter pill to swallow. Look at the photo below:
It’s a photo from Turkey, by Bülent Kılıç and shared on BBC’s Twitter account. It’s taken during the pandemic, when the country was leased to the tourists – Turks were allowed to hit the streets only to go to or return from the work. The woman on the left is a poor woman who isn’t allowed to take a stroll at a park (if she finds a park at all in Istanbul) after serving the tourists the whole day.
Your life is for sale, as a consequence you are. What matters is the price. What determines it? The myth in theory, the facts in reality. Ask the woman above and I’m 100% sure that she’d tell you how great Turks (and/or Islam/Muslims) are.
This is what the poor man’s life is like – hence his nationalism: schizophrenic only to keep sane. Why choose the worse if you’re to lose sanity anyway?
The Catch
I need to mention a last point on which I’ll write a post later, and make four quotations first:
Billig[4]1995 argued that there are two types of nationalism, first is belonging to a nation and the latter an extreme/peripheral sort of political movement. Hence we all are nationalist to this or that extent. Schmitt, in Political Theology, wrote, “all significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts”[5]2005. Elsewhere, in The Concept of the Political, he argued that parties better look for enemies outside than inside, for otherwise when party-politics become state-politics, civil war is unavoidable[6]2007.
How is the last one relevant? Let’s hear Samuel Johnson: Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
History shows us that,
- (Almost) all authoritarian leaders turned (more) nationalist towards the end of their tenure.
- Everyday nationalism turns into extreme nationalism (if it didn’t do so before).
- The people is divided more and deeper.
- If more people are smart, the leader is taken down (bloodily or not) by the people. If not that many people are smart, the leader takes down the people in a civil war.
Extreme nationalists support any (authoritarian) leader regardless of anything, especially when these leaders act chauvinist. Putin in Russia, Erdoğan in Turkey, Orbán in Hungary… They all find support among nationalists in their countries. Coincidence? Mistake? Wrong generalization? Just a look in history is enough. Even a charlatan like Trump found millions of supporters, many of which are nationalists dreaming to “make America great again”. And some (or many?) of those like to blame Zelensky for being comedian. Seems acting stupid is worse than being stupid for many millions and billions of fellow “humans” out there.
How isn’t nationalism (in this extreme form) not a mental illness?
Works Cited
Anderson, B. R. O. (2016). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Verso.
Billig, M. (1995). Banal Nationalism. Sage.
Hobsbawm, E. J., & Ranger, T. O. (Eds.). (2007). The Invention of Tradition (15.). Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, C. (2005). Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty. University of Chicago Press.
Schmitt, C. (2007). The Concept of the Political. University of Chicago Press.
Tönnies, F. (2001). Community and Civil Society (José. Harris, Ed.). Cambridge University Press.