“Does Nationalism Inevitably Breed Rivalry and Conflict?”
“Does Nationalism inevitably breed rivalry and conflict?”
Nationalism is based upon the idea that each individual will be loyal to their nation in which they construct. Nationalists support ‘organic communities’, whereby society is naturally divided, therefore each nation holds their own national identity. ‘Inevitably’ suggests that rivalry and conflict is certain. However, looking at the different branches of Nationalism, the inevitability of conflict varies. The Liberal Nationalists would not consider conflict as inevitable, which shows their naivety to the xenophobic ideas of Nationalism, as it promote a distinct ‘Them’ and ‘Us’ attitude, which Liberal Nationalists ignore. Their idea is to promote a Liberal Nation-State, whereby the State rules on behalf of the nation, and to promote individual freedom and protection of rights. They agree with ‘self-determination’ – first introduced by Woodrow Wilson, post WW1 – giving a ‘nation’ the right to become a State. Each independent Liberal Nation-State, will have the equal right to ‘self-determination’, therefore promoting an ordered peaceful world, suggesting conflict, with regards to Liberal Nationalist branch, is no inevitable, but unthinkable, as no nation would attempt to surpass others, leading to international peacefulness between each Liberal Nation-State. However, arguably, their naivety towards human nature within the Liberal Nation-States makes Liberal Nationalists unable to see potential conflict. The individual nations, albeit of the same branch of Nationalism, as Nationalism suggests, would have divided opinions with regard to various punishments, jurisdiction, rights and so on, therefore, leading to conflict, even though the Liberal Nationalists do not consider this ‘inevitable’. Conservative Nationalists believe nations emerge naturally. Their Nation-State objective is to promote order, stability and cohesion, not a social contract of Liberal Nationalists promoting peace and tolerance.
Nationalism is based upon the idea that each individual will be loyal to their nation in which they construct. Nationalists support ‘organic communities’, whereby society is naturally divided, therefore each nation holds their own national identity. ‘Inevitably’ suggests that rivalry and conflict is certain. However, looking at the different branches of Nationalism, the inevitability of conflict varies. The Liberal Nationalists would not consider conflict as inevitable, which shows their naivety to the xenophobic ideas of Nationalism, as it promote a distinct ‘Them’ and ‘Us’ attitude, which Liberal Nationalists ignore. Their idea is to promote a Liberal Nation-State, whereby the State rules on behalf of the nation, and to promote individual freedom and protection of rights. They agree with ‘self-determination’ – first introduced by Woodrow Wilson, post WW1 – giving a ‘nation’ the right to become a State. Each independent Liberal Nation-State, will have the equal right to ‘self-determination’, therefore promoting an ordered peaceful world, suggesting conflict, with regards to Liberal Nationalist branch, is no inevitable, but unthinkable, as no nation would attempt to surpass others, leading to international peacefulness between each Liberal Nation-State. However, arguably, their naivety towards human nature within the Liberal Nation-States makes Liberal Nationalists unable to see potential conflict. The individual nations, albeit of the same branch of Nationalism, as Nationalism suggests, would have divided opinions with regard to various punishments, jurisdiction, rights and so on, therefore, leading to conflict, even though the Liberal Nationalists do not consider this ‘inevitable’. Conservative Nationalists believe nations emerge naturally. Their Nation-State objective is to promote order, stability and cohesion, not a social contract of Liberal Nationalists promoting peace and tolerance.