Nationalism Ernest Gellner Summary
Nationalism! Are Nationalistic Sentiment the Same for Every American ? The debate over nationalism creates conflict within states. These conflicts arise with the question of what nationalism is? who can be a nationalist? what does a nationalist look like? What should be the values of a nationalist and how should he/she display them? Citizens within a state have different understanding of the concept of nationalism. For many, it is based on historical values, race, culture, ethnicities and it is a subject of great pride. For others, nationalism is based on the simple fact of having the legal paper of a nation with a weak sense of belonging within the culture of the influential majority. Scholars such as Ernest Gellner, Anderson, and Samuel
…show more content…
Huntington presents the political world different aspect of what a nation is, and how people understand the concept nationalism.In the following paragraphs, I will try to argue how nationalism can have different meaning for people having the same nationality. A nation, based on Anderson, is an imagined political community- and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign ( Anderson, Imagined Communities)1. Anderson went further to explain that although most of the citizen living in that imagined community has not met each other, they have in their minds and each lives the image of their communions. The definition is very detailed and interesting, to say the least. However, it confused me when Anderson argues that follow-members somehow have the same view of what their nation represent for them. Nationalism sentiment in the U.S. have different taste for different people depending on their race and their social classes. Dr. Wade displayed a very great and concise example in class on the notion of nationalism and events happening around the country further support and exemplify how nationalist feelings can be different for people of different backgrounds. Dr. Wade asked the question of what does it mean to be an American? The answers of my white classmate, although not surprising to me were completely different than the answers that I had in mind. Most of their answers spoke to the U.S. values as it relates to the values that the majority race in America usually display. Their answers encompassed ideas about the flag, the military, freedom and the ability to enjoy justice and equality etc… However, as a minority it was the completely different, I could barely see myself an American like this. As a person of color, although proud to say that I am an American the answers that were in mind were quite different. What came to mind were the centuries of constant struggle to; first be considered a human being, then to be considered a human being who is equal intellectually, physically and socially adept as others. It meant the constant reminder of fighting for equality and rights; social, political etc…It meant the constant reminder of telling others that although people of color like to protect and fight for this flag, this flag always fail to protect them back. For instance, the World War II soldier of color who came back home fighting Nazis were subjected to Jim Crow in the south. To be an American is a constant reminder after every police shooting, people of color have to remind the government that we are Americans too and that we matter too. Therefore, although the developed theory of nation by Anderson seems to explain a very essential and clear definition of it what a nation is and what constitute the basis of nationalism, it fails to understand or to mention that follow-members are not usually equal when it comes to the rights that the nation gives to its citizen. Anderson talked of the nation as being a “horizontal comradeship” ( Anderson, Imagined Communities). There again, his theory weakens itself by presenting nations are homogeneous imagined political place where everyone has similar values and where conflict rarely or if not at all arises. Further, Ernest Gellner himself presents the argument that nationalism is not universal as does Anderson seems to be believ it to be his piece.
First, he defined nations in terms of shared culture, internally mobile and fluid (What Is a Nation, 55)2. Gellner argued that it is Nationalism that engenders nations and not the other way around (What Is a Nation, 55). He advances to talk about the historical proliferation and cultural wealth etc.. His point essentially explains that the culture and ideologies, including nationalist sentiment of a geographical location is shaped by its elites. Therefore the idea of nationalism can be exclusive. For example, if asked to picture an American, one would most likely describe someone who is white, tall with with blue eyes. This is the image of the nationalist hero represented in the media, movies, children books, etc....The image that nationalism projected many times only embrace the feeling of the majority but not those of minority groups. Many times, that is why many Americans can not relate to each others feeling of being an American, because Americans of different race and sometimes class live different historical inherited differences in every aspect. Thus, nationalism for someone of color like me can have many negative strings attached to it, while for others being an American can mean all the positive aspects and democratic values which they enjoy by either their skin color or their class. Gellner’s argument compelled more to me than Anderson’s. His arguments were more profound because he touched deeper than solely territorial relationship and cultural values which usually can be many and diverse. He took into consideration the cultural aspect of a nation and how it can change the significance of how an individual see his/her nation. To finish, he argues indirectly that nationalist message is constructivist and the image image that pertain to a group that have the power and the mean to push the idea of them consider
to be nationalistic. Moreover, although very little, Huntington contributed to the idea of nationalism is that when local and even national identities are being eroded by globalization, culture in its broadest sense is becoming more and more important in defining who people are (Huntington, Clash of Civilizations)3. In Clash of Civilization, he talks about Americanism as being related not by blood but by creed. He argues that groups and identities entering the political arena as a revitalization of American democracy. For others, such identities are pernicious and anti-American. Thus displaying what is nationalism and whose idea of nationalism is valid and will be accepted. In conclusion, Nationalism is a matter of intense and sensitive debate in many countries. Groups with differences of race within a sovereign territorial area tend to disagree on what nationalism means and who get the right to translate what it means. It is clear that there are historical and cultural differences that translate nationalistic sentiment
Huntington presents the political world different aspect of what a nation is, and how people understand the concept nationalism.In the following paragraphs, I will try to argue how nationalism can have different meaning for people having the same nationality. A nation, based on Anderson, is an imagined political community- and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign ( Anderson, Imagined Communities)1. Anderson went further to explain that although most of the citizen living in that imagined community has not met each other, they have in their minds and each lives the image of their communions. The definition is very detailed and interesting, to say the least. However, it confused me when Anderson argues that follow-members somehow have the same view of what their nation represent for them. Nationalism sentiment in the U.S. have different taste for different people depending on their race and their social classes. Dr. Wade displayed a very great and concise example in class on the notion of nationalism and events happening around the country further support and exemplify how nationalist feelings can be different for people of different backgrounds. Dr. Wade asked the question of what does it mean to be an American? The answers of my white classmate, although not surprising to me were completely different than the answers that I had in mind. Most of their answers spoke to the U.S. values as it relates to the values that the majority race in America usually display. Their answers encompassed ideas about the flag, the military, freedom and the ability to enjoy justice and equality etc… However, as a minority it was the completely different, I could barely see myself an American like this. As a person of color, although proud to say that I am an American the answers that were in mind were quite different. What came to mind were the centuries of constant struggle to; first be considered a human being, then to be considered a human being who is equal intellectually, physically and socially adept as others. It meant the constant reminder of fighting for equality and rights; social, political etc…It meant the constant reminder of telling others that although people of color like to protect and fight for this flag, this flag always fail to protect them back. For instance, the World War II soldier of color who came back home fighting Nazis were subjected to Jim Crow in the south. To be an American is a constant reminder after every police shooting, people of color have to remind the government that we are Americans too and that we matter too. Therefore, although the developed theory of nation by Anderson seems to explain a very essential and clear definition of it what a nation is and what constitute the basis of nationalism, it fails to understand or to mention that follow-members are not usually equal when it comes to the rights that the nation gives to its citizen. Anderson talked of the nation as being a “horizontal comradeship” ( Anderson, Imagined Communities). There again, his theory weakens itself by presenting nations are homogeneous imagined political place where everyone has similar values and where conflict rarely or if not at all arises. Further, Ernest Gellner himself presents the argument that nationalism is not universal as does Anderson seems to be believ it to be his piece.
First, he defined nations in terms of shared culture, internally mobile and fluid (What Is a Nation, 55)2. Gellner argued that it is Nationalism that engenders nations and not the other way around (What Is a Nation, 55). He advances to talk about the historical proliferation and cultural wealth etc.. His point essentially explains that the culture and ideologies, including nationalist sentiment of a geographical location is shaped by its elites. Therefore the idea of nationalism can be exclusive. For example, if asked to picture an American, one would most likely describe someone who is white, tall with with blue eyes. This is the image of the nationalist hero represented in the media, movies, children books, etc....The image that nationalism projected many times only embrace the feeling of the majority but not those of minority groups. Many times, that is why many Americans can not relate to each others feeling of being an American, because Americans of different race and sometimes class live different historical inherited differences in every aspect. Thus, nationalism for someone of color like me can have many negative strings attached to it, while for others being an American can mean all the positive aspects and democratic values which they enjoy by either their skin color or their class. Gellner’s argument compelled more to me than Anderson’s. His arguments were more profound because he touched deeper than solely territorial relationship and cultural values which usually can be many and diverse. He took into consideration the cultural aspect of a nation and how it can change the significance of how an individual see his/her nation. To finish, he argues indirectly that nationalist message is constructivist and the image image that pertain to a group that have the power and the mean to push the idea of them consider
to be nationalistic. Moreover, although very little, Huntington contributed to the idea of nationalism is that when local and even national identities are being eroded by globalization, culture in its broadest sense is becoming more and more important in defining who people are (Huntington, Clash of Civilizations)3. In Clash of Civilization, he talks about Americanism as being related not by blood but by creed. He argues that groups and identities entering the political arena as a revitalization of American democracy. For others, such identities are pernicious and anti-American. Thus displaying what is nationalism and whose idea of nationalism is valid and will be accepted. In conclusion, Nationalism is a matter of intense and sensitive debate in many countries. Groups with differences of race within a sovereign territorial area tend to disagree on what nationalism means and who get the right to translate what it means. It is clear that there are historical and cultural differences that translate nationalistic sentiment