Roger Brubaker In The Name Of The Nation
In Roger Brubaker’s article, “In the Name of the Nation: Reflections on Nationalism and Patriotism”, he explains the terms “nationalism” and “nation”. In addition, he critiques his approach to the definition by showing its strengths and weaknesses. In my essay I will explore his explanations as well as the critiques he offers.
Brubaker agrees with the opinion of Ernest Renan, a French scholar and writer, that it is an everyday decision whether you want to be part of the collective known as a “nation”. This approach positions the “nation” as a united entity or community. A nation is therefore a category. Brubaker further explains with the assistance of Weber, that a “nation” is first a category of practice not of analysis but rather an aid for …show more content…
Many nationalists want to define themselves as an independent nation however some do not. Any nationalistic group of people requires recognition in order to become a nation. The term “nation” can also be used as to expression of ownership. The nation is therefore both inclusive and exclusive simultaneously. (Brubaker, 2004: 116-117).
Brubaker brings forth two weaknesses to this approach firstly the mythological critique. This is where the nation-state is made synonymous to the “society”. The focus is too concentrated on the individual structures, rather than on a global scale. This critique is joined with an autonomous one. If we focus only on the global structures the internal structures will be forgotten (Brubaker, 2004:119).
Secondly he brings forth the normative critique in which the nation-state is looked at in two ways. The first strand of the normative critiques strong argument is that membership to a nation-state is determined by birthplace and parentage. The weak argument is that the borders of the nation-state should not set limits on the political loyalties or moral obligations of the citizens (Brubaker,
Brubaker agrees with the opinion of Ernest Renan, a French scholar and writer, that it is an everyday decision whether you want to be part of the collective known as a “nation”. This approach positions the “nation” as a united entity or community. A nation is therefore a category. Brubaker further explains with the assistance of Weber, that a “nation” is first a category of practice not of analysis but rather an aid for …show more content…
Many nationalists want to define themselves as an independent nation however some do not. Any nationalistic group of people requires recognition in order to become a nation. The term “nation” can also be used as to expression of ownership. The nation is therefore both inclusive and exclusive simultaneously. (Brubaker, 2004: 116-117).
Brubaker brings forth two weaknesses to this approach firstly the mythological critique. This is where the nation-state is made synonymous to the “society”. The focus is too concentrated on the individual structures, rather than on a global scale. This critique is joined with an autonomous one. If we focus only on the global structures the internal structures will be forgotten (Brubaker, 2004:119).
Secondly he brings forth the normative critique in which the nation-state is looked at in two ways. The first strand of the normative critiques strong argument is that membership to a nation-state is determined by birthplace and parentage. The weak argument is that the borders of the nation-state should not set limits on the political loyalties or moral obligations of the citizens (Brubaker,