The Folly of the Fatherland

na·tion·al·ism
–noun
1. national spirit or aspirations


Much of what is done wrong in the world today has its origins in bad philosophy. One of the most destructive examples of these is nationalism ("patriotism" if you prefer, but both amount to jingoistic chauvinism). Nationalism is the idea that a shared history among a given ethnic group or culture in some way unites individual humans in a meaningful political sense (Definition adapted from Wikipedia). Note that the unity here marks a disunity between this singular group and all other such groups. Although the following is hardly a proof, I will try to demonstrate the incoherence of the nationalist doctrine (though I make no promises that I myself will be coherent in doing so).

The Bond of Shared History

What constitutes a national entity, according to most nationalists, is the shared history that bonds an ethnicity together. For less racist versions of this doctrine, replace "ethnicity" with the foggier term "culture". The bond of culture is an extrapolation of the bond between siblings to the delusional world of borders and cultures. Siblings share a common history because they were raised in the same household by the same parents; this leads to certain commonalities in diet, dress, and behavior. Of course, there is no lack of variation among siblings just as there is no lack of variation among people of the same culture. However, there is some imagined bond between such people, certain expectations that may have no basis in reality. You have no more reason to love your country than you have reason to love your siblings. Love comes naturally to what is good; a good nation (insofar as a nation could be described as "good") is loved just as a good brother or sister is loved.

The logical relationship between a "shared history" and the existence, perpetuation, and support of nation-states is questionable at best. It is unclear how history is capable of being shared among people. The idea seems to stem from archaic ideas of ancestry and familial lineage, wherein a web of blood relationships constitute actual social bonds between otherwise unrelated people. The argument makes less sense when taken to the level of nationhood. "You and I are related because we have the same grandfather" becomes "You and I are related because George Washington crossed the Delaware in 1776." Those who live have no responsibility for the good or bad actions of those who lived and have died.

It could be countered that a shared history is only relevant insofar as it shaped the present culture that is shared among living constituents of a nation-state. However, it is unclear to what extent members of a culture share anything.

National Ghosts

In a relationship or process that is unbeknown to me, the commonalities among a people centered in a certain geographical region represent or create a "national spirit" that transcends the interests and aspirations of the individual people who constitute this "nation" or "culture". It is on this national spirit's behalf that state officials purportedly act, and it is this spirit to which they appeal when the interests of real people are trumped by state interests.

What are the metaphysical properties of the national spirit? Clearly it is not literally a sentiment shared universally among people said to be of the same culture; the existence of political factions contradicts this. It could mean simply those interests that are shared by all members of a given culture. However, if there are any such interests, it seems that they would be shared by all humans and not just the people of one culture. Wars are fought, it is said, to preserve life and liberty. Life and liberty are certainly both important things, but are they not just as important for, say, Americans as they are for Iraqis? Perhaps the definition should be loosened so that the national interest refers to the interests of most members of a culture instead of all. Ignoring how problematic such a change is methodologically, it still seems unclear what interests are meant to separate cultures in such important ways. If taken as separate entities, the "national interest" of each developed nation seems to be more or less the same in that they all wish to secure peaceful trade and inexpensive natural resources. Would these shared interests not justify the creation of a global state to dominate a world culture, according to nationalism?

Conclusion

As convenient as it is to categorize regions geographically and people ethnically, it is important to note that our borders between nations and differences between people are largely imagined. Nationalism's far-reaching conclusions concerning human societies and the relationships between them have resulted in the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of millions of people through wars and genocide. Now that we humans* have created nuclear weapons capable of destroying the entirety of our species, it would behoove us to discard the faulty philosophies of our recent past and move cautiously into the future.

A more cosmopolitan society must be created to ensure the preservation of the human race. Putting the bellicose tendencies of our forefathers aside, we must depend on our own modern ingenuity and not tradition to keep us alive. If there is a meaningful shared history, it is between all humans, and we will rise to meet the circumstances of this monumental period in human history, or we could see the downfall of all humans, forever.

________

* I feel justified in uniting humans under one heading, despite the preceding emphases on the differences among us, because there are real and meaningful similarities between all humans. Our biological needs are the same, our brains are structured in similar ways, etc.