From Nation to Event: Discrete Nationalism in a Globalized World Jeff Knowles1 May 2008 In the last few decades, technological developments have brought transformations in
economic, political and social relationships among people throughout the world. Among International Relations scholars, it has been popular to encapsulate these changes in the term “globalization.” Some important aspects of globalization have been fleshed out: they include a growth of multinational economic activity, an increase in the amount and speed of international communication, a diversification of cultural influences and exchanges, and a development of political issues that impact peoples across national boarders.2 Yet despite the prevalence of globalization in the literature, it is still an ambiguous term that seems to denote an amorphous set of issues. In fact, inconsistencies surface throughout discussions about globalization and its impact on the world. Although it is usually recognized as a new process, there is confusion about how globalization is distinct from other forms of interdependence that have existed throughout history. What is more, while globalization is thought about as a progression towards a more integrated world, it is not clear that all technological developments push towards integration. In the article “From Interdependence to Globalization”, Michael Zurn clarifies some of this confusion by making an important distinction: whereas traditional transnational relationships, those between autonomous political units, can be understood as interdependence, Zurn suggests that globalization refers to “the merging of units.” Zurn holds that globalization describes “a process of transition towards one integrated global society and 1 © 2008 Jeff Knowles, Providence RI. Reproduce only with permission:
[email protected] 2 Ulrich Krotz in POLS1480 Lecture on Globalization, April 2008
away from a cluster of merely internationalized societies. Accordingly, globalization can be seen as a process which reduces the significance of national societies.” 3 Although Zurn’s argument is valuable in that it sets globalization apart from prior forms of transnational interaction, his conclusion that it “denationalizes” society assumes a lot about nationalism and the impact of technological development. It is clear that globalization has weakened the ties between territorial boundaries and nationhood: by stretching relationships across state boundaries, globalization has made the state less important in the construction of nationalism as a social unit. However, considering this weakening as “denationalization” oversimplifies the impact of globalization and mistakes nationhood for a static social condition. An investigation into the difference between the practice of nationalism and the theory of nationalism shows that nationalism and nationhood are communicative events and not bounded communities. Rather than denationalizing, globalization has removed the spatial limitations that once made nations appear to be, in the words of Rogers Brubaker, “substantial enduring collectivities.”4 Thus nationhood once seemed cohesive because its dominant boundaries were those of the nation‐state. In a globalized world, nationhood occurs as discrete communications. In its new form, nationhood is less tangible because it no longer aligns consistently with political space. Yet far from weakening the impact of nationhood in international relations, globalization has in fact provided the medium for nationalisms to take place in a wider variety of political and social affairs. 3 Michael Zurn, "From Interdependence to Globalization," in Handbook of International
Relations, ed. Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons Walter Carlsnaes (London: Sage, 2002), 236.
4 Rogers Brubaker, "Nation as Institutionalized Form, Practical Category, Contingent Event,"
Contention 4, no. 1 (Fall 1994): 10.
1
Nationhood as an Event and a Communication
In order to understand how globalization has changed nationalism, it is first necessary
to develop a theory of nationhood. Nations have long been understood as real and clearly defined political units. Perhaps the simplest way to define a nation is by the same geographical boarders as a state. On this view, a nation consists of a group of people who occupy the territory ruled by a state. This territorial view of nationhood is essential to nationalistic movements: nationalists ascribe common physical, ideological or cultural characteristics to their countryman, and assume that these traits to make their nation a distinct group. But while this view of nationalism usually informs nationalists, it does not hold much theoretical weight: there is no reason to believe that people of one state are inherently different from those on the other side of a territorial boarder. Most social scientists explain nationhood as a social construct. A constructionist view affirms that that nations are arbitrary units and tries to explain their existence in terms of social processes. Such an argument is evident in a passage from the famous book Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson. Anderson writes that a nation is “an imagined political community…it is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know their fellow members…yet in the minds of each they live in communion.”5 Although Anderson claims that a national community is imagined, his definition suggests that nations exist and are constructed through a material process of imagination. This kind of an argument is also is implicit in Zurn’s conclusions about the effect of globalization. When Zurn writes that globalization leads to an integration of national societies, he is assuming that national societies begin as real and autonomous units. 5 Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities (London: Verso, 1983), 6.
2
In an important article “Rethinking Nationhood,” Rogers Brubaker challenges the notion that nations can be seen as real and lasting communities. According to Brubaker, developments in social theory make it clear that social groups are never “real substantial entities.”6 A real, substantial social group is static, solid and defined by fixed boarders. From this perspective, a nation is static and solid because the borders of a state are generally stationary and solid in political time. But according to Brubaker, any analysis which sees nations as “engendered” by states, makes a critical error: it confuses “categories of practice as categories of analysis. It takes a conception inherent in the practice of nationalism…and makes it central to the theory of nationalism.”7 What Brubaker means is that while nations resemble real communities, that does not imply that they actually are real. To define nations as substantial collectivities is to interpret the way things sometimes appear as the way they are or must always be. Brubaker affirms that nations are best considered “not as substance but as institutionalized form, not as a collectivity but as a practical category, not as an entity but as a contingent event.”8 Brubaker’s conclusion goes much father than Anderson. While Anderson asserts that nations are “imagined communities,” he maintains that the forces of collective imagination create limits that define a substantial community. In contrast, Brubaker suggests that nations are not communities at all. Thus Brubaker’s is a theory of “nationalism without nations;”9 it explains that nationalism can occur without a sharply defined social unit. Brubaker’s argument is valuable because it suggests that nationalism is not dependent on the existence of sharp territorial boundaries. 6 Brubaker, 3. 7 Brubaker, 5. 8 Brubaker, 8. 9 Brubaker, 10.
3
Considering nationalism as an event is also essential in the context of globalization. If globalization is a stretching of social processes beyond territorial boundaries, then the impact of globalization is to make these boundaries less important. But if nations have never been defined by sharp boundaries, then globalization cannot mean the end of nationhood. This is a powerful statement: contrary to Zurn’s interpretation, nationalism can continue even as technological changes reduce the importance of international boarders. Yet even accepting Brubaker’s argument, to achieve a thorough understanding of the relationship between globalization and nationalism it is necessary to reconcile the impact of territory with the notion that nationalism is an event. The way that nationalism plays out is related to national boundaries, even if nationalism can take place without a sharply defined national unit. That nationalists see such a strong connection between territory and nationhood makes it clear that nationalism has historically occurred along territorial lines. Even if real nations are not important to a theory of nationalism, the perception of real nations does have an effect on the practice of nationalism. One way to capture both the impact of boundaries and the notion of nationalism as an event is to approach nationalism in terms of social communication. In the 1953 volume Nationalism and Social Communication, Karl Deutsch analyzes social interactions in a way that is critical to the makeup of nationalism, especially in a globalized world. According to Deutsch, a diverse array of social qualities and processes can be understood as “channels” of social communication. For example, shared culture creates a channel for social communication because it makes it easier for individuals to communicate with one another. In a parallel way, economic interaction creates a channel for social communication because it fosters common experiences and common technical languages.
4
Duetsch argues that these channels of communication reveal a lot about how individuals perceive groups. 10 Deutsch labels the capacity for social communication, which is determined by the number and kind of channels, as “complementarity.” This concept, which Deutsch borrows from the study of information and engineering, can be summarized as the ease with which individuals are able to communicate with one another. 11 Deutsch uses this notion as a definition of nationhood: “Membership in a people essentially consists in a wide complementarity of social communication. It consists in the ability to communicate more effectively and over a wider range of subjects, with members of one large group than with outsiders.”12 Deutsch’s view is that a shared capacity for social communication defines groups. On the surface, this perspective is not compatible with the view of nationalism as an event: Deutsch uses complementarity to explain the emergence of real social groups. However, on a deeper level, Brubaker’s and Deutsch’s insights can be combined in the statement that nationalism occurs as a social communication. This is a useful way to look at nationalism for three reasons. First, viewing nationalism as a social communication suggests a motive for nationalism. Individuals who are not actually connected through a real community might use nationalism as a way to communicate. This kind of an analysis fits well with the research agenda proposed by Brubaker.13 Second, viewing nationalism as a communication emphasizes the impact of boarders without making their existence constitutive to nationalism. Territorial boarders represent a barrier to communication that affects 10 Karl Deutsch, Nationalism and Social Communication (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press,
1953), 88.
11 Deutsch, 91. 12 Deutsch, 96. 13 See Brubaker, 9‐10.
5
nationalism, but are not necessary for nationalism to exist. Third, a communicative theory of nationalism is especially valuable to this analysis because globalization is, at its heart, a change in social communication. The relationship between globalization and social communication is obvious. Not only is globalization largely a result of new communications technology, but in a broader sense, globalization represents a stretching of all forms of social interactions. Integrating the notion of nationalism as an event and nationhood as dependent on social communication suggests that nationalism occurs as a communicative event. This is different from a territorial or constructed view of nationhood because it implies that nations as real communities do not exist. Considering nationalism in terms of social communication expands Brubaker’s argument because it emphasizes the importance of boundaries to communication in channeling the practice of nationalism. Taking nationalism together as an event and a social communication indicates that nationalism occurs as the communication of cultural or ideological values. Such a communication can appear to define a community: “these are the cultural and ideological values that define us as a nation.” But globalization has changed the practice of nationalism away from such absolute statements. Globalization and the Practice of Nationalism By combining Deutsch and Brubaker, the relationship between globalization and nationalism can be broken down into two trends. First, globalization has increased the amount of social communication across borders, which means a demise of the territorial limits on nationalism. In practice, this has reduced the likelihood that nationalism will take place along territorial boarders. As globalization blurs the lines of territory, nationhood looks less like a real community and more like an event. Zurn takes this to mean a
6
“denationalization.” But as an investigation of nationalism shows, bordered communities are not essential to the occurrence of nationalism. In a globalized world, territory is no longer the dominant boundary to social communication. Zurn takes this change to mean that globalization will lead to a denationalization through a merging of social units. The problem with Zurn’s analysis is that it assumes that national societies were once real communities. Although the practice of nationhood is affected by nationalism, underneath, it is still the same phenomenon. If anything, the demise of limits and boundaries will lead to a convergence between the practice of nationhood as a group and the theory of nationhood as an event. This convergence leads to an important change the practice of nationalism in the global era. The difference between old and new forms of nationalism is that before globalization, nationalism seemed cohesive to a territory. When territorial boarders were strong barriers to social communication, nationalism was a communication of values that spread the notion of territory. It attempted to define territorial boarders as national boarders by giving culture a shared meaning to all. In a global era, nationalism is discrete in that it involves isolated sets of actors and no longer aligns along territorial boundaries. What is more, in a global era, individuals have a greater capacity to assign their own meanings to the values communicated through nationalism. Finally, strong territorial boarders made nationalism seem singular and singular and absolute: an individual could either support nationalism or not. New nationalisms are more relative and plural: many different nationalisms can occur at once, sometimes communicating conflicting or confusing values. But despite these important changes in the practice of nationalism, a sophisticated view of nationhood shows that globalization cannot lead to a denationalization of global society. On the contrary, the second way in which globalization has affected nationalism is to an increase capacity for it communicative events to take place. The same communications
7
technologies that allow communication across boarders also increase the prevalence of culture and ideology in the perception of everyday events. As a result, globalization has allowed discrete forms of nationalism to take place where once nationalism was confined to a cohesive national ideology. An examination of the new forms of nationalism shows that instead of limiting nationalism, globalization has reduced old limits on nationhood, and created a new medium for nationalism to take place. New Nationalisms Rather than dissolving the impact of nationhood in international affairs, globalization has, in fact, provided new means by which nationalistic events can take place. The analysis of new nationalism in China illustrates how globalization has made nationalisms appear more like communicative events. What is more, this example of nationalism in shows that globalization has not lead to a denationalization, but rather has provided nationalism with new channels of communication
In recent years, The People’s Republic of China has been the face of globalization
throughout most popular and academic analysis on the subject. Over the last fifteen to twenty years, the Chinese economy has sustained a massive growth. While this economic growth has many sources both internal and external, the Chinese case is often taken as the principle evidence that the world is moving towards globalization. In recent years, China has also experienced a surge in nationalistic sediment. In China, nationalists have suggested that recent economic growth signifies a return to power of the Chinese empire. But this new nationalism in China is also remarkably confused. At once, it represents a return to old cultural ideals and affirms China’s place in a globalized world. Although nationalistic sediment in China advocates old ideologies like Confucianism, it also acknowledges a communist
8
government that, for over fifty years, systematically suppressed the old Chinese way of life. That nationalistic sediment occurs in an already confusing setting suggests that new Chinese Nationalism is not a cohesive movement towards a defined national community.
However, looking at this new Chinese nationalism as a communicative event seems to
clarify this confusion. A recent New York Times article on Chinese nationalism, “Chinese Urge Anti‐West Boycott over Tibet Stance,” chronicles how nationalistic sediment has recently been spread over the Internet. In what the article refers to as “cybernationalism,” a mindboggling number of Chinese are using the Internet to advocate for a boycott of western retail chains as part of a movement that reaffirms Chinese culture and national ideology. This particular protest is part of a larger trend towards the use of new communications technologies to organize nationalistic events and communicate nationalistic sediment. Similar Internet fueled movements have taken place in response to a conflict over the accounts of World War II atrocities in Japanese textbooks.14 While this recent trend towards Internet nationalism has advanced nationalistic culture and ideology, it is not a push to strengthen a Chinese national community. In fact, the Internet has allowed the nationalistic sediment to spread beyond Chinese boarders to the rest of the world. In addition to boycotts in China, an Internet movement has also lead to related protests in cities all over the world. Further, the nationalist movement has not been territorial. As the Times article notes, the Chinese government has actually shut down many of the Internet sites and Internet fueled protests.15 This cybernationalism is a revealing case of nationalism in a global era for several reasons. First, the roots of the conflicts addressed in the cybernationalist movement can be 14 Andrew Jacobs and Jimmy Wang, "Chinese Urge Anti‐West Boycott over Tibet Stance," New
York Times, April 20, 2008.
15 Jacobs and Wang, 2008.
9
found in economic globalization and transnational political issues. The movement has occurred as a response to international opinions of China in Tibet, and the main avenue of protest has been a boycott of international economic institutions. Second, the movement has spread in a medium of communications technology. The Internet has been central to the organization and spread of nationalism, and it has allowed the movement to spread across traditional boundaries. Finally, cybernationalism is case in which globalizing technology, which might appear to decrease the importance of nationhood, has actually facilitated the emergence of nationalistic sediment. But cybernationalism is not rooted in the Chinese nation as a distinct community. Rather this new form of nationalism in China is best thought of as a communicative event. Using the Internet as a new form of transmission, this recent nationalist movement in China has largely been a communication of cultural ideals and a statement of national ideology. As one online protester quoted in the times puts it, “This worldwide show of support by Chinese illustrates that we have solidarity on the issue [of Tibet]. After five thousand years, we are not so soft any more.”16 This recent movement is not about reaffirming a Chinese community, but about communicating a particular form of national ideology and culture. Cybernationalism is a form of nationalism without a national community, territorial or boarders, or even socially constructed boundaries. It is an event and a social communication that is global in its reach. Conclusion: Nationalism and Terrorism 16 This quote is from an online video related to the article. To access the video, follow the link
from the online article, or use the following URL: http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=4b77f30b65e4e3ba370653c485682abcab864c3d
10
In “From Interdependence to Globalization,” Zurn attempts to differentiate globalization as a new process in world affairs. Zurn argues that because globalization leads to the “denationalization” of global society, globalization constitutes the merging of political and social units. However, as an analysis of the relationship between nationalism and globalization makes clear, nationalism has never depended on the existence of nations as real communities. On the contrary nationalisms occur as communicative events: nationalism takes place when individuals attempt to communicate national ideology and shared culture. From this perspective, globalization cannot lead to denationalization of global society. What is new about globalization? Although globalization has not affected the underlying theory of nationalism, globalization has had a profound effect on the practice of nationalism. By reducing the ways in which territorial boarders act as boundaries to communication, globalization has led to a convergence between theory and practice: globalization has made nationalism seem more like a communicative event. But what does this mean? What will be the new faces of nationalism in a global era? A comparison between modern international terrorism and modern nationalism clarifies the place of nationalism in a global era. Culminating with the infamous attacks in 2001, international terrorism has been an important force in international relations. Although there is evidence that the actual amount of terrorism, as measured by number of deaths in terrorist attacks, has hardly increased over the last several years, the perception of terrorism as a threat has been central to international relations.17 This recent wave of international terrorism is not directly related to nationalism. However, two elements of international terrorism make it valuable as a clarification of 17 Thomas Parker in POLS 1480 Lecture on Terrorism, April 2008.
11
nationalism. First, terrorism works because it is a social communication: terrorist attacks are not designed to do any sort of material damage to their targets, but rather convey a psychological message of fear. Second, similar to nationalism, terrorism is not dependent on a distinct group terrorists. As Charles Tilly writes in the paper “Terror, Terrorism and Terrorists,” “social scientists who attempt to explain sudden attacks on civilian targets should doubt the existence of a distinct, coherent class of terrorists.”18 Thus terror attacks are not brought about by any distinct group of social actors. In these ways, a terrorist attack is a communicative event that passes on a message of fear and ideology from one actor to another. Scholars of terrorism have identified two ways in which terrorist acts are dependent on technology. The first is obvious: without weapons, which allow individual actors or small groups to cause a significant amount of death and destruction, terrorism is impossible. The second is a much deeper conclusion about the nature of terrorism. Without the technology necessary to publicize terrorist attacks, terrorism is meaningless. Because terrorism works through the communication of fear, terrorism is not effective without the capacity to widely publicize an attack. This suggests a similar conclusion about nationalism. Although nationalism has never depended on the existence of nations as real communities, until recently, nationalism has taken the shape of communities in practice. Globalization has provided both nationalism and terrorism with new mediums of communication: the ease of global communication reduces the effect territorial boarders as communicative barriers. The impact of this change on international terrorism has already been experienced: the world has been dealing with the repercussions of a single terrorist attack for the last seven years.
18 Charles Tilly, "Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists," Sociological Theory (American Sociological
Association), March 2004, 5.
12
Perhaps the effect of globalization on nationalism will be similar: in a global era, single expressions of nationalism might take on the colossal importance of the attacks in 2001. Word Count = 3,595
Works Cited Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities. London: Verso, 1983. Brubaker, Rogers. "Nation as Institutionalized Form, Practical Category, Contingent Event," Contention 4, no. 1 (Fall 1994): 3‐14. Deutsch, Karl. Nationalism and Social Communication (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1953). Krotz, Ulrich. POLS1480 Lecture on Globalization, April 2008. Parker, Thomas. POLS 1480 Lecture on Terrorism, April 2008. Tilly, Charles. "Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists," Sociological Theory (American Sociological Association), March 2004, 5‐13. Jacobs, Andrew and Wang, Jimmy. "Chinese Urge Anti‐West Boycott over Tibet Stance," New York Times, April 20, 2008. Zurn, Michael. "From Interdependence to Globalization," in Handbook of International Relations, ed. Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons Walter Carlsnaes (London: Sage, 2002).
13
