Talk:Nationalism: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Archived old discussions
Line 10: Line 10:
{{WPIR|class=C|importance=high|nested=yes}}
{{WPIR|class=C|importance=high|nested=yes}}
}}
}}
{{Archive box|'''[[/Archive 1]]'''; '''[[/Archive 2]]'''}}
{{Archive box|'''[[/Archive 1]]'''; '''[[/Archive 2]]'''; [[/Archive 3]]'''}}

== Further reading section ==

Hi everyone. The list of references in the 'Further reading' section has become quite long, and only a few of the works listed there are what you might call 'key texts' on nationalism ''as such''. I think that we should remove all of those sources which are simply ''relevant'' to the study of nationalism, and institute a convention of only including works that would be considered essential reading for a wide audience looking to learn more about nationalism itself. The rest can be listed in other articles that have a more specific focus. – [[User:SJL| SJL]] 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
:I agree strongly with SJL. Indeed, I would go further: if a text is "essential reading," then it should be cited already in the article, and thus in the "References." I would vote for deleting the "further reading" section altogether. --[[User:Jbmurray|jbmurray]] ([[User talk:Jbmurray|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jbmurray|contribs]]) 21:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
::I've trimmed this section significantly. It is now divided into two sub-sections: 'General', which includes some key sources that I did not remove and should be incorporated into the text; and 'Reference works', which includes a short list of [[reference works]], such as three encyclopedias of nationalism, that I think are good additions to this article but would not be suitable for incorporation into the text. – [[User:SJL| SJL]] 03:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Good stuff. Some of these references are (kinda sorta) in the text already. I started moving things around. More to be done here... --[[User:Jbmurray|jbmurray]] ([[User talk:Jbmurray|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jbmurray|contribs]]) 04:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

== 'Types of nationalism' section ==

I have moved most of the content from the 'Types of nationalism' section, which was quite long, into its [[Types of nationalism|own article]]. – [[User:SJL| SJL]] 00:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

=='Theoretical literature' section==

I have moved the 'Theoretical literature' section to here (click 'show' in the box located below to see it). The information is useful from an editor's perspective, but it should be incorporated into the the text as prose and not just listed there (please note, however, that some of the summaries are inaccurate and should be double-checked before they are included). – [[User:SJL| SJL]] 16:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="background: transparent; text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #D3D3D3; " | Annotated bibliography
|-
| style="border: 1px solid grey; padding: 4px;" |
* [[Benedict Anderson|Anderson, Benedict]]. 1991. ''[[Imagined Communities]]''. 2nd ed. London: Verso. Anderson argues that nations are imagined political communities, and are imagined to be limited and sovereign. Their development is related to the decline of other types of imagined community, especially in the face of capitalist production of print media.
* [[John Alexander Armstrong|Armstrong, John Alexander]]. 1982. ''Nations Before Nationalism''. Armstrong traces the development of national identities from origins in antiquity and the medieval world.
* [[John Breuilly|Breuilly, John]]. 1992. ''Nationalism and the State''. 2nd ed. Manchester: Manchester University Press. This approach focuses on the politics of nationalism, in particular on nationalism as a response to the imperatives of the modern state. It employs the mode of comparative history to study numerous cases of nationalism.
* [[Ernest Gellner|Gellner, Ernest]]. 1983. ''Nations and Nationalism''. Oxford: Blackwell. This work links nationalism to the homogenising imperatives of industrial society and the reactions of minority cultures to those imperatives.
* [[Liah Greenfeld|Greenfeld, Liah]]. 1992. ''Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity''. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Greenfeld argues that nationalism existed at an earlier age than previously thought: as early as the sixteenth century in the case of England.
* [[Steven Grosby]], Biblical Ideas of Nationality: Ancient and Modern (2002)dates the idea of the nation to the ancient Levant.
* [[Michael Hechter|Hechter, Michael]]. 1975. ''Internal Colonialism''. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Hechter attributes nationalism in the "Celtic fringe" of Britain and Ireland to the reinforcing divisions of culture and the division of labour.
* [[Eric Hobsbawn|Hobsbawm, Eric]], and [[Terence Ranger|Ranger, Terence]], eds. 1983. ''The Invention of Tradition''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. This collection of essays, especially Hobsbawm's introduction and chapter on turn-of-the-century Europe, argues that the nation is a prominent type of invented tradition.
* [[Eric Hobsbawn|Hobsbawm, Eric]]. 1990. "Nations and Natonalism since 1780". Cambrige: Cambridge University Press.
* [[Elie Kedourie|Kedourie, Elie]]. 1960. ''Nationalism''. London: Hutchinson. Kedourie focuses on the role of disaffected German intellectuals in developing the doctrine of nationalism at the beginning of the nineteenth century from Kant's idea of the autonomy of the will and Herder's belief in the primacy of linguistic communities in establishing modes of thought.
* [[Elie Kedourie|Kedourie, Elie]], ed. 1971. ''Nationalism in Asia and Africa''. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Kedourie's introduction to this volume of nationalist texts extends his analysis in his earlier work to the efforts of intellectuals in colonial states.
* [[Hans Kohn]] The Idea of Nationalism; a Study of its Origins and Background, MacMillan, 1944. Kohn's pioneering work formulates the distinction between civic and ethnic nationalism.
* Will Kymlicka, "Multicultural Citizenship," (Oxford, 1995). Argues that certain "collective rights" of minority cultures are consistent with liberal democratic principles.
* [[David Miller]], "on Nationality," Oxford University Press, 1975, 1995, 1999. Millerargues that national identities are valid sources of personal identity, that individuals are justified in recognizing special obligations to co-nationals, and that nations have good grounds for desiring self-determination, but that nationalism cannot justify suppressing other sources of identity.
* Jeremy A. Rabkin, Law without Nations? Why constitutional government Requires Sovereign States," Princeton U. Press, 2005, Rabkin argues that nations are necessary for the protection of the human rights of individuals.
*Ernest Renan, his 1882 lecture Qu'est-ce qu'une nation? ("What is a Nation?")described nationalism as the desire of people who see themselves as a community that "avoir fait de grandes choses ensemble, vouloir en faire encore" (having done great things together and wishing to do more), he famously described commitment to the nation as a "daily plebiscite."
* [[Anthony D. Smith|Smith, Anthony D.]] 1986. ''The Ethnic Origins of Nations''. Oxford: Blackwell. Smith traces modern nations and nationalism to pre-modern ethnic sources, arguing for the existence of an "ethnic core" in modern nations.
* Yael Tamir, 1993, "Liberal Nationalism," Princeton University Press. Tamir makes a liberal political theory argument for nationalism based on the right of individuals to associate as nations.(JR. Lover 2008)
</div></div></div><br />
|}

== Outline of proposed revision ==

Hello everyone. I recently replaced the lead to this article as the first step in a complete revision that I am proposing with the following outline. Bolded titles indicate the main sections, and the others are potential sub-headings. Please keep in mind that I do not intend this to be an exhaustive list.

*'''Lead'''
*'''Overview'''
**Ideology
**Sentiment
**Form of culture
**Social movement
*'''Origins'''
**Modernization
**Popular sovereignty
**Nations and nation-building
*'''Types of nationalism'''
*'''Conflict'''
**War and other violent conflict
**Sub-state nationalism and separatism
*'''Everyday nationalism'''
*'''Key issues'''
**Immigration and social diversity
**Gender
*'''Criticism'''

My suggestion is that we simply work our way down the list, starting with 'Overview' now that the lead has already been rewritten. If you are unsure of where to find research material for a given section, I can provide a number of suggestions. I look forward to your comments – [[User:SJL| SJL]] 12:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

:Lead is no good, please see [[WP:Lead]] [[User:Klichka|Klichka]] ([[User talk:Klichka|talk]]) 04:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== The Lead should summarize the whole article! ==

The first paragraph should always summarize the whole article, this is an awful mess. The first part before the TOC was a long winded unreadable mess. Your first paragraph is the hook where you tell people the brief gist of it. This is how a lot of stuff goes and the ball was utterly dropped here. [[User:Klichka|Klichka]] ([[User talk:Klichka|talk]]) 04:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


"The article should begin with a straightforward, declarative sentence that, as briefly as possible, provides the reader who knows nothing at all about the article's subject with the answer to two questions: "What (or who) is it?" and "Why is this subject notable?".[2]" [[WP:LEAD]]

You failed to identify what it is exactly. I still don't know what nationalism is or why its different from say communism or
cosmopolitanism. [[User:Klichka|Klichka]] ([[User talk:Klichka|talk]]) 04:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:First, please don't be sanctimonious, and review [[WP:CIVIL]] before making any further comments. Second, if you read the above posts carefully, you will see that in this case the lead is not intended to summarize the rest of the article, which I think should be rewritten (not least because it is almost wholly uncited, but most importantly because it is nearly all wrong). I am well aware that this is not the way things are usually done, but [[Wikipedia:Ignore all rules|sometimes that's the way things have to be done]]. I've taken this approach because I don't have time to rewrite the whole article at the moment, but I wanted to provide a brief overview that could also serve as a template.

:Regarding the content itself, I think that your complaints are unfounded. You claim here and on my talk page that I have not defined nationalism, and that I should be able to do so in one or two lines. As a professional political scientist who specializes in [[nationalism studies]], I disagree, but you don't have to take my word for it – read any of the books that I have cited in the introduction (or any other scholarly book on nationalism, for that matter) and you will see that the definition of nationalism is in fact highly contested, and that the first line of this article reflects the wide range of connotations that the term can have: "The term nationalism can refer to an ideology, a sentiment, a form of culture, or a social movement that focuses on the nation." The second and third paragraphs go into more detail, particularly on nationalism as an ideology, but a full exposition belongs in the body of the article. Accordingly, I hope that you will consider improving the body of the article if you know enough about the subject to do so. – [[User:SJL| SJL]] 05:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

::Perhaps the article should be split if there is enough content on each aspect of nationalism. You make an interesting arguement for splitting it up. I am not meaning to be sanctimonious, I'm just stating that I believed the article failed to match the goals of being concise and contingent. I personally think that the article should be set to an archive of some sort or there should be an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nationalism&oldid=243108983 old version link] in this discussion and then it should be cut down signifigantly so it can be rewritten. In software engineering sometimes it becomes impossible to maintain old code (esp when it was written by someone else) and it needs to be destroyed and rewritten from scratch. This seems to be majorly a case here.

::So I see two paths for revising this article: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nationalism&oldid=243108983 Out with the old] and rebuild it with greater control so the article doesn't become an entire mess. Or it could be retrofit, retrofitting would keep the content mostly, but its going to be very hard to work with and it will look complete even when it isn't ready at any point and may encourage the bad parts to tag along. I'm not an expert on nationalism so this is not my choice here as to how to procede, but I personally think reducing it to a stub and rebuilding will be better since it will encourage the article to be built up properly and if you are willing to dedicate your time I suggest ripping it down if you have the people who are dedicated to rebuilding it. I'd help, but I know absolutely nothing about nationalism. (Is jingoism one definition of nationalism?) [[User:Klichka|Klichka]] ([[User talk:Klichka|talk]]) 19:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:::It would be a mistake to create separate articles for each different connotation that nationalism can have. Variability is one of its essential characteristics, and each sense of the term is importantly interrelated. I agree that the body of the article should be completely rewritten but, as the author of the lead, I unsurprisingly think that it does a good job of introducing the subject (though, of course, it is not supposed to stand alone).

:::My long-term intention is to lead a complete rewrite of the article, but I don't have the time to do that right now and will not for several months. It wouldn't bother me if most of the body were removed, but my sense is that it's better to have something to replace it with than to take the article back to a stub. If nobody objects, however, I am willing to go through the article and remove everything that I don't think would remain in a well-informed rewrite.

:::As for jingoism, it is not synonymous with nationalism, but it is related: it is a term used to describe strong support for war in the name of nationalism or patriotism. – [[User:SJL| SJL]] 04:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

==Image copyright problem with Image:Walescw.jpg==
The image [[:Image:Walescw.jpg]] is used in this article under a claim of [[WP:NFC|fair use]], but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the [[WP:NFCC|requirements for such images]] when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an [[Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline|explanation]] linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

:* That there is a [[Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline|non-free use rationale]] on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
<!-- Additional 10c list header goes here -->

This is an automated notice by [[User:FairuseBot|FairuseBot]]. For assistance on the image use policy, see [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions]]. --09:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

== The word "often" in the lead ==

I'm sorry if this has been discussed before, but ... the lead states that nationalism commonly leads to war. To me, the problem is the word "commonly" - it leads one to believe that nationalists only want war, and impies that nationalists want war. I think that this is misleading, and should be removed. Thanks, [[User:Horlo|Horlo]] ([[User talk:Horlo|talk]]) 06:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

:I agree with the sentiment, but the actual sentence says that ". . .nationalism is commonly '''associated''' with war. . .", not that nationalism commonly leads to war, and then the next paragraph says that nationalism is not inherently violent. – [[User:SJL| SJL]] 05:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


== Unverified Claims ==

Please could have a reference for this subjective bit of content:

''"Nationalism does not necessarily imply a belief in the superiority of one race over others, but in practice, many nationalists support racial protectionism or racial supremacy. Such racism is typically based upon preference or superiority of the indigenous race of the nation, but not always."''

It's the "...in practice, many..." part that is unsubstantiated; the "...typically..." bit also requires some kind of reference to support the assertion, rather than just tagging on a casual and vague disclaimer of "...,but not always" at the end.

I'm not debating the content so much as the quality aspect... it just comes across as amateurish and a bit adolescent.

The other issue is that there's an implicit assumption here that we all know and agree what "race" is. Frankly, I ''don't'' know what it is... it's such an anachronistic and ill-defined term that I don't see how using it in a paragraph like this can impart any useful or meaningful information.
I don't know what: "racial protectionism"; "racism"; "indigenous race (of the nation)" means in this or any context.
I suspect there is an American-English v British-English problem of definitions here, as I believe that in America terms like "ethnicity" have prescribed meanings; whereas, in Britain, "ethnicity" would definitely be a more precise and correct term to describe what I think is meant by the term "race" in this paragraph (or "superiority" for that matter!).

Like it says at the foot of this edit page: "Cite your sources"!
[[[[Special:Contributions/212.159.117.182|212.159.117.182]] ([[User talk:212.159.117.182|talk]]) 01:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)MacDaddy]]

== Nationalism and Far right ==

I was told that "Far right" means "Nationalism" rather than economical freedom. What is the connection/difference between articles/categories Nationalism and Far right? Now it's accidental (or based on prejudices).[[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 13:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

: There is no necessary connection between nationalism and ring-wing politics, but it is common for right-wing politicians to take nationalist positions (against immigration, for example). Nationalism isn't the opposite of "economical freedom", though; you might be thinking of [[protectionism]], which is often justified on nationalist grounds. – [[User:SJL| SJL]] 17:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
::Categories Far right parties and Nationalistic parties include similar parties. The distinction is accidental or based on prejudices. [[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 08:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Sorry, but I'm really not sure what you're trying to say. If you're talking about Wikipedia's organizational categories, this isn't the place to do it; you should post on the talk page of the category (or categories) that you're concerned about. – [[User:SJL| SJL]] 15:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::::I have and noone cares. But:
Category:Nationalist parties
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For more information, see [[Nationalism]].
[[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 13:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

== Nationalism Not an Ideology ==

Nationalism is not an ideology. It lacks the substance of an ideology, namely the methods in which a society should organize itself. See Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.101.160.72|68.101.160.72]] ([[User talk:68.101.160.72|talk]]) 08:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== What happened to Ultranationalism? ==
I seem to remember there being quite large and good article on [[Ultranationalism]], but it seems to no longer exist on Wiki. What's happened? Ultranationalism is now just a redirect to [[Nationalism]], this would be acceptable if it were merged with this article, but there isn't even any mention of ultranationalists on this page. The term seems to have completely disappeared. What's going on? --[[User:Hibernian|Hibernian]] ([[User talk:Hibernian|talk]]) 16:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

== Stupid!!! ==

"Catalan independentist mural in Republican district in Belfast" ???

--[[Special:Contributions/93.136.136.142|93.136.136.142]] ([[User talk:93.136.136.142|talk]]) 14:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

:This page is for discussions about how to improve the article. What point are you trying to make?[[User:Sjö|Sjö]] ([[User talk:Sjö|talk]]) 17:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

== Objectivity? Billig's "Banal Nationalism" ==

Is objectivity a goal in an encyclopedia? In "Banal Nationalism", Michael Billig argues that while nationalism may be in general decline, it is ubiquitously, though subtly (often under the radar of conscious recognition), reinforced (or "flagged") in such "banal" ways as the pervasive use of "we" or "us" in reference to Americans, displays of national flags or symbols, even through reference to individual nations. OK, but is Billig a reliable source for an objective definition of nationalism (on Wikipedia)? '''''No.''''' I doubt Billig would even argue this point.
While pointing to countless nuanced supports for nationalism, Billig also strongly advocates the removal of these buttresses and the construction of a new, idealized "global community" on the ruins of nation-states and their concomitant nationalism. Billig imagines a borderless, utopian world "moving from masculine patriarchal states towards an unbounded feminine future" (p. 176). While generally berating "the West" for clinging to anachronistic notions of national identity, Billig's sharpest scolding is saved for the United States; the '''''nation''''' of the United States.
Anyway, the main point is "Banal Nationalism" contains arguments regarding nationalism, including arguments for expanding the meaning of nationalism. The book is fine for thought-provoking supplementary reading on nationalism, but not for an unbiased definition of the term.
[[User:Djm7706|Djm7706]] ([[User talk:Djm7706|talk]]) 01:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:40, 29 June 2009

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nationalism&oldid=299249780"