Derya Suner, Research Assistant at ISRO printable version send your friend

The various definitions of nationalism makes it a very difficult task to have only one type of description. The most generalized ones however claim that it is a modern ideology, as far as modernity is perceived as starting with the creation of nation-states. To define in very broad terms, nationalism is the ideolgy that designates its most important objective as serving the national community he belongs. The owners of this ideology attribute their nation a different identity  other than the rest of the communities. The mentioned community may have some common characteristics in terms of constitution, history, religion, language, etnic or genetic. These commonalities make that community different than the others.

According to the theories of nationalism, it has two different forms, one of which is the liberal nationalism and the other is cultural nationalism. If one  feels himself bounded to a state only constitutionally, this is referred to as liberal nationalism whereas,  if one feels belonging to a state in etnic and religious terms, it is called cultural nationalism. In order to give example to the liberal nationalism, it will be useful to look at what J.S Mill says about it. He basically tells that if there is a feeling of belonging to a nation somewhere, that nation can be gathered under a flag. This is constitutional citizenship. However, in Mill’s ideas, there are also some contradictions. To give example, he also says that small states should be under the protection of bigger ones, an idea which is not suitable for the liberal discourse on citizenship. Vaclav Havel, the ex-president of Chech Republic, believes that nations have a right to determine their own identities. The same contradiction is also apparent in Havel’s ideas. Once he said that it’s more important to be a Chech living in the territories of the Republic, than just being a Chech. It will not be wrong to say that he is in favor of a civic modernity. The signs of liberal nationalism is also seen on the UN Charter.

 As far as cultural nationalism is concerned, it will be useful to look at the theories of Mazzin, Fanon and Fichte. Mazzin, whose discourses had been quite frequently used during fascist Italy, thinks that each nation can have some mythical expressions whereas Fanon, warned inhis writings that cultural nationalism can easily be conveted to despotism and tyranny (like that of Hitler). Fichte believes in individualism, humanism and French Revolution. However, the last one changes  with Napoleon’s victory in Prussia. He defines the nation as a living organism, an idea which forms the basis of Nazizm. As for the mythic nationalism theories, A. Giddens, Benedict Enderson and Anthony Smith are worth to mention. To start with Giddens, he sees ntionalism as a psychological concept, rather than an ideological one. He perceives nations belonging to the modern age and also perceives nation-states as universal. The reason of the emergence of nation-states according to Giddens is the globalisation. With globalisation, culture also started to be globalised as a one hmogeneous form. This resulted in some kind of cultures who looks for their own ethnicities. Anderson, on the other hand, perceives the concept of nations as ‘imagined communities’. He also agrees with Giddens on the origins of nation-states. Modern nation-states, according to Anderson emerged wşth the modernity, because he sees nationalism as using the technological and scientific yields brought with modernity. He gives print capitalism as an example. Anthony Smith, thinks differently than the previous two thinkers. He thinks that nationalism existed even before modernity however, these nations were transformed  into modern nation-states  after a three phased revolution. The first phase is the transition from federalism to capitalism. Second phase is the centralization of government and military power, and thirdly the standardization of the cultural conscious.

In the current debate, some of the scholars agree that the idea of European integration and European identity have positive/integrating effects on the modern nation states, while others do not. The latter one will be the supported argument of this paper after explaining each arguments. According to an article written by Zsuzsa Csergo and James M. Goldgeier[1], there are four kinds of nationalism being traditional, substate, transsoveregn and protectionist. The basic idea of traditional nationalism is to form a territorially sovereign and culturally homogeneous nation-state, an idea that dominated Europe throughout 19th and 20th centuries. It can also be referred to as cultural nationalism discussed above. In this form of nationalism, EU is viewed as an alliance of states. In substate nationalism, particular groups view themselves as rightful owners of a homeland, but having no state to call their own. Bavaria, Catalonia and Salzburg can be the examples. They pursue a transnational cooperative strategy to achieve greater representation and opportunity within the EU structures and view the EU as an alliance of nations. The main aim of the transsovereign nationalism is to create institutions to link nation aceross state boundaries. They also view EU as an alliance of states.  The protectionist form on the other hand, aims to preserve national culture in face of immigration/social change. It is argued that traditional and sovereign nationalisms are currently more characteristic of post communist Europe whereas, substate and protectionist nationalisms are more likely in current EU members. Supporters of the first argument thinks that EU not only shares and pools soverignty, but also different varieties of nationalism, especially after its enlargement to the East.[2] Recognizing different nationalist approaches is believed to make enlargement more successful in the long term and even may provide new models of nationalisn for other parts of the world.

Meanwhile, according to another argument, the EU integration process and the idea of European identity have negaive impacts on the modern nation-state. It cannot be denied that modern nation-states are in crisis for some time because of economic globalisation and the increase of trans national relations, factors other than resulting from the European integration. There are some signs and evidence showing that states are in crisis. In economic terms, state loses its role on the economy with the removal of frontiers inside the Community territory (fundamental principle of European integration). Contemporarily, also some new international actors appear such as the international organizations, multi national companies (MNCs) and non governmental organizations (NGOs). There are also examles showing that states can alone may be dysfunctioning or in paralysis of public action.  Examples can be given as the mad cow disease in UK, scandals of corruption in Italy and the Kohl affair in Germany. Besides al these, there is also identity crisis in nation-states. In some European states, there is a growing impact of extreme  right movements or parties (for example in Austria, France and Belgium). Security is another ssues thatis also affected by the ‘fading away of the state’[3]. In terms of security, the state losed its role on acting alone against environmental deterioration, loss of cultural identity, social and economic fragmentation, in short. The second and third pillars of the Union (Common Foreign and Security Policy and Cooperation in the field of Justice and Home Affairs)  made non-state actors, such as EUROPOL more influential than some states. The EU meant for most of the states peace among nations. Thus, it is unavoidable that states reduced their legitamacy in their functioning of defence.

When the identity question is taken into consideration, the state is believed  to be the representation of the arising or appearing of collective identities. However, the EU could not pretend to arise such an identity so far. The main reason for this is the member states’ fragmentation between the nationalists and cosmopolitanists. The EU invented some symbols of ‘Europeanness’ such as the Schengen passport, standard European driving licence, European anthem, European flag and most importantly EURO, which is a strong symbol of supra-state entity. The fragmentation in the member states is more apparent in the issue of using single currency and some member states have resisted. The reason is that for the nationalists, it symbolizes loss of national identity. As a last sentence, it  can be said that efforts to construct the idea of European identity, together with the process of European integration, has a more fragmentative effect on the modern nation-state, rather than integrationist.