by Jaylee Davis
At a time when partisanship is at an all-time high, we often come to closely critique our national identity--what do we, as citizens, determine as fit and appropriate behavior as members of a collective? Over the past four years, buzzwords such as “right wing nationalism” and “national populism” have inspired academics and journalists to rethink national identity, especially with developments of “nationalist populism” in the United States, United Kingdom, and India.
What do we, as citizens, determine as fit and appropriate behavior as members of a collective?
A 2019 study “Patriotism and Nationalism, Left and Right: A Q-Methodology Study of American National Identity” by Kristin Hanson and Emma O’Dwyer demonstrates this resurging inquiry of international politics through their study of the terms “patriotism” and “nationalism.” These terms are often used interchangeably in discourse, and Hanson and O’Dwyer define their multiple intricacies according to the general body of discourse on national identity. By amalgamating perspectives of nationalism as defined by different parts of history, Hanson and O’Dwyer give us a means of contextualizing our current political situation. In times where deep fractures in our nation seem to be rising to the surface, more nuanced examinations of national identity are wanting.
The first aspect of national affiliation they define is “affective,” or emotional attachment to the nation. This affective relation is further specified by the subdivisions of pride, chauvinism, and symbolic patriotism. Pride is noted as “self-referential, a positive regard for one’s country.” Chauvinism, on the other hand, extends pride to a paradigm of superiority. It is rooted in comparisons between nations that put other nations down relative to one’s own. Symbolic patriotism characterizes attachment to the national identity by way of icons such as the American flag, the Pledge of Allegiance, and other similar fanfare. Generally, pride is classified as a patriotic quality while chauvinism is attributed to nationalism.
“Membership,” the second aspect framed by the study, refers to how members within a nation connect and perceive themselves as a national body. It encompasses ethnocultural, civil credal, and civic republican values--the ground on which citizens of a nation might for common identity. Ethno-cultural membership refers to a common heritage (in America, Anglo-Protestant heritage) while a civic membership refers to adherence to common values with a common purpose. On this distinction, Hanson and O’Dwyer denote civic membership as a more patriotic quality while ethnocultural membership is termed a more nationalistic quality.
As a means of furthering civil membership through shared purpose or common value, civic republicanism not only involves engaging in civic responsibilities such as being well-informed about national politics, but also putting the national group over self-interest. Political involvement on a higher level constitutes constructive patriotism--the priority of a means to enact positive change. Standing in opposition to constructive patriotism, however, is “blind patriotism” (often described plainly as nationalism) which objects to criticism and holds an “unquestioning positive evaluation of, and staunch allegiance to, one’s own nation.
In the study, Hanson and O’Dwyer assess sentiments on these qualities among U.S. citizens. The survey questions were posed to 47 participants of various political ideologies in different locations around the United States. The questions were centered around the breakdown of political ideology as explained in factors.
“Factor 1: For the people,” was composed of seven males and 14 females; 16 Democrats and five Independents. All persons classified in Factor 1 had voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. These participants showed greater support for values that aligned with constructive patriotism and civic credal values. Participants in this group emphasized the importance of critiquing one’s country and striving for greater equality through active involvement in their ideological description of patriotism.
In “Factor 2: For the nation,” was composed of 11 males and 10 females, 16 of whom voted for Donald Trump, one for Clinton, two for a third party, and two of whom didn’t vote. Fifteen identified as Republicans, two as Libertarians, four as Independents. This participant group was defined by civic credal values, pride, and symbolic patriotism with more connections to individualism, free enterprise, equal opportunity, and access to the “American dream.” Also conflated within this ideology is the higher importance placed on the role of America’s armed forces to protect these national rights and values. Contrasting from Factor 1’s priority of dissidence and criticism as a means of patriotism, Factor 2 “disagreed that this criticism was done for the good of, or out of love for, the country.”
The biggest differences between the group factors go beyond these characteristics, however: “The importance of affection for the nation is also reflected in the observation that Factor 2’s endorsement of both pride and chauvinism was higher than Factor 1’s. The key difference between the two factors was not the disparity between pride and chauvinism, but instead a difference between the level of affection for the nation generally.”
The key difference between the two factors was not the disparity between pride and chauvinism, but instead a difference between the level of affection for the nation generally.”
These nuanced reinterpretations of nationalism and patriotism in their modern contexts have ideological precursors in the study of nations, seen in Hanson and O’Dwyer’s survey of nationalist theory. Most famously and commonly referenced is Benedict Anderson’s work on imagined national communities.
Written in 1983, Benedict Anderson’s “Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism” which lays out his theory of nations as imagined communities, is considered critical to the study of political science and geography. In his work, Anderson seeks to find the “origins of national consciousness”; in other words, how can people--with no knowledge of each other, different backgrounds, and different interests--form a cohesive national identity? Anderson was a scholar of southeast Asian political regimes, particularly those of Indonesia, China, and Vietnam. His doctorate work in these areas led him to speculate on a topic which he considered of immense importance in political spheres both past and present, but in his time, lacked discussion in the discipline of political theory: nationalism in the context of the imagined community. Nations in the modern era are collaborative imagined constructions or “imagined communities.” According to Anderson, “It is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion.”
How can people--with no knowledge of each other, different backgrounds, and different interests--form a cohesive national identity?
The Enlightenment age brought the dethroning of dynastic kingdoms and a growing preference for secularism and the principle of national sovereignty. The Industrial Revolution also had a crucial role through the formation of the printing press which promoted print culture and standardized language. This encouraged a national culture in the furthest reaches of each country. Although citizens might be separated geographically, they can connect through a shared media - mass-produced print. A mass literary public constitutes the imagined community that, “in its basic morphology set the stage for the modern nation.”
Anderson’s 1983 theory thus laid the groundwork for the current study of nationalism. Providing a means of inquiry, it gives context to shifting norms in the digital age. In the modern era where the printing press has been more or less replaced by the highly curated newsfeed and political divisions in media, more intricate forays into patriotic and nationalistic thought are wanting. Hanson and O’Dwyer’s study is an example of a nuanced examination of patriotism, nationalism, and where they diverge and meet. Further inquiries such as these in the context of the far more expansive “imagined communities'' of economic policy and sentiments on immigration are also well-needed.
Jaylee Davis is a GW Scope staff writer for the George Washington Undergraduate Review. A freshman majoring in English and minoring in American studies, she has extensively covered social media and politics from her high school magazine.
Comments