NORAVANK LECTURING TAMARA VARDANYAN: "ESSENCE AND FUNCTIONS OF NATIONALISM”
On November 14 in “Noravank” Foundation was delivered a lecture on the subject “Essence and functions of nationalism” (lectured by Tamara Vardanyan: the head of the Social science program in “Noravank” Foundation, Candidate of Historical Science) in accordance with the “Noaravank” educational program on “Armenia and the Armenians in global developments: the present situation and challenges.”
The word “nationalist” was created in the 18th century in England and at first it only meant belonging to a certain nation, and the conceptions “nationalism,” “nationalistic,” was first put into scientific circulation in 1798, by the founder of the order of Jesuit Illuminators, Professor of Religious Right Adam Weishaupt, who was using these terms in a negative sense.
During the past two centuries this conception was enriched by new meanings. The researchers distinguish several stages of that process. The first stage (1789-1871) is considered to be the period of crating the ideology of nationalism. Being given birth at the period of the Great French Revolution, this stage changed the former approach to the monarchic power: if in the past the monarchical power had been considered to be the only legitimate god-given power, than the French revolutionists claimed for reconsideration of this principle, the nation was announced to be the source of legitimate power and was put forward the slogan “Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood.” This stage was over by the unification of Germany under Otto von Bismarck. In this very period in Europe and Northern America finished the process of formation of nation-states: England, France, Italy, Germany, US. In this stage Nationalism was considered to be a positive phenomena and the term was apprehended as the synonym of the word patriotism.
In the second stage (1871-1945) the nation-states began carrying out aggressive operations aiming at their further development and prosperity, which was displayed in colonizing Asia and Africa by power states. In this stage nationalism, as a phenomenon, was subjected to criticism and some negative shades appeared in its perception. The term “nationalism” becomes the synonym of the words chauvinism, racism, in spite of the fact that in the very period (in the Berlin conference in 1878) is for the first time declared about the principle of “the rights of nations to self-determination.” At that period Bulgaria parted from the Ottoman Empire and got independence, Serbia, Macedonia and Montenegro were granted autonomy. In 1918 the US president V. Wilson published his quite popular 14 points, which were also declaring the principle of “the rights of nations to self-determination” as an imperative factor of the international law.
The third stage (1945-75) was the period of collapse for the colonizer states and upsurge of national-liberation movements. In this period these movements were characterized as progressive phenomena both by the side of the states of Communist camp and the leftist (not Communist) influential powers in the western countries. Whereas, the Helsinki Accord, signed in 1975, announced “Territorial integrity of sovereign countries” as an imperative principle of international policy, which was in serious conflict with the principle of “self-determination of peoples.”
As for characterizing nationalism, that is, if it is a negative of positive phenomenon, it is the subject of active discussions among political scientists and social scientists. From the one hand, the aspiration of people to preserve their own culture, language and identity is quite natural, from the other hand, these natural claims turn into claims of special privileges for their nation which results civil inequality.
Nationalism has also the characteristic traits of reverting to the past, old traditions, to its roots, which is often presented as modernization and democratization process hindering occurrence. In our society the conception “nationalism” was the subject of more intensive discussions thanks to democratization processes. One was free to say that in the Soviet science, sociological and political practice the term “nationalism” was only used in the negative meaning, when it was necessary to criticize deviation from the principles of internationalism and non-adherence to them. Only after the collapse of the Soviet Union were translated the works of well-known theorist in this field such as E. Gelner, E. Hobsbawm, E. Smith and the others.
Theorists of nationalism also consider it to be political conception, ideology or emotional mediations and feelings. So, according to E. Hobsbawm, “nationalism is more probable to be a political program” but K. Deych considers that “nationalism is such a condition of mind, when in decision making process in social relations special accent is put on “national information,” memory and characters.” Another theorist of nationalism, E. Smith, says “about ethnic roots of nationalism” and in his researches mentions that nationalism is based on legends.
One can find more generalized definitions of nationalism in a special literature. For example: “nationalism is a complex of convictions about normative importance (significance) of nation and ethnicity,” or “to understand why nationalism succeeds or fails, it should be taken up as an ideology or movement directed at preserving those national interests, the common denominator of which is to secure favorable conditions for the nation’s existence.”
Nationalism is such a many-sided phenomenon that all these theories, which are often mutually exclusive, are often true, that’s why it will be better to consider them to be complementary and mutually enriching. It is supposed that in national movements one should be able to distinguish both positive and negative developments and take into consideration often mutually exclusive marks of the very occurrence. One has come to agree with the assertion of Pfaff that “nationalism is the manifestation of both love and hatred as well as the fundamental element of contemporary political life and international relations.”
A group of authors (American- B. Shayfer, L. Doubu, R. Emerson, R. Straus Hype) think that being a nationalist is to have a call of duty to the Motherland, to be citizen loving his country. These theorists put the sign of equality between the nationalist and the patriot. There are authors (American – Hans Kohn, Hayes, Snayder, Emerson; French – Jirardo; German - Leiberg) who think that as the main definitions of nationalism one can point out exceptional devotion to the national society, perception of a national state as an ideal model of organizing social life and support to development and welfare of the national state. A number of researchers consider the nation to be a model of social agreement which excludes any social conflict in it. Some of them think that no nation can exist without nationalism: by menas of nationalism it is possible to preserve nation, or else the nation will be left without ideological basis and without parents. Contemporary Russian authors give more negative shades to this conception.
Nationalism is one of the most powerful contemporary movements; it may be compared with liberalism and democracy, however, at present, many researchers consider nationalism to be the main universal global ideology. So, B. Anderson considers that nationalism may be compared neither with liberalism nor with fascism. It must be considered on the same level with “religion” or “ties of relationship,” as neither liberalism nor fascism discuss the idea of immortality, whereas nationalism was created to immortalize the individual by means of immortalizing the nation. And when the religious teaching in Europe weakened, the human being began searching another way leading to immortality. Appeared the nation which had to realize these functions. One of the French thinkers, Debre, says, “Yes, I happened to be born a Frenchman, but the France itself is immortal, isn’t it?” In the Armenian reality we see the idea of immortalizing an individual’s life by means of immortalizing a nation still in 451, in the slogan of Avarair warriors: “deliberate death is a death, but not deliberate death is immortality.”
E.Hobsbaun mentions that very soon, in the 21st century, nationalism will disappear as it is not actual today, as its main function, formation of state and economics, has been completed.
Nationalism is not a mare complex of ideas. It determines behavior, mode of life and ideology. According to a nationalist a nation has the following characteristic rates:
- the nation is the owner of its native land;
- the nation is the only legitimate source of political power and its native land;
- the nation is the first step of group identification.
Basing on these characteristics, nationalism realizes three main functions:
- Determines (at least approximately) the native land of the nation, its geographical borders. Not the ones at the very period, but the ones it used to have in the past or is probable to have in the future – according to the principle of equity. In this sense the history text books are very important.
- Determines the model of political self-organization, which will become the most optimal one and guarantee existence and development of the nation. The nationalists consider the national state to be the most effective ruling model ever created by humanity for the nation’s existence and development. Accordingly, one of the most important functions of nationalism is to create a national state, and should it happen to be already created – to preserve and strengthen it.
- Determines the borders of population making the very nation, i.e. everybody who can be considered to be the representative of this nation. Here is established the “We,” which has a right to control the resources and the territory of the native land.
Besides the above mentioned, nationalism also has a nation building function. According to constructivist approaches, the nation was created by nationalists. However, one should mention that nation creation doesn’t always succeed. That is, nationalism can not create a nation everywhere. For example, why isn’t it possible to create a nation in multinational empires? The history knows many empires which collapsed as more than one nation was inhabited on that territory they occupied.
At the end of the lecturer the lecturer was flooded with question which was turned into an hour-long discussion. An attempt was made compare the above mentioned with Armenian realities.
