Summary:
Devin Stewart on the nation-state myth. Whereas the idea of a state is useful and necessary, the idea of the nation-state is an illusion, and, like religion, requires a leap of faith. Identities within nations are often as varied as they are between nations. E.g. China's "Han majority" is linguistically, culturally, and even genetically diverse. China is much more than a nation-state. The concept “Chinese” is a meaningless word that was fabricated to justify rule over minorities. The Japanese are particularly keen to think of themselves as one "people" and talk of "Japaneseness", but actually comprise Ainu, Koreans, Chinese, Filipinos, and Ryuku. Closely related to the Nation-State Myth is the Origin Myth. The origin myth continues ad infinitum until we reach humanity’s common ancestor. The nation-state concept offers a way to consolidate and legitimize a state’s rule over a group of people, although the contours of a cultural community rarely coincide with a political entity. It obscures the fact that humanity's greatest threats are global and do not respect national sovereignty. If policymakers are to address today’s problems, they must think more broadly. An introduction to ethics in international affairs — moral philosophy, human rights, and the role of non-state actors — should be mainstreamed in international relations curricula. (Published: 03/09/08)
Notes:
- nation-state myth conflates two ideas
- one that is concrete: the state
- one that is fuzzy: the nation
- the state
- utility of the state is clear
- a necessary organizing principle that allows people to pool their resources for the common good and mobilize against common threats
- whether they are floods or invading armies
- the state is also the final arbiter of law
- state power is even on the rise
- partly as a backlash to globalization and as a result of growing wealth from energy markets
- the nation-state
- the nation-state as a basis for statecraft obscures the nature of humanity’s greatest threats
- pollution, terrorism, pandemics, and climate change are global phenomena.
- do not respect national sovereignty
- necessitate global cooperation
- origin of the nation-state idea is unclear
- most agree that it offered a way to consolidate and legitimize a state’s rule over a group of people
- whether defined by a common language, culture, or ethnicity
- problem is that the contours of a cultural community rarely coincide with a political entity
- nor does the ideal of national unity account for internal diversity and conflict
- like religion, the nation-state myth requires a leap of faith
- identities within nations
- are fluid, even from minute to minute
- division of core and periphery is common in many countries
- person’s identity would change during the course of a conversation
- China
- often thought to be governed by the Han majority
- but: this group is linguistically, culturally, and even genetically diverse
- Ian Buruma: it is not clear what people mean by “China.”
- e.g. Taiwan is an independent state but is officially part of China
- Chinese culture and language has spread all over the world
- “China” is much more than just a nation-state
- Taiwanese scholar Lee Hsiao-feng
- recently argued that the concept “Chinese” is a meaningless word that was fabricated to justify rule over minorities
- Japan
- some argue that Japan is an example of a nation-state
- Japanese people actually comprise Ainu, Koreans, Chinese, Filipinos, and Ryuku
- stubborn Japanese response: “Yes, but we want to believe that there is a Japanese people.”
- they even have a field of study devoted to examining what it means to be Japanese
- Japanese scholar Yoshihisa Hagiwara
- argues that since it is not grounded in fact, the nation-state myth is bound to dissolve, giving way to an understanding that we are merely individuals who are part of a global community
- laments that the Japanese are especially fond of the idea of “Japaneseness,” making it possible that Japan may become the “last hero” of a dying ethos
- the Origin myth
- e.g. ancestors from Norway
- the origin myth continues ad infinitum until we reach humanity’s common ancestor
- or an actual myth
- a black egg in China, a spear in the ocean in Japan, or the interaction of fire and ice in France
- implication for policy
- if policymakers are to address today’s problems, they must think more broadly
- one place to start may be to reexamine the concept of the nation-state
- which students around the world are taught is the basic unit of international relations
- beyond the core Realist theories of balance of power, an introduction to ethics in international affairs — moral philosophy, human rights, and the role of non-state actors — should be mainstreamed in international relations curricula
- a united front against the biggest problems facing the world will require a fundamental shift in attitude
- away from parochialism and toward a redefinition of self-interest
- enlightened self-interest can be state-based
- but interests would be re-defined to encompass universal principles
- such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
- if these interests are to gain universal recognition, we will need to shed the nation-state myth once and for all
