Saturday, July 19, 2014

WHAT IS NATIONALISM ? WHAT IS IT MEAN ?

WHAT    IS    NATIONALISM ? DEFINITION   OF  NATIONALISM

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the ideology. For other uses, see Nationalist (disambiguation).
Part of a series on
Nationalism
Politics portal
Nationalism is a belief, creed or political ideology that involves an individual identifying with, or becoming attached to, one's nation. Nationalism involves national identity, by contrast with the related construct of patriotism, which involves the social conditioning and personal behaviors that support a state's decisions and actions.[1]
From a psychological perspective, nationalism (national attachment) is distinct from other types of attachment, for example, attachment to a religion or a romantic partner. The desire for interpersonal attachment, or the need to belong, is one of the most fundamental human motivations.
From a political or sociological perspective, there are two main perspectives on the origins and basis of nationalism. One is the primordialist perspective that describes nationalism as a reflection of the ancient and perceived evolutionary tendency of humans to organize into distinct groupings based on an affinity of birth. The other is the modernist perspective that describes nationalism as a recent phenomenon that requires the structural conditions of modern society in order to exist.[2]
An alternative perspective to both of these lineages comes out of Engaged theory, and argues that while the form of nationalism is modern, the content and subjective reach of nationalism depends upon 'primordial' sentiments.[3]
There are various definitions for what constitutes a nation, however, which leads to several different strands of nationalism. It can be a belief that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic, cultural, religious, or identity group, or that multinationality in a single state should necessarily comprise the right to express and exercise national identity even by minorities.[4] The adoption of national identity in terms of historical development has commonly been the result of a response by influential groups unsatisfied with traditional identities due to inconsistency between their defined social order and the experience of that social order by its members, resulting in a situation of anomie that nationalists seek to resolve.[5] This anomie results in a society or societies reinterpreting identity, retaining elements that are deemed acceptable and removing elements deemed unacceptable, in order to create a unified community.[5] This development may be the result of internal structural issues or the result of resentment by an existing group or groups towards other communities, especially foreign powers that are or are deemed to be controlling them.[5]
National flags, national anthems and other symbols of national identity are commonly considered highly important symbols of the national community.[6][7][8][9]

History

White saltire clearly visible over white-bordered red cross on blue background.
The growth of a national identity was expressed in a variety of symbolic ways, including the adoption of a national flag. Pictured, a Scottish Union Flag in the 1704 edition of The Present State of the Universe.
In Europe before the development of nationalism, people were generally loyal to a religion or to a particular leader rather than to their nations.[citation needed]
With the emergence of a national public sphere and an integrated, country-wide economy in 18th century England, people began to identify with the country at large, rather than the smaller unit of their family, town or province. The early emergence of a popular patriotic nationalism took place in the mid-18th century, and was actively promoted by the government and by the writers and intellectuals of the time.[10] National symbols, anthems, myths, flags and narratives were assiduously constructed and adopted. The Union Flag was adopted as a national one, the patriotic song Rule, Britannia! was composed by Thomas Arne in 1740,[11] and the cartoonist John Arbuthnot created the character of John Bull as the personification of the national spirit.[12]
The widespread appeal of patriotic nationalism was massively augmented by the political convulsions of the late 18th century, the American and French Revolutions. Ultra-nationalist parties sprung up in France during the French Revolution.[13][14][15]
The term nationalism was first used by Johann Gottfried Herder the prophet of this new creed. Herder gave Germans new pride in their origins, and proclaimed a national message within the sphere of language, which he believed determines national thought and culture.[16] He attached exceptional importance to the concept of nationality and of patriotism – "he that has lost his patriotic spirit has lost himself and the whole worlds about himself", whilst teaching that "in a certain sense every human perfection is national".[17]
The political development of nationalism and the push for popular sovereignty culminated with the ethnic/national revolutions of Europe, for instance the Greek War of Independence.[13] Since that time, nationalism has become one of the most significant political and social forces in history, perhaps most notably as a major influence or postulate of World War I and especially World War II.[18][19][20][21] Benedict Anderson argued that, "Print language is what invents nationalism, not a particular language per se".[22]

Causes

Two major bodies of thought address the causes of nationalism:[2]
  1. the modernist perspective describes nationalism as a recent phenomenon that requires the structural conditions of modern society in order to exist
  2. the primordialist perspective describes nationalism as a reflection of the ancient and perceived evolutionary tendency of humans to organize into distinct groupings based on an affinity of birth
Roger Masters in The Nature of Politics (1989) says that both the primordialist and modernist conceptions of nationalism involve an acceptance of three levels of common interest of individuals or groups in national identity
  1. at an inter-group level, humans respond to competition or conflict by organizing into groups to either attack other groups or defend their group from hostile groups[23]
  2. at the intragroup level, individuals gain advantage through cooperation with others in securing collective goods that are not accessible through individual effort alone[23]
  3. on the individual level, self-interested concerns over personal fitness by individuals either consciously or subconsciously motivate the creation of group formation as a means of security[23]
The behaviour of leadership groups or élites that involves efforts to advance their own fitness when they are involved in the mobilization of an ethnic or national group is crucial in the development of the culture of that group.[23]

Primordialist interpretation

Beginning in 1821, the Greek War of Independence began as a rebellion by Greek nationalists against the ruling Ottoman Empire.
The primordialist perspective is based upon evolutionary theory.[24] The evolutionary theory of nationalism perceives nationalism to be the result of the evolution of human beings into identifying with groups, such as ethnic groups, or other groups that form the foundation of a nation.[24] Roger Masters in The Nature of Politics describes the primordial explanation of the origin of ethnic and national groups as recognizing group attachments that are thought to be unique, emotional, intense, and durable because they are based upon kinship and promoted along lines of common ancestry.[25]
The primordialist evolutionary view of nationalism has its origins in the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin that were later substantially elaborated by John Tooby and Leda Cosmides.[26] Central to evolutionary theory is that all biological organisms undergo changes in their anatomical features and their characteristic behaviour patterns.[26] Darwin's theory of natural selection as a mechanism of evolutionary change of organisms is utilized to describe the development of human societies and particularly the development of mental and physical traits of members of such societies.[27]
In addition to evolutionary development of mental and physical traits, Darwin and other evolutionary theorists emphasize the influence of the types of environment upon behaviour.[28] First of all there are ancestral environments that are typically long-term and stable forms of situations that influence mental development of individuals or groups gained either biologically through birth or learned from family or relatives, which cause the emphasis of certain mental behaviours that are developed due to the requirements of the ancestral environment.[28] In national group settings, these ancestral environments can result in psychological triggers in the minds of individuals within a group, such as responding positively to patriotic cues.[28] There are immediate environments that are those situations that confront an individual or group at a given point and activate certain mental responses.[28] In the case of a national group, the example of seeing the mobilization of a foreign military force on the nation's borders may provoke members of a national group to unify and mobilize themselves in response.[28] There are proximate environments where individuals identify nonimmediate real or imagined situations in combination with immediate situations that make individuals confront a common situation of both subjective and objective components that affect their decisions.[29] As such proximate environments cause people to make decisions based on existing situations and anticipated situations.[29] In the context of the politics of nations and nationalism, a political leader may adopt an international treaty not out of a benevolent stance but in the belief that such a treaty will either benefit their nation or will increase the prestige of their nation.[29] The proximate environment plays a role in the politics of nations that are angry with their circumstances (in much the same way that an individual or group's anger in response to feelings that they are being exploited usually results in efforts to accommodate them, while being passive results in them being ignored).[29] Nations that are angry with circumstances imposed on them by others are affected by the proximate environment that shapes the nationalism of such nations.[29]
Pierre van den Berghe in The Ethnic Phenomenon (1981) emphasizes the role of ethnicity and kinship involving family biological ties to members of an ethnic group as being an important element of national identity.[30] Van den Berghe states the sense of family attachments among related people as creating durable, intense, emotional, and cooperative attachments, that he claims are utilized within ethnic groups.[30] Van den Berghe identifies genetic-relatedness as being a basis for the durable attachments of family groups, as genetic ties cannot be removed and they are passed on from generation to generation.[30] Van den Berge identifies common descent as the basis for the establishment of boundaries of ethnic groups, as most people do not join ethnic groups but are born into them.[30] Berghe notes that this kinship group affiliation and solidarity does not require actual relatedness but can include imagined relatedness that may not be biologically accurate.[25] Berghe notes that feelings of ethnic solidarity usually arise in small and compact groups whereas there is less solidarity in large and dispersed groups.[31]
There are functionalist interpretations of the primordialist evolutionary theory. The functionalists claim that ethnic and national groups are founded upon individuals' concerns over distribution of resources acquired through individual and collective action.[32] This is resolved by the formation of a clan group that defines who is accepted within the group and defines the boundaries within which the resources will be distributed.[32] This functionalist interpretation does not require genetic-relatedness, and identifies a variety of reasons for ethnic or national group formation.[32] The first reason is that such groups may extend group identity and cooperation beyond the limits of family and kinship out of reciprocal altruism, in the belief that helping other individuals will produce an advantageous situation for both the sender and receiver of that help; this tendency has been noted in studies by Robert Axelrod that are summarized in his book The Evolution of Cooperation (1984).[32] The second reason is that such groups may be formed as a means of defense to insure survival, fears by one group of a hostile group threatening them can increase solidarity amongst that group, R. Paul Shaw and Yuwa Wong in their book The Genetic Seeds of Warfare (1989) identify this as the foundation of xenophobia that they identify as originating in hunter gatherer societies.[33]

Modernist interpretation

The modernist interpretation of nationalism and nation-building perceives that nationalism arises and flourishes in modern societies described as being associated with having: an industrial economy capable of self-sustainability of the society, a central supreme authority capable of maintaining authority and unity, and a centralized language or small group of centralized languages understood by a community of people.[34] Modernist theorists note that this is only possible in modern societies, while traditional societies typically: lack a modern industrial self-sustainable economy, have divided authorities, have multiple languages resulting in many people being unable to communicate with each other.[34]
Karl Marx wrote about the creation of nations as requiring a bourgeois revolution and an industrial economy.[35] Marx applied the modern versus traditional parallel to British colonial rule in India that Marx saw in positive terms as he claimed that British colonial rule was developing India, bringing India out of the "rural idiocy" of its "feudalism".[34] However Marx's theories at the time of his writing had little impact on academic thinking on the development of nation states.[34]
Prominent theorists who developed the modernist interpretation of nations and nationalism include: Carlton Joseph Huntley Hayes, Henry Maine, Ferdinand Tönnies, Émile Durkheim, Max Weber, and Talcott Parsons.[34]
Henry Maine in his analysis of the historical changes and development of human societies noted the key distinction between traditional societies defined as "status" societies based on family association and functionally diffuse roles for individuals; and modern societies defined as "contract" societies where social relations are determined by rational contracts pursued by individuals to advance their interests.[36] Maine saw the development of societies as moving away from traditional status societies to modern contract societies.[36]
Ferdinand Tönnies in his book Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft (1887) defined a gemeinschaft (community) as being based on emotional attachments as attributed with traditional societies, while defining a Gesellschaft (society) as an impersonal society that is modern.[36] While he recognized the advantages of modern societies he also criticized them for their cold and impersonal nature that caused alienation while praising the intimacy of traditional communities.[36]
Émile Durkheim expanded upon Tönnies' recognition of alienation, and defined the differences between traditional and modern societies as being between societies based upon "mechanical solidarity" versus societies based on "organic solidarity".[36] Durkheim identified mechanical solidarity as involving custom, habit, and repression that was necessary to maintain shared views.[36] Durkheim identified organic solidarity-based societies as modern societies where there exists a division of labour based on social differentiation that causes alienation.[36] Durkheim claimed that social integration in traditional society required authoritarian culture involving acceptance of a social order. Durkheim claimed that modern society bases integration on the mutual benefits of the division of labour, but noted that the impersonal character of modern urban life caused alienation and feelings of anomie.[36]
Max Weber claimed the change that developed modern society and nations is the result of the rise of a charismatic leader to power in a society who creates a new tradition or a rational-legal system that establishes the supreme authority of the state.[36] Weber's conception of charismatic authority has been noted as the basis of many nationalist governments.[36]

Varieties

Civic nationalism

Main article: Civic nationalism
Liberty Leading the People (Eugène Delacroix, 1830) is a famous example of nationalist art.
Civic nationalism (also known as liberal nationalism) defines the nation as an association of people who identify themselves as belonging to the nation, who have equal and shared political rights, and allegiance to similar political procedures.[37] According to the principles of civic nationalism, the nation is not based on common ethnic ancestry, but is a political entity whose core identity is not ethnicity. This civic concept of nationalism is exemplified by Ernest Renan in his lecture in 1882 "What is a Nation?", where he defined the nation as a "daily referendum" (frequently translated 'daily plebiscite") dependent on the will of its people to continue living together".[37]
Civic nationalism is a kind of non-xenophobic nationalism that is claimed to be compatible with liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights.[38][39][40] Ernest Renan[41] and John Stuart Mill[42] are often thought to be early liberal nationalists. Liberal nationalists often defend the value of national identity by saying that individuals need a national identity in order to lead meaningful, autonomous lives,[43][44] and that liberal democratic polities need national identity in order to function properly.[45][46]
Civic nationalism lies within the traditions of rationalism and liberalism, but as a form of nationalism it is contrasted with ethnic nationalism. Membership of the civic nation is considered voluntary, as in Ernest Renan's "daily referendum" formulation in What is a Nation?. Civic-national ideals influenced the development of representative democracy in countries such as the United States and France (see the United States Declaration of Independence of 1776, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789).

Ethnic nationalism

See also: Ethnic nationalism
Separatist murals of Països Catalans in Belfast
Whereas nationalism in and of itself does not necessarily imply a belief in the superiority of one ethnicity or country over others, some nationalists support ethnocentric supremacy and/or ethnocentric protectionism.

National purity

Some nationalists exclude certain groups. Some nationalists, defining the national community in ethnic, linguistic, cultural, historic, or religious terms (or a combination of these), may then seek to deem certain minorities as not truly being a part of the 'national community' as they define it. Sometimes a mythic homeland is more important for the national identity than the actual territory occupied by the nation.[47]

Poland

In the late 19th and early 20th century, many Polish nationalist leaders were in thrall to the Piast Concept. It held there was a Polish utopia during the Piast Dynasty a thousand years before, and modern Polish nationalists should restore its central values of Poland for the Poles. Jan Poplawski had developed the "Piast Concept" in the 1890s, and it formed the centerpiece of Polish nationalist ideology, especially as presented by the National Democracy Party, known as the "Endecja," which was led by Roman Dmowski. There was no place in the Piast Concept for a multicultural Poland.[48]
The Piast concept stood in opposition to the "Jagellon Concept," which allowed for multiculturalism and Polish rule over numerous minorities. The Jagellon Concept was the official policy of the government in the 1920s and 1930s. Stalin at Tehran rejected the Jagellon Concept because it involved Polish rule over Ukrainians and Belorussians. He instead endorsed the Piast Concept, which justified a massive shift of Poland's frontiers to the west.[49] After 1945 the Communist regime wholeheartedly adopted the Piast Concept, making it the centerpiece of their claim to be the true inheritors of Polish nationalism. After all the killings and population transfers during and after the war the nation was 99% "Polish."[50]

Left-wing nationalism

Parts of Caracas slums friendly to former Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez often feature political murals with anti-American and anti-imperialist messages.
Left-wing nationalism (occasionally known as socialist nationalism, not to be confused with national socialism)[51] refers to any political movement that combines left-wing politics with nationalism.
Many nationalist movements are dedicated to national liberation, in the view that their nations are being persecuted by other nations and thus need to exercise self-determination by liberating themselves from the accused persecutors. Anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninism is closely tied with this ideology, and practical examples include Stalin's early work Marxism and the National Question and his Socialism in One Country edict, which declares that nationalism can be used in an internationalist context, fighting for national liberation without racial or religious divisions. Other examples of left-wing nationalism include Fidel Castro's 26th of July Movement that launched the Cuban Revolution ousting the American-backed Fulgencio Batista in 1959, Cornwalls Mebyon Kernow, Ireland's Sinn Féin, Wales's Plaid Cymru, Scotland's SNP, the Awami League in Bangladesh and the African National Congress in South Africa.[citation needed]

Territorial nationalism

Main article: Territorial nationalism
Nationalist slogan "Brazil, love it or leave it", often used during the Brazilian military dictatorship.
Territorial nationalists assume that all inhabitants of a particular nation owe allegiance to their country of birth or adoption.[52] A sacred quality is sought in the nation and in the popular memories it evokes.[53] Citizenship is idealised by territorial nationalists. A criterion of a territorial nationalism is the establishment of a mass, public culture based on common values, codes and traditions of the population.[53]

Pan-nationalism

Pan-nationalism is unique in that it covers a large area span. Pan-nationalism focuses more on "clusters" of ethnic groups. Pan-Slavism is one example of Pan-nationalism. The goal was to unite all Slavic people into one country. They did succeed by uniting several south Slavic people into Yugoslavia 1918.[54]

Ultranationalism

Fans of the FC Karpaty Lviv football club honoring the Waffen-SS Galizien division, in Lviv, Ukraine, 2013
Ultranationalism is a zealous nationalism that expresses extremist support for one's nationalist ideals. It is often characterized by authoritarianism, efforts toward reduction or stoppage of immigration, expulsion and or oppression of non-native populations within the nation or its territories, demagoguery of leadership, emotionalism, fomenting talk of presumed, real, or imagined enemies, predicating the existence of threats to the survival of the native, dominant or otherwise idealized national ethnicity or population group, instigation or extremist reaction to crack-down policies in law enforcement, efforts to limit international trade through tariffs, tight control over businesses and production, militarism, populism and propaganda. Prevalent ultranationalism typically leads to or is the result of conflict within a state, and or between states, and is identified as a condition of pre-war in national politics.[citation needed] In its extremist forms ultranationalism is characterized as a call to war against enemies of the nation/state, secession or, in the case of ethnocentrist ultranationalism, genocide.[55]
Fascism is a form of palingenetic ultranationalism[56] that promotes "class collaboration" (as opposed to class struggle), a totalitarian state, and irredentism or expansionism to unify and allow the growth of a nation. Fascists sometimes promote ethnic or cultural nationalism. Fascism stresses the subservience of the individual to the state, and the need for absolute and unquestioned loyalty to a strong ruler.[57]

Anti-colonial nationalism

This form of nationalism came about during the decolonization of the post war periods. It was a reaction mainly in Africa and Asia against being subdued by foreign powers. It also appeared in the non-Russian territories of the Tsarist empire and later, the USSR, where Ukrainianists and Islamic Marxists condemned Russian Bolshevik rule in their territories as a renewed Russian imperialism. This form of nationalism took many guises, including the peaceful passive resistance movement led by Mahatma Gandhi in the Indian subcontinent.[58]
Benedict Anderson argued that anti-colonial nationalism is grounded in the experience of literate and bilingual indigenous intellectuals fluent in the language of the imperial power, schooled in its "national" history, and staffing the colonial administrative cadres up to but not including its highest levels. Post-colonial national governments have been essentially indigenous forms of the previous imperial administration.[59][60]

Criticisms

Main article: Anti-nationalism
Critics of nationalism have argued that it is often unclear what constitutes a "nation", or why a nation should be the only legitimate unit of political rule. A nation is a cultural entity, and not necessarily a political association, nor is it necessarily linked to a particular territorial area—although nationalists argue that the boundaries of a nation and a state should, as far as possible, coincide.[61] Philosopher A.C. Grayling describes nations as artificial constructs, "their boundaries drawn in the blood of past wars". He argues that "there is no country on earth which is not home to more than one different but usually coexisting culture. Cultural heritage is not the same thing as national identity".[62]
A snack bar sign advertising "American" fries at Knott's Berry Farm. The sign formerly read "French".
Nationalism is inherently divisive because it highlights perceived differences between people, emphasizing an individual's identification with their own nation. The idea is also potentially oppressive because it submerges individual identity within a national whole, and gives elites or political leaders potential opportunities to manipulate or control the masses.[63] Much of the early opposition to nationalism was related to its geopolitical ideal of a separate state for every nation. The classic nationalist movements of the 19th century rejected the very existence of the multi-ethnic empires in Europe. Even in that early stage, however, there was an ideological critique of nationalism. That has developed into several forms of anti-nationalism in the western world. The Islamic revival of the 20th century also produced an Islamic critique of the nation-state.
At the end of the 19th century, Marxists and other socialists (such as Rosa Luxemburg) produced political analysis that were critical of the nationalist movements then active in central and eastern Europe (though a variety of other contemporary socialists and communists, from Lenin (a communist) to Józef Piłsudski (a socialist), were more sympathetic to national self-determination).[64]
In his classic essay on the topic George Orwell distinguishes nationalism from patriotism, which he defines as devotion to a particular place. Nationalism, more abstractly, is "power-hunger tempered by self-deception."[65]
For Orwell, the nationalist is more likely than not dominated by irrational negative impulses:
There are, for example, Trotskyists who have become simply enemies of the U.S.S.R. without developing a corresponding loyalty to any other unit. When one grasps the implications of this, the nature of what I mean by nationalism becomes a good deal clearer. A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist—that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating—but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations. He sees history, especially contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units, and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the upgrade and some hated rival is on the downgrade. But finally, it is important not to confuse nationalism with mere worship of success. The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest, and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him.[65]
A wagon piled high with corpses of Nazi victims outside the crematorium in Buchenwald concentration camp (April 1945)
In the liberal political tradition there is widespread criticism of 'nationalism' as a dangerous force and a cause of conflict and war between nation-states. Nationalism has often been exploited to encourage citizens to partake in the nations' conflicts. Such examples include the two World Wars, where nationalism was a key component of propaganda material. Liberals do not generally dispute the existence of the nation-states. The liberal critique also emphasizes individual freedom as opposed to national identity, which is by definition collective.[citation needed]
The pacifist critique of nationalism also concentrates on the violence of nationalist movements, the associated militarism, and on conflicts between nations inspired by jingoism or chauvinism. National symbols and patriotic assertiveness are in some countries discredited by their historical link with past wars, especially in Germany. Famous pacifist Bertrand Russell criticizes nationalism for diminishing the individual's capacity to judge his or her fatherland's foreign policy.[66] Albert Einstein stated that "Nationalism is an infantile disease. ... It is the measles of mankind."[67]
The Encyclopedia of Religion states that "Nationalism has become a dominant form of religion in the modern world."[68]

See also

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Symbols of national identity.

Notes

  1. Rothi, Despina et al. (2005). National attachment and patriotism in a European nation: A British study. Political Psychology, 26, 135 - 155.
  2. Motyl 2001, p. 251.
  3. James, Paul (2006). Globalism, Nationalism, Tribalism: Bringing Theory Back In. London: Sage Publications.; James, Paul (1996). Nation Formation: Towards a Theory of Abstract Community. London: Sage Publications. ISBN 0-7619-5072-9.
  4. Kymlicka 1995, p. 16.
  5. Motyl 2001, p. 262.
  6. Billig 1995, p. 72.
  7. Gellner, Ernest (2005). Nations and Nationalism (2nd ed.). Blackwell. ISBN 1405134429.
  8. Canovan, Margaret (1996). Nationhood and Political Theory. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. ISBN 1-85278-852-6.
  9. Miller 1995, p. 160
  10. Gerald Newman (1997). The Rise of English Nationalism: A Cultural History, 1740-1830. Palgrave Macmillan.
  11. Scholes, Percy A (1970). The Oxford Companion to Music (tenth Edition). Oxford University Press. p. 897.
  12. Newman, Gerald G. (1987). The Rise of English Nationalism: A Cultural History, 1740-1830. New York: St. Martin's Press. ISBN 0-312-68247-6.
  13. "Nationalism". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2009-12-06.
  14. Smith, Anthony D. (1998). Nationalism and Modernism: A Critical Survey of Recent Theories of Nations and Nationalism. London: Routledge. ISBN 0415063418.
  15. Iain McLean, Alistair McMillan, Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, "French Revolution ... It produced the modern doctrine of nationalism, and spread it directly throughout Western Europe...", Oxford, 2009, ISBN 9780199205165.
  16. Votruba, Martin. "Herder on Language". Slovak Studies Program. University of Pittsburgh. Retrieved 2010-06-30.
  17. T. C. W. Blanning (2003). The Culture of Power and the Power of Culture: Old Regime Europe 1660-1789. Oxford University Press. pp. 259, 260. ISBN 9780199265619.
  18. Laqueur, Walter." Comparative Study of Fascism" by Juan J. Linz. Fascism, A Reader's Guide: Analyses, interpretations, Bibliography. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1976. Pp. 15 "Fascism is above all a nationalist movement and therefore wherever the nation and the state are strongly identified."
  19. Laqueur, Walter. Fascism: Past, Present, Future. Oxford University Press, 1997. Pp. 90. "the common belief in nationalism, hierarchical structures, and the leader principle."
  20. "Goebbels on National-Socialism, Bolshevism and Democracy, Documents on International Affairs, vol. II, 1938, pp. 17-19. Accessed from the Jewish Virtual Library on February 5, 2009. [1] Joseph Goebbels describes the Nazis as being allied with countries which had "authoritarian nationalist" ideology and conception of the state "It enables us to see at once why democracy and Bolshevism, which in the eyes of the world are irrevocably opposed to one another, meet again and again on common ground in their joint hatred of and attacks on authoritarian nationalist concepts of State and State systems. For the authoritarian nationalist conception of the State represents something essentially new. In it the French Revolution is superseded.".
  21. Koln, Hans; Calhoun, Craig. The Idea of Nationalism: A Study in its Origins and Background. Transaction Publishers. Pp 20.
    University of California. 1942. Journal of Central European Affairs. Volume 2.
  22. Anderson 1983, p. 122.
  23. Motyl 2001, p. 253.
  24. Motyl 2001, pp. 272-273.
  25. Motyl 2001, p. 273.
  26. Motyl 2001, p. 268.
  27. Motyl 2001, p. 269.
  28. Motyl 2001, p. 271.
  29. Motyl 2001, p. 272.
  30. Motyl 2001, p. 274.
  31. Motyl 2001, p. 275.
  32. Motyl 2001, p. 276.
  33. Motyl 2001, p. 277.
  34. Motyl 2001, pp. 508-509.
  35. Motyl 2001, p. 509.
  36. Motyl 2001, p. 510.
  37. Nash, Kate (2001). The Blackwell companion to political sociology. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 391. ISBN 0631210504.
  38. Tamir, Yael. 1993. Liberal Nationalism. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-07893-9
  39. Kymlicka 1995, p. 200.
  40. Miller 1995, pp. 188–189
  41. Renan, Ernest. 1882. "Qu'est-ce qu'une nation?"
  42. Mill, John Stuart. 1861. Considerations on Representative Government.
  43. Kymlicka 1995, p. 34.
  44. For criticism, see: Patten, Alan. 1999. "The Autonomy Argument for Liberal Nationalism." Nations and Nationalism. 5(1): 1-17.
  45. Miller 1995, p. 136
  46. For criticism, see: Abizadeh, Arash. 2002. "Does Liberal Democracy Presuppose a Cultural Nation? Four Arguments." American Political Science Review 96 (3): 495-509; Abizadeh, Arash. 2004. "Liberal Nationalist versus Postnational Social Integration." Nations and Nationalism 10(3): 231-250.
  47. Smith, Anthony D. 1986. The Ethnic Origins of Nations London: Basil Blackwell. pp 6–18. ISBN 0-631-15205-9.
  48. Geoffrey A. Hosking and George Schöpflin (1997). Myths and Nationhood. Routledge. p. 152.
  49. Tony Sharp, "The Origins of the 'Teheran Formula' on Polish Frontiers," Journal of Contemporary History (1977) 12#2 pp. 381-393 in JSTOR
  50. Davies. Heart of Europe. pp. 286–87.
  51. "Political Science, Volume 35, Issue 2; ''Class and Nation: Problems of Socialist Nationalism''". .interscience.wiley.com. 2006-12-22. Retrieved 2012-04-13.
  52. Middle East and North Africa: Challenge to Western Security by Peter Duignan and L.H. Gann, Hoover Institution Press, 1981, ISBN 978-0817973926 (page 22)
  53. Leoussi 2001, p. 62.
  54. https://www.academia.edu/3046051/Panslavizm_ideologiya_i_politika_40-e_gody_XIX_-_nachalo_XX_veka_Pan-Slavism_Ideology_and_Politics_1840s_-_Early_20th_century_ Panslavizm: ideologiya i politika (40-e gody XIX – nachalo XX veka) [Pan-Slavism: Ideology and Politics (1840s – Early 20th century)]more by Anna Grigorieva
  55. Connor, Walker (1994). Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. p. 29. ISBN 9780691025636.
  56. Griffin, Roger (1994). Staging The Nation's Rebirth: The Politics and Aesthetics of Performance in the Context of Fascist Studies. Retrieved 2010-09-21.
  57. Roger Griffin, Fascism, Oxford University Press, 1995, ISBN 978-0192892492.
  58. Grant, Moyra. "Politics Review". Politics Review. Retrieved 16 April 2011.
  59. Anderson 1983, pp. 37–46.
  60. Velychenko, Stephen (October 2012). "Ukrainia Anticolonialist Thought in Comparative Perspective". Ab Imperio (4): 339.
  61. Heywood, Andrew (1999). Political Theory: An Introduction (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan Press. pp. 97–98. ISBN 0333760913.
  62. Grayling, A.C. (2001). The Meaning of Things: Applying Philosophy to Life. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. pp. 78–79. ISBN 0297607588.
  63. Heywood, Andrew (2000). Key Concepts in Politics. London: Macmillan Press. p. 256. ISBN 0333770951.
  64. Cliff, Tony (1959). "Rosa Luxemburg and the national question". Marxists Internet Archive. Retrieved 2008-08-02.
  65. George Orwell, Notes on Nationalism, orwell.ru.
  66. Russell Speaks His Mind, 1960. Fletcher and son Ltd., Norwich, United Kingdom
  67. Viereck, George Sylvester (26 October 1929). "What Life Means to Einstein". The Saturday Evening Post. p. 117. Retrieved 19 May 2013.
  68. Lindsay Jones (2005). Encyclopedia of religion. Macmillan Reference USA. p. 5398. ISBN 978-0-02-865741-7.

References

Further reading

External links

Find more about Nationalism at Wikipedia's sister projects
Definitions and translations from Wiktionary
Media from Commons
Quotations from Wikiquote
Source texts from Wikisource
Textbooks from Wikibooks
Learning resources from Wikiversity

Posted by at No comments:

Friday, July 18, 2014

LIKE FATHER , LIKE SON.



Posted by at No comments:

MY BABY SON GABRIEL JAPHET MASATU-----20 / 01 / 2007.


Posted by at No comments:

STUDENTS OF MANZESE SECONDARY SCHOOL , DAR--ES--SALAA M , TANZANIA ---18/07/2014


Posted by at No comments:

FOREIGN TEACHER FROM OXFORD UNIVERSITY , ENGLAND TEACHING AT MANZESE SECONDARY SCHOOL ,TANZANIA--18 /07 /2014


Posted by at No comments:

STUDENTS OF MANZESE SECONDARY SCHOOL , TANZANIA LISTENING TO FOREIGN TEACHER FROM OXFORD UNIVERSITY , ENGLAND---- 18 / 07 / 2014.


Posted by at No comments:

THE IMPORTANCE OF STUDYING CIVICS.

WHY  STUDY   CIVICS ?

  • civics--the study of civic affairs and the duties and rights of citizenship
  • civic--of a city, citizens, or citizenship
Let's start by breaking down the definition of "civics":
  • "the study of civic affairs. . . "--By studying civics, you will learn how our government, economic system and political system are supposed to operate. You will, for example, be better able to determine who is right in controversies over "big, active government" vs. "small, limited government". You'll understand why the founding fathers wanted the colonies to break away from the British crown, and why they set up the United States government as a republic instead of as a democracy. Things like the power shortage mess in California won't be near as mystifying to you, because you'll be able to understand just what went wrong. Debates over whether or not to raise the minimum wage, or whether or not to cut income tax rates will make more sense to you. And, if another fiasco like the presidential election of 2000 comes up, you'll be able to understand the issues.
  • ". . . the duties and rights of citizenship"--Most citizens of the United States are at least vaguely aware that they have certain rights. But, there is a certain amount of confusion over what those rights are. Take, for example, the First Amendment rights of free speech. In modern times, this amendment has been interpreted to also mean "free expression". So, when Congress tries to pass a law against burning the United States flag, the courts say, "No, you can't do that. You'll be violating the people's right to 'free expression'". There have also been cases where someone will want to set up a strip bar somewhere. But, the local government will say, "Wait a minute. A lot of people here would rather not have that type of business in our neighborhood." The prospective strip bar owner will reply, "Ah, but you have to let us in. If you don't allow young ladies to come to my bar and dance nude before a crowd of men, you'll be violating their First Amendment right of free expression." Of course, others will argue that the First Amendment was never meant to protect these kinds of activities, but was meant instead to protect a person who feels the need to criticize members of government. By studying civics, you'll be better able to determine who's right in these sorts of arguments.

    By the same token, it's also good to know just what your rights are as a U. S. citizen. Suppose, for example, that a pair of city or county social workers were to come to your door, and tell you that they'd heard reports that you and your spouse have been abusing your children. They don't have a search warrant, but they demand that you let them in so that they can undress your children and examine them for bruises. You are, of course, innocent; you have nothing to hide. So, you let them in because you believe that you would be disobeying the law to act otherwise. But, do you have to? This scenario does play itself out in these United States. But, by studying civics, you'll be better able to deal with this sort of situation should it arise.

    Notice, though, that there are also     duties of citizenship. That doesn't mean that you have to exert yourself to become a great political leader, although you can if you want. But, if you're familiar with the basic principles of civics, you'll be a better informed voter. You'll be able to examine politicians' positions, and determine whether or not they'll be good for the country, or for the cause of liberty. You'll be able to determine if the candidates' positions are in line with the Constitution. As a result, you'll not only be helping to protect your own freedom, but also that of your fellow citizens.
Posted by at No comments:

DEFINITION OF CIVICS AND WHY STUDY CIVICS ?

Civics is the study of rights and duties of citizenship. In other words, it is the study of government with attention to the role of citizens as opposed to external factors in the operation and oversight of government.

Why is civics important?

The study of civics is important because it helps people to understand how government works, and it provides people with knowledge about how to influence government as a citizen. Generally speaking, civics is the study of what it means to be a citizen in a particular nation.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution had several concepts in mind: They did not want to establish a king, they wanted to diversify the decision-making process in the creation of laws, and they wanted to establish a system in which ordinary citizens have a significant voice. For this reason, they created a tripartite government in which no aspect of government has sole authority over laws and legality. For example, while Congress passes laws, the president has to sign them (for the most part), and the judicial system provides recourse when the laws are unfair. In order for this system to operate, people need to know about how it is supposed to work so that politicians and judges can operate properly and also so that citizens can challenge leaders when the leaders are in the wrong. Further, civics instruction can provide students with opportunities to consider local and national issues and learn about what citizens can do to create change where problems exist. For example, a large portion of the civil rights movement involved the use of the courts rather than a revolution to strike down laws pertaining to the segregation of schools. Civics, then, helps people to understand and to influence the legal context in which they find themselves; this is why it is a critical subject to study.
 
Posted by at No comments:

WHAT IS CIVICS ?

WHAT    IS   CIVICS ?

INTRODUCTION:
Part of a series on
Politics
Ballot box
Politics portal
Part of the Politics series
Basic forms of government
Power structure
Power source
Authoritarianism
Democracy
Monarchy
Oligarchy
Other
Politics portal
Civics is the study of the great theoretical and practical aspects of citizenship, its rights and duties; the duties of citizens to each other as members of a political body and to the government.[1] It includes the study of civil law and civil code, and the study of government with attention to the role of citizens ― as opposed to external factors ― in the operation and oversight of government.[1]
Within a given political or ethical tradition, civics refers to educating the citizens. The history of civics dates back to the earliest theories of civics by Confucius in ancient China and Plato in ancient Greece. In China also along with Confucianism developed the tradition of Legalism. These traditions in the East and in the West developed to an extent differently, therefore, with bringing in the past different concepts of citizens rights and the application of justice, together with different ethics in public life. This was mainly valid before the translation of the Western legal tradition to Chinese which started in 1839 after which influence by Western tradition was brought to China, with periods of restoration of traditional Chinese law, influence by Soviet law; specific is the common ordinary language used in Chinese laws which has significant educational role.

Examples of civic activity

See also: Civic engagement

Voting

Voting is an important component of civics. Voting involves studying candidates on the ballot to understand each candidate's position and qualification. Voting also includes understanding the propositions that are on the ballot. Voting directly affects how government functions by selecting the candidate to work in the government.

Jury duty

Jury duty is a responsibility of a citizen to participate in the legal process.

Townhall meeting

The Townhall meeting is another example of civics. Townhall meetings allow government representatives and members of civil society in specific voting districts meet face to face to review issues and show support or opposition to initiatives. Meetings are publicly announced and attendance is open unless otherwise stipulated.

Government

Of special concern are the choice of a form of government and (if this is any form of democracy) the design of an electoral system and ongoing electoral reform. This involves explicitly comparing voting systems, wealth distribution and the decentralization of political and legal power, control of legal systems and adoption of legal codes, and even political privacy — all seen as important to avoid social (civil) dystrophy[2] or a lapse into some undesirable state of totalitarianism or theocracy. Each of these concerns tends to make the process of governance different, as variations in these norms tend to produce a quite different kind of state. Civics was often simply concerned with the balance of power between say an aristocracy and monarchy—a concern echoed to this day in the struggles for power between different levels of rulers—say of the weaker nation-states to establish a binding international law that will have an effect even on the stronger ones. Thus world government is itself properly a civic problem. Also, it is the study of duties and rights of citizenship.
On smaller scales, modern human development theory attempts to unify ethics and small-scale politics with the urban and rural economies of sustainable development. Notable theorists including Jane Jacobs and Carol Moore argue that political secession of either cities or distinct bio regions and cultures is an essential pre-requisite to applying any widely shared ethics, as the ethical views of urban and rural people, different cultures or those engaged in different types of agriculture, are irreconcilably different. This extreme advocacy of decentralization is hardly uncommon, and leads to the minimal theory of civics – anarchism.
Civics refers not to the ethical or moral or political basis by which a ruler acquires power, but only to the processes and procedures they follow in actually exercising it.
Recently, the concept of global civics has also been suggested as a way of applying civics in the highly interdependent and globalized world of the 21st century. Many people feel that increasing knowledge and awareness of individual citizen's rights can enhance global political and economic understanding. Nations such as the United States have been criticized for minimizing public civics education opportunities in the past several years.

Examples of different types

Most civic theories are more trusting of public institutions, and can be characterizing on a scale from least (mob rule) to most (the totalitarian) degree of trust placed in the government. At the risk of extreme oversimplification, an historical view of civic theory in action suggests that the theories be ranked as follows:
Philosophy Description Example
Ochlocracy (aka: Mob Rule) Trusting of the instincts and power of large groups—no consistent civics at all.[3] Lynching
Anarchism No government or other hierarchy, a common ethical code enforced only by personal governance (self-rule) and voluntary association.[4] Anarchist Catalonia
Minarchy A minimal hierarchy—e.g. sometimes said to include Eco-anarchism
Libertarianism A philosophy based on the premise that all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and that personal and economic freedom should be maximized as much as possible without Government intervening in personal and business matters. The purpose of Government would only exist to protect and defend the freedom of the people. Another term would be Constitutionalism set forth by The United States Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights. The people would live through Voluntary association through the Free market, This is commonly known as Limited government. Not to be confused with Anarchism. as advocated by Murray Rothbard, Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Ron Paul,
Direct democracy Decisions made directly by the people without guidance or moral suasion, usually relying on multiple choices laid out by experts as advocated by Ross Perot
Deliberative democracy Decisions made by locally grouped citizens obligated to participate in consensus decision making process as advocated by Ralph Nader
Representative democracy A political class of elected representatives is trusted to carry out duties for the electors – these may be responsible to any group in society, or none, once elected United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, USA, France, Germany, India
Technocracy Reliance on castes of bureaucrats and scientists to rule society, and define risk for the whole society – sometimes generalized into anticipatory democracy. Can be interpreted as leading to or including kleptocracy China
Aristocracy General trust in one class in society to rule and protect, e.g. members of particular noble families that have worked for and/or defended the community across many generations (i.e. "old" money), upholding traditions, standards of living, art, culture, commerce, and defense. Not to be confused with plutocracy, where rule is based solely on financial wealth. Ancient Greek city-states were by 700s B.C., generally ruled by an aristocracy. The Roman aristocratic class spearheaded the Roman Republic. The aristocratic families of Republic of Venice and Republic of Genoa held sway during most of the history of the mentioned Italian city-states. See also Patrician (post-Roman Europe), Republic of Ragusa.
Theocracy Government led by religious beliefs or culture. Theocracies are led by powerful religious figures and follow rules based on religious documents. Vatican City, Islamic Republic of Iran
Constitutional monarchy A monarch, possibly purely symbolic and devoted to moral example, avoiding vesting such popularity in any less trustworthy political figure—typically tied to at least some deliberative institutions, and making the monarch a tiebreaker or mediator or coach United Kingdom, Spain, Japan, Thailand, Canada, and the Netherlands
Absolute monarchy A monarchy who carries absolute power, with no requirement to answer to the legislature, judiciary, or the citizenry. Rule is generally hereditary. Saudi Arabia, Brunei, Oman
Dictatorship A political or military ruler who has the powers of the monarch(people), but whose basis for rule is not hereditary, but based upon military or political power. Benito Mussolini, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler, Julius Caesar, Francisco Franco, Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, Seyed Ali Khamenei, Ferdinand Marcos
Note: examples are included only to help familiarize readers with the basic idea of the scale—they are not intended to be conclusive or to categorize these individuals other than the civics that they exercise or exemplify.

Criticism of civic education

Sudbury schools contend that values, social justice and democracy must be learned through experience[5][6][7][8] as Aristotle said: "For the things we have to learn before we can do them, we learn by doing them."[9] They adduce that for this purpose schools must encourage ethical behavior and personal responsibility. In order to achieve these goals schools must allow students the three great freedoms—freedom of choice, freedom of action and freedom to bear the results of action—that constitute personal responsibility.[10] The "strongest, political rationale" for democratic schools is that they teach "the virtues of democratic deliberation for the sake of future citizenship."[11] This type of education is often alluded to in the deliberative democracy literature as fulfilling the necessary and fundamental social and institutional changes necessary to develop a democracy that involves intensive participation in group decision making, negotiation, and social life of consequence.

See also

References

  1. Frederick Converse Beach, George Edwin Rines, The Americana: a universal reference library, comprising the arts and sciences, literature, history, biography, geography, commerce, etc., of the world, Volume 5, Scientific American compiling department, 1912, p.1
  2. "The Russian Paradigm of Lacking Freedoms in the Context of the Global “Inversion” of Human Rights" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-08-03.
  3. "theocracy" Online Entomology Dictionary. 2001. Online Entomology Dictionary.
  4. "Anarchy" Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online.
  5. Greenberg, D. (1992), Education in America - A View from Sudbury Valley, "'Ethics' is a Course Taught By Life Experience." Retrieved June 25, 2010.
  6. Greenberg, D. (1987), The Sudbury Valley School Experience, "Teaching Justice Through Experience." Retrieved June 25, 2010.
  7. Greenberg, D. (1992), Education in America - A View from Sudbury Valley, "Democracy Must be Experienced to be Learned." Retrieved June 25, 2010.
  8. Greenberg, D. (1987) Chapter 35, "With Liberty and Justice for All," Free at Last — The Sudbury Valley School. Retrieved June 25, 2010.
  9. Bynum, W.F. and Porter, R. (eds) (2005) Oxford Dictionary of Scientific Quotations. Oxford University Press. 21:9.
  10. Greenberg, D. (1987) The Sudbury Valley School Experience "Back to Basics - Moral basics." Retrieved June 25, 2010.
  11. Curren, R. (2007) Philosophy of Education: An Anthology. Blackwell Publishing. p 163.

External links

Look up civics in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)