Why nationalism remains a powerful force in the twenty-first century

Why does Nationalism remain a powerful force in the world? An international relations scholar explores the issue.

This post is by Dr Haro Karkour, Online Tutor for Queen Mary Online's MA in International Relations and MSc in International Public Policy. Haro's research focuses on International Relations (IR) Theory.

In the nineteenth century, Karl Marx believed that workers of the world would unite and reject nationalism for the international proletariat. In the twentieth century, David Mitrany argued that national loyalties would wane gradually through the formation of functional institutions.

These arguments proved to be wrong. Nationalism, as seen with Trumpism and Brexit recently, remains a powerful force in world politics. What accounts for this resilience? Why does nationalism persist to this day?

The continuing power of nationalism

There are different theories as to why nationalism remains a powerful force in the world. In recent a lecture, John Mearsheimer, considers nationalism as an unchanging force to preserve local culture and identity. In particular, Mearsheimer believes that the power of nationalism stems from three sources: first, it is ‘in sync with human nature’, by which he means that it fulfils the desire for in-group protection.

Second, nationalism is based on common culture and agreement on ‘first principles’ such as basic moral values.

Finally, nationalism fulfils the emotional needs of the individual by creating a community feeling. The trouble with Mearsheimer’s assessment is that it de-historicises nationalism, which is a modern phenomenon, and thus does not distinguish it from other in-group, such as tribal, affiliations.

As such Mearsheimer’s account neither explains why nationalism is a modern phenomenon nor its variations across history, cultures and societies.

Other accounts, to which I now turn, provide historically richer understandings of nationalism as a modern and multivalent phenomenon.

Interested in studying international relations at master's level? Discover why you should consider a Russell Group university like Queen Mary:

Nationalism as a positive force

In his seminal work, Imagined Communities, Benedict Anderson accounts for the spread of nationalism to the former colonies in the late nineteenth century as a result of colonial education and the rise of anti-colonial sentiment.

Anti-colonial thinkers, such as Frantz Fanon, for instance emphasised ‘national liberation’ as a global struggle for dignity of the natives in Africa and Asia. As such, nationalism became seen as a positive force, motivating independence in former colonies. The power of nationalism in this account is seen in its anti-colonial context, namely as a counterforce to European nationalism.

The changing function of nationalism

Arguments that contextualise nationalism in its modern context and account for its changing function historically can better explain nationalism’s resilience than Mearsheimer’s static account.

An earlier argument that explains this changing function of nationalism can be found in E. H. Carr’s book Nationalism and After, and helps us make sense of the contemporary resilience of the phenomenon.

In Nationalism and After, Carr referred to three periods of nationalism. In the first period, the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the ‘nation' was associated with the person of the king.

In the second period, following the Napoleonic wars, nationalism became associated with the collective interests of ‘the people’, narrowly defined in terms of class (owners of private property) and gender (men).

In the third period, the concept of the people expanded to include women, urban populations and industrial workers.

Consequently, ‘the primary aim of national policy was no longer merely to maintain order and conduct what was narrowly defined as public business, but to minister to the welfare of members of the nation and to enable them to earn their living’.

In other words, nationalism was socialised. ‘The world war of 1914’ Carr argued, ‘was the first war between socialised nations’. Carr additionally contextualised the psychological function of nationalism in late-modernity. Nationalism provided ‘a sense of meaning and purpose widely felt to be lacking in modern life.’

Conclusion

Nationalism, in its twenty-first century variant, therefore remains a powerful force in world politics, in the West and beyond, precisely because it is not static in its function. The transformation of nationalism in the last four centuries remains the most convincing explanation for its persistence in the twenty-first century.

Today it plays two functions globally: social and psychological. On the one hand, nationalism is a guarantee of preferential treatment in the social question - particularly unemployment and welfare.

On the other hand, it is a source of meaning and stable identity, largely lacking in late-modern, rapidly changing, life. No attempt to transcend the nation today can be successful unless it accounts for its twin – social and psychological – functions in the twenty-first century.

Want to develop the skills and knowledge to think, talk and write critically about contemporary international challenges? Start Queen Mary Online's MA in International Relations in September or May: