In the study of History, distinguish between ‘nations’ and ‘states’ — which is confusing, because in ordinary language, we use the words ‘nations’ and ‘countries’ interchangeably, and we use the word ‘states’ to refer to the fifty subdivisions within the United States.
But these words have a different meaning in historical scholarship.
A ‘state’ is a territory with its own government. As a territory, it can be identified on a map, and has distinct boundaries. It has one government for this territory. So what we call a ‘country’ in everyday language is a “state” — examples being Germany, France, Poland, Canada, etc.
A nation is a group of people with a shared sense of identity. The people of a nation have something in common: a language, a culture, a narrative history, a religion, art, music, clothing, etc.
Historians use the term ‘nation-state’ to identify a nation which has its own state. Japan is an example of a nation-state.
There are some states which are not ‘nation-states’ — these are states which include several different nations. Consider Russia: it includes not only ethnic Russians, but large numbers of people who live in regions thoroughly saturated in non-Russian languages and cultures. The area within Russia that is actually ‘Russian’ only part of the larger state.
Thus Russia would be classified as a state, but not a nation.
Conversely, there are nations which do not have states.
The Laplanders, or Lapps, are a nation with their own culture, language, etc., but do not have their own state. Rather, they live in parts of Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia.
Historically, other nations without states would include Poland from 1795 to 1919. During those years, there was no country called Poland, but the Poles lived as residents in Russia, Austria, and Prussia. Likewise, some groups of Native Americans (‘Indians’) are classified as nations, but some of them do not have their own sovereign territory or state.
The ‘nation’ is an important factor in history, because it is more powerful in creating and maintaining identity than a state. The world is composed primarily of nation-states. The great movements of history are composed of nations, not nation-states.
The study of history serves people, according to Jill Lepore, when “it makes the case for the nation, and for the enduring importance of the United States and of American civic ideals, by arguing against” the malignant forms of nationalism.
By saying that thinking about history “makes the case for the nation,” Lepore is pointing to the concept of ‘nation’ in the abstract. She indicates that ‘nation’ is to be understood as a foundational concept: nations are the atoms which together form the world.
The modern world is a collection of nations. Has it always been this way? Are there alternative ways to structure the world? Are there better ways to structure the world?
Nations, unlike nation-states, have existed since the earliest known history. It is perhaps an innate feature of human beings to organize themselves as nations, and to their membership in a nation as one of their identities — but not their most important identity.
In terms of structuring the world, it is not necessary that the world be shaped by nation-states. Nations can, instead, be formed into the dominions of dynasties. This was often the case before the rise of nation-states. Individuals identified themselves as members of nations and as subjects of a dynasty, but not as citizens of a nation-state.
One can think of England, in which a soldier nine centuries ago perhaps thought of himself as fighting for “his majesty the king,” but not for “England.” — Likewise, an Austrian owed his allegiance to the Habsburg Dynasty, not to Austria. Thus a world organized by dynasties is an alternative to a world organized by nation-states. But in both of these scenarios, the nation remains.
Historically, then, we can see that there are at least two options for organizing the world: the nation-state or the dynasty. Are there other options? Could the world be structured around nations instead of nation-states?
If the world were organized around nations, instead of nation-states or dynasties, then it would essentially be a tribal world. This may have been the case in certain times and places, e.g., the non-Roman parts of Europe in the millennium or two prior to 800 A.D.
Thoughts about the nation-state, and alternatives to it, are relevant to concerns about nationalism. The word ‘nationalism’ is subject to various uses and misunderstandings. It is a problematic word, because it can refer either to a dangerous form, or to a peaceful form, of the nationalistic sentiment.
The dangerous form of nationalism is a value system which places the continued strength and growth of the nation-state above all else; in this sense of ‘nationalism,’ every other concern in life — e.g., family, friends, religious faith, duty, honor, art, science, music, literature, etc. — is subordinate to the nation-state. The savage implication is that any of those other things can also be sacrificed for the sake of the nation-state. This evil form of ‘nationalism’ can therefore lead to war and death.
The beneficial form of ‘nationalism’ is a healthy and balanced appreciation of one’s homeland, its achievements, and its contributions. This type of nationalism leads to better global relations between countries, because while it allows people to appreciate their own nation, it also urges them to appreciate other nations. Wholesome friendships between nations flourish when the individual nations have respect both for themselves and for other nations.
The peaceful form of nationalism is often simply called ‘patriotism,’ and patriotism is instrumental in forming productive and cordial relationships between nations. A nation filled with self-hatred will make a poor ally.
Interestingly, historian Jill Lepore speculates about whether “identity politics” could replace the nation-state as a primary organizational unit. Instead of loyalty to the nation, an individual could feel a primary loyalty to a demographic category like gender, race, etc.
Jill Lepore’s questions prompt musings: Could “identity politics” truly replace other forms of global organization? If it could, what would be the effects of this type of tribalism?
We can conclude that civilization seems to have made progress at times when the planet was organized primarily into dynasties, at times when it was organized primarily into nation-states, and at times when it was organized simply by nations as tribes. In all three situations, nations were an important identity, even when they weren’t the primary organizing principle.
We can also conclude that the distinction between peaceful beneficial nationalism and warlike malignant nationalism is significant, and that the former has edified civilization while the latter has turned civilization against itself.
