Nations and Nationalism

Although the term “nationalism” has different meanings, it centrally covers the two phenomena:

(1) the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their identity as members of that nation and

(2) the actions that the members of a nation take in seeking to achieve (or sustain) some form of political sovereignty.

(1) raises questions about the concept of a nation or national identity, about what it is to belong to a nation, and about how much one ought to care about one's nation.

Nations and national identity may be defined in terms of common origin, ethnicity, or cultural ties, and while an individual's membership in the nation is often regarded as involuntary, it is sometimes regarded as voluntary.

(2) raises questions about whether sovereignty entails the acquisition of full statehood with complete authority for domestic and international affairs, or whether something less than statehood would suffice.

Although sovereignty is often taken to mean full statehood, more recently possible exceptions have been recognized.

Some authors defend even an anarchist version of patriotism-moderate nationalism, foreshadowed by Bakunin.

There are two major bodies of thought on the causes of nationalism, one is the modernist perspective that describes nationalism as a recent phenomenon that requires the structural conditions of modern society, in order to exist; the other is the primordialist perspective that describes nationalism as a reflection of the ancient and perceived evolutionary tendency of humans to organize into distinct grouping based on an affinity of birth.

Roger Masters in The Nature of Politics says that the primordialist and modernist conceptions of nationalism both involve an acceptance of three levels of common interest of individuals or groups in national identity:

The first level is that 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.

The second level is the intra-group level, individuals gain advantage through cooperation with others in securing collective goods that are not accessible through individual effort alone.

The third level is the individual level, where self-interested concerns over personal fitness by individuals either consciously or subconsciously motivate the creation of group formation as a means of security.

Leadership groups' or elites' behavior 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.

The primordialist perspective is based on evolutionary theory that 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.

Roger Masters 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.

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.

Central to evolutionary theory is that all biological organisms undergo changes in their anatomical features and their characteristic behavior patterns.

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.

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.

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, that cause the emphasis of certain mental behaviours that are developed due to their necessity the ancestral environment .

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.

There are immediate environments that are those situations that confront an individual or group at a given point and activate certain mental responses.

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.

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.

As such proximate environments cause people make decisions based on existing situations and anticipated situations.

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 believe that such a treaty will either benefit their nation or will increase the prestige of their nation.

The proximate environment plays a role in the politics of nations that are angry with their circumstances, an individual or group that becomes angry in response to feelings that they are being exploited usually results in efforts to accommodate them, while being passive results in them being ignored.

Nations that are angry with circumstances imposed on them by others are affected by the proximate environment that shapes the nationalism of such nations.

Pierre L. van den Berghe in The Ethnic Phenomenon 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.

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.

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.

Van der Berge identifies common descent as the basis for the establishment of boundaries of ethnic groups, as most people to not join ethnic groups but are born into them.

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.

Berghe notes that feelings of ethnic solidarity usually arise in small and compact groups whereas there is less solidarity in large and dispersed groups.

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.

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.

This functionalist interpretation does not require genetic-relatedness, and identifies a different variety of reasons for ethnic or national group formation.

The first reason is that such groups may extend group identity and cooperation beyond the limited 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.

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 identify this as the foundation of xenophobia that they identify as originating in hunter gatherer societies.

Modernist interpretation

Beginning in 1821, the Greek War of Independence began as a rebellion by Greek nationalists against the ruling Ottoman Empire.

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.

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.

Karl Marx wrote about the creation of nations as requiring a bourgeois revolution and an industrial economy.

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 its "rural idiocy" of its "feudalism”.

However Marx's theories at the time of his writing had little impact on academic thinking on the development of nation states.

Prominent theorists who developed the modernist interpretation of nations and nationalism include: Henry James Sumner Maine, Ferdinand Tönnies, Émile Durkheim, Max Weber, and Talcott Parsons.

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 the legal position of the Individual in regards to the rest of society, family association and functionally diffuse roles for individuals; and modern "progressive" societies defined as "contract" societies where social relations are determined by contracts pursued by individuals to advance their interests.

Maine saw the development of societies as moving away from traditional status societies to modern contract societies.

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 gessellschaft (society) as an impersonal societies that are modern.

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.

Emile 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”.

Durkheim identified mechanical solidarity as involving custom, habit, and repression that was necessary to maintain shared views.

Durkheim identified organic solidarity-based societies as modern societies where there exists a division of labour based on social differentiation that causes alienation.

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.

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.Weber's conception of charismatic authority has been noted as the basis of many nationalist governments

 The roots of the idea that nation is essentially an ethnic or cultural entity can be traced back to late 18th Germany.

Herder argued that the main character of each national group was determined by its natural environment, climate and physical geography.

 Herder also underlined the importance of language.

 His nationalism can be described as a form of culturalism that emphasizes an awareness and appriciation of national traditions and collective memories.

On the other hand, Gellner's theory suggests that nationalism is now ineradicable, as a return to premodern loyalties and identities is unthinkable.

 However according to Anthony Smith nations are historically embedded: they are rooted in a common cultural heritage and language that may long predate the achievement of statehood or even the quest for national independence.

 Smith nevertheless acknowledged that, although ethnicity is the precursor of nationalism, modern nations came into existence only when established ethnies were linked to the emerging doctrine of political sovereignty.

Regardless of the origins of nations, certain forms of nationalism have a distinctively cultural, rather than political, character.

Nations as Cultural Communities

 Cultural nationalism commonly takes the form of national self-affirmation; it is a means through which a people can acquire a clearer sense of its own identity through the heightening of national pride and self-respect.

Nations as political communities

 The view that nations are essentially political entities emphasizes civic loyalties rather than cultural identity.

 The nation is thus a group of people who are bound together primarily by shared citizenship, regardless of their cultural, ethnic and other loyalties.

 This view of the nation is often traced back to the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

The form of nationalism that emerged from the French Revolution therefore embodied a vision of a people or nation governing itself, and was inextricably linked to the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

The idea that nations are political, not ethnic, communities has been supported by a number of theories of nationalism.

 Rather than accepting that modern nations have developed out of long-established ethnic communities, Hobsbawm argued that a belief in historical continuity and cultural purity was invariably a myth, and, what is more, a myth created by nationalism itself. In this view, nationalism creates nations, not the other way round.

Certainly, the idea of a 'mother tongue' passed down from generation to generation and embodying a national culture is highly questionable. In reality, languages live and grow as each generation adapts the language to its own distinctive needs and circumstances.

 Benedict Anderson also portrayed the modern nation as an artefact, in his case as an 'imagined community'. Anderson pointed out that nations exist more as mental images than as genuine communities that require a level of face-to-face interaction to sustain the notion of a common identity. If nations exist, they exist as imagined artifices, constructed for us through education, the mass media and a process of political socialization.

 From the perspective of orthodox Marxism, nationalism is a device through which the ruling class counters the threat of social revolution by ensuring that national loyalty is stronger than class solidarity, thus binding the working class to the existing power structure.

 What such nations have in common is that, in theory, they were founded upon a voluntary acceptance of a common set of principles or goals, as opposed to an existing cultural identity.

It is sometimes argued that the style of nationalism that develops in such societies is typically tolerant and democratic. If a nation is primarily a political entity, it is an inclusive group, in that membership is not restricted to those who fulfill particular language, religious, ethnic or suchlike criteria.

Developing world states have encountered particular problems in their struggle to achieve a national identity. Such nations can be described as 'political' in two senses. First, in many cases, they have achieved statehood only after a struggle against colonial rule.  

In this case, the nation's national identity is deeply influenced by the unifying quest for national liberation and freedom. Third world nationalism therefore tends to have a strong anticolonial character. Second, these nations have often been shaped by territorial boundaries inherited from their former colonial rulers.

Varieties of nationalism

 Nationalism is not a single or coherent political phenomenon, but is a series of 'nationalisms': that is, as a complex of traditions that share but one characteristic - each, in its own particular way, acknowledges the central political importance of the nation.

 Finally, nationalism is shaped by the political ideals of those who espouse it. In their different ways, liberals, conservatives, socialists, fascists and even communists have been attracted to nationalism. In this sense, nationalism is a cross-cutting ideology.

Liberal nationalism

 Liberal nationalism can be seen as the classic form of European liberalism; it dates back to the French Revolution.

In common with all forms of nationalism, liberal nationalism is based on the fundamental assumption that humankind is naturally divided into a collection of nations, each possessed of a separate identity.

 Nations are therefore genuine or organic communities, not the artificial creation of political leaders or ruling classes.

Liberal Nationalism is a kind of non-xenophobic nationalism compatible with liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights.

Ernest Renan and John Stuart Mill are often thought to be early liberal nationalists.

Liberal nationalism lies within the traditions of rationalism and liberalism, but as a form of nationalism it is contrasted with ethnic nationalism.

The characteristic theme of liberal nationalism, is that it links the idea of the nation with a belief in popular sovereignty, ultimately derived from Rousseau.

Liberal nationalism underlines that all nations are equal. The ultimate goal of liberal nationalism, then, is the construction of a world of sovereign nation-states.

In this light, nationalism is not seen as a source of distrust, suspicion and rivalry. Rather, it is a force capable of promoting unity within each nation and brotherhood amongst nations on the basis of mutual respect for national rights and characteristics.

Liberal nationalists often defend the value of national identity by saying that individuals need a national identity in order to lead meaningful, autonomous lives and that liberal democratic polities need national identity in order to function properly.

Civic-national ideals influenced the development of representative democracy in countries such as the United States and France.

Criticisms of liberal nationalism tend to fall into two categories.

 In the first category, liberal nationalists may be accused of being naive and romantic.

They see the progressive and liberating face of nationalism; theirs is a tolerant and rational nationalism.

Second, the goal of liberal nationalism may be fundamentally misguided.

In practice, all so-called 'nation-states' comprise a number of linguistic, religious, ethnic and regional groups, some of which may consider themselves to be 'nations'.

However, it in fact consisted of a patchwork of ethnic communities, religions, languages and differing histories.

Moreover, as the disintegration of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s demonstrated, each of its constituent republics was itself an ethnic patchwork.

Indeed, as the Nazis and later the Bosnian Serbs recognized, the only certain way of achieving a politically unified and culturally homogeneous nation-state is through a programme of ethnic cleansing.

Conservative nationalism

During the 19th century the link between conservatism and nationalism became increasingly apparent.

Conservative nationalism is concerned less with the principled nationalism of universal self-determination and more with the promise of social cohesion and public order embodied in the sentiment of national patriotism.

Above all, conservatives see the nation as an organic entity emerging out of a basic desire of humans to gravitate towards those who have the same views, habits, lifestyles and appearance as themselves.

 In short, human beings seek security and identity through membership of a national community. From this perspective, patriotic loyalty and a consciousness of nationhood is rooted largely in the idea of a shared past, turning nationalism into a defence of values and institutions that have been endorsed by history.

 Nationalism thus becomes a form of traditionalism.

Conservative nationalism tends to develop in established nation-states rather than in ones that are in the process of nation building.

 It is inspired by the perception that the nation is somehow under threat, either from within or from without.

 The traditional 'enemy within' has been class antagonism and the ultimate danger of social revolution. In this respect, conservatives have seen nationalism as the antidote to socialism.

 The 'enemies without' that threaten national identity include immigration and Supranationalism.

 Although conservative nationalism has been linked to military adventure and expansion, its distinctive character is that it is inward-looking and insular.

 This leads to the criticism that conservative nationalism is essentially a form of elite manipulation or ruling-class ideology.

 From this perspective, the 'nation' is invented and certainly defined by political leaders and ruling elites with a view to manufacturing consent and engineering political passivity.

 A more serious criticism of conservative nationalism, however, is that it promotes intolerance and bigotry.

 By insisting upon the maintenance of cultural purity and established traditions, conservatives may portray immigrants, or foreigners in general, as a threat, and so promote, or at least legitimize, racialism and xenophobia.

Expansionist nationalism

The third form of nationalism has an aggressive, militaristic and expansionist character.

 In many ways, this form of nationalism is the antithesis of the liberal nationalism.

 The aggressive face of nationalism first appeared in the late nineteenth century.

 To a large extent, both world wars of the twentieth century resulted from this expansionist form of nationalism.

The most destructive modern example of this form of nationalism in Europe has been the quest by the Bosnian Serbs to construct a 'Greater Serbia'.

 In its extreme form, such nationalism arises from a sentiment of intense, even hysterical nationalist enthusiasm, sometimes referred to as integral nationalism.

The term integral nationalism was coined by the French nationalist Charles Maurras asserted the overriding importance of the nation: the nation is everything and the individual is nothing. The nation thus has an existence and meaning beyond the life of any single individual, and individual existence has meaning only when it is dedicated to the unity and survival of the nation.

 However, integral nationalism breaks the link previously established between nationalism and democracy. An 'integral' nation is an exclusive ethnic community, bound together by primordial loyalties rather than voluntary political allegiances. National unity does not demand free debate and an open and competitive struggle for power; it requires discipline and obedience to a single, supreme leader.

This led Maurras to portray democracy as a source of weakness and corruption, and to call instead for the reestablishment of monarchical absolutism.

 This militant and intense form of nationalism is invariably associated with chauvinistic beliefs and doctrines. Derived from the name of Nicolas Chauvin, a French soldier, chauvinism is an irrational belief in the superiority or dominance of one's own group or people.

National chauvinism therefore rejects the idea that all nations are equal in favour of the belief that nations have particular characteristics and qualities, and so have very different destinies.

 Typically, this form of nationalism is articulated through doctrines of ethnic or racial superiority, thereby fusing nationalism and racialism. The chauvinist's own nation is seen to be unique and special, in some way a 'chosen people'.

No less important in this type of nationalism, however, is the image of another nation or race as a threat or enemy. In the face of the enemy, the nation draws together and gains an intensified sense of its own identity and importance, achieving a kind of 'negative integration'.

 Chauvinistic nationalism therefore establishes a clear distinction between 'them' and 'us'. This was most graphically demonstrated by the virulent anti-Semitism that was the basis of German Nazism.

A recurrent theme of expansionist nationalism is the idea of national rebirth or regeneration. This form of nationalism commonly draws upon myths of past greatness or national glory. Mussolini and the Italian Fascists looked back to the days of Imperial Rome.

 If nationalism is a took for reestablishing greatness and regaining national glory, it invariably has a militaristic and expansionist character. In short, war is the testing ground of the nation. At the heart of integral nationalism there often lies an imperial project: a quest for expansion or a search for colonies. This can be seen in forms of pan-nationalism. However, Nazi Germany is again the best-known example.

Anticolonial nationalism

This form of nationalism came about during the decolonialisation of the post war period.  The irony of this form of nationalism is that it has turned doctrines and principles first developed through the process of 'nation building' in Europe against the European powers themselves.

 Early forms of anticolonialism drew heavily on 'classical' European nationalism and were inspired by the idea of national self-determination.

For African and Asian nations, the quest for political independence was inextricably linked to a desire for social development and for an end to their subordination to the industrialized states of Europe and the USA.

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.

The goal of 'national liberation’ had an economic as well as a political dimension. This helps to explain why anticolonial movements typically looked not to liberalism but to socialism, and particularly to Marxism-Leninism, as a vehicle for expressing their nationalist ambitions.

 On the surface, nationalism and socialism appear to be incompatible political creeds. Socialists have traditionally preached internationalism, since they regard humanity as a single entity, and argue that the division of humankind into separate nations breeds only suspicion and hostility.

 In this sense, nationalism and socialism are linked insofar as both emphasize social solidarity and collective action.

 By this standard, nationalism may simply be a weaker form of socialism, the former applying the 'social' principle to the nation, the latter extending it to cover the whole of humanity.

 More specifically, socialism, and especially Marxism, provide an analysis of inequality and exploitation through which the colonial experience can be understood and colonial rule challenged.

 In the same way as the oppressed and exploited proletariat saw that they could achieve liberation through the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, third-world nationalists saw 'armed struggle' as a means of achieving both political and economic emancipation, thus fusing the goals of political independence and social revolution.

The 'socialism' proclaimed in these countries usually takes the form of an appeal to a unifying national cause or interest, typically proclaimed by a powerful 'charismatic' leader.

However, nationalists in the developing world have not always been content to express their nationalism in a language of socialism or Marxism borrowed from the West. Especially since the 1970s, Marxism-Leninism has often been displaced by forms of religious fundamentalism, and particularly Islamic fundamentalism.

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.

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”.

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 naming it a 'theoretical and political challenge for the foreseeable future’.

The Islamic revival of the 20th century also produced an Islamic critique of the nation-state.

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.

The pacifist critique of nationalism also concentrates on the violence of nationalist movements, the associated militarism, and on conflicts between nations inspired by 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. Albert Einstein stated that "Nationalism is an infantile disease.... It is the measles of mankind.”

The anti-racist critique of nationalism concentrates on the attitudes to other nations, and especially on the doctrine that the nation-state exists for one national group to the exclusion of others.

This view emphasizes the chauvinism and xenophobia that have often resulted from nationalist sentiment. Norman Naimark relates the rise of nationalism to ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Political movements of the left have often been suspicious of nationalism, again without necessarily seeking the disappearance of the existing nation-states.

Marxism has been ambiguous towards the nation-state, and in the late 19th century some Marxist theorists rejected it completely.

For some Marxists the world revolution implied a global state (or global absence of state); for others it meant that each nation-state had its own revolution.

A significant event in this context was the failure of the social-democratic and socialist movements in Europe to mobilize a cross-border workers' opposition to World War I.

At present most, but certainly not all, left-wing groups accept the nation-state, and see it as the political arena for their activities.

In the Western world, the most comprehensive current ideological alternative to nationalism is cosmopolitanism.

Ethical cosmopolitanism rejects one of the basic ethical principles of nationalism: that humans owe more duties to a fellow member of the nation, than to a non-member.

It rejects such important nationalist values as national identity and national loyalty. However, there is also a political cosmopolitanism, which has a geopolitical program to match that of nationalism: it seeks some form of world state, with a world government.

Very few people openly and explicitly support the establishment of a global state, but political cosmopolitanism has influenced the development of international criminal law, and the erosion of the status of national sovereignty.

In turn, nationalists are deeply suspicious of cosmopolitan attitudes, which they equate with eradication of diverse national cultures.

Meanwhile, anarchists reject nation-states on the basis of self-determination of the majority social class, and thus reject nationalism. Instead of nations, anarchists usually advocate the creation of cooperative societies based on free association and mutual aid without regard to ethnicity or race.

MULTICULTURALISM

 The idea of the nation as a culturally and politically united whole has, particularly since the 1960s, been challenged by the rise of multiculturalism.

 Nationalism has always been an example of the politics of identity, in the sense that it tells people who they are: it gives people a history, forges social bonds and a collective spirit, and creates a sense of destiny larger than individual existence.

Multiculturalism is also a form of identity politics, but its stress is rather on the 'politics of difference', stressing the range of cultural diversity and identity-related differences in many modern societies.

 Multiculturalism not only recognizes the fact of cultural diversity, but also holds that such differences should be respected and publicly affirmed.

Australia has been officially committed to multiculturalism since the early 1970s, in recognition of its increasing 'Asianization'.

The relationship between multiculturalism and nationalism is complex. The nationalist traditions that are most disposed to accommodate multiculturalism are liberal nationalism and anticolonial nationalism.

 This is because both traditions embrace an essentially 'inclusive' model of the nation as a political or 'civic' entity rather than a cultural or 'ethnic' entity. Members of the nation are thus bound together less by a unifying culture and more by common citizenship and shared allegiances.

Liberalism, indeed, can be seen to favor multiculturalism in principle.

 Liberal multiculturalism is rooted, most fundamentally, in a commitment to freedom and toleration.

 However, liberalism and multiculturalism are not entirely compatible. In the first place, individualism, the core principle of liberalism, conflicts with multiculturalism in that it highlights the primary importance of personal or individual identity over any collective notion of identity based on ethnicity, race, language or whatever.

To this degree, liberalism looks beyond both multiculturalism and nationalism, supporting, instead, the principle of internationalism.

 Second, liberalism is universalist in the sense that it gives priority to a set of core values, amongst which freedom and toleration clearly feature.

 Liberals are therefore inclined to tolerate the tolerant, but they find it more difficult to tolerate what they may see as illiberal or intolerant cultural beliefs and practices.

Multiculturalists, for their part, often view liberal toleration as nothing more than cultural imperialism, that is, as an attempt to impose western beliefs, values and sensibilities on the rest of the world.

 Firmer foundations for a theory of multiculturalism can be found in the idea of value pluralism. Isaiah Berlin developed a theory of pluralism that has been used by many multiculturalists to justify a politics of difference.

An alternative basis for multiculturalism has been advanced by Bhikhu Parekh. In Parekh's view, cultural diversity is, at heart, a reflection of the dialectical interplay between human nature and culture.

A recognition of the complexity of human nature, and of the fact that any culture expresses only a part of what it means to be truly human, provides the basis for a politics of recognition and thus for a viable form of multiculturalism.

 However, multiculturalism is clearly incompatible with conservative nationalism and expansionist nationalism. This is because these nationalist traditions are based on an 'exclusive' notion of national identity that emphasizes cultural homogeneity and, in some cases, racial purity.

However, conservative and far-right objections to multiculturalism suffer from at least two drawbacks. The first is that even if they are not explicitly racialist, they may harbour implicit racialism in serving to legitimize, and perhaps encourage, hostility between different ethnic communities. The second is that they revere an image of social, moral and cultural homogeneity that has long ceased to exist in modern societies and which could be re-established only through widespread repression

A future for the nation-state?

 As the twentieth century progressed, claims were increasingly made that the age of nationalism was over.

 This was because its task had been completed: the world had become a world of nation-states.

 History undoubtedly seems to be on the side of the nation-state. The three major geopolitical upheavals of the twentieth century (the First World War, the Second World War and the collapse of communism in eastern Europe) each gave considerable impetus to the concept of the nation as a principle of political organization.

The great strength of the nation-state is that it offers the prospect of both cultural cohesion and political unity. When a people who share a common cultural or ethnic identity gain the right to self-government, community and citizenship coincide.

 This is why nationalists believe that the forces that have created a world of independent nation-states are natural and irresistible, and that no other social group could constitute a meaningful political community. They believe that the nation-state is ultimately the only viable political unit.

Nevertheless, just as the principle of the nation-state has achieved its widest support, other, very powerful forces have emerged that threaten to make the nationstate redundant. A combination of internal pressures and external threats has produced what is commonly referred to as a 'crisis of the nation-state'.

Internally, nation-states have been subject to centrifugal pressures, generated by an upsurge in ethnic and regional politics. This heightened concern with ethnicity may, indeed, reflect the fact that, in a context of economic and cultural globalization, nations are no longer able to provide a meaningful collective identity or sense of social belonging. Given that all nation-states embody a measure of cultural diversity, the politics of ethnic coherence cannot but present a challenge to the principle of the nation. Unlike nations, ethnic or regional groups are not viable political entities in their own right, and thus look to forms of federalism and confederalism to provide an alternative to political nationalism.

External threats to the nation-state have a variety of forms.

 First, advances in the technology of warfare, and especially the advent of the nuclear age, have brought about demands that world peace be policed by supranational and international bodies.

 Second, economic life has been progressively globalized. Is there a future for the nationstate in a world in which no national government can control its economic destiny?

Third, the nation-state may be the enemy of the natural environment and a threat to the global ecological balance.

 Finally, distinctive national cultures and traditions, the source of cohesion that distinguishes nation-states from other forms of political organization, have been weakened by the emergence of a transnational and even global culture. This has been facilitated by international tourism and the dramatic growth in communications technologies, from satellite television to the 'information superhighway'.