Navigation
Section: Taught Masters Programmes
MSc in Nationalism Studies
In light of the current economic crisis Professor David McCrone, Co-Director of the Institute of Governance and co-founder of the Nationalism programme, reflects on the future of nations and nationalism.
Q: Some people argue that in a globalised world, especially one undergoing a serious economic crisis, ‘nationalism’ has had its day and has no part to play.
A: First of all, let’s define what we mean by nationalism. It refers to the political ideology that ‘nations’ – in Benedict Anderson’s term, ‘imagined communities’ – that is, people who believe they share common cultural characteristics such as language, ethnicity, ancestry, history, have the right to govern themselves. In fact, in the modern world, there are many states such as the UK which contain more than one nation (England, Scotland, Wales and (Northern) Ireland), and not all nations are states; hence the term ‘stateless nation’, or better still ‘understated nation’. In other words, states and nations don’t correspond as much as we think.
Q: But even if we distinguish between nations and states, hasn’t globalisation made them irrelevant?
A: No, it hasn’t. Take the current global economic crisis. By and large, it’s governments which have acted to ‘nationalise’ banks (note, nationalise, not globalise), to try and keep the economic show on the road. In other words, faced with a crisis of global proportions, it’s the state, trying to act on behalf of the nation, the people, which makes the moves.
Q: But isn’t it big states which are able to do that, rather than small ones? Doesn’t the economic crisis show that size really does matter? Look for example at Iceland, or Ireland.
A: You’d be hard pushed to sustain that argument. After all, the crisis began, and may have had its origins, in one of the largest and most prosperous country in the world, the United States. And many smaller states, notably those in Scandinavia, seem to have managed the crisis much better. The more levers you have at your disposal, the better. And we don’t hear of any small states clamouring to rejoin bigger ones. After all, Ireland used to be part of the UK until 1921, and no-one there suggests that it should rejoin. They’ve just nationalised one of the banks, the Anglo-Irish, to try and resolve the crisis.
Q: Be that as it may, what’s the point of lots of small nations becoming states? We live in the 21st century, after all.
A: We live in a century in which there are multiple levels of governance: hence, I can think of myself as Scottish, European as well as British. No state, thankfully, has all the power or all the answers.
Q: But isn’t nationalism dangerous? Doesn’t it inevitably lead to hatred, war, conflict, ethnic cleansing?
A: It’s not inevitable at all. Most forms of nationalism and national identity are peaceful, and ‘civic’ – recognising that all of us have diverse and complementary identities. Only in extreme conditions, and usually where political arrangements have broken down (such as the former Yugoslavia) or where there is severe competition for scarce resources (as in parts of Africa) does conflict take on ‘ethnic’ characteristics.
Q: But that’s history, isn’t it?
A: No. Think about climate change: drought, starvation, food shortages are, alas, quite likely. It’s also likely, alas, that conflict over these scarce resources will take on ethnic or national overtones. Unless and until we’re able to acknowledge people’s right to self-government, and to agree with them that power is layered and shared in the modern world, we won’t begin to try and solve this fragile world’s problems. So ‘nationalism’ is here to stay. Our task is to understand it, and maybe then try and change it for the better.
This page was published on 2 June 2010