‘Premature’ Nationalism

     What can be termed the conclusive definition of the word ‘nationalism’ is ambiguous in meaning and of great controversy. The context of its existence contains a menagerie of layers and innumerable facets however in reference to early american art and the colonists’ search for a homogenous identity, the term will be used as a nation-state selfhood (or rather, the search thereof) and its intrinsic, submissive, correlative relation to the development of culture and identity (Zheng.) The phenomena that is a unified attitude of members of a nation is detailed in its nature yet the complexity goes only so far into contemporary history for the majority of sense of self, just like in humans, is established for the most part at a young age. A typical teenager may go through different stages in the search for self, but the foundation on which he or she was raised and the innate senses of morality generally do not see radical change. This theory is also true for a young nation; the foundation on which it was nourished instills the majority of its philosophies early on in history, and from there on out some political instances may cause for gradual change that which usually does not differ much from the original philosophy anyway (for instance the equality of man and individual rights were established in the constitution; the abolition of slavery therefore was not a radical change in the scheme of US political notion)(Miscevic.) It is also of great importance to understand that the progress made during pre-revolution America under Britain affected the development of a national identity (which would also go for nations undergoing severe government and societal changes) differently than would have a historical event that happened while it was an actual nation. Nenad Miscevic, a notable scholar, philosophical leader, author of many books and an extremely well cultured man once said:

 ”It is traditional, therefore, to distinguish nations from states — whereas a nation often consists of an ethnic or cultural community, a state is a political entity with a high degree of sovereignty. “

This quote came from the book Nationalism and Ethic Conflict, a collection of 14 essays by leading philosophers he edited. This statement justifies the theory that nationalism is possible within a state to some extent but because it lacks an ethnic or cultural community a true identity recognized by the powers of the world would not be possible. This leads to the next point which is the possibility of premature nationalism being solely a figment of the imagination of modern Americans. The states had characteristics of nations and experienced feelings of nationalism within themselves; colonists proudly explained that they were from Pennsylvania or South Carolina… they proclaimed they were Virginians, not Americans. Many modernists forget this and think that America was a single, nationalistic entity from the very beginning but that was not how it was; there were many distinguished parts in early America. There are also other modernists who do know that there were feelings of separation in the states and thus label early nationalism as ‘premature’ (in the sense that it was not ‘true’ at the time)(Nielsen.) Even after the revolution it took time, the War of 1812, the conclusion of the Civil War, and Lee’s personal values -making America seem like a family that which should avoid internal conflict as much as possible- to set the role for America to secure a sense of complete unity rather than the prevalent feeling of just a confederacy of states(Maier.) Rather than the US as its own entity, at first there were a bunch of pseudo-identities evident not only on a state level, but in the sections of the north, south, east and west. A vague identity or basically a stereotype of a country is procured over time usually in conjunction with the development of a new culture. But how is a culture defined and how does said culture develop this identity? The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines culture in the following ways:

1: cultivation

2: the act of developing the intellectual and moral faculties especially by education

3: expert care and training <beauty culture>

4 a: enlightenment and excellence of taste acquired by intellectual and aesthetic training b: acquaintance with and taste in fine arts, humanities, and broad aspects of science as distinguished from vocational and technical skills

5 a: the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations

 b: the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life} shared by people in a place or time <popular culture> <southern culture>

 c: the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization <a corporate culture focused on the bottom line> d: the set of values, conventions, or social practices associated with a particular field, activity, or societal characteristic <studying the effect of computers on print culture> <changing the culture of materialism will take time — Peggy O’Mara>

6: the act or process of cultivating living material (as bacteria or viruses) in prepared nutrient media; also : a product of such cultivation

Because entry 5b is most applicable to identity, it is what will be the standard in this context. How are customary beliefs, social forms and material traits formed to create culture? These topics are of extreme controversy and the questions that arise from the answers will have one spiraling into a never ending cloud of philosophical debate. On a more concentrated note I will discuss the emergence of a unified culture and ‘premature’ national identity during early America.

     The first indication of a unification of people began right from the start of colonization. The first settlements in the early 1600’s were appealing to Europeans because of the economic difficulties from 1620-1635 and because they sought freedom of religion, escape from political oppression and the mere abundance of opportunities unavailable to be pursued at home (Maier.) This common quest for freedom brought the people together and set the grounds for which the constitution and government framework would later be built upon. It is also important to keep in mind the importance of religious freedom for the Great Awakenings were an integral part of bringing together people for a common cause (although in the aspect of slavery it divided, in the many other causes such as the quest for a universal sense of morality it unified.) After the development of Jamestown, the influence of British colonists, the bout of anarchy governance and indian attacks and disease, the Puritans began infiltrating Massachusetts. Insisting their Calvinistic perspective on faith and worship were paramount to Catholicism, they basically undermined the solidarity of the state church threatening a divide in the masses and the destruction of the monarchy. After debate on whether or not the church would be able to fully transform, they decided to board the Mayflower for Massachusetts where their leader, John Winthrop would instruct them on creating a city of people who’s lives revolved solely around religion and belief and became the example for potential future Christians (Maier.) Skip ahead to 1680 when it became evident America would be a melting pot of several different cultures. English, Dutch, Swedish, German, French Huguenots, slaves from Africa, Spaniards, Italians, Portuguese and Scot-Irish people began pouring into the colonies, raising the population exponentially. Now flash back to Miscevic’s quote, if what defines a nation (union) is ethnicity and culture, how did the assimilation of a menagerie of incredibly different ethnicities and cultures just in one area come to be one and develop nationalism and identity?

     The first and second Great Awakenings have attributed much to the foundation of an independently thinking, unified body of people and subsequently a nation developing the traits needed to present an identity. Characterized by an increase of religious activity, the Great Awakenings got people coming together for services, reading the Bible, teaching the Bible to their families and possibly having an impact on the political affairs of America such as the Revolution (Maier.) It many not seem completely obvious at first, what with the array of different religions and the freedom to pick whichever one desires, but religion is for the most part based off of the same concepts. There are different names, paths of history, and some other seemingly radical differences, but essentially religion is based on a foundation of morals that which correspond to reality, human nature and either a (or several) high power or human divine path of life (Nielsen.) Because the majority of colonists’ beliefs could be placed under Christianity however, it’s much easier to assess than say if there were an abundance of Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, Baha’is etc! With everyone reading the same Bible, the same principles of ethics and morality, the same book of rules for living… would they not be influenced in other ways? If religion is an everlasting devotion and more importantly a way of life, it is almost certain that with the majority of masses conforming to a set of moral principles will use their newfound conscience to act on political issues. For instance in the Second Great Awakening! The abolition of slavery was due in large to the sheer numbers of people believing the same moral: that man is equal before the eyes of God and therefore should be treated accordingly by government (Maier.) Only a few years later, as the Civil War came to a conclusion, slavery became illegal and gradually all races became equal (sexes a bit later.)  And so, this perfectly justifies the theory of unification of thought correlating directly with unified political action. The masses, despite differences in heritage, began thinking a like. They read and lived by the same book, had the same morals and excerscized their powers in a democratic society to the fullest advantage. In a way, America was the perfect candidate to develop a ‘premature,’ or perhaps just early, sense of nationalism… people went there because they wanted change, to escape their current governments and to look for opportunity. I quote Kai Nielsen,

“We are, to put it crudely, lost if we cannot identify ourselves with some part of an objective social reality: a nation, though not necessarily a state, with its distinctive traditions. What we find in people — and as deeply embedded as the need to develop their talents — is the need not only to be able to say what they can do but to say who they are. This is found, not created, and is found in the identification with others in a shared culture based on nationality or race or religion or some slice or amalgam thereof. … Under modern conditions, this securing and nourishing of a national consciousness can only be achieved with a nation-state that corresponds to that national consciousness.”

So many different people of different cultures, different origins came to this new place with the same hopes, so many if not all of them came and read the same book, were exposed to the same mass material and so many began thinking a like as a nation, a ‘national conscience’, a unified body of humans with similar interests for their country, a new conglomerated culture of Americans. 

     Although a lot of emphasis is put on religion as a great sculptor of culture, but there were many other instances of influence such as that of Eurocentrism. Kind of like a non deliberate form of cultural imperialism, eurocentrism eased the assimilation of different cultures into one pliable mold because most cultures thrived (for reasons of debate) to be more like Europeans. The definition of Eurocentrism is basically the common, possibly subconcious, belief that Eurpoean culture was preeminent to others. Other prominent things that gave Americans an appearance of unity involved the French Revolution and the War of 1812. The French Revolution induced prodigious results in world culture (Padbury.) To this day the US, Myanmar and Liberia are the only countries that do not use the metric system. Perhaps the French Revolutionary war was the the start of Eurocentrism as its impact on modern warfare, fashion, the abolition of slavery and most importantly, the ‘birth’ of nationalism, affected most, if not all, countries associated with them. The Revolution along with the Declaration of Rights of Man prompted citizens to take pride in their country, heritage, language and history. It became an ever lasting trend that rather than a king, monarch or government representing a country that the people themselves as citizens within territorial boundaries would be regarded as a Nation. People from France no longer proclaimed themselves Europeans, but French from France. Also, with many non-english speaking nations forming law codes that stemmed from the Napoleonic Code, access to the popular ideology of equality before the law, freedom of concience and work, the rights and protection of property and the separation of church and state became easy to incorporate into new governments. This proves important because with the pseudo-eurocentristic government ideology, it became apparent that the many new nations would not only favour Napoleans ideas of democracy, but also the product of his effect on a country experiencing revolution: Nationalism. The War of 1812 was significant in developing a nationalistic union of people because the new international respect gained from withstanding the forces of Great Britain (that which were among the most powerful in the world at the time) gave the people meaning to be proud (Maier.) After the Second War of Independence America was finally recognized as its own entity. It is also important to nationalism that the US won the War of 1812 because had they not then ‘premature’ nationalism would probably be the more abundant term not only now, but then as well. Not to mention all the other variables that could have happened, they would have been deemed perhaps not completely ready for independence and certainly not respect or pride. Fortunately it was a (rather subtle) US victory and the respect from other nations prompted the people to look upon themselves as one people rather than in the context of people within states within a nation. Their dignified accord illuminated the entire country with nationalism. 

     Although there are many other instances that add to the formation of culture, there is now enough clarity to the subject that an adequate description of early American nationalism may be assimilated. The accumulation of commonalities from various facets procured a unique culture for Americans. Despite original cultural differences stemming from heritage, background etc and later state pride (as opposed to national pride), the people of early America came together as a nation, proud of their country for the respect it earned from other nations through hard work, proud for their unique assimilation of democratic practices and proud for being a distinctive, independent entity in the world. The  switch of dominance in power from states to federal also helped in creating a national identity and even after the Civil War despite many Southerners reluctance to conform, the many people who gained equal rights perhaps surpassed (in nationalistic pride) those who were oppressing them. Nationalism is inevidable for any nation that does or has had experience as a world power. Even at the birth of a new country does a new culture form and subsequently, a new identity for the independent, defined territory known as a nation. According to Alan Patten,

“[there is a]… profound importance of culture in shaping a person’s identity and outlook, treating people in accordance with liberal egalitarian principles means ensuring the equal survival and success of the cultures to which they belong.” (4)

If that is true, than is the persons identity and outlook not proportional to the identity and outlook of the entire nation? Is it a strong cultural foundation that shapes a nation into an equality driven, free, democratic nation? If so than by ‘cultures to which they belong,’ couldn’t Patten very well have said the nation to which they belong? Through historical events, a few of which have been mentioned, the US has been transformed from a separated union of state pride into a single entity exuberanting nationalism; from an assimilation of a menagerie of cultures and heritages to a group of Americans. Although she may have been young to be so prideful, America experienced no such ‘premature’ nationalism; her time has simply been confused by modernists over the years. 

Works Cited

1. Maier, Pauline, Merrit R. Smith, Alexander Keyssar, and Daniel Kevles. Inventing America. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2003.

2. Zheng, Yongnian. Discovering Chinese Nationalism in China : Modernization, Identity, and International Relations. New York: Cambridge UP, 1999.

3. Miscevic, Nenad. “Nationalism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 24 Sept. 2005. 3 Aug. 2008 <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nationalism/>.

4. Miscevic, Nenad, ed. Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict : Philosophical Perspectives. Boston: Open Court Company, 2000.

5. Nielsen, Kai, 1998-99, “Cosmopolitanism, Universalism and Particularism in the age of Nationalism and Multiculturalism,” Philosophical Exchange, 29: 3-34.

6. Padbury, Michael. “Effects of the French Revolution.” 7 Aug. 2008 <http://www.helium.com/items/192963-effects-of-the-french-revolution>.