"nationalism Inevitably Breeds Conflict." Discuss (35)

"Nationalism inevitably breeds conflict." Discuss (35)

The debate at the heart of the matter is whether or not there is something at the core of all forms of nationalism that leads to conflict regardless of the form that nationalism takes. A distinction should be drawn between conflict, which could range from diplomatic disputes to internal social tension, and war, which is a more overtly damaging product of inter-national conflict, but all of these things have in the past ranked nationalism as one of their contributing causes. The question remains whether nationalism can be a force for good or if it intrinsically leads to division and conflict between people.

Expansionist Nationalism is the most obviously problematic form of nationalism when it comes to the creation of conflict. National expansion, the purpose or aim of expansionist nationalism, requires war to succeed, and so expansionist nationalism inevitably promotes war and the values that allow a society to succeed in war. Examples of expansionist nationalism were found in WWII era Germany, Japan and Italy, and previously in the British Empire, and demonstrated how chauvinistic attitudes toward national expansion and racial superiority inherent in this form of nationalism must lead to conflict. Furthermore, expansionist nationalism often encourages militarism and jingoistic attitudes in order to strengthen public support for its military actions which inevitably lead to conflict.

However, while expansionist nationalism is overtly centred around conflict and war with other nations, other forms of nationalism can also lead to conflict. The anti-colonial nationalism found in places such as Algeria, Kenya and India rely on the power of negative cohesion to bind together a group of people and form a national identity. Negative cohesion requires the production of an enemy group in order to pose a threat to people`s cultural or national identity which in turn binds them closer together, and this naturally leads to conflict. Furthermore, efforts to remove a colonial oppressor can lead to tension or outright war when they are unwilling to hand over power - or, as happened in India after it gained independence, the removal of a colonial power to lead to a breakdown in national cohesion which leads to internal conflict as groups that were previously held together are no longer united under a common government and tension is created between them. In many ways anti-colonial nationalism is as inherently tied to conflict because it requires it to achieve its aims, and if those aims are achieved peacefully there is still a chance that the new situation will lead to internal conflict afterwards.

Turning away from the armed conflict that nationalism can inevitably lead to, there is also considerably cultural and social tension caused by forms of, particularly conservative nationalism. Conservative nationalism aims to preserve traditional institutions and cultural identity through the promotion of traditional values in opposition to `foreign influences` from outside cultures that might damage or dilute national identity. Conservative nationalism is commonly anti-immigration, anti-international cooperation and anti-cultural change. Conservative nationalism can lead to conflict with perceived minority groups that supposedly pose a threat to the conservative nationalist traditional norm these might be immigrant groups or people of different ethnicity, different religions, or people who challenge conservative notions of gender or sexuality. As such, conservative nationalistic attitudes inevitably lead to conflict internally if not with other groups externally.

Even Liberal nationalism which tends to avoid the trends of negative cohesion and militarism that can run through other forms of nationalism can bring about conflict. Inevitably the experiments in liberal nationalism have led to conflict - the nations drawn across Europe after WWI put together disparate groups of people without any awareness of the cultural and religious situations in the changed areas which creates tenuously held together nations and internal conflict, and attempts to promote international collaboration can lead to cultural and economic imperialism of more developed nations over those less developed. Furthermore, liberal interventionism, which is often centred around going to war or creating conflict itself, commonly underestimates the complexity of geopolitical situations and creates more conflict than it intends to even with the best of intentions.

It seems to be the case that, despite the differences between these different strands of nationalism, they all still inevitably lead to conflict. This suggests that it is not the context in which nationalism is played out, or the other political ideology nationalism plays a part in, but the tenets of nationalism and support for/dedication to the idea of the nation state that causes conflict. Ultimately nations are socially constructed communities built around a collectively agreed upon history and common culture, and because they revolve around binding together a group of people based on qualities unique to them they inevitably lead to the separation of people - which inevitably breeds conflict. However, some argue that precisely because nations are a socially constructed phenomenon they can be put to good ends.

Some nationalists argue that nationalism need not inevitably lead to conflict, and in fact nationalism and nation-states can play a part in reducing potential conflict between people. Liberal nationalism emphasises the right of self-determination which aims to reduce conflict and war by allowing people to form or join nations of their choosing, thereby avoiding internal strife. Alongside that, liberal nationalism encourages free trade between nations which fosters peaceful relations, and because it does not adhere to any ideas of national superiority and encourages co-operation and development while avoiding chauvinistic attitudes, it could be argued that liberal nationalism has the potential to prevent conflict rather than breed it. Furthermore, liberal nationalists recognise that nations are socially constructed and do not tend to attach any ideas of racialism or a required racial identity to membership of the nation, accepting the idea that people can naturalise to any new community they choose to join - this avoids the internal struggle between minorities in a nation and prevents the fear of international integration found in other forms of nationalism.

Anti-colonial nationalism, while it has resulted in conflict in the past, ultimately rarely aims for conflict in the same way that expansionist nationalism does. It is not, therefore, the element of nationalism that causes conflict, nor is it necessarily the anti-colonialists that are the source of the conflict. There are situations, such as the handover of power in Ghana, where anti-colonial nationalism can lead to a peaceful resolution without the need for conflict - and in situations where this does not happen, the conflict that occurs may be more down to the reaction of colonial powers to the anti-colonial movement itself. Most anti-colonial nationalists would opt for a peaceful handover of power if it was available to them, but many are not offered that. It is not, therefore, the nationalist element of anti-colonial nationalism that leads to conflict but the context that causes it. This suggests that that nationalism can be practiced peacefully if given the right conditions.

Even some forms of nationalism commonly thought of as divisive like conservative nationalism can promote cohesion within a nation. Support for traditional institutions like the Church of England or the House of Lords in the UK can promote a sense of national identity that preserves the values of communities and rather than causing conflict, gives people a focal point around which to unite rather than a point for division.

Furthermore, nationalism does not always have political aims. Cultural forms of nationalism like Welsh and Basque nationalism that focus around the preservation of culture and language and do not seek to create a politically independent nation do not lead to significant conflict. However, some question whether or not cultural nationalism is a true form of nationalism at all if it does not wish to create or preserve a nation-state, in the same way that all other forms of nationalism do.

On balance it seems to be the case that most forms of nationalism do inevitably lead to conflict expansionist and conservative nationalism inherently need conflict, and anti-colonial nationalism more often than not brings about conflict, even though not all forms of nationalism theoretically want to cause conflict. Liberal nationalism, for example, does not ostensibly aim to cause conflict but because of the complexity of political situations often becomes embroiled in it. It may be ideologically possible to have a form of nationalism that does not lead to conflict but this has not yet occurred historically and it remains to be seen whether or not this is practicable. However, for now it seems to be the case that trying to meld vague notions of shared cultural identity with political aims - the exercise of power over people - inevitably leads to conflict and that is, in essence, what political nationalism is.