Nationalism generally is a politics of care — about belonging, tradition, and democracy — or a politics of management, constructed on worry and exclusion.

On this video, I discover how nationalism can empower the powerless, but additionally the way it can curdle into prejudice.

I counsel that figuring out the 2 is simple: good nationalism expands empathy, while poisonous nationalism shrinks it.

So, what do you suppose? Is nationalism good or unhealthy?

That is the audio model:

That is the transcript:

Nationalism: is it good or is it unhealthy? That is a query that goes by way of the very coronary heart of  belonging and identification, and to what I name ‘the politics of care,’ so it is a topic that very positively suits on this channel, as a result of nationalism shapes who counts and who’s not noted, and that issues.

Nationalism has outlined the politics of the UK for hundreds of years,  from conquest and empire to devolution and independence. Nationalism is not nearly historical past; it is what’s shaping our politics once more now.  So what’s nationalism for, and what occurs when it turns poisonous?

Let’s be clear, nationalism generally is a good factor, which I can embrace and endorse. At its greatest, nationalism begins in care, look after folks, for language, tradition, and place.  It says, “We matter, and our dignity as a group of individuals issues.” And that is essential, as a result of that is about belonging and never exclusion.  It is about love of group and never hate of others.

That’s one thing that additionally lets folks be a part of collectively once they really feel unheard and demand that their voices depend. And in a democracy, that is essential. When Westminster ignores Scotland, Wales, and Northern Eire, or London drains the areas of England, because it does, then nationalism, or regionalism inside England, turns into a type of language of resistance. It is a name for company.  It says, we wish the appropriate to outline ourselves, and that is democracy at work. It isn’t about declaring superiority.

That is essential as a result of that is concerning the economics of powerlessness.  That is linked to financial autonomy, the facility to resolve regionally and never be dictated to, which was as soon as the entire basis of our native authority system inside the UK as a complete, which did within the nineteenth, and for a big a part of the twentieth century, gasoline the best way by which our native economies thrived and delivered for the well-being of the individuals who lived inside them.

On this case,  nationalism is about tackling the neglect that fuels resentment, and nothing may very well be higher than that in my view. Cultural identification, when used on this method, turns into a rallying cry for equity. And we are able to see examples of this within the UK proper now, not solely within the independence actions in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Eire, but additionally in locations like Manchester, the place Andy Burnham may be very clearly saying, “I need the facility to resolve for the folks of this locality.” And another mayors are doing the identical factor. On this state of affairs, you can’t separate tradition from financial justice. Progressive nationalism hyperlinks dignity with democracy.

However, and let’s add a really massive however, at this level, nationalism can curdle and go off.  Nationalism, when it turns into about management, is deeply poisonous as a result of nationalism that’s about management defines itself by who’s not included.  It creates outsiders, by definition, after which flags turn into symbols of worry, and patriotism turns into prejudice. And now we have that too within the UK proper now, and all too clearly.

Reactionary nationalism of this type feeds on worry: worry of outsiders, worry of change, worry of loss. It gives obedience as an alternative of understanding to those that adhere to the concept. However within the course of, in fact, it alienates others.  And its message is, and at all times has been, the identical: “Comply with the robust man; belief nobody else”, and in that state of affairs, democracy at all times withers.

The politics of care is the antidote to this type of nationalism.  Care begins with the belief that everybody is of equal price, as a result of they’re. It connects throughout boundaries. It listens earlier than it labels, and it turns worry into empathy, and exclusion into cooperation.  This can be a caring nationalism, which defends self-determination and never superiority, which protects tradition and never purity, and celebrates belonging and never exclusion. Nationhood ought to, on this case, be a framework for democracy and solidarity, and never a fortress.

There are then two sorts of nationalism, and there is a ethical distinction between the 2.  The nationalism of the oppressed gives a voice and dignity. The nationalism of the highly effective seeks management and obedience, and the distinction is clear.  For instance, Plaid Cymru not too long ago gained the Caerphilly by-election, and that introduced me hope of a greater Wales, for the folks of that nation and for his or her well-being.  In distinction, Reform UK’s rise brings with it worry, which we are able to virtually really feel.

The left has at all times had a dilemma with any type of nationalism, and this, too, must be addressed.  The issue for the left is that it has at all times believed in internationalism. It has valued solidarity of the working class throughout borders.  And I get that. People who find themselves being prejudiced by a world order – like neoliberalism – do have points in frequent, and to grasp that these are worldwide is of significance as a result of it means classes may be realized. However native identification nonetheless issues. It grounds empathy. And we are able to, anyway, maintain two concepts directly.  We will have pleasure in place, and solidarity and look after all. These usually are not mutually unique, and I consider the left has received it flawed when it tries to assert that they’re.

Nationalism is one thing for the left in addition to for everyone else in our society. We will actually carry many identities, and I consider that I do. I am an East Anglian, I stay in England, I’ve an Irish passport, I really feel like I am European. I do not see the contradictions in these issues. They make me a human being in numerous contexts at completely different occasions, however all of them are related and all of them add to who I’m.

However the essential level is that  belonging doesn’t then require boundaries. Empathy throughout variations strengthens and never weakens group, and gives me with entry to a number of communities, which is basically advantageous.  Actual confidence welcomes variety, in different phrases.

And the identical is true of religion traditions as a result of I feel they need to be talked about inside this context. Many religion traditions wrestle with this similar concept that there are boundaries, every claiming the reality, when actually I see no distinction: wherever I look, there are religion traditions trying to find that means, and that may be a frequent human situation. We have to respect that as a result of that search humanises perception when too typically perception has additionally turn into a motive for creating distinction and outsiders.  That is about respect with out domination, and that ought to at all times be the objective of any religion custom.

So now we have to recognise all these conflicting goals, however stand again and say ‘Nationalism is part of life.’ It is in all places within the UK. So the query is:  what kind of nationalism do we wish? Do we wish one which embraces ethical creativeness, which can information us, and which can empower those that are under? Or do we wish a type of nationalism which calls for obedience to those that are above? That’s the alternative that we are actually confronted with.  That alternative will form our future.

And it is a easy moral check.

Does our nationalism broaden empathy or shrink it?

Does it construct care or does it breed worry?

If our nationalism expands empathy and builds care, it is good.

If it shrinks empathy and breeds worry, it is unhealthy.

It is so simple as that. And most often, the dividing line is obviously apparent.

Nationalism is sweet when it is about care. It is unhealthy when it is about domination. It’s a necessity when it provides voice to the ignored.  And if we keep in mind that nationalism is, actually, good as a result of it could actually unite us in looking for solutions to frequent questions, which may in any other case divide us, and that is essential as a result of the choice will destroy us.

Nationalism, what do you suppose? Is it good or unhealthy? There is a ballot down under.

Ballot

 Loading …

Feedback 

When commenting, please be aware of this weblog’s remark coverage, which is accessible right here. Contravening this coverage will lead to feedback being deleted earlier than or after preliminary publication on the editor’s sole discretion and with out rationalization being required or provided.