Nations without States

Political Communities in a Global Age

Montserrat Guibernau

• Publisher: Polity
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9780745666884
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Nationalism & Patriotism
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Guibernau offers a comparative analysis of nationalist movements in nations without states.

1

State and Nation

The nation has become one of the most contested concepts of our times. Different cultural, political, psychological, territorial, ethnic and sociological principles underlie the multifarious definitions of the nation provided by the various scholars, politicians and political activists willing to shed some light on this much disputed term. Their lack of agreement suggests a major difficulty in dealing with such a complex phenomenon. The crux of the matter probably resides close to the link which has been established between nation and state, and to the common practice of using the nation as a source of political legitimacy. To be or not to be recognized as a nation entails different rights for the community which claims to be one, since being a nation usually implies the attachment to a particular territory, a shared culture and history and the assertion of the right to self-determination. To define a specific community as a nation involves the more or less explicit acceptance of the legitimacy of the state which claims to represent it, or if the nation does not possess a state of its own, it then implicitly acknowledges the nation’s right to self-government involving some degree of political autonomy which may or may not lead to a claim for independence.

The nation, however, cannot be viewed in isolation. I argue that a clear-cut distinction needs to be drawn between three main concepts: nation, state and nationalism. By ‘state’, taking Weber’s definition, I refer to ‘a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory’,¹ although not all states have successfully accomplished this, and some of them have not even aspired to accomplish it. By ‘nation’, I refer to a human group conscious of forming a community, sharing a common culture, attached to a clearly demarcated territory, having a common past and a common project for the future and claiming the right to rule itself. This definition attributes five dimensions to the nation: psychological (consciousness of forming a group), cultural, territorial, political and historical. By ‘nationalism’ I mean the sentiment of belonging to a community whose members identify with a set of symbols, beliefs and ways of life, and have the will to decide upon their common political destiny.² But yet another term needs to be defined and distinguished from the ones I have just mentioned, the nation-state. The nation-state is a modern institution, characterized by the formation of a kind of state which has the monopoly of what it claims to be the legitimate use of force within a demarcated territory and seeks to unite the people subject to its rule by means of cultural homogenization.

Nation, state and nationalism form a triad characterized by a constant tension between its three components. Hence, changes in the definition of one of the constituents have the capacity to influence and, to some extent, even alter the definitions of the other two. For instance, if belonging to a nation is defined in terms of common blood, the definition of the state and with it that of citizenship, as an attribute conferred upon its members, will have to include blood as a sine qua non condition for membership. Consequently, any nationalist movement emerging in these specific circumstances will focus upon common blood as a requisite for exclusion and inclusion in the nation that they want to defend and promote. In other cases where common ancestry is replaced as the primary condition for membership of a particular nation by birth or residence within its territory or by the simple wish to belong to it, the definition of the nation and the character of nationalism are altered accordingly.

This example refers to conditions for membership, that is, to elements which are considered to be indispensable to establishing a distinction between those who belong and those who do not belong to the nation. But alterations in the definitions of nation, state and nationalism are not restricted to conditions for belonging or criteria for membership.

The state’s self-definition as a unitary, a federal or even a multinational political institution holds significant consequences for the peoples living within its boundaries. Once one of these self-definitions is adopted by a specific state, it has the capacity to influence the definition of the nation. This is particularly evident when a people is confronted with a state that declares itself to be multinational, thus assuming the coexistence of more than one nation within its territory. Such a position entails an automatic distinction between nation and state which challenges the commonly accepted coincidence between the two. A multinational state explicitly acknowledges its internal diversity and, in so doing, it influences the diverse definitions of nationalism that may emerge within its territory. First, in these cases, the nationalism instilled by the state will necessarily involve the acceptance of the diverse nations included within its borders. This type of nationalism tends to focus on shared constitutional rights and principles as elements able to hold together an otherwise diverse citizenry. Second, the nationalism emerging from some of the national minorities included within the state is strongly influenced by the state’s recognition of their status as nations. The minorities’ nationalism is bound to focus upon demands for greater power and resources which will allow them to further the degree of self-government they enjoy – assuming that they are already entitled to some political autonomy.

In a similar way, alterations in the definition of nationalism also have the power to impact upon the definitions of both the state and the nation. Therefore, a nationalist discourse based upon the rejection, dehumanization, and portrayal of those who do not belong to the nation as ‘enemies’ and as a ‘threat’ will feed xenophobia and ethnic hatred. This type of nationalism is likely to foster a narrow definition of the nation based upon the exclusion of the different and the belief in the superiority of one’s own nation above all others. A state endorsing this sort of nationalism is likely to base its policy on the marginalization or sometimes even the elimination of ‘others’ within its territory, and/or the pursuit of a consistent assimilation policy. This type of state often engages in conflicts with other states as a result of an aggressive economic and/or territorial expansionist policy.

So far I have offered some examples showing how differences in the nature and definition of one of the constituents of the triad motivate substantial variations in the definitions of the other two. A further consideration suggests that different definitions of nation, state and nationalism coexist simultaneously in different parts of the globe. Hence, the relation between the three components of the triad can be analysed by focusing upon two different levels. The first, as I have shown above, involves the study of how changes in the definition of one of the constituents affects the other two. The second moves on to consider the eventual emergence of external factors capable of altering the very nature of the triad by shifting the balance of power between its members and even threatening to undermine one of them at the expense of another. Here we are confronted with radical transformations able to alter the more or less stable equilibrium existing between the triad by affecting their relationship at a structural level well above the particular situations considered when analysing individual cases.

At present, the main challenge to the relationship between the triad concerns the radical and rapid transformations altering the traditional nature of the state. The proliferation of supranational institutions, the increasing number of multinational corporations, and the emergence of sub-state nationalist movements contrive a novel political scenario in which the traditional role of the state is being undermined in a fundamental way. The signs of this have already become apparent; the radicalization of state nationalism, the proliferation of ethnic and national conflicts and the state’s resistance to giving up substantial aspects of its sovereignty represent but a few examples which hint at the state’s urgent need to recast its nature. At this moment in time, we are witnessing the rise of what I call ‘nations without states’ as potential new political actors able to capture and promote sentiments of loyalty, solidarity and community among individuals who seem to have developed a growing need for identity. Sound political and economic arguments may also be invoked in trying to account for the relevance that nations without states may acquire in the foreseeable future.

Nations without states

By ‘nations without states’ I refer to nations which, in spite of having their territories included within the boundaries of one or more states, by and large do not identify with them. The members of a nation lacking a state of their own regard the state containing them as alien, and maintain a separate sense of national identity generally based upon a common culture, history, attachment to a particular territory and the explicit wish to rule themselves. Self-determination is sometimes understood as political autonomy, in other cases it stops short of independence and often involves the right to secede. Catalonia, Quebec, Scotland, the Basque Country and Flanders represent only a few of the nations without states currently demanding further autonomy. It could be argued that some of these nations do have some kind of state of their own since a substantial number of powers have been devolved or one in the process of being devolved to their regional parliaments. But, in my view, political autonomy or even federation fall short of independence since they tend to exclude foreign and economic policy, defence and constitutional matters, and this is why it continues to make sense to refer to them as nations without states. The main qualities of the nation-state which, in one way or the other, favoured the assimilation of otherwise culturally diverse citizens were: its power to confer rights and duties upon its citizens; to provide for their basic needs – a function which since the Second World War materialized in the establishment of more or less generous welfare systems; and to maintain order in society while controlling the economy, defence, immigration and foreign policy, education and communication systems.

A nation without state, as the term indicates, is based upon the existence of a nation, that is, a community endowed with a stable but dynamic core containing a set of factors which have generated the emergence of a specific national identity. The state, that is, the political institution with which the nation should ideally identify, is missing. This creates a picture in which we have the cultural unit but lack the corresponding political institution regarded as legitimate by the members of the nation. The relationship between nation and state seems to have shifted from a time in which the state and its role in nation-building was given pre-eminence. In contrast, contemporary nationalist movements in nations without states are actively involved in ‘state-building’. We should note, however, that the state they seek to create differs from the classical model of state. We shall come back to this particular question in the concluding chapter.

The rise of nations without states is closely connected to two interrelated factors, the intensification of globalization processes and the transformations affecting the nation-state. The nation-state has traditionally based its legitimacy upon the idea that it represents the nation, in spite of the fact that often the state once created had to engage in nation-building processes aiming at the forced assimilation of its citizens. It now becomes apparent that, in many cases, these processes have largely failed; the re-emergence of nationalist movements in nations without states proves it. At present, the state seems to become increasingly unable to fulfil its citizens’ needs, and as a result of this they turn away from it and search for alternative institutions.

Most so-called nation-states are not constituted by a single nation which is coextensive with the state;³ internal diversity is the rule. The nation-state, after a long process of consolidation which has involved the construction of a symbolic image of the community endowed with a particular language and culture, and the creation of symbols and rituals destined to emphasize its unique character and the fixing of territorial borders, is being forced to respond to challenges from within.

The nations or parts of nations included within a single state do not share similar levels of national awareness. What is more, while some will define themselves as nations, others will be happy to be referred to as provinces or regions. Nations are not unique and fixed, and throughout history it is possible to record the disintegration of some nations which have played a prominent role during a particular period and the creation of new ones.

The state has a strong tendency to absorb functions and a great reluctance to delegate control over any of the tasks it considers as an integral part of its sovereignty. The argument for state centralization is closely connected to the idea of state sovereignty understood as full control over all matters concerning the social, political and economic life of the citizens living within its boundaries. The increasing number of international organizations, multinational companies, supranational social movements and the technical sophistication of modern warfare are currently challenging this classic concept of state sovereignty. The state is exposed to pressure from above while at the same time it lays itself open to increasing internal strain to modify its traditional centralist nature and acknowledge the existence of territorially circumscribed cultural communities within itself which show a varying degree of national self-consciousness and put forward different sociopolitical demands. The origin of most of these communities can be traced back to an era previous to the founding moment of the nation-state when diversity was generally diluted under the centralist and homogenizing practices of a then incipient nation-state.

The nationalism of nations without states emerges as a sociopolitical movement that defends the right of peoples to decide upon their own political destiny. Pressure for change and the nature of political demands are not homogeneous and depend upon each case, but what all these movements seem to share is the will to develop their specific culture and language, whenever it exists, and the desire to feel represented by the institutions deciding upon their future. The number of people involved in the movement can measure the strength of this type of nationalism; thus a massive following is more difficult to ignore if the state wants to maintain its credibility as a democratic institution.

Globalization and the nation

In The Consequences of Modernity,⁴ Giddens argues that the undue reliance which sociologists have placed upon the idea of ‘society’, understood as a bounded system, should be replaced by a starting point that concentrates upon analysing how social life is ordered across time and space. He writes, ‘in the modern era, the level of time-space distanciation is much higher than in any previous period, and the relations between local and distant social forms and events become correspondingly “stretched” ‘.⁵ He defines globalization as ‘the intensification of world-wide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa’.⁶

Globalization is a dialectic process which results in local happenings being influenced by, and at the same time holding the capacity to influence, distant events. The rise of sub-state forms of nationalism in Europe and elsewhere can be interpreted as a product of the dialectic nature of globalization which consists in mutually opposed tendencies. Thus the globalization of the economy and social relations which contributed to the weakening of the nation-state, also seems to have contributed to the intensification of regional forms of nationalism.

According to Albrow, we have entered the ‘global age’, this is a period which will redefine the human condition and where ‘the technical reason of modernity will no longer occupy the prime place in the moral ordering of social relations’.⁷ For him, the global age means the emergence of a new political order characterized by the pulling apart of society and the nation-state. Albrow argues that ‘the modern nation-state is neither the only possible form of state nor the crowning political achievement in human history’.⁸ In his view, the nation-state has failed to confine sociality within its boundaries, both territorial and categorical, and regards it as a ‘timebound form’ which ‘no longer contains the aspirations nor monopolizes the attention of those who live on its territory’.⁹ Albrow introduces the concept ‘global state’ and argues that it exists at every moment when the individual takes account of and seeks to act in the interests of a common interest spanning the globe.¹⁰ The global state is constructed from below, and relies on the global consciousness of countless individuals. In my view, the nationalist claims of democratic movements emerging in nations without states can be interpreted as an expression of Albrow’s transnational movement challenging the traditional nation-state.

In contrast with the theories which confer on globalization a major fu...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Dedication
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1 State and Nation
• 2 Nations without States: different political scenarios
• 3 Nations and Nationalism in Native America
• 4 Nationalism as a Social Movement
• 5 Cultural Resistance and Political Violence
• 6 Nations without States as New Global Political Actors
• 7 Conclusion
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index