Nationalism can be a politics of care — about belonging, culture, and democracy — or a politics of control, built on fear and exclusion.
In this video, I explore how nationalism can empower the powerless, but also how it can curdle into prejudice.
I suggest that identifying the two is easy: good nationalism expands empathy, whilst toxic nationalism shrinks it.
So, what do you think? Is nationalism good or bad?
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
Nationalism: is it good or is it bad? That's a question that goes through the very heart of belonging and identity, and to what I call 'the politics of care,' so it's a subject that very definitely fits in this channel, because nationalism shapes who counts and who is left out, and that matters.
Nationalism has defined the politics of the UK for centuries, from conquest and empire to devolution and independence. Nationalism isn't just about history; it's what's shaping our politics again now. So what is nationalism for, and what happens when it turns toxic?
Let's be clear, nationalism can be a good thing, which I can embrace and endorse. At its best, nationalism begins in care, care for people, for language, culture, and place. It says, "We matter, and our dignity as a group of people matters." And that's important, because that's about belonging and not exclusion. It's about love of community and not hate of others.
That is something that also lets people join together when they feel unheard and demand that their voices count. And in a democracy, that's important. When Westminster ignores Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, or London drains the regions of England, as it does, then nationalism, or regionalism within England, becomes a form of language of resistance. It's a call for agency. It says, we want the right to define ourselves, and that's democracy at work. It's not about declaring superiority.
This is important because this is about the economics of powerlessness. This is linked to economic autonomy, the power to decide locally and not be dictated to, which was once the whole foundation of our local authority system within the UK as a whole, which did in the 19th, and for a large part of the 20th century, fuel the way in which our local economies thrived and delivered for the well-being of the people who lived within them.
In this case, nationalism is about tackling the neglect that fuels resentment, and nothing could be better than that in my opinion. Cultural identity, when used in this way, becomes a rallying cry for fairness. And we can see examples of this in the UK right now, not only in the independence movements in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, but also in places like Manchester, where Andy Burnham is very clearly saying, "I want the power to decide for the people of this locality." And some other mayors are doing the same thing. In this situation, you cannot separate culture from economic justice. Progressive nationalism links dignity with democracy.
But, and let's add a very big but, at this point, nationalism can curdle and go off. Nationalism, when it becomes about control, is deeply toxic because nationalism that is about control defines itself by who's not included. It creates outsiders, by definition, and then flags become symbols of fear, and patriotism turns into prejudice. And we have that too in the UK right now, and all too obviously.
Reactionary nationalism of this sort feeds on fear: fear of outsiders, fear of change, fear of loss. It offers obedience instead of understanding to those who adhere to the idea. But in the process, of course, it alienates others. And its message is, and always has been, the same: "Follow the strong man; trust no one else", and in that situation, democracy always withers.
The politics of care is the antidote to this form of nationalism. Care begins with the assumption that everyone is of equal worth, because they are. It connects across boundaries. It listens before it labels, and it turns fear into empathy, and exclusion into cooperation. This is a caring nationalism, which defends self-determination and not superiority, which protects culture and not purity, and celebrates belonging and not exclusion. Nationhood should, in this case, be a framework for democracy and solidarity, and not a fortress.
There are then two types of nationalism, and there's a moral difference between the two. The nationalism of the oppressed provides a voice and dignity. The nationalism of the powerful seeks control and obedience, and the contrast is obvious. For example, Plaid Cymru recently won the Caerphilly by-election, and that brought me hope of a better Wales, for the people of that country and for their well-being. In contrast, Reform UK's rise brings with it fear, which we can almost feel.
The left has always had a dilemma with any form of nationalism, and this, too, has to be addressed. The problem for the left is that it has always believed in internationalism. It has valued solidarity of the working class across borders. And I get that. People who are being prejudiced by an international order - like neoliberalism - do have issues in common, and to understand that those are international is of significance because it means lessons can be learned. But local identity still matters. It grounds empathy. And we can, anyway, hold two ideas at once. We can have pride in place, and solidarity and care for all. These are not mutually exclusive, and I believe the left has got it wrong when it tries to claim that they are.
Nationalism is something for the left as well as for everybody else in our society. We can literally carry many identities, and I believe that I do. I'm an East Anglian, I live in England, I have an Irish passport, I feel like I'm European. I don't see the contradictions in those things. They make me a human being in different contexts at different times, but all of them are relevant and all of them add to who I am.
But the important point is that belonging does not then require boundaries. Empathy across differences strengthens and not weakens community, and provides me with access to multiple communities, which is really advantageous. Real confidence welcomes diversity, in other words.
And the same is true of faith traditions because I think they should be mentioned within this context. Many faith traditions wrestle with this same idea that there are boundaries, each claiming the truth, when in fact I see no difference: wherever I look, there are faith traditions searching for meaning, and that is a common human condition. We need to respect that because that search humanises belief when too often belief has also become a reason for creating difference and outsiders. This is about respect without domination, and that should always be the goal of any faith tradition.
So we have to recognise all these conflicting aims, but stand back and say 'Nationalism is a part of life.' It's everywhere in the UK. So the question is: what sort of nationalism do we want? Do we want one which embraces moral imagination, which will guide us, and which will empower those who are below? Or do we want a form of nationalism which demands obedience to those who are above? That is the choice that we are now faced with. That choice will shape our future.
And it's a simple ethical test.
Does our nationalism expand empathy or shrink it?
Does it build care or does it breed fear?
If our nationalism expands empathy and builds care, it's good.
If it shrinks empathy and breeds fear, it's bad.
It's as simple as that. And in most cases, the dividing line is glaringly obvious.
Nationalism is good when it's about care. It's bad when it's about domination. It's necessary when it gives voice to the ignored. And if we remember that nationalism is, in fact, good because it can unite us in trying to find answers to common questions, which could otherwise divide us, and that's important because the alternative will destroy us.
Nationalism, what do you think? Is it good or bad? There's a poll down below.
Poll
Loading ...Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Where this resonates is when you hear the phrase ‘this used to be a county that did things properly’. This betrays a sense of loss – something actually lost (the NHS, railways, water) and perceived to have been lost (to do with national identity and myths).
So when did that penny drop? And why?
Was it when Thatcher decided to roll back the State?
Or was it earlier as both political parties stood back and began to let foreign capital into the country that was used to seize economic private and public assets? Or both?
Was it because increasingly we’ve let the private sector dictate public life?
I was reading about the British Rail standard steam locos of Riddles the other day – some of those engines went to the scrap heap well before their time, as we went pell-mell into diesel modernity. We scrapped inner-city electric trolley buses and trams for diesel and we choke on the consequences today. Because we felt that the roads gave us more ‘freedom’.
People are today’s steam engines being lined-up for the scrap heap by AI. The crux of the issue seems to be the inability to manage the change properly, equitably and sensibly? It always has been a ‘dash’ in this country it seems, not a steady considerate process. Adapt or die. It is as if the whole country was managed like some gigantic austere public school where washing is cold water in the morning is meant to be good for the character.
Not good is it? But you are right – flag waving about immigrants is based on anger and frustration, used to justify racism and indifference is not a good look. It is nothing to be proud of. But it is real nonetheless, because the causes are real.
But a country based on care, ‘doing things properly ‘ – for everyone – now that is something to be proud of I would have thought. And I have never felt that about this country ever. I’ve always been embarrassed about being English – as though we’ve come up short, but also deceived ourselves somewhat.
Luigi Barzini felt the classic English way was ‘calm and sensible’. I’m not sure what epoch he was referring to. The grip of rampant greed we have been in for too long by the unaccountable is the problem.
Thank you
And “People are today’s steam engines being lined-up for the scrap heap by AI.” So very apposite.
Our tragedy these days is that working people used to know who it was that making their life a misery. That to me has been the
These days the zone is so flooded with shit, we can’t even do that anymore it seems to me.
We are given a choice of who to be angry at – a typical market reaction to anything.
The poll is incorrectly displayed. You’ll probably want to correct it.
Corrected. Thanks.
Thank you and your team for in incresasingly relevant article.
Might the Chinese culture of “He he” be of interest/relevance?
“The first “He” signifies peace and harmony while the second “He” means convegence, unity and cooperation.”
https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+Chinese+cultural+he+he&oq=definition+of+Chinese+cultural+he+he&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRiPAjIHCAQQIRiPAtIBCjMwODk0ajBqMTWoAgiwAgHxBTXN_jIGKNuF&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
You mention faith/s.
Because toxic nationalisms often exploit religious symbolism (and English nationalism certainly exploits Christian symbolism) I wanted to share how 2,000 years ago, in the midst of an imperial occupation, born and raised (including experience as a refugee), as part of an occupied and oppressed people, some of whom (including at least 2 of his disciples, Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot) were looking to violent religious revolt to throw off Roman rule, Jesus and his followers embraced a vision that included “all nations” but which didn’t eliminate national distinctives.
At Pentecost, in Acts 2, the “birthday” of the church, all nationalities present heard a message in their own language. Paul exhorted the new churches to unite, not to separate or discriminate on ethnic lines, and to express “care” for one another across boundaries (his famous “collection” for the Jerusalem churches).
John’s apocalypse, written from an imperially imposed exile, shared a vision of a heavenly worshipping community, of ALL nations (not just one, and not a monoglot homogeneous unity), with the sound of many languages.
The best from other faiths will tell a similar story, I have more in common with them, than the toxic nationalistic distortions of my own faith.
I vote for a nationalism that celebrates, cares, includes and shows compassion.
I agree with your vote.
RobertJ
I appreciate these little vignettes into religious scripture you keep giving us even though I am an atheist.
As someone who has had the privilege of living overseas for some 20 years of my life including a European country and Islamic country, like Richard, I have no problem with a sense of multi-nationalism (or multi-regionalism) provided it is based on bringing people together in a positive way, e.g., pride in culture, community spirit, etc., I.e., bring people together based on values, care and positivity. The problem seems to be when it breaks down to tribalism which, in itself, can be powerful as long as it doesn’t stray into a reason for exclusion, fear and certainly not into violence of any sort. Using sporting analogies (and a prior apology as it is hugely simplified): during an international rugby match nationalism (and a certain amount of tribalism) is on full display and sometimes spills over amongst the players competing ferociously on the field and in some of the ‘exhortations’ of the fans. However, when it finishes typically rival fans – and certainly rival teams – socialise, celebrate, commiserate together. Their love of rugby and their mutual respect for the code of the game brings them together…even after 80 minutes of trying to beat each other. And, their nationalism – irrespective of the result – holds strong. However, when fans start fighting during or after a game that is toxic tribalism based on (perceived) difference, disrespect and, in some cases, religious animosity. Garbage (apologies predictive text – was supposed to be Farage) and others of his ilk tap into this toxic tribalism based on perceived difference, hate, fear, anger, sense of loss, etc. We have to recover positive nationalism (community, care, respect for all whilst having pride in our own community, culture, etc.) and prevent Garbage and his like-minded minions from capturing it and using it as a toxic tribalism.
Incidentally, whilst I have serious reservations – amongst others – about how women are viewed under Islam, my experiences over many years was that it was family orientated, pride in communities / the country and a calm, safe and respectful environment in which to live with my family. People make the difference. We can be respectful and understanding of different nationalities, religious views, politics, etc., as long as we bring it back to creating a positive human condition…a sense of belonging, community, care, respect whilst still having pride in our own ‘culture’.
Thanks
Nationalism, or group identity, is, it seems to me, to be almost infinitely scalable.
We identify as members of a family, then as a classmate, then a colleague, then a sports club supporter, then as a scouser, then as a Yorkshireman, then as a northerner, then as English, then European and, perhaps someday ultimately, as an ‘Earthman’.
At each stage, because of primeval influence, we hold (or should) a healthy, benign and respectful rivalry with the ‘other’. It is this ‘rivalry’ or competition that is the essence of so much that makes us vital as individuals and can help us to recognise that both success and failure are imposters. Unfortunately, for a dysfunctional minority, this extends to domination and warring which will continue until civilisation reaches its ultimate maturity and we recognise that difference and collaboration are two sides of the same, beautiful, coin.
As you point out there’s a very great difference between types of nationalism, but in the word in English tends to evoke thoughts of ethnic nationalism of the post-1848 period of defining nations by who doesn’t belong (which, ironically, leads to irredentism), rather than the liberal nationalism, what you might call Bolivarian nationalism, which defines a nation (in theory, if not always in practice) by who wants to belong.
Between the inclusive nationalism of Ernest Renan (despite some of his other problematic views) of a shared identity based on civic contribution (which he described as “having done great things together, wishing to do more”) and the exclusive nationalism of Johann Fichte based on, in the words of Karl Deutsche, “a group of people united by a mistaken view about the past and a hatred of their neighbours.” The kind of nationalism we see in the nationalism of Reform and their would be candidates making claims that only white people can be English, etc.
I wrote a blog post about this 11 years ago during the Scottish independence campaign, much of which is still true and echoes a lot of what you have said. https://fairfurth.wordpress.com/2014/04/16/on-nationalisms/
I was born and brought up in England, but I have always identified myself as a Northerner, as I was never happy with the perception of English Nationalism. I now live in South West Scotland, where I am much happier, although I resent the fact that my vote is immaterial, as this is a seriously Tory area (It might even be a Reform area in 26, if we are not careful). Locally, there is a perception that the area is ignored by Holyrood, at the expense of the Central Belt and the Highlands. I believe that a root cause of peoples dissatisfaction is the erosion of local services, both from the council and the NHS. This then brings us to the problem of the focus on centralisation, with Holyrood intent on keeping everything under its own control. So your line about it being bad if its about domination resonates with me.
Richard, your eloquence describes exactly how I feel about inclusive vs exclusive nationalism. Thank you.
I grew up in rural Québec, lived in Montréal for 13 years as an adult and yes, I’m very much a nationalist. My dad was from Stoke-on-Trent. He identified as West Midlander and Englishman. Not British, certainly not European (continentals), not really Canadian, never a Quebecer. My mother, like most of her generation, was canadienne française (some Irish and indigenous ancestors). Her parents were canadiens. Prior to WWII anglophones were just English. I’m québécoise.
Like most independantistes I have always wanted Québec to transform its political economy to the Nordic model. When Brian Mulroney was Canadian PM he said “If I wanted to live in Sweden, I’d move there” as a reaction to that ideal. I’ve always been against globalization, against foreign corporations buying local businesses, land and natural resources but have always been profoundly internationalist.
I became an anti-capitalist within 6 months of moving to Arizona in 1997. Its politics of uncare was a culture shock.
Québec nationalism is tricky. At its core it’s progressive and inclusive. It evolved in the 1960s anticolonialism and rooted in the 1830s enlightenment, before Catholic ultramontanism turned Québec into a quasi theocracy until 1959. It’s irreligious, anticlerical, culturally catholic, agnostic and laic. It expects people of other faiths to have a similar relationship to their religion and fears religion seeping back into politics. It holds that the political economy should be influenced as much by feminine culture as masculine culture and by ecology (a work in progress). It requires French be the common language, even at work. Much of this is at odds with Canadian values, to Anglo North America and to a certain extent with the expectations of immigrants who want to integrate into the culture that allows them the most mobility, which is English and its culture. I get that.
The real priority is how to do right by the 11 indigenous nations on whose territories Québec is situated, to whom we owe an enormous debt as do all settlers on Turtle Island. It has been said that québecois/canadien culture was originally indigenized. We need to renew and deepen our links with them. Allow their cultures, languages, peoples to thrive.
US (Russian, Chinese) interference is a problem.
Thanks
I think the ‘exclusionary’ nationalism should be renamed as ‘tribal, xenophobic’ nationalism! That’s what the Farage/Robinson/etc crowd espouse. Inclusionary nationalism would be far more likely to give people (well, everybody below the upper few percent) a genuine sense of pride and belonging.