The Nation in a Transnational World

October 10, 2021
• Sociology, Nationalism

The ‘nation’ as an idea that binds a large community of people who share common culture and geography, has long existed in various forms over the ages. Susan Reynolds argues that the natio as a collective “community of custom, descent, and government” existed in the form of kingdoms even in the medieval period¹. However, the rise of the modern concept of ‘nation’ is dated back to the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), when the first sovereign ‘nation-states’ were established based on linguistic differences². There are many theories regarding the origin of the nation as a product of modernity and can be broadly divided into three different categories: the modernist theories, the primordialist theories, and the ethnosymbolist theories of the nation. 

Modernist integration theories, influenced and popularised by Gellner³, Anderson⁴, and Hobsbawm⁵, focus on the systemic and cultural integration of communities to create a socio-cultural structure, “an imagined community”⁴ that parallels the state; one that is defined through shared values and propagated through education to create a homogenous identity, i.e., the nation. Primordialist theories of Shils⁶ and van den Berge^7,8, on the other hand, reasoned the existence of ‘nation’ as a natural grouping driven by “the ineffable significance [of] a tie of blood” that is “a necessity of human existence in society”⁶. Ethnosymbolists such as Armstrong⁹ and Smith¹⁰ argued for the importance of common symbols, myths, and traditions in building a group with shared cultural affinities united by the distinctive heritage of the nation, rather than a wholly imagined community or one bound through physical kinship.

While these theories give us different perspectives of a complex phenomenon that has driven countless wars and shaped the lives of each of the 9 billion people on this pale blue dot we inhabit, what does the nation mean in the globally connected age that our generation is a part of? Transnational, as Paul Jay notes, is a relatively recently coined term. The first use of this word is credited to Randolph Bourne’s essay titled, “Trans-National America”¹¹, which notes that immigrant traditions are not completely assimilated into the greater homogenous ‘American culture’  but persist in unique ways thriving alongside diverse experiences of the national spirit of America. Using this as evidence for its cosmopolitan nature, he claims that America can become a “trans-national state”.  Here, the word ‘trans’ is used as ‘to go beyond’ allowing the visualization of a state that surpasses the ‘nation’ to create a multicultural community, made of immigrants and natives alike, who maintain a collective sense of social, cultural, and political cohesion despite the underlying plurality of identities and cultures. In a world where 281 million people (over 3% of the world’s populace) are diasporic migrants to a different nation-state than their own¹², the ‘transnational’ aspects of social existence become very relevant to how we understand society. 

Transnational approaches in humanities and social sciences are based on two primary principles¹³. Firstly, all cultures are dynamic and the processes that move across national borders, influencing the nation’s beliefs, have always existed. Recently, the global flow of capital and labor has led to a faster and more prominent restructuring of society. Secondly, it requires us to reconceptualize the idea of local, global, and national to account for the influence of these global processes. As one might note, this approach directly ‘transgresses’ the demands of the ‘nation’, particularly in primordialist theories. To accept a nation with a dynamic culture influenced by external forces is to reject outright the blood ties that connect the nation’s people and distinguish them from the other.

Similarly, the ethnosymbolist theories that rely on common heritage are opposed to incorporating immigrant cultures, especially when there are apparent ethnocultural differences that prevent the creation of a myth of common history and destiny that can be propagated through symbols, as is the case of a largely global diaspora. The integration theories of the nation, on the other hand, are more robust to change. If the nation is accepted as a social construct, then the same processes can slowly restructure the idea of the nation to accept the plurality associated with transnational ideas. 

Currently, there is growing popularity of neo-nationalist policies in many countries, as apparent from Trump’s presidency, Modi’s nationalist rhetoric, and similar movements worldwide¹⁴. The brunt of all hate is born by minorities and immigrants. The word ‘anti-national’ is held as a threat to any opposition to the dominant group-think, thereby further homogenizing the nation’s culture to fit the majority perspective. In such a political climate, transnational narratives become all the more critical to discuss and study as a tool to counter the rising tide of xenophobic nationalism. It is only by redefining the nation in the transnational context that we can reconcile with cultural diversity and create a better world that is more accepting of differences.

References:

1.    Reynolds, S. Kingdoms and Communities in Western Europe, 900-1300. (Clarendon Press, 1997).

2.    FARR, J. POINT: THE WESTPHALIA LEGACY AND THE MODERN NATION-STATE. Int. Soc. Sci. Rev. 80, 156–159 (2005).

3.    Gellner, E. Nations and Nationalism. (Cornell University Press, 2008).

4.    Anderson, B. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. (Verso, 2006).

5.    Hobsbawm, E. J., Hobsbawm, E. J. E., Hobsbawm, H., Eric J. & Hobsbawm, P. E. J. Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality. (Cambridge University Press, 1992).

6.    Shils, E. Primordial, Personal, Sacred and Civil Ties: Some Particular Observations on the Relationships of Sociological Research and Theory. Br. J. Sociol. 8, 130–145 (1957).

7.    van den Berghe, P. L. Race and ethnicity: A sociobiological perspective. Ethn. Racial Stud. 1, 401–411 (1978).

8.    Brigandt, I. The homeopathy of kin selection: an evaluation of Van den Berghe’s sociobiological approach to ethnic nepotism. Polit. Life Sci. J. Assoc. Polit. Life Sci. 20, 203–215 (2001).

9.    Armstrong, J. A. Nations Before Nationalism. (UNC Press Books, 2017).

10.    Smith, A. History and national destiny: Responses and clarifications. Nations Natl. - NATIONS NATL 10, 195–209 (2004).

11.    Bourne, R. S. Trans-national America. The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1916/07/trans-national-america/304838/ (1916).

12.    Nations, U. International Migration 2020 Highlights. United Nations https://www.un.org/en/desa/international-migration-2020-highlights.

13.    Schiller, N. G. The Situation of Transnational Studies. Identities 4, 155–166 (1997).

14.    Bieber, F. Is Nationalism on the Rise? Assessing Global Trends. Ethnopolitics 17, 519–540 (2018).