In Teaching guide 1 we spoke of the “political use of nationalism”, referring to how 19th and 20th century historians considered the “Germanic Nations” as the origin of European nations. The real entrance in politics of the word “nation” nevertheless does not begin as you already know in the 5th century but in the 18th century with the Enlightenment, when Absolute monarchies fell in the name of the “Nation”, as the divine origin of the concept of sovereignty vested in the person of the king was transferred to the joint body of the inhabitants of a kingdom.
This idea had appeared a century earlier with the concept of “Social Pact”, referring toa new explanation of why political power had to be obeyed by citizens. In the Middle Ages the pope, the emperor and the kings were sovereigns because God had created the world this way (Theocentrism). But the religious crisis of the 16th and 17th centuries that brought the dreadful wars of religion obliged political thinkers to develop a laic approach to the justification of Power. It was then when Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) horrified by the long English civil war and the execution of Charles I came up with the idea that sovereignty was vested in a political monster called Leviathan, integrated by the ensemble of citizens that gave up forever all their rights to Him in order to get His protection and avoid chaos.
This harsh vision of the Social Pact was tempered by John Locke (1632-1704) and Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) as they considered that the Social Pact could not be irreversible and irrevocable. Citizens accept to obey the Government but only if it works for the “Common wealth”. If not they could consider that those in power break the social pact and this legitimate them to disobey and bring along a new pact. On top of that the Social pact had some “special clauses” because some of the original rights of citizens could not be given up under any circumstance, as they were considered “fundamental”. This is the origin of the theory of the “Fundamental Rights and Liberties”
The result of this mildest vision of the social pact empowered citizens as they became the “owners” of sovereignty and not the kings, as they were the “protagonists” of the Social pact. A body of people that had in common that they were born in the same territory. This is why they were called its “nationals”, and the ensemble of them a “Nation” with capital N. Remember the French celebration of the "Fête de la Fëdération" on the 18 of July of 1790, the origin of French National Day.
The other consequence of the religious conflicts of the 16th and 17th centuries was the disappearance of Universalism as we saw in Teaching Guide 3. The “official” sanction of the death of the conception that there was one universal ruler was a result of the Westphalia Peace of 1648 that reorganized Europe after the Thirty Years War.
The decadence of the Universal model was the direct consequence of the strengthening of the State. We have already seen in Teaching guide 2 that once kings turned into monarchs they could organize better their realms creating administrative bodies that enabled them to collect taxes for paying the maintain a permanent army. They could impose a protectionist economic policy aiming at augmenting the wealth of the state by the way of increasing as much as possible the reserves of gold and silver. Something that could be reached by the way of establishing a favorable balance of trade, exporting more than importing and monopolizing as many trades as possible. This economic policy was called “mercantilism”. The aim of it was having the highest quantity of precious metals, namely gold.
Every monarch started competing with other monarchs in order to accumulate wealth and therefore power. Part of the wealth was of course the result of having as many territories as possible and as many subjects that could pay taxes and join their armies. For this the kings developed step by step a “proto-national feeling.” Starting may be with Jeanne d’Arc (1412-1431) that helped his king Charles VII to get rid of the English soldiers that occupied a substantial part of French soil during the Hundred Years War (1337-1453). Napoleon considered her the symbol of France. Beatified in 1909 ans canonized in 1920, Saint Joan of Arc became one of the patrons of France.
Royal states during the absolutist period did not disdain to foment patriotic sentiments amongst their subjects during political and military conflicts. We cannot speak of proto-nationalism, as in Tudor England, Bourbon France and Habsburg Spain these feeling did not emanate from a loyal people who felt invested in, and identified with, their land and its institutions. In fact, according to Anderson (Lineages of Absolutist State, London: Verso, 2013) these “national passions” under absolutism, though they may have appeared to be significant, were in reality highly contingent and volatile, as power and political legitimacy were of a dynastic nature, constantly vulnerable to manipulation by grandees and sovereigns. (see pages 44 and 45 of your Materials).
But regardless of the abovementioned debate, it is quite clear that after the Peace of Westphalia (1648) the idea of a universal Christian Empire was replaced by an international order based on the struggle between different secular “national monarchies” that would struggle to impose their hegemony through successive wars during the next three centuries.
Unity was replaced by diversity. There was not a common pope or a common emperor anymore, but a reunion of kings that were heads of independent “states”. The problem was, as you know, that the "state" was just an organization, a way of setting the government and the administration of a territory. And this political and administrative body needed a soul, and that soul was nationalism. The result was the appearance of a new political : the Nation-State.
But one thing was to have the idea of replacing the "Monarch" by the “Nation” and another very different to put it into practice. It was not going to be an easy transition. In fact it required a revolutionary movement followed by dramatic wars steered by the “nationalistic narrative”. First in North America, since 1776, and secondly in France since 1789. This is what we are going to study today.
This changed in America for the first time when colons rebelled against the British Crown and declared their independence on July 4, 1776, starting a Revolutionary War of 7 years (until 1783). Patriotism was at the stake in George Washington’s Camp. British soldiers fought essentially for money, but American soldiers fought to have a country of their own. Of course not all of the Americans were for rebellion. Some wanted to keep on being British subjects: they were called Loyalists. If you want to really feel what was it like I strongly recommend the US TV Serie “Turn. Washington Spies” (2014) and of course the classic Mel Gibson’s Movie The Patriot (2000). You will enjoy them very much.
Fighting for your own country and not for your king was a powerful narrative that lead you to be willing to die by patriotism. That was very clear under another Revolution: the French one. The French Revolution was such a mess that would have disappeared if the Revolutionary Constituant Assembly had not had the brilliant idea of declaring the war to the kings of Prussia and the Emperor of Austria on the 20 of April 1792.
The conflict of the newborn United States of America with the UK between 1776 and 1783, and the conflict of Revolutionary France against Absolutist European kings of the Ancien Régime created a new type of State. The Nation-State in which sovereignty was not vested on the Monarch, but on the People, considered as Nation, that is a Political Body that govern themselves through the representatives elected (Representative democracy).
The crucial point is that “nationalism” became a very powerful narrative that consolidated the state and dissolved any rest of “universalism”. The Law for instance became “national” and the result was “codification”. Every State created its own ordered set of national laws. Including the Law that declared who was “national” of the state.
The main problem that the European Union has is that its 27 Members are still heavily rooted "Nation-States", and that usually their nationals do not feel closer to their country than to the abstract idea of a United Europe. European narrative is still far less powerful. In contrast with what happens in the United States, where you 50 Member States but only "one nation". Their integration process was difficult and had to go through a terrible Civil war, but today they are one of the most powerful countries because despite their diversity they have a common strong narrative.
In this Teaching Guide 4 we will see the origins of the “Nation State” idea through the American and French Revolution. And in the next Teaching Guide 5 we will see the apogee of the Nation-States during the period starting with Napoleon and leading to the Era of great colonialism that ended for European States with the holocaust of World War I.
INSTRUCTIONS: First read the text included in your Materials (pages 54 to 78), before proceeding to answer the Concrete Questions, the Concepts and the General Questions.
Concerning the Basic Chronology (pages 74 to 75) the crucial dates are the following:
a) For the American Revolution: 1607, 1620, 1754-1763, 1773, 17775, 1776, 1777, 1783 and 1787
b) For the French Revolution: the periods of Constituant Assembly (June 1789 to September 1791); the Legislative Assembly (October 1791 to August 1792); the Convention (September 1792 to October 1795) and the Directory (October 1795 to November 1799).
Crucial dates are : 1789 (17 June, 20 June, 27 June, 14 July), 1790 (July 14), 1792 (April 20; 10 August, 20 and 22 September); 1793 (21 January); 1794 (January until July: Robespierre). 1799, 9 November.
TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION IN CLASS: How important is your country for you?
Please consider the following aspects:
1. Are you proud of being “national” from your country?
2. Do you think your country is an arbitrary invention that does not make sense today?
3. Do you think that separatist nationalist in European statestoday should be independent Nation-States? Give reasons for and against.
4. Do you feel more “national” or more European?
5. What moves you more: your local soccer team or your National team?
The "Nation-State" an extremely powerful fiction.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario