Is nationalism a progressive or reactionary doctrine?

Heater said that there are three paradoxes of nationalism: it is a force for either peace or violence, democracy or dictatorship and is both progressive and reactionary. The progressive aspects in this sense would be forward looking while the reactionary would be backward looking and even seek to turn the clock back to a previous era.

The basic belief of nationalism is that the nation is or should be the central principle of political organisation. On a basic level, nations are cultural entities, collections of people bound together by shared values and traditions, although there is no set of components that establish where and when a nation exists. Nations usually share a common history and tradition and their national identity is preserved by recalling past glories, suggesting a reactionary view. However nationalist feelings may be based more on future expectations than on shared memories or a common past, creating a progressive view of the nation. This is most evident in the USA, a ‘land of immigrants’ where events like the War of Independence have no direct relevance for most Americans whose families arrived centuries after these events occurred.

These progressive and reactionary views of the nation are most clearly demonstrated in the rival inclusive and exclusive concepts of the nation. Exclusive concepts of the nation are reactionary as they stress the importance of ethnic unity and a shared history, viewing national identity as given and unchanging. Inclusive concepts are progressive as they highlight the importance of civic consciousness and patriotic loyalty, suggesting that nations may be multi-ethnic, multi-racial and multi-religious.

As well as progressive and reactionary view of the nation, there are progressive and reactionary views of national identity. Primordialist approaches to nationalism portray national identity as historically embedded and characterised by deep emotional attachments that resemble kinship ties. This is a reactionary view as it implies that there is little difference between ethnicity and nationality. In contrast situationalist approaches to nationalism suggest that national identity is forged in response to changing situations and historical challenges. This is a more progressive view as Ernest Gellner suggested that nations coalesced in response to particular social conditions and circumstances and implies that the national community is deeprooted and enduring.

Although the theme of the nation is divided with both progressive and reactionary aspects, the nationalism core theme of self-determination is undeniably progressive. Self-determination sprang up during the French Reolution as Jeans-Jacques Rousseau argued that government should be based on the indivisible collective will of the entire community, not the absolute power of a monarch. The form of nationalism that emerged was based on the vision of a people or nation governing itself. In this tradition, national identity is the desire to attain or maintain political independence, expressed in the principle of national self-determination. The goal of nationalism is therefore the founding of a nation-state, which may involve a process of unification where a collection of separate political entities are integrated into a single state or achievement of independence. As the goal of nationalism is progressive, you could argue that the entire doctrine is progressive. However, there are many different forms of nationalism and not all of them seek to achieve this goal in a progressive manner.

There are three forms of nationalism: ethnic, cultural and political. Cultural nationalism emphasizes the strengthening or defence of cultural identity over overt political demons. It is based on a romantic belief in the nation as a unique historical and organic whole. Cultural nationalism is a reactionary form of nationalism because of its emphasis on history. Ethnic nationalism differs from cultural nationalism in that ethnicity is loyalty towards a distinctive population, cultural group or territorial area. It is still reactionary however as its racial overtones give it an exclusive character. Political nationalism on the other hand is progressive as it is defined by the progressive principle of self-determination and emphasizes civic loyalty and political allegiance rather than on cultural identity. Eric Hobsbawm argued that a belief in historical continuity and cultural purity was a myth created by nationalism.

Of the four traditions of nationalism, liberal nationalism is by far the most progressive as they believe that nations are equally entitled to the right of self-determination and their ultimate goal is the construction of a world of independent nation states. Conservative nationalism on the other hand cares less about universal self-determination and are appealed to nationalism because of tradition and history making it more reactionary. It is essentially nostalgic and backward-looking, reflecting on a past age of national glory and being against immigration and supranationalism. Expansionist nationalism is by far the most reactionary tradition of nationalism because of its belief in chauvinism, that nations are not equal in their right to self-determination. Chauvinism is also a breeding ground for racialist theories as it is often stimulated by negative integration, the portrayal of another nation or race as a threat or an enemy. Nevertheless it is progressive as nationalist enthusiasm was provoked by arbitrary expansion or imperial conquest. Pan-Germanism desired a German dominated Europe. Anti-colonial nationalism is progressive in its desire for independence and social revolution while post-colonial nationalism is reactionary, rejecting Western culture and seeking to revert to the culture before the West colonised the area.

There are so many forms and traditions within nationalism and it has such a subjective nature that it cannot be generally termed as being either a progressive or reactionary doctrine. It contains clear cut examples of both, giving it an almost schizophrenic political character.