Questions on Nationalism and Culture
Jun 16 2008 04:05
I've been thinking a lot lately about how anarchists view ideas like culture and nationalism.
Some things are unlcear to me and I was wondering if people here had some ideas or could point me in some interesting directions.
1) Do you think that there is room within working class movements for expressions of cultural pride? Do you feel things like Irish or Puerto Rican pride will always be divisve or to lead to sepetarist or supremacist thought?
2) Do you think that some form of national identity will always exist even in an anarchist world, and is this a bad thing? I understand the problems with governments controlling borders and the flow of people, but I also tend to see that people who historically live on a land might have some "claim" to it. I am well aware that this might veer into right wing territory so I don't advocate it openly. But in my mind there seems to be some validity to the thought that the people of a national identity might maintain control over ancesteral lands.
3) If the answer to question 1 and 2 is no, would the creation of a new cultural identity for all peple that supercedes ethnicity and homeland be a necessary revolutionary goal?
Some of what got me thinking about all of this just for background is some work I have begun doing with the asatru community which I know has it's share of problems and several political conversations with non anarchists of all stripes. Time and time again I heard my friends of color argue FOR the unity and strength that their ethnic identity provided, and otherwise well meaning white people saying how it was unfair that you could not be proud to be a "european" or "white" american. Some of this I am sure is head in the sand nonsense that ignores white opression and supremacy in this nation or racist fear.
Generally I know the anarchist party line is that you should not be proud of things like skin color which makes total sense to me, but culture seems to run deeper than that. I wonder if there are not positive values to cultural identifacation that many people would benefit from.
Also, I've heard it argued that things like Black Power are helpful because it is a reaction to a history of opression. Obviusly I could not agree more, but I think that is just one part of it. I think there are proactive and not just reactive benefits that communities have gained in America from connections to a cultural identity.
Jun 16 2008 13:30
#2
Well first of all I don't mean culture as the same thing as races. I think cultures are usually based in broad ethnic types but as you point out the idea of "races" is kind of a false one as we are all the same race and people have mixed forever.
You are absolutely right on the problems with nationalism as clearly an Irish worker and an Irish boss do not have the same interests whereas the Irish worker does have the same interests as a Mexican worker generally speaking.
Maybe claim is the wrong word. But as you say, people have the right to fight for their homes and communities and sometimes I wonder if even an anarchist humanity will not still divide themselves based on regions of habitation. But perhaps as you say this can appear as healthy cultural differences under the larger umbrella of class solidarity.
I don't think I'm phrasing my questions very well, but thanks for the imput. Just to be clear I in absolutely no way mean to imply that cultures or ethnic types should in any way be static, and in no way mean to imply any support for "racialism" sepetarism national anarchism or any such garbage.
More just wondering what a healthy expression of interest in heredity and culture should look like, but I think your answers are good ones.
Jun 16 2008 14:06
#3
Django’s put it well I think, a couple of other thoughts though…
Expressions of ‘cultural’ pride are meaningless in most terms. The connection I have to say, a ‘Great British’ composer like Benjamin Britten, who was born and brought up in the county I’ve lived most of my life in is tenuous to say the least. What part of his life experience am I supposed to culturally identify with here? The music, which comes from a mind massively more tuned (pun intended) to composition and form than I’ll ever manage, which I won’t ever really understand? The places he’s been – there are decades between us, a different language, different upbringing, different classes and people involved? The state he was part of – evolved beyond recognition since his heyday? I like Britten’s work, but to say he’s somehow a part of ‘my’ culture is ludicrous. I have about as much in common with Fiddy Cent or Fela Kuti.
Even with people who are contemporary to me, the parallels I could identify with are by most standards wildly divergent. If someone from my street, who I’d influenced and whose life I’d been part of became wildly successful, maybe I’d feel proud of my contribution to that. Otherwise, it’s no more ‘my’ culture than McDonalds, curries or Morris dancing.
Jun 16 2008 14:10
#4
To be fair everyone loves Mcdonalds ; )
Jun 16 2008 16:47
#5
Hi Redboots,
I wasnt suggesting that ethnicity, race and nationalism are identical. In fact i think the debate that liberal bourgeois circles (New Statesman, Labour etc) are having about "progressive patriotism" is interesting, in that they've taken the fundamental of nationalism, which is class collaboration, and divorced it from ethnicity and homogeneous national culture.
I agree with Saii that we can feel a connection with our local environment, and this wouldnt be inconsistent with internationalism (or anti-nationalism, which is more appropriate). I don't think theres anything wrong with that. But this is very different from nationalism and would continue in an anarchist society - a connection with a self-managed workplaces and communities would actually be vital. Anarchists have always been all for community!
Jun 16 2008 17:10
#6
Hi Django,
No I think that makes sense, thanks again for chiming in.
Jun 19 2008 06:09
#7
I think a lot of what we identify as "culture" depends in no small part on what is primarily societally emphasized. At this point, nationality is keyed up to an insane degree, emphasized as the primary demarcation of one's identity. Obviously, there are examples of situations in which this is not the case; when social units like family or tribe are more primary. But ultimately, we're all part of a huge number of what could be called "cultures," aren't we? For my part, I could say I'm part of a house culture, a family culture, a neighborhood culture, a city culture, a region culture, a state culture, a national culture, an international culture...and that's looking at nothing more than geographic area. Given an anti-nationalist movement such as an anarchist one, I can't imagine that emphasis on national culture would remain at anything even remotely resembling the current level, so cultural emphasis would necessarily shift elsewhere (as I honestly don't think, and this is purely personal opinion, that it can ever really vanish); perhaps to the community or regional levels. Absent all the authoritarian baggage that has been part of the idea of national culture, I don't think it would be harmful in the slightest.
Jun 23 2008 22:56
#8
I think cultural identifacation can remain healthy as long as it is fluid. Culture is a creation of the people identifying with their home and history, which includes a history of class opression and in almost every region some degree of ethnic mixing. That does not totally define someone of course, but I think it can be important. I grew up being very aware of the stories of my English and Irish ancestors. I see how this was good and bad. It made me feel a connection to my family but I also was aware that it allowed some of my relatives a kind of romantic notion of nationalism. Like not very well thought out support for the IRA.
The problem sets in when you define some type of loyalty or nation beyond humanity. Someone who is non racist could for example celebrate their heritage as something of value but not a different value than other's heritages. Again the problem is viewing one's heritage as above others. Sepetarists say they do not but would view the mixing of their children with other cultures as a defeat of some kind. I think the vast majority of people can see through this kind of thinking. Like I said, my family is very interested in their European roots but there has never been a question that children in the family should conciously stick to this. And I don't get the feeling that it represents a type of unthinking racism, at least I hope not? But I won't say for sure as we should always remain open to criticism.
Jun 27 2008 06:16
#9
In any event. I think this is one good example of a topic that needs more written on it from an anarchist perspective as the right wing is good at using it to their advantage. Not that we need to be reactive to all their strategies, but we have arguments that both counter theirs and create options for future equality. And the truth is that they are totally willing to try and drop their more radical slogans and aims (temporarily) if they think it will give them an in. Just look at David Duke's run for office and the BNP including Jewish members now. Have they changed their stripes? Hardly. But the language they use to confuse the issue is one of cultural pride which does resonate with people at least for the moment, I am just afraid with the way things are going the right wings is going to be able to mobilize people based on fear of immigration or escalate racial tensions especially as the economy (in the US at least) worsens. I think common labor activism used to be a bullwark against this, but without a strong union movement the dialogue seems a little less focused.
I like the answers people here gave though a lot. Good things to talk to people about.
Hiya
The issue is that at its core nationalism is an ideology of class collaboration. By assuming holistic cultural units it not only overlooks how fundamentally misceginated those cultures are to begin with but also assumes that there is some sort of commonality between the ruling class and workers within that unit - my view is that workers and the ruling class have nothing in common.
As for identities based on resistance, it is important to understand where they come from but i don't think that changes the fact that nationalism is poison. So clearly it is important for the victims of oppression to organize themselves, but without a class analysis they become simply class collaborationist ideologies which seek acceptance for sectors of their constituencies within the ruling class - the mainstream of feminism and the black movement certainly represent this now.
So I'd say in response to your questions:
1) What do you mean culture? The examples you have given are both nationalist. I don't think culture and nationalism are identical but I am against all parochialism. Besides, "Irish" pride in the UK and US is such an industry now as to make any claims to Irish heritage a total joke. Movements can start from their ethnic and cultural identities as a locus of oppression but must move towards understanding of the flimsiness of this identity if they are to be revolutionary. Parochial "pride" is a different thing.
2) If we have a classless society we will have an internationalist one. Regional variations in culture will undoubtedly appear but to call this nationalism is rash. I'm sure there will be far more mixing of cultural habits once the fetters of nationalism which tie workers to their rulers have been broken.
As for people having a "claim" to their land, I have no more of a claim to the land of the British Isles than i do to the works of Shakespeare or the Spinning Jenny. Displacement and repression are bad regardless of the identities involved.