Nationalism, State and Culturel Survival

This paper rejects the view that theyare the result of the exclusive characteristic of ethnic nationalism. It argues that most of the present nationalist movements emerge as a rcaction to what is commonly known as civil or political nationalism, airning to protcct the survival of their culture. The presentation of civil nationalism in purely political terms or as independent of ethnic cultures and identities obscures the grounds on which nationalist movemcnts and conflicl exist. Nationalism has an inevitable cultural dimcnsion. Indecd as Ernest Gellner defines it, it is the marriage of the state and culture. Thus the state and public institutions have a vital role in socio-cultural (national) reprODuction. This explains why national minorities demand same sart of rights and powers of self-government. To protect their cultural survival they necd to institutionalise their culture. Indecd precisely for this reason it is reasonable for them to demand some sart of rights and powers of seU-governrnent which wilI give them some controlover the rate and direction of cultural change. Hence, this discussion C1arifies the relationship betwccn the political and the cultural, political power and socio-cultural reproduction. 162 • Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi. 57-2 Nationalism, State and euHural Survival Perhaps until the end of the cold war, for many people, the age of nationalism seemed to be over. We were at the beginning of a post-national era. However, it soon became clear that this assumption was wrong. The world has, surprisingly, witnessed the re-emergence of nationalist movements and conflicts. They have arisen not only in Eastem Europe and the former Soviet Union, but all over the world, even in Westem Europe and North America. The main characteristic of the present nationalist movements is that theyare disintegrative, and secessionist. An ethno-cultural group daims nationhood, and on this basis the right to self-determination on its territory, while the larger political community against which it daims some sorts of rights and powers of self-govemment regards it as part of the nation and daims authority over it. Typically, in an aIready existing so-ealled nation-state, a group daims that they form a distinct nation with the right to self-government, while the nation-state denies this right. The aim of my discussion in this paper is to provide a plausible account of nationalism that explains the nature and sources of the present nationalist movements and conflicts. Why do some groups reject the national identity of the larger political community and assert that they have a distinct national identity, daiming on this ground that theyare entitled to some sort of rights of self-govemment? Why do theyaspire to form their own political community? What is the relationship between national survival and self-government rights? These questions, i shall argue, cannot be properly answered by an account of nationalism that does not acknowledge its cultural dimension. i shall argue that nationalism is about culture, cultural survival; therefore any plausible account of nationalism has to acknowledge this cultural dimension and recognise people's attachment to their culture. Civic nationalism that defines the nation either in purely political terms without any ethno-eultural components or as of having a single national culture which is independent of all ethno-eultural particularities cannot therefore account for the present nationalist movements that are motivated with an aspiration for cuHural survival. in the first section of this paper i shall discuss Nafiz Tok. Nationalism, State and Cultural Survival. 163 whether this understanding of nationalism is viable. i shall object to the common view that the recent nationalist conflicts and movements are the result of the exclusivity of ethnic nationalism, which defines national membership in terms of shared descent. Instead i shall argue that most present nationalist movements and conflicts have emerged as a reaction to what is commonly known as civic nationalism and aim to protect the survival of their culture. i will show how civic nationalism, because it overlooks the ethno-eultural components of nationalism, disguises the real issue over which nationalist movements and conflicts emerge-socio-cultural reproduction. in the second section, i shall consider the issue of cultural protection in relation to national minorities, arguing that modernization, progress and cultural interchange are inevitable and desirable for a culture, and so, therefore, is cultural change. Then i shall attempt to distinguish the desirable changes that occur as a result of progress and modemization from the changes that are a threat to the existence of a cu1ture and thercfore raise concems about cultural protection. i shall show the relationship between national survival, cultural institutionalization and self-government rights. At the end of the discussions in this paper the relationship between the political and the cultural, between political power and socio-cultural reproduction, and thereby the reason behind the aspiration of national minorities for self-government rights in order to institutionalise their culture will become clear. 1. Nationalism, Cultural Identities and the State The nature of present nationalist demands and conflicts is commonly misinterpreted. Theyare commonly seen as a result of the exdusivity of ethnic nationalism, which defines national membership in terms of shared descent, so that people of a different ethno-eultural group cannot acquire membership.l Theyare seen to arise as a resu1t of the denial of equal citizenship rights and liberties to the members of a national minority (a territorially concentrated ethno-eultural group). Ethnic exclusiveness, the denial of national membership to the members of ethno-eultural groups, is undoubtedly a cause of some nationalist demands and conflicts; however, the existence of nationalist movements in those Westem, liberal democratic states, which do not define citizenship in ethnic terms, dearly indicates that the issue is not simply about daims to equal citizenship rights and liberties based on the exclusivity of ethnic nationalism. i argue that most of the present nationalist movements and conflicts have emerged as a reaction to what is commonly known as civic 1 For the view that the recent nationalist movemcnts and conflicts are the rcsult of the exclusivity of ethnic nationalism see, for example Ignaticff (1994:1-11). 164 • Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi. 57-2 nationalism, and aim to protect the survival of their culture. They have often emerged as a resu1t of the attempts of dvic nations forcibly to incorporate their national minorities (KYMUCKA, 1995:132). This daim might be surprising, since dvic nationalism is commonly seen as compatible with democraey, peace and liberalism.2 Civic nationalism is commonly portrayed in purely political terms:3 those who liye in the same state's territory, under the rule of the same government, form anation and they are endowed with the equal dtizenship rights and liberties, regardless of their ethnic and cultural identities and attachments. Membership in a dvic nation requires no more than allegiance to the state, its political prindples and institutions. Thus dvic nationalism, aiming at no more than the achievement of a dvic polity of individual dtizens who are endowed with equal dtizenship rights and liberties, and who are united by common laws, H is daimed, is open and indusive. Given these characteristics, it should not be surprising that dvic nationalism is commonly regarded by liberals as a bettcr or prcferable form of na tionalism. Why, then, should we charge dvic nationalism with the responsibility for the emergence of the prescnt nationalist movements and conflicts? Bccause it is prcdsely this idealized, purely political, portrayal of civic nationalism that obscures the cause and nature of present nationalist movements and conflicts by overlooking the ethno-cultural components of nationalism. In fact whatever form -ethnic or dvicit takes, nationalism has very much to do with culture; it is a very cultural phenomenon. Seeing it purely in political terms disguises the issues over which nationalist movements and conflicts emerge. This is why we have difficu1ty in understanding why the Indians in America, the Quebecois in Canada, the Scots in England, the Kurds in Turkey, or the Basques in Spain, all of whom enjoy full equal dtizenship status, raise nationalist demands and form nationalist movements. in what follows I will first consider why nationalism has an inevitable cultural dimension and why states engage in nation-building polides-the formatian of and diffusion of an offidal national culture and identHy throughout their territory. Given that nationalism cannot be dcfined in purely political terms bccause it has an inevitable cultural componcnt, I will second, consider another model of dvic nationalism. This model, although it acknowledges Hs cultural 2 For the understanding of civic and ethnic nationalism see Ignatieff (1994: 3-4), and Kohn (1944: chapter 8) and (1994: 162-165). Recent liberal nationalists such as Tamir (1993) and Miller (1995) try to combine nationalism and libcralism and defend a liberal version of nationalism. However, they do not present nationalism in purcly political terms; they acknowledge its cultural components. For an analysis of the roots of the dualistic approaches to nationalism -such as ethnic and civic, cultural and politica!, Eastern and Westernand for a critique of this dualism, see Spencer and Wollman (1998). 3 see forexample again Ignatieff (1994: 3-4) and Walzer (1992: 99-101). Naliz Tok. Nationalism,S!a!eand Cullural Survival. 165 components, tries to present national culture as independent of ethno-eultural particularity, and the state as neutral regarding ethnic cultures and identities. However, as iwill show, this model alsa does not refl