
Liberal nationalisme og politisk teori
Author(s) -
Theresa Scavenius
Publication year - 2010
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2446-0893
DOI - 10.7146/politik.v13i2.27448
Subject(s) - argument (complex analysis) , political philosophy , miller , nationality , nationalism , politics , national identity , sociology , political science , mainstream , law and economics , epistemology , law , philosophy , immigration , ecology , biochemistry , chemistry , biology
Politically and morally, liberal nationalism is a controversial political theory. Modern political theory tends to argue in favour of a liberal-egalitarian, multi-cultural or cosmopolitan theory. Distinguishing himself from mainstream political theory, David Miller claims the necessity of integrating a national-theoretical argument into political theory. In this paper, I critically examine Miller’s argument. First, I distinguish between a strong and a weak version of the idea that nationality and national fellowship are constitutive of individual identity. Secondly, I discuss Miller’s argument for the moral relevance of national obligations. It is shown that the national aspect of obligations is arbitrarily chosen and does not vindicate a moral relevance of nationality. Finally, the argument for national responsibility is taken into consideration. National responsibility is an innovative idea within modern political theory, i.e. theories of collective responsibility. e strength of the argument of national responsibility is dependent on the assumption that national fellowship is a morally relevant entity. An assumption, however, that is insu ciently justi ed.