For the nation, your individual background does not matter. Individual identity and national identity relate like a particle of sand to the heap of sand: It takes a bunch to make a heap, and it's indeed a matter of quantity more than of quality.

All nations (countries, states) have people with somewhat mixed backgrounds in them, but one should recognize (the existence of) homogeneous countries too. Homogeneous people have one or some objective unifying qualities that make up their identity, while mixed nations (USA is a prime example here) have to construct their identity by building myths around their founding fathers, make every citizen salute the flag and recite the oath, etc.

Last edited by seigneur (11/24/2017 7:32 am)

A concrete judgement entailed by this position: it is indeed (should be?) dulce et decorum to die for the United States, fighting a just war in defence of the common good. And, in a way, one should be prepared to lay down one's life for the Constitution, if it is under an unjust attack backed with lethal force, ceteris paribus. But this readiness should be proportionate to the extent that retaining this Constitution is necessary for the common good.

It would hence be immoral to invade a country or revolt in an attempt of forcing your preferred form of government on it, provided the existent regime is not per se unjust and the ruler is not a cause of at least ongoing grave evil (which is accidental to the form of government as such).

One asks, in light of this negative characterisation (what a nation shouldn't be),what is a morally licit nation.

I suppose it would be a group of people bound by similar values (the goods of humans as such are universal, so here the word should mean emphasoi), practical preferences and aesthetic sensibilities (defended by Chesterton's fence; this covers language, though I don't think it is essential), united also by respect and gratitude towards common cultural anscestors understood as this group's benefactors, perhaps particularly the contributors to the coming about of these cultural peculiarities . I am not sure precisely how to put all of this together to get a proper definition, but I've seen even worse descriptions, and I'd appreciate assitance in this quest.

Last edited by GeorgiusThomas (11/26/2017 1:06 pm)

@ Etzelnik

I recognise that you can with good reason say that the identification of this critical point is not easily done speculatively, but I'm nonetheless urged to at least try to inquire further by what seems to me to be a grave problem.

Choosing natural law premises as the point of departure, I can see how the common good demands setting up some rational way of guarding and fostering it (that is, the state). I can see how individuals are ordered to it, and also why this agent bears the sword, having the power to enforce peace even through lethal force, as the whole is greater than its parts (not to the point of sheer consequentialism, of course).

What I cannot establish is a similar moral ordering to the nation: at what point does commonality in cultural particulars acquire a title that outweighs civic piety? Why can't an appropriate cultural autonomy be negotiated within the existing civil order? Why can't proportional mutual assimilation be mandated in such circumstances? After all, one can claim such an independence for even smaller commonality units, all the way down to tribalism, and until we identify some measure I don't think one can call (proclaimed) nations a natural unit: nationalisms are prima facie historically fairly contingent, and the historical association of them with irrationalities of all sorts leaves me somewhat sceptical.


I can intuitively see the necessity you speak of when considering independence from an another nation state, or in the case of a largely defensive nationalism of a sort (such as, arguably, Polish nationalism or Zionism): for the dominant nation qua nation is not, on my view of a morally licit nation, entitled to demand conformity to it without a clear reference to the common good and a proportional readiness to accommodate autonomy (one way of mutual assimilation, I suppose).

But nation states are a fairly recent development, nor do states require a national culture (narrowly understood) to subsist: consider the case of the Habsburg monarchy, where Latin remained the language of state for a long time and the court was also cosmopolitan. Even if this state didn't perfectly examplify fair rule (what does under the sun?), can something like this not be considered a preferable alternative?

Last edited by GeorgiusThomas (12/13/2017 3:38 pm)

Etzelnik wrote:

I have been thinking about this alot recently, given the recent Catalonian crisis as well as the media's hand-wringing over the world-wide resurgence of nationalism. Of course, before one can be a nationalist, one must know what makes his nation a nation. I've always considered myself to be both a Jewish (Religious-Zionist) nationalist as well as an American nationalist. My conception of both nations I am part of has always been a nation built around a shared sense of duty to a certain ideal; whether it is the Jewish religion or the values of the Constitution and our Framers. I still see that as the most robust form of national identification, but what room does that leave for a shared culture or historic experience? I would greatly appreciate hearing all your thoughts on the matter.

It doesn't. You're request for a certain universal defining of a nation from its citizens will probably be mixed by variances of cognizance of what their nation means to them, as you have declared it means to you. Would one man of military service age join such an organization and voluntarily put himself in harm's way to defend his nation? Yes. Another man would not. This is a dichotomy that is wholly acceptable but it leaves us no sense of national importance or urgency. This is the supreme measure of it.

You claim your religion (cultural heritage) remains an important aspect in your psyche. Fair enough and quite respectable. Given a choice, which would you champion first? Your nation's defense or your cultural preservation? In America this question is invalid because it was built upon the preservation of both and it's why you are comfortable declaring both as important to you. That's the American spirit, in theory.

There are countless people who will parrot your every word, and those who would differ with you. Your notion of a shared sense of nation can live only through a shared definition accepted across an entire population with a sense of self like your own. That's an immediate brow wrinkling thought.

Tolerance defines America's freedom to preserve various cultural heritages and bigotry defines it when it doesn't. We know fully well America's original native people did not have the benefit of the lofty words their invaders bestowed upon themselves going forward. In this regard it failed to exercise equality for all miserably and these precious native people suffered in genocidal fashion at the hands of their invaders.

I think the entire notion and sense of nation is a moving target that can only be temporarily galvanized when duly threatened with extinction. After that, it cycles back into interpretation.  

Last edited by lacktone (12/24/2017 10:08 pm)