| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Philosophy Forum » Nation...
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| turtoni... |
 Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 11:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
A nation is a defined cultural and social community. Inasmuch as most
members never meet each other, yet feel a common bond, it may be considered
an imagined community. One of the most influential doctrines in Western
Europe and the Western hemisphere since the late eighteenth century is that
all humans are divided into groups called nations.[1] Nationhood is an
ethical and philosophical doctrine and is the starting point for the
ideology of nationalism; a nation is a form of self-defined cultural and
social community.[2] Members of a "nation" share a common identity, and
usually a common origin, in the sense of history, ancestry, parentage or
descent. A nation extends across generations, and includes the dead as full
members. Past events are framed in this context: for example, by referring
to "our soldiers" in conflicts which took place hundreds of years ago. More
vaguely, nations are assumed to include future generations.
Though "nation" is also commonly used in informal discourse as a synonym for
state or country, a nation is not identical to a state. The people of a
nation-state consider themselves a nation, united in the political and legal
structure of the State. While traditionally monocultural, ia nation-state
may also be multicultural in its self-definition. The term nation is often
used as a synonym for ethnic group (sometimes "ethnos"), but although
ethnicity is now one of the most important aspects of cultural or social
identity, people with the same ethnic origin may live in different
nation-states and be treated as members of separate nations for that reason.
National identity is often disputed, down to the level of the individual.
Almost all nations are associated with a specific territory, the national
homeland. Some live in a historical diaspora, that is, "scattered" or
"sown"[3] outside the national homeland. A state which explicitly identifies
as the homeland of a particular nation is a nation-state, and most modern
states fall into this category, although there may be violent disputes about
their legitimacy. Where territory is disputed between nations, the claims
may be based on theory called Urrecht, in which history is brought to bear
to legitimise present occupancy: Phoenicianism and Zionism are two such
historicised nation-building doctrines. National founding myths are
etiological legends that when examined in historical contexts are found to
answer quite specific issues, which generated them.[4] Especially in Canada
the term "First Nations" is used for groups which share an aboriginal
culture, and have or seek official recognition or autonomy.
Contents
[hide]
a.. 1 Ambiguity in usage
b.. 2 Etymology and early use
c.. 3 Defining a nation
a.. 3.1 Common descent
b.. 3.2 Common language
c.. 3.3 Common culture
d.. 3.4 Common religion
e.. 3.5 Voluntary definitions (will)
d.. 4 See also
e.. 5 Notes
f.. 6 Further reading
g.. 7 External links
[edit] Ambiguity in usage
In common usage, terms such as nations, country, land, and state often
appear as near-synonyms, i.e., they can be used for a particular area or
territory, or for the government itself; in other words, a de jure or de
facto state. In the English language, the terms do have precise meanings,
but in daily speech and writing they are often used interchangeably, and are
open to different interpretations.
In the strict sense, terms such as "nation", "ethnos", and "people" (as in
"the Danish people") denote a group of human beings. The concepts of nation
and nationality have much in common with ethnic group and ethnicity, but
have a more political connotation, since they imply the possibility of a
nation-state. Country denominates a geographical territory, whereas state
expresses a legitimized administrative and decision-making institution.
Confusingly, the terms national and international are used as technical
terms applying to states. International law, for instance, applies to
relations between states, and occasionally between states on the one side,
and individuals or legal persons on the other. Likewise, the United Nations
represent states, while nations are not admitted to the body (unless a
respective nation-state exists, which can become a member).
Usage also varies from country to country.[citation needed] As an example,
the United Kingdom is an internationally recognised sovereign state, which
is also referred to as a country and whose inhabitants have British
nationality. It is however traditionally[clarify] divided into four home
nations or home countries - England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
These are not sovereign states in their own right. The island of Ireland is
now divided into the sovereign Republic of Ireland, and Northern Ireland
which remains part of the United Kingdom. The current status of the UK, in
any case, is controversial and disputed, since there are secessionist
movements in England, Scotland and Wales, and for example, Cornwall is
considered by a very few people who live there to be a separate nation,
within the country of England. Usage of the term nation is not only
ambiguous, it is also the subject of political disputes, which may be
extremely violent.[citation needed]
When the term 'nation' has any implications of claims to independence from
an existing state, its use is controversial. In November 2006 the Canadian
House of Commons passed a motion to "recognize that the Québécois form a
nation within a united Canada.", an unusual concession to sovereigntist
terminology, even though it explicitly places them within Canada.[5].[6]
Minister Michael Chong resigned in protest, saying '"To me, recognizing
Quebecers as a nation, even inside a united Canada, implies the recognition
of ethnicity, and I cannot support that. I do not believe in an ethnic
nationalism. I believe in a civic nationalism."[7] This event highlighted
the confusion around the motion, as Bloc Québécois MPs had understood it as
inclusive of all Quebecers, irrespective of their ethnic origin.[8] The use
of the French word Québécois is also an historical recognition to the French
people who colonized along the Saint Lawrence River the French colony of
Canada for hundred-fifty years.
The term nation is widely used, by extension or metaphor, to describe any
group promoting some common interest or common identity, see Red Sox Nation
and Queer Nation.
Nationalism is a term referring to a doctrine[9] or political movement[10]
that holds that a nation, usually defined in terms of ethnicity or culture,
has the right to constitute an independent or autonomous political community
based on a shared history and common destiny.[11] Most nationalists believe
the borders of the state should be congruent with the borders of the
nation.[12] Extreme forms of nationalism, such as those propagated by
fascist movements in the twentieth century, hold that nationality is the
most important aspect of one's identity, while some of them have attempted
to define the nation in terms of race or genetics.
Nationalism has had an enormous influence on Modern history, in which the
nation-state has become the dominant form of societal organization.
Historians use the term nationalism to refer to this historical transition
and to the emergence and predominance of nationalist ideology. Nationalism
is closely associated with patriotism.
[edit] Etymology and early use
The English word "nation" is derived from the Latin term natio (natio, stem
nation-), meaning:[13][14]
a.. The action of being born; birth; or
b.. The goddess personifying birth; or
c.. A breed, stock, kind, species, race; or
d.. A tribe, or (rhetorically, any) set of people (contemptuous); or
e.. A nation or people.
The combining form nation- is built on the past participle form (g)nat-us
"having been born" of the verb (g)nasci "to be born". Thus it is also
related closely to the Latin derived words "native", "nature" and more
remotely to the native English words "kin", "kindred" and "kind". It shares
a common derivation from the Proto-Indo-European root *gen- "bear, generate,
etc."[15]
As an example of how the word natio was employed in classical Latin,
consider the following quote from Cicero's Philippics Against Mark Antony in
44 BC. Cicero contrasts the external, inferior nationes ("races of people")
with the Roman civitas ("community").:
"Omnes nationes servitutem ferre possunt: nostra civitas non potest."
("All races are able to bear enslavement, but our community cannot.")[16]
St. Jerome used this "genealogical-historical term ... in his Latin
translation of New Testament to denote non-Christians - that is,
'others.'"[17] An early example of the use of the word "nation" in
conjunction with language and territory is provided in 968 by Liutprand,
bishop of Cremona, who, while confronting Nicephorus II, the Byzantine
emperor on behalf of his patron Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor, declared:
"The land...which you say belongs to your empire belongs, as the
nationality and language of the people proves, to the kingdom of Italy.'"
(Emphasis added.)[18]
Although Liutprand was writing in Latin, his native tongue was Lombard, a
Germanic language.
A significant early use of the term nation, as natio, was at mediaeval
universities, to describe the colleagues in a college or students, above all
at the University of Paris, who were all born within a pays, spoke the same
language and expected to be ruled by their own familiar law. In 1383 and
1384, while studying theology at Paris, Jean Gerson was twice elected
procurator for the French natio (i.e. the French-born Francophone students
at the University). The division of students into a natio was also adopted
at the University of Prague, where from its opening in 1349 the studium
generale was divided among Bohemian, Bavarian, Saxon and various Polish
nations.
[edit] Defining a nation
The national identity refers both to the distinguishing features of the
group, and to the individual's sense of belonging to it. A very wide range
of criteria is used, with very different applications. Small differences in
pronunciation may be enough to categorize someone as a member of another
nation. On the other hand, two people may be separated by difference in
personalities, belief systems, geographical locations, time and even spoken
language; yet regard themselves, and be seen by others, as members of the
same nation.
The first requirement for the definition is that the characteristics should
be shared - a group of people with nothing in common cannot be a nation.[19]
Because they are shared, the national population also has a degree of
uniformity and homogeneity. And finally, at least some of the
characteristics must be exclusive - to distinguish the nation from
neighbouring nations. All of the characteristics can be disputed, and
opposition to secessionist nationalism often includes the denial that a
separate nation exists.
[edit] Common descent
The etymology of the word nation implies ancestry and descent (see ethnic
nationalism). Almost all nationalist movements make some claim to shared
origins and descent, and it is a component of the national identity in most
nations. The fact that the ancestry is shared among the members of the
nation unites them, and sets them apart from other nations, which do not
share that ancestry.
The question is: descent from whom? Often, the answer is simply: from
previous generations of the same nation. More specifically:
a.. the nation may be defined as the descendants of the past inhabitants
of the national homeland
b.. the nation may be defined as the descendants of past speakers of the
national language, or past groups which shared the national culture.
Usually, these factors are assumed to coincide. The well-defined Icelandic
nation is assumed to consist of the descendants of the island of Iceland in,
say, 1850. Those people also spoke the Icelandic language, were known as
Icelanders at that time, and had a recognised culture of their own. However,
the present population of Iceland cannot coincide exactly with their
descendants: that would imply complete endogamy, meaning that no Icelander
since 1850 ever had children by a non-Icelander. Most European nations
experienced border changes and, migration over the last few centuries, and
intermarried with other national groups. Statistically, their current
national population can not coincide exactly with the descendants of the
nation in 1700 or 1500, even if was then known by the same name. The shared
ancestry is more of a national myth in some cases than a genetic reality -
but still sufficient for a national identity nevertheless. This national
myth concept becomes even more complicated for nations whose populations are
largely comprised of or descended from relatively recent immigrants.
[edit] Common language
A shared language is often used as a defining feature of a nation (that is,
apart from its value in facilitating communication among the members). In
some cases the language is exclusive to the nation, and may be central to
the national identity. The Basque language is a unique language isolate, and
prominent in the self-definition of the Basque people, and in Basque
nationalism, although not all Basques speak it. In other cases, the national
language is also spoken by other nations (shared among the nation, but not
exclusive to the nation). Some nations, such as the Swiss nation,
self-identity as multilingual. Papua New Guinea promotes a 'Papuan' national
identity, despite having around 800 distinct languages. No nation is defined
solely by language: that would effectively create an open membership (for
anyone who learnt the language), although the case of Catalan linguistic
nationalism comes quite close to this. India also emphasizes a 'national'
identity, despite having more than 20 official languages in its government,
and hundreds more languages/dialects spoken throughout the nation.
[edit] Common culture
Most nations are partly defined by a shared culture. Unlike a language, a
national culture is usually unique to the nation, although it may include
many elements shared with other nations. Additionally, the national culture
is assumed to be shared with previous generations, and includes a cultural
heritage from these generations, as if it were an inheritance. As with the
common ancestry, this identification of past culture with present culture
may be largely symbolic. The archaeological site of Stonehenge is owned and
managed by English Heritage, although no 'English' people or state existed
when it was constructed, 4 000 to 5 000 years ago. Other nations have
similarly appropriated ancient archaeological sites, literature, art, and
even entire civilisations as 'national heritage'. This should be considered
the most important aspect because ethnicity is only skin deep, and language
can be learned by anyone.
[edit] Common religion
Religion is sometimes used as a defining factor for a nation, although some
nationalist movements de-emphasize it as a divisive factor. Again it is the
fact that the religion is shared, that makes it national. It may not be
exclusive: several nations define themselves partly as Catholic although the
religion itself is universalist. Some religions are specific to one ethnic
group, notably Judaism. Nevertheless, the Zionist movement generally avoided
a religious definition of the 'Jewish people', preferring an ethnic and
cultural definition. Since Judaism is a religion, people can become a Jew by
religious conversion, which in turn can facilitate their obtaining Israeli
citizenship. Jews in Israel who convert to other religions do not thereby
lose Israeli citizenship, although their national identity might then be
questioned by others.
[edit] Voluntary definitions (will)
Some ideas of a nation emphasise not shared characteristics, but rather on
the shared choice for membership. In practice, this has always been applied
to a group of people, who are also a nation by other definitions. The most
famous voluntarist definition is that of Ernest Renan. In a lecture in 1882,
Qu'est-ce qu'une nation? he rhetorically asked "What is a Nation?", and
answered that it is a 'daily plebiscite'. Renan meant, that the members of
the nation, by their daily participation in the life of the nation, show
their consent to its existence, and to their own continued membership. Renan
spoke in the context of the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine by the German
Empire. At the time, the region was ethnically more German than French, and
the Alsatian language is a west German language: Renan opposed such
'objective' criteria for a nation. Like Renan, most voluntarist definitions
appeal to consent for existing nations, rather than promote explicit
decisions to found new ones. Renan saw the nation as a group "having done
great things together and wishing to do more" ("avoir fait de grandes choses
ensemble, vouloir en faire encore").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:09 am
|
|
