Nationalism


 * Definition**

According the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), the term "nationalism" first appeared in 1798 as the French //nationalisme// and is comprised of the adjective and noun "national" and the suffix "ism" (Oxford English Dictionary, 2012, n.p.). The etymological roots of "national" may be traced back to early 16th century Middle French, and "national" is defined as "of or relating to a nation or country, esp. as a whole; affecting or shared by a whole nation" (Oxford English Dictionary, 2012, n.p.). The suffix "-ism" is etymologically rooted in French and Latin and is meant to indicate "forming a simple noun or action...naming the process, or the completed action, or its result (rarely concrete)" (Oxford English Dictionary, 2012, n.p.). "Nationalism," therefore, is defined by the OED as "advocacy of or the support for the interests of one's own nation, esp. to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations. Also: advocacy of or support for national independence or self-determination" (Oxford English Dictionary, 2012, n.p.).

Disciplines that often use or theorize the term "nationalism" include but are not limited to: political science and political theory, philosophy, sociology, cultural studies, literature studies, media studies, and communication studies.


 * Different Conceptions of Nationalism**

The concept “nationalism,” like many others, has experienced changes throughout time. Anthony Smith (2010) describes nationalism as a modern project in that it is rooted in the French and American revolutions of the late 18th century, as members of these collectivities were fighting for autonomy. Later European revolutions during the early 19th century constituted what Smith (2010) describes as “[t]he first great wave of nationalisms” (p. 95). While the Oxford English Dictionary notes that “nationalism” and “patriotism” were previously used interchangeably, it is now understood that “patriotism usually refers to a general sentiment,” whereas “nationalism usually refers to a specific ideology, esp. one expressed through political activism” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2012, n.p.). As Spencer and Wollman (1997) contend, nationalism is “an ideology which imagines the community in a particular way (as national), asserts the primacy of this collective identity over others, and seeks political power in its name” (p. 2).

Benedict Anderson (1991) describes a “nation” as an “imagined political community” (p.6) that is delineated by boundaries and whose members share a “deep…comradeship” (p. 7). Anderson (1991) argues that individuals of a nation are connected to the imagined others of their national community through language, and more specifically through the print market and capitalism. That nationalism is partially premised upon a recognition of unknown others is echoed by Smith (2010), who describes nationalism as “a sentiment or consciousness of belonging to a nation” (p. 5).

In parsing out the difference between “nation-state” and “nation,” Carolyn Marvin and David Ingle (1999) contend that a nation-state is often defined as “the legitimized exercise of force over territorial boundaries within which a population has been pacified” (p. 3), while a nation represents “the shared memory of blood sacrifice, periodically renewed” (p. 4). Nationalism, therefore, invokes a commitment to a shared, collective identity: “The core of nationalism is group-consciousness, the love of the community, great or small, to which we belong” (Gooch, 1920, p. 5).

As an ideology that, according to Gellner (1983), represents “the striving to make culture and polity congruent, to endow a culture with its own political roof, and not more than one roof at that” (p. 43), nationalism has often created motivation for hostility and war between nations. Marvin and Ingle (1999) argue that blood sacrifice cultivates American solidarity and, as such, “preserves the nation” (p. 2). In contrast to the nation-state, which “is an agreement about killing rules that compels citizens to sacrifice themselves for the group,” Marvin and Ingle note that nationalism and the inclusion in a nation “makes them [citizens] want to” sacrifice their blood so that their political community might endure (p. 4). Nationalism, therefore, often authorizes violence in the name of asserting political and cultural authority.


 * Nationalism and Communication Studies**

Within Communication studies, nationalism is a concept that is not isolated to the United States, but instead is one that scholars are exploring in a variety of non-U.S. contexts. Yuko Kawai, for instance, examines the complex relationship between nationalism and neoliberalism in Japan, arguing that the intricacies of neoliberalism require that it both “undermines” and “depends upon” nationalism in a globalized marketplace (2009, p. 17). As such, nationalism has implications for scholars of intercultural communication. As Kawai explains, “nations and nationalisms necessitate intercultural communication or communication with difference, specifically the discursively constructed, cultural ‘Other’” (2009, p. 18).

Mediated representations of nationalism are also studied within the Communication discipline, often as a means toward understanding how nationalism is communicated to audiences. Han (2011), for instance, examines the discourse of Chinese newspapers during the 2008 Beijing Olympics, arguing that the newspapers both represented Chinese nationalism “in a global context,” and accentuated the “‘oneness’ of the world under the leadership of China, going beyond a unified nation-state” (p. 288). In this way, within Communication studies, the concept “nationalism” is constituted through discourse and serves to authorize relations among individuals within nations and between different nations themselves.


 * Nationalism and Rhetorical Studies**

There are various ways that nationalism has been studied by rhetorical scholars, one of which is by examining how principles of nationalism are articulated by specific orators. For example, Conley (2010) investigates the rhetoric of President George W. Bush following the American tragedy on September 11, 2001 to understand how national trauma and victimage can be momentum for nationalism and war. Rhetorical scholars have also studied the nationalisms of minority groups whose members discursively constructed identities that cohered around commonalities of race, ethnicity, and religion. For instance, Karlyn Kohrs Campbell’s (1971) study of the discourse of Black nationalism demonstrates that ethnic and religious groups can unite under a common identity – one which is distinct from an American identity – and fight for the rights that have been withheld from their group (see Campbell, 1971). In this way, nationalism can serve an identity function beyond that of belonging to a nation, per se, and instead allow individuals to assert a subjectivity along racial and ethnic lines. (See also Jensen & Hammerback, 1980.)

It is often difficult to discuss nationalism without also discussing national identity. Other rhetorical scholarship reflects this trend. In her analysis of the rhetoric of the 2004 presidential conventions, for instance, Mary Stuckey (2005) argues that campaign discourse matters because the ways in which candidates articulate their views of national identity and nationalism will have implications for how the people are governed. Trevor Parry-Giles and Shawn Parry-Giles (2006) assess the popular television program //The West Wing// to understand how mediations of fictionalized nationalism are portrayed to the public. As the authors state, “reading //TWW// for its nationalistic connotations and implications demonstrates how popular culture sustains and challenges existing conceptions of U.S. nationalism through presidential depictions, shaping the meaning of what it means to be an American and the identity of the United States as a nation-state” (p. 14). Thus, nationalism remains an important concept within rhetorical studies, as it illumines how articulations and iterations of the concept influence understandings of national identity.

Written by Katie Irwin (August 2012)

include component="comments" page="page:Nationalism" limit="10"


 * References**

Anderson, B. (1991). //Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism.// London: Verso.

Campbell, K. K. (1971). The rhetoric of radical Black nationalism: A case study in self-conscious criticism. //Central States Speech Journal, 22//(3), 151-160.

Gellner, E. (1983). //Nations and nationalism//. New York: Cornell University Press.

Gooch, G. P. (1920). //Nationalism//. New York: Harcourt Brace & Howe.

Han, L. (2011). “Lucky Cloud" over the world: The journalistic discourse of nationalism beyond China in the Beijing Olympics global torch relay. //Critical Studies in Media Communication, 28//(4), 275-291.

Ism. (n.d.). In //Oxford English Dictionary Online//. Retrieved from http://dictionary.oed.com

Jensen, R. J. & Hammerback, J. C. (1980). Radical nationalism among Chicanos: The rhetoric of Jose Angel Gutierrez. //The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 44//(3), 191-202.

Kawai, Y. (2009). Neoliberalism, nationalism, and intercultural communication: A critical analysis of Japan’s neoliberalism nationalism discourse under globalization. //Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 2//(1), 16-43.

Marvin, C. & Ingle, D. W. (1999). //Blood sacrifice and the nation: Totem rituals and the American flag//. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

National. (n.d.). In //Oxford English Dictionary Online//. Retrieved from http://dictionary.oed.com

Nationalism. (n.d.). In //Oxford English Dictionary Online//. Retrieved from http://dictionary.oed.com

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Parry-Giles, T. & Parry-Giles, S. (2006). //The prime-time presidency: The West Wing and U.S. nationalism//. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Smith, A. D. (2010). //Nationalism// (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Spencer, P. & Wollman, H. (2002). //Nationalism: A critical introduction.// London: SAGE Publications.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Stuckey, M. (2005). One nation (pretty darn) divisible: National identity in the 2004 conventions. //Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 8//(4), 639-656.