Image by Filip Bunkens.
I’ve never really understood the psychology of nationalism. Even when I was in elementary school and we were supposed to pledge our allegiance to “the flag and the country (USA) for which it stands” I was skeptical. What exactly did this pledge entail, I wondered as my classmates and I stood with our hands over our hearts, repeating words most of my classmates gave little thought to. As the years rolled on and the US war on Vietnam and elsewhere took over more of my consciousness, my questions became outright rejection; I couldn’t go along with the idea that people should go kill and die for the USA. If there was no nationalism, then friends just a couple years older than I would not be going off to boot camp, many of them willingly and with the complete support of their families and community. But what about the Vietnamese nationalists? Weren’t they the same as “American” patriots? When my father asked me this question during one of our innumerable debates, I was stumped. As I considered an answer—which took a few weeks of reading to come up with—other questions arose. What was the relationship between nationalism and empire? How was a struggle for national liberation different from nationalism? The Black Panthers talked about revolutionary nationalism versus cultural nationalism and considered the former a legitimate form of revolutionary struggle. The other, which was often described as “pork-chop nationalism,” was seen as diversionary and catering to the ruling class. In 1975, a friend who worked with the Revolutionary Union suggested that one could support national liberation groups in their struggle against the colonizer/imperialist power as part of the necessary struggle against imperialism. Such support did not require agreeing with all of the actions of the national liberation forces after their victory, should that occur. The thinking was that with each defeat of imperialism, the end of nationalism would get closer. We have yet to verify the truth of this concept. 
Last autumn, historian Eric Storm’s comprehensive history of nationalism was published. Titled Nationalism: A World History, the text examines the phenomenon of nationalism, tracing its origins back to feudal times and following its journey to the present when, in spite of predictions announcing its end, nationalism seems more of a force than ever. In making that statement, this reviewer doesn’t necessarily think that this is a good thing. The book is a worthwhile undertaking, discussing nationalism in a variety of contexts, including its ethnic and political roots. The role of religion in certain nationalisms is considered, as is the role of empire. The fact that the division of the world into the system of nations we consider as permanent coincided with the development of capitalism in both national and global terms is mentioned, but Storm does not delve too deep into the nature of that relationship. In fact, he does not delve deeply into the possible causes of nationalism’s ultimate victory in deciding how the world is perceived by its human inhabitants. Instead, he finds plenty to write about its manifestations and structure. That turns out to be interesting enough. To be fair, Storm writes that the institution of nationalism has a “deep but variegated bond with nationalism” and that it has mostly benefited the bourgeois classes over the course of modern history.
In writing about nationalism’s manifestations, Storm establishes three categories he recognizes as primary elements of nationalism that are present in each phase of history he describes in the book. Those three categories center on the nature of citizenship, the nationalization of culture and the nationalization of physical space. The first element citizenship is pretty straightforward: who is a citizen and who is not according to the state. Those who are not considered citizens risk the bureaucratic cancellation of their rights as long as they live in a nation they are not considered part of. Stateless persons—the Jews under Nazism and many if not most Palestinians today arre good examples—find themselves completely subject to the whims of power. Likewise, the nature of one’s citizenship can determine one’s fate; for example, the idea of a “birthright” citizen in the United States is currently under attack, as are naturalized citizens. The category of culture considers the historical and cultural mythologies that the nationalists have determined will tell the story of the nation being built. These include folk tales and music along with more formal representations of the identity the nations considers its own. As for the nationalization of physical space, its manifestations can be national parks and certain government and private buildings (the US Capitol, Versailles, Yellowstone. They also include monuments and statues, the latter often being representations of historical figures whose lives have been mythologized. George Washington and Ho Chi Minh are ideal examples of this in their roles as the so-called fathers of their countries.
Mostly an objective read, the text tends to give the United States something of a pass when discussing its colonialist adventures. Characterizing the recent secessionist attempts in eastern Ukraine as “fake” and Russia’s invasion imperialist immediately after writing about the US invasion of Iraq as perhaps imperialist in nature illustrates this point quite glaringly. Meanwhile, Storm is very straightforward when criticizing Russia and China, This results in the overall attempt at objectivity to fall short.
The philosopher Erich Fromm once wrote that “Nationalism is our form of incest, is our idolatry, is our insanity. ‘Patriotism’ is its cult…Just as love for one individual which excludes the love for others is not love, love for one’s country which is not part of one’s love for humanity is not love, but idolatrous worship.” The truth of this statement is present across the globe. From Tel Aviv to Washington, DC, Moscow to Kyiv, the idolatrous worship of this thing called a country continues to stain and define human relations in a manner one would think humanity would have shed. Eric Storm’s exhaustive history explains—intentionally or not—why humanity has done no such thing.
(The title of this peace is taken from a quote attributed to Albert Einstein: “Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.”)
The post Nationalism: The Measles of Mankind appeared first on CounterPunch.org.
This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Ron Jacobs.