What are nations and should they be self-determining?

The concept of the “nation”, while much discussed over past centuries, is not universally defined or understood. This makes any explanation of nations difficult, and poses particular problems when considering the rights they should possess. Whether or not a nation should be self-determining is immaterial if we do not understand the terms involved. This essay will seek to explain nationhood and its theories, particularly examining the formative period of the 18th and 19th centuries. It will conclude that nations should indeed be self-determining, but a concrete definition of the ‘nation’ remains elusive enough to make the decision ambiguous.

As mentioned, there is no simple definition for a nation, especially one that satisfies all historical examples. Since the 18th century there has been a strong push for all humans to be organized in nations, as it is thought to be the most efficient method of grouping, and later democratic accountability. Each nation is a community of political, cultural and social ends; differing from a state by not requiring a geographic area of control. In fact, a nation may exist solely  in the minds of its proponents with no physical artefacts, and may remain as such. Humans are essentially social beings, and have always felt certain bonds, to the soil they live on, traditions, and the authority figures which guide them. Because of these bonds, man has had allegiances; to tribes, city-states, feudal lords or religion. When we look at ancient events through a modern nationalist lens, we can attempt to pick out national events. Perhaps Abraham’s Biblical journey through the desert was an infant nation seeking its denied statehood.

While the concept of a nation  draws on ancient ties to a man’s heart, it is historically relatively recent. It seeks to replace the old political ideal of a worldwide empire (attempted by the Romans, Mongols etc.) with the earth divided into groups of nations. It is said that nationalities are the “products of the living forces of history”,  as they constantly evolve. Such forces include descent, language, territory, traditions and religion, among others. A 'nation’ does not require all or even most of these factors; but it must have at least one unique mark, to distinguish those inside the group. Indeed, the primary differential may be what the nation is not, such as Hebrews not being Gentiles, nor Greeks Barbarians. A foreign foe, real or imagined, does wonders for the creation of a national spirit. It could be argued that nationalism is not new, but the real recent change is its dispersal among the masses. The Greek and Roman elites had what we would now call national pride, but it meant nothing to the poor or enslaved. Nationalism as a unifying force for the working class has only become possible with the advent of mass communication and increased living standards, where people have the ability to concentrate of political ideals above survival and take part in a unifying culture.

The time and location of the 'first’ nation is obviously contentious, but I believe the strongest case lies with 17th century England. It brought together commerce, politics and science to work for the good of the nation in a way never before seen. A Puritan work ethic fused with an idea of English greatness to provide a powerful national culture. This new thinking disseminated first to France with the help of Voltaire’s many writings, and then to the rest of Europe and the New World.

But how does this help us understand the topic of self-determination? The term refers to a state of independence, the “final stage of a historical process” with “roots.. in the nineteenth century” . It could be argued that each nation should be allowed their own state, which would render the definition of a nation utterly crucial. If some members of a current nation consider themselves a separate minority, does this make them deserving of autonomy or a state? In the Balkans, there is currently an argument over Kosovo, where around 90% of the members consider themselves a nation deserving of a state. However, in Serbia as a whole, most citizens consider Kosovo part of the nation, and the people there as separatists determined to destroy the nation. This pull between nationalism and separatism, seen everywhere from Canada to China, makes self-determination, and even the nation itself, highly debatable.

I think it is beneficial here to look back at political philosophers at the formative period of nation building, starting in the 17th century. To John Milton, nationalism did not simply concern a collective people, but liberty in the “religious, political and personal.”  This is an important tweak of basic nationalism, providing a justification for separatism if liberties are not provided. The French Revolution risked diving the country, but was enacted partly in pursuit of liberties; the lack of which rendered the previous French nation invalid.

Similarly, Locke spoke of the necessity of the individual, as a true government only exists with the free consent of its people. A nation lacking democratic input, such as the Soviet-controlled regions of Eastern Europe in the late 20th century, would therefore deserve their freedom to be ruled by Enlightened principles. Of course, the Soviet response would be that the true nation is a greater Russia, and so European separatists are anti-nationalist in their desire to decrease the USSR’s glory. Of course, the creation of the USSR by armed conflict makes its claims to strong nationhood somewhat suspect under most definitions of the term.

America around the time Locke was writing provides a useful example of the diversity of nations. It had no common descent or religion to bind its people, and no unique language or tradition to exclude others. However, in spite of, or perhaps because of, this diversity, America thrived and created a strong national culture. This relates to the thinking of Rousseau, who rejected Locke and Milton’s particular individualism, preferring the creation of a collective personality. In other words, while individual rights are important, the strength of America is in its culture and togetherness, not the freedom of its citizens.

Here we cannot ignore the input of Immanuel Kant, who was often politically ambiguous when considering obedience to the state, but had a great influence over the debate. His writings on the individualism of morality in particular emphasised the need for personal freedom. “Perpetual Peace” said that the world should be organised into uniformly republican states, which “by nature must be inclined to perpetual peace”.  Of course, a topical issue is the weight put on the exact political structure. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was a trespassing of national sovereignty, justified on the moral need to create a democratic country. It is unclear whether Kant would have applauded this action, or been dismayed at the immoral means. He did say that reason required experience, so initial excesses should be forgiven, but it isn’t obvious how long the honeymoon period of moral learning lasts. An oft-forgotten point was that Kant was “addressing fellow philosophers”,  unconcerned with the “necessities of power”. 

The previous philosophers broadly accept the nation as a legal/rational construct, consciously created by man for his purposes. However, this ignores an important political thread in Europe, that of the Romantics, particularly German. An important proponent of this, Herder, rejected such citizenship and wanted to replace it with a “folk” culture, organic in terms of nature and history. He saw folk songs and lore as incredibly important outpourings of an unspoilt creative spirit, which provided the basis of a nation. This idealized the past, much as the Enlightenment idealised the future, and encouraged the preservation of ancient rites and culture. While originally a spiritual and moral concept, the “volk” would be abused over the centuries as a justification for barbarous acts. This is not necessarily a negative comment on the theory, but a reminder of the danger of emphasising national purity. A particular fan of this was Fichte, who regarded language and cultural purity as of incredible importance. Every French word which was absorbed devalued the German people, and pushing them towards the weak multiculturalism of the New World. With the advent of biological advances, and particularly the writings of Darwin, these sentiments were reworked to create biological nationalism. It saw the nation as ancient and derived from the 'blood’ of citizens. Therefore, nations were decided at birth, and couldn’t be altered. Gobineau, a proponent of this, was attacked by Tocqueville, who noted that integration of racial groups was what made countries like France great.  

So where does this leave us concerning self-determination? We have seen that philosophers, particularly from Milton onwards, have advocated personal freedom as a cornerstone of the nation. If this principle were not followed, it would provide a logical basis for separatism and a breakaway republic. Of course, this would not find favour with romantic nationalists, for whom nationality is deterministic, and not affected by current political or social concerns. Neither of these broad theories provide a concrete map of the degree to which nations should be self-determining, but they may form two extremes, to aid the search of an Aristotelian golden mean.