Nationalism in the 21st Century

Written by Claire Sutherland

This PDF is auto-generated for reference only. As such, it may contain some conversion errors and/or missing information. For all
formal use please refer to the official version on the website, as linked below.

Nationalism in the 21st Century

CLAIRE SUTHERLAND, JAN 17 2012

Nationalist ideology continues to shape global politics today, and yet twenty-first-century nationalism is faced with a
unique set of challenges. For example, migration and diaspora create cultural, economic and social networks which
now bind people across entire continents, let alone countries. The much-discussed onset of globalisation, together
with regional integration, has also pushed governments to revise their nation-building rhetoric. Some nation-builders
have reacted to globalisation as a potential threat, while others see it as a significant boost to their country’s power
and influence. This is important because of the implications for nation-state authority and legitimacy; nation-states
seek to square national autonomy with deep involvement in regional alliances, trading networks and international
organisations. At the same time, sub-state nationalists continue to compete for people’s loyalty and support. Today,
nationalists must reconsider the meaning of self-determination, independence, autonomy and sovereignty in an
increasingly interconnected world.

The close of the twentieth century saw the unfolding of various forms of transnationalism, which led some to predict
the end of the nation-state, while a spike in ethnic conflict and secession following Cold War collapse led others to
identify a new rise of nationalism. All manner of minority, sub-state, terrorist, democratic, irredentist and post-
communist nationalisms have been used as evidence of the latter phenomenon. Some have resulted in violent and
bloody conflicts, as in the break-up of Yugoslavia, while others have had an impact on well-established democracies
like the United Kingdom, where in 2007 nationalist parties came to power in Scotland (a position spectacularly
consolidated in 2011) and in Wales (as junior coalition partner for four years). At the same time, however, the widely
anticipated decline of the nation-state in the face of globalisation does not seem to have materialised. Neither of
these characterisations is very helpful in isolation. It would be more useful to focus instead on the interrelationship
between nationalism and the ‘cosmopolitan challenge’, used here to denote a set of trends ranging from migration
and the creation of diasporas to the even wider phenomena of transnationalism, regionalisation and globalisation.
Rather than argue that this challenge is fundamentally antagonistic to supposedly beleaguered nation-states and
marginalised nationalists, my book Nationalism in the Twenty-First Century (Palgrave 2012) highlights its actual
interplay with nationalism and nation-building, and the ways in which nationalist ideologies have attempted to rise to
the cosmopolitan challenge. Using examples from across the world, from Estonia to Fiji, and India to the USA, it does
not argue that either nationalist ideology or the nation-state are in decline, but looks instead at how they are adapting
to the cosmopolitan challenge.

Interpreting the principle of national self-determination to mean different degrees of autonomy, or sovereignty, is one
pragmatic response to the evolution of globalisation and regional governance. Contemporary sub-state nationalists in
the likes of Scotland and Catalonia also use the process of regional integration to support demands for greater
autonomy from their overarching nation-states. This is just one example of how nation-states and nationalist
movements are responding to the current political context, which is different to that faced by nineteenth and even
twentieth-century nationalists. Regionalisation, in turn, is one among a range of contemporary phenomena which can
be broadly termed the cosmopolitan challenge, and which exist in creative tension with both sub-state nationalism
and nation-building. There are no clear principles regulating the relationship between globalisation, regionalisation
and nationalism. Regionalisation and globalisation have been variously interpreted as beneficial or detrimental, not
only to each other, but also to nation-states and nationalism more generally. If we follow the zero-sum analysis
epitomised in so-called ‘Eurosceptic’ discourse, namely that member states ‘lose’ sovereignty as European
integration progresses, then regionalisation appears to work against both the survival of nation-states and the

E-International Relations ISSN 2053-8626 Page 1/2

aspirations of sub-state nationalists for autonomy. On the other hand, a look beyond the European Union at other
forms of regional integration suggests that regionalisation does not necessarily entail a loss of sovereignty. For
example, organisations like the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the North American Free
Trade Area (NAFTA) are premised on intergovernmental cooperation, which does not mean ceding sovereignty, but
rather aims to enhance domestic legitimacy, national prosperity and international clout.

Globalisation denotes an increase in the speed and impact of cultural, technological, economic and financial flows
that is qualitatively different in scale to the important global exchanges taking place in centuries past through trade
and tribute, colonialism and cultural links. With regard to the interplay between globalisation and nationalism, both
phenomena are also much too wide-ranging to detect either a positive or negative correlation between the two. Some
nationalists will rail against globalisation’s alleged dilution of their culture and traditions. Others will point to the way in
which globalisation can bring prosperity and thereby support both nation-building and nationalist appeals for greater
autonomy. One useful way of approaching specific cases is to distinguish between globalisation as a macro-level
phenomenon on the one hand and globalism, understood as an ideological response to that phenomenon, on the
other. This separates the multifaceted process of globalisation from the political project of globalism, thereby
enabling a clearer assessment of their respective relationships to nationalism.

Phenomena like regionalisation and globalization, together with migration, transnationalism and diaspora, give a
sense of the scale of the cosmopolitan challenge. The multidimensional impact of the cosmopolitan challenge on
many individuals is what makes our present era qualitatively different from myriad international exchanges, which
went on in past centuries. Cosmopolitanism is therefore used deliberately as an analytical concept with global scope,
as opposed to the more limited, cross-border links evoked by the terms ‘international’ and ‘transnational’. Evidently,
the cosmopolitan challenge by no means affects all individuals directly or uniformly, but it definitely has the potential
to influence an identity that many hold dear, namely national identity. Population flows, for instance, have an impact
on existing nation-states by shaping perceptions of the national community and its members’ sense of belonging. In
response, nation-builders may reconfigure or entrench official markers of inclusiveness through migration and
citizenship policies, as well as political discourse. Sub-state nationalists react to this by putting forward alternative
understandings of nationhood and self-determination. In so doing, they are debating and defining what constitutes
the nation. This is important because the current challenge to nationalists and nation-builders is to do this in a way
that takes account of and even co-opts aspects of globalisation, regionalisation, transnationalism, migration and
diaspora. My book looks at how different manifestations of nationalism and nation-building have responded to each
of these phenomena in turn. It concludes that nationalism remains an eminently flexible ideology, which enables it to
adapt to the demands of twenty-first-century politics. The cosmopolitan challenge is not insurmountable for
contemporary nationalism. On the contrary, it forms part of the story of nationalism’s continuing development.

–—

Claire Sutherland is a Lecturer in Politics Durham University. Her latest book, Nationalism in the Twenty-First
Century, is published by Palgrave Macmillan. The introductory chapter is available to read online.

E-International Relations ISSN 2053-8626 Page 2/2

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)