Nationalism
“consciousness of belonging to a nation (existent or in the realm of
aspiration) or nationality, and the desire, as manifest in sentiment and
activity, to secure or maintain its welfare, prosperity, and integrity, and to
maximize its political autonomy” - James Coleman (1986: 425)
Nation - “a large group of people who feel that they form a single and
exclusive community destined to be an independent state”. It is followed by the
defined characters as given below
- largeness in scale
- a belief that the nation constitutes a terminal community
- the assumption of the national destiny of independent
- statehood in the modern world
Smith (1991), in his National Identity, identified five major ways
in which the word nationalism is used. According to him, nationalism can signify:
1) The whole
process of forming and maintaining nations or nation-states.
2) A consciousness
of belonging to the nation, together
with sentiments and aspirations for its security and prosperity.
3) A language and the symbolism of the ‘nation’ and its role
4)An ideology, including a cultural doctrine of
nations and the national will, and prescriptions for the realization of
national aspirations and the national will.
A social and political
movement to achieve the goals of a
nation and realize its national wills
Scholars
have difficulty agreeing on how to define nationalism and religion so,
unsurprisingly, efforts to come up with a universal definition of religious
nationalism has been unsuccessful. Atalia Omer and Jason Springs (2013), in
their book Religious Nationalism: A Reference Handbook argue
that religious nationalism is the situation when ‘political and religious
objectives are conflated and interwoven’. Later, they coin the term ethnoreligious
nationalism which not only adds another complex concept, ethnicity, to the mix
but also excludes states, such as Pakistan, where ethnicity works against
religious nationalism, from the ambit of the definition.
Before the 1970s, academic literature primarily portrayed nationalism as a
new religion replacing the old religion, so religious nationalism was an
oxymoron. Nationalism developed in the 17th and 18th centuries
in Europe and was predominantly based on ethnic and/or linguistic affinity. It
was argued that as nationalism slowly gained strength, the power of religion
waned, and the nation became the primary or core identity of the people.
Nationalism, like the old religion, had myths, symbols and heroes and expected
similar undivided loyalty. Naturally, this led to a tussle between religion and
nationalism and, in many states, nationalism and religion became competitors.
Religious leaders criticized nationalism as a liberal or Western imposition intolerant of religion and promoted differences within the religious
flock. Many modernist scholars agreed with these religious leaders that
nationalism is linked with modernity and is detrimental to religion.
Peter van der Veer, in his seminal book, Religious Nationalism:
Hindus and Muslims in India reject this dichotomy between nationalism and religion: The claim that something like
religious nationalism exists will be rejected by many students of nationalism
for the simple reason that both nationalism and its theory depend on A western discourse of modernity. This discourse constitutes the traditional
as its antithesis and interprets difference as backwardness. A crucial element
of the discourse of modernity is the opposition of the religious to the
secular. One point I want to make in this book is that leading theories of
nationalism tend to ignore the importance of colonialism and orientalism
in spreading nationalism. To understand religious nationalism in India, we need both an analysis of tradition that is not prejudiced by the discourse
of modernity and a theory of the impact of colonialism and Orientalism
that does not deny agency to colonial subjects. (van der Veer 1994, x).van der Veer argues that nationalism is not always the result of
the demise of tradition/religion. Sometimes, it may result from the
diffusion of tradition/religion and modernity, as was the case in India. Nationalism is generally assumed to belong squarely on the
modern side of the great divide. It is the result of the demise of
traditional society and is, therefore, a sign of modernity. But there is a
tension between this view and the observation that, in many societies,
nationalism is the product of diffusion. In the latter case, the modern is not
the result of a historical transition; rather, the modern invades the
traditional. According to Dumont, this leads to a period of
uneasy combinations, as exemplified by Indian communalism, which combines
religion and nationalism. (van der Veer 1994, 17)
Both Steve Bruce, in his book Politics and Religion (2003), and Roger Brubaker, in
his article Religion and
nationalism: four approaches (2012), have tried to explain
different relationships between religion and nationalism or nationalists. Bruce
has identified four types of relationships between religion and
nationalists.
1) Nationalists mobilize strong
religious identities: In these countries, nationalism and religion are deeply
enmeshed. It is difficult to separate the two. National identity is based on
religious identity and, usually, the major rival country of these countries has
a different sect or religion, which helps strengthen the relationship between
religion/sect and the nation. Pakistan, Israel and Iran are examples of such
countries
2)Nationalists mobilize and re-ignite weak
religious identities: In countries exhibiting this relationship, changing
boundaries and religious diversity has hindered in forging a strong religious
identity with the nation. Bruce gives the example of Russia and Ukraine where
nationalists are now trying to revive and possibly unite these weak
identities.
3)Nationalists reject strong
religious identities: Usually, this rejection is due to the national elite’s
repudiation of any role of religion in public affairs after a period of a tussle
with the religious establishment. France, Mexico, etc. are examples of such a
relationship.
4)Nationalists again reject religious identities
but the reasons are different: Bruce identifies most sub-Saharan African
countries as examples of this type of relationship. The reason why African
elite reject religious identities as the basis of nationalism is not only
religious diversity in their countries but also the inability of the
Christianity, the majority religion in most African countries, provide the
myths necessary for forging a strong nationalism. Christianity is further
impaired by its complicity in the horrors of slavery and colonialism.
Roger Brubaker, in
his article referred above presents four ways to analyze religion and
nationalism connection, but these may also be considered to be four types of
relationships between religion and nationalism.
1)In the first case, religion and nationalism
contest each other. Each tries to become the primary identity of a group of
people to exclude the other. Nationalism is considered a modern
religion that is trying to replace the old one.
2)Second, religion explains some
aspects of nationalism. Usually, these aspects are the origin and early
development. Religion is an implicit part of the nationalist ideology of a
large number of countries. Third, religion contributes to nationalism and is a
visible part of the national identity. Some national myths and symbols maybe
religion-based.
3) Finally, Brubaker defines
a much stronger relationship between religion and nationalism. In this case, it
is difficult to separate the two. This relationship can be identified as
religious nationalism. Still, Brubaker is reluctant to call this type nationalism as, according to him, nationalism is related to a polity existing
within other polities, and this type of religious nationalism downplays polities
and nations. In this relationship, the majority religion and nationalism
are so intertwined that the nation supposedly owes its existence to the
religion. Nationalisms of Israel, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia can be presented
as examples of such nationalism.
Phillips Barker, in his book Religious
Nationalism in Modern Europe: If God be for Us (2009)
argues that there are two aspects of religious nationalism, although the first
is more important than the second. Religion’s role in national identity
defines religious nationalism. According to Barker, ‘Religion must be central
to national identity and conceptions of what it means to belong to a given
nation. If religion is not the central feature of the national identity, it is
at least one of the several features. In addition, these other features will
nearly always be coterminous with religious identity. In other words, a
religious nationalism may focus equally on religion and language, but the
individuals engulfed by the religious and linguistic markers are one and the
same.’ The second aspect of religious nationalism is political religion i.e.
religious influence on state laws, policies etc. Barker explains it as ‘the
extent to which identification translates into action.’
Roger Friedland, in his
article Money, Sex, and
God: The Erotic Logic of Religious Nationalism (2002) argues
that religious nationalism has to be understood based on institutional
logic, structure and metaphors and not in terms of (Marxist) class conflict or
quest for power by clerics: Religious nationalism cannot be explained and hence
interpreted in terms of class-specific material or status injury~Simpson
1983:201–02!. Neither can it be understood as a project of religious inclusion,
of group representation. Nor is it merely a clerical power-play. Religious
nationalist movements are often led by the laity, not the clerics. Religious nationalism
seeks to extend the institutional logic of religion into the domain of the democratic nation-state, deriving authority from an absolute divine writ rather than a subjective aggregation of the demos. The nation’s history is seen
as a cosmic drama that pushes toward redemption, not progress. Agency is
located in a disciplined self-bound by faith in God, not a sacralized,
self-interested monad. Society is constituted not by abstract, disembodied
individuals in markets but through the gendered flesh of the family bound
together by faith.
Friedland defines religious nationalism in terms of four
constitutive elements: A specific chain of four elements can be found in the symbolic
order of all contemporary religious nationalisms.
1) First, religious
nationalism configures territorial collectivity as a sacred space and a
divinely invested subject. Religious nationalisms all focus on the penetration
and permeability of the boundaries of that territorial space, whether by
foreign investment, civil or foreign war, immigration, or a global commodified
culture. The defence of the integrity of the territorial space, as in all
nationalist projects, is the medium through which the coherence, identity, and
power of the collective subject are known and narrated. In every case of
religious nationalism, there is an acute sense that that boundedness is at
risk.
2)Second, religious nationalists direct the bulk of their attention
to the bodies of women—covering, separating, and regulating their erotic flesh.
3) Third, religious
nationalists accord considerable symbolic importance to money, to foreign
money, to money out of control.
4)And fourth, religious
nationalists submit lovingly to God.
Barbara-Ann Reiffer, in her
article Religion and Nationalism: Understanding the Consequences of a Complex
Relationship (2003) argues that the relationship between
religion and nationalism has not received due importance. In the writings of
scholars of nationalism, religion is ignored completely or receives a cursory
mention. Citing the writings of Gellner, Anderson, and Hobsbawm, she argues that
although religion contributed significantly to the Western European
nationalisms, only economic factors are highlighted, or religion’s contribution
is diluted by presenting it as part of the culture. She attributes this trend
to the propensity of the scholars studying nationalism to present nationalism
as a modern movement/concept.
Reiffer contends that religious nationalism
often results in religion’s precepts ‘institutionalized in-laws and procedures
governing the nation.’ Reiffer also offers a categorization
of the different types of interaction between religion and nationalism. The
first category, religious nationalism, refers to the situation where religion
and nationalism are inseparable. According to Reiffer, ‘it is a community
of religious people or the political movement of a group of people heavily
influenced by religious beliefs who aspire to be politically
self-determining.’ The second category is ‘instrumental pious nationalism.’
where religion is part of nationalism, but it is not nationalism's most cardinal
aspect. Mostly, such nationalism is used by the political elite to provide an
additional layer of national cohesion on the core based on other
characteristics such as ethnicity, language etc. The third category is
‘secular/anti-religion nationalism’, where religion does not form any part of
nationalism or nationalism is defined based on the fight against the
dominant religion.
For any suggestions and queries, contact on;
E-mail: anthrobasics@gmail.com
Instagram: anthroclan_india
Comments
Post a Comment