
National Identity Is Made Up [video] - gkya
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/world/national-identity-myth.html?emc=edit_int_20180228&nl=the-interpreter&nlid=79463061&te=1
======
whatshisface
Here are some arguments in favor of national identity being "real": (as in,
likely to arise in any culture, perhaps in any species that's able - in a
Chomsky recursion sort of way)

\- You have a greater interest in reaching consensus with people in the same
democracy as you, because their votes determine the laws you follow and vice
versa.

\- People who live in the same country as you fund the same programs and
projects, and therefore share with you some sense of ownership over space
programs, universal healthcare, or whatever else your government is spending
money on.

\- People who live in the same (democratic) country are co-responsible with
you for whatever good or evil your government does. (See: points one and two.)
It's not a direct, and the responsibility is spread thin, but however little
power Americans have over US actions, foreign nationals have even less!

\- Game theory explains a lot of this. National identity isn't an arbitrary
fiction, nor an arbitrary reality. You can think it's good or bad, but it's
here for reasons stouter than "someone came up with it."

~~~
rntz
You define 'real' as: "likely to arise in any culture, perhaps in any species
that's able". That's a strong claim. Look at your arguments supporting it:

> You have a greater interest in reaching consensus with people in the same
> democracy as you...

> People who live in the same country as you fund the same programs and
> projects...

> People who live in the same (democratic) country are co-responsible with
> you...

These all have the form: if democratic nation-states already exist, people
will have reason to identify with them. This is plausible, but does _not_
prove that nation-states are "likely to arise in any culture, perhaps in any
species that's able".

What it means is that nation-states are a relatively _stable_ arrangement -
that, once extant, they by and large convince people to go along with their
existence. But there have been many forms of social organization which were
stable for long periods of time before modern nation-states came along. Why
shouldn't there be many others succeeding it?

~~~
whatshisface
If nation-states _don 't_ already exist, then someone will invent them. This
has happened over and over again in human history, and native American
civilizations serve as a great example. If you have a single, global state,
then all of the same identity arguments apply to the new global identity.

So, it sounds like the choices are between many national identities, one
(global) national identity, and anarchy from which many national identities
will arise given time.

Finally, if you're going to hold the universal single-state together, you
would have to crush all civil wars or faction divides before they even
started. To do this preemptively is the central tenant of fascism, and to not
do it at all will just lead back to having multiple states. So, in the long-
term, you'll end up with multiple national identities.

~~~
slowmovintarget
Civilizational advance has at its current top-level nationalism.

Self: I look out for my own advantage. Everyone else is of lesser status,
possibly and enemy or opponent.

Clans: I look out only for my own family's advantage. Everyone not in my
family is of lesser status, possibly an enemy or opponent.

Tribes: I look out only for my tribe's advantage. We may not all be family,
the tribe may be made from many clans, but we are one tribe. Everyone not in
my tribe is of lesser status, possibly an enemy or opponent.

Nations: I look out for my nation's advantage. We are not all one family, one
clan, or one tribe, but we are one culture. Everyone not a member of my nation
is of lesser status within my borders, and may be an enemy or opponent.

This is overly simplistic, of course, but nationalism has been the most
advanced form of cultural organization we've achieved for a very long time.
It's led to the notion of human rights, the idea of rule by law, and the
formalization of trade (which has reduced global conflict by a large measure).

Nations and nationalism are good things. They are social constructs, yes, but
they are better than degeneration back to tribalism or clannishness. We can
observe those regressions in the turmoil of the Middle East.

------
InitialLastName
Granfalloonery like this is what humans are best at. Everything we involve
ourselves in is "made up", but that doesn't keep it from existing.

The book Sapiens suggests the word "intersubjective" (I don't know if this
came from somewhere else) for things that exist entirely because a quorum
believes they exist:

\- National identity

\- Nations as a whole

\- Tribes

\- Religion

\- Money

\- Civil rights

~~~
rvo
Of course. It's what separates us from the beasts and animals.

Sapiens also talks about how humanism is completely made up. Who says a human
deserves rights? Why should humans not own other humans? Because we built up a
moral system on made up beliefs, largely religious in origin.

And that is good. Otherwise why protect weak humans? Why not just behave more
"naturally", like animals?

~~~
InitialLastName
I'm absolutely not being critical of any of this. I think it's pseudo-magical
that we've built a moderately-functional society out of 10 billion humans
spread over an entire planet.

~~~
ygaf
I absolutely appreciate your post for exposing the threadbare premise of the
video.

------
oh-kumudo
Made up? Consider:

1\. Your nationality decides the lower threshold of your social security.

2\. Your nationality decides where and how easy you can travel.

3\. Your nationality decides the justice system you are in.

4\. For many people, your nationality, decides your ethnic background, what
language you speak, what culture you are raised up...etc

It is of course not made up, at least for modern people who grow up in a world
that is organized by nation, already. Of course, it was constructed, because 2
to 3 hundred years ago, the technology we have at the time is not sufficient
to organize and control a population of modern nation. When that technology is
in place, boom, the national identity comes with it. It is not coming out of
nowhere.

~~~
jackfraser
It seems that some people have conflated the idea of "socially constructed"
with something not being real. Nations are composed of people and power
structures; while these may have been designed by people, in no way does it
mean that they don't exist, or that they don't create distinctions and
differences between groups people over long periods of time.

People naturally feel like their history and the shared history of their kin
is part of their identity, something they can lay claim to in an abstract
sense. The events of the past influence your birth and life, as they did for
the generations preceding you. There is such a thing as a healthy variety of
pride in your identity; obviously we know what it looks like when taken too
far, but the cries to eliminate it completely seem to me to be dangerous
propositions.

~~~
oh-kumudo
My thought exactly. Such claims as the one from the video, in fact, are
attractive, partially because they are catchy and counter intuitive, a lot
like conspiracy theories.

While extreme nationalism is dangerous, nationalism is an effective way, not
the most effective, to establish order and reach consensus to tens and
hundreds of millions of people. And it is awkward to see that the creator of
the video highlight the US exceptionalism to end their argument, which by
itself, IMHO, is pretty nationalistic.

~~~
allemagne
I didn't get the impression at all that mentioning US exceptionalism undercut
the video creator's argument, or that they were really trying to argue that
nationalism _isn 't_ an effective way to establish order.

The creator went to lengths to describe how powerful of a force nationalism
is. The point is that it's remarkable how much effect it has, given that it's
a concept without a clearly defined delineation (categorizing languages,
shared history, culture, ethnicity, and even borders is a whole other thing)
that didn't exist a few hundred years ago.

Taking umbrage to how the author uses the concept of "existence" or "being
made up" as basically a philosophical shorthand in the context of
deconstructing what national identity really is seems overly semantic. Is the
issue really just that it's controversial and click-baity to say "national
identity isn't real" as a headline out of context? Because that's irrelevant
to the thrust of what's being said.

------
ng12
The scope changes, national identity does not. You don't really identify with
your fellow Italians until the Lombards invade. You don't identify with your
fellow Christians until Muslims are at your border. You don't identify with
fellow Earthlings until Martians show up. As humans we simply round up to the
most immediately useful tribe.

~~~
curun1r
I think the question becomes, at what point do we use cross-cutting concerns
to identify our tribes? Class is the obvious example...when do middle-class
people of different national, ethnic or political backgrounds band together to
realize that their interests are far more aligned than they are with people
who share those other traits but have a different financial reality, either
because they're much poorer or much wealthier?

I'd argue that for the upper class, that distinction has already been made.
Rich people already view themselves as trans-national and move their money,
resources and influence to wherever they feel it best suits them. They hold
meetings in ritzy Swiss mountain towns to discuss common concerns and have
residences all over the world, regardless of which country or countries issued
them passports.

The reason the discussion about national identities matter is that it creates
a useful fiction by which certain groups can be oppressed or otherwise taken
advantage of. The US army goes around the world acting in the best interests
of many wealthy business owners. The soldiers doing their bidding don't come
from those wealthy families, they come from lower classes who view their
involvement through the lens of nationalism...they're serving their country.
It would be one thing if those wealthy business owners footed the bill for the
massive military spending that's representing their interests around the
world. But that burden falls largely on the country's middle class while those
with the most wealth exert influence to reduce their tax burden.

This may seem like it just describes the US, but it's equally true of the
situation in some other countries. Russia's involvement in the Ukraine and
Syria is equally carried out by its poorer citizens at the behest of those who
will make billions off those wars. And while China has managed to steer clear
of active engagements much more so than the US or Russia, their military still
protects the interest of their ruling class much more so than it does the
interests of the lower classes who inhabit its ranks.

So while everything you've said is true, it's also important to have this
conversation to better recognize when these tendencies towards tribalism are
being abused by those that understand them. Yes, our natural tendency is to
seek a simple heuristic that separates an us from a them and to adjust that
heuristic in response to the things that threaten us. That simple formula has
worked well over the majority of human history. But as our social structures
have become increasingly complex, it stops working well for those that aren't
actively exploiting it.

------
ixtli
A lot of comments saying "money and laws and religion are made up, too!" This
is absolutely correct but avoids dealing with the spirit of the claim. The
reason this is worth saying is because so many people believe that tribalism
and its artifacts are essential parts of being human. But it's worth
discussion because it's no more "natural" than anything other mythology we
create to make a consistent narrative of our history to justify our actions.
Having grown up in America this is a practical matter because many people are
convinced that America is right implicitly because it's America.

~~~
EggsOnToast
I agree with your overarching point but I think the acknowledgement that it's
all made up is more of an argument in favor of tribalism than against it.
What's good for America isn't necessarily good for the rest of the world. And
yet, if America as a gestalt entity always persues the maximum benefit for its
people in particular then the only reason this might be "bad" with scary
quotes is because other countries aren't doing the same for their citizens for
some reason.

~~~
allemagne
Why not put the world under a United States of the World to maximize the
number of people benefiting from tribalism then? Or else why keep California
in the union if what's good for California isn't necessarily good for the rest
of America?

~~~
EggsOnToast
I'm a little late to reply but the blunt answer is "because it wouldn't be
worth it." To clarify, the point I was making wasn't that tribalism is
actually desirable, simply that if it's ethically agnostic then entrenched and
powerul tribes benefit more from its perpetuation typically.

For the thought experiment, creating a United States of the World would
require either literally taking over the world or some amount of agentic
sacrifice from every nation absorbed into the uber tribe. The case for
California is similarly unrealistic but for different reasons, you can choose
to occasionally give a member of a tribe lopsided benefits and deny them at
other times. This is especially true when the alternative is compromising the
perceived security of people who are already members of the tribe. Put more
succinctly, the California idea is bad because it would lead to infighting and
can be handled in a non-binary fashion.

------
bitL
This is a weird argument ignoring the main reasons for nationality - locality
and familiarity, i.e. a group of people living next to each other speaking the
same language (even with dialects).

~~~
gkya
What's a dialect and what's a language is quite hazy. Bulgaria and Macedonia
speak nearly the identical language, and are quite similar culturally, but are
considered different nations. From Northern Italy to Sicily the linguistic
variation is so much that a dialect can be more similar to a different
language than a dialect at the other side of the country. Many nations speak
multiple languages that they recognise, e.g. Belgium, Switzerland, Norway,
Spain (not sure if recognised), many have multiple native languages in their
own borders, but do not recognise, e.g. Turkey, France. In many nations the
culture of certain areas are more similar to close areas across a border than
to another part of the country. Many nations have multiple large religious
groups, e.g. Lebanon, Bosnia & Herzegovina, India, Ethiopia.

------
hprotagonist
This was eloquently covered by Kwame Appiah in his Reith Lecture from a few
years ago.

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07zz5mf](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07zz5mf)

 _The philosopher and cultural theorist Kwame Anthony Appiah argues against a
mythical, romantic view of nationhood, saying instead it should rest on a
commitment to shared values.

He explores the history of the idea, born in the 19th century, that there are
peoples who are bound together by an ancient common spirit and that each of
these nations is entitled to its own state. He says this idea is a mistaken
one, illustrating his argument through the life story of the writer who took
the pen name Italo Svevo - meaning literally Italian Swabian. He was born a
citizen of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and became a citizen of the new
republic of Italy, all without leaving his home city of Trieste. Appiah argues
that states exist as a set of shared beliefs rather than membership of some
sort of mythical and ancient group. "What binds citizens together is a
commitment," he says, "to sharing the life of a modern state, united by its
institutions, procedures and precepts."

The lecture is recorded in front of an audience at the University of Glasgow.
The series is presented and chaired by Sue Lawley. Future lectures will
examine the themes of colour and culture._

~~~
rvo
The idea of "Nation" being a people goes back thousands and thousands of
years. I don't think it was born in the 19th century...

~~~
mcguire
(Oh, you've unsealed a tin of whoop-ass now. I've dragged out my OED, vol VII,
N-Poy.)

"An extensive aggregate of persons, so closely associated with each other by
common descent, language, or history, as to form a distinct race or people,
usually organized as a separate political state and occupying a definite
territory."

This usage dates in English back to the 1300s, with a first example that I
won't type because I'm not sure where the letter thorn is hiding; the second
is "All naciun and lede aglit vr lauerd for to drede," from Crsor M, 1300.
(Geeze, I need a magnifying glass or better cheaters.)

It enters English from French, and before from Latin (that is an 'L', right?):
nation-em, "breed, stock, race, nation", from nasci, "to be born".

But it goes on to say, "In early examples the racial idea is usually stronger
than the political; in recent use the notion of political unity and
independence is more prominent." An example is from 1872, "In Switzerland four
languages are spoken; yet the Swiss certainly make one nation."

From reading David Reynolds, my understanding is that the use of "nation" to
mean a culturally-related (or "racially", or "historically", or something)
group of people that _ought_ to be a political unit, and vice versa, that a
political unit _ought_ to be a somehow-related group of people, is a
relatively recent thing, possibly a gift of Woodrow Wilson following WWI.
(Think of the phrase "nation-state".)

[Word of the day: "Natiform": Resembling or having the form of buttocks.
Thanks, OED!]

------
joe5150
I'm reading Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities right now and I recommend
it for anybody looking for a deeper dive into nationalism than a video series
can do.

~~~
tsieling
Came here to recommend that very book. It's a sober and thoughtful read, and
changed how I see nations and other communities.

------
cannedslime
Like religion, Money, laws and just about anything else that makes a
functioning society.

~~~
rntz
Most people will admit that laws are made up; that they are only good insofar
as they produce a good society; that laws serve society, rather than society
existing to serve law.

Money is a little harder, but IME most people eventually acknowledge that the
value of money is simply that we all acknowledge it has value.

Whether people admit that nations are "made up" depends on how you press the
point. That the precise boundaries of nations are a product of messy history
rather than some ideal truth, most people will admit. But most people will
push back if you insist on a broad sense of "made up"; for example, that no
privilege ought to be given to "what's good for the country" in national
policy, but only what is good for humanity, is a fairly unusual position.

Consider Kennedy's famous line, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask
what you can do for your country". To someone who thinks countries are made
up, this is nonsense. Countries are valuable if they serve humanity, not vice-
versa.

People are least likely to admit that their own religion is made-up; almost
all religions claim legitimacy by asserting they reveal some sort of
fundamental truth.

------
scalarpro
Was it just me or did the narrator's tone make it seem like he was talking to
a child?

~~~
oh-kumudo
Sounds too woke to me.

------
Caveman_Coder
I'd check out "The Concept of the Political" by Carl Schmitt...it presents a
different argument about national identity and nation states [1][2].

[1]
[https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2017/SOC286/um/Schmitt_1996_-...](https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2017/SOC286/um/Schmitt_1996_-_Concept_of_the_Political.pdf)

[2] [https://fee.org/articles/carl-schmitt-the-philosopher-of-
con...](https://fee.org/articles/carl-schmitt-the-philosopher-of-conflict-who-
inspired-both-the-left-and-the-right/)

------
ThomPete
True but trivial.

Everything is understood in a context. That doesn't mean that the context
isn't useful. The human bran economizes everything also how it looks at the
world.

It's a solid enough concept to understand ourselves in a bigger context and
like most other things it has good and bad sides.

I think postmodernism has a lot of useful perspectives, but it always annoys
me when it gets misused politically like this disguised as some great
antrophological insight.

~~~
gkya
That trivial truth has killed tens of millions hasn't it? Not that trivial,
then.

~~~
ThomPete
What does that have to do with whether it's made up or not? What is your
alternative?

~~~
gkya
For the first part, that mean we can make up a better thing. Also, many people
have trouble seeing that's a decision we make, and thus many types of
extremism/fundamentalism come around. For the second part, I don't have an
alternative, and I believe I don't have to have one before discussing the
flaws of what we have at hand.

~~~
ThomPete
Then you are proving my point. It's politics disguised as some big aha moment.

A much more useful and precise way of looking at national identity is that it
has emerged as a consequence of more complex social structures.

It's not something you get to decide it's made up because there is an
infrastructure and a reality that supports it.

You can discuss the flaws till the cows come home for all I care, just not
sure what the point is if you can't actually point to anything concrete to do
about it.

~~~
danans
> just not sure what the point is if you can't actually point to anything
> concrete to do about it

Oppose oppressive policies whose basis (whether stated or not) is nationalism.

~~~
ThomPete
What policies are you talking about specifically?

~~~
danans
Here are a few proposed new laws in the US (introduced by the most openly
ethno-nationalist member of the House of Representatives):

H.R.997: English Language Unity Act of 2017
[https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr997](https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr997)

H.R.140: Birthright Citizenship Act of 2017
[https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr140](https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr140)

H.R.3600: Census Accuracy Act of 2017
[https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr3600](https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/115/hr3600)

~~~
ThomPete
Those hardly make it up for national identity as that's a much broader
spectrum. I was looking for fundamental things in our national identity, not
fringe cases.

~~~
danans
> I was looking for fundamental things in our national identity

Actually, you asked for examples of nationalist policies to be opposed, which
I provided.

What in the content of those pieces of legislation is "fringe"? If anything,
the fact that they are even on the legislative agenda indicates a
normalization of nationalist policy proposals.

~~~
ThomPete
I was trying to understand what you meant. Those a fringe cases and have
nothing to do with what most of people think when they talk about national
identity. Again its politics disguised as something else, national identity
has its good and bad sides, to good are far outweighing any bad ones.

------
dropit_sphere
_" At this point I’ve gone from wanting to praise these inventors as bold
libertarian heroes to wanting to drag them in front of a blackboard and making
them write a hundred times “I WILL NOT CALL UP THAT WHICH I CANNOT PUT DOWN”_

National identity is indeed made-up. Would the Times prefer, say, racial
identity? Religious identity? Corporate identity? Political faction identity?

~~~
webkike
how about human identity?

~~~
dropit_sphere
Indeed. How about it? Has naive adoption of such ever been achieved, without
being ultimately detrimental to the host?

There is nuance, of course. Paying my taxes and helping my neighbor doesn't
preclude sending aid to Africa.

But nuance is precisely what the title (article is behind a paywall, so I
can't read it) dispenses with. There is no balancing of obligations between
self, kin, kith, town, state, nation, and humanity as a whole. "Just drop that
whole 'national' thing, post-haste."

The reality is: humans are social animals. Groups will form identities, or be
dissolved and split into groups that do. And as long as the prisoner's dilemma
and tragedy of the commons are things, there will be multiple competing
groups, rather than one big one.

This doesn't mean "therefore, genocide." Quite the opposite: good fences make
good neighbors. I wonder if those who are so free with their ingroup
designations exercise the same fast-and-loose mentality when writing put
options. Just as hedges allow investors to take on more risk (because they can
take only the risks they want to), fences allow neighbors to share vegetables
over the side wall without worrying about finding Fido in the petunias or
whatever.

It's sad to see the perfect made the enemy of the good, especially when the
good is _really good_.

------
gt_
Is anyone else unable to find the video? I don’t want to see it very bad, but
I’d like to know if there is clear reason I’m unable to see it.

~~~
gkya
uBlock interferes with it, even when disabled. Had to use my second Firefox
profile that I keep around for misbehaving websites.

------
nashashmi
Quran: We have made you into nations and tribes so you may know one another.
(not dislike one another, and find thyself).

National identity is not made up. It is human nature. If you don't identify
yourself by one thing, you will identify yourself by another. And nation is
formed around that.

~~~
gkya
\- It's nice to openly cite a verse when referring to well-known sources
Koran, Bible, Iliade, etc.

\- The idea of "nation" before the second half of the second millennium and
after that point is quite different. Nation as in _nascere_ , in the biblical
sense, denoting bloodline, is quite different from how modern nations define
being a national.

~~~
nashashmi
Modern nations have a different version of national. It is more like a
certificate you can apply for. By that definition, national identity is made
up.

The other def, national identity is carried by the bloodline through the
father.

But I believe that one way or another every society converges to a nation
anyways. By the bloodline. When there are enough marriages several generations
later.

------
vinceguidry
It's always been that way. Ethnicity is how you describe how people self-
identify. Nationality is the political identity you build on top of that
because ethnicities are too granular to form effective political blocs.

------
User23
Nations are a logical consequence of heritability and therefore this headline
is provably false.

~~~
ianmcgowan
The first part of your statement is a pretty bold claim, especially when the
nation is not a collection of tribes.

~~~
User23
It's easy to get confused because of how nation, state, and nation-state are
often conflated. The defining characteristic of a nation is a group of people
tied by birth and anyone with a high school or better understanding of English
etymology should know that. Language, culture, and other ancillary features
are also all strongly heritable.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The defining characteristic of a nation is a group of people tied by birth

No, the defining characteristic of a nation is a group of people united by a
shared identity grounded in any or all of descent, culture, history, or
language.

> and anyone with a high school or better understanding of English etymology
> should know that.

Anyone with a high school or better knowledge of language should know that
etymology may suggest meaning, but is not a reliable guide to it.

~~~
User23
> No, the defining characteristic of a nation is a group of people united by a
> shared identity grounded in any or all of descent, culture, history, or
> language

Wrong.

> Anyone with a high school or better knowledge of language should know that
> etymology may suggest meaning, but is not a reliable guide to it.

Right.

------
stevenh
Why do you suppose the New York Times wants us to believe something like this?

------
ygaf
TLDR: National identity is only as old as... nations themselves. Wow! The rest
of the video constitutes a bait and switch (nationalism is bad mmkay).

~~~
EliRivers
_A_ national identity is much younger than its nation, though.

