Common Origin, Common Power, or Common Life: The Changing Landscape of Nationalisms

Abstract

Socio-territorial psychic constructs, such as national identities, are perhaps the most important psychic phenomena for political science, with their strength so consequential for wars and inter-ethnic conflicts. The construction of the EU has faced scholars and practitioners with two identity-related problems: (i) whether the socio-territorial identities can be conceptualized as being multi-layered (nested, hyphenated, with non-conflictual relationships among the components), and (ii) whether the higher levels of these identity constructs can be confined to civic aspects (e.g. to a Habermasian constitutional patriotism), as opposed to traditional nationalisms relying on assumptions of common origin, and shared culture. The most entrenched classification of nationalisms relies on an obvious difference between the kinds of nationalisms endorsed by the Irish and Germans, on one hand, and the French and white immigrant countries like the US, on the other hand. These versions are generally labeled "ethnocultural," involving the consciousness of a shared ancestry and history, and "civic", relying on the idea of belonging to the same state. My argument is that a schism within the "civic" approach to nationalism can theoretically be expected and empirically supported on the basis of the ISSP 2003, Eurobarometer 57.2 and 73.3 surveys. These datasets confirm the existence of three principal components of nationalism, which can be labeled "ethnocultural", "great-power-civic" and "welfare-civic". While the great-power-civic approach is concerned with and takes pride in the country's military strength, international influence, sovereignty, and national character, the welfare-civic approach takes a more civilian stance and it is concerned with common rights, fair treatment of groups, social security, and welfare within the country. In addition, support has been found for the assumption that people tend to construct their supra-national identity layer according to the molds for their national identity.

Forms of National and European Identity: A Research Note Reviewing Literature of Cross-National Studies

“…But why is Euroskepticism on the rise when the strength of European identity has not changed? One possible explanation could be that the meaning citizens attach to national and European identity are not taken into consideration in studies that measure national and European identity as a one-dimensional construct, such as attachment (Dennison et al 2020), feeling of belonging (Hooghe and Marks 2004;Koos 2012), or closeness to the nation/the EU (Plescia, Daoust, and Blais 2021). Only few contributions consider what it means for citizens to identify with their nation or with Europe.…”

“…Although not worded identically, most studies follow the logic of the ethnic-civic dichotomy. Two studies identify a cultural vs civic form distinction (Shulmann 2002;Koos 2012).…”

“…Based on this question, Domm (2004) differentiates between political and cultural national pride. By merging the true national question with a question about national pride, Koos (2012) finds an ethnocultural, welfare, Nationalities Papers 11 and great-power civic form of national identity The presented forms are additionally distinguished and labeled as "pragmatic" (e.g., ancestry, born, religion = ethnocultural; residence = ethnocultural/pragmatic). The welfare-civic form shows some similarities to a socioeconomic form of national identity (fair and equal treatment of all groups, social security system), whereas other socioeconomic factors are labeled as "pragmatic" (economic, scientific, and technological achievements).…”

The Complexity Inherent in Researching Migrant Identification: The Case of Hungarian Jews in Israel

“…Given that these concepts emerged from the data, I will elaborate on their meanings using the interviewees’ own words. The guidelines also included a section on the political aspect, such as affiliation to Hungary, the Hungarian flag and the national anthem (Koos ). However, this paper only focuses on the cultural aspect and ignores the political one due to methodological limitations and lack of space.…”

National and ethnic identifications among the Slovak diaspora in Serbia: Stranded between state(s) and ethnicity?

“…Recent relevant literature predominately considers identities as fluid, multidimensional, and personalized social constructions that reflect socio-historical contexts (Howard 2000). It has been suggested that people can hold multiple identities because of their multiple positions in society (Burke and Stets 2009;Chandra 2012;Koos 2012). Moreover, scholars are reaching a consensus that identities can be at once stable and changeable (Howard 2000;Burke and Stets 2009;Chandra 2012;Swayd 2014).…”