The reemergence of collectivism in nationalism (Fromm, 104)
Fromm discusses the lost art of community with the reformation and modernity. Philosophically, religiously and economically individualism was becoming more apparent. Until the democratic and industrial revolutions, collectivism was still quite present. The capitalist ideology expanded individuality but loosely and bordered. Quickly enough individuality was recounted with nationalism. Nationalism stood as a retreat to community but it did so at a terrifying cost.
Revolutions against monarchical rule weighed heavy in the Americas and France. Nationalism was more associated with the patriotic push for a new avenue. For a separate identity to be cultivated in the aftermath of the revolt. Revolution sought to overturn the current regime and establish a new system. Not rebel and replace the leader but for the entire structure to be altered. The revolutionary paradigm was to desist from the prevailing sovereign for a new one. The colonists, Haitians and French were aspiring for a home of their own not a home away from home. The sovereign was not to hold sway over its own citizens. The citizenry were exhausted over intervening power. Instead, they were going to decide their fate. They were were going to chart their destiny. Isolating from the sovereign for a new shift, for independence. The revolutionary model presented the citizenry against the monarch. The new ideas against the old dogma. Modernity challenging the customs of a past time.
Claiming independence was the downtrodden citizenry against the overwhelming sovereign. This was not a novel phenomenon. Lords clashed with monarchs in the Middle Ages. Yet lords rarely took over the throne. Lords remained under the monarch’s reign resisting their treaty. Renegotiating their deal for both parties. The rebels of Bar Kochba were intent on ridding the Romans from their homeland. The Great Revolt was to remove Roman sovereignty. To overthrow Hadrian’s reign in the region. A fight for independence that the Maccabees had battled the Syrian Greeks centuries prior. Like the colonists the Maccabees had hellenist loyalists but the Maccabees emerged victorious and reestablished an independent monarchy. The axial age found much rebellion amongst the presocratics, buddhists and taoists though more culturally than militarily. Each of these ideologies began to uproot the pervasive dogmatic ideology in the respective region. The Maccabees fit the colonists better acting though not identically given the lack of political independence before invasion.
Cultural revolutions of the six century antiquity are indicative of the patterns formulating in the mid nineteenth century. There was a military variable to the sequence. German nationalism began after the defeat of Napoleon. The actions that followed were not revolutionary but receding. While the Americans created a democracy, Germans reverted back to their old ways. Napoleon emancipated Jews in France and Germany but after his defeat, German princes revoked the emancipated status for Jews. Their nationalism was premodern. They elevated German citizens but not Jews. They rescinded the tyrannical innovation while maintaining the hierarchal superiority of aryans over Jews. Jews did not receive emancipation until Bismarck’s unification in 1871. America had a similar hierarchy with landowners having more privileges than other immigrants. Politics and culture interconnected to limit the moral innovation necessary to raise everyone else up. The seeds of nationalism were sown but did not reach the level of their equal standard till the Industrial Revolution. With “primitive standards”, there was a hierarchy of values and ethics.
Prior to the Industrial Revolution, slavery was present and discrimination was rampant. The modern age had gradually provided more privileges to certain groups. Following the Lutheran theme, it was of certain groups. Even if the church no longer had the hierarchy, the individuality of Luther was also a tribal construction of Protestants against Catholics as well as Jews. The protestant direction was not just a breakaway to recognise individuality but an ideological movement that sprouted monism in its selectivity. Those who did not adhere to the principles of protestantism were mistaken. The Thirty Years War was a religious war attempting to reclaim lost catholic land. France had become heavily protestant and marked its fate in the eyes of Spain. Protestantism spreading across the region solidified into an ideology. Luther’s anti-semitic comments in the latter days of his life only fuelled division and assaults on Jews by his followers. Protestantism added a new variable to offend within christian circles and further defiance against Jews. Individuality was far from apparent across societal imagination.
In democracies the virtues of the Declaration of Independence and rights in the Constitution were legal aspects. Interpreted narrowly to include white male landowners. Immigrants, women and slaves did not receive these privileges. The amazing revolution was in its moral-legal infancy. Restricting access for improvement for many due to old and contemporary customs. Independence did not necessarily mean legal equality. The president would replace the king. Congress would replace parliament. The wealthy would replace the British government. They were innovative but not revolutionary in the legal spheres. Alterations with the ability of visionary utopia. The Americans sculpted Moses in a different manner than the British but it was still Moses. Some more flare and additional definition but stood the same height with the same flavour. The virtues of the nation’s aspirations were restricted until the Industrial Revolution. Democracy may have been the ideal system to provide equal rights but that surely was not the case at its onset and not for a while.
Luther’s reformation was at the behest of the technological advancements so was the end of slavery and modern nationalism. The Industrial Revolution prompted shifts in ethical thinking. It was the perfect scenario for abolitionists and activists to promote new agendas. To raise up the downtrodden into the collectivist order. Similar to the axial age, the nationalist movements were caused by trade and urbanisation. The global order was expanding and philosophies had travelled to inspire the downtrodden to demand equality. Yet this was at the expense of other countrymen. Instead of desisting from religiosity, it was funnelled in the native race. Everyone in the state was emancipated. So minorities like Jews and Gypsies could own land and work alongside their christian counterparts. This turning point enabled many minorities, especially Jews to catapult into economic success over night. The law offered them rights that were to be accepted by everyone but not everyone was happy about that. Nationalism brew hatred. The idea of a purebred became apparent with no social ties except obviously Jesus. The Jew was an outcast as the majority of his countrymen were stilling holding onto their own archaic heritages.
Abolition of slavery in America had similar issues. Despite being free constitutionally, socially not everyone took too kindly to this. Such an example would be allowing blacks to work but preventing them from growing a business or opening a bank. Nationalism was to bring a cohesive network of social relationship. Bringing the country together. The backdrop of this was the webbed anxiety. The Industrial Revolution raised the the worker and the slave from the confines of oppression yet at the same time many were unprepared for the old ways to cease. The patriotic element for the state was on the way to bridge the liberal supremacy but muddled into xenophobic characterisations of foreigners. Yet it is not only those who live in other countries but fellow countrymen. Anyone who fails the subjective standards is a foreigner even if they are citizens. Xenophobia combined with restricted immigration followed Asian limitations in the late 1800s through the 1960s. Nationalism was unification at a cost. It did bring a humanist aspect to the labour movements and subsequent trade unionists but at the same time was weary of its own neighbours.
Nationalism in its collectivist pride helps a small sector while hurting those they promised to assist. The nationalistic personas of both world wars scarcely entertained the possibility of shifting paradigms back home. The warfront was an equal playing field but not streets. Women and blacks pent up with the inflated nationalistic cause returned from war and protested for the equality demanded in the constitution and demanded at war. Yet in both cases it was strictly gradual. Trade unions in their ethical visions first included all ethnic groups but from pressure excluded all non-whites. The humanistic romanticism flaunted a meta-framework to include all the ruralists making their way to the big cities. Urbanisation welcomed diversity yet the social ramifications were not always as delightful. Standardisation for diversity embellished the nationalistic standard for commonalities. Yet commonalities could not be drawn strictly. The humanism of the economic development heralded themes of growth and understanding. With the imperialist assault underway, natives wished for their homeland to recognise them. Yet in the same breath the imperialist atmosphere conjoined the subjugated foreigners and local plurality as a danger to the constructed standardisation.
Collectivism at the end of the nineteenth century failed to do what it planned. It created a partial patriotism. Nationalism set up a paradigm of Frenchmen and Englishmen but for those who did meet the cut were disposed and ignored. The community of urbanised warfare quickly depleted into sectarianism. Each quadrant was for a different group. Seeking to juggle so many different identities at once someone will get lost in the mix. Someone will be excluded. The hope of the humanistic elements of nationalism was to raise the downtrodden. For the peasantry to be inducted into society freely. Liberal groups championed such feats. The end of solitude. The cotton worker nor the factory worker was alone. Everyone was part of a larger interconnected web. A society based on a heritage that bound man to his land. The state would protect as it did in the medieval era. The state would be the highest calling of connection. Nationalism was an integrated project under the master of the state apparatus. Unifying for ethnicities of the state to be united. Yet similar in the feudal era, the religious community was exclusive. Jews were massacred and even when they converted were scorned. The same thing happened with Jews in the modern era.
Nationalism was a way of rekindling the lost souls in the modern cog machinery. Man searching for purpose and aid found the state. His big brother employer was hurting him and mommy state saved him from his wrath. Nationalism came at the heels of economic motivation and social integration. People were flocking to the cities for the better jobs and the better pay. Growing by the masses and intoxicated with plurality. Nationalism synthesised the diversity for a unified framework. Yet this uniform model was inherently asymmetric and selective. It caused much discrimination at the expense of profound patriotism. Modernity was lonely but it gave many the opportunity to be free even if unprotected now everyone was accounted for but not defended.
No comments:
Post a Comment