Strife

The Academic Blog of the Department of War Studies, King's College London

You are here: Home / Archives for Identity

Identity

Nations and Nationalisms as Expressions of Identity

by

by Alexandru Nica

(Image credit: Jakob Braun)

Psychologically speaking, the stability of one’s life is arguably conferred by the coherence of the Self, to use a Jungian term. In turn, it are values that generate the core of our identity, thereby bringing about psychological stability. This article investigates the importance of national identity from a psycho-social perspective. Its purpose is to show that while nationalism may be a new concept in the timeline of our existence, national identity is an expression of our historical and psychological needs to belong. As a link in the chain that forms our psyche, national identity is an important factor of psycho-social existence and stability for each and every one of us.

Large-group affiliation continues to be a defining element in determining one’s identity. Indeed, religion, ethnicity, national identity, and culture are at the core of the individual’s psyche. Very often, these pieces are interdependent, with national identity involves a certain culture or religion. As such, the pursuit of national identity and the birth of nationalism did not necessarily originate in the West and are consequences of deeper historical roots. Hence, while nationalism might have been coined in the modern era, national identity preceded that modernity. Moreover, even if contemporary literature may define it as an ideology, nationalism is not an ideology for a simple reason. Nationalism correlates to a wide range of ideologies, both Left-wing and Right-wing: from communism (communist nationalism) to Nazism (national socialism), from unionism to separatism, from secularism to ecclesiasticism (or religious nationalism). Indeed, while nationalism is an element most closely related to right-wing politics, along with conservatism, capitalism, individualism, and religious belief, it is not an ideology in and by itself.

In the West, it is widely acknowledged that nationalism was born within romanticism, as a reaction to the French Revolution and to the rationalism of the Enlightenment that was perceived as threat to the purported continuity of historical evolution, as they catalysed in Napoleon’s Empire. More precisely, German intellectuals were refuting both French territorial and intellectual domination. The German intellectual ‘counterattack’ was called Romanticism. In the ‘nation’, Edmund Burke and, later, Joseph de Maistre perceived an expression of a superior order, an organic community, as opposed to a simple group of citizens equal in rights. In German Romanticism, influenced by the ideas of Herder or Fichte, put forward in the latter’s Addresses to the German Nation, the nation became an expression of linguistic purity and popular or cultural mythology. The purpose was to return to, and embrace, the old traditions, as a form of protest against the French cultural hegemony and military occupation over the German states. The common culture and unique spirit, will, or soul, expressed by language, myths, traditions, and laws were the fundamental elements in the construction of nations.

This traditional current of thought, again, rooted in Romanticism, was considered to be the essence of nationalism itself. The 19th century was the time of a powerful return of popular, folk culture and of a certain interest for old traditions and practices (besides France and Germany, other national states were forming as well: Italy, Greece, Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria, and so on). It was an attempt to affirm the authentic culture, personified in the people, who began to call for national self-determination. The force of this type of cultural speech was impressive, both because it conferred legitimacy to the ideal of national self-determination ideal and because responded to the need of developing a psychological identity.

A number of authors and historians reject this hypothesis. However, their theories are not anchored in historical, cultural and societal realities, but mainly come as a post-war pejorative reinterpretation of nations and nationalism which served as a theoretical base for new social movements. They argue, basically, that the ordinary people were unable to become aware of the fact that they belong to a Nation, hence intellectuals and elites were needed to tell them about it and guide them in discovering their origins and national conscience. Following this logic, Ernest Gellner uses the example of Central and Eastern Europe to support his theory about different ages of the continent. He splits Europe into four different zones and disagrees with the fact that the East had the necessary preconditions for creating national states. The result, Gellner says, are a group of states which became national only because of the Wilsonian political project of self-determination; and so, they lacked the historical age that would legitimise them as organic, national states. Gellner believed that it was nationalism that produced the nation, and not vice-versa. This reading means that the national states of Central and Eastern Europe are not a natural product of history, but of political conjuncture.

Considering this idea of political conjuncture, albeit for a different period and context, Liah Greenfeld tries to assemble a theory based on the political and social context in which England found itself immediately after the War of Roses (1455-1485). Greenfeld argues that nationalism and the need for national identity appeared artificially and accidentally, only as a sort of legitimacy for the newly-emerging aristocracy. In this context, national identity came as a need to explain these new social mutations which were previously unimaginable in a feudal society, defined by strict differences between classes. Thus, for Greenfeld, national identity came to surpass the previous social identity, as a need for acquiring legitimacy and dignity.

However, when judging from the arguments and logical aspects presented above, one can consider Greenfeld’s theory to be false for two main reasons. First, nationalism did not appear in the English space, but in the German space, as a reaction to the French diffusion of culture and values, which were dominant in the romanticist period. Second, nationalism and national identity are not the same things. Nationalism is just a conceptualisation of an element of psychological identity which defines humans and their communities, all over the world. Indeed, the process of developing the idea of nation and national identity was somewhat different in the East, due to a specific political and historical context. However, both Gellner and Greenfeld ignore crucial aspects regarding psychological identity, as materialised into cultural specificity and social evolution.

In other words, the nation is a pre-modern entity, a group with a specific societal identity. Even Kohn himself omits this aspect when he differentiates between Western and Eastern nationalism, because he creates an unnecessary dichotomy between an alleged ‘bad’ (ethnic) nationalism, an alleged characteristic of Eastern societies, and a ‘good’ (civic, secular) nationalism in the West. In the context of an international society that was recently shattered by exacerbated nationalism, Kohn’s approach was somewhat understandable. However, he neglects the deeper and psychological character of national identity, which is a universal and fundamental one. A few decades later, Brockmann analysed national identity as a psychological notion, as a component of a wider psychological identity. By paraphrasing Verdery, it can be summarised that the term ‘nation’ is a name for the relationship that connects a socio-political entity – a large group characterised by various specific features – to the individuals that form it, like links of a chain.

Therefore, even if national identity and nationalism were maybe reflected differently in the East, the idea of a ‘nation’ was born under the same principles. Nations like Romania or Serbia were formed out of a need for psychological identity among the people in those areas. In the East, nationalism was a reaction to the continuously expanding policies of some surrounding states which did not correspond to any ethnic, historical, cultural, or demographical borders. It was a reaction to the policy of enforcing the right of conquest led by surrounding multinational empires: the Habsburg – later Austro-Hungarian – Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the Russian Empire. Thus, at first, Romanians, Serbians, but also Bulgarians and Greeks started to vocally acknowledge their national identity for the purpose of emancipation from the empires which were controlling them politically, militarily, economically, socially, and even culturally. These peoples had, at first, the purpose to survive the attempts of assimilation organised by the empires. Then, after the First World War, the Wilsonian project allowed these nations to emerge more powerful than before (Romania, for instance, has doubled its population and territorial size in 1918, after the unification with all Romanian-inhabited territories that were previously under foreign rule).

Like Volkan later would come to theorise, these nations became aware of the link between national identity and core, psychological identity when they were confronted with gradual assimilation. In order to achieve unity and independence, these nations used their unique features as arguments. For Romanians, Serbians, Bulgarians, or Greeks, this awareness included strong ties with their Orthodox Churches, as a factor of difference between them and the surrounding empires. For this reason, nationalism and even Enlightenment were not anti-clerical in the East, which explains the different character of nationalism in this geographical space.

Coming back to our times, one can see an apparent revival of national sentiments, at least in Europe. Despite an era of globalisation, nations demonstrate a tendency towards closing the ranks. Nationalist movements have recently arisen in the East (i.e. Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic), as well as the West (i.e. Italy, Spain, France, Germany, coming to a climax with Brexit). A possible explanation can relate to the need for a psychological identity, with national identity as a part of it. In the West, the immigration issue starts to be perceived as a threat to the national specifics. In the East, it is more about the perception that people are beginning to face a two-speed European Union, where these newer members are being left behind.

To conclude, national identity is not synonymous with nationalism, because it is not just a constructed doctrine or a current of thought. Instead, it is an important factor of psycho-social identity and stability of any individual, regardless of where he or she lives. Although nationalism, as a concept, is modern, the need for identification with a large group, with a nation, precedes modernity and still prevails today. Yet it is important to note that neither nationalism nor national identity appeared by accident. National identity is an expression of the need to belong, which in itself is an organic feature of the human psyche, or at least that of a healthy, functional human psyche.

Using the metaphor of a canvas tent, Vamik Volkan emphasises the idea that a nation protects its members by offering them an identity, like a mother who protects her children. Indeed, there is a nuance here: some nations emphasise the mother figure as a fundamental symbol (i.e. Russian Motherland), whereas other nations highlight the father figure (i.e. German Fatherland). However, this nuance is psychologically irrelevant. The point is that the nation can play the role of a caregiver – which is a crucial role for one to become a ‘healthy, functional adult’, using Donald Winnicott’s words. Judging by this analogy, it makes it very difficult to replace or reshape this reality through constructed speech, if at all. There is only a slight variance, an empirical nuance – this need for national identity was acknowledged under different circumstances, in different contexts, throughout history. However, it remains so that national identity preceded modernity.

Alexandru Nica is currently pursuing an MA in Political Psychology at Bournemouth University. He holds a BA in History and is interested in how politics, media, psychology, and technology are interconnected and shape our fast-paced contemporary society.

The Role of History in the British and German Army Officer Corps: Training, Attitudes and Identity

by

By Dr Sarah Katharina Kayß

 

German soldier of the Gebirgsjägerbataillon 232 (Credit Image: Bundeswehr / Andrea Bienert)

 

“Each nation steps into the future carrying the heritage of its own past. This past leaves its mark on the development of society, and on the way people think, including the way the military staff thinks.”

(Vladimir Rukavishnikov 2007, 24)

The Study – the book

In the past few years (during my work at the War Studies Department at King’s College London) I have concerned myself with the significance of history perceptions in the British and German forces. The following article gives you a glimpse insight of the results of the research undertaken and what to expect in my book which was just published by Routledge. The main purpose of my study was to draw attention to under-researched and yet extremely important aspects in military studies, namely: the detection of professional identity in the British and German forces and the role of history within the enlistment process of aspiring officers in both countries. Modern-day Britain and Germany are Western liberal democracies whose armed forces, (which are both NATO members and under civilian control,) recruit professional soldiers and officers for territorial defence and foreign deployment. Despite many cultural similarities, British and German societal perceptions towards their military pasts seem to differ substantially.

History is essential if you want to understand the power of traditions and the building up of the national image and what history can do in a nation’s psyche.

[British officer cadet]

 

The Argument

In the book I argue that officers have a strong relationship with the history of their country because the history of their country is identical to the history of their employer. Consequently, soldiers and officers are inevitably more connected to the history of their country than other professional groups. The data results clearly show that the officer cadets’ decision-making was influenced by their interpretation of their professional role, which in turn was heavily dependent on their understanding of history and alleged lessons learned from the past. The study therefore provides insights into the British and German army officer cadets’ understanding of the world that they were surrounded with, and illustrates how far their understanding of history was influenced by the culture in which they grew up in.

I think history was a huge part of my motivation. Obviously, (…) the whole history of Britain is completely intertwined with its armed forces’ history (…) So it connects to pride joining the British Army, because you are linked towards a history that civilians wouldn’t be.

[British officer cadet]

 

Data and identity studies

The formation of identity, particularly in the field of work identity, has generated a great deal of interest (e.g. Vest 2012; Ben-Shalom and Benbenisty 2016; Franke 2000; Broesder et al. 2014; Pratt et al. 2006; Schott et al. 2016), yet still very little is known about the professional identity formation of army personnel in general and that of officers in particular. I therefore designed a questionnaire covering topics such as the cadets’ motivation to enlist, attitudes towards war and combat, army training and perceptions about the officer profession in the past, present and future. In Britain, 481 British officer cadets who started their training at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in 2014 completed the survey. Additionally, 49 of those cadets were interviewed. In Germany, 274 cadets who were going through basic officer training at the Officer School of the Army in Dresden (to proceed with a degree course in Munich or Hamburg) in 2014 filled out the questionnaire. Fifty-four of those cadets were also interviewed.

 

Significance and innovation

Detecting the professional identity of young cadets is important for a multitude of reasons. First and foremost, the cadets’ awareness of their future profession provides information about ideals which the cadets connected to the officer profession. Although not all of those ideals necessarily correspond with reality, they are insights into what the cadets’ expected from their future profession (comp. Wiik 2010: 58; Remley and Herlihy 2005: 22).

The study demonstrates that developing an understanding of how young British and German officers perceive their profession and the world around them provide some indicators on how those officers might act in the future. Additionally, in 1993, Dandeker and Strachan (282-283) requested more research into what army recruits think about the armed forces, their social characteristics and their perceptions of their role within the army as a way of optimising recruitment methods and gaining an overall understanding of future military leaders’ ways of perceiving the world. My book answers this request in two ways: First, it offers insight into the British and German officer cadets’ thinking by analysing their professional identity, and second, it adds a new incentive for enlistment to the field of recruitment studies by introducing history-oriented reasons for enlistment.

As a result of increased multinational military operations after 1990, the British and German armies began working side by side. An intercultural understanding of future officers’ thinking, perceptions and attitudes are undoubtedly vital for effective, functional and successful cooperation in the years to come. It is important to keep in mind that the cadets are not isolated from their respective societies. Consequently, their way of dealing with the past by either approving or rejecting common history narratives within their culture is also likely to be shared with civilian society.

 

The Contents

The overall analysis undertaken in the book enables a rigorous understanding of the preconditions for officer enlistment in Britain and Germany. The examination of the cadets’ motivation to enlist focuses in particular on how cadets have aligned their knowledge of the past with their occupational decision-making. A short introduction into the history of the British and German Army until 2014 and the officer training courses in Britain and Germany at the beginning of the book already demonstrate that many differences go back to a different dealing with the shadows of the past.

The book also deals with the cadets’ social and educational background and points out how different experiences in history have not only led to different military systems in Britain and Germany, but also to different external stimuli which influenced the cadets’ decision to enlist. The sections on the British cadets discuss the impact of heritage and education, linkages between the social and educational background of the cadets and their regimental allocations, preconditioning through funding or cadet training (at British schools and universities) and the cadets’ professional perceptions about the officer profession. The sections on German cadets focus on compulsory and voluntary military service and differences between officer cadets which go back to regimental allocations, their attitudes towards the degree course integrated into the officer training and their professional outlook towards a career in the military. Additionally, the social composition of the British and German army officer corps is contrasted followed by a discussion about whether different training systems in Britain and Germany have led to a certain type of officer. The data results clearly oppose popular statements made by prominent researchers of the military sphere such as Karl Haltiner’s (2003) argument that the British and German (Spartans vs. Athenians) forces employ a different type of soldier as a result of the different army training systems to name just one example.

 

Some results

Along with the two world wars, the British Empire and German reunification stood at the centre of the British and German cadets’ historical awareness. A study from the Swedish National Defence College concluded that historical analogies used by young people usually refer to recent events, or to events that have had a great psychological impact on the individual or the society to which he or she belongs (Brändström et al. 2004: 208). Both the British Empire for the British cadets and German reunification for the German cadets fell into those categories. Although those events vary significantly, they helped a vast majority of the British and German cadets to develop a positive outlook towards history.

The results from the empirical data analysis reveal that the cadets’ perceptions about the British and German armies were incorporated as a part of their professional identity to motivate them in the present by either acknowledging or rejecting what preceding officers in both armies have done. This comparison highlighted many factors which are responsible for most differences between the British and German cadets’ outlook towards their profession. One of those factors was the different dealing with lessons learned from the past and its impact on the military systems in the two countries. Considering that the majority of the British and German cadets were heavily influenced by their perceptions of history - not only in regards to their initial interest in the military and a number of value-related incentives for enlistment, but also in regards to their very decision to serve their countries in the armed forces – clearly demonstrates that history-oriented reasons for enlistment should not take a backseat in future recruitment research.

The study’s results stress that soldiering is not just what one does, but who one is: the professional role identity of the British and German cadets can therefore be seen as a basis from which they will act and respond to their environment during missions in the future (Broesder et al 2014: 522). The officer corps has always been a vital component in the armed forces as it determines the military mind-set and upholds and revises the military ethos (Caforio 2006: 255). Since the surveyed and interviewed cadets are most likely going to impact on all-encompassing developments in all sectors in the British and German armies in the near future, my study has also acted as research on the current military culture in Britain and Germany.

It is important to recognise that the officer intake of 2014 will influence following generations of officer cadets, because it seems likely that the new cadets will identify with the 2014 intake’s thinking more than with the thinking of the older generations. Consequently, the British and German cadets who started their training in 2014 will socialise future generations of officers and transmit their traditions and perceptions of history to them.

Multilateralism and interoperability are deeply engrained in NATO doctrine and both can only function if the forces who work together have at least a basic understanding of each other (comp. Hedlund 2017). Understanding each other on a deeper level will allow officers and soldiers to successfully adapt to external forces and difficulties in their missions to come. The book does therefore not only enable a rigorous understanding of British and German military history and its impact on the training and attitudes of officers in Britain and Germany, it also provides key knowledge for intercultural competence which will be key in the missions to come.

 

Kayß received her PhD at the War Studies Department at King’s College London. For her large-scale study, she conducted more than a hundred interviews and surveyed almost 900 British and German Army Officer Cadets between 2014 – 2015. All research results can be found in her book “Identity, Motivation and Memory: The Role of History in the British and German forces” which has just been published by Routledge (2018): https://www.routledge.com/Identity-Motivation-and-Memory-The-Role-of-History-in-the-British-and/Kayss/p/book/9781138589155. Please feel free to contact Sarah if you require further information about the study and the book at academia.edu: http://kcl.academia.edu/SarahKatharinaKay%C3%9F

Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bundeswehrfoto/22202153424

Literature

 

U. Ben-Shalom; Y. Benbenisty, ‘ Coping Styles and Combat Motivation During Operations: An IDF Case Study’, in Armed Forces & Society 42:4 (2016), 655-674

Brändström, A.; Bynander, F. and ’t Hart, P. (2004): “Governing by looking back: historical analogies and crisis management” in Public Administration 82:1, 191–210.

Broesder, W.A.; Op den Buijs, T.P.; Vogelaar, L.W.; Euwema, M.C. (2014): “Can Soldiers Combine Sword and Ploughshares? The Construction of the Warrior-Peacekeeper Role Identity Survey (WPRIS)” in Armed Forces & Society 41:3, 519-540.

Caforio, G. (2006): “Military Officer Education” in Caforio, G. (ed.), Handbook of the Sociology of the Military. New York: Springer, 255-278.

Dandeker and Strachan 1993 | C. Dandeker; A. Strachan, ‘Soldier Recruitment to the British Army, A Spartial and Social Methodology for Analysis and Monitoring’, in Armed Forces & Society 19:2 (1993), 279-290.

V. C. Franke, ‘Duty, Honor, Country: The Social Identity of West Point Cadets’, in Armed Forces & Society 26:2 (2000), 175-202.

Haltiner, K.W. (2003): „Spartaner oder Athener? Die europäische Offiziersberufsausbildung vor neuen Herausforderungen“ in Collmer, S.; Kümmel, G. (eds): Soldat, Militär, Politik, Gesellschaft, Facetten militärbezogener sozialwissenschaftlicher Forschung. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag, 35-48.

Hedlung, E. (2017): ‘Team Learning and Leadership in Multinational Military Staff Exercises” in Armed Forces & Society 43:3, 459-477.

Kayss, S.K. (2018): Identity, Motivation and Memory: The Role of History in the British and German forces. Oxon/New York: Routledge.

M. G. Pratt; K. W. Rockmann; J. B. Kaufmann, ‘Constructing Professional Identity: the Role of Work and Identity learning Cycles in the Customization of Identity among medical residents’, in Academy of Management Journal 49:2 (2006), 235-262.

Remley and Herlihy 2005 | T. P. Remley; B. Herlihy, Ethical, Legal and Professional Issues in Counseling (New Jersey: Pearson, 2005).

Rukavishnikov, V. (2007): “Challenges of the twenty-first, social science and strategic thinking” in Caforio, G. (ed.): Social Science and the Military, An Interdisciplinary Overview. Oxon: Routledge, 23-45.

C. Schott; D. D. van Kleef; T. P. S. Steen, ‘The combined impact of professional role identity and public service motivation on decision-making in dilemma situations’, in International Review of Administrative Sciences 0 (2016), http://ras.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/04/18/0020852315599589.full.pdf+html?hwshib2=authn%3A1476623981%3A20161015%253A8a3b555a-c418-4f27-8b9d-62aeed75e605%3A0%3A0%3A0%3Ai5de6XBZCZkejVO95MTyKQ%3D%3D (accessed on 15 Oct 2016).

E.g. B. M. Vest, ‘Citizen, Soldier, or Citizen-Soldier? Negotiating Identity in the US National Guard’, in Armed Forces & Society 39:4 (2012), 602-627.

J. Wiik, Journalism in Transition: The Professional Identity of Swedish Journalists, PhD thesis submitted to the Department of Journalism, Media and Communication at the University of Gothenburg 2010.

This is the year of the nationalist reckoning

by

By Dr Pablo de Orellana, King’s College London

 

Lega posters for the upcoming 2018 Italian Election (Photo credit leganord.org)

Nationalism is back. In the last two years, nationalists have conquered the core of conventional politics in an electoral resurgence that has brought it back from the fringes. Its support, discourses and arguments draw on old logics but directly address grievances born out of global effects of the economic revolution that begun in the 1980s. While 2017 saw the consolidation of nationalist successes in the West, 2018 will see their ideas put to the test.

Nationalism is now a dominant political paradigm. In 2015 I predicted that identity politics and especially nationalism would burst into the global mainstream. In 2016, nationalist ideas were by far the most successful political offering, able to explain grievances including unemployment, future prospects, poverty and social change while suggesting solutions predicated on identity. The vote for Brexit and Trump’s victory also show that mainstream politics failed to address such grievances, particularly poverty. Furthermore, besides bringing some nationalists to power, in cases like the UK, France and Italy, nationalist ideas have conquered traditionally democratic establishment parties. In non-democratic states like Russia and China, nationalism is reinforcing their rulers’ grip on power, which might otherwise have run short on legitimacy and support.

As the short film accompanying this article explains, the core premise of nationalism is that if “patriots” win power, rights and services should be allocated on the basis of identity. Nationalists vary in their definition of identity, from citizenship to religion, race or ethnicity. Some nationalists define identity on the basis of biological differences, which is why the body can be so important for nationalist ideas of identity. Furthermore, this impacts on ideas of gender, with some nationalists, particularly in populist movements, drawing on biologically-framed arguments to determine the social or political role of genders. In this worldview, identity struggle is the result of “natural” difference, which is how nationalists can conflate patriotism with nationalism while accusing critics of treason. As seen in Poland over recent months, the radicalisation of such ideas can seriously jeopardise democracy. It is also crucial to note that nationalism is an extremely flexible political paradigm, able to live under right-wing as well as left-wing political umbrellas.

Nationalism has changed since its previous mid 19th and 20th century incarnations. A crucial difference in terms of political practice and dynamics is that nationalist electoral forces like Vote Leave in Britain, Republicans in the US, Front National in France and Forza Italia in Italy have come to depend on alignment or direct coalitions with loose extremist coalitions such as Leave.EU, the Alt-Right, Génération Identitaire and La Lega, which add vital votes to extremely narrow electoral margins. The international outlook of this generation of nationalists is not simply reducible to isolationism. Rather, it seeks to reshape international relations to allow “natural” identity conflict - read as Darwinian struggle for survival - to determine winners and losers. The antisemitism that characterised previous waves of nationalism has been replaced by anti-immigration sentiment and especially islamophobia. The consolidation of transnational alliances like the Europe of Nations and Freedom coalition between nationalist parties shows that, like the liberal, feminist and socialist ideals they revile, nationalism is also a remarkably transnational force.

2017 was the year of nationalist consolidation. Internationally, four of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council are now nationalists: Trump continued his conquest of Republicanism while overtly emboldening identitarian extremists and May’s Brexit has to a great extent became an anti-immigration endeavour. In France, however, while Le Pen convinced a staggering 33% of the French electorate, rival Macron decisively defeated her with 60% of the vote. Front National’s results in the subsequent parliamentary elections (8 MPs out of 577) show that French voters have rejected nationalism as a viable option for government. It is, however, likely that FN’s abeyance will to a great extent depend on Macron’s and possibly the EU’s performance in the near future. 2017 also witnessed mainstream politicians jumping on the “dragon of nationalism” for their own goals. The appeal of populist expressions of nationalism and movements has not only been evident in the US and France, but also elsewhere in Europe where it is having significant effects on all sides of the political debate. In Germany, the electoral surge of Alternative für Deutschland in the 2017 Federal Elections has led to attempts by mainstream parties to shift their policies towards the nationalist offering. In Italy, the current electoral campaign is witnessing the farce of Berlusconi proposing himself as a moderate while simultaneously promising to deport 600,000 migrants and disputing the elections in coalition with the extremist Lega and Fratelli d’Italia. A key development showing the broader appeal of nationalist politics in the last two years is the attachment of other agendas to a variety of nationalist ideas. In Britain, the Gove/Johnson wing of the Conservatives and the Corbynite side of Labour both regard Brexit as an opportunity to further their ideological models of the state, economy and society.

Nationalist rebels are no longer confined to fringe parties. In 2018, nationalists in power will need to prove that their solutions work or find ways to explain failure. It will be worth keeping a close watch on the success of Trump’s tax reforms and anti-immigration measures, whether difficulties in Brexit negotiations outweigh Brexiteer national liberation optimism, and the continued role of anti-immigration sentiment in polls such as Italy’s general election in March. Italy, still mired in the overtly racist debate as to the political rights of Italian blood, is also an excellent example of how the simple politics of birth and blood rights triumph in the face of complex economic problems and the failure or incapacity of mainstream politics to address them. In France, while Macron’s 2017 election is regarded as a centrist victory, Le Pen will indubitably benefit should he fail to address urgent grievances or please the complex “neither left nor right” coalition that brought him to power.

Crucially, the success of nationalists will not be assessed as an objective truth. As Trump, Putin, and the Brexiteers showed, one of the greatest successes of the contemporary nationalists is to link truth to identity rather than fact, expertise, reliability or science and treat criticism as sabotage or fake news. That is, as we have seen with Trump’s unwavering supporters, the believability of politicians will be determined by their identitarian credentials. In my assessment, this will aggravate the bubble effect where believability is determined by identity and political tribalism, leading to further radicalisation.

Much depends on the extent to which nationalists can address acute economic and social grievances on the ground as well as the sinking hopelessness for the future felt by the young. They might, as Trump has done over the past year, claim betrayal as an excuse for delay or failure. Ultimately, the future rests on whether the loose and small electoral constituencies forged by nationalists continue to believe in identity birthright as a political paradigm.

 

Nationalism: tales of love, fear, and hatred
A short documentary that explores the re-emergence of nationalism in our time, explaining how it works, why is it so powerful, and why it has returned. Written by Dr Pablo de Orellana of King’s College London and directed by Fernanda Marin of OuiShare Paris, the film introduces identityhunters.org, a student-led initiative to analyse and explore nationalist ideas and politics around the world.

 

 

 

Dr Pablo de Orellana is a Fellow of the Department of War Studies, King’s College London and Co-Chair of the KCL Research Centre in International Relations. His research focuses on nationalism, identity politics and its effects on diplomacy and public political discourse. His Twitter handle is @drdeorellana. For more information about his research and teaching, please visit https://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/warstudies/people/teachingfellows/deorellana.aspx

 

 

Image Source

Banner: http://www.leganord.org/politiche2018

Image 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU_cIAJn91M&feature=

Strife Series on National Perspectives in North-East Asian Rivalries, Part III – The Taiwan issue and mismatching identities: an ontological security perspective

by

By Dean Chen

The 2014 Sunflower Movement in Taiwan was widely seen as a societal backlash against further rapprochement between Mainland China and Taiwan, as well as an affirmation of Taiwanese identity (Credit: Lam Yik Fei / Getty Images)

The Taiwan issue is concerned with the political status of Taiwan: whether it should reunify with Mainland China, declare independence as Republic of Taiwan, or maintain the status quo of being de facto independent but de jure remaining within the ‘One China’ framework. While mainstream perspectives focus on Taiwan’s geopolitical significance and power politics involving the People’s Republic of China (PRC), United States, and Japan, this article looks at this issue from an angle of identity mismatch. The ‘national identity’ is concerned with how a nation perceives the ‘self’. The PRC’s identity as the representation of Chinese national rejuvenation with national reunification as an integral element is in contrast with the gradual development of Taiwanese identity as a separate country.

‘Ontological security’ provides inspiring theoretical perspectives to understand this identity mismatch. It is security of the self, the subjective understanding of who oneself is, which enables and motivates actions.[1] For individuals, having relatively stable understandings of the self enables them to make sense of their lives and act independently. When one is faced with ontological insecurity, connected to deep fear of uncertainty, one struggles to ‘get by in the world’[2]. Like individuals, nations also have identities. Similarly, they need certainty and security of the self. In the context of cross-strait relations, i.e. the relations between PRC and Taiwan (officially Republic of China, ROC), with both sides challenging each other’s ontological security, the insecurity of identity within both societies underlies their respective narratives and actions. Therefore, as argued in this paper, ontological security can contribute to understanding entrenched cross-strait divisions.

 

Credit: Wikimedia Commons

For the PRC, the ‘Taiwan issue’ is a matter of reunification. Mainland and Taiwan belong to ‘One China’, but are currently governed by two different authorities. National reunification has been an integral part of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) pledge since the establishment of the PRC in 1949. The ‘reunification narrative’ has created strong path dependency, to an extent that any change in direction of the unification policy would seriously undermine the CCP’s legitimacy. This strong commitment to reunification also prevails in the general public. Being taught in school that Taiwan is an ‘inalienable part of China’[3], while the notion of Mainlanders and Taiwanese being ‘compatriots’ is disseminated by official statements and state media[4], it is no wonder that the Chinese public strongly believes in reunification. In fact, Beijing has never ruled Taiwan, and the island basically functions like an independent country. But in the PRC’s official historical narrative, Taiwan was a province of Chinese dynasties, but was lost during the ‘century of humiliation’. This narrative associates this era, stretching from 1840 to 1949, in China with foreign invasion, subjugation and civil unrest. For instance, during this period, Taiwan was allegedly lost the Japanese Empire and separated from the Mainland due to communist-nationalist rivalries. Taiwan is one of the lost ‘seven sons’, a scar of China’s painful memories of colonialism and civil war which should be healed by reunification. In other words, Taiwan’s reintegration is an indispensable part of China’s national identity – a China without Taiwan is incomplete, and China’s ‘national rejuvenation’ could not be done without reunification.[5] Accordingly, the Taiwan issue is a matter of ontological security for the PRC.

On the other side, the story is very different. The political parties and the electorate are deeply divided on the issues of national identity (Taiwanese or Chinese) and Taiwan’s future political status (declare independence or unify with Mainland China). These cleavages created an identity crisis within Taiwanese society. Identity and the future status of the country are highly politicised, often being focal points in elections. Hence, Taiwan’s self-identity bears a conflicting nature and threatens its ontological security. The absence of consensus regarding Taiwan’s status and future not only undermines domestic social cohesion, but also weakens Taiwan’s coherence facing the external world.

Amid this debate, Taiwan’s public opinion diverged from Mainland China. Although Taiwan maintains the ‘Republic of China’ legal framework, the percentage of Taiwanese identifying as ‘Chinese’ has significantly declined since mid-1990s, while exclusive ‘Taiwanese’ identity has risen significantly. According to a more recent survey, 58% of Taiwanese prefer to maintain the status quo, followed by 23.6% supporting independence, and 11.8% supporting reunification (see chart below[6]). In addition to external factors such as Taipei’s loss of representation in the UN and pressure from the PRC, the domestic process of ‘de-sinicisation’, i.e. the policy of diluting ‘Chinese-ness’ has also contributed to this shift. The then pro-independence president Lee Tung-hui initiated this process in the mid-1990s. For instance, during pro-independence Chen Shuibian’s presidency, between 2000 and 2008, the government changed the history curriculum: Taiwanese history and Chinese history were taught separately, so as to differentiate Taiwan from China. This reflects the narrative of Taiwan as ‘Asia’s orphan’ – ruled by successive external forces but never by the Taiwanese themselves.[7] Pro-independence politicians disseminate the idea of Taiwan, as an immigrant society, is comprised of diverse cultures, rather than Chinese culture as the prevalent one[8]. By diluting the ‘Chinese-ness’ of Taiwan, pro-independence forces seek to distance Taiwan from China. These actions can be explained by the deep controversies in Taiwanese society: in order to assert that Taiwan is different from - and to avoid the unification with - China, especially facing the PRC’s rise as a great power, it is necessary to create an alternative narrative. The manifestation of anti-Chinese sentiment was especially evident during the Sunflower movement in 2014, to protest against a cross-strait trade deal. Activists accused Taipei’s government of colluding with Beijing. More specifically, their concerns were economic integration being used as a mean to integrate Mainland China’s political orbit.

 

(Credit Image: Election Study Centre National Chengchi University)(Credit Image: Election Study Centre National Chengchi University)

 

The identity mismatch linked to ontological security underlies cross-strait relations. For both the Chinese government and the majority of its citizens, Taiwan being a part of China is a given. In contrast, many Taiwanese people no longer identify as Chinese. Deeply engrained identities and narratives on both sides lead to in comprehension and misunderstandings, evident in ‘online nationalism’; Mainland Chinese netizens posted pro-China content on Taiwanese Facebook pages after the 2016 Taiwanese elections. The entrenchment of insecurities about the ‘self’ and conflicting narratives lead to protracting cross-strait division.

So, what is the way forward? To address deep ontological insecurities is not easy. Cross-strait relations in its current tense state is harmful to both sides and regional stability. In order to break the cycle of reinforcing incomprehension and conflict, it is vital to tap into ordinary citizens’ minds and encourage people-to-people exchange. It is only when both sides are open to genuine understanding of each other’s concerns and identities (and why they are so) that Mainland China and Taiwan can transcend this vicious cycle and pursue sustainable peace.

 

Dean Chen is a third year BA IR student at King’s. His main academic interests are China-EU relations, European integration, Chinese Foreign Policy, and global governance. You can follow him on Twitter on @itsDeanChen

Notes:

[1] Jennifer Mitzen, 2006. Ontological Security in World Politics: State Identity and the Security Dilemma. European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 12 (3): 341-370.

[2] ibid.

[3] Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council PRC, “The One China Principle and the Taiwan Issue,” http://www.gwytb.gov.cn/en/Special/WhitePapers/201103/t20110316_1789217.htm (Accessed December 18, 2017).

[4] ibid.

[5] Li Zhengguang, “Taiwan integral to national rejuvenation,” China Daily, Oct 20th, 2017.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/newsrepublic/2017-10/20/content_33509757.htm

[6] Election Study Centre National Chengchi University, “Taiwan Independence vs. Unification with Mainland Trend Distribution in Taiwan 1992/06 – 2017/06,” http://esc.nccu.edu.tw/app/news.php?Sn=167# (Accessed December 18, 2017)

[7] 給下一代的承諾書-十年政綱 (“Promise for the next generation – Ten Year Policy Framework”) http://iing10.blogspot.co.uk/ (Accessed December 18, 2017)

[8] ibid.

 

Images source:

Feature image: https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/event/taiwanese-students-gather-to-protest-against-china-deal-481478069#protestors-holds-signs-as-over-two-hundred-thousand-people-rally-on-picture-id481468403

Image: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/China_map.png

Chart 1: http://esc.nccu.edu.tw/app/news.php?Sn=166#

Chart 2: http://esc.nccu.edu.tw/app/news.php?Sn=167#

 

 

 

France’s Greatest Security Challenge: The Identity Crisis

by

By: Anastasia Beck

Often such images feed into the media’s negative narrative of the Parisian suburbs.
Often such images feed into the media’s negative narrative of the Parisian suburbs.

In only two years, France has suffered four terrorist attacks-two in Paris and one each in Nice and Rouen-in which 229 people died. The perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, Cherif and Said and one of the perpetrators of the November attacks, Samy Amimour, had lived in the infamous suburbs of Paris - ‘la banlieue’. Since the attacks, the focus of media and government has shifted towards these areas which are prone to high levels of crime and now appear to be potential hotbeds for radicalisation.[1] The process of radicalisation is a multifaceted one, but the issue of the ‘identity crisis’ as a precursor to radicalisation is one that particularly emanates from ‘la banlieue’. This identity crisis is a sense of a lack of belonging to one’s country of origin and one’s country of domicile.

France is home to numerous immigrant communities, many of whom live in the suburbs of Paris due to the low cost of living; however, these suburbs are known for being riddled with poverty, unemployment, substandard educational opportunities, and crime. Unemployment in such suburbs is at a record 40 percent, compared to the average of under 10 percent in France.[2],[3]

Second-generation immigrants living in these suburbs face a degree of social discrimination given that schools in these areas tend to perform at lower levels than France’s national average. This is partly due to teachers preferring to be allocated to schools in more affluent areas, resulting in a lack of school teachers to accommodate a large suburban population. Coupled with a lack of attention to individual students, children remain disincentivised to excel academically. This puts suburban youths at a competitive disadvantage in attaining university places in France.

Such problems are exacerbated when individuals from ‘la banlieue’ look for work as well. For long, employers have been known to discriminate against applicant addresses that are located in ‘la banlieue‘. This is partly caused by the nature of the media’s portrayal of the suburbs - often only reporting on them when there are riots, murders, or cars set alight.[5] The basis for discrimination also extends to the names of the applicants. Many immigrant communities living in les banlieues originate from North Africa and the Middle East, and employers often disregard applicants with minority-sounding names.[6]

The Kouachi brothers were known to have lived in ‘la banlieue’.
The Kouachi brothers were known to have lived in ‘la banlieue’.

People living in the suburbs feel shunned by society and are unable to adopt a French identity. Additionally, children of immigrants may have had little contact with their family’s country of origin. When a terrorist organisation recruits individuals, they are able to provide a sense of belonging to people who suffer from such an identity crisis.[8] Recruiters entice people by offering them solidarity and a feeling of camaraderie. Through this subtle process of radicalisation, these suburban residents turn to terrorism.

Government funding could be directed towards the upkeep of the suburbs, which are known for being unpleasant places to live in. Better housing and environment would boost morale and encourage the residents of the suburbs to look after the buildings and green spaces, and instil a sense of communal pride amongst the residents.

Funding can also be directed towards establishing youth programmes. Sports centres, such as rugby or football clubs, community work, or working with government authorities will drive youngsters to interact frequently and partake in community activities. Currently, levels of criminality and drug-selling are rampant as many youths partake in such activities as a means of income. Youth programmes will encourage individuals to ‘stay off the streets’ and engage in legal activities. Working with government authorities may help alleviate the binary notions of ‘us versus them.’ Otherwise, young adults from immigrant families may feel targeted by police because of their religion or skin colour, which may push them further towards radicalisation.[9] Exposure to authorities in a positive manner can help build a constructive relationship. Furthermore, police and law enforcement agencies will also need sensitivity training when approaching immigrant communities and make efforts to engage in a positive dialogue.

Due to the negative broadcasting of the suburbs by the media, the French government should take steps to create a discourse amongst media companies that encourage less biased reporting of ‘la banlieue’ to allow a wider audience to be positively exposed to the suburbs, helping to shift social perceptions of ‘la banlieue’.

By creating an environment where citizens of ‘la banlieue’ do not face discrimination based on their address and feeling part of a community which is fully integrated into French life, young adults may identify more with France. This will make it harder for recruiters to reach out to these individuals. If France hopes to contain this security threat in the long-term, it must persist with these measures.

Anastasia Beck is a postgraduate student with Intelligence and International Security in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London (KCL). She holds a Bachelor’s degree in International Relations from King’s and has studied at the National University of Singapore and the Paris Institute of Political Studies (Sciences Po). Anastasia’s research interests include counter-radicalisation, the role of intelligence in both peace and conflict, and the impacts of migration, both at the macro- and micro-levels. She can be reached via email at [email protected] or [email protected].

Notes:

[1] C. Ruffini ‘Les Banlieue: Searching for the Seeds of Terror’ CBS News (Jan 2016)

[2] F. Keane ‘Charlie Hebdo attack: the suburbs and the suspects’ BBC News (Jan 2015)

[3] ‘France Unemployment Rate’ Trading Economics (July 2016)

[4] ‘Forgotten in the banlieues’ The Economist (Feb 2013)

[5] G. Packer “The Other France: Are the suburbs of Paris incubators of terrorism?” The New Yorker (Aug 2015)

[6] France’s Muslim Men Suffer CV Discrimination’ The Local FR (Oct 2015)

[7] C. Bremner ‘Battle of the banlieue: The French intifada by Andrew Hussey’ New Statesman (March 2014)

[8] D. Al Raffie ‘Social Identity Theory for Investigating Islamic Extremism in the Diaspora’ Journal of Strategic Security Vol.6 No. 4 (2013)

[9] A. Hamza ‘France struggles to address racial profiling by police’ France 24 (Oct 2013)

Image 1 credit: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/23/french-intifada-arab-banlieues-fighting-french-state-extract

Image 2 credit:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-terror-attack-isolation-fuels-the-anger-of-young-muslims-in-the-most-wretched-parisian-a6737081.html

Feature image credits: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/13/memorial-plaques-unveiled-in-paris-on-first-anniversary-of-attacks#img-2