I think that the ideology politics saw its peak in the 20th century, today, Europe is making the transition to identity politics. The modern nation state may not survive, neither may the European Union as we know it.
Identity politics is really little more than a manifestation of the same nationalist philosophy. The individual is defined by group to which he belongs. This in contrast to the ideas of the Enlightenment - still the overriding philosophy in the West - which postulated the individual as a creature alone unto himself, defined by his natural rights and spontaneously rational and social.In fact, while the First World War can fairly be described as a conflict born at least in part from nationalism. The Second World War and the Cold War were born in the effort of societies to substitute alternate identities for the nationalism that the Great War had discredited. (National Socialism emphasized race. Communism emphasized class. Fascism came closest to nationalism in defining identity in accord with the state, though it was as the state and not rooted in ethnicity or nationality.)In any event, the rise in identity politics is simply another manifestation of the same nationalist trend. Nationalism being, again, a reaction to the rationalist/individualist principles of the Enlightenment, this augmented by a certain populist bent to contemporary politics that inherently distrusts institutions and elites. These principles being the motivating philosophy of the EU.This is not the first time. Rationalism is born in response to the dominance of a transnational church. Nationalism is born in response to that rationalism. This resulting in the French Revolution and the Napoleonic principles. The fall of Napoleon resulting in a renewed nationalism until World War I. That resulting in the virulent ideologies of the 20th century and thence to the EU and the current turn to identity politics.Bottom line, we have been here before. Not always pleasantly, but certainly.
No you mistake patriotism for nationalism. Nationalism aims to unify all language speakers of a group within the borders of the same nation state. Erase regional languages, dialects, customs etc and impose the newly created national identity on everyone within these borders. Nationalism is only one form of patriotism. In Latin, patriotism means amor patriae (love of the fatherland), it is opposed to cosmopolitanism cosmo = world, polis = city, globalism/creation of worldstate.Nationalism has lead to xenophobic reflexes and national chauvinism.Identity politics is fundamentally opposed to this. It doesn't want to remove the regional identity, neither the national or the geopolitical identity (family of nations). If a people destroys or damages another people, it destroys or damages its own identity. An identity is by definition something that distincts one from the other.Thus identity politics is a fundamentally different way to express patriotism, one without xenophobia and chauvinism.Identity politics does not exclude the possibility of city states, nor a federated geopolitical European bloc. Nationalism limits itself to the nation state, identity politics does not.Furthermore identity politics does not impose ideology onto the people, the collective consciousness formulates a political will that must be carried out without ideology, as opposed to nationalism which imposes an ideology on the people and denies their collective consciousness from formulating a political will.Nationalism is ultimately not opposed to the Enlightenment, but a part of it. Its equally as modernist as rationalism, individualism and egalitarianism.
No, that is the modern understanding of nationalism and it is not necessarily a fair one.Nationalism was born in response to the Enlightenment. It even had a democratic impulse in that it arose in reaction against the "enlightened despots" who saw society and social particularities as mere obstacles to a rational social order. It was only in the wake of the First World War and particularly the American effort to define that war as a war of dictatorship against democracy that the idea arose that nationalism was inherently anti-democratic.Identity politics, in fact, is just as prone to autocratic tendencies. It defines the individual by the group to which he belongs and tends to exclude those groups which are not part of the specific identity.Indeed, identity politics has as much in common with nationalism as with National Socialism, which sought to define the individual's identity by race as opposed to national or other sub-group identities.None of this has anything to do with patriotism. As pride in one's country can inhere in any structure. America defines its identity by adherence to the ideal of the Enlightenment - a "nation dedicated to a proposition." The UK by "loyalty to the Crown" These are creedal states to which people can feel a loyalty.Similarly, France, Turkey, etc, define themselves by national identity - language, culture, etc. Suffice to say people can feel loyalty to these states as well.For that matter, there were those who were loyal to Nazi Germany.All of these loyalties were patriotic and received expressions of patriotic loyalty. Patriotism is general, whereas nationalism is a specific sense of identity to a specific definition of identity.
The original nationalists were liberals who attempted to provide an alternative to the absolute monarchies of the 16th century. That alternative was the modern nation state.This means that nationalism is part of the Enlightenment, just like any other given ideology. Identity politics uses a cultural, ethnic and historical understanding of what makes an identity.It recognises that the Basque, Sami, Finnish and Hungarians are not from Indo-European (Caucasian) origin, but rather came to Europe through the Mongolian Steppe. The Basque and Sami lived in Europe prior to IE arrival. Despite all of these being of different ethnicity, they all share similar historical and cultural markers of identity. Thus they are part of the European geopolitical bloc identity.It doesn't matter if its ethnic (German nationalism) or civic (Anglo-American) nationalism, 'ink on paper' by writing of official documents peoples are created.Identity politics holds that history, culture and ethnicity create a people, not ink on paper, because only history, culture and ethnicity can create a collective consciousness in a population to formulate a political will. This political will is then the alternative to ideology politics.Anglo-American ideology politics does not dictate to Europe how politics will be conducted. Neithe does Russian oligarchy or Eastern or Global South migration. Europe is its own ethno-cultural historical bloc.
We don't fundamentally disagree, though we disagree with the idea that "identity politics" is anything more than a variation of essential nationalism is mistaken. It is a difference of degree and not one of kind and is apt, in due course, to conduce to the same issues that arose from nationalism specifically.
Identity politics does want to make up for the failures of nationalism, thats true.
Indeed, and is as apt to repeat its mistakes. As I say, like nationalism, it is benign intent but not less prone to human frailty for all that.
Patriotism in classical antiquity didn't fail. The only reason why I see nationalism failing is because of race theories and materialism.
Nobody consented to the ban of national and regional flags in the EU parliament, I sincerely doubt anyone consented to this anthem either.
Eh, the national heads of state seem to be fine with it, who in a parliamentary democracy tend to represent the government, who in turn represents the people.Like I said, not everyone is decided by referendum
I'm a political dissident on this matter.
Bigger issues than a super-national institution trying to erase thousands of years of cultural development?
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
It started out as an institution for trade.
that was the ECSC. the EU is admittedly something else. if it's a problem for you there's nothing wrong with being upfront about it. if it's a trade treaty then why why does it have an anthem? why does it have a court of justice? why does it have a parliament? you know the answer. it's not a trade deal now
its some gay shit man.
if gayness is what you think is wrong with the world. would you happen to be from arabia?
Thats a strawman.
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!