Monday, November 15, 2004

Boriswatch


johnsonborisPA256
Originally uploaded by ukplc.
Boris Johnson wasn't going to be the biggest story of the day, but then he did what Boris does best, and came out of the house wearing this:
The Grauniad are devoting all their attention to covering the latest developments.


I'm starting to wonder whether the concept of "nationalism" is really so useful after all. I suppose that in some respects the problems of nationalism are those of the social sciences as a whole: why do groups of people act the way they do, and in the context of a society, what is identity? Looked at that way, it shouldn't surprise us too much if we don't have many concrete answers. In this case, the concept has to be used with care if it is not to be stripped of all of its explanatory power. In the hands of the careless hack, the concept becomes not only useless, but worse than useless. And this is what irritated me reading Martin Woollacott's review of Anatol Lieven's new book, "America Right or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism". Now I havn't read Lieven's book, but if the gushing review is an accurate assessment of its contents, then it seems that doing so would be an unnecessarily masochistic undertaking. For one thing, trying to weigh up nationalism when one has no regard for history is a guarentee of disaster. "
Lieven argues...that instead of the mature nationalism of a satisfied and dominant state, American nationalism is more akin to that of late developing and insecure states such as Wilhelmine Germany and Tsarist Russia."
One reason why so much nonsense gets written about nationalism, I think, is that to understand nationalist movements, a pretty detailed understanding of a country's history is necessary. The reason why it's hard to generalise about the nature of these movements is a combination of their inherent heterogenity and the fact that most specialists only have a really good understanding of one or maybe two countries' histories. When you don't understand any history at all, and think that Wilhelmine Germany is comparable to "Tsarist Russia" (I assume this refers to late Tsarist Russia, at the end of the 20th century, or perhaps this anachronistic entity never underwent any change throughout its undeveloped history in Woollacott's view) then you really are heading for trouble.
There are important points to be made about nationalism in a diverse, almost entirely immigrant society that has its historical basis in the near-extermination of a people and now finds itself as the global hyperpower, led by a group of reactionary neo-imperialists who seem to believe it is their destiny to bring order to the world, but they aren't illuminated by this review, and if the review is anything to go by (I am sceptical) by Lieven's book.
Just what "
"civic nationalism", based on respect for the rule of law, constitutionality, democracy, and social (but not economic) equality" is supposed to be, I havn't a clue, but that it relates in no way to nationalism - or indeed reality - seems pretty clear.
The pages of the Guardian have done enough to retard the progress of humanity in the last couple of months already. The latest contribution is less than welcome.


In other scary news, the US government want to put little antennas on medicine bottles so they can keep track of them. Seriously.

And still there is more lunacy. James alerted me to the news that "Antisocial behaviour orders" or Asbos if you are "New" Labour-literate, will be used to ban yoofs from wearing hoodies. As winter is on the way, I thought I'd make a list of other offending items of clothing that could be used to conceal identity:
hats of any description
scarves
balaclavas
gloves (prevent potential offenders from leaving fingerprints!)
coats with hoods

The aim is surely twofold: 1) Freeze Britain's young gangsters to death
2) Put Millets out of business.

Quite what the dastardly plan is behind these twin aims, I am hesitant to guess, and even if I knew, I'd be careful who I told, lest Mr. Blunkett should decree that the fact that I am allowed internet access promotes "anti-social behaviour".

2 Comments:

Blogger Jim said...

I think the nationalism problem results from the lack of objectification of the objective distance between subject and object, to paraphrase Bourdieu. If you accept that there is a structural relationship between nationalism and ideology, it is possible to apply Ricoeur's problemmatisation of belonging in ideological analysis. In "Time and Narrative" he points out that since the social world is constructed symbolically (the difference in meaning between a simple physical movement and an action), all social action carries ideological weight. It is not possible to construct a non-ideological critique of ideology, since in order to begin to construct meaning we must be inside the symbolic system; inside the social world. It is a truism of human life that meaning is always, perforce, constructed in a social world. The nearest we can get to forming an objective critique is what Ricoeur calls a "relatively autonomous" position. This is Bourdieu's objectification of the objective distance. Of course, poststructuralist thought recognises that the creation of discourse involves a symbolic relation to the real, lived world, and any critique of nationalism is also saying something about one's own social world. But without this kind of self-relection concepts like the nation become reified, and thus useless. Interestingly, Ricoeur's thought is applicable both to our understanding of the construction of identity and our understanding of our own process of thinking about it. In fact, the second logically preceeds the first.

Coincidentally, my blog today is about the applicability of the nation in modern international relations.

12:40 PM  
Blogger joygoddess said...

Dude... Boris Karloff rocks. That Boris doesn't. People that wear bandannas like that should be shot and taken out of their misery.

6:23 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home