Siniša Malešević Is Nationalism Intrinsically Violent?
INTRODUCTION
It seems it is quite difficult to provide a vivid representation or graphic depiction of nationalism that does not include acts of violence. From the famous nationalist paintings of Delacroix, Manet, Goya to Hollywood blockbusters such as Braveheart, Top Gun, The Patriot, 300, or Captain America, nationalism is stereotypically portrayed through the prism of excessive violence. Despite the historical and geographical varieties, there is a tendency to associate nationalist discourses with images of bloodshed, killing, dying, martyrdom, suffering, and destruction. The birth of American and French nationalism is traditionally articulated through the images of violence unleashed by the two revolutions. South American nationalist aspirations, exemplified in the struggles of Simon Bolivar, are deeply linked to the experiences and shared memories of the bloody wars of independence from Spanish and Portuguese rule. Both the National Socialist and the Hutu Power radical nationalisms are usually seen as the root cause of the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide respectively. When discussing so-called minority nationalisms, including the Chechen, Basque, or Tamil, there is a propensity to identify such ideologies with violent insurgencies and terrorism.
Academics, too, are not immune to making such associations. Even though there is widespread recognition that not all forms of nationalism are violent, most scholarly analyses operate on the principle that there is, what Weber would call, a strong elective affinity between nationalism and violence. This article challenges such views and attempts to show not only that there are no natural linkages between nationalism and violence, but more importantly, that the connections between these two phenomena can only emerge under specific historical conditions. In particular, I focus on the significance of organizational, ideological, and microsituational factors, whose coalescence is necessary for making nationalism seem intrinsically violent and, violence appear to be inherently nationalist. The first part of the article critically reviews the three dominant interpretations that insist on the intrinsic link between the two phenomena whereas the second part develops an alternative heuristic model that emphasizes the historical contingency of the relationship between organized violence and nationalism.
Source:
https://www.academia.edu/5137418/Is_Nationalism_Intrinsically_Violent
INTRODUCTION
It seems it is quite difficult to provide a vivid representation or graphic depiction of nationalism that does not include acts of violence. From the famous nationalist paintings of Delacroix, Manet, Goya to Hollywood blockbusters such as Braveheart, Top Gun, The Patriot, 300, or Captain America, nationalism is stereotypically portrayed through the prism of excessive violence. Despite the historical and geographical varieties, there is a tendency to associate nationalist discourses with images of bloodshed, killing, dying, martyrdom, suffering, and destruction. The birth of American and French nationalism is traditionally articulated through the images of violence unleashed by the two revolutions. South American nationalist aspirations, exemplified in the struggles of Simon Bolivar, are deeply linked to the experiences and shared memories of the bloody wars of independence from Spanish and Portuguese rule. Both the National Socialist and the Hutu Power radical nationalisms are usually seen as the root cause of the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide respectively. When discussing so-called minority nationalisms, including the Chechen, Basque, or Tamil, there is a propensity to identify such ideologies with violent insurgencies and terrorism.
Academics, too, are not immune to making such associations. Even though there is widespread recognition that not all forms of nationalism are violent, most scholarly analyses operate on the principle that there is, what Weber would call, a strong elective affinity between nationalism and violence. This article challenges such views and attempts to show not only that there are no natural linkages between nationalism and violence, but more importantly, that the connections between these two phenomena can only emerge under specific historical conditions. In particular, I focus on the significance of organizational, ideological, and microsituational factors, whose coalescence is necessary for making nationalism seem intrinsically violent and, violence appear to be inherently nationalist. The first part of the article critically reviews the three dominant interpretations that insist on the intrinsic link between the two phenomena whereas the second part develops an alternative heuristic model that emphasizes the historical contingency of the relationship between organized violence and nationalism.
Source:
https://www.academia.edu/5137418/Is_Nationalism_Intrinsically_Violent
INTRODUCTION
It seems it is quite difficult to provide a vivid representation or graphic depiction of nationalism that does not include acts of violence. From the famous nationalist paintings of Delacroix, Manet, Goya to Hollywood blockbusters such as Braveheart, Top Gun, The Patriot, 300, or Captain America, nationalism is stereotypically portrayed through the prism of excessive violence. Despite the historical and geographical varieties, there is a tendency to associate nationalist discourses with images of bloodshed, killing, dying, martyrdom, suffering, and destruction. The birth of American and French nationalism is traditionally articulated through the images of violence unleashed by the two revolutions. South American nationalist aspirations, exemplified in the struggles of Simon Bolivar, are deeply linked to the experiences and shared memories of the bloody wars of independence from Spanish and Portuguese rule. Both the National Socialist and the Hutu Power radical nationalisms are usually seen as the root cause of the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide respectively. When discussing so-called minority nationalisms, including the Chechen, Basque, or Tamil, there is a propensity to identify such ideologies with violent insurgencies and terrorism.
Academics, too, are not immune to making such associations. Even though there is widespread recognition that not all forms of nationalism are violent, most scholarly analyses operate on the principle that there is, what Weber would call, a strong elective affinity between nationalism and violence. This article challenges such views and attempts to show not only that there are no natural linkages between nationalism and violence, but more importantly, that the connections between these two phenomena can only emerge under specific historical conditions. In particular, I focus on the significance of organizational, ideological, and microsituational factors, whose coalescence is necessary for making nationalism seem intrinsically violent and, violence appear to be inherently nationalist. The first part of the article critically reviews the three dominant interpretations that insist on the intrinsic link between the two phenomena whereas the second part develops an alternative heuristic model that emphasizes the historical contingency of the relationship between organized violence and nationalism.
Source:
https://www.academia.edu/5137418/Is_Nationalism_Intrinsically_Violent
INTRODUCTION
It seems it is quite difficult to provide a vivid representation or graphic depiction of nationalism that does not include acts of violence. From the famous nationalist paintings of Delacroix, Manet, Goya to Hollywood blockbusters such as Braveheart, Top Gun, The Patriot, 300, or Captain America, nationalism is stereotypically portrayed through the prism of excessive violence. Despite the historical and geographical varieties, there is a tendency to associate nationalist discourses with images of bloodshed, killing, dying, martyrdom, suffering, and destruction. The birth of American and French nationalism is traditionally articulated through the images of violence unleashed by the two revolutions. South American nationalist aspirations, exemplified in the struggles of Simon Bolivar, are deeply linked to the experiences and shared memories of the bloody wars of independence from Spanish and Portuguese rule. Both the National Socialist and the Hutu Power radical nationalisms are usually seen as the root cause of the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide respectively. When discussing so-called minority nationalisms, including the Chechen, Basque, or Tamil, there is a propensity to identify such ideologies with violent insurgencies and terrorism.
Academics, too, are not immune to making such associations. Even though there is widespread recognition that not all forms of nationalism are violent, most scholarly analyses operate on the principle that there is, what Weber would call, a strong elective affinity between nationalism and violence. This article challenges such views and attempts to show not only that there are no natural linkages between nationalism and violence, but more importantly, that the connections between these two phenomena can only emerge under specific historical conditions. In particular, I focus on the significance of organizational, ideological, and microsituational factors, whose coalescence is necessary for making nationalism seem intrinsically violent and, violence appear to be inherently nationalist. The first part of the article critically reviews the three dominant interpretations that insist on the intrinsic link between the two phenomena whereas the second part develops an alternative heuristic model that emphasizes the historical contingency of the relationship between organized violence and nationalism.
Source:
https://www.academia.edu/5137418/Is_Nationalism_Intrinsically_Violent