NationStates Jolt Archive

An interesting quote / comment regarding why most people feel attached to their nation, patriotic or even nationalistic (from Miriam Dixon, The Imaginary Australian, p.141, indirectly quoting Tom Nairn, if you wanted to know). She writes in the past tense, not because this is history, but to suggest the origins of the process; I've switched it to present:


Ordinary people feel attached to the nation not merely because élites deceive and manipulate them into feeling that way, although they certainly do. Ordinary people feel attached to the nation significantly because through it they feel able to actively resist the cultural atomisation, the threat to basic identity inherent in dynamic capitalism. [...] Ordinary people struggle to retain a social cohesion which may ensure a minimal guarantee of feeling human.

In other words, "modernity" exerts tremendous pressure on what used to be significant social bonds and relations, the cement of "society" and of community feelings. Most notably, the capitalist ethos emphasises individualism, the individual's primary identity as a consumer, in opposition to his or her identity established through a network of human relationships, the essence of an identity grounded in a sense of "belonging". (This process is very much observable today in some 'developing' countries, such as Kiribati, where traditional kinship and community obligations, and their accompanying feelings of belonging and identity, are eroded -for better or worse, depending on your point of view- by consumerism and "modernity".)

Consequently, the "nation" is something to latch onto, a feeling at least of belonging and community (generally without inherent community obligations).

Or at least, that's one way of interpreting it. And I agree for the most part. I'd be curious to hear other people's thoughts on this issue.

The reason why we're attached to our country?The true reason? Superficiality.

Cos it rocks.

The true reason? Superficiality.

That's not really a reason. It describes the attachment, but doesn't explain why it exists.

I would encourage people interested in this subject to read this essay by a prominent Australia politician tipped by many to be the next Prime Minister this year.

http://www.smh.com.au/pdf/ruddbrutopia.pdf

[Superficiality is] not really a reason. It describes the attachment, but doesn't explain why it exists.

Indeed.

Cos it rocks.

Would you care to elaborate? And maybe reply to the suggestion raised in the quote in my OP?

I would encourage people interested in this subject to read this essay by a prominent Australia politician tipped by many to be the next Prime Minister this year.

http://www.smh.com.au/pdf/ruddbrutopia.pdf

Thanks very much for that. I'll definitely take a look.

Since when is Pennsylvania a country?

Would you care to elaborate? And maybe reply to the suggestion raised in the quote in my OP?OK. After a brief sojourn on me hols, I discovered I'm personally attached to England because there's no language barrier, I'm used to the local cuisine and enjoy it thoroughly (this includes foreign take-aways because they've almost all been heavily anglicized), the climate's shite but I have an in-built urge to bitch about the weather anyway so hey, it may as well actually be shit, a larger majority of people seem to share similar ideals, feelings and opinions and the government isn't trying too hard (relatively speaking) to fuck me over. How's that?

In other words, "modernity" exerts tremendous pressure on what used to be significant social bonds and relations, the cement of "society" and of community feelings. Most notably, the capitalist ethos emphasises individualism, the individual's primary identity as a consumer, in opposition to his or her identity established through a network of human relationships, the essence of an identity grounded in a sense of "belonging".
I sorta agree with her, though perhaps with a different slant on it.

I don't believe capitalism defines people's identity as being consumers. It defines their identity as being self-aware, responsible and in charge of their own destiny. Part of that means being a consumer, part of that means being a producer. Both of that means being a sovereign trader (which, by the way, implies human relationships, though perhaps based on different ideals).

That can place a strain on people who find it difficult to see that sort of value within themselves, and I accept that. If you don't think you're special, then I imagine you can easily feel like you're not worth a whole lot in an individualist society.

So that's when people can try to get a feeling of self-worth from other places, like imagining they're part of a bigger whole. Which in principle I don't mind, it's just that when they start talking about the bigger whole like it has rights, responsibilities and obligations like a real person, and try to enforce those on real people that I get antsy.

OK. After a brief sojourn on me hols, I discovered I'm personally attached to England because there's no language barrier, I'm used to the local cuisine and enjoy it thoroughly (this includes foreign take-aways because they've almost all been heavily anglicized), the climate's shite but I have an in-built urge to bitch about the weather anyway so hey, it may as well actually be shit, a larger majority of people seem to share similar ideals, feelings and opinions and the government isn't trying too hard (relatively speaking) to fuck me over. How's that?

That would be the details of your attachment to one country rather than another. You'll note that your points can mostly be summed up as "comfort and force of habit", which in itself is interesting (in that it's applicable to people in any nation).

Anyway, although what you say is interesting, it wasn't quite what I asked. What do you think of Nairn's/Dixon's argument? (How do you relate it to what you've just said, for example?)

So that's when people can try to get a feeling of self-worth from other places, like imagining they're part of a bigger whole. Which in principle I don't mind, it's just that when they start talking about the bigger whole like it has rights, responsibilities and obligations like a real person, and try to enforce those on real people that I get antsy.
(emphasis mine)

I could not have explained better why contemporary capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_Corporation) makes me so antsy myself.

Thank you.

If liberal capitalism is left unfettered, it will undoubtedly destroy all social institutions, including the family, in it's blind utilitarian pursuit of accumulation. That is why it must be destroyed.

Since when is Pennsylvania a country?

That doesn't alter the point, does it?

I sorta agree with her, though perhaps with a different slant on it.

I don't believe capitalism defines people's identity as being consumers. It defines their identity as being self-aware, responsible and in charge of their own destiny. Part of that means being a consumer, part of that means being a producer. Both of that means being a sovereign trader (which, by the way, implies human relationships, though perhaps based on different ideals).

That can place a strain on people who find it difficult to see that sort of value within themselves, and I accept that. If you don't think you're special, then I imagine you can easily feel like you're not worth a whole lot in an individualist society.

So that's when people can try to get a feeling of self-worth from other places, like imagining they're part of a bigger whole. Which in principle I don't mind, it's just that when they start talking about the bigger whole like it has rights, responsibilities and obligations like a real person, and try to enforce those on real people that I get antsy.

That's an interesting take on the issue.

You're quite right that capitalism redefines human relations to a significant extent, replacing old forms with new rather than simply removing the old - although subjectively that may often imply a sense of loss, absence, emptiness, isolation, even dehumanisation, or whatever you want to call it. (The question of human identity being defined through the performance of a society's traditional relationship behaviours is still prevalant in many places -rural Papua New Guinea springs to mind, although in a wider sense it may be true everywhere, including the West- is hinted at by Dixon.)

I think we both agree that a characteristic of capitalist values is the emphasis on the individual. From there on, each of us may think that's a good thing or a bad one, but the main point Dixon makes is the shift towards an emphasis on individualism produced by capitalism, and that would be the (or at least a) cause for an "attachment to the nation" in reaction. When the individual seeks to retain or regain some form of self-identification through belonging to a wider community, seen as possessing some basic form at least of "social cohesion".

An unconscious craving for identity and belonging might then be an attempt to find reassurance within a form (illusory or not) of cohesiveness.

That would be the details of your attachment to one country rather than another. You'll note that your points can mostly be summed up as "comfort and force of habit", which in itself is interesting (in that it's applicable to people in any nation).

Anyway, although what you say is interesting, it wasn't quite what I asked. What do you think of Nairn's/Dixon's argument? (How do you relate it to what you've just said, for example?)
I think that capitalism isn't the all-consuming force presented in the argument. It erodes our individuality as nations, certainly, but the strength of community provides a counter to the machine. Of course, one could also argue that too much emphasis is placed on national identity; that it stifles integration of people whose only true barriers are cultural. Whether artificial boundaries are necessary, or even a positive notion, remains to be seen. The argument that capitalism brings homogeneity is flawed in that it assumes individuals have no creativity and that people don't form their own local groups. Fashion might be dictated by the major centres of culture, for example, but individuals still choose to wear different, quirky or eccentric clothing.

In other words, fuck knows tbh. The article's got some decent reasoning in it but it still feels wide of the mark. As for comparing it to me, well, if capitalism allows chip shops to spring up all over the world then I can deal with a lack of identity.

I could not have explained better why contemporary capitalism makes me so antsy myself.
And I agree with you. I mean, a corporation (whether they're multinational or not makes no difference) is basically a nexus of contracts between individuals. Which, unlike a social contract, actually exist.

So I always find it quite funny when people start to identify with the company they work for. In fact, they don't work for it at all, they work for themselves in a symbiotic partnership with that company.

If liberal capitalism is left unfettered, it will undoubtedly destroy all social institutions, including the family, in it's blind utilitarian pursuit of accumulation. That is why it must be destroyed.
Family First!

Seriously though, don't you think one can be a capitalist and still love one's friends and family? I somehow manage.

I think that capitalism isn't the all-consuming force presented in the argument. It erodes our individuality as nations, certainly, but the strength of community provides a counter to the machine. Of course, one could also argue that too much emphasis is placed on national identity; that it stifles integration of people whose only true barriers are cultural. Whether artificial boundaries are necessary, or even a positive notion, remains to be seen. The argument that capitalism brings homogeneity is flawed in that it assumes individuals have no creativity and that people don't form their own local groups. Fashion might be dictated by the major centres of culture, for example, but individuals still choose to wear different, quirky or eccentric clothing.

In other words, fuck knows tbh. The article's got some decent reasoning in it but it still feels wide of the mark. As for comparing it to me, well, if capitalism allows chip shops to spring up all over the world then I can deal with a lack of identity.

All right. I'd be interested to know what you mean by "strength of community". Certainly you're right that people still react with creativity to perceived homogeneity, and form their own "groups" - although I'm not sure Nairn really denies that. His / Dixon's point is, after all, that people do feel the need to identify (and possibly create or imagine) some form of group belonging.

An unconscious craving for identity and belonging might then be an attempt to find reassurance within a form (illusory or not) of cohesiveness.
Agreed.

Which might itself have implications for things like the political compass. Rather than left vs right, you could have a spectrum of individual vs collectivist/greater whole.

And there you'd have various forms of conservatism (as Mr. Rudd points out), pretty much all major religions, various forms of socialism and communism and so on.

Which leaves the other side a little empty, but at least the differences will be meaningful in theory and practice.

Of course. You start to see their true value.
Well, I define that value for myself, don't I? In fact, I can't think of a sum of money that would make me want to give them up or lose them, so I must value them quite highly.

Seriously though, don't you think one can be a capitalist and still love one's friends and family? I somehow manage.
Of course. You start to see their true value.

That doesn't alter the point, does it?

I'm a Capitalist.

If liberal capitalism is left unfettered, it will undoubtedly destroy all social institutions, including the family, in it's blind utilitarian pursuit of accumulation. That is why it must be destroyed.

The forces standing against the blind utilitarian pursuit of accumulation have already scored major (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_soviet_union#Dissolution_of_the_USSR) victories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Berlin-wall-dancing.jpg). Now we are simply regrouping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Justice_Movement).

Of course. You start to see their true value.
Yes you do, the opportunity cost of having a family is too great.

I'm a Capitalist.

And...?


So I always find it quite funny when people start to identify with the company they work for. In fact, they don't work for it at all, they work for themselves in a symbiotic partnership with that company.


Quite so. Which ties in with the OP quote in an interesting way. Why the instinctive / unconscious need to identify with the company? You'll note that it may in many cases be encouraged by companies themselves. Of course, employers then would be seeking loyalty - but they're tapping in to their employees' "emotional" needs (I can't think of a better way to put it right now). And that brings us back to what Nairn is saying.

The true reason? Superficiality.

No, the true reason has to do with our tribalistic part of our survival instincts. We find a group with which we associate with then we protect that group and despise and fight anyone not part of that group so we can hoard our resources and spread our own genetic material.

All right. I'd be interested to know what you mean by "strength of community". Certainly you're right that people still react with creativity to perceived homogeneity, and form their own "groups" - although I'm not sure Nairn really denies that. His / Dixon's point is, after all, that people do feel the need to identify (and possibly create or imagine) some form of group belonging.Eh, I got lost in what I was doing and what it was about. By strength of community I mean the point at which groups impose their own level of isolation from the rest of the world. Families separate themselves from non-family, friends from non-friends, villages from each other, towns, regions, North vs. South etc. Each new level of separation introduces a degree of difference that acts to separate and self-segregate groups, partially unconsciously. It's the same line of thinking that leads to xenophobia, of course, but I reckon that the reduction in barriers to information, transport and income has curbed the somewhat natural desire to separate into like-minded groups and make your own ways. Some of this is undeniably good for us - reduced racism, loss of the class system etc. - whilst some of it represents the loss of bonds that tie your groups. I understand the excerpt a little more now and agree with it, sort of. I reckon the subtle ties that bind us provide some sort of equilibrium with the outside pressures to conform, so we'll always have independence from everyone else and, with that, our own cultural leanings.

Good god I don't want to re-read that. Bed beckons...

I mean, a corporation (whether they're multinational or not makes no difference) is basically a nexus of contracts between individuals. Which, unlike a social contract, actually exist.


Ah, but more to my point is the fact that these particular "[nexuses] of...individuals" are just as prone to appealing to the social contract as any other, when it serves their purposes (I explicitly cite "multinational corporations" because this tendency is, I think, most strong at that level).

Too often have I run into the defenders of free enterprise who criticize and condemn the public nexus for exactly this sort of behavior while managing to cough and look the other way when the private nexus does precisely the same (in cahoots with the public, no less).

I'm not accusing you of any such thing, I'm just raising what I believe is an important point. It's too easy to attribute all the evils of the "social contract" to the collective/social alone, while missing the snakes in the grass in one's own ideological home.

Quite so. Which ties in with the OP quote in an interesting way. Why the instinctive / unconscious need to identify with the company? You'll note that it may in many cases be encouraged by companies themselves. Of course, employers then would be seeking loyalty - but they're tapping in to their employees' "emotional" needs (I can't think of a better way to put it right now). And that brings us back to what Nairn is saying.

It's for the same reasons the State or the Church appeal to their member's emotional needs. Those who seek political or economic power need:


To squelch competition
To amass armies with which to accomplish their goals


Keeping people loyal to one's cause accomplishes both.

EDIT: Somebody (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon) already said it better than I can:

"'Capital'... in the political field is analogous to 'government'... The economic idea of capitalism, the politics of government or of authority, and the theological idea of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to attacking all of them . . . What capital does to labour, and the State to liberty, the Church does to the spirit. This trinity of absolutism is as baneful in practice as it is in philosophy. The most effective means for oppressing the people would be simultaneously to enslave its body, its will and its reason."

Keeping people loyal to one's cause accomplishes both.
It also makes achieving things easier and can make for a more pleasant work environment. But nevermind that, it's a conspiracy. Afterall, Mr Proudhon, that expert on the corporation, said so.

So that's when people can try to get a feeling of self-worth from other places, like imagining they're part of a bigger whole. Which in principle I don't mind, it's just that when they start talking about the bigger whole like it has rights, responsibilities and obligations like a real person, and try to enforce those on real people that I get antsy.Not that I disagree, I just never would've figured your for an antiauthoritarian.

Family First!

Seriously though, don't you think one can be a capitalist and still love one's friends and family? I somehow manage.
I don't know. We haven't spoken since I sold them.

It also makes achieving things easier and can make for a more pleasant work environment.


I'm not sure how to intrepret this reaction. Considering that you said...


So I always find it quite funny when people start to identify with the company they work for. In fact, they don't work for it at all...


...I would have figured that one would think that "achieving things easier" and creating a more "pleasant work environment" was entirely possible without companies resorting to the sort of emotional manipulation at the heart of the concept of "loyalty." At the very least, I'm confused as to why one is providing reasons why a company should strive to keep people loyal, when such loyalty is apparently "quite funny."


But nevermind that, it's a conspiracy. Afterall, Mr Proudhon, that expert on the corporation, said so.

This hostility I do understand. Completely. Apparently I was successful in touching the nerve that I intended to.

At any rate, familiarity with Mr. Proudhon's approach to economics would make it clear that he supported free enterprise, including the large collective enterprise that makes doing business easier, more effective, and more pleasant (where necessary). He just understands the danger of "loyalty" and the pursuit to create and enforce it.

I'll provide a link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29), even if no one will actually read it.

Yes you do, the opportunity cost of having a family is too great.

Given that value is entirely subjective, I don't see why one would under any circumstances be forced to find the opportunity costs of family too great. We human beings are not automatons, and no system could reprogram us so much that we would forsake such basic relationships.

If liberal capitalism is left unfettered, it will undoubtedly destroy all social institutions, including the family, in it's blind utilitarian pursuit of accumulation. That is why it must be destroyed.


The premise you gave there doesn't match the conclusion, now does it.

If the problem is 'unfettered capitalism,' then the most simple and basic operation of reason would inform us that mere fetters would be a remedy.

--

On the topic at hand > people identify with their nation - or whichever group they identify with - because it is basic human nature to be attached to your group.

We human beings are not automatons..

I think that "self-operating machine" is a rather poignant description of the human species. But I'm just quibbling over colloquial abuses of human language. I mean, now "bad" means "good." It's crazy.

Why attach to one's country? Instincts. Community was a "I scratch your back and you scratch my back" thing. You watched someone's back so that, and because, he watches yours. He got the fire wood and watched for bears so that you could focus on getting more food. You worked hard helping the community so that, and because, the community worked hard helping you. In short, "all for one and one for all".

Imagine if we were solitary creatures. You would have to be on 24/7 alert. If you looked north, you were extremely vulnerable to an assault on your south side. You had to balance your schedule between sleep/resting, getting food, making tools, getting fire wood, etc.

With communities, you gained security. Bill got the fire wood. Susan watched for bears and rivals that would try to steal your food. Warrior/hunter Todd got the meat. You got the fruit.

Now, why aren't we one big community? Resources. If resources grew too little and too few, a community of a million would have a harder time surviving than a community of a thousand. The community would be large enough to ensure protection and small enough to ensure enough food. If too much food was harvested or whatever, the soil would be leached of all nutrients, water would run low, and valuable food animals would go extinct, never to be eaten again.

Nations grew large as technology and knowledge allowed more resources to be gained and used at a lower cost to the local environment. Communities grew into nations because they could.

Not that I disagree, I just never would've figured your for an antiauthoritarian.
What else did you think I was? The supreme authority I listen to is myself.

The only real difference between you and me is that I think one can voluntarily and for mutual benefit enter a hierarchical structure without being exploited and that personal effort, skill and motivation are a bigger and far more important determinant of economic position than how much money you have to start of with.

I'm not sure how to intrepret this reaction. Considering that you said...I would have figured that one would think that "achieving things easier" and creating a more "pleasant work environment" was entirely possible without companies resorting to the sort of emotional manipulation at the heart of the concept of "loyalty." At the very least, I'm confused as to why one is providing reasons why a company should strive to keep people loyal, when such loyalty is apparently "quite funny."
There is a difference between sharing the same goals or being committed to achieving a common goal and identifying with an entity.

I can want the company I work with to achieve its growth targets, and spend a lot of time and effort to make that happen. I can even feel an attachment to the people I work with.

But that doesn't mean that I have to identify with the company and consider it an extension of me (or vice versa).

There may have been a misunderstanding.

Plus, in the end you can't blame a HR officer for trying, just like I don't blame politicians or religious leaders. The blame rests squarely with the people who fall for it (I especially like it when people talk about "he gave me a job"...no he didn't, you're selling him your labour). I think a lot of people would have a lot less stress if they fixed their perception of what's going on: you're not looking for a job, you're trying to sell your labour.

At any rate, familiarity with Mr. Proudhon's approach to economics would make it clear that he supported free enterprise, including the large collective enterprise that makes doing business easier, more effective, and more pleasant (where necessary). He just understands the danger of "loyalty" and the pursuit to create and enforce it.
I don't know, the idea that a society in which I am somehow tied to the welfare or effort of others is "free" is rather foreign to me. The labour theory of value was silly even when it was brought up, it's been disgarded theoretically and is impossible to administer in practice. And industrial democracy and worker's cooperatives are a nightmare for anyone who doesn't consider himself lowest common denominator.