My Nationalistic Dichotomy

In general terms, I do not refer myself as nationalistic. I don't really know how to describe myself when it comes to Lebanon. At different points of my life, I have gone through varying rampant ideologies – whether it was communism, or Pan-arabism – but all of them were discarded eventually because of their innate uselessness.

However, I have not been able to see myself as nationalistic. Of course, it all depends on how you define it, and I definitely won’t bore you with my personal identity crisis.

The reason I am writing this post is that, even though I haven’t had much time lately to develop my ideas on this properly, I have had two convergent conversations with two different people on nationalism in general. I was arguing with the first about the need for human society to take the next step in civil structure, and stated that because boundaries have caused so much havoc, nation states should evolve into something much more unified - something compatible with the concept of a "world citizenship". She replied by saying "Why would you want to do that. It's a big jump, and the concept of nations has worked for the past 150 years".

Worked? The most horrendous crimes were committed in the last century.

The second person decided to send me a link as a continuation of some discussion we had over a year ago - I don't have the link, but I do have the text. In that email, she quoted the following.

Her Email: "Is not nationalism -- that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary, so fierce it leads to murder -- one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred? These ways of thinking, cultivated, nurtured, indoctrinated from childhood on, have been useful to those in power, deadly for those out of power. "

She also added her own words, since she didn't agree with the statement:

"I still think that nationalism is necessary, albeit not the form he is describing which is more chauvinism. My view of nationalism is not that we have to be proud of our country, but that we should feel responsible for it and responsible for making the changes we feel it needs in addition of caring for its welfare.

I think that nationalism is a way to define our responsibility. It is a way to ensure that all parts of the world are being taken care of. The idea of "world citizenship" is great, but I think it dilutes your sense of responsibility in a way. Nationalism is an easier concept to grasp "I am Lebanese and as such, it is my duty to contribute to the welfare of my country" forces you to realize that being in the US is great for your career, but you might stay in Lebanon because if everyone who has the opportunity to do so leaves, then what guaranties that the people who are left are going to take care of the country? What guaranties that someone will be left to create new political parties and run for the elections against the "old" power?

Of course you can argue that you can contribute by staying abroad, and I agree, I'm almost sure that the Lebanese economy relies heavily on money sent by expats. Expats probably have some political clout because of their economic situation too. Plus, having such a large Diaspora helps the Lebanese expand their horizon and benefit from technologies, cultures, etc. from all over the world. And many expats come back with valuable experience to apply it in Lebanon. But then isn't that nationalism?

Also do you think it is impossible to have "commitment" without having chauvinism? I guess I am not specifically attached to nationalism as such, but I don't have an alternative on top of my mind." End of Email

For those who know me - you know (or maybe you don't know ...) that at times I'll argue just for the sake of arguing. But in this case, partly due to my "lack of nationalistic feelings", and partly because I agreed with the statement she had quoted, I replied. I've pasted it below ... there is no need to rehash what has already been written.

My Email: "First of all, why would the concept of a world citizenship dilute your responsibility? If for example, you act for your religion – which is spread throughout the entire world – does that dilute your responsibility? It all depends on how you act.

Second of all, there is a fine line in the concept of working for your county, neighborhood, and community that you identify with. Will there ever be a point where what you are doing for this country possibly hurt another country? How much should other countries suffer if your country is becoming better?

This falls under the issue of collaboration vs. competition – or in more mathematical terms, local vs. global optimization. Sure, working for a single country is much easier to define, in both the concrete and abstract sense, but working for the “world”, even if you are just working locally, doesn’t dilute your sense of responsibility, unless you are the type of person who is irresponsible – but in that case, you wouldn’t have worked for your country either.

Third of all – and I might be playing the devil’s advocate here, who knows – what do you get out of working for your country (whatever country that may be, this isn’t just directed at Lebanon), when in the end it is your life you are sacrificing. What is this commitment you have to your country based on – and how do you define it?

Besides, the word “responsibility” makes it seem as if you have to do it … whether or not you actually enjoy it.

Note that I am not saying you should be selfish with everything. You can “sacrifice” your life for a cause (and by sacrifice I don’t mean losing your life), but I have a hard time understanding this sacrifice if the country is that cause.

Finally, why are you tying commitment and chauvinism together? You can be committed to your family, but not chauvinistic – which can be defined as fanatical patriotism. It is only when you have attitudes like “My family is best” that this commitment becomes chauvinism.

So this email has a lot of incoherent ideas – and I am aware of that – but the gist of it all comes down to this.

Doing things mainly for your country and not mainly for the world can be likened to that of working for your sect. Don’t we spend all this time talking about secularism? Don’t we constantly get annoyed at people who lump and cluster individuals into amoebic sectarian blobs?

The difference between this and that of country/world is just a matter of phrasing – it doesn’t eradicate our hope that the concept of “world citizenship” (even though it won’t be in the near future) does become a reality, just as we hope that a secular Lebanon becomes a reality.

Keep in mind that I am not attacking you and your image of what you can do for your country – I’m just arguing against nationalism, or whatever you want to call it." End of Email.

That said - one of the reasons that I don't feel nationalistic is the same reason I don't feel pan-arab or communist or socialist or etc. - they all constitute some form of ideology. That is where my internal conflict comes in. I don't think Lebanon is best, I will not pointlessly throw praise on the Lebanese people, and I don't use our ancient history as claims to our greatness.

However, I do spend a lot of time thinking and arguing about the paths Lebanon should take ... socially, psychologically, politically ... in order to improve.

Would that be nationalism? I really don’t know.

posted by Lazarus, 1:10 AM