Sign up for a free recipe e-book →

Clarissa's Blog

Objections to the Nation-state Model

Published by

Clarissa

on

I began my study of the nation-state model in 2001. Originally, my Master’s thesis adviser pushed me to take a negative stance towards it but the more I read and pondered, the clearer it became to me that it was the best available option.

There are two objections to the nation-state that get repeated ad nauseam:

  1. It’s an artificial formation, an imagined community. Its borders are randomly drawn. Nothing about it is natural.
  2. It caused the two world wars.

Both objections are absolutely, completely, and totally true. The first one is childish, and it makes little sense even to address it. Many of the best things in life are artificial and not natural. Look at the life span in modern developed societies and contrast it with the life span in the prehistoric hunter-gatherer communities. Who wants “natural” when you can have civilized? Ever been to the dentist? Used a computer? Watched TV? Driven a car? Had a healthy child at age 40? Peed into a toilet? None of this arises spontaneously in nature. It’s a product of civilization, and civilization is utterly artificial.

The second objection is a serious one. The two world wars were horrific. They alone should be enough to disqualify the nation-state model forever if it weren’t for the fact that they will look like child’s play in contrast to the wars that the post-national state will bring. And is already bringing in some parts of the world. The difference in the post-national wars is that they can’t end. There’s no stable entity to declare victory or concede defeat. Because of modern technology, they are just as (and more) devastating as the wars of the twentieth century. But they also can’t conclude.

Advocates of the post-national model bother the memory of world wars to death because these wars are the only argument that the post-nation can offer in order to legitimize itself. “But Nazis” is literally the only argument. Nazis were despicable, it’s true. So is the 21st century equivalent of the death-loving Nazis. We aren’t destroying the prospect of another world war by abjuring the nation. Instead, we are guaranteing that war becomes permanent.

19 responses to “Objections to the Nation-state Model”

  1. el Avatar
    el

    \ The difference in the post-national wars is that they can’t end. There’s no stable entity to declare victory or concede defeat.

    Thank you! That’s exactly the case of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On the Palestinian side there is nobody capable of enforcing any realistic agreements to end this conflict, which simply cannot be universally popular neither among Jews nor among Palestinians. Wish supporters of Palestinians and open borders pondered on this contradiction for a moment.

    In general, the lack of strong nation states plays a central role in turning huge parts of Middle East and Africa into hellholes that they are.

    In EU and USA the destruction of the nation-state won’t look the same, of course. At least, not immediately. Yet, with time more and more places in currently first-world countries may start resembling third-world ones, unsafe, filled with gangs, drugs and despair.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      Yes, that’s one clear example. Neoliberalism is a permanent crisis, a permanent state of exception.

      Like

      Reply
  2. el Avatar
    el

    Btw, you’ve recently commented on why Israel needed more weapons since the war with Hamas ended. Wanted to ask then whether you would’ve agreed to “end” the war, while leaving a terrorist organization bended on murdering your family just over the fence and celebrating a victory (from their pov). Why would Ukraine need more weapons if Russia “agreed” to “stop” attacking it for a while?

    We’ve lost two weeks in fruitless “negotiations”, in which Hamas gave nothing, while receiving two-weeks of calm during Ramadan and getting time to rearm and refill their forces with new terrorist members.

    I don’t remember whether I posted it here but after “ending” the war, Hamas planned to explode numerous buses during rush hour. It truly was a miracle that one explosion happened the evening before and alerted authorities.

    Now the war has returned:

    The IDF has announced that it has begun a ground advance to cut off northern Gaza in the Netzarim corridor area.

    An Israeli politician I tend to trust (who doesn’t like Netanuahu too much) wrote in his telegram:

    Due to censorship restrictions, some facts cannot be published, but we can say with full confidence: Hamas planned to carry out a number of terrorist attacks in the near future. Israeli actions are also connected with these plans. In addition, Hamas has not shown any willingness to compromise.

    Dr. Dina Lisnyansky (a scholar of political Islam and a lecturer in the master’s program in Department of Middle East and African Studies at Tel Aviv University) write in her telegram channel:

    If everything goes according to plan (we’re not making predictions, but we’re well aware of the plans), the IDF intends to push Gazans from the north of the Strip to the south once again and increase pressure on the terrorists – especially if they continue holding hostages, which they undoubtedly will.

    If Hamas or Islamic Jihad start executing hostages, Israel will annex a “piece” of Gaza for each one, finally acting on the understanding that, in the eyes of the “Palestinian resistance,” individual lives hold little value, but land is priceless.

    The army’s goal this time is to press forward until Hamas is completely destroyed.

    Unlike previous military operations conducted under Biden, this plan has been fully coordinated with the Trump administration.

    This type of counterterrorism strategy falls under the category of a credible threat – a genuine risk of Hamas’s total annihilation.

    Hamas, in turn, will try to bargain with hostages and their bodies, holding out until the last moment or until it faces an inescapable situation that forces it to disarm.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      As you might have noticed, the US decided that Ukraine doesn’t need more weapons even as Russia is ramping up its attacks.

      I am a citizen of the US. As such, I’m noticing that the US has thrown away its entire foreign policy and substituted it with unconditional fealty to Israel. All allies have been thrown away like used condoms. Every partner was angered and insulted. But Israel gets everything and more.

      Do you honestly not understand that this is extremely dangerous for Israel first and foremost? You already lost Democrats. Now you are losing Republicans. Whoever is responsible for projecting the country’s image overseas should be fired because he’s an idiot. (The same in Ukraine. Terrible, fatal mistakes were made in this area, and I made that point on every platform I had in Ukraine. Now obviously I’m not going to have a platform there again, so there goes that.)

      But in terms of Israel, people who were vaguely supportive or not invested at all are losing their patience. A lot of resentment is brewing. America First president is strangely subservient to another country. It’s getting on people’s nerves. I can pretend it’s not happening but who’ll gain from that?

      In short, there’s a lot of anti-Israel feeling in the circles where there used to be none. It will be ascribed to anti-semitism, just like anti-Ukrainian feelings were ascribed (stupidly) to Russian propaganda. Nobody wants to take responsibility for messing things up.

      Like

      Reply
      1. el Avatar
        el

        \ I made that point on every platform I had in Ukraine. Now obviously I’m not going to have a platform there again, so there goes that.

        Has it happened on Romanenko’s show too? I missed that time.

        It’s a pity the new version of your blog shows only 5 last comments. This way threads and potentially fruitful discussions die fast; many readers miss them entirely imo.

        \  there’s a lot of anti-Israel feeling in the circles where there used to be none.

        I haven’t known that.

        Like

        Reply
        1. Clarissa Avatar
          Clarissa

          That was my most popular Romanenko show. 40,000 viewers. It was called “Zelensky’s Mistake.”

          But it’s all moot at this point. Ukrainian conservatism was murdered by Trump. So was Canadian conservatism. The world was poised for a right-wing turn but that was all destroyed.

          Like

          Reply
  3. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Respectfully, “they will look like child’s play in contrast to the wars that the post-national state will bring” sounds like an emotional appeal to people’s (my) fears, much like the global warming alarmism. I fundamentally agree with what you are saying but it’s hard to see what productive, actionable lesson I’m supposed to take in support of something better, especially for those of us who are managing to do reasonably well at navigating current neoliberal reality.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      In 2013, when I said that the global economic crisis was going to mutate into another crisis and another and another because that’s the stage we are in, people also said I was alarmist and was inventing it. Sadly, reality proved me right which I wish it didn’t.

      As for action, I’m begging all of us to clean our brains from neoliberal mentality.

      Like

      Reply
      1. Avatar
        Anonymous

        “Clean our brains from neoliberal mentality” is not action. It’s the same as “be aware of structural microagressions/racisms”. It’s maybe useful for cognitively advanced people who have high level of intelligence, self-awareness and psychological health, but that isn’t most citizens.

        Tangible things might be “vote against immigration” or “stop calling fellow citizens racist” or “vote in favor of welfare-state redistribution even if you personally don’t benefit” or whatever. There was a specific example of your physics chair colleague who chose a course of action, and could have chosen a different one (targeting administration instead of other departments, if I understand correctly). How do we look at a situation and decide how to act?

        Like

        Reply
        1. Clarissa Avatar
          Clarissa

          I understand your frustration, I do. I’d love a list of clear action items and voting choices, too. But do you feel like voting matters? My far-far-left college admin is acting in the exact same way as the not far-far-left Trump administration.

          I don’t have better suggestions than understanding how each of us has been infected by this mentality and rooting it out. And yes, I’m very aware that my solution is as neoliberal as it gets. If somebody has something better, let’s discuss it. I don’t.

          Like

          Reply
  4. el Avatar
    el

    Also from Dina’s telegram:

    Approved by Military Censorship:

    The main reason the ceasefire ended now is that Hamas in Gaza became increasingly active during the truce and was planning to launch an attack on Israel in the near future.

    The planned attack included rocket strikes on Israeli cities and a new terrorist infiltration into Israeli territory – not only from Gaza.

    They’ll never stop till Hamas isn’t destroyed. Putin will stop sooner than Hamas.

    Meanwhile, there are signs of approaching war with Iran and our conflict with Turkey continues developing. As a joke suitable for those days;

    Economist Ramazan Kurtoğlu from Istanbul Aydın University tells viewers on the Turkish TV channel Haber that Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar orchestrated the massacre on October 7 and framed Political Bureau chief Ismail Haniyeh… because Sinwar was actually Jewish.

    The last part wanted to share is this:

    The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on UK-Israel has produced an invaluable, if harrowing, report.  Focusing on the two days 7-8 October 2023, it meticulously documents the grisly fates of the 1,182 people killed by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. In view of the speed and cynicism with which these organizations and their supporters sought to deny the massacre, the APPG has performed a vital service by providing such an irrefutable record of the terrorists’ crimes of homicide, rape, kidnapping and torture. As the report notes, this was the largest single massacre of Jewish people since the Holocaust.

    via

    https://t.me/warandpeaceinthemiddleeast/2163

    Like

    Reply
  5. el Avatar
    el

    Regarding Ukraine, you may be heartened by the results of the latest poll:

    \ Support for Greater U.S. Role in Ukraine Climbs to 46% High … marking a 16-percentage-point increase since December to a new high in the trend that dates back to 2022. At the same time, the proportions thinking the U.S. is doing too much (30%) or the right amount (23%) for Ukraine have shrunk.

    • 53% want U.S. to help Ukraine reclaim territory, even if it prolongs conflict
    • 63% of Americans think neither side is winning the war
    • More concern that Russia than Ukraine would violate peace deal, 79% vs. 26%

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/658193/support-greater-role-ukraine-climbs-high.aspx

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      If only what people think and want had any impact on policy.

      Like

      Reply
  6. PaulS Avatar
    PaulS

    The nation-state model originated in small, homogeneous European states. The US isn’t a state; it’s 50 states.

    One of biggest political problems in SA has been trying to replicate the European nation-state model, when the American federal state makes much more sense.

    https://www.politicsweb.co.za/opinion/the-road-not-taken

    Like

    Reply
    1. cliff arroyo Avatar
      cliff arroyo

      “nation-state model originated in small, homogeneous”

      The origin and the later form are two separate things. The distinguishing feature of the nation state is that the government derives legitimacy from the will of the people (and not god or royal blood or sheer brute force) and the government and citizens have mutual rights and responsibilities toward each other.

      Citizens pay taxes, the government uses those to build and maintain physical and social infrastructure.

      People take this model for granted while it’s relatively new and fragile and people are taking chainsaws to it for political clout.

      Like

      Reply
      1. PaulS Avatar
        PaulS

        The will of the people is a democratic state. Nation refers to a specific language, culture, etc.

        Like

        Reply
    2. Clarissa Avatar
      Clarissa

      Oh no. These states were MADE homogeneous by action that was converted and often very severe. I recommend, for example, looking at how what we call French became the dominant language of France.

      Like

      Reply
      1. PaulS Avatar
        PaulS

        In SA, the only two possible languages of administration are Dutch and English. English has been the only possible language of business for 200 years. The apartheid was largely a Dutch revolt against English, and now, post-apartheid, it is all English.

        Like

        Reply
      2. PaulS Avatar
        PaulS

        One area the French have been successful with is their wines. Just creating a national wine market in SA is hard work.

        https://winemag.co.za/wine/opinion/editorial-the-great-divide-cape-town-vs-johannesburg-market-realities/

        Like

        Reply

Leave a comment

A conservative literary critic and college professor

Recent posts