Can we “Re-construct” National Identities?

By Adam Dargiewicz

Throughout Europe national identities are making a stunning comeback as an alternative to the progressing socioeconomic globalization  and transnational institutions. During a recently broadcasted television debate I witnessed a situation when one of the discussants highlighted that “a sense of nationhood is of constructed nature.” To which another participant replied: “What do mean by constructed? You and I were born Polish it is not a matter of assumption; it is a matter of fact”. This exchange illustrates very vividly that for some people being a part of a national community involves nearly a gut feeling. If there is still something real in the world of “increasing complexity”, “blurred meanings” and “relaxed social norms” it must be the ”nation”. It has history, language, and memory – and these “surely cannot be only constructs”. However, if we take a look back into a rather recent past, perceiving the idea of a nation as an entity which needs to be created, taught and incorporated by the population is not as controversial as one might think. In his memoirs, Massimo d’Azeglio, a Piedmontese-Italian statesman, asserted after the successful unification of Italy in 1861: “We have made Italy. Now we must make Italians”.  This sentence very neatly captures the realities of the time. Before this political process was completed, Italy constituted of a patchwork of different states, principalities, republics. Moreover, the citizens spoke different dialects or languages, maintained divergent customs and traditions. In a nutshell, an inhabitant of Turin had relatively little in common with a citizen of Palermo in Sicily.

Despite the accelerating globalizing and multicultural tendencies, it seems that national identities are far from decaying and will be around for at least the next couple of decades. This creates an urgent need to ensure that allegiance to a nation does not mean a nationalist drive towards exclusion and divisiveness. If we agree on the fact that people can actually modify their characteristics, it opens the opportunity for adjusting them to the realities of the 21^st century. Specifically, at least three elements which can contribute to the described evolution.

1. Claim the symbols back

It nearly goes without saying that national identity is organized around the symbolic value of objects and practices such as flags, anthems, nation-wide celebrations. For numerous reasons, these elements have now become hijacked by groups primarily associated with the radical, nationalist, right-wing groups. The meaning they attach to them are purely of ethnically and racially charged nature. However, this does not mean that nothing can be done about that. Consider the case of the Union Jack before the Olympics of 2012 in the UK. The flag which was widely recognized as a symbol of nationalistic jingoism, or worse, fascism, transformed into a symbol of new Britain which recognizes its troubling colonial past but also firmly looks into the future.

2. Put “Founding Texts” in the right context

The role of education systems cannot be overestimated in shaping national identities. After all, schools are one of the main vehicles of transmitting the commitments towards the wider society. In the case of many European countries, the contemporary national identities originated from the nineteenth century literature pieces. Quite often constitute a very important part of the curriculum. However, while analysing them, it needs to be acknowledged that these “founding texts” were written precisely with an intention of enhancing national consciousness. Usually, they evoked the special qualities of a nation and the reasons for which they made it unique and exceptional in relation to others. Nonetheless, one need not look at these contributions solely as fine pieces of art but also political statements aiming at fostering a specific sense of national belonging. And the context of the 19^th century does not necessarily correspond with the realities of a modern society.

3. Distinguish patriotism and nationalism

It matters a lot how we speak about national identities in the public square. That is why, it is a responsibility of people in the positions of authority or social recognition to engage with the subject.  For instance, this can be achieved by making a sharp and visible distinction between patriotism and nationalism. One good example of such a proactive stance was reflected in the speech of French President Emmanuel Macron during the commemoration of the First World War centenary in 2018.

Finally, it appears of utmost importance to stress that “national identity” is only one among many identities to which we feel emotionally connected and thus, it need not claim the primacy. It is up to the upcoming political developments and the judgement of future generations whether to get ultimately rid of a nationhood as a concept. For now it is still here and plays a significant role. Therefore, it is my firm belief that by including these points into the wider public debate, about the meaning and role of a national identity, a systemic change of its underlying principles could be encouraged.