The Search for Self: Implications of Globalization on Nationalism and the Breakdown of National Identity in the Modern World.

I wrote this as a senior thesis in 2005 but is still applicable today.

“Nationalism is a dynamic phenomenon; it is bounded in time and space, fluctuating in intensity, becoming more or less homogeneous in content. Many formally independent political units around the globe today are not true nation states. And even in countries inhabited by people actively self-conscious about their shared identity, there are shifts in commitment about the political community to which one wished to belong. To claim that “nationality” is the fundamental element in shaping one’s basic identity is to say very little when the attributes giving rise to a sentiment of uniqueness are malleable and vary so widely. Material, ideological, and cultural distinctions often provide new options in the “daily plebiscite” that creates and reinforces a people’s sense of commonality.” [1]

It is widely agreed that the “western” international system is becoming increasingly globalized. One aspect of this emerging system is the breakdown of the national political identity.[2] Why and how has this happened? In a peaceful ecology of states, many of the traditional needs of the state are reduced and in a self-reinforcing way, a globalized society creates and sustains the conditions under which those security needs are further reduced. This essay will address the required elements for the establishment of a political identity, how they were traditionally met by the state, and how, due to the current system of stability often referred to as the “Democratic Peace,” these factors are no longer related to the state but have rather been delegated to a lower source or have simply changed. In essence, this paper is discussing the process of change from nationalism to multiculturalism; collective vs. individual identity within the nation state.  

The identity topic has been widely discussed in academic circles and is often related to foreign policy, political action within the state, or defining political movements. [3] Often using European countries as their case subjects, essays traditionally focus on the effects of nationalism but rarely discuss social aspects of identity formation communally or nationally. In Europe, national identity has been an assumption associated with ethnicity. In America, however, many of the traditional tools used to establish identity never existed, yet the concept of “Americanism” was just as strong. Instead of having a traditional culture, language, and heritage, they created a common language, established a culture of ideals and principles and through conflict established their heritage.[4] The result of this created identity has been the freedom of adoption by citizens throughout the world. American ideals are spreading, the traditional values of its democracy are being adopted worldwide, while its political and national powers are unmatched anywhere in the world.  Consequently these very successes are facilitating the breakdown of America’s national identity and the national identity of western countries around the world. The spread of globalization and mass communication have helped establish and now reinforce an increased sense of stability among the western world, but the lack of conflict, influx of immigration, access to information, changes in national education, and need for individuality have caused a search for identity well below the bounds of nationalism.[5] The nation state is no longer able to provide a substantial political identity, and people are finding one on their own. But how is this happening?

As presented earlier, globalization is at the root of change in the international system. This has been debated and discussed. Linking globalization and the breakdown of national identity, however, is a fairly new idea. Since the introduction of globalization, identity has been a popular subject but the primary issue has been whether or not it is an area of concern, not its global ramifications. To some, identity is viewed as the solid foundation of the individual character while to others it under constant attack and is rather unstable.[6] John Tomlinson, in his essay, “Globalization and Culture,” brought up an even different perspective stating that “identity. . . is something fragile that needs protecting and preserving.”[7] So what is the answer? In this essay the view is that identity is malleable and may change, while the components that establish identity remain the same. From this perspective, identity is both solid and fragile depending on the external influences. This is where the impact of globalization has been felt. Should the trend continue, the impact of a changing national identity on the state is still uncertain.

In trying to understand the impact of globalization it is first important to establish the relationship between identity and nationalism. This may seem rudimentary, but it is essential. Identity, like the nation state, is a social construct of the modern era, used to unify peoples toward a common goal.[8] As one breaks down, either the nation or the identity, the other is affected. This is possible in the direction of nation to national identity and vice versa. For this paper, the latter will be examined. The questions here are, how is globalization breaking down the national identity, or this sense of nationalism, and what is the long term implication for the nation state? 

The first step in answering the question is to understand the meaning of selected words. One key example is the word “nationalism” or “national identity.”  What is it? In order to claim that it is being removed or reduced, one must first understand what it is.  For the purpose of this paper, nationalism is defined as a passion of the individual which causes the identification with a nation as the primary element of self identity. [9] It may also be characterized as a “description of cultural belonging” and a “collective treasure of communities.”[10] This definition may seem general, but to define nationalism in depth would be a paper in itself. 

Likewise the term “nation state” also needs to be defined. This definition is more widely accepted as it is applicable to most modern states, but for this paper, the nation state is referring to all modernized states in the western world, including the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and the virtually the entire continent of Europe. While the implications of identity breakdown may be felt or observed in other countries, the impact of globalization may become irrelevant. Globalization has primarily been addressed in terms of “modernity”[11] referring to the western, democratized world.

 HOW IS NATIONALISM CREATED?

The concept of nationalism or a national identity is rather complex. The factors that add up to the “self” are as numerous as personal contacts and events in one’s life. Yet, through the compilation of numerous sources, there seem to be an established set of universal dominant criteria. A few broad categories seem to encompass the totality of events affecting identity creation. Few sources possessed the same set of criteria and even fewer worded them in the same fashion but the root idea still remained the same. To establish a national identity you need the following criteria:

1. Others

2. Borders

3. Struggle/conflict/competition

4. Cultural markers

5. Shared histories and traditions

While each of these categories possesses their own unique characteristics, there are many aspects that will seem to overlap or be interrelated and in many ways, one leads to another. The nature of overlap in the identity criteria helps to reinforce its aspect of stability, recognizing that the increase in any one of these aspects may augment the others. At the same time, it also demonstrates its nature of fragility and weakness, considering; impacting any one of these areas may deteriorate the identity as a whole.

OTHERS

“Identity attempts to answer the question, “Who am I” and at the same time, the question “who am I not.” The conceptualization of the “other” is a crucial element in the development of an identity. On the basic level, the individual is able to see and thus define the “other” through face to face contact and interaction with other individuals. As similarities and, but arguably more importantly, differences are observed between individuals and groups of individuals, meanings will be constructed and ascribed to those similarities and differences, thus providing a distinct sense of individuality.” [12]

The relationship between the self and others on an individual level is directly applicable to the formation of national identity. Considering that the state is viewed as a larger actor of the people, the identity of the people directly reflects the actions of the state. Like individual identity described above “national identity is (also) forged and defined through a dual process of stressing the similarities of the in-group (the self) and its differences with those outside the political community (the others).” [13]

This establishment of the “other” may appear to be an overstated point, but without a difference between groups there can be no individuality, therefore no identity. “It is required to have the existence of contrasting ‘Others’ because the creation of bounded in-groups requires there to be a perceived sense of difference to other out-groups”(Hall, 1996b; Young, 1997: 161). The concept of the other also serves as the foundation for all remaining factors of identity establishment. The remaining four criteria are all relevant in relation to their establishment of difference.

ROLE OF THE STATE

Traditionally the Nation state has helped to identify and establish the “others” by “providing a definition of who does not belong within the same group and politicizing the differences.”[14] One primary example of this phenomenon is Britain. Throughout its history, Britain has extensively defined the parameters of “Britishness” and clearly identified the “others”.[15] During the eighteenth century, a period of increased national awareness, Britain began to alienate ethnicities, and to clearly pronounce and define who was not British. This became particularly evident between Britain and its colonists in America and the Irish. While the relative impact on each of these groups is different, the terminal result was the same. During this period, the colonists in America, for the first time began contemplating questions regarding their British ancestry. Britain no longer seemed to view the colonists as equally British, since they were no longer on the island. This aroused great concern among the American colonists, because without their British identity they were nothing. [16] Britain had labeled them as one of the “others.” Britain claimed a similar stance against the Irish. “As Tensions over Irish colonial identity grew more pronounced the English made it clear that the assertions of Britishness did not transform Irish Protestants into Englishmen nor make Irish culture especially worthy of London’s respect. By emphasizing difference, the English forced the Irish to consider as they had never done before the full dimensions of their own Irishness. [17]

For America and Ireland the alienation of Britain forced them to identify themselves as something other than British. But what were they? For Ireland, their ancestry provided the foundation and pride to rely on. The Irish also had their own country. The American colonists, however, were completely different. They lacked a country to call home, other than the territory they inhabited. One thing, however, was certain; Britain clearly defined for the colonists, who they were not. The colonists were now one of the “others,” and conversely, British was no longer synonymous with the title of American colonist.

While the example provided deals strictly with Britain and its closest neighbors, it is applicable to many nations across the globe. Other examples include British relations with France and other European countries, Post World War II countries created out of the Soviet Union, and even Inter America during the Civil War. These are all periods when the other became defined by either circumstance, or more importantly, the state.  

BORDERS

“One of the most important functions of the concepts of nation and nationalism is to define the boundaries of the community and/or public sphere and then influence and determine the parameters of citizenship and even the boundaries of the state. . . Nationalism, however, defined by scholars and utilized by nationalists, ultimately relies on border creation and maintenance, supported by shared histories, cultural forms, and other such criteria such as language and religion. . . Borders provide a framework for national identity; drawing a line between who belongs and who does not belong serves to both create and maintain group identity and solidarity.”[18]

As defined and described by Carrie Robinson, borders play a critical role in the identity formation process. By clearly establishing a physical boundary, the establishment and definition of the “other” becomes very clear. All those outside the border must be different, and thus those inside the border must be similar. The political ramifications of this concept are synonymous. If the people within the border wish to have it maintained, then a group identity is required. Similarities must be stressed and differences placed aside.

For some countries the concept of a national border is a physical creation and not simply a social construct. This primarily applies countries like Britain, the United States, Spain, and Italy. For all of these countries, much of their national border is coastline. All of these countries also have internal borders with neighboring states that have needed to be maintained, but much of their national boarder is physical, not social. This structural similarity, clearly defines membership, or exclusion. Another example of human creation which divided two distinct groups is the Berlin Wall.

For other countries, the border is purely social; a figurative “line in the sand” that separates one country from another. Although the border may be figurative, rather than physical, it does not limit or lessen its impact or importance. In some ways it may even strengthen the need to define the in-group as unique, due to the close proximity of the out-group. 

One such country is Yugoslavia. In the aftermath of WWI the first Yugoslav state joined together several national groups who had survived many centuries of foreign control and domination, and who shared similar political, strategic and economic interest along with the need for collective security against the great powers.[19] For this state, the borders helped to define and establish membership with the in-group, uniting a people with common goals and aspirations, creating a nation. [20] It is important to note, however, that even here where a boundary had been established, Yugoslavia still lacked the necessary criteria to create a successful nation. Unification of people groups requires more than a physical border. It requires an internal sense of belonging. For Yugoslavia, the only way to achieve this goal, was through the creation of a national identity; one that emphasized the ethnic and linguistic similarities and downplayed the potentially divisive differences between groups.[21] The establishment of the border gave these people the opportunity to create a nation with a clearly defined membership and an established a sense of individuality. The creation of a national identity was left to the people. Without a border a nation state ceases to exist much like the nation ceases without an identity.     

STRUGGLE/CONFLICT/COMPETITION

The topic of struggle may seem counter intuitive to the establishment of a unified national identity, but in reality, it is one of the key factors in assisting people groups to accomplish a common goal. “The rise of nationalism is sometimes due to some form of political, social, or economic crisis and generally provides the impetus for people to respond to nationalistic sentiments.”[22] When people are forced to work together, differences are put aside, and cohesion is emphasized. This idea of group cohesion is most commonly see during times of war, social competition, race discrimination, etc. The importance here lies in the identification of the enemy. In context of the nation, those within the state will be unified so long as group effort is required against an enemy outside the state. If the conflict is internal, then national division becomes a possibility.  Using America as a case study, one can clearly define periods of heightened nationalism, following national crisis. 

The first clear link between conflict and nationalism in America is seen even before the establishment of the United States. Prior to the American Revolution, the Colonists were first alienated by Britain and then denied equality with Englishmen.[23] This was exemplified through Britain’s continued political hold on the colonies.[24] “Taxation without representation" became a unified cry of the colonists after various taxes were enforced upon them. This unfair act helped to instill a unified hatred of British rule. When the anti-British sentiment grew large enough, the cry for revolution began to resound. The colonists knew, however that England could not be beaten by individuals. It would require a unified effort, resulting in the unification of the first thirteen states.

The second conflict arose immediately following the revolution. The states had the opportunity and necessity to create a nation, but were unsure how to begin the process. It was understood that without unity the colonists would fail locally and internationally in both the diplomatic and economic arena. It was also known that appearance of weakness would invite any world power to consider an attack on the fledgling American nation. The colonists had to unify and project strength if they were to survive. The result, “forged through the crucible of revolt against the monarchical regimes in Europe,”[25] was the establishment of the American nation; The United States of America.   

The unifying power of conflict is witnesses even more clearly during the World Wars, especially World War II. Unity was not only experienced nationally but internationally as well. Jack Citrin writes that “the war against the Nazis did much to discredit racialist thinking and restore the hegemony of the cosmopolitan liberal image of national identity. The unifying experience of the military effort reinforced the image of America as a country in which people of diverse origins could live harmoniously.”[26] Upon the conclusion of the war it became evident that society would not be able to evade confrontation with the dilemma of subscribing to egalitarian values while engaging in pervasive discrimination.

From an American national perspective, the World Wars also helped to illuminate some perverse social dilemmas: the issues of female equality in the workplace and politics and, racism and social equality for African Americans. For the duration of the war, both of these groups were seen as Americans, equally able to fulfill tasks required of them in order to assure the survival of the nation. The conclusion of the war, however, highlighted the equality status question, understanding that the status quo could not be regained. These issues needed to be solved, and the individual aspects of sub-national cohesion disbanded. If they were left unchecked, internal division would escalate until it was either handled politically, or through another civil war.

 Regardless of the initiating force, conflict is undeniably one of the most potent of all unifying efforts.  The need for cooperation forces the destruction of social barriers, while simultaneously redrawing the line between the in and out-groups. Those viewed as socially unequal, or a potential threat, are now seen as friends and equals. The disruption of the status quo requires societal redefinition, thus reinforcing the group as a whole.  

CULTURAL MARKERS

“The power of the nation and nationalism is largely due to the emotion and sentiment that it evokes, precisely because it is so internalized and sublimated. Hence, national identity is often perceived as being akin to other naturalized denominators of humanness, such as ethnicity, culture, language, and religion.”[27]

The concept of cultural markers is one area that is truly unique to a given culture. While societies may rely on the same set of markers their relative importance is matchless. For most cultures and states, the most distinguishable national symbols are akin to birth. The most obviously being blood or ethnicity. The remaining predominant markers are also closely related. Language for example and dialect in particular, is often synonymous with place of birth, culture, education and society. All of these markers, then closely relate to blood. This cyclic character of group identity is therefore self reinforcing. So long as the in-group remains exclusive, membership and individuality remain synonymous. With a clearly defined and identifiable in-group, defining the “other” becomes much easier. Anyone not born in a particular place, who speaks a different language, and looks different, must not be a member. From this perspective, cultural markers are very important to the establishment of a strong national identity.

In some countries, like America, however, blood, culture, and ethnicity are not an option for cultural markers. While they are evident and important for group identity on a sub-national level, nationally they do not universally apply. For America, national identity needed to be fashioned and created. The question was how? To unite the American colonies, the identity had to be applicable to all people, not particularly unique to any one group. To facilitate these demands, the founding fathers chose to establish the government, and the national identity, using the principles it had fought for: the Enlightenment ideals of life, liberty, freedom, and independence.[28] Understanding that the identity was universally applicable, citizenship also became universal and open to anyone. To claim citizenship to the Unites States, immigrants simply needed to make a conscious decision to adopt and abide by the American ideals and embrace the national identity.

           The one caveat to this oath of loyalty was that to become a naturalized citizen, one must “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign Prince, Potentate, State or Sovereignty.”[29] Immigrants need to want to become an American, and never go back; thus reinforcing nationalism, making the national identity the most important factor of self-identification. George Washington even stated that immigrants would be expected to shed their “language, habits, and principles” and assimilate “to our customs, measures, and laws: in a word too become one people.”[30] Theodore Roosevelt also stated that “We of America form a new nationality! . . . Either a man is an American and nothing else, or he is not American at all.”[31] Even at the formation of our country the fathers knew that identification with anything non-American, posed a threat to the unity of the nation. The other had to be outside and not inside the state.

SHARED HISTORIES AND TRADITIONS

The aspect of shared history and traditions is a byproduct of many other variables in identity formation. Conflict, war, struggle, and cultural markers all help to develop a shared history, and ultimately a sense of unity and acceptance. Common struggles help to establish a collective culture, linked by the past. These aspects help to reinforce the sense of individuality, and exclusivity. At the same time, shared history helps to legitimize social bonds, adding an element of stability within the group, preventing social disorder and violence.

For many countries, there is a long history, used as the foundation of elementary education to develop a sense of belonging. Britain, France, Spain, and much of Europe, for example, have a history dating to the periods of monarchical rule, and extending to the present. In the absence of recent conflicts, individuals may rely on the traditions passed down by others.[32] This strong foundation helps develop an inherent pride in the birth membership of such countries.

 Along with these histories, however, come shared enemies, hatreds, and rivals. Should children be educated in these particular pasts, conflicts continue to flare and spark, but if children are taught differently, they die down. History, through education, plays a crucial role in self development, and the identification of membership, mentally and physically. Without a common ground of social interaction, group cohesion becomes difficult if not impossible.

In other countries, history is relatively brief, yet citizens can still maintain and develop a sense of belonging and commonality. For interwar Yugoslavia, the people groups thrown into the new state, lacked any universal history, but they possessed individual histories, similar to everyone else. They all had histories of prejudice, social exclusion, turmoil and national rejection. They also desired to be independent. Similarly the American colonists also desired independence, while the only history they possessed was relative to British oppression, and taxation.[33] They also shared the collective history of immigration which served as the link between cultures. Everyone wanted a fresh start, free from monarchical rule and dictatorship. This was their shared history. Over time, through conflicts like the American Revolution, the Civil war, and the World Wars, a relative history has been established, applicable to all Americans. This history is taught to all students in America, even immigrants, and serves as the social glue of society. 

 HOW HAS GLOBALIZATION CHANGED THIS PROCESS?

In order to answer this question, one must again define the terms. In this case, it is no longer nationalism, but rather globalization that needs to be understood. While globalization in the political science realm has vast meanings, to be applicable it must be reduced to its elements. In this paper, the two primary aspects of globalization being utilized are 1) the increase in communication via mass media, internet, and satellite technology and 2) the rise in efficiency and economy of transportation relative to international shipping, trade, and travel.[34] These two aspects combined have changed the face of the international community both socially and economically, and have been the vehicles through which national identity has declined; giving rise to the social and political importance of multicultural – sub-national – identities.[35]

It is important to understand that while the outcome of identity in a globalized world may be different and changing, the process by which identity is formed is not. The same set of requirements must be met on any level for identity creation. In a globalized world, however, these requirements are not being met by the traditional means, which were largely controlled and influenced by the nation state. Now, rather, they are being met by different, broader, more personal means, thus reducing the importance of the nation in this process and its relative importance in self identification.

Just to reiterate, the Requirements needed for identity creation are: 1) Others, 2) Borders, 3) Struggle/Conflict/Competition, 4) Cultural Markers, and 5) Shared Histories and Traditions.

 OTHERS

In the globalized world, the importance of others has not changed. The time spent to establish this importance is therefore unnecessary, and does not need to be re-established. The difference here is that in a globalized world the “other” of society is not necessarily outside the nation state, but may be living next door. Due to the accessibility of information, ability to form social ties across borders, shared histories with those abroad, and general lack of personal interaction required inside a community, the sense of unity and similarity is diminished. The other has not vanished, simply changed faces. The greater result of this will be clearer after examining the individual effects on the remaining four criteria. 

BORDERS

“The global economic and social ties of the inhabitants of contemporary global cities are intertwined in a way that supercedes the idea of a national social contract – the enlightenment notion that peoples in particular regions are naturally linked together in a specific country. In a global world it is hard to say where particular regions begin and end. For that matter, in multicultural societies, it is hard to say how the “people” of a particular nation should be defined.”[36]

The issue of border definition is clearly seen in this statement, as are the ramifications. In the globalized world, natural or socially constructed borders are less salient and more permeable than before. Ideas and people freely flow across national boundaries, thus interweaving the political system with social out-groups. The internet has been the primary facilitator of such exchanges. Due to its complexity and the difficulty of regulation, the process cannot be controlled. In the United States, courts have chosen not to place any regulation on the internet under the pretext of the first amendment. 

It is easy to see how ideas can cross national boundaries through cyberspace, but even now the physical borders are becoming more permeable. In Europe, the primary reason has been the creation of the European Union, which allows members to interact and travel with ease throughout the region. The effect of this union, however, is that the once sovereign nations of Europe are reduced to states within the EU. The social consequence is that if borders are no longer able to define the in and out group, social criteria will be established giving rise to ethnicity, race, language and other various cultural markers; distinguishing one society from another. Without clearly defined boundaries, identity issues must be addressed, and will more than likely be solved on a social, sub-national level.[37]

The same principles applied to the E.U also apply to states outside of the union. For Europe the national boundaries are primarily a social construct controlled by some human created fence or barrier. For nations like Britain and the United States, predominantly surrounded by water, the border is much more difficult to traverse. Yet even in these circumstances, globalization has the same effect. One author writes that in Britain “both official and business elites have reoriented their mental maps to position Britain within a wider European context.”[38] The internet is boundless and spans the entire globe giving citizens access to the world of knowledge without leaving their home. Borders in this sense become irrelevant. Globalization is “eroding the boundaries that nineteenth century governments established between the national and the foreign.”[39]

STRUGGLE/CONFLICT/COMPETITION

In the international system, competition has always been fierce; whether it is economic, political, or social. Traditionally however the state has been the chief competitor. Economically, nations competed in a world market desiring to open trade for the country. Politically, nations fought for power, influence, alliances and security. Regardless of the form of international competition, the nation state was the actor. Now that trade has been established, combined with the world accessibility of the internet, the markets are open to everyone. International competition is not solely for those who live on the coast and have access to shipping ports. 

The establishment of world wide businesses also plays a role. Some companies are not solely established in one country, but rather span the globe through the vertical means of production, from raw material to distribution. Nike, Chevrolet, and Mitsubishi are a few examples. These companies are interwoven throughout the world, competing in international economic markets. The competition has shifted on a social level from interstate to intrastate, and the importance of the government in this process has been reduced. 

In terms of international conflict due to warfare, this too has become more business like and less violent. Low intensity conflict has replaced all out war and military operations are referred to as “surgical strikes” rather than assaults. Professional militaries have also replaced the citizen soldiers of the militia or those recruited during the draft. All in all, national conflict has ceased to exist. Institutions like the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, or the North American Trade Organization, have diverted responsibility among shared groups, thus dispersing the national impact typically born by a single country, to the shoulders of many nations. The crisis is felt on a professional, governmental level and then filtered to the general populous, rather than conflict being handled more directly, as in the past. 

Regarding national identity, the lack of conflict, as directed by the government, has reduced the sense of association. Without conflict, shared histories are nonexistent, and the amount of social interaction continues to decline. The limiting of internal vs. external conflict has caused identities to be re-established through smaller units, where histories and conflicts are being created. If conflicts are handled by groups internationally, then social bonds are established internationally, further reducing the importance of the nation state and national identity.

CULTURAL MARKERS

It has already been addressed that the other is being redefined, borders are being erased and conflict is international, but what is the impact on Cultural Markers? Cultural Markers, much like the “other” are still an important part of identity. All people have things they deem valuable and important with which to identify. In the globalized world, however, the nation is not dictating which markers are important. Instead, these “values and symbols . . .have lost ground to new rivals, to an alternative construction of an imagined community.”[40] This imagined community is something less than the nation state; more closely resembling a sub-community within the state. Globalization is “the most significant force in creating and proliferating” this sub-national cultural identity.[41]  

Another factor of the system, not necessarily considered, is the spread of the English language throughout the world. The United States, being the remaining superpower, has spread its influence across the globe. Democracy has risen to the government of choice, English has become the “French of the twentieth century,”[42] and the U.S. remains the leader in economics and power. The most essential factor of U.S. dominance, however, has been the spread and rise of globalization. The U.S is responsible for the creation of the internet which has been the driving force of globalization, and the U.S has been the stabilizing force internationally, providing the environment to facilitate a globalized community. In some respects, globalization has become synonymous with American ideals; “the spread of democracy, and a westernized, consumer culture.”[43]

The issue is not that information is accessible, but that in spreading American ideals, cultural markers are being replaced. English, being the language of choice, is no longer a distinguishing factor providing the sense of belonging for the in-group.   For citizens in English speaking countries, native tongues have become sources of identification for immigrant groups. In some ways being bilingual has as well. English is a requirement for social and economic survival, but the native tongue becomes a personal trait of distinction within the community. The other is now being defined internally rather than externally. The founding fathers recognized that for the nation to remain unified immigrants would need to shed their “language, habits and principles, never to resume them.”[44] This simply is not the case in the globalized modern world. The native language, habits, and principles of immigrants have become their identification, in a sea of global uniformity. 

SHARED HISTORIES AND TRADITIONS

Following the precept that affecting one area influences the rest, shared histories and traditions are not as prominent in the current globalized system. National level conflicts are a thing of the past, but the outcomes and emotions that ensued must be remembered and taught, rather than experienced. This does not mean that historical importance to identity is lost, but rather unable to be experienced. Citizens must be taught how these events define the nation, understand its relevance, and apply it to their lives. The importance now lies in hands of the education system, and the culture of the state rather than personal experiences. The beliefs and opinions of the past are shared and taught, but unless they are strongly stressed, and adopted by the younger generation, they will loose their importance. Evidence may be found throughout Europe, and more specifically Britain, proving that education is not enough. British youth no longer view the “peoples across the channel” as a threat to the nation or themselves, but rather view Britain within a wider European context. [45] 

The present day problem with education is that it is no longer limited to the state. From an educational standpoint this is beneficial, but from a nationalism perspective this fact is detrimental especially considering the importance of history. In order for nationalism to prevail, citizens must “reject the intervention of outsiders and their ideologies" while simultaneously pandering to their indigenous cultural bases to "enforce traditional social boundaries.”[46] Through the internet, higher education and television, however, tolerance and acceptance prevail, foreign desire and ideals penetrate the home, and conflicts abroad establish a routine awareness of global contingencies. [47] These factors are increasing global awareness and breaking down the bonds of nationalism and the importance of national identity.

 THE IMPLICATION

Interestingly, in a democratic society, the forces of globalization are self reinforcing. As people broaden their horizons and develop attachments across and outside the physical national borders, the probability of war decreases. Since citizens influence foreign policy through the democratic process, they can help ensure that peace is maintained which further allows the globalization process to continue, further reducing the elements required to establish a strong national identity.

The social effects of the system, which are currently positive, relate to the establishment of epistemic communities. These communities are linked by their own social constructs and cultural markers, usually related to religion, language, and ideals. With national identity declining, a lack of shared history with nationals and increasing international bonds, the availability of communication and travel, the system is creating the need for nationalisms, and helping to establish these communities.[48] Traditionally, these communities were very difficult to maintain, but due to the products of globalization, they have become much more prominent. These communities in and of themselves are not an issue yet, but the system is also fairly stable, lacking any type of internal conflict between western democracies. So long as this stability remains, epistemic communities will not be a threat or disturbance, but rather an enhancement to the feeling of international stability. Should these communities become large enough, and feelings of animosity arise, they may be able to redefine nationalism. Following in the footsteps of American independence, these communities may desire to create their own "American" state, bound together by their ideals, and not their race. The only possible example of this is the current situation with terrorism, where radical Muslims have declared war on the Western World. In and of itself, this is not such an issue, because the modern world has not viewed this as a significant threat to the international system. However, the simple fact remains that a well funded epistemic group of radicals had the ability to attack the United States on U.S soil, thus demonstrating the power of such communities. Sociopolitical ties span the globe and are virtually hidden from government institutions. The threat to national security is greatly increased and the stability of the system is exponentially reduced.

                                                           WHAT IF WAR

Conflict, such as war, traditionally bolsters the sense of nationalism and national identity, yet when initiated sub-nationally it becomes the primary means of national reduction. There is a definite dichotomy here, yet both circumstances must be understood, because in fact both possibilities are true. Conflict does in fact help to increase group identity, but it is relative to those participating and the identification of the enemy.  Should the enemy be outside the national borders, or as currently the western system, identity is increased nationally, or culturally. The terrorist attacks on 9-11 were against the western culture, and immediately the western world regained its pride and struck back, led by the U.S coalition. This conflict has created a shared history for all people in the western world, especially the United States.

Since the war on terror is outside the western world the system has remained unaffected from an identity perspective. If conflict were to become an internal issue (within the western world) one of two things could happen: 1) war is declared on a nation or peoples of that nation, the nation responds, and nationalism increases, thus reestablishing the status quo. Or 2) war is declared on another epistemic community, the nation does not respond, and that group has to defend itself. This would cause a societal riff, possibly resulting in the redefinition of national loyalties for those who were attacked and also those who disagree with the government’s decision of nonintervention. Regardless of the type of attack, the international system as it is known today will be changed, the Democratic Peace theory destroyed, and relations between states would return to the anarchic system it is perceived to be, void of social alliances and sub-national connections. The world would be changed forever. 

CONCLUSION

Nationalism is declining, but that does not mean it is not important or relative to the members of society. Nationalism is in fact, alive and well, but it is not the same as it once was. The trend established in the paper is possible and the outcomes are real, yet have never been experienced. Identity theory is still a fairly new concept and further exploration is needed. John Tomlinson summed it best in the following quote:

“Since the eighteenth century, national identity has been the most spectacularly successful modern mode of orchestrating belonging. And the fact that virtually all of the world’s six billion people today either enjoy or claim a national identity is itself testament to the power of the globalization of modernity. It is clear from this that the nation and national identity are not in danger of imminent collapse. But the very dynamism and complexity of globalization is such that the stability of this form of identification is not guaranteed indefinitely. The very dynamic which established national identity as the most powerful cultural-political binding force of modernity may now be unraveling some of the skeins that tie us in securely to our national ‘home’. The kernel of truth is the claim that national identity is threatened by globalization lied in the fact that the proliferation of identity positions may be producing challenges to the dominance of national identity.”[49]

[1]Jack Citrin; Ernst B Hasas; Christopher Muste; Beth Reingold. “Is Nationalism Changing? Implications for Foreign Policy” International Studies Quarterly Vol. 38, No.1 (Mar., 1994) 1

[2] John Tomlinson, “Globalization and Culture” Cambridge: Polity press. 2003

[3]Taras Kuzio “Identity and Nation-building in Ukraine: Defining the Other.” York University, Toronto Canada.  SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) Vol. 1 no.3 (2001) 344               

[4]T.H. Breen, “Ideology and Nationalism on the Eve of the American Revolution: Revisions Once More in Need of Revising,”The Journal of American History, Vol. 84, No. 1 (Jun., 1997), 20

[5]Mark Jurgensmeyer, "Identity and control: Holy orders: Religious opposition to modern states" UC Santa Barbra press. 2

[6] John Tomlinson, “Globalization and Culture” Cambridge: Polity press. (2003) 2

[7] Ibid 1

[8] Peter Alter, “Nationalism,” www.countrywatch.com/@school/nationalism.htm (2004)

[9]Jack Citrin; Ernst B Hasas; Christopher Muste; Beth Reingold. “Is Nationalism Changing? Implications for Foreign Policy” International Studies Quarterly Vol. 38, No.1 (Mar., 1994) 1

 [10] Ibid 2

[11]John Tomlinson, “Globalization and Culture” Cambridge: Polity press. (2003) 6

 [12] This is a combined quote from Connie Robinson “Competing Identities in Interwar Yugoslavia: Identity formation in a Newly Established State.” TCDS (2003) pg 8 and Jack Citrin's “Is Nationalism Changing? Implications for Foreign Policy” International Studies Quarterly Vol. 38, No.1 (Mar., 1994) 1

 [13]Taras Kuzio “Identity and Nation-building in Ukraine: Defining the Other.” York University, Toronto Canada.  SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) Vol. 1 no.3 (2001) 344

[14]Connie Robinson “Competing Identities in Interwar Yugoslavia: Identity formation in a Newly Established State.” TCDS (2003) pg 8

[15] T.H. Breen, “Ideology and Nationalism on the Eve of the American Revolution: Revisions Once More in Need of Revising,”The Journal of American History, Vol. 84, No. 1 (Jun., 1997), 19

[16] Ibid 29

[17] Ibid 25

[18]Connie Robinson “Competing Identities in Interwar Yugoslavia: Identity formation in a Newly Established State.” TCDS (2003) pg 8

[19] Connie Robinson “Competing Identities in Interwar Yugoslavia: Identity formation in a Newly Established State.” TCDS (2003) pg 2

[20] Ibid 4

[21] Dimitrije Djordjevic, Cilo Press: Oxford England (1980) as cited in, Competing Identities in Interwar Yugoslavia: Identity formation in a Newly Established State: Connie Robinson TCDS 2003 pg 2

[22]Peter Alter. “Nationalism” www.countrywatch.com/@school/nationalism.htm (2004) 2

[23]T.H. Breen, “Ideology and Nationalism on the Eve of the American Revolution: Revisions Once More in Need of Revising,”The Journal of American History, Vol. 84, No. 1 (Jun., 1997), 34

[24] Ibid 21

[25] Jack Citrin; Ernst B Hasas; Christopher Muste; Beth Reingold. “Is Nationalism Changing? Implications for Foreign Policy” International Studies Quarterly Vol. 38, No.1 (Mar., 1994) 23

[26] Jack Citrin; Ernst B Hasas; Christopher Muste; Beth Reingold. “Is Nationalism Changing? Implications for Foreign Policy” International Studies Quarterly Vol. 38, No.1 (Mar., 1994) 7

[27]Peter Alter. “Nationalism” www.countrywatch.com/@school/nationalism.htm (2004) 2

 [28] Rudolph J. Vecoli. “The significance of Immigration in the Formation of an American identity.” The History Teacher, Vol. 30 No. 1(Nov 1996) 10

[29] Ibid 10

[30] Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. The Disuniting of America (New York, 1991) 22

[31] Theodore Roosevelt, Fear God and Take Your Part (New York, 1916) pp 141-146 as cited in Rudolph J. Vecoli. “The significance of Immigration in the Formation of an American identity.” The History Teacher, Vol. 30 No. 1(Nov 1996) 15

[32] Competing Identities in Interwar Yugoslavia: Identity formation in a Newly Established State: Connie Robinson TCDS 2003 7

[33]T.H. Breen, “Ideology and Nationalism on the Eve of the American Revolution: Revisions Once More in Need of Revising,”The Journal of American History, Vol. 84, No. 1 (Jun., 1997), 23

[34] John Tomlinson, “Globalization and Culture” Cambridge: Polity press. (2003) 2

[35] Peter Alter. “Nationalism” www.countrywatch.com/@school/nationalism.htm (2004)

[36] Mark Juergensmeyer. “Identity and control, Holy orders: Religious opposition to modern states.”  UC Santa Barbra Press. 2

[37] Stephen M. Walt. “International Relations: One World: Many Theories.” Foreign Policy, (Spring 1998 Issue 110) 21

[38] Geoffrey Edwards and David Sanders, British elite attitudes and the US: continuity and chance, a pilot study (London:RIIA 1989, Discussion Paper 18) as cited in Foreign Policy and National Identity in the United Kingdom. William Wallace International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol 67, No. 1(Jan., 1991) pg 69

[39]William Wallace. “Foreign Policy and National Identity in the United Kingdom.” International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 67, No. 1 (Jan., 1991) 66

[40] Jack Citrin; Ernst B Hasas; Christopher Muste; Beth Reingold. “Is Nationalism Changing? Implications for Foreign Policy” International Studies Quarterly Vol. 38, No.1 (Mar., 1994) 1

[41] John Tomlinson, “Globalization and Culture” Cambridge: Polity press. (2003) 3

[42] Dr. Thomas Bendel, as quoted from lecture at the United States Naval Academy, Fall 2004.

[43] John Tomlinson, “Globalization and Culture” Cambridge: Polity press. (2003) 2

[44] This is a combined quote by George Washington as quoted in Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.’s , The Disuniting of America (New York, 1991) 23 and J. Q Adams Niles Weekly Register (Apr 19, 1820) as quoted in Rischin, Immigration and the American Tradition, p 47. , both of which are cited in Rudolph J. Vecoli's. “The significance of Immigration in the Formation of an American identity.” The History Teacher, Vol. 30 No. 1(Nov 1996) 15

[45] William Wallace. “Foreign Policy and National Identity in the United Kingdom.” International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 67, No. 1 (Jan., 1991) 69

[46] Mark Juergensmeyer. “Identity and control, Holy orders: Religious opposition to modern states.”  UC Santa Barbra press. 1

[47] This sentence is a combined thought through the works of two authors. Jack Citrin’s “Is Nationalism Changing? Implications for Foreign Policy” International Studies Quarterly Vol. 38, No.1 (Mar., 1994) 20 and John Tomlinson’s “Globalization and Culture” Cambridge: Polity press. (2003) 5

[48] Mark Juergensmeyer. “Identity and control, Holy orders: Religious opposition to modern states.”  UC Santa Barbra press. 2

[49] John Tomlinson, “Globalization and Culture” Cambridge: Polity press. (2003) 2