• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Could biology be the end of Nationalism?

While I really hope to see the end of nationalism in my lifetime, I honestly don't think that it will happen. People like to feel proud of themselves, and in the absence of any real sources of pride, nationalism takes that place.

I used to work for a very intelligent, well-respected (in his field) chemist who had some odd self-esteem issues. A sort of narcissist as overcompensation, with a handful of persecution complex as icing. Anyway, he was always doubting himself inside, but was fiercely proud of his national heritage, and instilled this pride in his children. To the point where they are all (to some extent) nationalists of this nation, despite being long-term naturalized Canadians. The more confident of his kids are less so, where the least confident is a foaming-at-the-mouth nationalist. But there are other issues at work there too.

Personally, I've found the idea of nationalism a bit odd. It's great to take pride in yourself, your accomplishments, and even the accomplishments of your friends and family. But where you were born? You had no control over that whatsoever. It is not an accomplishment to be born French or Ugandan or American, and because of that I see no value in taking pride in that. Of course, being the grandchild of German post-war emigrants and Ukranian interwar refugees might have something to do with that :)

As with religion, nationalism is of course a behaviour which is instilled early in life, and reinforced throughout childhood. As long as parents remain nationalist, children will become nationalist. Perhaps in time this will be tempered by the biological fact that all humans are biochemically equal, but the extremist end will take far longer to extinguish, as they will see a core part of their self-identity as being under attack. People don't behave rationally in such a situation.
 
I think biology (the study of life) has been and will continue to be involved in the governance of the nation-state (public health being a prime example. However, there are also forms of emergent biocitizenship which is transforming the ways in which we are connected to a particular nation state. A good example of this can be seen in Waldby's article "Singapore Biopolis: Bare Life in the City-State").

However, biology (genetic identity, ancestry, etc) has been both a site of resistance against and a defender of nationalism. I don't think that any advances in our understanding of genetic kinship alone will bring about an end to nationalism but I do think it brings ideas about nationalism, identity, and belonging into public debate, which could open up an avenue for resisting nationalism.
 
I'd say that biology will ultimately end the petty nature of nationalism.

the forthcoming ecological collapse will instill a deep bond for life and its myriad interconnections, reminding all surviving genetic lineages that our unity with the living planet is what really matters and cultural diversity is to be celebrated within the umbrella context of unity...

the black sun likes this :p
 
^ have you watched roddenbury's adromeda by any chance?
 
Not likely. Nationalism is an ugly, stubborn, tenacious beast that's ruled as an organizing force for centuries. I doubt anything so minor will affect it at all. IMO it sits at the intersection of the power of the modern state and a very basic, very powerful tribal urge. That urge to tribalism is probably 'hard-wired' to make us identify based on things like shared language and shared cultural norms and activities. And modern states have a huge ability to teach, create, and enforce culture & myths & language, as well as to block ideas & practices which threaten or contradict them.

Personally, the best hope I can see in the medium-term future is for gradual dilution of its strength in a few limited areas. Things like, on the one hand, the European Union and more robust international treaties/organizations, which move some power, politics, and attention to an above-national level, but still leave local national identities (and the mechanisms which perpetuate them) intact. And on the other hand, peaceful accommodation of local nationalist movements, such as e.g. in Scotland. Combined with growing trade and more and more movement of information, we can hope that people in some places will eventually become more used to the separation of national identity from other "political" identities, and from political organization.
 
Nationalism is not racialism (racialism is not even necessarily biological determinism, race is not haplogroups or autosomes for instance, but is still an arguable classification regardless), many forms of nationalism are ethnic, cultural, historical. A construction of any kind does not mean the scientific construction of another kind (such as biology) acts philosophically to supersede it. This is a fallacy of affirming the consequent. That it is not based in science does not mean that it is logically ignorant either, that does not follow if it is internally consistent to its own precepts.

In fact, old notions will remain because they are propagated as 'memes' and new ones will accrue parallel to them. Meaning, new forms of "biological racialisms" and elitisms shall be acquired from new ways of thinking about things and not less; people will be proud of the idea that they share this particular genetic typification or allele marker that means "this or that" about what science has to saw about its impact on their brain development in contrast to others or such, and they will form clubs, groups, etc., profess their superiority. Act to meet up with similar types to the exclusion of others etc. Though there is nothing intrinsically adverse in the generation of this occurrence. The segmenting and sectioning or partitioning of groups is a part of spontaneous organization and development generally; complexity and strife add robustness to existence.
 
Last edited:
Nationalism is just another concept used to seperate humans n cause ideas of superiority n whatnot.
The end of nationalism would mark the beginning of humanism, the beginning of the realization that we are all one in the same.
But would that create a sort of nationalism in the sense that Earth is better than anythng else in the universe??


Sorry if I'm straying off topic with the question but i find it essential.
 
The end of nationalism would mark the beginning of humanism, the beginning of the realization that we are all one in the same.

Humanism does not necessitate such a thing *necessarily*. What we are as humans, is nationalist as much as non-nationalist; inter-nationalist & intra-nationalist; they are all 'human' qualities and positions held by humans. Someone, as a human, distinguishes themselves from the person down the street, and to the person in a neighboring country just the same; and does even counterpose themselves against them; that we do this abstractly is very human.

We all fit-in to the degree that we do not fit-in. If any person was 'the same' as another among them, they'd be irrelevant to what it means to fill-out the diverse nature of humanity on the whole, and one of them would be unnecessary; for instance multi-culturalism stands opposed to true diversity then by this precept (i.e. a 'melting pot', either biological or of peremptory norms, destroys the diversity inherent in humanity) we all on that account defend our differences between each-other before our similarities; and defend our similarities only when it suits the survival of our personal differences.
 
Ok humanism was a bad word to use.
By "humanism" I mean the unification of all peoples along with their attitudes n beliefs towards others. Kinda like this utopian idea that we're all one in the same n need to work for the better of the whole. You look at another person n you dnt describe him as black, or white, or Russian, or gay; you see a human. You see yourself n it causes you to care for anyone you lay your eyes upon cuz they are you, human.
Then i found out humanism is nowhere close to the term i thought it was.
Stupid kid.
But I also see that ending only nationalism wouldnt mark the beginning of such a thng.
There are still so many mind-sets that we have that are designed to socially seperate us with our differences instead of unite us with our one mighty similarity.
 
Top