The Nation State Returns But Nationalism Awaits Its Rehabilitation

In defence of nationalism

In defence of nationalism

Outwardly at least it seems that the unravelling of ideology of globalisation has been paralleled by the return of the nation-state. The unashamed declaration of MAGA in the United States highlights the shift in balance from a globalised and cosmopolitan conception of the world order to one where the pursuit of national interest is self-consciously pursued.

However, the return of the nation state as the key actor in the conduct of global affairs – at least in the West – has not coincided with the ascendancy of a strong sense of national consciousness. Nationalism as a motivating force is still relatively weak and as an ideology still awaits its rehabilitation. For example, in most parts of Western Europe even conservatives are reluctant to describe themselves as nationalists. In their eyes nationalism has such bad connotations that they are afraid of being discredited if they identified with it.

Although numerous commentaries frequently warn about the return of xenophobic nationalism, in reality people’s relationship to their homeland tends to assume the form of a pragmatic, taken-for-granted identity. Opinion polls indicate that a significant section of European society would not want to fight to defend their nation from an attack by a foreign power.

The demonisation of nationalism

That contemporary nationalism pales into insignificance compared to its previous historical version is understandable. It has been systematically demonised as a force of evil for a very long time. Since the interwar era and especially since World War Two nationalism has acquired a deeply negative connotation. In the academic literature nationalism was often cast into the role of a secular original sin. To this day the pathologisation of nationalism plays a central role in the commanding anti-populist script. This narrative represents national sentiment as an out-dated, dangerous and irrational prejudice. This framing of nationalist consciousness has gained widespread traction in elite culture, where it tends to be derided as the bigotry of the ordinary people. Anti-populist ideology continually signals the idea that if awakened, this narrow-minded sensibility will inevitably have harmful consequences. In contemporary Western political discourse, nationalism and its cognate terms – national attachments, national identity, national sentiments – have acquired the kind of negative qualities that usually invite moral condemnation.

The rise of Nazi aggression, the catastrophe of the Second World War and the Holocaust are often perceived as the inevitable consequence of nationalist rivalries and ideologies. From this standpoint national attachments are interpreted as a cultural resource that are dangerous because they can be mobilised to promote exclusionary and racial causes. That is why in practice the classical distinctions drawn between patriotism, identification with the nation, republican, civic, cultural, religious and racial nationalism has lost some of its force. According to this teleological conception of nationalism, what at first appears as an innocent manifestation of national identity and loyalty in the 19^th century inevitably crystallised into menacing political ideology, of which Nazism is its most barbaric manifestation.

According to the simplistic version of the tragedy that befell on the world during the 1930s and 1940s, nationalism is almost single-handedly blamed for the catastrophe that engulfed the world between 1939-45. The tendency towards portraying national attachments as not simply potentially dangerous but also as inherently a threat to global security gained momentum in the 1930s and by the 1940s acquired the status of an incontrovertible truth. This sentiment was captured by a commentary published in Foreign Affairs in 1943, which observed that ‘the word..[nationalism]… is now synonymous with the most vulgar racism’. It added that ‘the work of this monster has culminated in two world wars and thirty million dead’[i].

In the 1940s some of the critics of nationalism still acknowledged that national sentiments and loyalties were not intrinsically harmful. In 1944, Frederick Herz wrote in his Nationality in History and Politics that ‘few people would condemn nationalism outright’. He added that “English usage identifies it with national sentiment and the complete elimination of this sentiment would be widely deplored and resisted’[ii]. Herz was deeply troubled by the phenomenon of nationalism and remarked that it was ‘no longer possible to state’ where ‘the line of demarcation between beneficial and harmful nationalism is’[iii]. But his usage of ‘beneficial’ indicated that he still held out the possibility that nationalism need not always be harmful. However, the willingness of Herz to portray national sentiment as at least a neutral if not always positive force gradually gave way to a more negative assessment of this feeling.

By the 1960s many accounts of the topic of nationalism treated it as an unwelcome irrational pathology. Some theorists called into question the very essence of nationalism and national sentiments and portrayed those who still held unto such prejudices as lower forms of human beings. In his book, Nationalism and Its Alternatives, the Czech-American political theorist Karl Deutsch could barely hide his contempt for those who hold national sentiments. ‘A nation so goes a rueful European saying’, he wrote, ‘is a group of persons united by a common error about their ancestry and a common dislike of their neighbour’[iv].

In the contemporary era even the legitimacy of the nation-state has been put to question. Borders are often denounced as something that is intrinsically exclusionary and evil. This sentiment acquired a dominant influence amongst the western intelligentsia in the post Second World War era. As Johanna Möhring and Gwythian Prins pointed out, ‘for more than two intellectual generations, since 1945, there has been an ascendant narrative in international affairs which has represented the nation state as pathological in its very nature’[v]. Such views led many supporters of the European Union to regard national sentiments as an expression of primordial attachments, which by definition do not have a positive role to play in a modern society.

Until recently the cosmopolitan contempt towards the nation communicated by the globalist elite dominated public life. The hostility of globalists towards borders and the nation coexisted with a powerful sense of contempt for people who remain seriously attached to them. Such people were invariably labelled as narrow-minded, parochial xenophobes whose insecurity forces them to wrap themselves in their national flag. ‘The populists, nationalists, stupid nationalists, they are in love with their own countries’, declared a bemused Jean-Claude Juncker, the former President of the European Commission in May 2019. Juncker’s incomprehension of how anyone could love their country was no doubt the genuine response of someone who regards spontaneous loyalties to community and to the borders surrounding it as an irritating feature of life.

In retrospect it is evident that the criminalisation of national consciousness and of nationalism had proved remarkably successful in in influencing the outlook of society. From a young age people were taught to beware of the ‘nationalist temptation’ and institutions of education systematically promoted the de-nationalisation of identity.

The outcome of this programme of indoctrination was to weaken people’s identification with their nation and to undermine many of the values associated with national consciousness.

Take the example of a nation’s past. It is widely acknowledged that ‘nationalism is the lens through which the past acquires meaning’[vi]. As I wrote elsewhere the past, particularly the nation’s history has been transformed into a story of shame by grievance archaeologist. In my book The War Against The Past: Why the West Must Fight For its History, I explain that the programme of detaching society from its past has undermined people’s connection with their nation and their sense of belonging[vii].

The war against the past has played an important role in weakening people’s national attachment and their identification with their nation. Consequently, all the important values that underpin nationalism as powerful motivating force – loyalty, duty, courage – have also been weakened. Whether or not nationalism can return as a powerful mobilizing force in the West depends on its ability to reconnect with past so that the values of loyalty and duty can retain its meaning to contemporary society.

We need to seize the opportunity presented by the return of the nation state to rehabilitate nationalism. Why? Because nationalism offers people the opportunity to forge the kind of motivating solidarity that can overcome the fragmented existence offered by a world of estrangement. Nationalism is inextricably linked to democracy and the nation provides the only ground on which democracy can flourish.

---

[i] See Sforza, C. (1943) ‘Italy and Her Neighbours’, Foreign Affairs, October. (1943) p.113.

[ii] Herz, F. (1951) (originally published in 1944) Nationality in History and Politics, Routledge &

Kegan Paul: London. (originally published in 1944.

[iii] Herz (1951) p.1.

[iv] Deutsch, K.W. (1969) Nationalism and Its Alternatives, Alfred Knopf: New York. p.3.

[v] Möhring, J. and Prins, G., 2013. Sail On, O Ship of State. Möhring, J., & Prins, G.(2013)(eds.) Sail On O Ship Of State, Notting Hill Editions: London. (2013)p.1.

[vi] Mehta, P.B. (2025) ‘Indispensable Nations; The Fall And Rise of Nationalism’, Foreign Affairs, vol.104, issue 2, p.162

[vii] Furedi, F., 2024. The war against the past: why the west must fight for its history. Polity : Cambridge.