competing notions of nation- states, post-colonialism and internationalism dr. douglas fleming...
TRANSCRIPT
Competing Notions of Nation-States, Post-colonialism and
Internationalism
Competing Notions of Nation-States, Post-colonialism and
Internationalism
Dr. Douglas Fleming
Faculty of Education, University of Ottawa
Faculté d’éducation, Université d’Ottawa
Dr. Douglas Fleming
Faculty of Education, University of Ottawa
Faculté d’éducation, Université d’Ottawa
In western philosophy, one’s proper place within in society (and the state) has been a major preoccupation.
Aristotle, for example, argued that a virtuous member of society is someone who is exhibits the same reasonableness as both a ruler and a follower.
In medieval Europe, on the other hand, one’s duty was to adhere to the prescribed norms of one’s social standing at birth.
In western philosophy, one’s proper place within in society (and the state) has been a major preoccupation.
Aristotle, for example, argued that a virtuous member of society is someone who is exhibits the same reasonableness as both a ruler and a follower.
In medieval Europe, on the other hand, one’s duty was to adhere to the prescribed norms of one’s social standing at birth.
Modern forms of the state and citizenship only started with the 1789 French Revolution. the central place of the western nation-state equal status shared values and commitment associated with civic (usually democratic) rights
As we saw previously this has been interpreted as jus soli (right of “the soil”)(Ernest Renan), as opposed to: jus sanguinis (right of “the
blood”)(Johann Fichte)
Modern forms of the state and citizenship only started with the 1789 French Revolution. the central place of the western nation-state equal status shared values and commitment associated with civic (usually democratic) rights
As we saw previously this has been interpreted as jus soli (right of “the soil”)(Ernest Renan), as opposed to: jus sanguinis (right of “the
blood”)(Johann Fichte)
However, citizenship theory, as a formal field of academic study, is relatively new.
Marshall (1950) noted that national citizenship confers equal status to all members of society but stands independent of the inequalities of class.
This is a contradiction.
However, citizenship theory, as a formal field of academic study, is relatively new.
Marshall (1950) noted that national citizenship confers equal status to all members of society but stands independent of the inequalities of class.
This is a contradiction.
Marshall (1950) argued that before 1789, citizenship is better understood as a form of immutable social rank or order;
Modern citizenship, on the other hand, is based on social class: an economically-based conferring of status that is changeable and temporal;
Marshall further argued that the very concept of citizenship, in fact, obscures economic inequality;
Marshall (1950) argued that before 1789, citizenship is better understood as a form of immutable social rank or order;
Modern citizenship, on the other hand, is based on social class: an economically-based conferring of status that is changeable and temporal;
Marshall further argued that the very concept of citizenship, in fact, obscures economic inequality;
Marshall defined citizenship in three ways:
civil (which includes individual freedoms such as those of speech, movement, religion, and property);
political (which consists of the right to participate in political decision-making) and
social (which is a broad category of rights to security, general welfare and one's own heritage).
Marshall defined citizenship in three ways:
civil (which includes individual freedoms such as those of speech, movement, religion, and property);
political (which consists of the right to participate in political decision-making) and
social (which is a broad category of rights to security, general welfare and one's own heritage).
As Giddens (1995) notes, three critiques of Marshall’s framework subsequently emerged in the literature:
the place of struggle and resistance in the development of citizenship rights is absent;
the development of citizenship and class is represented in an overly linear fashion;
forms of identity besides class, such as race and gender, are underestimated.
As Giddens (1995) notes, three critiques of Marshall’s framework subsequently emerged in the literature:
the place of struggle and resistance in the development of citizenship rights is absent;
the development of citizenship and class is represented in an overly linear fashion;
forms of identity besides class, such as race and gender, are underestimated.
In subsequent years, as Isin and Wood (1999) emphasize, Marshall took these critiques into account and began concentrating on:
the influence of power;
the relationship between citizenship and how subjectivity is constructed and
the relationship between civil rights and social movements.
In subsequent years, as Isin and Wood (1999) emphasize, Marshall took these critiques into account and began concentrating on:
the influence of power;
the relationship between citizenship and how subjectivity is constructed and
the relationship between civil rights and social movements.
Since Marshall, citizenship theory has moved into a deeper concern with group rights and identity politics.
Much of this has been driven by globalization and migration, which are quickly reshaping most nation-states into actual and/ or formally recognized multicultural and multilingual entities.
It is now much harder to justify (the myth) that the modern nation-state is unilingual and uniethnic.
Since Marshall, citizenship theory has moved into a deeper concern with group rights and identity politics.
Much of this has been driven by globalization and migration, which are quickly reshaping most nation-states into actual and/ or formally recognized multicultural and multilingual entities.
It is now much harder to justify (the myth) that the modern nation-state is unilingual and uniethnic.
• Much of this resolves around how you define the state, the nation and the nation-state.
• Social Contract Theories (1)
• Statist Theory: Order trumps freedom.• The state is an organic body that dominates
society;• The policies of the state are constructed in the
interests of the state, which are identical to the interests of society (Hobbes)
• Much of this resolves around how you define the state, the nation and the nation-state.
• Social Contract Theories (1)
• Statist Theory: Order trumps freedom.• The state is an organic body that dominates
society;• The policies of the state are constructed in the
interests of the state, which are identical to the interests of society (Hobbes)
• Social Contract Theories (2)
• Pluralist Theory: Freedom trumps order• The state is an on-going set of agreements
between members of society.• Government is elected by and accountable to
citizens;• The state as a neutral market for competing social
groups (Locke, Rousseau, Paine).
• Social Contract Theories (2)
• Pluralist Theory: Freedom trumps order• The state is an on-going set of agreements
between members of society.• Government is elected by and accountable to
citizens;• The state as a neutral market for competing social
groups (Locke, Rousseau, Paine).
• Conflict Theory
The state is an instrument of violence (both physical and psychological) in which one class holds instruments of power over another.
This control can be exerted through naked force or hegemony (Gramsci): propaganda or legitimizing discourses and ideologies;
Power is exerted through microprocesses of governmentality (Foucault)
• Conflict Theory
The state is an instrument of violence (both physical and psychological) in which one class holds instruments of power over another.
This control can be exerted through naked force or hegemony (Gramsci): propaganda or legitimizing discourses and ideologies;
Power is exerted through microprocesses of governmentality (Foucault)
“during the time men lived without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition of every man, against every man…as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners, and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort, as that by their own industry, and by the fruits of the earth, they may nourish themselves and live contentedly, is to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will… this is the great Leviathan” (Hobbes, 1651).
“during the time men lived without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition of every man, against every man…as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners, and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort, as that by their own industry, and by the fruits of the earth, they may nourish themselves and live contentedly, is to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will… this is the great Leviathan” (Hobbes, 1651).
“those who are united into one body, and have a common established law and judicature to appeal to, with authority to decide controversies between them, and punish offenders, are in civil society one with another… the only way whereby anyone divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community, for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any that are not of it” (Locke, 1689).
“those who are united into one body, and have a common established law and judicature to appeal to, with authority to decide controversies between them, and punish offenders, are in civil society one with another… the only way whereby anyone divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community, for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any that are not of it” (Locke, 1689).
“The state arose from the need to hold class antagonisms in check… the most powerful, economically dominant class, through the medium of the state, becomes also the politically dominant class, and thus acquires new means of holding down and exploiting the oppressed class… however, periods occur in which the warring classes balance each other so nearly that the state power, as ostensible mediator, acquires for the moment a certain degree of independence of both” (Engels, 1884).
“The state arose from the need to hold class antagonisms in check… the most powerful, economically dominant class, through the medium of the state, becomes also the politically dominant class, and thus acquires new means of holding down and exploiting the oppressed class… however, periods occur in which the warring classes balance each other so nearly that the state power, as ostensible mediator, acquires for the moment a certain degree of independence of both” (Engels, 1884).
A nation is a group of people who share (more or less) the same economy, history, geography, language, customs and (sometimes) religion;
A nation-state exercises legitimate power in terms of a physical territory over which it has authority. It (usually) has an organized economy, a set of institutions designed for social engineering and is accorded various forms of external recognition.
A nation is a group of people who share (more or less) the same economy, history, geography, language, customs and (sometimes) religion;
A nation-state exercises legitimate power in terms of a physical territory over which it has authority. It (usually) has an organized economy, a set of institutions designed for social engineering and is accorded various forms of external recognition.
Colonialism “is a relationship between an indigenous (or forcibly
imported) majority and a minority of foreign invaders… decisions affecting the lives of the colonized people are made… by rulers in pursuit of interests… often defined in a distant metropolis. Rejecting cultural compromises with the colonized population, the colonizers are convinced of their own superiority and their ordained mandate to rule”. (Osterhammel, 2005).
Colonialism “is a relationship between an indigenous (or forcibly
imported) majority and a minority of foreign invaders… decisions affecting the lives of the colonized people are made… by rulers in pursuit of interests… often defined in a distant metropolis. Rejecting cultural compromises with the colonized population, the colonizers are convinced of their own superiority and their ordained mandate to rule”. (Osterhammel, 2005).
Post-Colonialism
an academic discipline aimed at uncovering legacy of colonial modes of operation.
Edward Said (1978) argued that the binary notions of Occident and the Orient are social constructs that have divided the world into the normative and superior European–based civilizations and those of the Other (a term that originates in the feminist writings of de Beauvoir). These other civilizations: India, Asia and the Middle East are constructed as homogenous, irrational and inferior. Said argues further that Europe itself is a construct that is defined in opposition to the notion of the other.
Post-Colonialism
an academic discipline aimed at uncovering legacy of colonial modes of operation.
Edward Said (1978) argued that the binary notions of Occident and the Orient are social constructs that have divided the world into the normative and superior European–based civilizations and those of the Other (a term that originates in the feminist writings of de Beauvoir). These other civilizations: India, Asia and the Middle East are constructed as homogenous, irrational and inferior. Said argues further that Europe itself is a construct that is defined in opposition to the notion of the other.
As noted, Fanon (1961) argued that colonialism is not simply the application of physical violence. It also exerts subjective violence on those who have been colonized.
Spivak (1962) goes even further by employing Foucault’s notion of epistemic violence: the subaltern has their ways of knowing suppressed and destroyed though the experience of colonialization.
As noted, Fanon (1961) argued that colonialism is not simply the application of physical violence. It also exerts subjective violence on those who have been colonized.
Spivak (1962) goes even further by employing Foucault’s notion of epistemic violence: the subaltern has their ways of knowing suppressed and destroyed though the experience of colonialization.
Does the very notion of citizenship obscure social class? Do you favour a theory of the state as a social contract or
a vehicle for managing class conflict? Is internationalism (as discussed in last week’s readings)
different from colonialism? Are the distinctions between nation, state and nation-state
useful? Has globalisation erased these distinctions?
Does the very notion of citizenship obscure social class? Do you favour a theory of the state as a social contract or
a vehicle for managing class conflict? Is internationalism (as discussed in last week’s readings)
different from colonialism? Are the distinctions between nation, state and nation-state
useful? Has globalisation erased these distinctions?