An essay on Bernard Shaw's quotation “A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation’s nationality, it will think of nothing else but getting it set again”.
Wittgenstein writes in his preface to Tractatus Logico-Philisophicus: “… in order to draw a limit to thought, we should have to find both side of the limit thinkable (i.e. we should have to be able to think what cannot be thought)” (1997, p.3). Likewise, nationalism, as series of very disciplined thoughts and ideologies, share a similar inner-dilemma, which has been perplexing the societies since the French Revolution. The conflict rises due to the radical overhaul of various political ideas and regimes, and individuals’ naïve and insufficient criticism of chauvinism. For this straightforward reason, it is vital to discuss the means of nationalism preparatory to further debates over how it might alter the social behavior of individuals, and protect its attacked virginity. In the rest of this essay, nationalism will be analyzed from a historical and ideological perspective in order to wholly apprehend Shaw’s point that nationality is the unconsciously sleeping hence harmless Monster – or the beauty until it is awaken –, and it would take an overwhelming amount of time, effort, and courage to set it back to a benign sleep once awaken.
Aristotle, as one of the most influential ancient thinkers, claims that human beings are destined to be political animals by the laws of nature, who desperately need and seek to live together and form communities for survival. That is, from the hunters-gatherers bands to modern societies, humans were obligated to bond to each other in order to cope with the hardship of civilizations and Mother Nature such as wars, class struggles, economic relations, droughts, starvations, natural disasters and so on. No wonder that the most facile solution to such obstacles laying in front of mankind’s pathway to tomorrows was to create communities based on whatever the needs were. Aristotle, inspired by this motif, clearly must have made his point about the political animal side of humans. Nonetheless deeper aspects of such juxtaposition are required for finer apprehension of the subject. One way to reach this goal is to reveal the needs and bonds of a society on which individuals are forced to be united. From basic survival necessitates of hunter-gatherers to war-threats and surplus related businesses of complex societies, from feudalism’s royal flush cards of religion and the clergy to Marx’s opium and modern states’ economical models along with nationalism ideologies, there have been variations of societal glues to stick the individuals together for the benefits of masses, political authorities, and the state. Over the history, once the individuals are bonded somehow into establishing societies at the first place –though the means of these bonds had been refashioned–, there is no doubt that these people have been together and part of a unique culture and bloodline for a quite extended period of time. They have been resided geographically adjacent regions to each other and migrated elsewhere in a similar fashion when the circumstances were not preferable anymore. Families combined to establish villages, villages to greater power hierarchies. Cultural and religious beliefs are formed from common values and the societal glues. There is no further need to discuss such formations, yet it is a must to underline the affects of social behavior to explain the selection and circulation mechanisms of these societies. Marriages, kinships and relations were mainly based on the rules of the social behavior, meaning that humans tend to continue alike physical and cultural characteristics. Even though this is not a ground rule for each individual, it might help give a justification for the formation of groups of people over time, later called to be nations. Examining these points, there is no wonder that individuals naturally selected their spouses from the society they belong, and shared similar religious and cultural beliefs along with doctrines for most of the time. Throughout history these criteria are named by divergent ideologies and after the French Revolution it was called nationalism.
Ernest Renan states that the components of a nation are based on shared memories and present-day consent: “A nation is a large-scale solidarity, constituted by the feeling of the sacrifices that one has made in the past and of those that one is prepared to make in the future”. While Renan mentions the importance of race, language, religion, material interest and geography, he underlines that even though these aspects might be related to formation of nations, they can be merely co-related. There is not a straightforward cause-effect relationship between these components and nationalism. This view satisfies what had been discussed in the previous paragraph as well. Let nation be a soul, and it would seek for shared memories and a unique agreement. Despite the fact that this essay might sound like essentialist, on the other hand, it would as well agree with the modernist view to some extent. In the previous paragraph, formation of societies with some fundamental examples has been discussed and deduced that nationalism by terminology is only a matter of name given to what bonds the masses after French Revolution. For example, it was not nationalism but religion earlier in the history. This simply signifies that nations and nationalism are the products of the modern era, again only by terminology. In fine, the previous arguments claim that whatever has been called as nations or nationalism had been out there under dissimilar names in separate timelines. The unclear shift among such names or terminologies could only stand for the idea that whatever the names represent have been awaken in history for some reasons.
Having stated Renan’s view along with the other arguments, back to the Wittgenstein’s criticism about thought and its limits, one could explain the endless debates about nationalism. The history basically has been trying to draw limits to the thought(s) of nationalism of which the boundaries were quite profitable for whoever is in power of altering them. For this very reason, individuals of different social groups are expected to have separate views on the matter. The topic of this essay, however, is not about the various perceptions of nationalism. It is rather an analysis of the means of such variations in perceptions. How come nationalism has distinct meanings? A possible answer to this question is given at the end of the previous paragraph. Additionally, what Wittgenstein claims could be interpreted (to help) in a way that the limited thoughts of nationalism (let us say non-Renan nationalism) under geographical, religious, ethnic, material and linguistic restrictions altogether cannot be the fundamentals of nationalism. Such restrictions limit the thought of nationalism in Wittgenstein’s words, and this attempt results in creating a pseudo side for the perception of nationalism, if it ever exits all by itself. This basically means that the insight of this pseudo side of nationalism is expected to be vague and unknown to the individuals and its concept would have to be fabricated once mentioned due to the dilemma Wittgenstein describes. In other words, such approaches would bring up a wrecked nationalism to today’s world, and most individuals would not dare to heal it.
Up to this point, all has been said to serve as a background to compensate Bernard Shaw for his quotation. It should be clear by now that a healthy nation should actually be called as a healthy society since with the involvement of nation, no state could find an everlasting peace. Even if they do hypothetically, then this would mean that societal glues must have been replaced with some other stable ideologies. However, think of a nation at its temporal healthy phase in order to fully understand Shaw’s point. Similar to the ending of previous paragraph, its people might not feel the wreckage (pain of belonging to a nation) as long as no one touches it either deliberately or unconsciously. When someone does though, the nation would not halt until it finds its earlier phase like Shaw describes. There is full credit to his claim. Regardless of how aggressive the attempts of such nations are, there must be elementary keys to apprehend these reactions. Remember the earlier discussions about how the pseudo side of nationalism was being vague and unknown. Mankind is afraid of such unclear matters, and when it comes to nationalism or nations, it is the same. People could not reveal the core of nationalism thought out of its pseudo peel and as a result they fear since they do not know how to act. This fear could be compared to fear of death or darkness that the person with the phobia would not stop until its gone. He would do anything and everything to let it go. For the simplicity of flow of ideas, one could say that this fear of nationalism is due to the unstable circumstances once the Monster is awakened. Individuals have been living together, and unless somebody had called them by their nations, they did not quite care. Once the monster or the beauty is up or hurt, people start caring out of panic for the reasons which have been discussed so far, and attempts to clear anything between himself and his nationality so that they could heal it to normal.
All over the essay, Wittgenstein’s argument was applied to understand the doctrine of nationalism and how it fails to actually unite people in a healthy state. In order to achieve this, Aristotle’s social animal is used to smoothly cover why the societies had to be formed, and how they have been grouping people in some ways. This way made it possible to deduce that nationalism was just another societal glue after the French Revolution. All of these were done to explain that Shaw were right to some extent as well as expressing the points of disapproval. Finally a last quotation from Heraclitus: “When is death not within ourselves? Living and dead are the same, and so are awake and asleep, young and old…” Let the death be nationalism in terms of terminology to point out the role of the ideology within the contemporary world…
References:
Wittgenstein, L. (1997). Tractatus Logico-Philisophicus. New York, USA: Oxford University Press
Wittgenstein writes in his preface to Tractatus Logico-Philisophicus: “… in order to draw a limit to thought, we should have to find both side of the limit thinkable (i.e. we should have to be able to think what cannot be thought)” (1997, p.3). Likewise, nationalism, as series of very disciplined thoughts and ideologies, share a similar inner-dilemma, which has been perplexing the societies since the French Revolution. The conflict rises due to the radical overhaul of various political ideas and regimes, and individuals’ naïve and insufficient criticism of chauvinism. For this straightforward reason, it is vital to discuss the means of nationalism preparatory to further debates over how it might alter the social behavior of individuals, and protect its attacked virginity. In the rest of this essay, nationalism will be analyzed from a historical and ideological perspective in order to wholly apprehend Shaw’s point that nationality is the unconsciously sleeping hence harmless Monster – or the beauty until it is awaken –, and it would take an overwhelming amount of time, effort, and courage to set it back to a benign sleep once awaken.
Aristotle, as one of the most influential ancient thinkers, claims that human beings are destined to be political animals by the laws of nature, who desperately need and seek to live together and form communities for survival. That is, from the hunters-gatherers bands to modern societies, humans were obligated to bond to each other in order to cope with the hardship of civilizations and Mother Nature such as wars, class struggles, economic relations, droughts, starvations, natural disasters and so on. No wonder that the most facile solution to such obstacles laying in front of mankind’s pathway to tomorrows was to create communities based on whatever the needs were. Aristotle, inspired by this motif, clearly must have made his point about the political animal side of humans. Nonetheless deeper aspects of such juxtaposition are required for finer apprehension of the subject. One way to reach this goal is to reveal the needs and bonds of a society on which individuals are forced to be united. From basic survival necessitates of hunter-gatherers to war-threats and surplus related businesses of complex societies, from feudalism’s royal flush cards of religion and the clergy to Marx’s opium and modern states’ economical models along with nationalism ideologies, there have been variations of societal glues to stick the individuals together for the benefits of masses, political authorities, and the state. Over the history, once the individuals are bonded somehow into establishing societies at the first place –though the means of these bonds had been refashioned–, there is no doubt that these people have been together and part of a unique culture and bloodline for a quite extended period of time. They have been resided geographically adjacent regions to each other and migrated elsewhere in a similar fashion when the circumstances were not preferable anymore. Families combined to establish villages, villages to greater power hierarchies. Cultural and religious beliefs are formed from common values and the societal glues. There is no further need to discuss such formations, yet it is a must to underline the affects of social behavior to explain the selection and circulation mechanisms of these societies. Marriages, kinships and relations were mainly based on the rules of the social behavior, meaning that humans tend to continue alike physical and cultural characteristics. Even though this is not a ground rule for each individual, it might help give a justification for the formation of groups of people over time, later called to be nations. Examining these points, there is no wonder that individuals naturally selected their spouses from the society they belong, and shared similar religious and cultural beliefs along with doctrines for most of the time. Throughout history these criteria are named by divergent ideologies and after the French Revolution it was called nationalism.
Ernest Renan states that the components of a nation are based on shared memories and present-day consent: “A nation is a large-scale solidarity, constituted by the feeling of the sacrifices that one has made in the past and of those that one is prepared to make in the future”. While Renan mentions the importance of race, language, religion, material interest and geography, he underlines that even though these aspects might be related to formation of nations, they can be merely co-related. There is not a straightforward cause-effect relationship between these components and nationalism. This view satisfies what had been discussed in the previous paragraph as well. Let nation be a soul, and it would seek for shared memories and a unique agreement. Despite the fact that this essay might sound like essentialist, on the other hand, it would as well agree with the modernist view to some extent. In the previous paragraph, formation of societies with some fundamental examples has been discussed and deduced that nationalism by terminology is only a matter of name given to what bonds the masses after French Revolution. For example, it was not nationalism but religion earlier in the history. This simply signifies that nations and nationalism are the products of the modern era, again only by terminology. In fine, the previous arguments claim that whatever has been called as nations or nationalism had been out there under dissimilar names in separate timelines. The unclear shift among such names or terminologies could only stand for the idea that whatever the names represent have been awaken in history for some reasons.
Having stated Renan’s view along with the other arguments, back to the Wittgenstein’s criticism about thought and its limits, one could explain the endless debates about nationalism. The history basically has been trying to draw limits to the thought(s) of nationalism of which the boundaries were quite profitable for whoever is in power of altering them. For this very reason, individuals of different social groups are expected to have separate views on the matter. The topic of this essay, however, is not about the various perceptions of nationalism. It is rather an analysis of the means of such variations in perceptions. How come nationalism has distinct meanings? A possible answer to this question is given at the end of the previous paragraph. Additionally, what Wittgenstein claims could be interpreted (to help) in a way that the limited thoughts of nationalism (let us say non-Renan nationalism) under geographical, religious, ethnic, material and linguistic restrictions altogether cannot be the fundamentals of nationalism. Such restrictions limit the thought of nationalism in Wittgenstein’s words, and this attempt results in creating a pseudo side for the perception of nationalism, if it ever exits all by itself. This basically means that the insight of this pseudo side of nationalism is expected to be vague and unknown to the individuals and its concept would have to be fabricated once mentioned due to the dilemma Wittgenstein describes. In other words, such approaches would bring up a wrecked nationalism to today’s world, and most individuals would not dare to heal it.
Up to this point, all has been said to serve as a background to compensate Bernard Shaw for his quotation. It should be clear by now that a healthy nation should actually be called as a healthy society since with the involvement of nation, no state could find an everlasting peace. Even if they do hypothetically, then this would mean that societal glues must have been replaced with some other stable ideologies. However, think of a nation at its temporal healthy phase in order to fully understand Shaw’s point. Similar to the ending of previous paragraph, its people might not feel the wreckage (pain of belonging to a nation) as long as no one touches it either deliberately or unconsciously. When someone does though, the nation would not halt until it finds its earlier phase like Shaw describes. There is full credit to his claim. Regardless of how aggressive the attempts of such nations are, there must be elementary keys to apprehend these reactions. Remember the earlier discussions about how the pseudo side of nationalism was being vague and unknown. Mankind is afraid of such unclear matters, and when it comes to nationalism or nations, it is the same. People could not reveal the core of nationalism thought out of its pseudo peel and as a result they fear since they do not know how to act. This fear could be compared to fear of death or darkness that the person with the phobia would not stop until its gone. He would do anything and everything to let it go. For the simplicity of flow of ideas, one could say that this fear of nationalism is due to the unstable circumstances once the Monster is awakened. Individuals have been living together, and unless somebody had called them by their nations, they did not quite care. Once the monster or the beauty is up or hurt, people start caring out of panic for the reasons which have been discussed so far, and attempts to clear anything between himself and his nationality so that they could heal it to normal.
All over the essay, Wittgenstein’s argument was applied to understand the doctrine of nationalism and how it fails to actually unite people in a healthy state. In order to achieve this, Aristotle’s social animal is used to smoothly cover why the societies had to be formed, and how they have been grouping people in some ways. This way made it possible to deduce that nationalism was just another societal glue after the French Revolution. All of these were done to explain that Shaw were right to some extent as well as expressing the points of disapproval. Finally a last quotation from Heraclitus: “When is death not within ourselves? Living and dead are the same, and so are awake and asleep, young and old…” Let the death be nationalism in terms of terminology to point out the role of the ideology within the contemporary world…
References:
Wittgenstein, L. (1997). Tractatus Logico-Philisophicus. New York, USA: Oxford University Press
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder