Is Nationalism More Harmful Than Helpful?
In an article in Foreign Policy magazine, neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky argues that nationalism can be lead to unwarranted strife and even violence. [foreignaffairs.com]
His argument relies on our cognitive biology and how humans rapidly sort people into us and them groups, or in-groups and out-groups. The sorting is often accompanied by moral judgments, making it harder to cooperate and possibly leading to wars among nations. Sapolsky writes:
To understand the dynamics of human group identity, including the resurgence of nationalism—that potentially most destructive form of in-group bias—requires grasping the biological and cognitive underpinnings that shape them. Such an analysis offers little grounds for optimism. Our brains distinguish between in-group members and outsiders in a fraction of a second, and they encourage us to be kind to the former but hostile to the latter. Put simply, neurobiology, endocrinology, and developmental psychology all paint a grim picture of our lives as social beings.
At its best, nationalism and patriotism can prompt people to pay their taxes and care for their nation’s have-nots, including unrelated people they have never met and will never meet. But because this solidarity has historically been built on strong cultural markers of pseudo-kinship, it is easily destabilized, particularly by the forces of globalization, which can make people who were once the archetypes of their culture feel irrelevant and bring them into contact with very different sorts of neighbors than their grand-parents had. Confronted with such a disruption, tax-paying civic nationalism can quickly devolve into something much darker: a dehumanizing hatred that turns Jews into “vermin,” Tutsis into “cockroaches,” or Muslims into “terrorists.” Today, this toxic brand of nationalism is making a comeback across the globe, spurred on by political leaders eager to exploit it for electoral advantage.
Sapolsky goes on to argue that this problem cannot be addressed by reason or logic because you can’t reason people out of a stance they weren’t reasoned into in the first place. He suggests that maybe we can harness nationalism for good social goals such as care for citizens in need, teaching children empathy, and ensuring increased social and economic mobility.
1
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
11 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Nationalism is good in the sense of establishing a national identity, maintaining sovereignty, and remembering that you represent the people of this nation, not the world.
It can be a problem if it becomes too protectionist, by this I mean reducing economic growth by isolating against the free market.
Peelsr
Level 5
Mar 12, 2019
0
I certainly do not agree w/ the statement that Nationalism can lead "strife" or "violence." Are we talking about socialism? The experts want so much for us believe they have the answers... they don't.
Globalism will be the demise of what stood as beacons....liberty, freedom & democracy.
The fragility of Humanity is at risk... the balance has tilted dangerously. There are millions lost to the truth - the greater picture. Globalism is like choosing to swim in a pool full of blood thirsty pirhanas - georgie boy skirms in his poopy tena as ribbles of demonic powers rest in his broken heart. Just an example... like I stated - how aware are most ppl of the greater picture?? Time to wake up from your slumber....
LiteOp107
Level 2
Mar 12, 2019
0
@Daryl And just who will be the Overseers of this Globalist World?? I know, but do you?? David Rockefeller told us in his autobiography. They will need an army/Police-State to enforce their dictums--but that won't be difficult to find if the NWO controls all money/EBT. What will be the "goal" of this NWO Gov? It will be just like Lenin said--" The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is nothing less than Power, backed by Force, and limited by Nothing--by no Rule and by no Law."
One can also look at the Georgia Guidestones for some ideas about what they intend.
He ignores the alternative. In a world of oneness, where national boundaries don't exist we then ALL become subject to the depradations of the collective.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Protect the minority.
The most profound minority is the individual.
History shows us that nation-states are typically the best, albeit flawed, way to protect the individual.
Mike9465
Level 6
Mar 11, 2019
2
Nations exist for the protection of their peoples. "Foreigners" may invade to steal or occupy--or "immigrate" if willing to be examined and to change their ways to those of the nation's. Globalists obviously wish to eliminate the idea of national boundaries. Foreign Affairs is a publication of the CFR--the main Globalist group in the USA.
MarPep
Level 7
Mar 11, 2019
0
@Daryl Your supplied Sapolsky quote is just his opinion from a very Globalist viewpoint. Globalism (worldwide collectivism)has always been presented as the way to prevent war and have universal peace. Yet when these same collectivists get in power, we have the worst forms of Police-State and universal terror--as in the early USSR, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia.
The history of the CFR is very interesting---and best learned from sources not controlled by members of the CFR or by their International Banker comrades.
@Daryl An interesting journey awaits you if you try to determine what the CFR is--and don't just take MSM/wiki/google descriptions. Find documents on other search engines, or use youtube. For starters, the Journal your article is found within is a publication of the CFR.
@Daryl it's one of those things that has to be learned from one's own desire to know the truth. Showing someone who is not yet ready to see or to hear the information seldom does any good. If you ever decide to investigate on your own, then besides CFR, learn about PNAC, Frankfurt School, Tavistock Foundation, and the history of the Rothschilds. And, once again, do not just go to sources controlled by the MSM or major Tech firms---find sources that are trying to expose conspiracies.
@Daryl 
No interest in knowing who publishes the journal you are quoting??? And no, CFR here does not mean Code of Fed Regs.
This is one of those things that the curious must sort out for themselves.
I think the problem is how one defines “Nationalism” and what it means to the person using it.
The Left would like you to believe that “Nationalism” is BAD because it was one of the several words used to describe the NAZI Party ... Also, truthfully, a Nationalist Nation is very unlikely be willing to embrace Socialism or Communism.
On the other hand, Nationalism as in Pride, Loyalty, Devotion to One’s Nation ... as in “USA First” ... is a positive outlook. If for no other reason than We can Best Help Others when We are Strong and Secure in Ourselves.
Why does the World look to the USA for help, aid, assistance in so many things?
Because as a Nation We are Strong Enough and Secure Enough to not Only CARE but, as a Nation, PROVIDE.
Bay0Wulf
Level 8
Mar 11, 2019
1
Begs the question - What is the national identity?
If the national identity is "We hold that all people are created equal and are endowed with rights" then tying your identity to that nation is good.
If the national identity is "Our race is superior and we should rule the world" then not good.
If national identity is "God commands us to subjugate or kill the unbelievers" again not good.
If national identity is "God commands us to keep his laws and provide food and water to our enemy" - this identity seems like its working out well.
If national identity is "The state knows best and tells us what to do" - I'm sure this could work if only implemented properly.
Conflating these identities seems like shorthand stupid.
RobBlair
Level 8
Mar 11, 2019
2
Agreed! It's important to separate out things like "ethno-nationalism" which is definitely not good.
@Daryl Briefly describe what holds people together in your country = This is your National identity
Do you identify with and support this national identity? If yes then you are a nationalist.
No one supports the letters USA or the shape of the country on the map, maybe a few support the blocks of colors that form flags. Mostly, when people refer to their country, they are referring to a national identity. This is easy in a racially homogenous place like Korea where the national identity lines up with the race and culture of the people that live there. The USA and other civically organized counties are more complicated. There is probably half a shelf of books that no one will ever read just on USA's national identity all of which agree perhaps on 25%.
Perhaps Sapolsky is having trouble because he is so used to dealing with the very simple territorial type tribalism that he is studying. That ain't us.
@Daryl Certainly would be a fun question to ask him. "Do you consider all nationalism negatively or do some national identities provide a beneficial outlook?" Of course I'm not a PhD or anything so my question to him probably wouldn't have enough standing to receive an answer (and I didn't read the whole article)...
I won't attempt to comment too much on Sapolsky's view as I don't yet feel informed enough to do so.
However, I'm currently reading "The Virtue of Nationalism" by Yoram Hazony and he claims that the independent National state, built on mutual loyalty, is the best political order yet devised, because the only two alternatives are Imperialism or Federalism, both of which come with their own problems. In fact, he claims that Nationalism, in it's purest sense, actually stands more chance of preventing war than do the other two political orders.
I'm keeping an open mind until I learn more!
Incajackson
Level 6
Mar 11, 2019
2
Well, there’s countries that use the metric system, and one that put men on the moon. That’s a statement of national pride or patriotism. Nationalist and patriot are interchangeable, but one seems used as a tag word to invoke taboo wrongthink. Especially now, by those that oppose the concept of “Make America Great Again,” because of Trump. The same can be said about Brexit. The idea is to one dimensionalize these groups versus engaging in open debate on the issues.
Harpoon
Level 6
Mar 11, 2019
3
Speaking from a UK perspective - some of those who oppose Brexit frequently attempt to slur and discredit those who support Brexit as racists and xenophobes. In my experience nothing could be further from the truth. I actually voted to remain but have changed my mind and am in favour of leaving - and my wife is a different race!
In my opinion, the more apt word for aggressive state action, or even full fledged militant, unquestioned devotion, to a group (political party, religion, or ideology), or tribe, would be jingoist. Having nationalist pride in ones country, in particular, national achievements, (Battle of Britain, Sputnik, Apollo XI) is natural.
I think what he is describing here is tribalism rather than nationalism. The US citizenry (traditionally) think of themselves as a political unity rather than a racial one. We share a common moral order (traditionally Judeo/Christian) and social order (that arises out of the lessons learned from Jerusalem, Athens, Rome and England). If a nation identifies under a superficial order such as race or a single theology, then it is dangerous. If it is a political unity, then it can be diverse. To love the place of your birth and want to defend it is not unthinking loyalty, it's a desire to preserve something good.
AlexisS
Level 5
Mar 11, 2019
4
@Daryl Generally Tribalism serves a single race, a single cause, a single religion, etc. Nationalism can become like that - that's true. However, we are diverse nation with many races, religions, and causes under one constitution (set of laws). E Pluribus Unum - Out of many, One. It's a poltical unity, not a racial one. I hope that makes my statement clearer.
I'm surprised that this article doesn't deal with the difference between Patriotism and Nationalism. Patriotism is a love of one's country - whereas Nationalism is rooted in an automatic distrust or dislike of anyone or anything that isn't of or from one's motherland. It's a crucial distinction and is why I steer very clear of Nationalist movements whilst having a great fondness for my country and its traditions and mores
Papanuts
Level 4
Mar 11, 2019
0
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.