Many components of nationalism are not problematic inherently. Nationalism has Some places where it can be easily and readily perverted to become problematic but is again- not inherently problematic in those areas.
Where nationalism is problematic by nature is in the concept of national identity. Nationalism pushes a singular national identity, this doesn’t have to be but often is an ethnic identity- but can be a civic identity as well.
This singular identity is counter to the ideals of individuality and freedom.
While those who do not see a lack of individualism as an issue may not consider this a problem- it is an issue for most people regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum. Chiefly that nationalism is often used with a right wing connotation but doesn’t have to be. A “singular National identity” can be…
Well, let me use a topical example from the US. Who here would be happy if the entire country was completely dominated by Donald Trump and his ideologies? Ok. Some of you. A lot of you not so much. Ok. So- who here would be happy if the country was dominated entirely by Bernie Sanders and his ideologies? Huh. Some. Still not a lot. Ok.
That’s the point- in a nationalist society you don’t get to disagree. You don’t get to diverge from the national identity. If the dominant power decides you are a nation with drag queens in every class and abortions are tax funded and vans drive around with music like ice cream trucks doing them 24/7 on demand- that’s your nation. If every school teaches Slavery was a good thing for everyone and women belong in the kitchen and rape victims are more responsible than their rapists… that’s your country. Now I’m sure that to at least someone out there one of those extremes sounds good, though those are hyperbole- exaggeration of a point. The point being
Nationalism is the death of discourse. Like so many other concepts- monarchy, despotism, totalitarianism, etc etc. it had appealing qualities and isn’t all bad in theory. But freedom is meaningless. You must know that. It’s a word. Understand this- let’s say every day you wake up 5am, work out, go to your job, come home, watch the news for a bit, eat the same food- let’s say spaghetti, go to sleep, repeat. Weekends you tend your lawn and maybe go to the lake.
You don’t actually need to care if they make eating lasagna illegal because you never eat lasagna. You don’t care if they make a law that you must be awake by 6 or work out every morning because you already do.
It doesn’t impact you. So for those people who naturally walk that line- those narrow restrictions mean nothing.
If you don’t use FaceTime, why do you care if a phone had face time? If you don’t tow a trailer, why do you care if your car or truck had a hitch? If you never run the AC, why do you care of your home has AC? If you move somewhere that doesn’t allow roller coasters in the backyard- most of so not have and wouldn’t have a roller coaster in our backyards if for nothing asides practical reasons like not being able to afford it. So what do you care?
Any given person feels “free” as long as they Can more or less do what they want. People that don’t drink alcohol won’t feel restricted in countries where drinking is illegal. People who aren’t gay aren’t directly restricted by laws that make homosexual acts or relationships illegal. Lots of women prefer to dress “modestly” and are not generally restricted by laws that ban women from wearing more revealing clothing. If you can go about your life and not notice the restrictions- you will feel free in the sense of government. People who respect their officials and wouldn’t mock them don’t generally have to worry about laws making it illegal to mock their leaders because they already wouldn’t. In principle anyway. Because of course these restrictions can be used as tools of selective justice against individuals or groups those in power take issue with. And sometimes “misunderstandings” or odd things happen.
But most people who feel “free” live under numerous restrictions that they just don’t generally notice or care about. In most of the world you can’t walk down the street naked but in most of the world most people and most cultures are already generally disinterested from wanting to do that.
So a singular nation of singular values can be great- if everyone in that nation shared those values and accepts them… but seldom is that the case- and since in nationalism, political authority comes solely from the state, there isn’t another path.
It’s about nuance- but at a basic level- it becomes a question of wether you believe the nation exists for the people or the people exist for the nation. If the nation exists for the people then the people are more important than the nation, and a system which places the nation at the height of importance is flawed.
Where nationalism is problematic by nature is in the concept of national identity. Nationalism pushes a singular national identity, this doesn’t have to be but often is an ethnic identity- but can be a civic identity as well.
This singular identity is counter to the ideals of individuality and freedom.
While those who do not see a lack of individualism as an issue may not consider this a problem- it is an issue for most people regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum. Chiefly that nationalism is often used with a right wing connotation but doesn’t have to be. A “singular National identity” can be…
That’s the point- in a nationalist society you don’t get to disagree. You don’t get to diverge from the national identity. If the dominant power decides you are a nation with drag queens in every class and abortions are tax funded and vans drive around with music like ice cream trucks doing them 24/7 on demand- that’s your nation. If every school teaches Slavery was a good thing for everyone and women belong in the kitchen and rape victims are more responsible than their rapists… that’s your country. Now I’m sure that to at least someone out there one of those extremes sounds good, though those are hyperbole- exaggeration of a point. The point being
You don’t actually need to care if they make eating lasagna illegal because you never eat lasagna. You don’t care if they make a law that you must be awake by 6 or work out every morning because you already do.
It doesn’t impact you. So for those people who naturally walk that line- those narrow restrictions mean nothing.
It’s about nuance- but at a basic level- it becomes a question of wether you believe the nation exists for the people or the people exist for the nation. If the nation exists for the people then the people are more important than the nation, and a system which places the nation at the height of importance is flawed.