Understanding Nationalism: From an Economical, Political, and Psychological Perspective

Nationalism is unquestionably one of the most important concepts of this century. It has proven to be more powerful than any other creed. Great empires have broken down under its assault; wars and revolutions have been started in the name of nationality that has changed the face of the world (Doob, 1; Hertz, 1).
Immense controversy surrounds the political character of nationalism. On one hand, nationalism can appear to be a progressive and liberating force, offering the prospect of national unity or independence. On the other, it can be an irrational and reactionary creed that allows political leaders to conduct policies of military expansion and war in the name of the nation (Heywood, 2007).
German dictator Adolf Hitler is a nationalist, in terms of nation as Aryans. Mongol emperor Genghis Khan used nationalism to mobilize the entire Mongol empire as a ravaging war machine. These are examples of nationalism used to create a powerful conquering army.
But only a few people would declare nationalism as a concept to be killed (Doob, 1). The concept has to be understood in its fundamental senses: psychological, economical, and political. It cannot be properly understood from a single point of view (Carr et al, 1).
Nationalists see the economy as a way to increase the power and prestige of a nation (Hertz, 1944). This paper there does not need to distinguish the two, but this is to be understood if we are to separate patriotism from nationalism. Patriots do not see the national economy as a means to articulate political demands (Heywood, 2007). This regard of the nation also explains the controversy hovering nationalism.
Economic nationalism is conventionally understood to be guided by doctrines such as national self-determination, protectionism, and import substitutions. Generally defined, nationalism is a conscious desire to forward the strength, liberty, or prosperity of a nation by individuals or groups who recognize that they are members of that nation (Carr et al, xviii). Nationalism in economics, however, is taken to a higher perspective. The narrowest construction of economic nationalism is that it refers to a set of policies that give priority to domestic capitalists over foreign investors (Glassman, 41). It promotes economic isolation where everything is done to ensure that a nation is independent of another nation’s economy such as tariffs, import-export regulation, and any other foreign exploitation of local resources. These are done, purportedly, to advance the prosperity of the nation.
It is a widely debatable economic strategy where both sides, economic liberalism and economic protectionism, claim to be gaining strength. Renowned economist and Nobel Peace Prize Winner Paul Krugman commented on economic nationalism: “If there were an Economist’s Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations 'I believe in the Principle of Comparative Advantage' and 'I believe in Free Trade'." However, Felipe C. Balingit suggests a different stand: “Love of simple life is love of country. Simple living is simple economy, and simple economy is tantamount to economic protectionism (160).” President Manuel L. Quezon also understood serving the country toward a progressive economy in a rather unlikely sense: “Ang Amerika ang siyang dapat kilalaning tunay na kaibigan ng Bayang Filipino at ang pulitikang dapat nating pairalin ay ang huwag makipag-alit sa bayang Amerikano (The Filipino Nation should recognize America as its true friend and the policies we must implement should not anger the American Nation) (160).”
The economic nationalism debate is fundamentally important for it continues to distort the characteristics of nationalism. We could see this debate as a struggle to nail nationalism in proper usage. A free-trade economist could claim that by improving foreign affairs, precisely, in export-import relationship, he is forwarding the prosperity of his nation out of dedication to the same nation. But in the same way, an economist of a closed country like North Korea may claim that a true nationalist would keep its economy to itself. Nevertheless, history has shown clearly who won. To use the words of Gerardo P. Sicat, economics professor emeritus of the University of the Philippines—the outcome of that debate had been settled long before it was fought in words.
Politically, nationalism appears as it is, a uniting factor (Abueva, 1967), but like what was first explained, could cause reactionary forces. Its roots can be traced back to the rise of romanticism. Romanticists long for freedom of fancy, emotions, and passions. They first devoted romanticism to the reform of poetry but then also directed it against the conventions of society, and lastly extended it to politics. Romanticism that begun as a revolutionary creed is now a conserving and even a reactionary force (Hertz, 353).
As Plato forewarned, passions should be subjected to reason. But romanticism blurred the relationship. A deep love for a nation is often unceremoniously rationalized. A mere emotional outcry is justified by a disillusionment of reason (Hertz, 354). Any kind of nationalism comprise elements of rationality and emotion, popular nationalism tends to be comprised of a greater component of emotion (Chan and Bridges, 129).
This conflict also arises because of the debate to clearly define nationalism’s role in politics. An imperialist nation may claim to be acting out of nationalism; previous examples had been made. A thoroughly reserved nation could also claim nationalism in the same way. In some extent, a goal of nationalism, specifically, that of the discovery and assertion of a nation’s cultural identity in a competitive world (Abueva, 50) may have contributed. Perhaps, the best way to politically understand nationalism is by looking at its action within the country.
Nationalism always foremost seeks to establish among the citizens a full realization of their political independence. This is fostered by giving them greater participation in their national and local governments as voters and as beneficiaries of the government (Abueva, 50-57). These concrete layouts stem fundamentally from a scenario where nationalism is best pursued.
Jose Ma. Sison identifies the conditions for the pursuit of nationalism: “nationalism is best pursued where the nationalist enjoys civil liberties to the fullest extent.” Sison defines civil liberties, as basically, the rights of expression and liberty (50).
Where the citizens have these civil liberties they could make demands. Where there are more or less uniform demands, which people in a society share; which arises from their nationalism; for which justifications exist and can be readily expressed; which incline them to make personal sacrifices in behalf of their government’s aims; and which may or may not lead to appropriate action (Doob, 6).
Sison suggested that any arising action out of such demands could lead to a nationalist movement. The civil liberties of a citizen of a nation are of such grave condition for nationalism, which is why these basic rights are among the fundamentals of a state, especially democratic ones, where accountability, especially in policy-making is held in high esteem. The impact of nationalism on public policy remains considerable despite any corruption and wastefulness that could attend policy implementation (Abueva, 50-57). That is how pervasive the spirit of nationalism is, proving its indispensability when it comes to running a nation.
The conflicts that arise out of political nationalism are, at best, yet again, a mere false allusion to nationalism. Nationalism is not aggression—nationalism is self-respect, and those who best respected themselves were the very best people to respect others (Hertz, 2).
When talking about perceptions and large scale devotion to the country, psychology cannot be left out of the picture. Nationalism and how it arises is of particular interest to psychologists. They have provided some explanations on how a sense of nationalism is established. Leonard W. Doob, in his book, Patriotism and Nationalism: Their Psychological Foundations, provided a concise track of nationalism starting from its “ingredients” to its “facilitation” and possible “internationalism.”
As far as a state aspiring to establish nationalism may be concerned, psychology has provided for us a means of inculcating the doctrines of nationalism. It has done so by first exposing the roots of nationalism—it is deeply rooted in people (Doob, 28). As such, the means of establishing nationalism has to arise from the people, ideally, a certain individual who epitomizes self-sacrifice out of the love for country—a hero, in short.
But is nationalism, after all the discussion, a virtue worth pursuing? Like what was earlier stated, the battle has been decided long before it began. There just appeared to be a misuse of the loosely defined concept. Aggression and conservation has been associated with the ideal of nationalism that created a web of debates particularly in its political and economic aspect.
As a conclusion, I would quote from Reynaldo Silvestre: “Filipino nationalism has progressed […] wherein […] it need not have an enemy around. It is now, therefore, but the expression of national purposiveness dependent on national resources of men and material to carry us forward to our desired goal (57)”