The Development of the Concept of Nationalism in 19-20th Century

Modern nationalist thought arose from the ideas of the French Revolution. The first nationalist movements in European history are found in Germany under the Napoleonic invasion. In the same years, a strong nationalist movement emerged in Poland under Russian occupation. Greece revolting against the Ottoman Empire, Hungarians revolting against the Austrian Empire, and later the Czechs and Serbs carried the nationalist movement to Central Europe. The establishment of Italian unity was perceived as one of the greatest victories of revolutionary nationalism. The Pan-Slavism movement, which was born in Russia, is one of the biggest examples of the spread of nationalism. The unifying movements born in France spread all over the world.

The emergence of nationalism on the stage of history as an effective ideology is simultaneous with the process of becoming a nation-state in Western societies. However, with its ability to adapt itself to the ages, nationalism has survived in the “post-modern” age. In the structural transformation processes of capitalism, nationalism was shaped and transformed by being articulated with different and even contradictory ideologies, but still continued to exist. At the root of nationalism lies the idea of ​​popular sovereignty. Towards the end of the Middle Ages, an awakening began with the breaking of closed and introverted economic life due to geographical discoveries, the spread of money economy in parallel with the development of capitalism, the gradual liberation of the mind, and the secularization of ideas about the nature of the universe and society; bourgeois class was formed and this awakening caused the change of traditional economic relations and life. As a result of these developments, the Age of Enlightenment began in the 17th century and the divine sovereignty of the rulers began to be discussed.

One of the most important factors leading to nationalism is the need to ascribe to the people the sense of political belonging, which was previously directed to the ruler, independently of the ruler. Political belonging and obedience should be based on the common will of the people. The difficulty of defining the concept of people has led nationalist thinkers to attribute emotional meanings to the concepts. For example, are Sicilians or Venetians a separate nation or part of the Italian nation? Is there a nation of Austria? In societies speaking different dialects, great importance was attached to creating a common national language. From this point of view, it is possible to examine nationalism from three points: unifying nationalism, divisive nationalism and populist nationalism. Nationalism, which stood at a unifying point in the formation of nation states, also became a fault line in the formation of German and Italian nation states. It is possible to see the unifying effect of nationalism on the basis of nation in the new statelets born in the Middle East and Africa in the 20th century. Heywood's claim that "at various times nationalism has been progressive, reactionary, democratic and authoritarian, liberating and oppressive, leftist and rightist" emphasizes the changeable nature of nationalism. In this context, it can be said that nationalism has diversified with different political approaches and attitudes, rather than a single nationalist foresight. In the developing world, a lifestyle based on rights such as equality and freedom, fueled by liberal values, is getting stronger with intense ideological support. Starting from the second half of the 18th century, including the 19th and 20th centuries, the events in the process were greatly influenced by the liberalism movement. When the modern nationalism process, which started with the French Revolution, spread all over Europe due to Napoleon's expansionist policy, the feudal structure began to be abandoned after the 48 Revolutions. A unifying nationalist movement emerged in Italy and Germany. The uprisings that emerged as a result of this movement resulted in 1871 Italian unity and German unity. Speaking of a unifying nationalism, the importance of Johann Gottlieb Fichte for Germany should be mentioned. Fichte saw nationalism as a unifying force and talked about the importance of establishing a language union in Germany. According to him, with the help of language, the German nation will establish the most perfect state. He believes that the duty of the Germans is to gather all Germans under one state. After the wars between France and Prussia, he acts with a patriotic perspective and sees absolute freedom in the union of the individual with the whole, that is, the state. However, he also has an anti-Semitic approach, accusing the Jewish nation, which was not included in Christian Europe, of assimilating the German race and spoiling its character. Fichte argues that the wisest and most useful person is the one who loves his country and would give up everything for his country. He also said that voicing the love of the country loudly and continuously will increase and strengthen patriotism. In short, “Germany is eternal!” The slogan should strongly resonate throughout the state so that this idea is engraved in the minds of citizens and citizens who can sacrifice everything for their homeland. In addition to the ongoing radical ideas in Germany, there are also thinkers who associate concepts such as democracy and republic with nationalism: Bolivar. Arguing that the road to individual freedom is through democracy, he proposed the establishment of a central republican administration. He argues that the relationship between the individual and society will reach its climax with the principles of popular sovereignty and equality. He says that it is possible and necessary to prevent despotism and oppression with a proper control mechanism in an order where the electorate is at the forefront and has a say in the state administration, such as the supremacy of the constitution and the continuity of justice. He brought a different perspective to slavery and strongly supported its abolition, saying that the occupiers gained the title of occupier with their own hands. He said that the federal system is not a systematic and strong administration for both Europeans and natives, and that such an oppressive approach to the natives is not correct. According to Bolivar, a republic with adequate borders has no reason to expand its borders further, thus preventing injustice and instability; whereas an empire colonizes the lands it conquers, leading to the corruption of justice, its omnipotence and despotism. In short, a state that is too enlarged in itself or because of its dependencies is doomed to collapse. We mentioned that the unifying feature of the concept of nationalism played a major role in the unification of Germany and Italy. Mazzini is one of the activists who pioneered Italy in this regard and supports the unification of Italy as a republic. Instead of the declining Carbonari movement, he led the democracy-oriented "Young Italy" movement, whose main aim was to establish a unified Italian republic. The movement he started has a moral basis of continuous progress, duty, and sacrifice, requiring cooperation between classes. Mazzini argued that the king or the Pope could not contribute to the unification of Italy, that this would only be possible if people united regardless of class and worked for Italy with all their might, and for this reason, Italy should be united under democratic conditions and with the republic. He severely criticized the decisions of the Congress of Vienna and said that working together is the only solution not only for Italy but for the whole of Europe. Public law should be improved and people should intervene more in state affairs; a common culture should be created, a common language should be spoken, and ideas should be expressed in an environment without barriers. Mazzini said that the pursuit of individual rights is insufficient in terms of social benefit, because the pursuit of individual rights will lead to greed and conflict, and that individual rights should come after patriotic duties.

Radical ideas such as antisemitism that came with nationalism naturally led to opposition to it. Herzl is one of the best examples of this. For Herzl, it is ridiculous to deny the existence of a Jewish nation. Modern states advocate universal and equal rights for all, but antisemitism continues to exist in society like a disease. Since antisemitism has not been eradicated and assimilation has not worked, the only alternative is the establishment of a Jewish state. He argued that where Jews live in noticeable numbers, they are not equal to other people and they are persecuted, and that even nations that he sees as weaker than Jews can establish a state, so all kinds of persecution and assimilation of the Jews cannot cause any deterioration in the ties of the Jews, and European states in order to establish a state for the Jews. invites them to come together to ensure this. He argued that Jews were hardworking, that their talents in trade should be recognized, and that with new markets, Jews could be beneficial not only for themselves but also for the whole world.

On the other hand, nationalism spread to other parts of the world and spread to India under British influence in Asia. The Indian National Congress, which was established in 1885, took the leadership of the independence movement, especially after 1920 under the leadership of Gandhi, getting rid of the influence of the East India Company, which was established as a result of British imperialism. British imports in India were boycotted and the movement gained momentum after the thinkers of the period said that the British mandate could not be permanent because it was unacceptable for a state to be ruled by another state. The British made India a mandate and exploited India on the idea that the Indians willingly accepted the existence of the British and the British helped the Indians, resulting in the liberal views of the British government spreading to India and the concept of nationalism finding strength. The thinkers of the period strongly opposed the idea of ​​mandate, saying that the key to the house they lived in was the British.

Even today, there are debates about income inequality and the differences between rich and poor in the USA. While this may seem like the subject of modern America, it is a debate the country had more than a century ago. After being nominated as one of the 1912 presidential campaign candidates of the Republican Party, Theodore Roosevelt declared his candidacy. Although Roosevelt retained his political position well for two terms as president (1901-1909), Roosevelt's 1912 campaign embraced a new social agenda known as New Nationalism. Roosevelt's platform for New Nationalism emerged in his self-sacrificing speech at the John Brown Memorial Park in August 1910, two years before his presidential campaign. During his two terms as president, Theodore Roosevelt defined himself as a staunch supporter of capitalism in the development of the American Empire, and so it came as a surprise to America that he embraced New Nationalism. Disconnecting himself from conservatives, Roosevelt adopted the idea of ​​New Nationalism around a social equality and fair wage-working balance. He argues that the aim of the government is the welfare and happiness of the society. According to Roosevelt, the concentration of all income in a few specific individuals is a great threat to American unity and well-being. He changed his policy by saying that the essence of struggle is to equalize opportunity, to destroy privilege, and to give the life and citizenship of each individual the highest possible value to both himself and society. Roosevelt argues that achieving equality will provide citizens with fair opportunities to reveal their true identity and talent, that is, if everyone acts according to their own special talents and wishes, one's own potential will be maximized, so that the person whose potential is maximized will also provide maximum assistance to his state. He says that since the incorporation of services will create corruption, it is necessary to prevent monopolization.

The understanding of nation nationalism, which can be traced back to the French Revolution, continued to be re-staged with a change along with the modernization process and globalization, and emerged as a phenomenon that the masses ran after. Nationalism, which diversified in liberal-conservative, expansionist and anti-colonial forms, when evaluated as an ideology, showed its effectiveness level again in the context of mass psychology with the developments in the 21st century. From an expansionist understanding it showed in the period between the two world wars, nationalism took on a structure that continues to experience colonial processes in different ways. Cultural, political and ethnic values ​​that contribute to the formation of nationalism continue to operate differently from territorial occupation with a colonial perspective. Nationalist characters were forced to choose between conflict and reconciliation, with both the transfer of democratic values ​​and the use of power in every field within the idea of ​​a more modern world. Compromise forced the masses to make concessions on many values; The state of conflict has brought chaos and violence, as in the Middle East geography. These facts somewhat confirm the assertion of expansionist nationalism that "Some societies are fit to govern and some to be governed". The nation, which the nationalist ideology tried to create, often developed in processes resembling a birth pain and subsequently either survived, was born disabled or never lived. The experiences of the masses will instill nationalist feelings and nationalist ideologies in them. Sometimes acts and discourses instilling nationalism are provided by external forces, which will also be an important reason for internal contradictions. It cannot be said that an ethnically homogeneous society existed in the past. The phenomenon of immigration and immigrants has a role in the failure of this homogeneous structure, and the existence of different ethnic elements within the borders of the states in the construction of nation-states is an important reason why the same homogeneous structure cannot be achieved. From this point of view, it can be said that almost all states are intertwined with a multinational structure. However, while separatist nationalist movements symbolize disintegration and division for a nation-state, they may also herald a new formation on the other hand. In other words, each separatist nationalist movement can also trigger the beginning of the movement for the existence of a different nation. Especially the 19th century nationalist movements and the new states that emerged from the collapsed empires in the 20th century are examples of this. It will be possible to see nationalist movements again in every situation where nationalist ideology unites with the masses. At this point, the following sentences of Çalık (2016:10) on nationalism are meaningful: “A rather strange organic entity whose head is buried in the past, whose arms and legs can move in the present, whose dead and living can sometimes mix or replace each other... What is certain is that none of these identity claims, whose existence is indisputable today, are the work of today”. In fact, this depiction of nationalist identity seems to offer a brief summary of the past and future of nationalism.

CEREN AKTAŞ