The Influence Of Nationalism On Western Civilizations

Nationalism is an ideology that supports one’s own nation and interests. This kind of ideology can be toxic in the sense that the interests and strength of one’s own nation are prioritized above all else. This usually excludes the wellbeing of those not considered citizens who live outside the nation. This is why nationalism directly influences imperialism. Those with nationalistic views usually support policies and actions that enhance the nation’s economic and miliatry forces, such as imperialistic power over foreign nations/peoples/lands. Nationalism is primarily a phenomenon of the nineteenth and twentieth century. However, throughout the 19th and 20th century, nationalism progressed from playing a key role in unification struggles and New Imperialism to influencing World War I due to the decline of dynastic allegiance, influence of imperialism, the need for national identity, and the formation of a sense of superiority.

One of the political developments that arose from the French Revolution were the ideas of popular sovereignty and national self-determination. The French had spread these ideals and many countries, like Italy, were left to struggle with how to implement the beginning seeds of nationalism or how to unify all their lands when each wanted to determine their own future. In Joesph Mazzini’s On the Duties of Man published in the 19th century, we can see the struggle for Risorgimento — movement for Italian political unity. Mazzini tries his best to persuade the Italian masses to become united first by stating that “Evil governments have disfigured the divine design”. By this he means monarchs with their conquests, greed, and jealousy have made it so not a “. . . Single country whose present boundaries correspond to that design”. But the divine design will become realized because people “. . . All speaking the same language, gifted with the same tendencies, and educated by the same historical tradition” will rise together from the “. . . Ruins of of the countries of kings and privileged castes” because their country is a mission from God and they no longer need to rely on monarchs.

Mazzini calls attention to a common element of diverse local cultures to make Italians see themselves as part of one national culture. All Italians “. . . Labour towards a common aim”. Mazzini emphasizes that there must be a common Principle. Without a common Principle “. . . Recognized, accepted, and developed by all, there is no true nation”. Without this unity, a country could lose itself to outside influences and major changes. Mazzini also stresses the importance of education, labor, and franchise. These are the three main pillars of a nation. His vision of an ideal country is one united by language, history, and culture which is why education and a common Principle is important. He also believes a country is a “. . . Common workshop” which is why franchise is important because the products of a country benefit not only the inhabitants of the country but rather the “. . . Whole world”. Most importantly, Mazzini propagated the sense of sacrifice for the cause of the motherland; “So long as you are ready to die for Humanity, the life of your country will be immortal”. This illustrates Mazzini’s idea of man’s duties being more selfless and more concerned with unity and pride which results in security, allowing your country to thrive and having the possibility of it lasting forever.

While Mazzini emphasized pride, unity, and duties for the good of society for Italy, other philosophers were also advocating for nationalism in other parts of Europe but in a much more radical perspective. With Huston Stewart Chamberlain, a Germanophile political philosopher, we start to see the change in nationalism from wanting a unified country to believing your country is superior, specifically Germany. Chamberlain in The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century advocates for racial and cultural superiority of the Teutons. The Teutonic culture is the result of “. . . Toil and pain and faith” and that “Wherever the rader casts his eyes, he will find examples to prove the fact that the present civilization and culture of Europe are specifically teutonic, fundamentally distinct from all the un-Aryan ones”. Chamberlain is both invoking pride into the ancestry of Germans and mocking all other civilizations as he claims Indian civilization, considered uncivilized and savage, are based on “halfbreed ideals”.

Chamberlain like Mazzini highlights the concept of sacrifice. The most sacred duty of the Teuton is “. . . To serve the Teutonic cause”. That entails any deeds in all spheres that advance Teutonism or support its supremacy. Chamberlain ties sacrifice with pride and ancestry by stating how the ancient forbears of Germany had an incredibly developed sense of duty “. . . For the worst cause, as for the best, every one yields up his life unquestioningly”. In Chamberlain’s eyes, Germany is far superior to every other race and culture because of its history and connections to ancient Greece and Rome.

Chamberlain sees nationalism as the propelling force of human culture. To him racial struggle is the reason behind why some races like the Teutons have succeeded and have a right to be proud of whom they are. This is quite different from Mazzini’s need for nationalism which derives from a divine design from God. Chamberlain also like Mazzini invoked the need to be proud of your country, its accomplishments, and its history but unlike Mazzini, he disagreed on the concept of humanity. Mazzini wanted men to do their duties for the betterment of both their country and the world, not for personal gain. Chamberlain argues that there is no such thing as humanity so Teutons can only be responsible for doing their “. . . Very best within the limits of the Teutons power of achievement. ” This includes “. . . Mercilessly overthrowing and excluding those who are alien to us” and “. . . Extending our empire farther and farther over the surface of the globe and over the powers of nature”. This is where nationalism is directly influencing imperialism because since Chamberlain believes because Germany is the best they have to expand; it’s their right as the best race/culture on earth.

The influence of imperialism continued to affect nationalism which is evident in the age of New Imperialism (late 19th and early 20th centuries). New Imperialism consisted of a feeling of manifest destiny, economic enterprise, and selfish desire to promote the superior version of civilization to the uncivilized. Arminius Vambery, a Hungarian traveller, describes in the Western Influence in the East what was known as the white man’s burden — the duty of white colonizers to civilize and care for indigenous people. Before white men implemented a well-organised railway system and steam-horse ploughs in Asia, travelers were always in “. . . Constant danger” and in “. . . struggle with the elements”. Travelers are no longer exposed to the “. . . Terrors, the sufferings, and the privations” of before. Where there once was “. . . Victims to[of] barbarism” are now privileged to feel the “. . . Supreme power of the Western world”.

Vambery reiterates the perspective that without the help of European powers, Asia would never “. . . Rise above its low level”. He believes the European powers did Asia a favor by enforcing reforms in their culture and liberty. They gave Asia modern views of life so that it could be better and know “. . . True happiness” because it was their duty as civilizations that were already so vastly superior in terms of technology and culture.

In Vembery’s piece, we see a new type of nationalism. Like nationalism with the unification struggles and nation building, there is still the pride of the nation, its culture, and its accomplishments. But now there is a need to prove it to every other country. In order to prove each world power was the best, every country has to be the richest, have a lot of resources, and have colonies, as these were all signs of power. This is why many European nations invested in colonies and expansion so they could have sources of raw materials, new markets, and potential outlets for population. For some it was to prove their nationalism or gain a place as a world power. But for other nations such as Germany it was about proving their status.

By the 20th century, many European nations were convinced of the cultural, economic, and military supremacy, particularly the great powers (Great Britain, France, and Germany). But nationalism did not just affect the major countries but also the small portions of populations who demanded independence, such as the Balkans who sought autonomy from Austria-Hungary empire. This lead to the assisantion of Franz Ferdinand and the outbreak of World War I. Most of the major nations were unconcerned and dismissive of war because nationalistic and militaristic rhetoric had convinced Europeans that if war erupted, their nation would emerge victourious and the war would be over very quickly. So while World War I began with a very patriotic sense of nationalism, it ended on a very different note.

A letter from V. Bourtzeff encompasses the desire for war and sense of patriotic nationalism. He describes the war as a “. . . Necessity”. It was a war to protect “. . . Justice and civilization”. World War I was seen as a national necessity to uphold the sanctity of treaties and international morality. Nobody could imagine that this war would last for so long or be so bloody, not even Bourtzeff as he states that “There can be no doubt that victory, and decisive victory at that (personally I await this in the immediate future), will be on the side of the allied nations”. He like most others believed that their country’s side would victorious within a matter of weeks or months. This war will bring peace because the “. . . German peril” will be crushed so that it can never again become “. . . A danger to the peace of the world again”.

The reality of war was much different than it had been depicted. It was not ennobling, glorious, or splendid. It was bloody, illogical, and should never be repeated. In Counter Attack, we see the feeling of senselessness of the war. The soldier is “. . . Sick for escape” from the “. . . Butchered, frantic gestures of the dead”. The officer is incompetent as he is “. . . Gasping and bawling” orders, bullets fly everywhere, and it amounts to nothing as the counter attack failed and the soilder bleeds to death. The soldier's life meant nothing in a war that meant nothing. Those who survived through the war were bitter, rebellious, and alienated. They had lost faith in religion, politics, and even their nation.

Nationalism throughout the years played a key role in building nations, shaping world powers, and starting wars. It started off as an idea of people rallying behind their nation, its history, and its accomplishment to create a sense of unity. But overtime, it came to represent the aggressive need to prove one’s nation and its culture as better than all the rest. Imperialism influenced the need for expansion and power greatly as it motivated the major powers to claim colonies and build up their military. This led to a series of alliances as each nation represented potential threats and eventually to serious consequences like World War I. There is no doubt that nationalism was a powerful political force in the 19th and 20th century Europe. It was a transformative and revolutionary ideology born in the French Revolution, intrinsically linked to the rapid modernization of the continent, that was embraced by many millions of people. The spread of nationalism altered the political, social, and cultural landscape of Europe, which is why we recognize nationalism as a great and consequential historical agent.