Why is the idea of a national identity so important when it can't exist?

Question

Some good answers indeed. =) See what you mean TJB but that's only on the surface, all those events happened because of personal agendas of powerful people in reality, not the existence of National identity. There is just as much division and prejudice within any so called nation, which could potentially be fanned to violence by propaganda if we didn't make people who lived overseas targets.

I do agree with the posters who've said that the importance of national identity to people on the street is a very new phenomenon.

Answer 1

Its important because it is what makes each country individual.  If we lose our identity then we lose everything within it; religion, culture etc.  It is very important that we don't allow ours to freefall any longer.

Answer 2

Oh, it does exist.

But it is not really nationwide.

It's only regional. Sly politicians form it into nationwide.

But this is not how it was meant by the Lord.

Answer 3

Does shared belief exist? If you do not think so, send me all your paper money and start driving on the left hand side of the road.

Answer 4

I take it you are a Brit then?

Us Brits are in a great deal of denial about who we are, the government chunters on about national identity and how we should embrace it, but it is not something to be proud of.

We have the biggest gap between rich and poor in the developed world, the worst drug habits, the biggest booze problem, the most out of control youth, the 2nd biggest birthrate out of wedlock after the US and have the most violent crimes against the person per head of population in the developed world. We are a bunch of a******s.

This is our national identity, it exists and nobody will accept it. Sad, it will only get worse.

Answer 5

The national identity refers both to the distinguishing features of the group, and to the individual's sense of belonging to it. A very wide range of criteria is used, with very different applications. Small differences in pronunciation may be enough to categorize someone as a member of another nation. On the other hand, two people may be separated by difference in personalities, belief systems, geographical locations, time and even spoken language; yet regard themselves, and be seen by others, as members of the same nation.

The first requirement for the definition is that the characteristics should be shared - a group of people with nothing in common cannot be a nation. Because they are shared, the national population also has a degree of uniformity and homogeneity. And finally, at least some of the characteristics must be exclusive - to distinguish the nation from neighbouring nations. All of the characteristics can be disputed, and opposition to secessionist nationalism often includes the denial that a separate nation exists.

Common descent

The etymology of the word nation implies ancestry and descent. Almost all nationalist movements make some claim to shared origins and descent, and it is a component of the national identity in most nations. The fact that the ancestry is shared among the members of the nation unites them, and sets them apart from other nations, which do not share that ancestry.

The question is: descent from whom? Often, the answer is simply: from previous generations of the same nation. More specifically:

    * the nation may be defined as the descendants of the past inhabitants of the national homeland

    * the nation may be defined as the descendants of past speakers of the national language, or past groups which shared the national culture.

Usually, these factors are assumed to coincide. The well-defined Icelandic nation is assumed to consist of the descendants of the island of Iceland in, say, 1850. Those people also spoke the Icelandic language, were known as Icelanders at that time, and had a recognised culture of their own. However, the present population of Iceland cannot coincide exactly with their descendants: that would imply complete endogamy, meaning that no Icelander since 1850 ever had children by a non-Icelander. Most European nations experienced border changes and, migration over the last few centuries, and intermarried with other national groups. Statistically, their current national population can not coincide exactly with the descendants of the nation in 1700 or 1500, even if was then known by the same name. The shared ancestry is more of a national myth than a genetic reality - but still sufficient for a national identity.

Common language

A shared language is often used as a defining feature of a nation (that is, apart from its value in facilitating communication among the members). In some cases the language is exclusive to the nation, and may be central to the national identity. The Basque language is a unique language isolate, and prominent in the self-definition of the Basque people, and in Basque nationalism, although not all Basques speak it. In other cases, the national language is also spoken by other nations (shared among the nation, but not exclusive to the nation). Some nations, such as the Swiss nation, self-identity as multilingual. Papua New Guinea promotes a 'Papuan' national identity, despite having around 800 distinct languages. No nation is defined solely by language: that would effectively create an open membership (for anyone who learnt the language), although the case of Catalan linguistic nationalism comes quite close to this. India also emphasizes a 'national' identity, despite having more than 20 official languages in its government, and hundreds more languages/dialects spoken throughout the nation.

Common culture

Most nations are partly defined by a shared culture. Unlike a language, a national culture is usually unique to the nation, although it may include many elements shared with other nations. Additionally, the national culture is assumed to be shared with previous generations, and includes a cultural heritage from these generations, as if it were an inheritance. As with the common ancestry, this identification of past culture with present culture may be largely symbolic. The archaeological site of Stonehenge is owned and managed by English Heritage, although no 'English' people or state existed when it was constructed, 4 000 to 5 000 years ago. Other nations have similarly appropriated ancient archaeological sites, literature, art, and even entire civilisations as 'national heritage'.

Common religion

Religion is sometimes used as a defining factor for a nation, although some nationalist movements de-emphasize it as a divisive factor. Again it is the fact that the religion is shared, that makes it national. It may not be exclusive: several nations define themselves partly as Catholic although the religion itself is universalist. Irish nationalism traditionally sees Catholicism as an Irish national characteristic, in contrast to the largely Protestant British colonial power that usually recognized the Protestant minority in Ireland as Irish too. Some religions are specific to one ethnic group, notably Judaism. Nevertheless, the Zionist movement generally avoided a religious definition of the 'Jewish people', preferring an ethnic and cultural definition. Since Judaism is a religion, people can become a Jew by religious conversion, which in turn can facilitate their obtaining Israeli citizenship. Jews in Israel who convert to other religions do not thereby lose Israeli citizenship, although their national identity might then be questioned by others.

Voluntary definitions (will)

Some ideas of a nation emphasise not shared characteristics, but rather on the shared choice for membership. In practice, this has always been applied to a group of people, who are also a nation by other definitions. The most famous voluntarist definition is that of Ernest Renan. In a lecture in 1882, Qu'est-ce qu'une nation? he rhetorically asked "What is a Nation?", and answered that it is a 'daily plebiscite'. Renan meant, that the members of the nation, by their daily participation in the life of the nation, show their consent to its existence, and to their own continued membership. Renan spoke in the context of the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine by the German Empire. At the time, the region was ethnically more German than French, and the Alsatian language is a west German language: Renan opposed such 'objective' criteria for a nation. Like Renan, most voluntarist definitions appeal to consent for existing nations, rather than promote explicit decisions to found new ones. Renan saw the nation as a group "having done great things together and wishing to do more" ("avoir fait de grandes choses ensemble, vouloir en faire encore").

Answer 6

Credence.

Answer 7

National Identity certainly exists.  Look at the causes of World War 2, the Israel-Palestine crisis, the fight over Kashmir, Vietnam, Korea, Taiwan, and post 9-11 America.  There is no doubt that there is National Identity, just usually takes killing lots of people to make it surface.

Answer 8

Nationality comes into effect only when the group involved has resources to protect like in US. Who ever heard of national pride in Sudan or Afghanistan (except from politicians).

There is nothing wrong with national pride, cause if you don't protect it someone will usurp it (British empire).

Answer 9

Good question.

Answer 10

a persons identity is like time....time does not exist but we still use it every day, and if it were lost, you would panic...same goes for identity, if we lost it, who would we be? we would become a 'noone', a faceless person who is alone in the world.

whats even worse is that our identity is who we are...and if we lost it...who would we be?

Answer 11

You might want to check out Benedict  Anderson's writing on nationalism (Imagined Communities, in particular).  He offers a pretty popular (although not unchallenged, of course) version of how the modern nation state historically emerged and what processes allow all of these people who have never met each other within the nation state to feel connected/bonded to other people in the nation.  

This question of how this very invented, "unreal" idea of nationality became so important and real is the main thing he grapples with in the book.  

Here's a link to an excerpt of the way he defines nationalism/nations:

http://www.nationalismproject.org/what/a...