“Does the principle of #self-determination give the doctrine of #nationalism its "dynamic" character” An Essay by, Renaldo C. McKenzie

Kedourie argues that the principal of self-determination gives the doctrine of nationalism its "dynamic" character. What does he mean by this? What consequences follow from his argument for our understanding of the doctrine of Nationalism and its validity?

It is difficult to prove everything as occurring or existing naturally, and to see things as they are.  Therefore, we are only left with our thinking says Descartes. Moreover, the thing that thinks is internal or is it?  Hence, this discovery is evidence that we exist but to do what.  Just as the awareness of existence is a dynamic and difficult negotiation of the self, so too is the desire to nationally self-determine.  Hence, nations are not some outer or otherworldly creations that are naturally inherent, but a creation of the self through reason.

    This idea was shaped in the enlightenment period.  The internal drive to become a MAN, to determine oneself and ones future from an immaterial and impractical institution.  This striving seems to put the individual at the center of the universe, not a monarch or a pope or God.  He must reason within himself/herself to find truth and value, and from that create a destiny/fate for self.  The Enlightenment challenged dictates and commands, edicts and a pre-ordained society.  Zwigli, Luther, and other reformers sought to facilitate individual thinking, free thinking, to look within oneself and not the pope and their injustices.  All believers were priests.  All peoples were rational human beings with a deep desire to bend his own will.  The world is a creation of the will and he bends it to his will. The free man bends the world to himself.  His will rule his fate.  There is no world outside of the will; this is arrived at through reason.  The Enlightenment is manifestly this propagation of the categorical thing, the catalyzing through inspiration, self-discovery and power to be what one is, a man just like the other.  The world is an expression of the man, shaping it to his will.  Man is free within himself when he obeys the laws within himself. 

However, where does this come from?  It is just within us, we are therefore not “tabula rasas.”  We are born imprinted with a natural disposition to discover an imprinted self. Then, our will must transcend our base instincts and drive, to some higher or greater good that joins us with other peoples to create nations.  Moreover, this nationalism is maintained through struggle.   This would mean that there is no end.  Still, a rational thinking person would give in to his desire to self-determine by willingly ascribing limits to himself for the general will or greater good.  However, he has to do so willingly for it to work.  Then we would need to find others of like mind to form a constituent to justify and satisfy a nation, for struggle must find rest somewhere.  Nations are birth out of this internal struggle. 

This is what Kedourie attempts to work out. He analyzed how many nations have created the foundation of their existence through moral justifications and an assumption that there are universal and mystical laws that constitute rights for those within societies.  Yet, it is Kedourie’s conclusion that the only laws that have been used in the creation of social orders are those of an internal nature, which, like the societies in existence today, are manmade.  Consequently man has no real rights except those which he allows himself to have through his own moral belief system.  Therefore, man utilizes his self-determination to ensure that these laws are supported throughout society and shared by the majority, causing the idea of nationalism to form its dynamic character.  

In his book, Nationalism, Kedourie focuses on self-determination relating it to nationalism by first exploring the belief in natural rights from a moral perspective (12).  According to Kedourie, the idea of natural rights had no foundation in logic because to have natural rights meant a “natural order to the universe” that had been proven non-existent by “Plato, Aristotle and the Biblical account of creation” (p. 12).  Nevertheless, man determined that in just societies natural rights included liberty and justice, which were the guidelines for the construction of entire social orders.  The fact remained, however, that liberty and justice were manmade factors that man believed to be essential within his world, leading to the creation of doctrine and an environment in which nationalism flourished.  Kedourie argued that “philosophers were attempting to prove laws of morality as though they were laws of physics”, structuring a moral society in a manner that suggested that morality came with an outline and instructions for success (14). 

    To counter the irrationality of this belief, Kedourie pursued the philosophy of Kant, presenting evidence that Kant insisted that there was only one morality that guided virtue and that was the morality that was internally known to each human being (15).  Kedourie asserted that in Kant’s view laws, rules and regulations truly had no meaning in society if man was incapable of hearing the voice of his own moral beliefs and following them (15).  It was through adhering to these internal moral values that man actually knew freedom, which could not be controlled by any universal mandate on morality.  Therefore, Kedourie echoed Kant’s words, “nothing…can possibly be conceived in the world, which can be called good without qualification, except Good Will” (15).  Kedourie discussed the fact that regardless of man’s plight in the world man had the potential to know real freedom if he was capable of understanding that he was morally correct and thereby virtuous (15).  For Kedourie, this comprehension of the work of Kant was the foundation of his belief that nationalism was dynamic because the vastness of man’s beliefs could not be categorized in one universal doctrine, though any social doctrine was the product of self-determination.  

    Kedourie stated:

The free man asserts himself against the world; by the strength of his soul he bends to his will, for conviction can move mountains; and his head is bloody but unbowed.  This characteristic euphory is the product of self-determination  (23).  

Kedourie continues by stating that it is these “habits and attitudes encouraged” within the manmade doctrine that make it “dynamic” (23).  Therefore, any doctrine that is invented by man is only as valid as man’s beliefs and moral character.  Moreover, the validity of such a doctrine is dependent on the person that absorbs its scope and function because one man’s moral beliefs may severely oppose the morality of another.  Using Kant’s ideas on morality and freedom leads to the conclusion that due to the inability of doctrine and national beliefs to encompass the moral attitudes of all people, it is only through the self-determination that is shared by the majority of people that doctrine is socially validated, though not always supported by the masses.  

The consequences suggested by Kedourie’s view of self-determination and the dynamics of nationalism are demonstrated through the existence of numerous countries, wars, military conflicts and socioeconomic divisions within the social order.  This is because those that lead nations are guided by their internal morals and values, as well as their own interpretations of national doctrines that they attempt to connect to their own belief system.  Once these leaders have reached their own conclusions about doctrine in this manner it is their self-determination to adhere to these beliefs that forces society to continue as the leaders desire.  Yet, because these ideas and morals are not shared by all tensions within and outside of the nation grow and those who do not support the moral foundation of the decisions are either cast aside as irrelevant or seen as combatants that threaten the social order.  

In the final analysis the dynamic character of nationalism comes from a principle that we are not stupid, ley men.  We must be free to think for ourselves a moral drive within us.  The old system does not promote this dynamism and radicalism. Such thinking questions the order of life…always.  Yet, is this not what makes for a perfect and well-lived society. One bourne out of the people.  And the Individual must be free to determine because it is a naturally rational thing.  Everything is.  To achieve the free will involves the subversion of the settled authority.  It is what caused revolutions, deep philosophical refection on life, a moral and rational drive to be, Gods.  Socrates says, “the unexamined life is not worth living”. Such is the dynamic nature of self-determinism. It is not arrived at easily.  It involves social and political strife and internal reflection and sacrifices.  Change is a process and the process of national self-determinism is transformative. Nevertheless, if it is dynamic it is always occurring.  It would therefore be infinitum absurdum, nonsense…there would always be tensions within and without nations.  Such is the evolutionary process of life.  The principle of self-determinism gives the doctrine of nationalism is dynamic character.  Its tension and conflict and competitive, but nationalism teaches the right kind of self-determinism.  National self-determination is a determination of the will arrived at within the self through reflection and struggle; and nationalism is possible, in the first place, a method of teaching the right determination of the will.  But this is contradictory, because when you begin to teach something, then what follows is not something freely determined or therefore non-dynamic and dead.

References

Kedourie, E.  Nationalism.  Oxford: Blackwell, 1993.