Is the nation state dead?

Gwylan · Sep 12, 2014

Interesting article in this week's New Scientist saying the nation state (which only came into being about 150 years ago) has outlived its usefulness. It's a timely debate as such much of the discussion on Scotland has focused on what rUK calls itself - the article questions whether we need countries at all.

The article points out that until the 19th century, boundaries were flexible and no-one had passports so people could come and go as they pleased. Nationhood emerged with the industrial revolution (because in agarian societies people fed themselves or starved, no need for organisation).

The article asks if it's time for what it calls "neo-medievalism", a return to the city states of old - or at least more regionalism. Time for the kingdom of Sussex to come into being again?

What makes the article particularly interesting is that these ideas are being explored: I've been to two conferences in the last year where speakers have spoken about doing away with passports or national currencies - it's an idea that will run and run

(the article is behind a paywall I'm afraid, so I can't post it here)

Machiavelli · Sep 12, 2014

Good post, but you don't need to read this specific article. There's a whole literature on the theme of globalisation for instance (the best place to start is Held, Perraton, Goldblatt, McGrew Global Transformations). It's not just that the nation state is no longer the optimal level to deal with many large-scale problems (the environment, technology and finance being the most obvious), but also and as you/the article alludes to here, to smaller-scale problems that can be negotiated at a more local level.
But I'm glad you're spreading the word that the nation-state is a recent construct -- rather than a timeless entity, as Farage et al would have us believe.

Gwylan · Sep 12, 2014

Machiavelli said:
Good post, but you don't need to read this specific article. There's a whole literature on the theme of globalisation for instance (the best place to start is Held, Perraton, Goldblatt, McGrew Global Transformations). It's not just that the nation state is no longer the optimal level to deal with many large-scale problems (the environment, technology and finance being the most obvious), but also and as you/the article alludes to here, to smaller-scale problems that can be negotiated at a more local level.
But I'm glad you're spreading the word that the nation-state is a recent construct -- rather than a timeless entity, as Farage et al would have us believe.

Thanks for the recommendation, I'll check it out.

This is a fascinating topic- there's been no discussion at all on this theme throughout my lifetime but it's suddenly news. I personally think it's not a question if we do away with the nation state, but when

dingodan · Sep 12, 2014

See sig.

Blackadder · Sep 12, 2014

Sounds interesting. However, I can't see total freedom of movement with no passports at the moment. Especially with the current security concerns.

easynow · Sep 12, 2014

Though I would bet we wouldn't have a large chunk of our current technology if weren't finding better ways to blow other countries up. Another space race or most likely an alien invasion that we fight off would unite the world...lol

Guinness Boy · Sep 12, 2014

It's a fascinating topic alright. It's also one i feel conflicted on.

On the anti Nation State side there is definitely a case that they are failing to cope with world challenges and, yes, the environment is the first one I thought of. Plus I've always thought how odd it was having multiple land borders on mainland continents, especially when they change all the time. Then there's my belief that the creation of new countries is as much a factor in wars starting as people claim religion is. Indeed land and the creation of new or artificial countries could be seen as the reason for conflicts commonly said to be the fault of religion (e.g. Israel, Pakistan, Northern Ireland to name but three).

But despite having had a very robust argument regarding immigration this week on NSC here's my concern about abandoning borders; it could effectively be the kick off to the most free of free markets and encourage a survival of the fitness world that would abandon the world's global weak to an even more terrible fate than they face due to global warming.

That's not a definite position. Like the OP I feel the need to read up a lot more.

Buzzer · Sep 12, 2014

Machiavelli said:
But I'm glad you're spreading the word that the nation-state is a recent construct -- rather than a timeless entity, as Farage et al would have us believe.

Is it really? I'm puzzled as to what you and Gwylan mean by nation-state and predictions for its inevitable demise. It all sounds very much like historical determinism and a lot of wishful thinking on your part. The Act of Union is a lot older than 150 years ago. The nation-states of England and Scotland are much, much older still. Sure, borders change but isn't that always the case? Most recently the Balkans, Crimea..even now borders recede and expand. Puerto Rico is as good as the 51st US state and there's even talk of the Philippines becoming the next. Empires come and empires go as with all of man's history.

Taking England as an example of nationhood, to say that we WILL break up rather than IF...well, I really can't see that. More than just passports, we share a language, a culture, the same geography, history, money, laws. We have a shared identity that is extremely strong. I really am struggling to accept that being and identifying as English is a relatively modern state of mind nor do I accept that it's shallow or artificial concept. And we're far from unique in that respect. The inevitable end to Germany or Japan or the US or Argentina? Nah.

Gwylan · Sep 12, 2014

Buzzer said:
Is it really? I'm puzzled as to what you and Gwylan mean by nation-state and predictions for its inevitable demise. It all sounds very much like historical determinism and a lot of wishful thinking on your part. The Act of Union is a lot older than 150 years ago. The nation-states of England and Scotland are much, much older still. Sure, borders change but isn't that always the case? Most recently the Balkans, Crimea..even now borders recede and expand. Puerto Rico is as good as the 51st US state and there's even talk of the Philippines becoming the next. Empires come and empires go as with all of man's history.

Taking England as an example of nationhood, to say that we WILL break up rather than IF...well, I really can't see that. More than just passports, we share a language, a culture, the same geography, history, money, laws. We have a shared identity that is extremely strong. I really am struggling to accept that being and identifying as English is a relatively modern state of mind nor do I accept that it's shallow or artificial concept. And we're far from unique in that respect. The inevitable end to Germany or Japan or the US or Argentina? Nah.

It's not my point of view: I was relaying what the NS said.

What the article means by a nation state is boundaries/border controls/nationwide bureaucracy. For example, if you can travel and live in another country without any passport or any registration, I'd say the idea of a nation state is pretty meaningless.

I couldn't put the article but it goes into some detail about this idea of a shared language/culture. It points out that at the time of the French revolution less than half the population spoke French and only 3% of Italians spoke Italian at the time of unification. As for culture, the article points out the number of people in Czechoslovakia who identified themselves as Germans before the annexation of Sudatenland was far,far higher than the percentage who did so after the war. As the author says, culture swings according to the political will

withdeanwombat · Sep 12, 2014

FIFA won't allow it.

Machiavelli · Sep 12, 2014

Buzzer said:
Is it really? I'm puzzled as to what you and Gwylan mean by nation-state and predictions for its inevitable demise. It all sounds very much like historical determinism and a lot of wishful thinking on your part.

I'm surprised that you've read my post and interpreted it as predicting the nation-state's 'inevitably demise', and it advocates 'historical determinism' (you did it to Gwylan too). Perhaps you could indicate what passage indicates as much.
You finish your post by talking about Germany and England:
Germany -- has only been geographically the same entity for some two decades; it changed three decades before that; and two decades before that too, after having formed in 1871
England -- this is quite a moment to argue about the strength of English identity, as whatever happens in next week's referendum will result in a major transformation with another identity that the English have shared for centuries now.
To identify as English really is a modern frame of mind: there is much debate, but most nation-states didn't begin to consolidate themselves until the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, whereas a national identity didn't appear until much later probably in the nineteenth century when we began to imagine ourselves as a national community.

Buzzer · Sep 12, 2014

It's quite simple. Gwylan has said that it's "not a question of if but when in regards to nation-states" and you agreed and stated that the idea of the nation-state is a modern phenomenon and doomed to failure.

Germany has been Germany for well over 2 centuries. A political split did not change that one iota.

I think (hope) you'll agree that historical determinism is a socialist concept. So please tell me what you mean by 'nation-state' and on what basis do you stand by your assertion that nation-states are either a modern phenomenon or unable to cope with a modern global economy?

It seems to me that those countries with a laissez-faire economy are doing quite well despite predictions to the contrary and once again socialist economies in practice are abject failures.

Both of you are under the impression that nation-states are doomed to failure in place of some other system hence my comments about historical determinism. I've heard it so often before yet here we are, the free market actually working and the theoretical socialism destined to replace it being shown to be the failed experiment that it is.

Human nature is not socialist. That there is your problem.

rogersix · Sep 12, 2014

Gwylan said:
Thanks for the recommendation, I'll check it out.

This is a fascinating topic- there's been no discussion at all on this theme throughout my lifetime but it's suddenly news. I personally think it's not a question if we do away with the nation state, but when

i read an article in high times 25 yrs ago proposing the idea of bio-regions, being the catchment area of each river, so a city state.
no state would be landlocked so every "nation" would have a port city so they can trade freely. if there is a land dispute, tip a bucket of water on it, which ever way it goes, its theirs, no more war, hmmmm

Buzzer · Sep 12, 2014

And being English is a modern state of mind. Absolute rubbish. I quote you a play written 400 years ago about a battle 600 years ago: "Cry God for Harry, England and St George".

We English have been secure in our nationhood for nigh on 1000 years.

rogersix · Sep 12, 2014

Buzzer said:
And being English is a modern state of mind. Absolute rubbish. I quote you a play written 400 years ago about a battle 600 years ago: "Cry God for Harry, England and St George".

We English have been secure in our nationhood for nigh on 1000 years.

fair point, but does/will it benefit us now/in the future

Buzzer · Sep 12, 2014

rogersix said:
fair point, but does/will it benefit us now/in the future

You know what, I've no idea at all! But it's not going to disappear suddenly. It's extremely deep-rooted.

rogersix · Sep 12, 2014

Guinness Boy said:
It's a fascinating topic alright. It's also one i feel conflicted on.

On the anti Nation State side there is definitely a case that they are failing to cope with world challenges and, yes, the environment is the first one I thought of. Plus I've always thought how odd it was having multiple land borders on mainland continents, especially when they change all the time. Then there's my belief that the creation of new countries is as much a factor in wars starting as people claim religion is. Indeed land and the creation of new or artificial countries could be seen as the reason for conflicts commonly said to be the fault of religion (e.g. Israel, Pakistan, Northern Ireland to name but three).

But despite having had a very robust argument regarding immigration this week on NSC here's my concern about abandoning borders; it could effectively be the kick off to the most free of free markets and encourage a survival of the fitness world that would abandon the world's global weak to an even more terrible fate than they face due to global warming.

That's not a definite position. Like the OP I feel the need to read up a lot more.

or possibly enable the workers of the world to unite and throw of their chains

Buzzer · Sep 12, 2014

Honestly, do you really believe that will happen? I'm a great admirer of socialism in theory, it's the complete answer to all our prayers and I say that in all honesty but it's just not human nature nor has any attempt at pure socialism resulted in anything but a dictatorship with less rights than a free market democracy.

rogersix · Sep 12, 2014

Buzzer said:
You know what, I've no idea at all! But it's not going to disappear suddenly. It's extremely deep-rooted.

no one seems to care about the footy tea anymore?

rogersix · Sep 12, 2014

Buzzer said:
Honestly, do you really believe that will happen? I'm a great admirer of socialism in theory, it's the complete answer to all our prayers and I say that in all honesty but it's just not human nature nor has any attempt at pure socialism resulted in anything but a dictatorship with less rights than a free market democracy.

you sir, are a realist, i enjoy my little dream world.
the human bean is the most sociable creature ever to have evolved, it is burnt into our dna.
however there are still an awful lot of retarded throwbacks still procreating. we can but only
cajole, cuddle, tolerate and teach these little monkeys how to be human. i can only hope for progress

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Is the nation state dead?

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Brighton Bhuna Boy

New member

Tofu eating wokerati

Languidly Clinical

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Languidly Clinical

Well-known member

Languidly Clinical

Well-known member

Languidly Clinical

Well-known member

Languidly Clinical

Well-known member

Well-known member

Share this page