'cookieChoices = {};'


... Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
and to institute new Government ...
click.jpg

Sunday, April 17, 2011

The Veil Ban and the Academic Study of Nationalism





            Culturism, the opposite of multiculturalism, holds that traditional majority cultures have a right to define, defend, and promote themselves domestically. This article will explore culturist theory’s relationship to several academic positions on nationalism.  And it will ultimately use the example of the French ban on veils to do so.
This week France began enforcing a ban on face concealing veils. Violators must pay a fine and take a citizenship course.  The easy point to make is that, despite one woman’s claim that these laws were “racist,” they have nothing to do with race.  These laws address culture, they are culturist.  And while racism is ridiculous, if cultural diversity is real, culturism is rational. 
              Liah Greenfield and others have created a paradigm wherein nationalism starts in England as Civic Nationalism, which incorporates individual rights.  By the time nationalism spreads to Germany, we have Collective Nationalism, which tends to be authoritarian.  And in between the two we have France’s mix of both types.  And since the West exported nationalism, and many nations are built upon resentment of other nations, many are anti-Western.
            Greenfield’s approach denies the impact of thought in culture. China’s Confucian background goes further in explaining its willingness to adopt deference for leaders than it’s being supposedly created after England.  The humanistic thought of Shakespeare and the Scottish Enlightenment, as well as Jefferson’s writing, display cultural paradigms that manifest in Civic Nationalism.  The Civic Nationalism is not due to England being first.  It results from cultural thoughts.  Rather than reflecting an absence of cultural influence, Civic Nationalism is the product of a culture. 


            The term ‘nationalism’ should be supplemented by the term ‘culturism.’  Benedict Anderson and Anthony Smith debate whether nations are largely new or grow from earlier cultural precedents.  Most scholars side with Anderson concerning newness.  Whereas nations, defined as direct overlaps between state governments and cultures, may be newish, such debates rob us of the ability to include the histories of civilizations.

            Christendom has been under siege by Islam for over one thousand years.  The common argument that nationalism proper began in England in the 1600s, leaves out the fact that the Muslims took over Spain from 711 to 1492.  They overran the Byzantine Empire and nearly took Vienna.  Whereas the birth of nations may be recent, the clash of civilizations is not.  Tribalism relied upon cultural unity.  Cultural cohesion did not begin with nations.

            Nationalism as a tool of analysis and common ideology, leaving out transnational concepts, is especially dangerous.  France and England are different nations, but both represent the West.  Again their being close to Western Civic Nationalism, shows this.  Just as the term ‘umma’ unites Muslim nations, the term ‘culturism’ can include Western culturism and thereby provide a useful analytical category.  For reasons this article will spell out later, we must be able to discuss categories beyond national ones.

            Culturism, in taking culture seriously, also allows discussions of culture that the value neutral term ‘nation’ does not.  The assumption that Civic Nationalism exists free of cultural content facilitates multiculturalism.  In the multicultural model, citizens – regardless of culture – unite in agreements about liberal rules of democratic participation.  This view denies the importance of cultural diversity and strips it of any significant meaning.  It assumes that no cultures could or do disagree with liberal civic premises.

            Craig Calhoun has argued people contain subjective multiplicities.  This, for him, lessens the relevance of national culture, because, for the most part, underneath, we have many similarities.  But this argument assumes a space away from culture.  It assumes love and friendship, have the same meaning across cultures.  It posits a culture free identity behind the shallow trinkets of cultural markers.

            Culture does directly impact people. Not only do Japanese people have more familiarity with Japanese culture than, in Calhoun’s example, Norwegians, they speak a different language.  And this does not only does this seep into the individual on obvious levels. Cross culturally, social relations have a much different flavor, the assumptions are different, in these two cultures.  When we consider even more extreme cultures, this similarity via occasional overlap argument elides many important considerations.

Phillip Gleason said, “To be or to become an American a person did not have to be of any particular national linguistic, religious, or ethnic background.  All he had to do was to commit himself to the political ideology centered on the abstract ideals of liberty, equality and republicanism.” Yet Americans have long discriminated against immigration from non-European cultures precisely because they saw a specific linguistic and religious background as essential to our liberties.

This analysis will strike some as racist.  But race has very little to do with it.  The 1924 limit on Jewish and Italian immigrants, our Protestant majority’s long fear of Irish Catholics, had little to do with the biological notion of race that scholars frequently project into the past.  These laws were culturist.  Americans have traditionally believed our civic nationalism resulted from cultural traits, as much as culturally neutral universal Enlightenment based truths.

Scholars who have left large scale history and the ideological component of culture and, indeed cultural impact at all, out of the discussion, can solely see the Islamic veil ban as oppressive.  For them the Islamic veil is symbolic of nothing.  They can see no clash of civilizations.  They remain more committed to deconstructing nations than to reifying them, and so they see this effort as misaligned with the fact of nationalism being a modern fiction.

A few errors come from this neutral stance.  First nations are, as Benedict Anderson shows, “imagined.”  But this imagination is perpetuated in institutions.  It not only appears in Michael Bllig’s view of the banal nationalism of flags in banks, and commercials that assume French identity.  Going back to Cardinal Richelieu, this imagined community is in laws that promote the French language and view of history in schools.  The imagined community sprouts from the seemingly universal civic laws backing monogamy and outlawing honor killing.  Culturist laws sustain all nations.

The idea of the state as a culturally neutral enforcer of civic ideals reflects Enlightenment and multicultural assumptions.  But the Enlightenment is specific to the West and few important nations on earth would consider adopting the multicultural neutrality of those in the West.  China and Saudi Arabia’s governments are culturist.  They implement immigration and other laws to preserve and promote their traditional majority cultures.  Western nations have done the same traditionally.  As a result, the world is not getting more diverse, the West is.  The idea of the legal cultural neutrality of one’s State is a Western aberration.

As western culture is civic, the Islamic veil ban violates our values.  Without a very strange culture in our midst, the civic nationalism seems culturally neutral.  Such a move would naturally evoke huge protests. It is only with the entrance of a culture that challenges freedom of speech, individuality, and rights for women, that we understand the Western specificity of our civic culture.  And so to maintain our sense of freedom, we are forced to consider violating our own precepts. 

The ban may have some impact.  Much of our Western ontology and philosophy appear in our individual clothing choices.  To dress the part is to assume the role.  Yet, fundamentally, Islamic doctrine is inconsistent with Western values.  And so the dream of a secular French Islam requires an abandonment of basic Islamic tenets.  Creating such an Islamic - Western amalgam will prove stubbornly difficult and prone to inner conflict.  But militant forces are encouraging Islamic cultural separatism in Europe.  Without some overt engagement, the prominence of Western values will decline.

France’s Islamic veil ban provides fertile ground for scholars.  In fact, the law carefully avoids specifying that it is a ban on Islamic veils to maintain the separation of mosque and state.  From a culturist point of view, this makes sense as you do not want to relinquish such a cornerstone of the modern West.  At the same time, as other nations, our laws should recognize, defend, and promote our traditional majority cultures.  And so we see a struggle between Civic and Cultural Nationalism.  Histories of such struggles in Western lands would prove useful. Which tact better preserves Western culture needs debating.  We need to recognize the importance of cultural presuppositions make ours part of the discussion.  Feigned impartiality removes scholars from their place in the public.  We need guide the West as it confronts multiculturalism.

To have such debates we must revise some notions.  Using the words ‘culturism’ and ‘culturist’, we can make clear that we’re discussing ramifications of cultural diversity, not racial stupidity.  Craig Calhoun and others have noted that all cultures have minorities.  This does not, however, erase the fact that they also have traditional majority cultures.  Calhoun’s observation buffers us from hysterics and dreams of homogenized states. However, it should not serve to ban us from making culturist observations.  We cannot accept bans on criticizing Islam.  A free society needs to be able to discuss cultural diversity if it hopes to remain free.

Scholars’ pretense of objectivity, ironically, displays their Western orientation.  Western cultures’ basis in individualism undercuts our ability to take groups seriously.  As such our inquiries into nations ignores similarities to tribalism or conflicts between civilizations.  And, as Ernest Gellner does, the nation gets reduced to a purely modern contrivance, historical and cultural common sense get overlooked, and scholars dangerously exempt themselves from discussions of culturist laws such as France’s Islamic veil ban.   


Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Unknown at permanent link#

8 Comments:

Blogger Damien said...

Culturist John,

I was wondering when we'd hear from you again. Its been awhile. Unfortunately based on some of the things I've read, the French authorities may not be willing to do what's necessary to enforce the vial ban at the moment.

Sunday, April 17, 2011 3:33:00 pm  
Blogger felix said...

I think the French law is worded to prevent covering the face--in effect mask wearing--in public. So this law may also impact violent demonstrators we have seen in recent years who throw rocks at police, etc. while wearing a ski mask--to prevent being IDd a a later date.

Sunday, April 17, 2011 4:28:00 pm  
Blogger jeppo said...

Phillip Gleason said, “To be or to become an American a person did not have to be of any particular national linguistic, religious, or ethnic background."

Phillip Gleason is wrong. The Naturalization Act of 1790 specifically limited US citizenship to "free white persons". Blacks were only granted citizenship following the Civil War, and non-Europeans were only allowed to immigrate en masse following the passage of the National Suicide Act* of 1965.

One of the reasons that the 13 colonies were able to come together to form one united nation is that their peoples shared essentially the same culture. The original American polity was 100% white, 80% British and nearly 100% English-speaking, and 98% Protestant and nearly 100% Christian. And being that the three primary building blocks of culture are race, religion and language, it made sense for the colonies to merge their sovereignty into one nation despite the vast economic differences between them. They were one people after all.

Civic nationalism, on the other hand, is pretty weak tea to hold a nation and people together. In Canada, a flimsy civic nationalism has replaced the Greater British nationalism of the founders. So instead of being based on true culturist foundations (a white, English-speaking, Christian patriotism), Canadian nationalism is now based on bilingualism, multiculturalism and, above all, anti-Americanism. Needless to say, I'm not a Canadian nationalist.

Quebec nationalism, in contrast, is based on the most natural and organic kinship possible: The fact that virtually all Quebecois are blood relations. They descend from the 65,000 habitants in the St Lawrence valley at the time of the conquest in 1760. These habitants were 100% white, 100% French-speaking, and 100% Catholic, and mostly from the same region in France, Normandy.

Even Newfoundland nationalism makes more sense than the modern Canadian version. The Newfies are descended from fisherman from Ireland and the west country of England, who have lived together and intermarried for centuries. They are, like the Quebecois, a large, partly inbred extended family, which is why Newfy patriotism is real and powerful compared with the artificial civic nationalism of Canada as a whole.

Real nationalism is based on exclusivity, on being part of a group that not everybody can join. A common history and culture are what make a true nation. Civic nationalism is inclusive, so inclusive in its modern incarnation that we're supposed to believe that a burka-clad woman right off the plane from Afghanistan or wherever is as American as apple pie, or as Canadian as a maple syrup-covered hockey stick. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

* That's not really what it's called, but it should be given it's culture-destroying effect.

Sunday, April 17, 2011 9:25:00 pm  
Blogger Damien said...

Jeppo,

And what do you suggest we do than? Do we abandon the principals of the civil rights movement and start discriminating based on race, or do we abandon our enlightenment principals of freedom of religion and start discriminating based on religion? Even when you could not legally become an American because of one's racial or religious background, such laws violated the principals the nation was founded on. Remember the declaration of Independence's statement that "all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights?" It wouldn't be a good idea for us to base American nationalism on race or religion. We can instead base it on a shared system of values. If you're a foreigner and you want to immigrate to America and become an American citizen, in general, you should be allowed to do so as long as you came here legally and are willing to embrace our values.

Monday, April 18, 2011 3:38:00 am  
Blogger Unknown said...

Damien and Jeppo,

Thank you for the thoughtful posts.

As Jeppo uses the term "true culturist foundations," there can be debate as to what would be the best for stability. Unfortunately or fortunately, race is out for the US.

Jeppo also makes a great point about exclusion. Strong exclusionary laws raise the sense of specialness of those who are in.

Damien, you say we cannot discriminate based on religion. But you say we should discriminate based on values. Well there is a lot of overlap there.

At any rate, we are a Judeo-Christian nation. And, I agree with Jeppo that we need a bit more than a pure civic basis of commonality. And, as Jeppo showed, saying no to Islamic values and culture is 100% in line with our traditions.

Whatever Jefferson wrote in this single document, it does not represent our tradition. Overtly naming the history of our nation as Judeo - Christian and having inclusion will go far to making us feel like a nation again.

Nice to be back. Thanks for the comments.

John

Monday, April 18, 2011 5:53:00 am  
Blogger Damien said...

Culturist John,

But John, than what about say atheists who want to become American Citizens? Even when it comes to Islam, which does contradict our values, its kind of difficult for us to justify denying someone American citizenship only because they are Muslim, regardless of any thing else about him. If the individual Muslim is westernized enough that he openly rejects sharia, is pro Israel, and shows no sign that he wants to impose his religion on us, than we have some what a of problem, do we not?

Keep in mind that I'm not leaving out national origin as a reason for us not to consider someone for us citizenship, but even than should it be the only reason? Not to mention that we can and should refuse to allow people to become citizens who have openly called for replacing our constitution with sharia.

Monday, April 18, 2011 6:11:00 am  
Blogger Pastorius said...

CJ writes: As western culture is civic, the Islamic veil ban violates our values. Without a very strange culture in our midst, the civic nationalism seems culturally neutral. Such a move would naturally evoke huge protests. It is only with the entrance of a culture that challenges freedom of speech, individuality, and rights for women, that we understand the Western specificity of our civic culture. And so to maintain our sense of freedom, we are forced to consider violating our own precepts.


I respond: Really? Where in the history of Western Civilization has it been accepted that people would walk around with their faces covered for religious purposes? I propose that what is being called a "veil" is really more similar to a death shroud. It eliminates the individuality of the human being as expressed by the face.

I'm not sure I agree with you.

On the other hand, I do recognize that we believe people should be able to do what they want as long as they are not hurting others or themselves.

The burqa (for that is what we are really talking about here) is a psychological/sociological assisted-suicide device invented for women by men who want to control public displays of feminine beauty in order to maintain their possession of said women.

We have never allowed such in our culture, and while women have not been always treated so well within our culture as they are not, it has been a very long time since women were consider, by law, to be the outright possession of a man. In fact, I don't know that such an idea was ever codified by law in our culture. Was it?

Monday, April 18, 2011 4:00:00 pm  
Blogger Manifold said...

Perhaps we should apply the term of "cultural loyalty" to describe which culture a person favors by his words and deeds to determine who should be watched and who should be welcomed.

Because nationality, ethnicity and religious affiliation alone does not make a person a liability or an asset. It is truly his cultural loyalty which finally will decide whether a person is ready to integrate himself into Western culture or fight it.

Not your ethnicity, your origin, your religion or your upbringing determine whether an immigrant is problematic or not. These factors may certainly influence the decisions of a person, however, it is ultimately the free will of an individual that decides whether it is loyal to a certain interpretation of a culture or not.

So for us culturists, we have to focus on increasing and spreading cultural loyalty among the people to the dominant interpretation of Western culture and its values.

The skin color or "race" how some old-rightwingers call it, is ultimately irrelevant in the light of this concept.

With culturist greetings from Europe,
Manifold

Friday, May 20, 2011 8:36:00 pm  

Post a comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home


Older Posts Newer Posts