Billig (Michael), Banal Nationalism, 1995. PDF

Preview

Summary

Tudi Kernalegenn – November 2003 BANAL NATIONALISM BILLIG (Michael), Banal nationalism, London : Sage, 1995. INTRODUCTION : Michael Billig : Social psychologist ; professor of social sciences at Loughborough (UK) Main focus of his research : studying ways of thinking, especially ideological thought....

Description

Tudi Kernalegenn – November 2003

BANAL NATIONALISM BILLIG (Michael), Banal nationalism, London : Sage, 1995.

INTRODUCTION : Michael Billig : Social psychologist ; professor of social sciences at Loughborough (UK) Main focus of his research : studying ways of thinking, especially ideological thought. But the emphasis of his research has shifted from looking at extreme forms of ideology towards looking at the influence of ideology on common-sense, or everyday patterns of thinking. Banal Nationalism, published in 1995, is a result of this shift.

Main theoretical issue : Begins his book with a paradox : States that Breton separatists, National Front or guerilleros are considered as nationalists but not Bush, even when bombing Irak ! According to Michael Billig : something misleading about this accepted use of the word ‘nationalism’ : It always seems to locate nationalism on the periphery ; to make nationalism not merely an exotic force, but a peripheral one ; to see nationalism as the property of others, not of us He suggests therefore that the accepted view overlooks the nationalism of the Western nation-states. And as he says : « Gaps in political language are rarely innocent. By being semantically restricted to small sizes and exotic colours, ‘nationalism’ becomes identified as a problem. (...) The ideological habits by which ‘our’ nations are reproduced as nations, are unnamed and, thereby, unnoticed. » (p. 6) Michael Billig is consequently very critical of the literature on nationalism1, where, in using the term ‘nationalist’ in a limited way, most scholars project nationalism onto others and naturalize their own nationalism out of existence. He regrets that the standard definitions of nationalism tend to locate nationalism as something beyond, or prior to, the established nation-state. He notices that no alternative term is offered for the ideological complex which maintains the nation-state ex : He regrets for example that Hroch seminal study2 describes three stages of nationalism, but that there are no further stages to describe what happens to nationalism once the nation-state is established. It is as if nationalism suddenly disappears. He criticizes as well Giddens, for whom nationalism occurs when ordinary life is disrupted : it is the exception rather than the rule It is that failure or shortage that Michael Billig wants to fill. Therefore, he gives himself the task to study what he calls ‘our’ nationalism, the daily nationalism of the established Nations-States

1

Even though he is himself a modernist and a constructivist, putting emphasis for example on the fact that the battle for nationhood has been a battle for hegemony, by which a part has claimed to speak for the whole nation and to represent the national essence. As he says : « the assumptions, beliefs and shared representations, which depict the world of nations as our natural world, are historical creations : they are not the ‘natural’ common sense of all humans » (p. 36). 2 Social preconditions of national revival in Europe.

1

Tudi Kernalegenn – November 2003

THE ARGUMENT : Banal nationalism, a new concept Therefore : Michael Billig introduces a new concept : Banal nationalism Author suggests to stretch the term ‘nationalism’, so that it covers the ideological means by which nation-states are reproduced ⇒ Insists : nationalism, far from being an intermittent mood in established nations, is the endemic condition To qualify further the concept : He distinguishes banal nationalism from hot nationalism But stresses : Banal does not imply benign since, for example, in the case of Western nationstates, banal nationalism can hardly be innocent : it is reproducing institutions which possess vast armaments3 According to the author : The concept of banal nationalism helps to draw attention to the powers of an ideology which is so familiar that it hardly seems noticeable4 Banal nationalism is the ideology which permits to the State to exist, but in the absence of an overt political challenge, like that of the Flemish speakers in Belgium, this ideology seems to remain invisible To use one of is effective images for my own flagging and transition : « The metonymic image of banal nationalism is not a flag which is being consciously waved with fervent passion ; it is the flag unnoticed on the public building. » (p. 8)

Flagging the homeland daily If we admits the concept of banal nationalism, one needs to look for the reasons why people in the contemporary world do not forget their nationality The central thesis of the book is that, in the established nations, there is a continual ‘flagging’, or reminding, of nationhood : the reminding of nationhood is embedded in the routines of life5. However, the reminders, or ‘flaggings’, are so numerous and they are such a familiar part of the social environment, that they operate mindlessly6. The remembering, not being experienced as remembering is, in effect, forgotten. One example of that flagging is the importance of unwaved flags, for example on public buildings. As he says : « Unwaved flags are flagging nationhood unflaggingly » (p. 41)

3 And suggest as well : « There is no direct psychological evidence to distinguish the rational state of patriotism from the irrational force of nationalism » (p. 56). 4 It draws attention as well to things considered as natural as the concept of language. According to the author, ideologies are patterns of belief and practice, which make existing social arrangements appear ‘natural’ or inevitable. Consequently the concept of banal nationalism helps to decipher and read ideas and feelings that pretend to be natural whereas they are constructed hegemonies. It is those hegemonies that the scholar should examine and question, which he often fails to do since he is himself part of that hegemony. 5 Daily nations are reproduced as nations and their citizenry as nationals. 6 « The tesis of banal nationalism suggests that nationhood is near the surface of contemporary life. (...) Banal nationalism operates with prosaic, routine words, which take nations for granted, and which, in so doing, enhabit them. Small words, rather than grand memorable phrases, offer constant, but barely conscious, reminders of the homeland, making ‘our’ national identity unforgettable. » (p. 93).

2

Tudi Kernalegenn – November 2003

Analyzing the flagging of nationhood, Michael Billig focus for example on the : Politicians : He shows that flagging is at the very heart of the politicians discourses. As he puts it in one of his very effective phrases, speaking about political discourse : « The nation, in being addressed in the business of being represented (‘stood for’), will also be represented (‘depicted’) in the business of being addressed. At its simplest level, the politician, who claims or campaigns to speak for the interests of the nation, will evoke the nation. The speaker who explicitly addresses ‘us’, claiming to know ‘our’ interests, simultaneously depicts ‘us’, whether or not elaborate, laudatory descriptions are used. » (p. 98) He even goes further suggesting that in the idea of “re-presentation” : there are the ideas of repetition, stereotypes, banality of images conveyed ⇒ By analyzing their discourse and their vocabulary, Michael Billig proves that nationhood is continually being flagged in the rhetoric of contemporary politics Homeland deixis7 Using linguistic theories, Michael Billig also focuses on what he calls the homeland deixis, suggesting that : « The crucial words of banal nationalism are often the smallest : ‘we’, ‘this’ and ‘here’, which are the words of linguistic ‘deixis’. » (p. 94) Michael Billig stresses the importance of small words as ‘this’ or ‘the’, reminding that ‘the’ economy, ‘the’ country, ‘the’ Prime Minister, etc. means ‘our’ economy, ‘our’ country, ‘our’ Prime Minister, etc. The deixis are a very discreet flagging. Nevertheless, their effect is important since they transform the house (the State) into the home (the Nation). The ‘the’s and ‘this’s create the concrete, daily, reassuring world of the well-known Nation-State. As the author explains : « This form of deixis, in flagging the homeland, helps to make the homeland homely. (...) The homeland is made both present and unnoticeable by being presented as the context » (p. 108-109). Flagging nationhood daily in the media It appears that the deixis of homeland is embedded in the very fabric of the newspapers8, and not only in the sport pages, but also in the home pages or weather pages ; and not only in the Sun but also in the Guardian. Medias seem therefore to be one of the main devices to flag nationhood on a daily basis9. As a partial conclusion, we could say that Michael Billig shows us that « ‘We’ all are daily reminded that ‘we’ are ‘here’, living at home in ‘our’ precious homeland. (...) Nationhood is not something remote in contemporary life, but it is present in ‘our’ little words, in homely discourses which we take for granted. » (p. 126)

7 p. 106 : « Deixis is a form of rhetorical pointing, for, according to linguists, “deixis has to do with the ways which sentences are anchored to certain aspects of their contexts of utterrance” (Brown and Levinson, 1987, p. 118). » 8 « Beyond conscious awareness, like the hum of distant traffic, this deixis of little words makes the world of nations familiar, even homely. » (p. 94) 9 « Routinely, newspapers, like politician, claim to stand in the eye of the country. Particularly in their opinion and editorial columns, they use the nationalized syntax of hegemony, simultaneously speaking to and for the nation, and representing the nation in both senses of ‘representation’ » (p. 114).

3

Tudi Kernalegenn – November 2003

The international world of nation The third important point in the book is the idea that nationalism is the theory of an international world : they are not opposed but linked, nations being reproduced within a wider world of nations10 Nationalism implies a whole way of thinking about the world : – First of all : « If nationalism is an ideology of the first person plural, which tells ‘us’ who ‘we’ are, then it is also an ideology of the third person. There can be no ‘us’ without a ‘them’. » (p. 78) We can therefore assume, with Michael Billig, that nationalism is the theory about the world being ‘naturally’ divided into national communities as if there could not possibly be a world without nations (p. 37 and 63) In fact, « nationalism inevitably involves a mixture of the particular and the universal : if ‘our’ nation is to be imagined in all its particularity, it must be imagined as a nation amongst other nations. » (p. 83) Therefore, « because nationalism involves this universal perspective, or this imagining of the international world of nations, it differs crucially from the secluded ethnocentric mentality. »11. – Secondly, and resulting from the first point : there is a universal vocabulary for the naming of the particular : the particular nation is affirmed within a general code : to claim to be a nation is to imagine one’s group to fit a common, universal pattern As Michael Billig explains : « Nationalists live in an international world, and their ideology is itself an international ideology. Without constant observation of the world of other nations, nationalists would be unable to claim that their nations meet the universal codes of nationhood. » (p. 80) Ex. : Each nation : flag, national anthem... ⇒ As a partial conclusion : the banal symbols of ‘our’ particularity are also banal symbols of ‘our’ universality12.

No vanishing of nations in global times Finally, the last important point is the idea that nations are not vanishing despite the postmodernist discourse which predict the end of the Nation-states era, the nation-states being assailed from above and below, according to them13. On the contrary, the author has shown that the banal flagging of nationhood has not disappeared at all. As the author claims : « These habits of thinking persist, not as vestiges of a past age, having outlived their function ; they are rooted to forms of life, in an era in which the state may be changing but as not yet withered away » (p. 139). Nevertheless14 : « There is no doubt that identity politics is challenging old ways of defining the nation. Those who have been excluded from the power to make definitions are now claiming the right to re-imagine the community. » (p. 147)

10

As he says : « The nation is always a nation in the world of nations » (p. 61). On top of that, as the author shows, historically, the rise of nationalism entailed the creation of internationalism : both ideas developed in tandem. Michael Billig considers the Congress of Vienna in 1815 as the crucial point linking both nationalism and internationalism. Since the birth of nation-states, powerful states, who have proved their power in war, have sought to impose their own vision of a settled order of well-drawn international boundaries. In this respect, the modern nation-states is the product of an international age. 12 And as R. Robertson wrote it elegantly : nationalism involves “the universalization of particularism and the particularization of universalism”. 13 As he writes : « The middle is being excluded by an extreme either/or » (p. 138). 14 Refering to the feminists, gay, ethnic minorities... 11

4

Tudi Kernalegenn – November 2003

Focus above all on the case of the United States, which is supposed, according to the post-modernist, to suggest how the world should evolve in the future15 Part of the postmodernists stance maintains that a global, transnational culture is developing. But according to Michael Billig, « if this culture has a national provenance, then what appears to be global may not be quite so transnational. The global culture, bearing the marks of its national heritage, may be flagging ‘America’. (...) ‘America’ may not be flagged as a particular place : it will be universalized as the world. (...) Today, the United States flags its presence so often and so globally that it almost seems invisible16 » (p. 129). Michael Billig thesis and aim is, in effect, to show that, far from a disappearance of nationhood, there is a strengthening of the “nation-order”, and especially of one nation above all the others in an hegemonic way, since « the new world order is itself flagged as a national order, in which one nation will be primus inter pares and its culture experienced as a universal culture. » (p. 176)17. Therefore, the book could also be read as a warning : « Nationalism (...) never spoke with a straight forwardly simple voice. It always used the syntax of hegemony (...). Today, claims about a ‘world community’ or a ‘new global order’ are being made on behalf of the most powerful nation. As they are made, so an identity of interests is asserted : ‘our’ interests are the interests of the whole world. Military forces, bearing national colours, are deployed to support these interests » (p. 176). An Michael Billig concludes : « This is said as a caution against the confident assertion that global processes are out-dating national ones in the postmodern world. » (p. 176)

WEAKNESSES : – Neglects the idea that there might be different banal nationalism in different states ; for example France and the UK18 certainly do not flag their banal nationalism in the same way. Even though he denies it19, he tends too strongly to assume that psychological variables are universal. – Neglects all a tradition in the field of history studying the construction of banal nationalism, notably through primary schools (cf. Suzanne Citron about the teaching of history in France for example).

15

Focus as well on the writings of Meyrowitz, and above all of Richard Rorty, American post-modernist thinkers, to show that not only their predictions are false, but also that they themselves flag nationhood. The latter has even a very patriotic discourse. In fact, for all its elegant sophistication, Rorty’s argument parallels those voices of common-sense nationalism which imagine the tolerant ‘us’, beset by intolerant hordes (p. 165). According to the author, « Richard Rorty’s philosophy, which at first glance might appear to be the voice of sophisticated, cosmopolitan irony, was described as a textual flag : if one looks closely, one can see the pages of his philosophy waving gently in support of the United States. » (p. 174). 16 He suggests also the internal logic of American nationalism in an ironical way, suggesting that a nation that seeks international hegemony must deny that it is nationalist : « In claiming to represent international principles of justice, order and sovereignty, ‘we’, as an individual nation, cannot directly lay claim to the world (...). ‘We’ must locate ‘ourselves’ humbly within that world. ‘We’ must recognize the rights of others, whilst speaking for these others, and while reminding ‘ourselves’ that ‘we’, the greatest nation in history, stand for ‘our’ own interests » (p. 90). 17 He repeats that idea elsewhere : « The products of the global culture bear the marks of the higher ground, which itself is no mere physical geography : the higher ground is a national place, indeed the national place » (p. 150). 18 He even claims, p. 9 : « These habits of thinking (...) transcend national differences. » 19 p. 17 and p. 175 for example, where he calls for a taxonomy of flaggings.

5

Tudi Kernalegenn – November 2003

– His linguistic evidences are not always very convincing, since he seems to give too much meaning to words sometimes20. We are sometimes under the impression that he overinterprets. – Lack of attention to policies : too psychological. Doesn’t clearly distinguishes what refers to the nation and what refers to the State. He even seems to confuse or even join the two notions : he speaks of States, of Nations and of Nation-States, but in an undifferentiated manner it seems. Where are the institutions ? Where is the political action ? Politics is not only words and psychology Ex. : the French case would be very interesting in order to understand that banal nationalism is not only rhetoric or psychology but also policies. There is definitely a striking lack of attention to the polity and the policies !

STRENGTHS AND MAIN CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE UNDERSTANDING OF NATIONALISM : Draws attention to the powers of an ideology, banal nationalism, which is so familiar that it hardly seems noticeable, and which nevertheless has very important effects. By noticing the flagging of nationhood, we are understanding something about ourselves. We are becoming aware of the depths and mechanisms of our identity, embedded in routines of social life. Give tools to understand the continuing importance of nationalism Offers a very effective new concept : – Creates a concept to analyse an hegemony that was not analyzed until now in such a systematic way. Questions therefore the « non-nationalist » neutrality of the searchers on nationalism. – Tool to understand better the reactions of the centre against peripheral nationalism. As the author suggests21 : minority nationalism is more than a different ideology for the majority (as liberalism vs socialism) : it threatens the very basis of the consensus22. – Tool usable in nations without states, even though the author never seems to think about it : Scotland, but even Brittany : daily flagging of national identity : Scottish flag, Scottish newspapers, etc. The concept of banal nationalism might therefore appear very useful to compare nationalism in different regions.

20

For example, cf. p. 104-105 As he puts it : « In the rhetoric of established nationalism, there is a topos beyond argument. The argument is generally placed within a place – a homeland – and the process of argumentation itself rhetorically reaffirms this national topos. » (p. 96). 22 For example : why does the Aznar government but also the PSOE seems to go mad with the recent declarations of the Basque Lehendakari ? In such cases, it appears, after the reading of Billig, that we ...