Formation of the European population. the main stages of the ethnic history of Europe. Formation of European nations Formation of new European peoples
Formation of European nations. Reunification of Germany and Italy. War of Independence for the North American Colonies.
Nation(from lat. natio- tribe, people) - socio-economic, cultural, political and spiritual community of the industrial era. There are two main approaches to understanding a nation: as a political community of citizens of a certain state and as an ethnic community with a single language and identity.
The emergence of nations is historically associated with the development of production relations, overcoming national isolation and fragmentation, with the formation of a common economic system, in particular a common market, the creation and dissemination of a common literary language, common elements of culture, etc. Thus, the first European nations grew up on the basis of already established large nationalities that had a common language, territory and other ethnic characteristics that acted as conditions for the formation of these nations. In other cases, nations were formed even when all the conditions for their formation were not yet fully prepared. Poets, artists, journalists, historians and linguists play an important role in the formation of a nation (it is sometimes said that almost all European nations are projects of representatives of romanticism).
Warsafor the newlywedsandvalue in Cefaithful Amerike 1775-83, revolutionary, liberation war of 13 British colonies in North America against British colonial rule, during which an independent state was created - the United States of America. The war for independence was prepared by the entire previous socio-economic history of the colonies. The development of capitalism in the colonies and the formation of the North American nation came into conflict with the policy of the mother country, which considered the colonies as a source of raw materials and a market. After the Seven Years' War of 1756–63, the British government stepped up pressure on the colonies, hindering the further development of industry and trade in them in every possible way. The colonization of lands to the west of the Allegheny Mountains was prohibited (1763), new taxes and duties were introduced, which infringed upon the interests of all colonists. The beginning of scattered uprisings and unrest, which developed into a war, dates back to 1767. There was no unity among the participants in the liberation movement, farmers, artisans, workers and the small urban bourgeoisie, who made up the democratic wing of the liberation movement, associated hopes for free access to the struggle against colonial oppression land and political democratization. However, the leading position in the camp of supporters of independence (the Whigs) belonged to representatives of the right wing, who expressed the interests of the top of the bourgeoisie and the planters, who sought a compromise with the metropolis. Opponents of the liberation movement in the colonies and open supporters of the mother country were the Tories, or loyalists, who included large landowners, as well as persons associated with English capital and administration.
In 1774, the First Continental Congress of Representatives of the Colonies met in Philadelphia, calling for a boycott of British goods and at the same time trying to reach a compromise with the mother country. In the winter of 1774-75, the first armed detachments of colonists spontaneously arose. In the first battles at Concord and Lexington on April 19, 1775, the British troops suffered heavy losses. Soon, 20 thousand rebels formed the so-called freedom camp near Boston. In the battle of Bunker Hill on June 17, 1775, the British again suffered serious losses.
On May 10, 1775, the Second Continental Congress opened, in which the radical wing of the bourgeoisie gained the predominant influence. Congress invited all colonies to create new governments to replace the colonial authorities. Regular armed forces were organized. J. Washington became commander-in-chief (June 15, 1775). On July 4, 1776, the Continental Congress adopted the Revolutionary Declaration of Independence, authored by T. Jefferson. The declaration announced the separation of 13 colonies from the mother country and the formation of an independent state - the United States of America (USA). It was the first state-legal document in history that formally proclaimed the sovereignty of the people and the foundations of bourgeois-democratic freedoms. The most important measures were the decrees on the confiscation of the property of loyalists (1777), as well as the lands of the crown and the state Anglican church.
Military operations in 1775–78 unfolded mainly in the north of the country. The British command sought to suppress resistance in New England, which was the center of the revolutionary movement. The expedition of the Americans with the aim of capturing Canada did not reach its intended goal. The Americans laid siege to Boston and occupied it on March 17, 1776. However, in August 1776, the English commander W. Howe inflicted a heavy defeat on Washington's troops at Brooklyn and occupied New York on September 15. In December, British troops inflicted another serious defeat on the Americans near Trenton. True, Washington soon managed to take Trenton and defeat the English detachment at Princeton on January 3, 1777, but the position of the American army was still difficult.
The weak centralization of power in the republic played a significant role in prolonging the war. The first US constitution, the "Articles of Confederation" (adopted by Congress in 1777, ratified by the states in 1781), preserved the sovereignty of the states in important matters. The war for independence was at the same time a class struggle in the colonies themselves. Tens of thousands of loyalists fought in the English army. The bourgeoisie and planters, who led the struggle for independence, opposed the implementation of the democratic demands of soldiers, farmers, and workers. The victory of the revolution was possible only thanks to the participation of the broad masses of the people in it. Among the poor in New England, egalitarian demands were ripening: the restriction of property, the introduction of maximum food prices. The Negro people took an active part in the revolution. Negro regiments were created.
The English plan of action in 1777 was to cut off New England from the other states. September 26, 1777 Howe occupied the US capital Philadelphia, but the British army under the command of J. Burgoyne, marching from Canada to connect with Howe, was surrounded and capitulated on October 17, 1777 at Saratoga. The victory at Saratoga, won by American troops under the command of General G. Gates, improved the international position of the young republic. The US managed to exploit the contradictions between Great Britain and other European powers. Sent to Paris as a representative of the United States, B. Franklin entered into a military alliance with Britain's colonial rival, France (1778). In 1779, Spain entered the war with Great Britain. Russia took a benevolent position towards the United States, heading in 1780 the so-called League of Neutrals, which united a number of European countries that opposed Great Britain's desire to prevent trade between neutral countries and its opponents.
In June 1778, General G. Clinton, who replaced Howe, left Philadelphia. In 1779-1781, the British transferred military operations to the southern states, counting on the support of the plantation aristocracy. In December 1778 they occupied Savannah, in May 1780 - Charleston. A talented general, formerly a blacksmith, N. Green, was placed at the head of the South American army, successfully combining the actions of the rebel troops and partisans in the fight against the British troops. The British were forced to withdraw their troops to the port cities. After a naval battle on September 5-13, 1781, the French fleet cut off the main British forces from the sea at Yorktown; Washington surrounded them by land and October 19, 1781 forced them to surrender. Under the Versailles Peace Treaty of 1783, Great Britain recognized the independence of the United States.
The Revolutionary War was a bourgeois revolution that led to the overthrow of the colonial yoke and the formation of an independent American nation-state. The former prohibitions of the English parliament and royal power, which hampered the development of industry and trade, disappeared. The land latifundia of the English aristocracy and feudal vestiges (fixed rent, inalienability of allotments, primacy) were destroyed. In the northern states, Negro slavery was limited and gradually abolished. The transformation of the western lands expropriated from the Indians into state property (ordinance of 1787) and their subsequent sale created a basis for the investment of capital. Thus, essential prerequisites for the development of capitalism in North America were created.
| " |
Conclusion
The Russian Federation in terms of the form of the state
So, all the components of the form of the state are considered. Let's list them again:
1. Form of government
2. Form of government
3. Political regime
These three components form the state, that is, they speak about the ways of organizing power, about its source; about what form the administrative-territorial division of the state will take, about the content of power, about its relations with the people.
That is why each state should be characterized in a complex, considering it from all three points. Only then can one speak of a clearly defined form of the state.
This can be well illustrated by the example of the Russian Federation, in the new Constitution of which the form of the state is determined immediately (Article 1) and quite clearly: "The Russian Federation - Russia is a democratic federal legal state with a republican form of government."
Thus, it is declared that a democratic political regime dominates in the Russian Federation (and, accordingly, everything that is inherent in a democratic political regime is inherent in it), the form of government is a federation, and the form of government in Russia is a republic.
In conclusion, I would like to once again consider the form of the state in the historical aspect and try to bring out the most fair (according to modern concepts) and effective variety of it.
Historically, states first appeared, the form of which was primarily determined by the form of government; moreover, categories such as form of government or political regime simply did not exist. As mentioned above, the need to introduce a classification according to the form of government appeared in the 17th - 18th centuries, when such a form as a federation began to take shape, and the category "political regime" arose, according to S.S. Alekseev, and even in the 20s of the XX century.
Thus, in ancient times and in the Middle Ages, all states were unitary, and the form of government, as a rule, was a monarchy. We can talk about the political regime more broadly - for example, in some states of antiquity there were many institutions of democracy. However, authoritarian or even totalitarian states were much more common.
With the advent of federations, the situation has changed. And although the monarchy continued and continues to play a significant role in the form of government, the republic becomes the main form of government. The political regime becomes more and more democratic until it reaches the modern level.
Now the most common form of state is a democratic federal republic. It is in it that all modern views on how society should be most clearly manifested. However, this does not mean at all that mankind cannot invent anything more perfect. Perhaps in the future, fundamentally new elements of the form of the state will appear, and this only once again proves the promise and necessity of considering this topic.
List of used literature:
1. Alekseev S.S. "General Theory of Law" Moscow, 1981.
2. Alekseev S.S. "State and Law" Moscow, 1993
3. Textbook for universities edited by Marchenko
4. "Theory of state and law: a textbook for universities in the specialty: "Jurisprudence" Moscow, Moscow State University, 1987
5. Theory of state and law. / Under the editorship of A.B. Vengerov
6. Theory of state and law. Course of lectures / Ed. N.I. Matuzova., A.V. Malko. Saratov, 1995
Differences between state building
and the formation of nations
We can say that the creation of states and the formation of nations are two opposite, interconnected, but conceptually different processes. In the zone of intersection, it is quite difficult to separate them, but if such an intersection turns out to be incomplete (and, as is well known, it always happens), the differences begin to be clearly visible! It is they who will become the subject of this article. Both state and nation-building are historical processes that originated in the relatively recent past in Western Europe, but subsequently more or less successfully spread throughout the world. However, their development was not always successful and unimpeded on the European stage.
In Europe itself, the formation of states historically preceded the formation of nations. In some countries, state-building had gone far enough before national communities began to form. A few years ago, prompted by Stan Roman, I wrote an article about this in Spanish material entitled "Early State Building and Belated Anti-State Peripheral Nationalism." Ideally (at least from a certain point of view), both the simultaneous and successive formation of states and nations should result in the formation of what we call the nation-state. In practice, however, this happens quite rarely - such states can be counted on the fingers, if not of one hand, then no more than two. We live in a world where genuine nation-states are rather the exception, a world filled with both multinational states and states where the role of the dominant nation is to some extent contested by other national groups. In this world, there are, finally, nations without their own statehood. If all potential nations began and more or less successfully completed the process of nation-building, the stability of many, many currently existing states would be in question.
Based on these undoubted facts, one could come to the conclusion (as the ideological supporters of nationalism do, who put the principle of national self-determination above all else) that all nations, without exception, must protect their culture and self-consciousness by building their own statehood. They go even further, calling on all those who have not yet received the grace of national awakening to immediately begin the struggle for their statehood. Proponents of these views claim that the future belongs to a world of purely nation-states, that none of the existing nations on Earth should be left without a state of its own, and that any of the current states that are not able to identify themselves with a particular nation has no chance of survival. Unfortunately, as we well know, the number of potential nations many times exceeds both the number of already formed nations, with or without their statehood, and - to an even greater extent - the number of currently existing states.
Of course, there is the United Nations, but in fact it does not include nations, but states, the UN would be more correct to call the UN, the United States. Few now, especially among intellectuals, are interested in the idea of state-building (even if it means abandoning the creation of nation-states), and few recognize the possibility of creating a "nation-state" - that is, a state to which citizens relate with such devotion and to whom they give such support as, in the opinion of staunch nationalists, nations alone deserve. However, there is nothing impossible in this. In adopting such a view, we must be prepared to abandon the habitual belief that every state should strive with all its might to become a nation-state in the traditional sense of the term,
It is from this perspective that I intend to raise a number of questions that could stimulate future research. It could be argued that the processes of state and nation-building allow separation only in theory, but in reality they have always developed and are developing hand in hand. I am inclined, however, to believe that it is precisely in the concrete history of various societies that these processes differed from each other in the past and differ in the present,
Let's start with the fact that the beginning of state building was laid by the decline of feudalism, the Renaissance and the Reformation. This was the result of the crisis of the Christian empire and the confrontation between the emerging monarchies of Western and then Northern Europe. The state, according to the apt remark of the great historian Jakob Burckhardt, was "a work of human creativity", and from its very inception, it bore a certain touch of madeness, artificiality, conscious construction. It is by no means accidental that the terms and images of architects are often used to describe the process of state building, just as it is not accidental that, with the development of modern physics, something like a machine began to be seen in the state. At the same time, the processes of state-building do not in any way remind of organic growth and development and do not evoke analogies with biological processes - analogies that are so common when it comes to national problems. The State is something out of nature, it is not born, but created. The processes of state-building have been going on successfully for several centuries, and they began before the national idea ignited the imagination of intellectuals and the people. That is why the number of independent political entities in Europe from several hundred in 1500 four centuries later decreased to about twenty-five. Up until the French Revolution, with its support for a number of independent republics adjacent to the French borders, and Napoleon's subsequent support for a number of national movements, state-building processes were in fact in no way based on national feelings, national identity, or national consciousness. (The French Revolution did not export nationalism at all, since the Batavskal and Helvetic Republics it created were merely instruments of French control over the occupied territories of the Netherlands and Switzerland.) If there was any connection between nationalism and the French Revolution, it was in the emergence (sometimes after the fall of former dynasties and the collapse of politicians and diplomats) of counter-revolutionary mass movements seeking to protect their peoples and taking the matter of sovereignty into their own hands - as happened in Spain after the Napoleonic occupation. Similarly, the struggle for France's access to its "natural borders" had nothing to do with nationalism - it was dictated solely by the interests of the French state. Napoleon, blocking the map of Europe, by no means created new nation-states; he either installed his relatives and generals on the thrones of pre-existing monarchies (say, Spain or the Kingdom of Naples), or established new ones for them, such as the Kingdom of Westphalia. However, there is no doubt that some kind of proto-national feelings could not be dispensed with even when people saw themselves as subjects of their state or faithful servants of their monarch. Sooner or later, in most of these countries, "nation-states" began to emerge, and it was the states that existed then that stood at the origins of these processes,
If we talk about specific history, then "nations" began to appear only in the last century, and mainly in the second half of it. Only in a few countries did the formation of nations serve as the basis for state building: these are Italy, Germany, Greece, and also Hungary, where the process took on a completely special character due to the dual structure of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The example of Belgium, which achieved independence from the Netherlands only in 1830, is very curious. city, although its political separation began in the sixteenth century. It would seem that everything spoke for the fact that intensive national construction would begin in this country, but in our century, under the influence of Flemish nationalism, a multinational state was formed in Belgium. In the nineteenth century, Hungarian nationalism was one of the strongest in Europe, but the crown of St. Stephen again extended power over the multinational state. Specialists in Italian history cannot agree on which was more in the process of Italian unification - state building under the leadership of Cavour, or the formation of a new nation, which was headed by Mazzini and Garibaldi. Although there had been a strong nationalist movement in Germany before unification began, the German Reich was much more Bismarck's creation than the Nationalists'.
There is no doubt that the peace treaties concluded after the First World War made a very important contribution to nation-building. It is interesting, however, that the new states that emerged on the basis of these treaties and the principle of self-determination proclaimed by Wilson were not pure nation states. For example, the population of the new Czechoslovak Republic was only 64.8% Czechs and Slovaks, and 23% - from the Germans. The composition of the population of Poland was as follows: Poles - 69.2%; Ukrainians - 14.3%; Jews - 7.8%; Germans and Russians - 3.9% each. In Latvia, the share of the titular nation was 73.4% (and Russians were 10.3%), in Lithuania - 80.1%, and in Estonia - 87.6%. Of course, the disintegration of four empires into many new states and the redrawing of state borders were not a direct result of nation-building. In fact, it is difficult to consider as national those states that re-emerged on the basis of the Paris Peace Treaty or expanded their territories under this treaty. This is proved by a simple enumeration: Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, the three Baltic republics and Romania, which expanded its territory, Only Finland, where the Swedes constituted a really small minority, was completely devoted to the new state, which provided the Swedish-speaking part of the population with very significant rights.
If the dominant nations of these new states, such as Serbs, Czechs, Poles, Lithuanians, Letts and Estonians, could consider themselves "liberated", then this was hardly the case for Croats, Slovenes, Sudeten Germans, many Slovaks, Polish Germans, Ukrainians and Jews, and even to the various minorities of the Baltic states. In different countries, minorities were respected or oppressed in different ways, and the idea of a multinational state was sometimes defended in theory (although rarely implemented in practice) due to the attractiveness of the slogan of nation-building. . A number of historical examples show how the priority of nation-building created instability and crises in new states, and over time, sometimes led to their collapse. Of the eight new states that emerged in Europe after World War I, only three were stable democracies: Finland, Czechoslovakia, and Ireland. Of the fifteen pre-existing European states, nine had democratic regimes, while none of the successor states of the defeated empires was democratic.
We have yet to discuss the question of whether nationalism was a cause or a consequence of the crises of the states and empires of the past, unable to adapt to the requirements of the time, democratize or solve other pressing problems. After the Austrian monarchy, as a result of the famous Compromise of 1867, turned into The Austro-Hungarian, Viennese government tried to go further and restore the Kingdom of Bohemia by holding the coronation of Franz Joseph in Prague, as he had already been crowned. in Budapest, However, these plans immediately met with fierce resistance from the Hungarian and German nationalists. Even earlier, in 1848, Frantisek Palacki refused to participate in the work of the all-German National Assembly in Frankfurt, because he considered himself a Czech, not a German. Here is his own explanation: "When I try to find outside the Czech Republic that center that can best guarantee and protect the peace, freedom and rights of my nation, natural and historical reasons make me look not at Frankfurt, but at Vienna."
By studying the processes of state-building and the crises that accompany them, we can better see the reasons why the many potential nations mapped on ethnographic and linguistic maps have not succeeded in their evolution, and understand why, in certain historical circumstances, in the presence of strong or weak nationalist movements, there were or were not those or other national states.
The factor of establishing state borders without taking into account the ethnographic structure of the population is also active in the second half of the 20th century. The independent states of Africa arose on the basis of existing colonial borders. The complexity of nation-building with a strong mixing of homogeneous tribes, nationalities and languages forced African politicians to recognize the immutability of the boundaries that exist on the continent. The new (and by design, national) states that are emerging today from the ruins of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union inherited borders from former administrative territorial divisions, historically or at the behest of Stalin, although this gives rise to endless territorial disputes and conflicts. The international community agrees that new states should be established within the boundaries corresponding to the former territorial division, and consistently defends this principle. Important as the idea of the nation may be, the reality of statehood, old or new, still prevails. The whole problem is whether it is really possible to engage in state building, stimulating the creation of not purely national states, but states whose citizens will share a sense of unity with their multinational country, a feeling without which democracy is generally unthinkable?
Now let's talk a little about the essence of the state - and this will serve as a good starting point for a discussion of the processes of state building, allowing you to clarify a number of differences between the creation of states and the formation of nations. Let's start with Max Weber's definition of a state: "A state may be called such a permanent political organization with compulsory membership, whose administration successfully enforces its monopoly on the legitimate use of force to enforce order." The same Weber later clarified that "it is the state that maintains the administrative and legal order, which is changed only through legislative measures and is binding on administrative bodies operating within the framework of existing laws" (here Weber had in mind, first of all, the modern state, which performs its functions on a strictly legal basis).
A newer definition by Charles Tilly can also be given: “An organization that controls the population of a certain territory is a state if, firstly, it does not mix with other organizations operating in the same territory, secondly, it is autonomous, and secondly, thirdly, it is centralized, and fourthly, its various divisions are officially coordinated with each other.
The existence of the state implies a certain system of roles and rules, as well as access to certain resources. The state exercises its power through a highly differentiated and structured network of institutions, courts, military forces, legislatures, and the like. In modern states, officials and other officials are limited in their actions by constitutional norms, current legislation, instructions, customs (and in the past, traditions played a big role), The time of unlimited rulers is gone - in modern states, any power must obey certain rules, In principle , the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violent methods. Such violence, which allows the state apparatus to force people to comply with certain rules, is itself limited by the laws and regulations in force in this State (and this differs from individual violence).
The state also has economic resources - for this, taxes and duties are levied. State control extends to all inhabitants of the territory under its control, including not only its own citizens, but also foreigners. It can not only make laws and establish certain rules, but also ensure their implementation, using the courts and other means of coercion. The state is able to force its subjects to obey the laws, no matter what they think about their justice or injustice. The further successful state building develops, the more the idea of a constitutional state, acting in the spirit of laws and excluding arbitrariness, takes root. The democratization of state foundations creates the institution of citizenship, in other words, such a connection between a person and the state, which provides all its inhabitants, without exception, except for foreigners, with certain rights and imposes certain duties on them.
Not every state fits into this ideal model. Some states do not have a monopoly on legitimate violence - this happens when the power is challenged by the rebels who control some part of the state territory (example: fascist quadrists in Italy after the first world war), while others are very bad at collecting taxes that provide for their needs. Officials sometimes use their power not for public, but for personal benefit. the state can make laws that few people obey. In general, there are different levels of development of statehood, just as there are states that are in a state of collapse.
It should be emphasized that undemocratic states with brutal regimes sometimes care about the well-being of their citizens and pursue goals that are beneficial to society; in the same way, there are "evil states" that sacrifice their population for the sake of personal interests or utopian goals of rulers. Totalitarian states and dictatorial regimes can serve as examples of this.
States in their essence are artificial, machine-like formations that form society in their own image and likeness. The modern liberal and democratic state has made considerable progress in mitigating violence (including reducing violence in private life), protecting property and creating other conditions for the functioning of a civilized market economy, recognizing basic human rights and creating on this basis a social and cultural space for the development of the individual. However, the modern state also has numerous negative aspects, especially noticeable in some specific regimes.
The inhabitants of any state, regardless of their language, culture and religion, regardless of even the degree of their individual self-identification with this state, are obliged to obey it and its laws as a single supreme authority. It is interesting that Abbé Sieyes, in his definition of the state (nation) as "a union of people bound by a single law" (during the revolutionary transition of France from a monarchy to a republic), partly spoke of the same thing that we are talking about, meaning not a nation, but state. The modern state rests on the foundation of common citizenship, common rights and common duties for all, the state expects a certain loyalty from its citizens, but, generally speaking, does not require strong attachment from them, a single religion or language, values common to all, and the like. At the same time, residents of truly nation-states share some or all of these values.
On the contrary, the existence of a nation according to Weber "first of all means the legitimacy of the expectation that some groups will experience strong mutual solidarity towards each other and in the face of other groups"; in other words, the concept of the nation belongs to the realm of values, Weber also notes that there are different opinions about how exactly such groups should be singled out or what concerted action the solidarity they feel should lead to. In ordinary language, a nation is not necessarily associated with the inhabitants of a particular state, in other words, with members of any one political community.
The foregoing does not mean that in practice the composition of a nation cannot be exhausted by the citizens of a given state - it is simply not necessary at all. These differences are clearly seen in the example of Germany before its recent unification. Until 1990, there were two German states, although at the same time, according to popular belief, which received final confirmation in the collapse of the GDR, there was only one German nation divided between them.
Now let's discuss some of the most important differences between nations and states. Despite the existence of leaders of national movements and nationalist organizations, as well as personalities acting as heralds of the national idea and carriers (in the Weberian sense of the word) of national feelings, nations still do not have their own officials and other officials who perform formal predetermined for them roles. Similarly, there are no clear rules for determining nationality. Although nationalists sometimes force certain actions or a certain style of behavior on some of those who identify themselves (or, in the opinion of nationalist leaders, should identify) with this nation, nevertheless, the observance of the rights and fulfillment of the obligations arising from such identification is not backed up by any legal coercive measures, unless it is authorized and controlled by the state. The nation as such has no military or police power, no taxes, and no means of coercion. Only a state that supports the claims and aspirations of a certain nation (it may or may not be national itself) is able to provide the means and resources to achieve national goals,
It may be objected that a nation that emerges from a national movement is still sometimes able to exercise its power, use violence and extort material resources for its own benefit, even if it does not have the power of the state behind it. However, in the modern international system of states, this only means that such movements appropriate some of the functions of the state, which in the end is deprived of part of the legitimate power. For example, nationalists can create armies that have such power in a certain territory that the state actually loses control over this territory and loses the ability to impose its will on its population. In this case, we are dealing either with a civil war or with a national liberation movement. Such a movement may eventually create a new state, but years of struggle for power will cost the population many of the values that a modern state is associated with, especially if it was a liberal democratic one. In practice, the struggle of nationalists against the existing state almost always destroys law and order and opens the way to the strongest arbitrariness and violence. One should not, however, identify nations with those movements that activate national consciousness.
A nation as such cannot have the internal organization typical of modern states. It has no autonomy, officials, rules and laws - there are only resources derived from that psychological identification that binds people who consider themselves members to it. If the state can exist on the basis of the formal subordination of citizens to norms imposed on them, then the nation requires members of some deep fidelity and identification,
We all live under the jurisdiction of one state or another. There has long been no place left on the globe that is not subject to the power or claims of now existing states. With the exception of stateless people (a category originally defined by the League of Nations, which issued them the so-called Nansen passports), every person is a citizen or subject of some states. At the same time, millions of people completely do without a national consciousness and do not identify themselves with a particular nation. sometimes they ask about such things, they usually answer in which country they live, but that's it - thinking in national terms is simply alien to them. Many of those who, according to the criteria of ethnologists, linguists, political scientists and leaders of nationalist movements, should be assigned to one or another nation, in fact do not see themselves in this light and either do not feel their nationality at all, or consider themselves members of some then another nation.
According to the ideologist of nationalism, the Catalan Prat de la Riba, who understood well the differences between the state and the nation, "the state is fundamentally different from the nation, being a political organization that has independence in the international sphere, representing the highest form of power in the domestic sphere, and has her with such human and financial resources as will enable her to safeguard her independence and assert her authority."
Nation de la Riba defined as "a living, organic, natural unity that exists even in spite of the presence of laws that do not recognize it. It is the naturalness of the nation that first of all distinguishes it from such an artificial work of human hands as the state."
In 1906, the Capuchin monk Evangelista de Ibero, in his nationalist catechism for the Basques, expressed the same thoughts, only in a more emotional form. In his words, "the nation is something natural, something born of nature itself, while the state is an artificial creation of the human will" (a more detailed quotation can be found in the work named in note? 3).
This natural essence of the nation, as opposed to the artificiality of the state, is constantly emphasized in the works of nationalist thinkers. However, upon mature reflection, it becomes clear that the nation is not a natural, but a cultural formation, the product of a certain development of culture. Therefore, national identity can be considered as a concept no less artificial than state,
Thus, both nation-building and state-building turn out to be, to use the quoted expression of Burckhardt, works of human creativity, the results of the conscious efforts of leaders. The challenge is how best to analyze the difficulties and successes of both processes and assess the degree of their complementarity and incompatibility. Successful nation-building is by no means an easy task, but such a task is likely to be inferior to nation-building in complexity, especially if it is carried out simultaneously with the creation of the state. Paradoxically, nations form much more easily when a state is in crisis or in a state of collapse. Curiously, nation-building (at least in some senses of the term) can take place especially easily in the absence of a complex and structured civil society. The formation of a modern state already presupposes the existence of a sufficiently developed civil society. For example, the state rests on the foundation of a legal culture that depends on the quality of legal education in universities - without this it is almost impossible to create at least the minimally effective bureaucracy that the state badly needs. The state needs a productive economy that uses money as a medium of exchange - otherwise it is very difficult to collect taxes. These considerations are of particular importance when discussing the processes that took place in the Soviet Union even before its collapse: the loss of legitimacy by the party that took the place of the state; weak civil society. In such circumstances, it is not surprising to turn to the formation of nations as a means of overcoming the crisis. After that, it is not difficult to understand the attractiveness of nationalism and the growth of its influence in the states that emerged on the territory of the former USSR.
In many European countries, the processes of state building developed on the foundation of quite successful medieval monarchies, which gradually became class-based, absolutist, and after the French Revolution - constitutional. Then development proceeded on the basis of democratization. Dynastic marriages and wars played a large role, leading to the acquisition and loss of territories and the unification of various crown lands with their own state structures under the rule of a single monarch. Over time, the royal court and its bureaucracy began to manage these lands from a single center, and in constitutional monarchies they fell under the jurisdiction of the central legislative power. As a result, a single army, a single jurisprudence and a single system of taxation and finance emerged, kings gradually turned into citizens of their State. At the same time, in the initial and middle stages of state building, no one was particularly interested in the formation of a common culture for all, and very little attention was paid to the birth of a single language; True, common values were nevertheless fixed on the basis of the principle "what is the king, such is the faith", which was applied everywhere, with the exception of countries with a mixed population, where religious tolerance existed to some extent. The nobility, the clergy, and, to an even greater extent, the masses owed allegiance exclusively to the ruler of a given territory, and if the territory passed into other hands, its population recognized the new ruler without much difficulty. In fact, many nobles could choose their own king and serve him, regardless of their origin. N.Preradovich in his study of the elite groups of the Austro-Hungarian Empire showed the strong heterogeneity of its ruling aristocracy.
In Western European monarchies with early borders (Portugal, Spain, England-Ouses-Scotland, France, and to a lesser extent the countries of Scandinavia), both the servants of the crown and the common people shared a sense of pride in their country, which can be called proto-nationalist, and identified themselves with it. These feelings were also present among the population of dismembered kingdoms and territories, but in this case they were no longer based on a common language for all. It is difficult to determine exactly when what we now call a national worldview arose on their basis. There is no doubt that this happened already after the French Revolution, in some cases as a reaction to the expansion of the Jacobin republican idea, and in others as a result of resistance to the Napoleonic conquests.
With democratization and the formation of equal citizenship for all, these states became even more national. The emergence of nationalism is undoubtedly connected with republican ideas, but we should not forget that before the twentieth century there were very few republics in Europe. In parallel, a single language was being formed in each country, largely due to the actions of the administration and the courts, which needed it purely practically. Usually such a language was built on the foundation of relatively successful variants of the literary language, but until the end of the last century it was not part of the process of conscious language building, which in Western Europe proceeded slowly and, for the most part, arbitrarily,
It could be said that if the creators of states had a better understanding of the importance of nation-building, they would have engaged in it long before the onset of the twentieth century. In practice, it turned out that most of the Western European states became more or less successful nation-states even before the very idea of nation-building was established and became dominant. As a result, such states have maintained stability up to the present day, despite the emergence of peripheral nationalist movements in Spain, France and the United Kingdom (with the exception of Ireland). Interestingly, when the crisis of the Franco regime questioned the existence of a unified Spanish nation and stimulated strong Peripheral nationalist movements, almost all of their leaders preferred to say "This is a state" or "Spanish state", avoiding the use of the word "Spain". Thus, they denied ( with more or less force and rhetorical fervor) the existence of the Spanish nation, but not the Spanish state.
The nineteenth century, at first glance, seems to be an era of nation-building and dreams about whom in oppressed national groups. But a more careful study of historical events makes us see things in a different perspective. After such a study, the words of the liberal Piedmontese politician Massimo d "Azeglio, said in 1860, that is, after the unification of Italy - "We have created Italy, now we need to create Italians," seem by no means accidental. The meaning here is that the formation state has already been successfully completed, mostly through traditional methods, but now the task of nation-building is on the agenda.Although nationalism has been a significant force in Germany since the beginning of the last century, the German Confederation created by Bismarck was not the result of national, but state-building, carried out under the leadership of Prussia, whose ruling circles were not very enthusiastic about the creation of a German nation, fearing that it would lead to the democratization of the state.In a united Germany, nationalism increased and attempts at nation-building intensified.However, during the Second Reich, the cultural and linguistic heterogeneity of the German lands did not go away into the past and national minorities retained representation in the Reichstag.
In fact, the rise of pan-Germanism in Austria, and to some extent in Germany, was the result of hostility towards a state that did not want to seriously engage in nation-building. It is no coincidence that Hitler expressed hostility to the German Spaatsglaubigkeit in Mein Kampf.
Prussia became the center of German unification, Piedmont - Italy. It was the existence of these two key states, with their bureaucrats, diplomats and officers, that made possible the subsequent nation-building that was carried out by intellectuals, university professors, schoolteachers, economists and protectionist businessmen. Over time, in both countries, this process led to the emergence of extreme forms of nationalism. At the same time, the "small" peoples of Central and 10th-Eastern Europe, who lived in the Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires, found themselves in a completely different situation. These peoples carried out nation-building in addition to the state and against its will (the various phases of this process are well described by Miroslav Groch ). This applies, for example, to Czechs, Lithuanians, Estonians, Slovaks, and also to the Flemings. Among all these peoples, the original "bearers" of the national idea had not yet thought about the possibility of creating their own state, the dream of which appeared at the center of their efforts only much later. Things were different in Norway, which broke off the union with Sweden in 1905. Norway already had a quasi-state that made such a break possible. The Grand Duchy of Finland, which was part of the Russian Empire, also had various autonomous state institutions. Until tsarism began to carry out the Russification of Finland, these institutions could, without irritating St. Petersburg, be used for the purposes of nation-building. At the same time, the emergence of new national states in this region became possible only as a result of the military defeat of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the revolutionary crisis in Russia. The collapse of the Russian Empire led to the recognition of the complete independence of Finland, the emergence of the three Baltic republics, the unification of Poland and the inclusion of Bessarabia in Romania. At the same time, several more states arose, none of which lasted longer than three or four years: Bukhara, Khiva, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Ukraine. Tatars and steppe peoples of Kazakhstan. This was possible under the influence of the then international situation, in particular, due to the fact that the Western countries were afraid of the spread of the Bolshevik revolution. Often, nations and national movements were weak, and the Moscow Bolshevik rulers were able to maintain control, although they were sometimes forced to make certain, albeit short-lived, concessions. Usually, the borders of new states were drawn as God would put it, and did not correspond to ethnic and linguistic boundaries, and the population consisted of people of different nationalities and languages, which created the preconditions for future irredenta and territorial claims from neighbors. The result was an active desire for nation-building, which in turn contributed to the instability of these states. Dominant national groups were engaged in nation-building, the success of which called into question the loyalty of other citizens. Over time, this trend led to the weakening or collapse of several states, such as Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Yugoslavia, where Serbs dominated.
According to many, in our time, it was nationalism that caused the collapse of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. But we should not forget that in many cases the new independent states were created by the former state elite, who tried to put at the service of the national feelings of the population, at the same time retaining the old state structure (sometimes along with their posts), and also to prevent changes in the old borders. , despite their inconsistency with ethnic, linguistic and cultural realities, to some extent, the Baltic states are an exception to this rule.
Complexities of nation and state building
The starting point for the subsequent discussion will be the recognition of the fact that in most of the world the processes of nation-building developed very, very difficult, and sometimes extremely painful, no matter what the supporters of unlimited self-determination may say about this (affirming the right of any nation to its own statehood or preaching the eternal and natural character of nations) with their simplistic notions of historical reality. Taking this as a basis, I intend to show that it is by no means always necessary to strive for cultural diversity that we value so much or protect it from encroachment. Secondly, I will try to convince readers that in our century, unlike the last century, it is more and more difficult to turn each of the existing states into a national one. In fact, such efforts are making nation-building increasingly unreliable, if not impossible, in many parts of the world.
It can be easily shown that a democratic, rule-of-law state that is not, strictly speaking, a nation state is still capable of evoking in its citizens such feelings of devotion and emotional support that, in the opinion of many, can only belong to a nation.
On the other hand, we will argue that nationally minded citizens can well do without creating their own nation states if the existing multinational state is able to create conditions for the development of their culture and the preservation of their national identity. There are a number of terminological difficulties here, since we will need special concepts to designate both nations that exist in states that do not aspire to become nation states, and states that do not pursue a policy of nation-building, but nevertheless acquire some features of nation states, States, deserving of the name "nation-states" must be multinational, or at least multicultural. Let us not, however, get ahead of ourselves, and first of all turn to a number of important facts that are often ignored in intellectual (and even more often in political) debates about nationalism,
Whatever various nationalist ideologies may claim about this, nations are not created by nature and do not begin to demand their own statehood by magic. Ernst Gellner wrote about this with all certainty; this conclusion is indirectly supported by the very convincing results of Groch, who showed that it takes a long time and intensified to awaken nationalist feelings in small groups, and that attempts to awaken radical nationalism among the population of stable Western states and, even more so, to raise them to the struggle for secession and independence , barren.
There is a good deal of evidence that "birthright" (in the sense given to the term by Edward Shiels and Clifford Girtz) does not in itself translate into "national nationalism," although it can transform into "national consciousness." I myself have shown, in my study of modern Spain and the French part of the Basque Country, that however strong the primary self-identification based on a common language and origin may be, it does not necessarily give rise to an exclusive national identity, not to mention calls for the creation of a nation-state. Rather, it looks as if zealous nationalists are ready to abandon the "original" traits as identifiers of their nation, replacing them with territorial claims that make it possible to include in the number of members of the nation those who just cannot claim to possess such "primary" traits. characteristics. The transformation of a national identity into a voluntary choice, independent of any "original" features, entails the rejection by nationalist movements of individuals who possess these traits but do not support the movements themselves. Nationalism, as Max Weber brilliantly showed, is by no means reducible to the transfer of distinctive original features into the realm of politics. The ideologists of nationalism usually ignore this aspect of the matter, reducing the basis of the nationalist movement to the speakers of a given language or the followers of a given religion, and without thinking about how many of these people really see in such attributes the basis for the formation of a nation, or, moreover, the construction of a nation state. On the other hand, when putting forward their claims, nationalists often count the entire population of a given territory as members of their nation, regardless of their origin and even their desire to stand out as a separate nation and create their own national state. Careful study of all the relevant facts could seriously undermine many nationalist claims, but in countries with real nationalist conflicts, this is almost impossible to do.
Another problem overlooked by sociologists and politicians alike is that in today's world people don't think of themselves as having only one attribute. As a rule, people are not inclined to see themselves as only Catalans or Spaniards, although they can be forced to do so. There is evidence that one and the same person can feel at the same time, say, a Catalan and a Spaniard (and earlier a Slovak and a Czechoslovak, and perhaps even a Croat and a Yugoslav), if he is not forcibly taken away from the right to such a double self-identification. Of course, many feel a great inclination towards a single national name. Nationalists are just trying to force people to an unambiguous self-identification and weaken (through coercion or persuasion) the position of those who seek to create a society based on several identities. At the same time, the creation and survival of multinational states is ensured by the presence of precisely dual identities. I could give a lot of data in favor of this thesis, but this has already been done in my other works. For example, according to a 1982 survey of Catalan residents, 32% described themselves as either Spaniard or more Spaniard than Catalan, 40% as Spaniard and Catalan equally, 17% as more Catalan than Spaniard, and, finally, 9% - only Catalans. Among those whose parents were natives of Catalonia, the proportions were 11%, 48%, 26.5% and 14%, respectively. If both parents were migrants, the picture turned out to be different - 34%, 37.5%, 12% and 11%. Finally, when polling immigrants, the distribution looks like this: 64%, 26%, 4% and 2%,
Almost all nationalists are not satisfied with such facts. Some nationalists declare that the state can only be national, and demand that all citizens be identified with their state and state nationality. Other nationalists argue that the existence of their own nation is incompatible with any other broader identity Fortunately, there are politicians who recognize the existence of dual identities and base their political programs on this, politicians who do not see any contradiction between the sense of belonging as a state -nations, and to a nation that does not aspire to statehood. However, it must be admitted that in reality they often give in to nationalist demands and begin to seek the creation of a separate national state for their own nation.
One can easily imagine a society, each member of which has more than two identities. For example, one can see oneself as a representative of one’s nation, a citizen of one’s state, and a member of some larger community, say, a resident of Europe. Self-identification with any of these communities could would have its own meaning and value for each person, but there would be no contradiction between these self-identifications.
In the same Catalan survey, respondents were asked how proud they were of being Spaniard (four answers were offered). 33% of those surveyed said they were "very proud" and 40% said they were "moderately" proud (for the whole of Spain, these figures are respectively 45 and 40%). When answering the same question about belonging to the Catalan nationality, 36% expressed a high degree of pride, and 48% expressed a moderate degree. These figures mean that a large proportion of respondents are proud of their belonging to both nations and that many migrants from other parts of Spain living in Catalonia , proudly consider themselves Catalans (it should be noted that the population of the province is more than 30% migrants).
These facts allow us to speak about both the deliberate creation and the deliberate destruction of nations and states. The first requires intelligent and moderate leaders who are aware of the complexity of social reality and are ready to compromise. The second inevitably entails conflict, often even violence and repression, which are resorted to either in the name of the state, or in the name of a nation that wants to acquire statehood. In some cases, the state itself seeks to destroy the originally existing ethnic feelings (in which others see the nation) through the policy of denationalization, cultural repression, and sometimes using the apparatus of suppression. In other cases, multilateral ethnic ties that exist in a complex multicultural society are destroyed in the name of any one nation. The success of such actions always depends on the willingness to use force and on the international environment that allows the use of force or supports one of the parties to the conflict, recognizing its legitimate right to use force. Conflicts make it difficult, if not impossible, to build a civilized society whose members could live together in a single state, no matter what nation they consider themselves to be. The result of such conflicts is emigration and refugees.
It follows from the above, however, that this can be avoided, and it is necessary to think about how to achieve this. Unfortunately, many social scientists who deal with these issues, especially in countries spared from such conflicts, tend to oversimplify the issue of the right to self-determination and secession (and the moral basis of the desire for secession), and have sympathy for victims of oppression, real and imagined. In the 20th century, nation-building, carried out by the state or against the will of the state, sometimes led to horrific conflicts.
It might be observed that the present states, which have reached the stage of nation-states, or at least become nation-states, have traversed this path quite successfully in the last century. In this regard, we can recall the brilliant monograph by Eugene Weber "From the peasants - to the French." From it one can learn how the French state, inspired by the Jacobin idea of the "one and indivisible" nation, succeeded in overcoming the cultural and linguistic heterogeneity of France. The purposeful building of the nation by the forces of the French state ended with incredible success. The liberal-centralist Spanish state did the same thing in the last century, but its success was much more modest (although it should not be overlooked to what extent Spain and the Spanish state succeeded in stimulating the Spanish national feeling during the centuries, especially in the first three quarters of the last century). From today's point of view, these achievements no longer seem so attractive, for they came at a price that many would consider excessive,
The point, however, is not how we evaluate the history of the currently existing nation-states, but whether their achievements can be repeated in our time. Sociological analysis shows that today similar efforts, no matter how sympathetic they may be, are doomed to failure in most societies and, of course, cannot be successful in liberal democratic societies. The reasons for this deserve a detailed discussion, but we will have to confine ourselves to just a few points.
In the modern world, even at the extreme periphery, each society creates an intellectual elite, which, both for emotional reasons and, let's not forget this, in its own interests, always protects the original values and characteristics. As Gellner rightly pointed out, in an agrarian pre-industrial society didn't exist. Today they exist even in agrarian societies themselves.
While I do not agree with the notion often found in writings on nationalism that intellectuals, artists, and writers are the sole or leading force in the dissemination of nationalist ideas, the role of quiet groups is undoubtedly important. Today they can defend these ideas on the basis of a vast and vague ideological heritage. It should not be thought that intellectuals are attracted only by well-developed rationalized ideologies. There are plenty of examples where a disorderly and vague ideology has a strong effect on the feelings and emotions of people who are otherwise capable of quite rational behavior. Today, the principles of nationalism are available in ways that were never available before the 19th and 20th centuries. The most influential ideologies of the past - fascism and communism - found support in international public opinion, whose leaders knew little or nothing about societies where nationalist ideas, contrary to their own liberal values, were put into practice. Let's not fool ourselves by talking about the end of ideology in the modern world. In the vacuum created by the demise of many other ideologies, nationalism has gained a new, previously unprecedented strength.
Moreover, these intellectual elites can easily appeal not only to educated circles, but also through the media to a wide audience that was inaccessible in past times. An educational and cultural policy similar to that of the French Third Republic is hardly feasible today.
In our time, the liberal-democratic principles of legitimacy - the institutions of the rule of law - in words enjoy universal recognition, even when in practice these principles are violated. Therefore, many countries that need the respect of the world community cannot discriminate and suppress those who claim their right to culture, language and historical past, even if these demands are dressed in the form of extreme nationalism. This is the very reality that modern states cannot ignore unless they want to turn to authoritarianism. But authoritarianism is also unacceptable to those who do not show sympathy or even tolerance for nationalists who challenge the idea of building a nation-state.
Now it is necessary to look for new ways of state integration, not based on nation-building. In addition, it is important to consider that many aspects of the life of modern societies do not in themselves contribute to the claims of nationalists who question the role of the state. The market forces that create the need for the free movement of people and capital and for the expansion of economic space are at the same time separated by economic borders of the country. Despite the growing demand for the recognition of all kinds of local languages (which, as Gellner noted, sometimes play the role of tools for gaining political influence in modern societies), the world economy still puts the most common and widely used languages in the first place. But if in the commercial sphere it is preferable to use such a global language as English, then for everyday communication it may be more suitable, say, not the standard version of German, but its Swiss dialect. However, one should not hope that completely rational considerations regarding economic feasibility of large political formations. For example, in Yugoslavia in 1991, no one thought that it would be better to postpone ethnic conflicts at least until autumn, so as not to damage the tourist season. The planned, centralized economy of the USSR created economic ties regardless of the borders between the republics, but the idea of a single Soviet market and its vital importance for the republics could in no way be compared with their desire for independence. The new nationalism creates obstacles to the creation of a broad market, and this slows down economic growth. The calculation of the new nation-states on the advantages of joining the European Common Market often turns out to be illusory.
I could go on and on about the complexities of using state power to create Jacobin-style nation-states. Similar. I could dive into a more detailed analysis of why peaceful nation-building in multicultural societies is so difficult (especially if the peoples living there are territorially mixed and if the "builders" are in a hurry). These complexities explain why the instrument of nation-building is so often violence, either by the state or by grassroots nationalist movements,
Some will argue that the best solution to the problems of nation-building is democracy, which succeeded in smoothing out the class conflicts that only a few decades ago seemed to be the main threat to the stability of industrial societies. I think that democracy can indeed be useful, but not before we stop identifying the essence of democratic processes with the principle of majority rule. It can be doubted, however, that the best democratic way to solve national problems is a mass vote on the issue of self-determination. Modern man feels connected, albeit to varying degrees, with many cultural and ethnic groups. The population of each territory consists of both representatives of the dominant culture and cultural minorities. Under these conditions, the attempt to achieve self-determination through a plebiscite, as a rule, turns out to be useless. Back in the days of the Versailles Peace Conference, the beautiful-hearted defenders of the self-determination of nations were faced with the fact that the rule "let the people decide for themselves" simply did not work, because first it was necessary to agree on who the very people who would decide consisted of, and often the choice itself predetermined the result, by no means acceptable to all who are called to make this decision, Sir Ivor Jennin.<пусть народ решает сам>Outwardly, he looked very reasonable, but in fact he was a complete absurdity, because the people can not decide anything until someone decides who this people consists of. It is very easy for a democrat to say "let the people decide!", but this is only in theory, but in real life it is extremely difficult. The study of these complexities is the field of activity of sociologists, and the analysis of public opinion, carried out strictly and correctly, can be of great benefit (if such an analysis is not carried out correctly, an overly simplified picture may arise). In my practical work in surveys, I myself tried to reveal the complexity of national phenomena by formulating the question of nationality in such a way that the respondents in their answers were not obliged to tie themselves rigidly to one single nationality.
The paradox of nation-building is that, following the period of national awakening, with its attributes such as the creation of cultural institutions, the standardization of language, the organization of nationalist movements and the holding of demonstrations in support of their own independent statehood, the time comes for the leaders of the movements to choose between peaceful, purely institutional means. achieving their stated goals and resorting to violence, the formation of their own armed groups, or even, if the state opposing them is strong enough, resorting to methods of individual terror. At this point, the nationalist leadership usually loses its former cohesion, and some part of it decides to work within the existing political system (such a split is less likely if the existing state is already falling apart on its own or if the nationalists receive strong international support). This option is of particular importance if the country is moving to democracy from an authoritarian regime that suppressed all national aspirations.
There are two paths to the transition to democracy. If, under the rule of the former authoritarian regime, they already exist. Autonomous (in fact or at least in theory) regional institutions, their leaders, even if they have not previously been on the side of democracy, may well begin to appeal to the national feelings of the population in order to thereby gain its support in the struggle against a weak or collapsing center. Unless a legitimate democratic power arises in the center with its own representative bodies capable of quickly and effectively leading negotiations on the creation of a new nationwide structure (this, in particular, requires elections to be held throughout the country for new central bodies even before regional elections are held). elections), the regions may begin to demand full independence. In such a situation, their leaders usually proclaim the creation of new states and begin state and nation building. On this path, they sooner or later face many difficulties (the creation of a nation is a very difficult task!), which new states are sometimes simply not able to overcome. Apparently, this is exactly what is happening in the territory of the former Soviet Union, especially since the former communist apparatchiks, who suddenly became nationalists, have very little idea of liberalism and democratic institutions.
However, the transition to democracy can be carried out, as it was, say, in Spain, and while maintaining the pre-existing state, which is not identified with the previous regime. If this transition is initiated by the post-authoritarian state itself, acting according to the formula "treaty reform - contractual break", a dilemma arises for convinced nationalists: either to participate in this process, or to refuse any cooperation with state power. The previously united national movement is usually divided into supporters of different strategies; some are in favor of temporary cooperation, combined with pressure on the authorities in order to achieve independence, others decide to participate in legislative elections, meaning to strengthen their positions in subsequent negotiations with the center on secession or gaining autonomy within the framework of a new federal or confederal state structure. A national movement that has no chance of gaining its share of power within a democratic state
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………3
Nation and Nationality………………………………………………………………3
Nation and language………………………………………………………………………....4
Formation of nations………………………………………………………………….4
History…………………………………………………………………………………5
National culture……………………………………………………………..5
Psychological aspect…………………………………………………………....6
The concept of “nation”……………………………………………………………………...3
History and development of approaches to the interpretation of the “nation”………………………………8
The main approaches to the interpretation of the term "nation"……………………………………….6
Nationalism……………………………………………………………………………..9
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………...12
List of used literature………………………………………………………….14
Introduction
Historically, the term “nation” (from Latin nascor - to be born) was used in ancient Rome to refer to small peoples. At the same time, it was used along with the term of Greek origin "ethnos", denoting a tribe (community of people), united by kinship, similarity of language and territory. Subsequently, “nation” was mainly used to characterize the results of the merger of several ethnic groups, which occurred as a result of migration, the seizure of territory or the unification of lands, assimilation. In different situations, the term “nation” can mean both an ethnic community and the entire population of a state, and in English it can also serve as a synonym for the concept of a state. This situation has led to the fact that in the works of some modern scientific schools and even in international documents, the concepts of “nation” and “ethnos” can be used interchangeably.
The concept of "nation"
Nation (from Latin natio - tribe, people) - socio-economic, cultural, political and spiritual community of people of the industrial era http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F - cite_note-0, formed as a result of the formation of the state; the phase of the development of an ethnos (in stages: clan - tribe - nationality - people - nation), in which this particular ethnos acquires sovereignty and creates its own full-fledged statehood. It can be considered as a form of ethnic life of the industrial era.
There is another point of view that states that a nation creates a state for its own needs, while the nation itself is understood as a “superethnos”, i.e. a multitude of interconnected peoples and nationalities that relate to each other with positive complementarity.
In international law, it is synonymous with the state.
Nation and nationality
It is necessary to distinguish between such interrelated, but not identical concepts as "nation" and "nationality". The concept of "nationality", expressing the ethnic community, is only one of the factors of the nation and nationality. Therefore, it is narrower than the concept of "nation". The source of the ethnic connection of people is the commonality of genetic characteristics and natural conditions of life, leading to the differentiation of this primary group from another. The nation is a more complex and late formation. If ethnic groups have existed throughout world history, then many nations are formed already in the period of the New and even the Newest time.
A nation can be of 2 types: polyethnic (multinational) or monoethnic.
A nation is a historical community of people that develops in the process of forming a community of their territory, economic ties, language, some features of culture and character that make up its signs.
In some cases, a synonym for the nation is the concept of "people"; in the constitutional law of English- and Roman-speaking countries - a term that usually has the meanings of "state", "society", "the totality of all citizens".
Nation and language
Language is also not a universal differentiating feature of a nation: the uniqueness of a nation is not necessarily accompanied by the uniqueness of a language. There are nations that share the same language with each other (these are German, English, Arabic, Serbo-Croatian, Azerbaijani), and there are nations that speak a language alien to all or almost all ethnic groups - Indians, Han Chinese (the two main spoken Chinese languages, Peking and Cantonese, although they are called dialects, are linguistically separated from each other further than English is from German).
In Switzerland, a single nation uses four languages: German (65% of the population), French (18.4%), Italian (9.8%), and Romansh (0.8%). In Germany, there are many local dialects that are very different from standard German.
Formation of nations
The emergence of nations is historically associated with the development of production relations, overcoming national isolation and fragmentation, with the formation of a common economic system, in particular a common market, the creation and dissemination of a common literary language, common elements of culture, etc. Thus, the first European nations grew up on the basis of already established large nationalities that had a common language, territory and other ethnic characteristics that acted as conditions for the formation of these nations. In other cases, nations were formed even when all the conditions for their formation were not yet fully prepared. Thus, in a number of countries in Asia and Africa, nations were formed in the course of the struggle for independence, and especially after its conquest on the territory historically formed as a result of colonial partitions from tribes and nationalities that differed in language, culture, economic ties and became a form of territorial and economic cohesion, political and cultural development of these countries. It should also be taken into account that the formation of nations is not a universal stage in the development of all the peoples of the world. Many small peoples (tribes, linguistic-territorial groups) often merge with large nations.
Ernest Gellner considered industrial society a condition for the emergence of nationalism, and Benedict Anderson considered nationalism a condition for the transition to an industrial society.
Poets, artists, journalists, historians and linguists play an important role in the formation of a nation (it is sometimes said that almost all European nations are projects of representatives of romanticism). The formation of the Scottish nation was greatly influenced by Robert Burns and Walter Scott, Danish by Hans Christian Andersen and Bertel Thorvaldsen, Polish by Frederic Chopin, Adam Mickiewicz and Henryk Sienkiewicz, Italian by Giuseppe Mazzini, Finnish by Elias Lönrot, Jewish by Ben Yehuda, and German - Schiller, Goethe and Herder.
Story
The first modern nations, according to the nationalist classic Benedict Anderson, were Latin American, formed in the course of the struggle against the Spanish crown, followed by the United States and then France by a small margin. For the first time, the concept of a nation in its political meaning appeared precisely during the Great French Revolution, when it became necessary to form a certain community in return for the lost "citizenship of the French crown."
Before 1750, it is already very difficult to detect the beginnings of nationalism, nationalism is a phenomenon of modern times.
In the 1800s, German nationalism arose, followed by the nationalisms of Greece and the Scandinavian countries (1810-20), Italian nationalism (1830s), in the 1850s-1900s nationalism spread to the countries of Eastern Europe and India, and at the beginning XX century - to the countries of Asia and Africa. The most historically young nations were the nations of the Vietnamese and Cambodians - their birth took place in 1930-50.
Thus, the ideology of nationalism in one of its aspects consists in isolating and isolating a separate nation from the total number of nationalities that lived before the emergence of a nation in a certain territory. After the isolation of the nation, the paradigm of nationalism begins to work for the formation, protection and strengthening of its nation.
national culture
A nation is primarily a cultural phenomenon, and only then an ethnic and social one.
National culture in general cannot be limited to the narrow confines of a homogeneous ethnic community. On the contrary, the full development of the nation requires a much higher level of differentiation of spiritual orientations and way of life than ethnic. It includes various variants of subcultures due to ethnic, geographical, social, economic and class factors. It is often noted that a nation is not built up through the assertion of uniformity. It is an extremely heterogeneous formation, consisting of components of various kinds, although each of them individually contains common cultural features that distinguish this nation. A characteristic feature of national cultures is their wide differentiation according to professional and social characteristics.
Psychological aspect
In the traditional economy, a person is born, lives and dies in the same circle, is surrounded by the same people, without needing another community. Industrial society breaks this picture: people become more and more mobile, neighborhood and family ties are terminated. The nation restores the psychic and social ties of a person at a new level, corresponding to the global scope of everyday life. Benedict Anderson called the nation an "imaginary community" - a community that is created and maintained not by the personal acquaintance of members, but by the power of their imagination, their brotherly feelings.
The main approaches to the interpretation of the term “nation”.
The modern specialized understanding of the concept of nation, directly associated with statehood and civic identity, was born during the French Revolution of the 18th century and reflected the beginning process of the formation of national identity. Along with the development of theoretical concepts that recognize the nation as a specific and highly significant political actor, there are also points of view according to which the nation is an invention, a fiction. K. Popper and his followers, in Russia a group of modern scientists (V. Tishkov, G. Zdravomyslov) consider the nation as a metaphorical reflection of ethno-cultural reality.
Despite the abundance of theoretical interpretations of the nation in socio-political thought, at present we can talk about the predominance of two main theoretical approaches to its understanding - constructivist and primordialist. Adherents of the first view the nation as the result of the conscious activity of one or another subject - the intellectual elite, solidarity cultivated by the state, etc. E. Gelner, E. Hobsbawm believe that nations owe their origin to the activities of the state. This understanding of the nation affirmed the formula “one people - one territory - one state”, which served as a guideline for the formation of nation states in Europe in the 19th century. Another example of the idea and practice of forming a nation came from its recognition as an organic community, welded together by a common culture for people. Here, the language, traditions and customs came to the fore, focusing on the common origin, factors of consanguinity. The primordialist approach that has developed on this basis interprets the nation as an objectively formed community of people, which has well-defined interests and whose existence does not depend on anyone's conscious actions. The most indicative in this regard is the position of the famous German scientist of the second half of the 19th century. Otto Bauer. From his point of view, a nation is a group of persons, which are characterized by “a common territory, origin, language, customs and customs, experiences and historical past, laws and religion… A nation is the totality of people connected in a common character on the basis of a common fate” .
According to another typology, one of these concepts could conditionally be called ethnic, and the other - state, or civil. According to the first, a nation is an ethnos; according to the second, a nation is the totality of all citizens of a state, this is its entire population, without distinction of ethnicity.
As can be seen from all that has been said above, in each of them there is an element of truth, but by no means the whole truth. Both of them lose sight of the main thing that makes this or that set of individuals a nation - the presence of one common fatherland among its constituent people. Proponents of the first point of view do not understand that the people who make up an ethnos may or may not form a nation. And supporters of the second concept do not take into account that the concepts of the country, the state may or may not coincide with the concept of the fatherland. They do not want to reckon with the fact that for people living in this or that state, it may or may not be their fatherland.
Within the framework of the primordial approach, L.N. created his original theory of ethnogenesis. Gumilev. He proposed to consider ethnic communities from the point of view of the presence in them of two forms of movement - biological, which included the impact of the geographical landscape, cultural factors, relationships with neighbors, and social, suggesting the presence of a special source of development. It meant the so-called passionarity, manifested in the concentration of human energy and in the behavior of specific people who set the tone and direction for the development of this community.
There is a special position in Marxism, who interpreted the nation as a specific community, which had a secondary meaning in relation to classes, and presented the national question as an integral part of the class struggle in the period of capitalism. The place of this or that nation in the life of society was determined depending on the degree of its political self-determination. Accordingly, national communities were divided into those that are capable of state organization (the nation itself) and those that are not yet ready for this kind of organization of their own life (nationality).
Directly opposite ideas were proposed by the authors cultural approach, in particular M. Weber, who considered the nation as an anonymous community of people belonging to the same culture. With this understanding, the consolidation of the nation took place as people mastered and realized group values as the leading guidelines systematizing their vision of the world. It was assumed that even representatives of different ethnic groups, who have mastered and are guided by the same system of values, can be considered as representatives of one nation.
The practical political significance of the constructivist and primordialist interpretations of the nation is expressed, first of all, in the fact that the ideas proposed by them create different conceptual frameworks for formulating demands on state power on behalf of national groups. The most complete political significance of various kinds of theoretical and ideological approaches is expressed in the diverse forms and types of nationalism.
History and development of approaches to the interpretation of "nation"
Systematized ideas about the nation began to take shape three centuries ago. At the beginning of the XVIII century. D. Vico put forward the concept of the development of nations, which anticipated the Eurocentrism of the Enlightenment. In his book Foundations of a New Science of the General Nature of Nations, he argued that there are objective laws of development that are binding on all peoples. These ideas were then developed in the Enlightenment program by Voltaire, Condorcet, Herder. It was believed that non-Western "backward" peoples are living representatives of a similar stage that the peoples of Western Europe once experienced. Other concepts based on the idea of the diversity of the ways of development of cultures and civilizations were developed by N.Ya. Danilevsky and O. Spengler, A. Toynbee and P. Sorokin.
Early conceptions of the nation were, as we would say today, primordial. K. Verderi writes in a popular text: “Even in the writings of the German philosopher and theologian Johann Gottfried von Herder, nations - like individuals - were perceived as actors in history, having their own character or soul, mission, will, spirit; they have a source/place of birth - in national myths, these are usually cradles - and a genealogy (usually paternal), as well as life cycles, including birth, periods of heyday and withering, and fear of death; as their material referent they have territories limited like the human body. Nations, like individuals, are assigned an identity, often based on a so-called national character. Thus, national identity exists at two levels: at the level of the individual sense of national belonging and at the level of the identity of the collective whole in relation to others like it.
Herder saw nations as a natural phenomenon, whose growth is explained by the action of natural laws, and declared states to be artificial formations. “Nature educates people in families,” he wrote, “and the most natural state is one in which one people lives, with one national character inherent in it ... Nothing is so contrary to the very goals of government as the unnatural growth of the state, the chaotic mixture of different human breeds and tribes under one scepter." Thus, Herder laid the foundations of not only cultural, but also political nationalism, anticipating the thesis "one nation - one state."
Today, the idea of nations is less romantic. Here is a brief constructivist formulation: “Those who use the terms 'nation' and 'nationalism' tend to take their meanings for granted, primordial, sanctified by practice, and undeniable. The current situation says a lot about their legitimizing power and leading role in the modern world. However, almost all of the most insightful theoreticians in this field agree that these terms belong to that layer of modern concepts that serve the cause of ideological justification and political legitimization of certain ideas about territorial, political and cultural unity.
Being necessary for the processes of internal integration of new European states, such concepts were generated by the Renaissance, the times of colonial expansion, religious wars and liberal bourgeois capitalism. In other words, it was the need of the modern state for the integration of the population that laid the foundation for the ideology of nationalism, which in turn created the nation. As Eric Hobsbawm noted, it was not the nation that created the state, but the state that created the nation.
Civic and ethnic, constructivist and primordialist ideas about nations were developed in parallel, in two, one might say, dialogue paradigms. O.Yu. Malinova writes: “Some [philosophers], in particular Mill and Renan, represented the nation as the result of the free choice of people expressing the will to live together and under “their” rule ... Others, for example Mazzini, V. Solovyov, Masaryk, saw in it the embodiment the will of Providence, which has destined each part of humanity to have its own mission; a natural form of community that ensures the progress of a single humanity ... And although the interpretations of the nation proposed by Mill and Renan allowed for the development in the spirit of constructivism, the essentialist view of nations and nationalism as “what happens to us”, and not about “what is in creating what we take part in” in the nineteenth century. definitely prevailed."
In Western culture, belonging to a nation has come to be seen as something natural and necessary. E. Gellner, a prominent researcher of the problem of nation and nationalism, writes: “A person without a nation defies generally accepted norms and therefore causes disgust. A person must have a nationality, just as he must have a nose and two ears; in any of these cases, their absence is not excluded, and sometimes this occurs, but this is always the result of an accident and in itself is already a misfortune. All this seems self-evident, although, alas, it is not. But the fact that this has involuntarily entered into consciousness as a self-evident truth is the most important aspect or even the essence of the problem of nationalism. Nationality is not an innate human property, but now it is perceived as such ...
Nationalism
Nationalism (French nationalisme) is an ideology and policy direction, the basic principle of which is the thesis of the value of the nation as the highest form of social unity and its primacy in the state-forming process. It is distinguished by a variety of currents, some of them contradict each other. As a political movement, nationalism seeks to protect the interests of the national community in relations with state power.
At its core, nationalism preaches loyalty and devotion to one's nation, political independence and work for the good of one's own people, the unification of national identity for the practical protection of the living conditions of the nation, its territory of residence, economic resources and spiritual values. It relies on a national feeling, which is akin to patriotism.
Because many contemporary radical movements emphasize their nationalist overtones, nationalism is often associated with ethnic, cultural, and religious intolerance. Such intolerance is condemned by supporters of moderate currents in nationalism.
The Russian media often refer to ethno-nationalism as "nationalism", especially its extreme forms (chauvinism, xenophobia, etc.), which emphasize the superiority of one nationality over the others. Many manifestations of extreme nationalism, including inciting ethnic hatred and ethnic discrimination, are international offenses.
Nationalism emphasizes the differences, color and individuality of nations. These distinctive features are cultural and ethnic in nature. National identity contributes to the identification of existing foreign inclusions in culture and rational analysis of the prospects for further borrowing from other cultures for the benefit of their nation.
In addition, nationalism sees the nation as equivalent to the individual, as a sociological organism. The equality of people before the law, regardless of their social status or origin, is analogous to the equality of nations, regardless of their size or power, from the point of view of international law. In the nationalist's mind, nations can have talents or feel like victims. The nation also unites the present generation with the past and future, which motivates people to high dedication, to the point that they are ready to sacrifice their lives for its salvation.
Associated with this concept are such concepts as "national values", "national interests", "national security", "national independence", "national identity", etc.
Although the above applies to nationalism in general, its varieties can also put forward other ideological requirements: the formation of a nation around a certain ethnic group (nationality), universal equal legal status, etc.
Depending on the nature of the tasks set and being solved, several types of national movements are being formed in the modern world. The most widely used classification is made by H. Cohn, who introduced the concepts of political and ethnic nationalism. Most experts (including Kohn himself) believe that every mature nation contains both components.
Civic nationalism(other names: revolutionary democratic, political, Western nationalism) argues that the legitimacy of a state is determined by the active participation of its citizens in the political decision-making process, that is, the degree to which the state represents the "will of the nation." At the same time, the belonging of a person to a nation is determined on the basis of a voluntary personal choice and is identified with citizenship. People are united by their equal political status as citizens, equal legal status before the law, personal desire to participate in the political life of the nation, adherence to common political values and a common civic culture. It is essential that a nation be made up of people who want to live next to each other on a common territory.
State nationalism argues that a nation is formed by people who subordinate their own interests to the tasks of strengthening and maintaining the power of the state. He does not recognize independent interests and rights associated with gender, race or ethnicity, because he believes that such autonomy violates the unity of the nation.
Liberal nationalism emphasizes liberal values and argues that there are universal human values, such as human rights, in relation to which patriotic moral categories occupy a subordinate position. Liberal nationalism does not deny prioritizing those who are closer and dearer, but believes that this should not be at the expense of strangers.
ethnic nationalism(other names: ethno-nationalism, cultural-ethnic, organic, romantic, eastern nationalism) believes that the nation is a phase in the development of an ethnos and partly opposes itself to civic nationalism. Currently, as a rule, those movements that emphasize ethno-nationalism are called “nationalist”. From his point of view, the members of a nation are united by a common heritage, language, religion, traditions, history, blood ties based on a common origin, emotional attachment to the land, so that together they form one people. In order for cultural traditions or ethnicity to form the basis of nationalism, they must contain generally accepted ideas that can become a guide for society.
Sometimes when classifying cultural nationalism, so that ethnic nationalism becomes a narrower concept. Cultural nationalism defines a nation by a common language, tradition, and culture. The legitimacy of the state comes from its ability to protect the nation and promote the development of its cultural and social life. As a rule, this means state support for the culture and language of the ethnic majority, as well as encouraging the assimilation of ethnic minorities in order to preserve the uniformity of the nation.
Primordial ethnic nationalism believes that the nation is based on a common real or supposed origin. The belonging of a nation is determined by objective genetic factors, "blood". Proponents of this form argue that national self-identification has ancient ethnic roots and therefore is natural. They advocate self-isolation of the culture of the ethnic majority from other groups and do not approve of assimilation.
Extreme nationalism is often associated with extremism and leads to acute internal or interstate conflicts. The desire to allocate for the nation living within the country, its own state leads to separatism. Radical state nationalism is a key component of fascism and Nazism.
The blurring of ideology and the eclectic structure of political movements characteristic of nationalism often open up opportunities for a policy of "double standards". For example, “hegemonic nations” striving to preserve their culture are accused of great-power chauvinism, the struggle of small peoples for national independence is called separatism, and vice versa.
In the modern Russian language, the most commonly used meaning of the word “nationalism” differs from the ideology described in this article and in its meaning approaches chauvinism, ethnocracy and xenophobia. It has a pronounced negative connotation and emphasizes the superiority of one's own nation, national antagonism and national isolation. It should be noted that the negative use of the concept of "nationalist" exists not only in Russia.
Conclusion
A discussion of two very rough, temporary definitions will help get to the bottom of this vague concept.
Two people belong to the same nation if, and only if, they are united by one culture, which, in turn, is understood as a system of ideas, conventions, connections, ways of behavior and communication.
Two people belong to the same nation if, and only if, they acknowledge that each other belongs to that nation.
In other words, nations are made by man; nations are the product of human beliefs, passions and inclinations. An ordinary group of people (say, inhabitants of a certain territory, speakers of a certain language) becomes a nation if and when the members of this group firmly recognize certain common rights and obligations towards each other by virtue of their membership. It is the mutual recognition of such fellowship that makes them a nation, and not other common qualities, whatever they may be, which separate this group from all those outside it.
When an ethnos coincides with the population of a state that is at the same time a socior (of course, we are talking about modern states and sociors), then this set of people is almost necessarily a nation. If there is no such coincidence, things are much more complicated.
When several ethnic groups exist within a state, then the people who make up each of them can form only an ethnic group, but not a separate nation, but can also be an independent nation. It all depends on what they consider their fatherland: the whole country as a whole or only that part of it, which is densely populated.
Thus, the population of a country, divided into several ethnic groups, may or may not be a single nation. The whole point is whether all citizens of the state accept it as their single fatherland or not. If they accept, then they all form one nation, but if the members of each of the ethnic groups treat as their fatherland only that part of the country's territory that they inhabit, then there are as many nations in the country as there are ethnic groups in it.
With this understanding, the nation appears as a purely subjective phenomenon: due to the opinions of people, their views, views. And some researchers, absolutizing these moments, come to the conclusion that the nation, like the ethnos, does not exist in social reality at all. These phenomena exist only in the minds of people. An extreme view is that ethnic groups and nations exist only in the minds of researchers, they are only their mental structures.
The point, however, is that national self-consciousness is formed under the influence of certain objective factors, which have already been considered above and among which objective, material interests play the main role. It must also be borne in mind that the consciousness of nationality is not a purely mental product. It always includes a sense of national belonging, a sense of patriotism - one of the strongest social feelings.
Of course, the formation of consciousness and a sense of national belonging occurs under the influence of national ideology, and thus the people who create such an ideology. From this, some researchers conclude that a nation, like an ethnos, is a free creation of a group of intellectuals who, for one reason or another, are interested in creating such a community. It is hardly possible to deny the enormous role of the intelligentsia in the formation of national consciousness and feelings, and thus the nation. And yet, neither a nation nor an ethnos can be created at the whim of an intellectual or political elite.
List of used literature:
Main and macroeconomic indicators (2)
Abstract >> Astronomy"Main and macroeconomic indicators" 1. Valovy nationalІonal product Economic science... іtnostі. From the legal point of view interpretation including as it is allowed, so it is fenced ... see the activity. Tinyova economy in main perform at the sight of such three blocks ...
Main Western liberal concepts of economic regulation
Abstract >> PhilosophyAnti-crisis policy of the state. Modern interpretation does not deny Keynesianism, ... Mr. United Nations began to prepare the Conference on ... functional economic systems Main conditions for the successful functioning of a market economy ...
Main ideas of Russian religious philosophy
Report >> PhilosophyOn the historical fate of Russia. In his interpretation Russian history from Orthodoxy as ... that they began to consider nation as a spiritual phenomenon. At the heart of history ... the most complex philosophical problems. Among major problems of Russian religious philosophy of the end...
Kara-Murza S.G. What is a nation. 2006
Lenin V.I. On the right of nations to self-determination // Complete. coll. op. T. 25
Tereshkovich P.V. Nation // Philosophical reference book.
Anderson B. Imagined Communities. Reflections on the origins and spread of nationalism. - M.: Kanon-Press-Ts, 2001. - 320 p. - ISBN 5-93354-017-3
Anderson B., Bauer O., Hrokh M. et al. Nations and nationalism. - M.: Praxis, 2002. - 416 p. - ISBN 5-901574-07-9
Balibar E., Wallerstein I. Race, nation, class. Ambiguous identities. - M.: Logos-Altera, Esce Homo, 2003. - 272 p. - ISBN 5-8163-0058-X
Gavrov S.N. National culture and modernization of society. - M.: MGUKI, 2003. - 86 p.
Gellner E. Nations and nationalism. - M.: Progress, 1991.
Pain E. Between empire and nation. - M.: New publishing house, 2004. - 248 p. - 1500 copies. - ISBN 5-98379-012-9
Hobsbaum E. Nations and nationalism after 1780. - St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 1998.
nation". A.G. Zdravomyslov and A.A. Tsutsiev write about nations: "In the primordialist interpretation...there are two main models nation: French "civil", representing nation as "community...
B 19th century in various regions of the world, the process of formation of nations in the modern sense of the term took place.
HISTORY IN TERMS
Nation (from lat. natio - tribe, people) - social and economic, cultural, political and spiritual community of people of the industrial era. Naiia develops in the npouecce of the formation of the state, represents a phase of the development of an ethnos (in stages: clan - tribe - nationality - people - naiia). Consolidation in real life is usually associated with the fact that a particular ethnic group acquires sovereignty and creates its own full-fledged statehood. In international law, the term "naiya" is used as a synonym for the term "state". Nation can also be defined as the historical community of people, which is formed in the context of the formation of the community of their territory, economic ties, language, some features of culture and character, which constitute its features.
The first modern nations are considered Latin American, formed during the struggle against the Spanish crown. The American nation was rapidly taking shape. For the first time, the concept of a nation in the political sense of the word appeared during the French Revolution, when it became necessary to form a certain community in return for the lost “citizenship of the French crown”. It can be argued that nationalism arose in modern times.
In the first decade of the 19th century German nationalism arose, followed by the nationalisms of Greece and the Scandinavian countries (10-20s of the 19th century), Italian nationalism (30s of the 19th century). B 1850-1900 nationalism spread to the countries of Eastern Europe and India, and at the beginning of the 20th century. - in Asia and Africa. The ideology of nationalism justifies the need to isolate and isolate a separate nation from the total number of peoples who lived before the emergence of a nation in a certain territory. At the same time, nations strive to create a national state, without which the further development of the nation becomes problematic.
Rice. 5.14. E. Aelacroix. Freedom on the barricades
You can download ready-made answers for the exam, cheat sheets and other study materials in Word format at
Use the search form
Formation of European nations
relevant scientific sources:
- Answers to the exam in the subject of General History
| Answers to the state exam| 2014 | docx | 0.64 MB
1. INDIA IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE XX CENTURY 2. Features of the development of Asian feudalism ("Asian mode of production"). 3.France of the era of Napoleon Bonaparte. "Codes" of Napoleon. Code of Napoleon 1804.
- International law
Shcherbinina O. E. and others | Lecture notes. Krasnoyarsk: IPK SFU, - 301 p. | Educational and methodical complex| 2008 | Russia | pdf | 2.4 MB
This publication is part of an electronic educational and methodological complex in the discipline "International Law", which includes a curriculum, a manual for seminars, methodological
Soon after the end of the Second World War, the revival of the Europeanist movement began. Under the leadership of Kuderhove-Kalergi, the European Parliamentary Union was recreated, which became a political club of parliamentarians from Western European countries. In December 1946, the formation of the European Union of Federalists took place in Paris, which developed the traditions of the pre-war Pan-European Union. The Socialist Movement for the Creation of the United States of Europe and the Christian Democratic organization "New International Groups" worked closely with him. Representatives of business circles who shared European ideas united in 1947 in the European League for Economic Cooperation. The program settings of all these organizations were based on the ideas of pan-European federalism. At a congress held in Montreux in August 1947, the supporters of the federalization of Europe formulated the most important principles and goals of this process. It was clarified that federalization does not imply the overcoming of national sovereignty and the achievement of "systemic", "organizational" unity of Europe. Federalization was seen as the harmonization of "realities of different levels" - nations, peoples, regions, languages, political traditions, economic interests. Such a federation could be created, according to the participants, only through the efforts of "groups and individuals", and not governments. The initiator of the alternative Europeanist movement, based on the principles of interstate cooperation, was Winston Churchill. Characteristically, Churchill himself never shared the ideas of Europeanism and was a resolute opponent of the federalization of the continent. But he very far-sightedly assessed the significance of the integration of Western European countries in the conditions of the beginning of the Cold War. In September 1946, on the eve of the opening of the decisive Ministerial Council conference on the "German question", Churchill delivered a speech "The Tragedy of Europe" at the University of Zurich. “Our first step should be the establishment of the Council of Europe,” he said. -Even if not all European states show their readiness to immediately join the new community, we will create it as part of those countries that express such readiness. The task of completely delivering ordinary people from the threat of enslavement and war, in whatever country they live, must be decided on the most weighty basis, what should be the readiness of the citizens of these countries, both men and women, to die rather than submit to someone else's tyranny. Calling for the unity of European countries, Churchill was the first of the post-war politicians not only to declare the need for Germany to participate in the integration process, but also pointed to it as the "core of the continent." He stressed that the partnership between France and Germany should play a leading role in creating a "United Europe". “Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, America and Soviet Russia must become partners and guarantors in the construction of a new Europe and must continue to defend its right to a peaceful existence and prosperity,” Churchill said. It is easy to understand that the true meaning of the proposed project was the formation of a European military-political bloc with the participation of Germany, capable of becoming a counterbalance to Soviet influence. Great Britain, as a strategic ally of the United States, would acquire in such a situation the role of patron in relation to the Western European countries, and would also be relieved of the need to sacrifice "special relations" with the British Commonwealth of Nations in the name of the pan-European project. The culminating moment in Churchill's "crusade" "for the salvation of Europe" came in May 1948. At the congress in The Hague, which brought together eight hundred delegates from all over Western Europe - politicians, industrialists, trade unionists, scientists - Churchill was elected honorary chairman. He addressed those present with an impassioned appeal to unite political efforts to defend democratic gains, as well as to expand economic and military cooperation between the countries of Europe. However, supporters of the federalist idea prevailed among the congress delegates, who did not want to see another political coalition in United Europe. In accordance with the decisions of the congress, work began on the creation of a pan-European organization focused on humanitarian cooperation. On May 5, 1949, the formation of the Council of Europe (CE) was proclaimed at a congress in Strasbourg. The goals and principles of this organization's activities reflected a compromise between supporters of the most diverse and sometimes opposing concepts of European construction. The Council of Europe declared its intention to seek the unity of European countries in the defense of the ideals of democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. The organizational structure of the Council of Europe included a Committee of Foreign Ministers and a Consultative Assembly whose members were appointed by the national parliaments. However, these bodies did not receive wide prerogatives. In the future, the Council of Europe has become an authoritative pan-European forum, actively influencing the public opinion of European countries. But in the conditions of the Cold War, his political activity was extremely difficult. The leaders of French diplomacy J. Bidault, R. Schuman, R. Pleven, J. Monet supported the creation of the Council of Europe, but at the same time advocated closer integration of Western European countries. In 1949, Michel Debré, one of the future "founding fathers" of the Fifth Republic, published the "Draft Pact for the Union of European States." Debre argued that "nations will not want to give up their sovereignty, which they confuse with the freedom of citizens", and that "this illusion must be maintained in order to avoid negative consequences". But in order to make the Union truly effective, Debre called not only to deepen cooperation between “interested nations” in all areas, but also to create powerful supranational institutions. According to his project, the Assembly of European Nations and the Arbiter of the Union (in fact, the president) would have to be elected by direct universal suffrage, which would provide the Union with supranational legitimacy. “Let's leave our province, I wanted to say, our nation,” concluded Debré. The federalist convictions of Debre and other Gaullists were soon replaced by skepticism about the idea of a united Europe. But among French politicians representing the ruling parties of the Fourth Republic, plans for Western European integration remained very popular. In 1949, Jean Monnet, Etienne Hirsch and Paul Reuter developed the concept of creating an economic integration organization - the European Coal and Steel Community. The project seemed rather moderate - the competence of the supranational governing bodies of the ECSC was considered as secondary, derived from the powers of national governments and parliaments, and the scope of their activities was strictly limited to sectoral frameworks. However, as the authors of the ECSC treaty explicitly emphasized in one of its first drafts, “the most important political implication of this proposal is to open a passage in the bastions of national sovereignty localized enough to be unobjectionable and deep enough to entice states to unity." The integration strategy developed by Monnet and his colleagues was called the "communitarian method". It assumed the federalization of Europe as the ultimate goal, but was based on very moderate, local and pragmatic steps in the formation of an integration mechanism. On May 9, 1950, French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman issued a statement on the principles for establishing the ECSC. “A united Europe,” he noted, “cannot be created in a single step, or by a simple merger. It will be formed through concrete achievements, as a result of which, first of all, actual solidarity will be created.” The effectiveness of the communitarian approach was demonstrated by the failure of another initiative of French diplomacy. On October 24, 1950, René Pleven unveiled a plan for the creation of a unified European armed force that could become the core of the European Defense Community (EDC). In May 1952, the EOC agreement was signed by representatives of France and the FRG. Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. But it never entered into force, as the new composition of the French Parliament refused to ratify the treaty. Discussions about the EOC lasted in French political circles until August 1954 and clearly showed that deep political integration was perceived even by many supporters of a United Europe as a threat to national sovereignty. The fate of the pragmatic "Schumann plan" turned out to be different. In 1951, in Paris, the representatives of France, the FRG, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg signed the Constituent Treaty of the ECSC. The goals of the Community were proclaimed the creation of a common sectoral market for the extractive and metallurgical industries, ensuring the growth of production and employment, as well as improving the standard of living in the participating countries through the harmonization of national economic policies. Within the framework of the sectoral market, it was necessary to eliminate customs duties, taxes with equivalent effect, quantitative restrictions on the movement of goods, and also prohibit discriminatory measures in relation to consumers, buyers and producers. The provision of state subsidies to producers, which change the conditions for fair competition, was declared unfair. The ECSC guaranteed equal access to resource sources for all groups of producers, the creation of conditions for the rational use of natural resources, the expansion and increase in production potential. All these principles were put into practice gradually. On February 10, 1953, a common market for coal, iron ore and scrap metal began to function, from May 10, 1953 - a common steel market, from August 1, 1954 - a common market for special types of steel. By 1955, a common external tariff for all ECSC countries was introduced for export-import operations with the specified types of products. The creation of an integral supranational system of governance within the framework of the ECSC was of the utmost importance. It included the Special Council of Ministers (the highest body for coordination, consisting of sectoral ministers of national governments with the right of veto of any member, the future European Council), the Highest Governing Body (the main executive body, the future Commission of the Community), the European Assembly (an advisory body formed on a representative basis from the deputies of the parliaments of the participating countries, the future European Parliament) and the European Court of Justice (the highest arbitration body). The Council of Ministers and the European Assembly reflected in their activities the balance of national interests and the contractual nature of the integration process. The highest governing body and the European Court, on the contrary, were oriented towards representing the interests of the entire Community as a whole. At the same time, legally, all ECSC institutions had a supranational character. The decisions of these bodies, taken within the framework of the competence enshrined in the constituent agreement, received an advantage in comparison with national sources of law. Thus, the signing and ratification of the founding treaty turned into a delegation of part of the national sovereignty to the Community. It is indicative from this point of view that the ECSC also acquired its own international legal personality, which was fundamentally different from the legal nature of ordinary interstate associations. The successful experience of the institutionalization of the ECSC made it possible to move on to the development of the project of new Communities. In 1956, a committee chaired by Belgian Prime Minister P.-A. Spaak prepared the concept of integration in two areas - common economic policy and control over the use of nuclear energy. In accordance with it, in 1957, the countries of the "six" in Rome signed the founding agreements of the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Agency (Euroatom). This is how the tripartite system of the Communities - the ECSC, the EEC and the Euroatom - was formed. The competence of each of them was determined by its own constituent agreement, but the institutional structure gradually became unified (finally, this process of “merging” was completed in 1967 with the formation of a single Council of Ministers, the Commission of the European Communities, the European Parliament and the Court). The formation of the tripartite structure of the Communities was dictated by certain differences in the strategic goals of the participating countries. For FRE, the main task remained the development of a common market for heavy industry. Belgium and the Netherlands considered the area of the latest technological developments and energy research as the most promising areas for integration. France advocated a more balanced development of the common market, the extension of integration principles to all sectors of the economy, including agriculture. The expanded and decentralized system of the Communities made it possible to flexibly vary the pace and methods of interaction in the development of all these areas of integration. Over time, the epicenter of integration processes was concentrated in the EEC. The founding agreement on the EEC assumed the introduction of a single customs tariff in relation to third countries, the provision of conditions for the free movement of persons, services and capital (the so-called "basic freedoms of the common market"), the implementation of a coordinated agricultural and transport policy, the coordination of antimonopoly policy, the development of common investment bodies, convergence of economic and social legislation of the participating countries. Thus, the competence of the EEC made it possible to move from “negative integration” (aimed at destroying interstate economic barriers) to “positive” integration (carrying out “common policies” in various fields through the institutions of the Communities). Each of the three Communities had its own legal order, but on their basis a common unified system of European law gradually developed. The sources of law operating within its framework received the status of "primary" and "secondary". The constituent agreements on the Communities were classified as "primary". These sources of law acquired legal force only after the “transformation” procedure, i.e. giving them the legal status of the norms of national law. Initially, such a procedure was the ratification of the constituent agreement in parliaments (in some cases - in referendums). The group of "secondary" sources of European law was constituted by the normative acts of the bodies of the Communities - regulations, directives, recommendations, as well as decisions of the Court of the Communities (judicial precedents). Since, by ratifying the founding treaty, each state transferred to the Communities exclusive powers in the established area, the "secondary" sources of European law acquired greater legal force than the norms of national law. From the moment they were adopted, any national laws that contradicted them became invalid, and for the enforcement of “secondary sources”, the transformation procedure was no longer required (i.e., the principle of “direct action” was in effect). In the 1960s the legal framework of the European Communities has not undergone significant changes. However, the question of the political direction of the integration process has become the subject of the most fierce controversy. Initially, French diplomacy again initiated the deepening of the integration process up to the creation of a political association. On September 5, 1960, President de Gaulle stated at a press conference about the need to ensure "permanent cooperation in the political, economic, cultural and defense fields." As a follow-up to this initiative, in 1960 the French government put forward a project to deepen integration ties in the diplomatic and military-political spheres (the Fouche plan). As a strategic perspective, the formation of the Union of European States was considered, preserving the national sovereignty of each of the participants, but acting as a single force on the world stage. De Gaulle's interest in deepening the integration process was explained by the rejection of the idea of Atlantic solidarity and the desire to oppose a powerful United Europe to two "superpowers". But, at the same time, de Gaulle did not want to lose the political independence of France. Being a convinced nationalist, he did not believe in the possibility of a consistent federalization of Europe. Subsequently, in his memoirs, de Gaulle caustically described all the "absurdity" of the dream of "the dissolution of European countries in a single entity that has its own parliament, its own laws and its own government, which would govern subjects of French, German, Italian, Belgian, Dutch and Luxembourgish origin, who became fellow citizens inside an artificial homeland invented by the minds of technocrats." The two-year discussions around the "Fouche plan" did not lead to the removal of differences between the countries of the European "six", and de Gaulle himself at a press conference on May 15, 1962 put an end to the discussion of this topic. He unequivocally stated that political integration of the countries of Western Europe is desirable for France, but it is inadmissible to carry it out to the detriment of national sovereignty. In the future, de Gaulle was already a consistent opponent of any projects for expanding the competence of the supranational bodies of the Communities. His confrontation with the federalists reached a peak in 1965. De Gaulle strongly opposed the proposals of European Commission President Walter Hallstein to consolidate the voting procedure in the Council by a simple majority, grant the European Assembly the right to form its own budget and expand the powers of the European Commission. For seven months, France boycotted the work of the Council, which is why these events are called the "empty chair" crisis. The crisis was settled on the basis of a protocol signed in Luxembourg in January 1967 (the "Luxembourg Compromise"). The preservation of the status of the Assembly, the priority of the powers of the European Council, the right of the participating countries to veto when voting in the Council "vital" issues from their point of view were confirmed. De Gaulle severely suppressed Great Britain's attempts to join the system of the European Communities. Initially, London was rather skeptical about the activities of the ECSC, preferring to maintain "special relations" with its own colonies and relying on "Atlantic solidarity" with the United States. But the signing in 1957 of the Rome Treaties on the creation of the EEC and Euroatom aroused the concern of British politicians. Fearing isolation from European markets, Great Britain took countermeasures - in 1960, at the initiative of London, the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) was formed. In addition to Great Britain, this organization included Austria, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland. The goals of EFTA were defined as promoting the growth of economic activity, ensuring full employment, increasing productivity, rational use of resources, financial stability and raising the standard of living on the territory of the member states, ensuring fair conditions for competition in trade, eliminating inequality in the supply of raw materials produced in territory of the free trade zone, as well as promoting the harmonious development and growth of world trade. It was not supposed to liquidate customs tariffs in the free trade zone. It was only about the rejection of discriminatory restrictions on the exchange of goods and dumping prices. Nor was any supranational EFTA organizational structure created. Relying on the support of the EFTA countries, Great Britain raised the question of its entry into the Community system. At the same time, London insisted on maintaining its own special status, based on the recognition of Great Britain's integration ties with third countries (primarily the countries of the Commonwealth of Nations). Politically, Great Britain was not going to abandon the strategic alliance with the United States in the name of strengthening European solidarity. De Gaulle rejected all these proposals and strongly opposed the inclusion of the British "Trojan horse" in the European Communities. During negotiations with Prime Minister Macmillan in 1962, de Gaulle made it clear that only the beginning of close Anglo-French cooperation in the development of European nuclear weapons could become the basis for Britain's entry into the Common Market. Failing to meet with understanding from his British colleague, de Gaulle subsequently invariably refused to discuss the very possibility of Britain joining the European Communities. Despite the intensified political struggle between the leading European powers, the integration process in the 1960s. developed extremely dynamically and successfully. Customs barriers in the Community zone were gradually reduced and in 1968 were finally abolished. With regard to third countries, a single customs tariff was introduced, which actually meant the transition of the countries of the Communities to a single foreign trade policy. Thanks to these measures, the trade turnover within the Community zone increased in 1958-1970. 6 times. Since 1968, the Common Agricultural Market of the EEC began to operate. In addition to the abolition of internal duties on agricultural products and the unification of prices, the practice of subsidizing farm labor was introduced (payment from the centralized funds of the EEC for the difference in the level of selling and market prices). Of great importance was the formation under the auspices of the EEC of the European Investment Bank and the European Social Fund, designed to coordinate the movement of financial flows in accordance with the strategic goals of the integration process. It is noteworthy that an active role in the development of the integration process in the 1960s. played by the "small countries" of Western Europe. The Benelux Economic Union, which emerged in 1958, has become a kind of testing ground for testing high forms of integration ties. Within its framework, already in 1960, a single customs space and a system of free movement of persons across the territories of the three states were approved, and border control was transferred to their external borders. In 1969, a protocol was signed on the complete abolition of border controls between Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. The purpose of the Benelux was proclaimed and the implementation of a single trade and economic policy in relation to third countries.