Postnationalsim Blog

Nationalism is when the attitude of a nation’s citizens is focused on their national identity as well as the actions taken by these citizens in seeking to achieve or sustain self-determination. Questions regarding national identity and power of the state over domestic and international affairs arise thus pushing for the citizens to distinguish between a nation and a state. States are political entities with a high degree of sovereignty where nations consist of an ethnic or cultural community. Many states are nations in some way; though, many nations do not qualify as sovereign states. However, nationalism began fading after WWII, and the idea of postnationalistic practices began surfacing. Postnationalism does not apply a moral judgment in decisions and offers numerous platforms towards solidarity. Citizens worldwide understood what was wrong with nationalism, and Mohammed A. Bamyeh states:
"Nationalism has thus been an extremely costly project, indeed, by far the most destructive ideology ever experienced by humanity. If there is only one reason to embrace globalization today, it is because it is removing the material support mechanisms that prop up nationalist ideologies. In doing so, it reintroduces into the world alternative modes of conglomeration and solidarity. Some of these are new, others have been in suspension for the seven decades between 1919 and 1989" (Bamyeh 2).
The increase of globalization has pushed nations across the globe to work together to form a global economy. Increased international trade, multinational corporations, globalized financial sectors, and the limitations of national entities power with the creation of multinational organizations such as the United Nations or NATO.

Our country has made a push towards this style, however we have not completely adapted post national tendencies and Bamyeh states, “In the US, we see the emergence not of post national orientations, but of an alternative trajectory. That trajectory does not replace nationalism with postnationalism, but with a fundamentally new kind of imperialism” (Bamyeh 5). Bamyeh identifies six irrational features of this new form of imperialism which state: First, the coercive capacity of the imperial state has not diminished. Second, the imperial state has maintained and even redoubled its commitment to a hierarchical vision. Third, the imperial state continues to assert a common national interest and unified national purpose. Fourth, the new imperialism insists upon isolating the vanquished and rendering large markets and investment opportunities inaccessible to global capitalism. Fifth, the imperial state has responded by reducing its social responsibilities. And Sixth, the categories defining conflict and coexistence shifted from economic to cultural ones. New imperialism differed from the old version practiced by the United States. The new form calls for the state to exist at a much larger level than what is actually warranted by its capacity for rational action as well as ordinary social mandates. The state feels it can justify its global magnitude only upon the basis of this new style of imperialism.