National identity

Political scientist Rupert Emerson defined national identity as "a body of people who feel that they are a nation".[18] This definition of national identity was endorsed by social psychologist, Henri Tajfel, who formulated social identity theory together with John Turner.[19] Social identity theory adopts this definition of national identity and suggests that the conceptualization of national identity includes both self-categorization and affect. Self-categorization refers to identifying with a nation and viewing oneself as a member of a nation. The affect part refers to the emotion a person has with this identification, such as a sense of belonging, or emotional attachment toward one's nation.[2] The mere awareness of belonging to a certain group invokes positive emotions about the group, and leads to a tendency to act on behalf of that group, even when the other group members are sometimes personally unknown.[2]

National identity requires the process of self-categorization and it involves both the identification of in-group (identifying with one's nation), and differentiation of out-groups (other nations). By recognizing commonalities such as having common descent and common destiny, people identify with a nation and form an in-group, and at the same time they view people that identify with a different nation as out-groups.[20] Social identity theory suggests a positive relationship between identification of a nation and derogation of other nations. By identifying with one's nation, people involve in intergroup comparisons, and tend to derogate out-groups.[2][21] However, several studies have investigated this relationship between national identity and derogating other countries, and found that identifying with national identity does not necessarily result in out-group derogation.[22]

National identity, like other social identities, engenders positive emotions such as pride and love to one's nation, and feeling of obligations toward other citizens.[23] The socialization of national identity, such as socializing national pride and a sense of the country's exceptionalism contributes to harmony among ethnic groups. For example, in the U.S, by integrating diverse ethnic groups in the overarching identity of being an American, people are united by a shared emotion of national pride and the feeling of belonging to the U.S, and thus tend to mitigate ethnic conflicts.[24]

National identity can be most noticeable when the nation confronts external or internal enemy[4] and natural disasters.[25] An example of this phenomenon is the rise in patriotism and national identity in the U.S after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.[26][27] The identity of being an American is salient after the terrorist attacks and American national identity is evoked.[1] Having a common threat or having a common goal unites people in a nation and enhances national identity.[28]

Sociologist Anthony Smith argues that national identity has the feature of continuity that can transmit and persist through generations. By expressing the myths of having common descent and common destiny, people's sense of belonging to a nation is enhanced.[20] However, national identities can disappear across time as more people live in foreign countries for a longer time, and can be challenged by supranational identities, which refers to identifying with a more inclusive, larger group that includes people from multiple nations.[29]

The people are the basic concept for a national identity. But people can be identified and constructed through different logics of nationalism. Examples range from the Völkisch movement to people's republics.

Nations, to Benedict Anderson, are imagined. The idea of the "imagined community" is that a nation is socially constructed, and the nation is made up of individuals who see themselves as part of a particular group. Anderson referred to nations as "imagined communities." He thought that nations, or imagined communities, were delimited because of its boundaries as far as who is in and who is out. Anderson believed that the nation operates through exclusion. Though, nations exclude those who are outside of it but also their members who are not immediately considered in the collective idea of their national identity.[34] Anderson thought that nations were delimited and also were:

Limited: Because of the mental boundaries, or concepts, we set pertaining to others are by culture, ethnicity, etc. We do not imagine everyone in one society or under one nationalism, but we mentally separate.[35]

Sovereign: Nations were sovereign because sovereignty is a symbol of freedom from traditional religious practices. Sovereignty provides the organization needed for a nation while it is kept free of traditional religious pressures.[35]

Unlike Benedict Anderson, Gellner thought that nations are not "imagined communities". In his book, Ernest Gellner explained how he thought that nations originated. In his eyes, nations are entirely modern constructs and products of nationalism. Gellner believed nations to be a result of the Industrial Revolution.[36] Since large numbers of people from different backgrounds were coming together in cities, a common identity had to be made among them. The spread of capitalism bought the demand for constant retraining and Gellner thought that as a result, the demand was met by creating a common past, common culture, and language, which lead to the birth of nations.[36]

Gellner thought that nations were contingencies and not universal necessities. He said that our idea of the nation was as such.

Two men were only of the same only if they were from the same culture. In this case, culture is "a system of ideas, signs, associations, and ways of communicating.[37]

Two men are of the same nation only if they recognize each other as being a part of the same nation.

It was men's recognition of each other as people of the same kind that made them a nation and not their common attributes.[38]

In "The Philosophy of Nationalism," Paul Gibert breaks down what he thinks a nation is and his ideas contrast those of both Anderson and Gellner. In the book, Gilbert acknowledges that nations are many things. Gilbert says nations are:

Nominalist: Whatever a group of people who consider themselves a nation say a nation is [39]

Voluntarist: "Group of people bound by a commonly-willed nation" [39]

Territorial: Group of people located in the same proximity, or territory [39]

Linguistic: People who share the same language.[39]

Axiological: Group of people who have the same distinctive values[39]

Destinarian: Group of people who have a common history, and a common mission [39]

Aboriginal groups protesting in Brisbane, Australia

In countries that have multiple ethnic groups, ethnic identity and national identity may be in conflict.[40] These conflicts are usually referred to as ethno-national conflict. One of the famous ethno-national conflicts is the struggle between the Australian government and aboriginal population in Australia.[41] The Australian government and majority culture imposed policies and framework that supported the majority, European-based cultural values and a national language as English. The aboriginal cultures and languages were not supported by the state, and were nearly eradicated by the state during the 20th century. Because of these conflicts, aboriginal population identify less or do not identify with the national identity of being an Australian, but their ethnic identities are salient.[42]

As immigration increases, many countries face the challenges of constructing national identity and accommodating immigrants.[43] Some countries are more inclusive in terms of encouraging immigrants to develop a sense of belonging to their host country. For example, Canada has the highest permanent immigration rates in the world. The Canadian government encourages immigrants to build a sense of belonging to Canada, and has fostered a more inclusive concept of national identity which includes both people born in Canada and immigrants.[44] Some countries are less inclusive. For example, Russia has experienced two major waves of immigration influx, one in the 1990s, and the other one after 1998. Immigrants were perceived negatively by the Russian people and were viewed as "unwelcome and abusive guests." Immigrants were considered outsiders and were excluded from sharing the national identity of belonging to Russia.[45]

As the world becomes increasingly globalized, international tourism, communication and business collaboration has increased.[46] People around the world cross national borders more frequently to seek cultural exchange, education, business, and different lifestyles. Globalization promotes common values and experiences, and it also encourages the identification with the global community.[47] People may adapt cosmopolitanism and view themselves as global beings, or world citizens.[48] This trend may threaten national identity because globalization undermines the importance of being a citizen of a particular country.[49]

Several researchers examined globalization and its impact on national identity found that as a country becomes more globalized, patriotism declined, which suggests that the increase of globalization is associated with less loyalty and less willingness to fight for one's own country.[46][50][51] However, even a nation like Turkey that occupies an important geographic trade crossroads and international marketplace with a tradition of liberal economic activity with an ingrained entrepreneurial and foreign trade has degrees of ethnocentrism as Turkish consumers may be basically rational buyers by not discriminating against imported products, but they exhibit preferences for local goods that are of equal quality to the imports because buying them assists the nation's economy and domestic employment.[52]