Dear Dr. Munck,

Very interesting question.

And, I agree with you that " nationalism, at one level, is just a way of binding together human beings within a given territory so that they have some cohesion and sense of purpose". It seems to be the real reason.

All my best wishes.

Prof. Hess

What caused the two World Wars of last century, if it wasn't nationalism?

nationalism as expressed in the colonial expansion of European powers into Africa was responsible for WW I anyway

not so simple overall that equation of nationalism= war

Nationalism is not itself a bad thing.

But when it is used to achieve some purposes which may hamper interest of people of other nation, then it is dangerous.

Nationalism is neither a sheer wickedness nor a universal virtue. It can be both, a boon and a curse - depending on the circumstances as well as what we exactly considers nationalism to represent. Nationalism is a boon if taken as love, devotion, loyalty and one's proud identity of country. However, it tends to be a curse when it leads to cross country conflicts. The key point is that nationalism need to see nationality as one's identity not the superiority of one's nation to all other nations.

OK 'nationalism is a concept' thus cannot be a 'problem'.

It is neither 'sheer wickedness nor a universal virtue'.

Both comments make sense to me.

But where does that leave us?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and not intrinsic?

A knife can cut my food or a person....

These are relativising the issue. I fear we still need a theoretically robust concept of what creates and sustains nationalism and an understanding of its ambiguous political impact

Personally, I think nationalism does more harm than good. Fact of the matter is a country does not need worship, a country cannot be revered, it cannot really be exalted as some form of divine idea, because a country is just a territory founded on the basis of commonly agreed goals, ideals and laws. A country is just that, a geographic territory - in the age of globalization, the more you think about your country, the less you'll think about the planet.

Do the folks in Africa deserve to die of hunger just so that someone in Singapore can eat and be able to waste food? If there was systemic organization, wouldn't such food be more effectively distributed? I think all this country business is dated, sure I can understand civilizational pull, but countries are overworked definitions of tribal affiliation, it's about time we pull our socks up and become denizens of planet Earth as opposed to just citizens of our respective countries.

Things have to progress and change, humanity has to bind and nationalism is just one primitive idea that we all have to overcome (out of many).

Human beings have to grow up sooner or later.

Indeed, a very interesting discussion and a highly controversial issue. Certainly, the semantic field is quiete wide. Why do I say this? What is the empirical object when we speak of "nationalism". First and Second World War were determined only by nationalism, there many other determinant factors: economic, ideological, racist, among other things. Yes, one can start from a point of view which can be expanded into a robust position and certainly it is a very interesting issue to follow. I shall follow you professor Munck

"nationalism as expressed in the colonial expansion of European powers into Africa was responsible for WW I anyway"

Never heard of this before! What is the evidence from primary sources?

Good question and informative answers Thank you all!

Is nationalism really a problem?

Nationalism can be a 2-edged sword depending on which side you are embracing nationalism. Some people embracing it for personal gain or genuinely for own country benefits / national interests whereas some opposing it because there is no advantage to themselves from export business, globalization, national influence etc. perspectives. Perhaps we can crystalize nationalism by avoiding it from being politicalized.

Nationalism is a political concept that influences both the domestic and foreign policies of nations. Extreme nationalism, just like in religion is a threat to peaceful co-existence. Sense of nationalism lays the foundation of a nation's national interests. Nations with very high sense of nationalism undermine the interests of other nations but moderate sense of nationalism accommodates other nations' interests. Some powerful nations do not have permanent friends or permanent enemies, what is permanent is their interests and those interests they must follow at all times.

In my thinking, the sense of nationalism is vital for national social, political and economic cohesion and development, but when translating it in foreign policy, there is need to consider common grounds among nations.

Nationalism is a feeling that people have of being loyal to and proud of their country. While it may sound reasonable to love one's country, this can be a much more aggressive than patriotism. A nationalist can respect the strengths of other nations, while preferring his own, just as than fan of sports can appreciate the superb performance of players from other countries even while keeping an eye on the medal scoreboard for his own players.

I think some can just have all thoughts politically manipulated, including nationalism. Nationalism has brought many conflicts and disastrous results. However, nationalism has also become an intellectual weapon to fight against colonialism, racism, and imperialism. Why would we label some social collective or individual behaviors of "us" as patriotism, assuming all positive, but criticize similar human activities taken by "others" as Chauvinism or narrow-minded irrationality? Whenever some try to apply a double standard, I would better stand alert and keep myself intellectually critical to avoid falling into the comfort zone of intellectual laziness.

I t becomes a problem in a particular context where it is not well defined. In some countries, the lack a well articulated federalism and identity issues make nationalism a problem in such countries.

Yes of course nationalism can be very problematic

but is it not necessaet to overcome colonialism?