This is a forum post of my Project Fellowship I did with EA last term. My motivation behind this was to try and understand what drives nationalism and how it interacts with moral ideologies. Hope you have fun reading!
TL;DR
Introduction
A right wing rhetoric is spreading across the globe, pushing nationalism. The Pew Research Centre found that the amount of votes for populist right-wing European parties has increased significantly over the last few decades. There are a number of different interdependent variables that could explain this – an economic crisis, a cultural crisis, a mental health crisis etc. – and they all lead to a decrease in available resources. I propose that this correlates with restrictive moral circles and potential ethnic conflict.
Mike Burnham conducted a study where he found that ethnic conflict was primarily motivated by moral ideologies – by studying and understanding what forms these moral bases and how they interact with political ideology, we can help prevent future ethnic conflict. It is universally agreed that equal human rights is a key pillar of modernity and I argue that nationalism is restricting our moral circles and in turn eroding this pillar.
Nationalism
What is nationalism? It varies significantly in ideology and practice. It is worth discussing its close cousin patriotism first as they are often confused. Patriotism is derived from the Greek patrios which regards to loyalty towards one’s nation – an ethno-cultural unit for example the Kurds or the Scots. People within these, in the absence of personal acquaintance, find little difficulty in establishing common ground for communication.
What are the psychological forces that hold together a nation? Herbert C. Kelman suggests that these are the need for self-protection and self-transcendence. The former can be traced to the dependency of the infant on the family unit and leads us to strongly identify to those that are close to us. The latter is rooted in the awareness of our finite existence and search for meaning beyond the individual. Therefore, we can say that the concept of nations has existed for as long as we have had large-scale communities interacting.
Hans Kohn perceives nationalism to be the ideology of the modern nation-state. This is a political system that has internationally recognized jurisdiction – but why did this system develop and why has it become so ubiquitous around the world? One reason is that by representing the identity of the population it gives them self-governance, which was at the forefront of de-colonizing movements in the 20th century such as Vietnam and India.
However the reality of the nation-state rarely lives up to this self-determining ideology. Most nation-states compromise of a variety of distinct ethno-cultural groups and these, often minorities, feel that their group identity is not adequately represented by the system. Examples are the Uyghurs in China, Native Americans in the US or even Liverpudlians in England. This leads to discrimination, exclusion and is the leading cause of many civil conflicts.
This rift between ideological and practical nationalistic policies have led to different conceptualizations. The modern definition, according to Kosterman and Feshbach pose that nationalism corresponds to imperial and moral superiority whereas patriotism corresponds to national loyalty or affection. This can be broadly categorized as an inclusive versus exclusive mindset of nations.
Moral circle
A moral circle is an individual’s sphere of concern for other individuals. Peter Singer argues that throughout history our moral circle has expanded from the self, to the family, to tribes, to civilizations and to nations. Whilst principally agreed – most national constitutions declare this – that all humans beings are deserving of equal dignity and rights, in practice it is not upheld. Therefore, with our available resources we should remedy this disjunction.
This is where moral circles interact with nationalism – the other major critique of nationalism stated by Kelman was its lack of cohesion between nations. Whilst nationalistic ideology does not place any nation above another, people within a nation often place others of that nation within a moral circle and people not in their nation outside of that moral circle: in-group bias. This may be driven by the psychological force of self-determination formed from shared similarities but it can lead to moral superiority and imperialism. There is a critical distinction between observing differences as aspects of the same human nature and observing differences as vehicles for moral and power structures.
Raff Calitri did an empirical study to find the effects of national identification on explicit/implicit in-group bias. He found that those identifying with nationalism correlated with both an implicit and explicit in-group bias, providing evidence for our previous supposition. Therefore nationalism both promotes and undermines global integrity towards human dignity. It allows for self-determination however it can also correlate with an in-group bias undermining globalism and restricting moral circles. How can we bias this system towards good?
Expanding moral circles
Peter Singer says that our moral circles should reflect the amount of good that we can do within the world – and that there is an imbalance here. Kelman even states that the furthering of humanity is contingent on transnational co-operation - especially in the fields of science, technology and education. I pose that nationalism can be restricting of these desires. So what mechanisms can we utilize in order to bias moral circle expansion?
Calitri in his paper mentioned the temporal comparison theory. This suggests that national identity can be derived from comparison of the same group over time as opposed to between groups and that this could lead to less unconscious biases. They say that by itself, however, it is unlikely to have an impact.
They come to suggest other techniques stemming from the contact hypothesis. Allport in 1954 stated that reduced prejudice would result when four positive features in an inter-group environment were present : equal status between groups, common goals, intergroup co-operation and the support of authorities. This theory is supported by practical evidence from Pettigrew’s 2008 review who also found a large array of facilitating factors that helped reduce prejudice including anxiety and historical context. A real-life example is Singapore – after independence, there was a massive risk of ethnic conflict between the Chinese, Malays and Indians. Lee Kuan Yew introduced these four positive features via using authoritative support of equal status and co-operation towards a nationalist movement. He ensured that integration was essential by forming housing quotas that require a mix of the three ethnicities. This proved to be tremendously successful in reducing ethnic tension.
Another type of intervention is compassion training. This is where a clinical psychologist conducts exercises such as mindfulness, group discussion and debates in order to develop compassion. Kirby conducted an empirical study on this and found that repeated sessions expanded the moral circles of the participants. Whilst this could not be implemented on a large scale, certain features could be taught and practiced in schools or as potential rehabilitation techniques for those with strict moral circles such as certain criminals.
Conclusion
After WWI, Germany was in a state of economic hardship and humiliation. This led to the rise of nationalistic movements framing moral worth in narrowly-defined groups, culminating in mass ethnic cleansing. Whilst this is an extreme example, it symbolizes the dangers of nationalism and how it can restrict moral circles, lead to conflict and erode human dignity.
Moral circle expansion must start from education – forging compassion, critical thinking and discussion via techniques discussed above. It requires governmental implementations as well as the adaptation of societal perceptions. It must emphasize global co-operation over individualistic desires and in doing so hopefully be a part of restoring universal human rights.
I am uncertain whether the general public understands the reasoning behind nationalism or even the concept of nations in general as it is so ubiquitous within in our world. I also don't know how to help improve their perception or how long it would take to implement these practices or how to even implement them but I hope this is a step in the right direction.
It is understandable that nationalism is a response to discrimination and aggression against minorities defined by ethnic markers. But it is a mistake to assume the aggressor's premise that such ethnic markers are humanly significant.
Tribalism or ingroupism is a human instinct. Any human group tends to create bonds based on arbitrary markers—practically anything can become "ethnic"—to defend the in-group from the perceived threat of the outside group. This has been observed even in the simplest societies.
An altruistic conception of human life must eliminate all forms of ingroupism, as it subordinates the individual (human) to the group (non-human). Nationalism, patriotism, ingroupism... no one should be deceived by the supposed goodness of "bonds of solidarity"... it is a form of superstition, necessarily aggressive and irrational.
It is a shame that in recent decades many prestigious authors have spoken out against the irrationalism of beliefs in the supernatural, but almost none against groupistic tendencies that are responsible for far more wars and violence than religion.
I see your point that ingroupism itself is irrational and counter-intuitive to altruism. But lets take this a bit further - what forms the basis of human relationships? Randomness rules this world and your relationships are a clear example of that - they are driven by chance. To say that bonds based on arbitrary markers is irrational is to deny us of our humanity, deny us of reality.
Human instincts don't arise from randomness however, they are designed by evolution. Therefore I think the answer in altruism doesn't rely on negating humanity but rather balancing it with our conscious free will. This requires recognition and understanding and is not easy.
Sigmund Freud wrote that "civilization is the control of instinct." If we adhere simply to genetic evolution, Homo sapiens would still be living a prehistoric existence as a "hunter-gatherer." But Homo sapiens is a "cultural animal." In a sense, it is the only cultural animal, since it makes cumulative use of cultural creativity throughout its historical trajectory.
Tribalism, supernaturalism, male dominance, and, above all, aggression, are human instincts that the civilizing process also tries to control in an evolutionary way, but not biologically, rather culturally.
The idea of a civilization in which altruism would be the general expression of economic relations may seem as unthinkable to us today as commercial air travel might have seemed to the wise Aristotle. But it is perfectly logical and in accordance with human nature as a cultural being.
An ideological movement based on improving behavior in the sense of benevolence and altruism (the conditions that give rise to human relationships of maximum trust and consequent effective cooperation) could be an extraordinary opportunity for social progress.