Rhetoric of Nationalism, Patriotism, and the Myth of War

Introduction: Defining Nationalism and Rhetoric

It has been remarked that a person's cultural background is influential in the way they look at and interpret the world around them. The word "nationalism" brings to mind the crowds that attended rallies in support of Adolf Hitler as he made his rise to power, fame, and infamy. The nationalist group defines its focus in terms of geographical identity, which may or may not include elements of religion, ethnicity, or race. Rhetoric is a form of communication whose purpose is to persuade the audience to the presenter's point of view by utilizing an appeal to authority, imagery, and a tone appropriate to the state of excitement surrounding the event or condition.

Cultural attributes may serve as an identifying marker for nationalist groups and, or, religious fundamentalists. Islamic revivalism is an example of how religious community and ethnic stratification have come together for the purpose of asserting political power. Nationalism may be seen as an inappropriate combination of ideas inextricably meshed with notions of loyalty, authority, and historical reasoning.

Chris Hedges, in War Is a Force that Gives Us Meaning, draws on twenty years as a war correspondent in such varied locales as Israel/Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus, Algeria, Iran, Iraq, the Falkland Islands, El Salvador, the former Yugoslavia, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and northern India. He writes of war as a nationalist phenomenon that allows the dismissal of critical and moral restraint, replacing it with an "imagined" reality of patriotic fervor — all in the name of "the myth," the nation, and "the cause." He tells his audience that "war is not a uniform experience or event"; rather, it is, as Anderson argues of nationalism, a cultural artifact of a particular kind. To be understood, both the history and emotional underpinnings of war must be addressed (Hedges 3).

Imagined Communities and the Us-versus-Them Divide

Nationalism is said to be less identified with cultural autonomy than with idealistic issues such as racism and expansionism. The nationalist group defines its focus in terms of geographical identity, which may or may not include elements of religion, ethnicity, or race. Cultural attributes may serve as an identifying marker for nationalist groups. The essence of nationalist thought is the distinction of difference: the separation of a "them" from an "us," defined in terms of moral judgment.

The nation state is itself "imagined" as a social community because its members are connected through cultural identities rather than through proximity or personal knowledge of one another. Communities are therefore defined according to the shared beliefs that constitute their imagined commonalities (Anderson 6). This is the phenomenon George Orwell referred to as "groupthink," in which all identities are dichotomized into an "us" and "them" mentality.

It becomes a matter of good (us) against evil (them), right (us) against wrong (them), and here (us) against there (them). Such a duality breeds antagonism in the face of a perceived fear of exploitation.

In recent years, there are those who speak of a clash of civilizations — a clash between Islam and "our" modern secular (or Judaeo-Christian) democratic values and culture. Those who contrast Islamic civilization with modern Western culture conveniently slip into an "us and them" mentality that obscures the diversity of both sides. Most Muslims are not Islamic political activists; such activists constitute only a minority, albeit a significant one. Moreover, the United States has an obligation — as Hedges' account of the war in the Middle East suggests — to distinguish between a violent minority bent upon the overthrow of governments and a majority that, given the opportunity, will work within the system to bring about change. Even more difficult, of course, is distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate uses of violence.

Religion, Ethnicity, and the Nationalist State

Ideology of any sort comprises the habits of behavior and belief that combine to make any social world appear to those who inhabit it as the natural world (Billig 37). This marks war as a nationalistic event, compelling to the point of possible addiction. There is an intensity of emotion during times of war that is not available in peacetime. Political, religious, and ethnic differences become the compelling reason for the survival of the nation state. Often, the relationship between a religious organization and a national identity lends itself to the misconception that fundamentalism and nationalism are the same thing. A religious group may gain a certain level of power and thus instill religious overtones in a more forceful manner, which may be misconstrued as nationalistic fervor and defined as a threat to the "other."

Conclusion: Self-Reflection as a Counter to Nationalist Rhetoric

A view that is gaining in popularity is that one can change the world by changing the individual. Attainment of a sense of balance with the world entails self-knowledge through the art of self-reflection. Knowing one's own values and motivations allows for the reflection of that inner contentment to filter through the relationships and expectations that are part of living within a community. It is a means of achieving a basic humanity that can act as a filter for understanding the role of nationalism in the United States and as a buffer against the patriotic rhetoric that has led the nation to war.

As Benedict Anderson's framework of imagined communities illustrates, the bonds that hold a nation together are constructed rather than natural. Recognizing the constructed nature of nationalist identity is the first step toward critically evaluating the rhetoric that sustains it — and toward choosing a more reflective, humane engagement with the world.