WHY DOES NATIONALISM CONTINUE TO TRUMP CLASS?

By: Jim Ward 

In his less insightful moments, when he attempted to predict the future (a mugs game at any stage of history), Karl Marx predicted that eventually the awareness of class would trump that of nationalism.  He was, of course, terribly wrong in that prediction.  World War 1, known in its time as The Great War, blinded lots of good British, French, Canadian, German, American, Australian and Turkish working-class lads to the fact that their lives were much the same, selling their labour on the cheap to the benefit of the few that geared them up for war.  Women too, although not major participants in the shooting war, did their bit to ensure their male counterparts were willing to pay the ‘ultimate sacrifice’ for their god and their country.  Young women in London where ever-ready to present young men not in the shooting war with white feathers, branding them cowards, unwilling to fight for “their freedoms”  Those British lads strong enough to resist these forces were often packed off to the lunatic asylum.  They were obviously crazy not to want to go and shoot people they’d never met, with whom they had no real quarrel.  One of the most famous of these “conscientious objectors” was the poet Siegfried Sassoon who refused to go back to the trenches after being wounded.  He was diagnosed as suffering from shell shock, nowadays known as PTSD.  The notion of PTSD is, in itself, something of a problem (just as shell shock was) in that it sees the individual as having a mental health problem, rather than seeing the nation-state as a whole as having a mental health problem insofar as it expects its citizens (primarily its economically marginalized young men) to be willing to make the “ultimate sacrifice” (more mealy-mouthed nation state nonsense), in order to preserve the particular nation-state. 

There are obviously several reasons why nationalism seems to be so successful in trumping allegiance to class.  One of which I have already alluded to, i.e. you have to be crazy not to go. 

A factor that often makes this possible is that young men are living unchallenging lives and are ready to jump at the chance for adventure.  One of the most powerful filmic representations of this is in the movie Gallipoli which depicts our two ‘heroes’ as two bored young lads living in the Australian bush.  They jump at the chance for adventure and to go and ‘teach the Bosh a lesson’.  And, of course, they end up being cannon fodder for the Turkish troops.  Not only is it a great lesson in the madness of war and the nation-state, it is a great vehicle for Mel Gibson on his road to movie stardom.  One of the true ironies of Gallipoli is that Australians celebrate that ignominious defeat as the true beginning of Australia as a nation state.  On each 25th of April –Anzac Day – Australian nationalists celebrate their fledgling nation’s “baptism in blood” on that day. 

A third reason seems to be that people are easily whipped up emotionally to do silly and dangerous things in the name of their nation.  National anthems and other patriotic songs seem to be particularly effective at doing this.  It has to be something to do with words and music working together to hit strong emotional chords in the populace of a nation state.  Some years ago, when I lived and taught sociology in Australian Universities, a national referendum was held to update Australia’s national anthem.  At the time (early 1980s) they were still standing up in movie theatres and at football games when God Save the Queen (the Queen of England,that is) was played.  There was a feeling in the general public that it was maybe time to change the song, so the referendum was held.  The three possible choices were: to retain God Save the Queen; Waltzing Matilda (a song about a sheep-stealing swagman (hobo) who commits suicide by jumping in a water hole when apprehended by the cops) and Advance Australia Fair (a turgid ditty about what a wonderful place Australia is).  The last one won the referendum and is, to this day, the official national anthem.  Waltzing Matilda came a close second.   

Most modern nation-states have pretty turgid national anthems but even the most turgid seem to have some mass psychological influence on the members of the various nation states.  When I was a young lad in post World War Two Britain, we used to sing – with great gusto – Rule Britannia at the Friday school assembly and, as a ten-year old I was all fired up and proud to be British and ready to defend my nation against all comers.  When I went to live in Australia I was quickly dissuaded from my erstwhile British nationalism, since I was now living in “the best bloody country in the world, mate.”  But, by the time I was 14, I was beginning to see through all this stuff and ready to agree with Samuel Johnson’s dictum that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.  (I never have really understood the difference between  nationalism and patriotism.  To me they are one and the same thing.) 

Among the more sophisticated nations the songs that elicit the gut level nationalism in modern times tend to be more in the category of popular songs.  The Toby Keith song Courtesy of the Red White and Blue is more likely to stir the feeling of nationalism than is the U.S. anthem.  Perhaps the Canadian equivalent would Four Strong Winds. 

A fourth, and possibly the most powerful reason is that of the hegemony of the ruling class, a la Gramsci.  Although the argument of hegemony often deteriorates into simplistic conspiracy theory, in the case of willingness of young men to go to war, it seems fairly evident that those who control the ideas, i.e. as with Marx and his notion of the ruling ideas in any society as being the ideas of the ruling class.  We certainly saw this in evidence in the recent Iraq war with Dick Cheney’s Halliburton Company making a metaphorical killing, whilst the working class Americans in uniform experienced a literal killing.  Going back to World War One, C.S. Forester’s The General drew a sharp picture of how the British ruling class saw all those working class lads, who died by the hundreds of thousands in that inane conflict, as totally expendable. 

The British historian, Eric Hobsbawm, points out in his book Nations and Nationalism Since 1780 that nation-states have only really existed since late in the 18th century and yet we tend to see them as always having been there.  The simple exercise of looking at a world map with its various boundaries and colours makes us realize, with some little thought that these entities are arbitrary and created, most often by people from beyond those boundaries.  And yet, personal identities are much tied up with the notion of being of a particular nation state.  When the average person is asked to identify him or herself, one of the first descriptors would be their particular nationality and then sex (gender?) and age.  Imagine identifying oneself as an Ivorian.  It means that you happen to live in that part of Africa now called the Ivory Coast.  Named by whom?  By European expansionists, of course, whose major interest was the hunting of elephants.  How then can one proud to be an Ivorian, particularly to the extent that one would be willing to go to war with those living in a neighbouring state, such as Mali or Burkina Faso?  Such a conflict would, as in all inter-nation conflicts, likely benefit the few elites and impose suffering on those at the marginalized levels of society. 

In April, 2014 this discussion is particularly germane as the social elites of Russia, whip up enthusiasm among the working class to see those folks over the border in Ukraine as the enemy.  So successful is this strategy that the current leader of Russia enjoys 80% approval from Russian residents, in no small part is this further encouraged by a stirring Russian anthem. 

And so, in conclusion, one has to ask why nationalism trumps class.