Tom Nairn and Paul James Global Matrix: Nationalism, Globalism and State-Terrorism (London: Pluto Press, 2005, 304pp.) This is a study of modern nationalism and the impact of globalization upon the structure and functions of the State. As Paul James writes “Contemporary globalization is a remarkable creature. She is an agile, blousy Hollywood-style genie that rarely lives up to her promises yet all too often slips relatively unscathed between the legs of her fiercest critics…Globalization does not inevitably sweep all aside before it. All that is solid does not melt into air. For example, processes of globalization may eventually undermine the sovereignty of the nation-state, but there is no inevitability about such an outcome, in neither logic nor reality. It is salutary to remember that institutions and structures of modern globalization and the modern nation-state were born during the same period; they were formed through the concurrent processes, with the tension between these two phenomena being over boundary formation and sovereignty rather than in general.” What makes the book unusual is that the two co-authors do not necessarily agree, and there is a long, highly critical article by Joan Cocks of Tom Nairn’s approach, along with Nairn’s reply. The articles arise from debates in Australia and were often published in earlier versions in Arena journal. While the analysis is basically of nationalism in Europe, it is interesting to see the ways the discussions are carried on in Australia. Tom Nairn’s key point is that “Nationality politics is ancient, but it was a novel ‘ism’ that took the theatrical centre of the political stage only after the 1870s. That is, after France’s defeat by Prussia and the consolidation of Federal America after its Civil War. It happened via the French. ‘Le nationalisme’ was forged in reaction to the terrible wounds of AlsaceLorraine…It was from the outset an instrument for unceasing revenge and reassertion: internal rejuvenation by ‘pride’, justified through the remanifestation of destiny. Certainly, modern political culture had worked its way towards this denouement across preceding generations — notably in reaction to the French Revolution, and the 1848 explosion of smaller nationalities in Europe. But it was the dominant state-nations that rendered it global, through the ‘ism’. Almost at once, it entered every tongue and became everyday discourse. Soon it would be ‘explained’ everywhere by discoveries of blood diversity, inherited cultures and timeless rights, as ‘ethnic nationalism… “The earlier romantic climate and its politicized nationality awareness were certainly a necessary condition of the ism’s formation. But the sufficient conditions were different again, and demand attention to other factors. A much greater force was needed, and it could only have emanated from the ‘centre’, from the power houses.” Nationalism was given its ideological foundations by writers, historians, clergy and journalists, and made a political force through political parties. In France, England, and Germany, nationalism was linked in time with economic expansion and colonialism but was not a direct cause of colonialism. “However, there is a hope that ethno-nationalism is a necessary but transitory step on the way to a more tolerant, civic nationalism based on the principle that a nation should be a home to all, and that race, colour, religion and creed should be no bar to belonging.”
Nairn goes on to write “It seems to me that what we need to focus on more closely is the ‘ism’ of nationalism. That is, we need to look at the formulation of nationality politics, national interests (and so on) as a hard-edged and indefinitely generalizable creed or doctrine. The term ‘nationalism’ slips all too easily off all of today’s tongues. It has become popular discourse, the tabloids of all lands never tire of it, all shades of politicians carry it on their shoulders, and academics in all cultures can still fortify their careers by enouncing it.” Will the ideology of nationalism be undermined by the reality of a global world economy? One thesis that Nairn and James presents is that “globalization as freedom is one of the dominant ideologies of our time.” echoed by George W. Bush in his 2003 ‘State of the nion’ address: “Americans are free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation.” There is a need for an ethical vision of a global society, a sense of universal responsibility. While there are some who justify the global market, it is still true that ‘man does not live by bread alone’. Thus, the dominant socioeconomic reality has not yet found its dominant ideologies. Rene Wadlow
Painting : Lona Towsley
