Examining Nationalism And Authoritarianism Sociology Essay Example

societal groups sharing the same culture, language,and regional background creating strong loyalty towards their group.Patriotism has its roots in the French Revolution,the riseof centralized lands,Mercantilismeconomic policy,andstrong middle classes.While its historical origins remain debated,it emergedasamodern ideologyand social movementin Europe.According to Smith (1993), patriotism is a significant political force in history, which has led to World War I and II due to the rise of fascist and autocratic patriotic ideologies. He defines patriotism as an ideology, emotion, form of culture, or social movement that revolves around the nation. The dominant classical modernism paradigm asserts that states and patriotism are intrinsic to the nature of modernity. While patriotism often links with desires for unification or national independence, it can also be destructive in multicultural societies like India, Indonesia, or Israel. Young et al. (2007) suggest making analytical distinctions between "nation" and "national identity" from that of the "state," especially in case of composite state-nations such as Great Britain to gain clarity on concepts like nationalism, nationality, etc. It's imperative to note that even though postmodern times witness a decline in state power but not nations; these are distinct issues requiring separate analysis. Nevertheless, understanding the continuity or decline of "nation" and "national identity" remains integral by examining the role played by national states since nationalism is a political ideology while national sentiments refer to exaggerated emotions directed towards a certain nationality.The ideology of patriotism emphasizes the importance of national self-government, asserting that nation-states are the only legitimate form of governance. However, this pursuit has often resulted in conflict, including war, secession, and genocide. Miscevic (2001) explains that "patriotism" encompasses both the attitude of caring about one's national identity

and taking actions to achieve or maintain political sovereignty. This raises questions about defining national identity and belonging to a nation. National identity can be defined by common origin, ethnicity or cultural ties. The concept of sovereignty raises questions on whether full statehood with complete authority is necessary for domestic and international affairs or if something less than statehood would suffice (Miller 1992; Miller 2000). Despite these concerns, there is a consensus on what constitutes classical or "evangelist" patriotism- prioritizing the state's claims over individual commitments while striving for full sovereignty as its ultimate goal. Patriots view states as belonging to specific ethno-cultural groups whose traditions need protection and promotion. Classical patriotism was particularly prominent in Europe and Latin America during the 19th century before spreading worldwide.The concept of modern-day patriotism is a defining characteristic in countries such as the United States, India, and Indonesia. While patriotism and ethnicity are related concepts, they are distinct from one another. Eriksen (1993) notes that nationalist ideology aims to establish a state for a specific cultural group. The differentiation between patriotism and ethnicity remains an ongoing topic of debate. However, various forms of patriotism exist, such as polyethnic or supraethnic political stances prioritizing shared civil rights over cultural roots found in the United States. Some individuals may find themselves in a Grey area regarding their national and cultural identity, like the Sundanese people in Indonesia. It's common for media outlets and everyday dialogue to use these terms inconsistently.

It's important to note that being patriotic doesn't necessarily mean believing that one ethnicity is superior to others; however, some self-proclaimed patriots might advocate for ethnocentric protectionism or dominance. In societies

where patriotism is viewed as an objective and universal political ideology based on impartial bureaucratic principles of justice, ethnicities' association with ethnocentrism and culture can be perceived as threats to national unity, fairness, and the state.

A more traditional definition of patriotism refers to conflict between dominating and dominated cultural groups within a modern nation-state context according to Weiss (2003). Various perspectives exist from which we can examine the construct of patriotism.In the realm of social psychology, research focuses on how groups interact, including competition and societal individuality. In contrast, experts in depth psychology attribute an individual's personality traits as a primary cause for patriotism. However, sociological and political theories suggest that patriotism is derived from social developments such as modernization, decomposition, or crises. These theories assert that societal conditions like inequality or rapid change are reflected in an individual's attitudes, orientations, and patriotism.

According to Smith (1998), patriotism serves as a societal foundation for modern society and can be viewed as a sentiment or form of culture referred to as 'nationality' to avoid tarnishing its reputation. The shared societal context and solidarity provided by patriotism have been partially attributed to support for economic redistribution, democratization, and industrialization (Gelner 2005; Miller 1995).

Gans (2003) normatively separates 'nationalism' into two types: statist patriotism and cultural patriotism. Statist nationalism holds that states must uphold political values such as democracy, economic welfare, and distributive justice through sharing a homogenous national culture among the people. On the other hand, cultural nationalism suggests members of groups with common history & social background have fundamental interest in preserving their culture across generations.The two types of nationalism, statist and cultural, differ in their origins and

objectives. Statist nationalism uses national culture as a means to attain state goals, while cultural nationalism prioritizes national culture as the objective and views the state as a tool. In statist nationalism, any national culture can uphold political values, but only specific cultures are preserved by states in cultural nationalism. The term "statist nationalism" refers to territorial-civic patriotism, while "cultural nationalism" embodies ethnocultural patriotism. Gans (2003) notes that these types of patriotism can be distinguished based on geographical, sociological, judgmental and normative parameters; territorial-civic patriotism is Western-based and characterized by a strong middle class with progressive ideals of citizenship whereas ethnocultural patriotism is Eastern-based without such a class structure and viewed regressive due to unconscious development of the Volk concept. Seymour et al.(2000) define territorial-civic patriotism as individuals giving themselves to the state which binds them together creating subjectivity and individualism reinforcement.The passage discusses two types of patriotism: cultural and statist. Cultural patriotism focuses on preserving a national group's language, tradition, and culture across generations, while statist patriotism believes that people within a state must share a homogenous national culture for political values to be realized. Both seek political protection for national cultures but differ in their normative and practical concerns. Civic and statist patriotism are differentiated by the requirement of shared language, culture, and history for provinces under the latter. Patriotism can manifest as an official state ideology or non-state movement expressed through civic, cultural, religious or ideological means. Negative factors associated with statist patriotism include objectivism, Bolshevism, and lack of individual choice based on an objective perception of the state as a product of social life's objective facts.Various types of patriotism exist, and

they can be classified through state self-definitions. Nationalist movements combine different elements to varying degrees, and their magnitude and location can also be used for classification. Civic patriotism emphasizes common cultural values and integrates people from diverse backgrounds into the state. In contrast, cultural patriotism is rooted in familial connections and unites people of a specific ethnicity heritage without including other ethnicities.

Irredentism displays patriotism by aiming to take control of territories that have had or still have members of a state residing in them and transferring them to a province that constitutes the majority or all of the state's inhabitants. On the other hand, expansionist patriotism relocates citizens to new territories under the premise that their current location is too small or incapable of sustaining their population.

Many global nationalist movements aim for national liberation from perceived persecution by other states. Fascism advocates for authoritarian nationalism through national revolution, national Bolshevism, totalitarian statehood, irredentism, or expansionism as means to unite and expand a nation. Fascists may promote cultural patriotism or assimilation outside their own cultural group.Although some scholars argue that distinctions between types of patriotism are not valid, they do share a belief in the cultural identity shared among people (Smith, 1998; Zakzaky, 1992). The attempt to simplify the complex concept of patriotism through typology is false as it includes civic patriotism, cultural patriotism, irridentism, expansionist patriotism and extremist or radical patriotism involving liberation. Patriotism can be perceived as an overly assertive political ideology that makes far-reaching demands and sometimes leads to obliteration of entire regions. This has faced severe opposition since its early resistance due to its geopolitical notion of having a separate state for

each country which was rejected by nineteenth-century nationalist movements resulting in repression by authoritarian governments. The tradition still persists today with secessionism, repression and violence being prevalent worldwide. From the outset there has been an ideological critique of patriotism taking various forms such as anti-nationalism in the western world while Islamic resurgence during the twentieth century created an Islamic rejection towards nation-states insisting on single Muslim leadership similar to the Pope in Rome.The debate surrounding patriotism remains controversial and lacks agreement. Those who resist patriotism often follow cosmopolitanism, including progressives, Marxists, and nihilists. Even supporters of patriotism may disagree on its benefits and diminish the aspirations of others for various reasons. However, patriotism has had a lasting effect on modern society. Gelfand et al.'s (1996) research shows that authoritarianism opposes democracy and is characterized by non-consensual political systems based on rulers rather than the governed, monopolization of power, and decisions made by leaders rather than discussions or voting. This political doctrine denies individual freedoms and requires submission to authorities such as a king to avoid excessive individuality, anarchy or lawlessness; it favors centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme patriotism - in short - authoritarianism is a dictatorial movement. Altemeyer (2006) states that those who support dictatorship criticize the democratic system as weak and ineffective. Autocratic leaders create an undemocratic oppressive system when followers excessively submit to them giving too much leeway- autocratic fascist and communist absolutisms are currently posing the biggest threats to democracies.Kemmelmeier et al. (1999) state that most theorists agree that dictatorship is incompatible with individual rights and freedoms, and can even pose a threat to democratic individualism.

Gelfand et al. (1996) suggest that dictatorship stands in direct opposition to individuality. Adorno et al. (1950) discovered a correlation between dictatorship, conservatism, militarism, patriotism, and religionism, which they referred to as the "Authoritarian Personality". In Continental Europe, conservative movements have gained prominence over time. Some of these movements supported autocratic and totalitarian regimes like Italian fascism and German Nazism during the period between 1920 and World War II. According to Eckhardt (1991), there are numerous emotional, behavioral, cognitive, ideological, and moral similarities shared by conservatism and dictatorship. Both also tend to project negative aspects of themselves onto others who they perceive as inferior; this justifies their expression of disowned values such as aggression and dominance in order to control those same values seen in others. As a result of this psychological pattern both conservatism and dictatorship become self-destructive approaches towards human relationships while being anti-social in nature.Eckhardt (1991) suggests that autocratic and democratic social structures are connected. Both dictatorship and conservatism can be a result of a restrictive upbringing, which reinforces personality development when similar themes are experienced in different areas of life such as church, school, work or office. Conservative views on human nature suggest that humans are inherently wicked and require control by an autocratic social structure. On the other hand, according to extremist doctrine, if humans are inherently good then they should treat each other as free and equal individuals in a democratic societal structure. Political psychology needs to find a combination of conservative and extremist doctrines to promote it. Altemeyer's (1988, 1996, 2006) theory of dictatorship is widely accepted; it defines dictatorship as a value syndrome consisting of conventionality, entry

to authority and aggression. Authoritarians follow conventional morality, values and societal norms while stressing hierarchy and respecting authority figures. They possess an outlook that legitimizes anger and aggression towards those who deviate from social conventions with their "law-and-order" perspective.Furthermore, according to Altemeyer (2006), autocratic followers tend to support established authorities and traditional religious leaders in their society. Dictators often value individuals who have held positions of authority and entitlement in society due to their adherence to established norms and high levels of aggression towards their government. While the authoritarian personality theory has been revised by several authors including Altemeyer, Rokeach, Duckitt, Feldman, and Oesterreich since the publication of "The Authoritarian Personality," it still faces issues such as reductionism and a focus solely on individual behaviors rather than societal context. Current theories of authoritarianism primarily focus on the individual level but must consider both intra- and intergroup factors for increased explanatory power. Recent studies suggest that the connection between autocratic attitudes/behaviors and dictatorship is more flexible and reliant on societal context than originally believed under the theory of the Authoritarian Personality (Altemeyer, 1988; Feldman, 2003; Doty, Peterson & Winter, 1991; Rickert, 1998). Despite this fact, most dictatorship theories do not incorporate this insight.The criticism towards measuring authoritarianism lies in its political bias, which is often linked to conservatism. However, dictatorship scales currently only examine right-wing ideologies and do not explore the existence of left-wing authoritarianism (Stone & Smith, 1993).