What makes a nation? Bernhard Yack on Nationalism

What makes up a nation? This is the hottest topic in the West right now and will be for the forseeable future. Is it just a set of shared institutions governing a territory or an economic zone that we rationally choose to be a part of? Or even a set of otherwise random people with shared values?

Philosopher Bernhard Yack argues in Nationalism and the Moral Psychology of Community that these ideas of the civic nation are a myth because they deny the very premise on which the nation and national feeling rests: there must be something that is inherited.

He writes: "in order to characterize national belonging as a form of rational attachment, one must ignore the contingent inheritance of distinctive experiences and cultural memories that is an inseparable part of every national political identity. And one must pretend that it makes sense to characterize nations such as France, Canada, and the United States as voluntary associations for the expression of shared political principles. Such is the myth of the civic nation."

Yack says that the power of national feeling in an age of individualism and popular sovereignty seems surprising but shouldn't be. It is one of the most powerful forms of enduring community even, or especially, between equals with a democratic voice.

I will explore and critique Yack's arguments and invite discussion. Is Yack right? Does he go far enough?

You may find the full book here. The book is an academic work though clearly written. I encourage you to at least read Chapter 1 The Myth of the Civic Nation which you can find free here. You can also find an online debate about Yack's book here.

As usual a number of us will get there from 6:30 and have some food beforehand. And of course hang around afterwards for a drink. See you there!