Nationalism as Ideology of Unity in 18th Century Europe
The culture of a nation has many faces. Each of the culture has its own thoughts, faiths and beliefs which help setting up norms for the systematic movement of the society. The concept of nationalism is also an output of such cultures. There are different meanings of nationalism for different people of the society because of the variety in the culture around the world. For some nationalism is a religious concept whereas for some it is a belief and thought process on the bottom such as language, geographical location or traditions. However, the meaning of the collaborative society or nation and identification of each members of society as tribe remains the same in the cases. Moreover, sometimes different viewpoints of two culture creates a battle among different sections of the society. The same has happened to the concept of nationalism where in those who feels that the nationalism provides too much liberty to the society which could stuck the societal balance in the country. These thoughts are primarily focused in the unity of the society using revenge actions or suppressing the revolutionary voice for protecting the peace and leadership. In the given essay a comparison has been made between the theory of some of the significant nationalist movements and personal with the antinational personals. Hence the difference in the thoughts and the opinion has been critically analyzed to ascertain in the logical argument made by them.
In 18th century across the world specifically in the Europe had most showing the concept of nationalism. The arrival of the French revolution and fall of monarch in the France had made a significant impact on the Europe regarding the benefit of the organized public opinion. However, there remained one section of the society which does not believed in this approach of gathering and forming a public opinion which later termed as anti-nationalism. Politicians, public figures and philosopher have used fundamental concepts in spreading their voices to the commons. The believers in nationalism such Gottlieb Fichte, a German philosopher has quoted “that people are bonded together with the language they speak.” Another, laurate Lord Ampthill specified that nationalism is the method which could help “the society in protecting their interest by maintaining their national rights” to which is exactly the opposite of the opinion of the Count Czernin. According to the Czernin, a ruler is selected by “god itself and one should not question on the decisions of the crown.” He demanded that people must not be pushed to reason with the crown and dictatorship should be cherished by them even if it means losing their rights. From both the opinions it is quite clear that nationalism advocates civil rights and protection whereas anti nationalism doesn’t take into account the rights of the common public. The logic behind the advocates of nationalism is that the masters of their own interest whereas their mates feel that the rulers are the masters of the people’s interest.
On the other hand, it can be observed in the Carlsbad Decrees of 1819 with respect to the French historian Ernst Renan. The university law states that “the professors have to follow certain code of conduct which discourage them in expressing themselves to the students and the press law stops the freedom of the publication of press releases and pamphlets.” However, the nationalism supporter Ernst Renan strongly advocates “a nation as a soul and suggest that man is not a slave of race, his language, religion or not to anyone.” Man must express his thoughts without any restrictions misuse of it by its nation. The objective behind such decrees are that the society must behave as the government of the country wants them to be since it would create peace and in the country and would help in combination of the citizens whereas the objective behind Renan’s belief is to make a world wherein every person could be attached with each other on the basis of spiritual beliefs and the faith. The basic logic behind such anti-nationalism laws would be that giving excess freedom to express would harm the citizens and control the development of the nation whereas the nationalist believes that the people should be guided by their soul’s not just rules.
These studies provide a common understanding of the political, social and cultural aspects of the modern Europe and the world. The essay explains the need of the nationalism which was identified by the philosophers and the common citizen’s to displace the monarch. However, the study also helps in understanding the conflicting relation between the Russia and United States of America since the teachings are exactly opposite to each other. Further, many new countries around the globe got inspired by the concept of nationalism such as India, Pakistan, and other Asian countries in the 20th century is an output the spread of the nationalism in the Europe. The introduction of motherland or fatherland and adoption of fundamental rights for the protection of the interests of the common public are some of the most vital gains due to the rise in the nationalism in the Europe and the modern world.
At last, it can be concluded that the world has lots of different ideologies and there are lots of preachers of such ideologies. The essay helps in understanding the thoughts of the various influential peacemaker and laws regarding the nationalism and anti-nationalism. The essence of the essay is nationalism provides a suitable condition for the individuals to express their opinions and helps in the blending of the national as a whole. Further, the essay enlightens the gains form the rise of the nationalism in the modern Europe and across the globe such as fundamental rights and many others.
Cite this Essay
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below