European Nationalism: definitional differences of inclusion.
A debate is raging in Denmark over what to do with 19 Danish children held in a camp in Syria (I wrote more about this last week). On one side, are the humanitarian minded center-left and left wing support parties who demand the government bring the either the children alone or the children and their Danish mothers home. On the other side, are the nationalist-conservative parties who contend that the children, though not themselves guilty, are to remain in Syria on account of their parent’s decision making. Caught in the middle is the governing Social Democrat party and the primary opposition of the center-right Liberal party. Neither party has built a comprehensible reason for why the children shouldn’t come home. Rather, both parties seem to be making a political decision: these children, though Danish in citizenship, are not considered Danish by most voters.
The far-right nationalist reasoning for why the children shouldn’t be brought home, while more reprehensible in my view, is the most coherent reasoning. To the Danish nationalist, these children shouldn’t be brought home because they have Muslim parents, and ‘real’ Danes are not Muslims. Nationalist provocateur Morton Messerschmidt (MP for parliament, fraudster and convicted racist) took to twitter to make his definitions of Danishness clear.
https://twitter.com/MrMesserschmidt/status/1375402586459795456
“Far too many have been granted Danish citizenship during the last few decades. The consequence of which is the “Danish children” and “Danish Mothers” in Syria. But someone isn’t Danish just because they have been so lucky as to receive Danish citizenship on paper. A person is Danish if they love Denmark” (picture: “Are their children Danish? The terrorists and their children shall NOT come back to Denmark! They shall remain in Syria.”)
Messerschmidts’ tweet makes it clear that the concept of citizenship and who deserves to be a member of the nation are in question. While the government struggles to rationalize the punishing of Danish children for the choice of the parents, Messerschmidt stands on firmer ground: who cares about the children, they aren’t really Danish.
The saga of Danish children in a prison in Syria is illustrative of the problems facing European democracies more generally: If these democracies are made by and for the people who make up the nation, who is, and isn’t, allowed into nationhood? For most European nations there are generally two categories: ethnic nationhood, and cultural nationhood. Messerschmidt and his ilk would argue (as his words do in the tweet) that they are for a conception of the latter. Those of non-European ethnicity can become a member of the nation if and only if, they submit wholeheartedly to the cultural norms ascribed to Danishness. Those norms are obviously subjective and can change depending on which people should be excluded from it (Take for example the importance of eating pork to being Danish in response to the increase of abiding Muslims).
As global immigration increases and the threat of mass migration from climate change grows larger, European countries in particular will be left to grapple with difficult questions about who is allowed in, not only to the borders and the state, but who is allowed into the democracy. Who is allowed citizenship. This is particularly true considering the lack of birth-right citizenship or jus soli in any EU member state. Meaning children of immigrants retain their parents' immigrant status even as they grow up speaking the local language natively, attend local schools and absorb the broader national culture. In Denmark, this has led to problems as people, who thought they were citizens, later being told that there was an administrative error and must therefore apply to regain their citizenship, or had lost the right to apply and are deported to countries they've never lived in after engaging in illegal activity as a teenager.
Say what you will about the United State’s record on immigration and racial inclusion, but the sheer fact that every person born on American soil is an American goes a long way towards diminishing the power of using bureaucratic means to restrict citizenship for ethnic or racial reasons. America’s great strength has come from its ability to absorb millions of immigrants from around the globe and make all peoples from all backgrounds compatible with Americanness. Europeans are proud of their cultural legacy and their ability to build multistate coalitions after the calamities of the early 20th century, but they have yet to grapple with the idea of building truly pluralistic, multiethnic democracies.
Creedal, Cultural and Ethnic Nationalism
Attempts to define a nation are tricky. A nation is broadly a large group which shares some characteristics and would broadly see each other as being members of that group. It might be useful to think of the way in which the world is used outside of a political science lens. My hometown University advertises to potential students by promoting their sports teams as “Beaver Nation.” In fact, nearly every major American sports team has used some form of the word to include their fandom in as something more than just an observer.
When institutions refer to their ecosystem as a ‘nation’ they are implicitly providing a definition of nationhood that is inclusive. No one is born as a Bemidji State University Beaver but they could decide to become one either through supporting the teams or applying to go to school there. Likewise, while many follow sports teams because of where they were born, it isn’t a prerequisite to be a fan of your local or regional team (as the army of Minnesotan born Green Bay Packers fans can attest). This form of 'nationhood' is opt-in, as long as a person prescribed to the tenets of the nation (fandom, attendance at events, enrollment in the university) they can be included.
Fandom as nationhood is a useful way of imaging the concept of creedal nationalism. In the creedal form of nationalism, a person is a part of a nation when they accept certain precepts about what it is to be a part of that nation. America has been described as a nation based upon creed: freedom, liberty, and democracy. Acceptance of the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are important, but more important is to accept the values described in those founding documents. To accept the fundamental promises of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution make for inclusion in the nation.
Creedal nationalism is the most inclusive form of nationalism because it can allow for those born outside the state, or those of an ethnic or cultural background that doesn’t match the state’s majority composition to become full and equal citizens in the eyes of the law and ideally the eyes of their fellow citizens.
Cultural nationalism is a type practiced by most states, particularly European states. This form of nationalism is less about the upholding of particularly creeds or fundamental beliefs but rather the enactment of hereditary rituals and practices. You can count yourself as a member of the nation if you behave like you should as a member of the nation. Therefore, those born into the culture by parents who have also been born into the culture have little problem in fitting into the otherwise arbitrary borders that cultures are made of.
But culture isn’t static and any attempt to purely define where a culture begins or ends will be fruitless. The practices of the people called Danes today are assuredly different from the practices of those called Danes in the 1700s. There may be some similarities, including intelligible (maybe) language, and food ingredients. But on the whole, Danish culture in the 18th century and Danish culture in the 21st century are radically different.
So cultural definitions of nationhood often fall back onto the easier and more obvious definition: ethnonationalism.
I doubt I need to explain the history or import of ethnonationalism in Europe. The grand European project was born out of the most extreme conclusions of ethnonationalism, and yet, the pervasive ease with which the concept is conveyed and the simplicity in its definitions mean that European states have yet to scourge the concept from their national conceptions. Implicit in Messerschmidts’ tweet about loving Denmark was a belief that these children are simply incapable of truly loving Denmark, their parent’s Islamic beliefs have deprived the children of the appropriate ethno-religious background necessary for them to love Denmark.
This is the dance that all Nationalist parties walk in European politics. While most frame their beliefs as being in cultural nationalism, that slope invariably leads to ethnic and religious labels as being the actual signifier of inclusion in the nation.
Uneasy Parallels
Comparisons between contemporary political movements and the fascist and Nazi movements of the early 20th century are always fraught. At best, the comparisons offer a useful buffer to revisiting those horrors, at worst, they are overused to the point of meaninglessness. But it must be noted the way in which Muslims in Europe have come under the similar sorts of arguments that led to the castigation and genocide of Jews on the continent less than 100 years ago.
It would be hard to imagine political parties in Europe today declaring that Jewish culture is incompatible with European culture, or that Jews will never be able to integrate into European society. But replace Jewish with Islamic and Jews with Muslims and you’ll find at least one party in nearly every European parliament making those exact arguments. The acceptability of Islamophobia in Europe is as troubling as it is complex. A history of antagonisms with the Near East dating back to the first crusades and extending through to the refugee crisis of the mid 2010s has created a sense of clear cultural delineation. A Christian Europe and an Islamic Middle East.
That delineation has allowed for a clear othering as immigration from majority Muslim states has increased in recent decades. And the creation of an unassimilable other makes for a self fulfilling prophecy. Integration by migrants and refugees into host societies has been documented to be most possible when the process is approached as a two-way street. When states and societies decide ex-ante that a particular group of people will never truly be an accepted part of society then that particular group will remain outside.
The turn towards emphasizing Europe’s ‘Christian heritage’ is an interesting direction for Islamophobic parties. Even more so considering the overwhelmingly secular nature of Western Europe particularly. While it is certainly true, Europe and the cultures therein are inextricably linked to Christian thought, history, and practices, it is also true that linkage to one religious tradition does not preclude a place from accepting people from other traditions. Application of ‘Christian heritage’ as a marker of European nationalism is generally just a convenient dog whistle for Islamophobia.
Which in lies the danger of the cultural and ethnocentric forms of nationalism, their exclusion of particular others makes for unavoidable conflicts. I’ve experienced this easy division myself. As a white American with a Scandinavian ethnic background, I’ve been accepted into Danish society with mostly open arms. I’m consistently told me Danish is very good (it isn’t) and have even been told that I’m the type of immigrant that Danes want in their country. Meanwhile, I’ve met refugees from Syria who, after much shorter time than I, learned Danish and joined the labor force. I’m not the type of person flexibly labeled as an immigrant because I fit in culturally. Integration was easier for me from a normative standpoint even though I’ve put in far less work than many refugees and migrants I’ve met during my time here.
Creation of the Creedal Europe
The continent of Europe prides itself in its hegemonic history, and it should. For all the negatives that came out European Imperialism and the devastation of the early 20th century, Europe has a lot of cultural history to be proud of. The Renaissance, Reformation, and Enlightenment not only produced ideas and concepts of great import they also showed that Europe is a continent capable of self-redefinition.
Attempts at forging a broader European identity in regard to the grand European project that is the EU have failed because to the extent that Europeans think of themselves as such that is only a sub-category under their nationalist headings. While this has made the EU a weaker and less legitimate institution for change, it has also shown a separate path to questions of national identity. The European identity, as crafted by the EU, is unsure of its own characteristics. No wonder few Europeans ascribe themselves to it. It is both cultural and creedal; deeply tethered to place and transient.
America as a creedal nation is one defined by a set of values. Europe, the place that nurtured the values ascribed to the American creed, should take note of that success. A greater focus should be placed on creed and less focus should be placed on location. Poland and Hungary should be more roundly punished or even expelled for their assaults on liberal European values. The continued inclusion of states which have turned their back on pluralistic democracy only weakens the creation of a creedal European identity. Membership in the block is opt-in, it’s an exclusive club that requires its members to live up to the ethical obligations established.
I’m not proposing anything new. The EU charter on human rights establishes a creed by which they could choose to build identities from. But the lack of consequences for breaking with those creeds makes their lofty aims feel more like guidelines than aspirations.
Perhaps the hope that a European identity can be established on creedal grounds is foolish. If most Europeans already ascribe to their cultural or ethnic national identity it may be impossible to reorient conceptions of identity towards something more ephemeral. But it’s worth a chance. Nobody wants to see a repeat of 20th century Europe. The continued use of cultural and ethnic nationalism provide one path with which to do that. But we can choose another way. Accepting that the strength of Europe is not in it’s inherent ethnic or cultural heritage but rather from the incredible strength of ideas which have followed from that heritage.
Europe does not need to be the continent of ethnic, cultural, and religious exclusion. Europe can decide that it is an ideal, a location in our minds and hearts, irrespective of where we were born, dependent upon values and norms. The resurgent force of ethnic and cultural nationalism are worrying because we’ve seen their logical conclusions before.
Potential means of redress
Concrete steps that countries could take would be to strengthening their creedal identity. Creating civic holidays which emphasis the values of the nation; creating a democratic process to define what ideals and values make up the national character; praising displays of exemplary national character. Activley promoting a positive version of what the nation is or should be as an example for all those who wish to be a part of it.
European countries could also reassess their approaches to immigration and citizenship. Communities that lack citizenship lack representation and are easier targets for politicians. Nationalist parties in Europe find success attacking immigrant communities because they don't have to court voters from those communities. Passing laws that mandate birth-right citizenship would diminish the strength of those attacks and allow European states to better embody the virtues of a democratic society. To exclude children born and raised on a state's soil the rights and responsibilities of citizenship is the implicit acceptance of the fragility of a nation. If the nation is so fragile that it cannot allow the children of immigrants to take part for fear of inalterable change, then that nation admits to a belief in an ahistoric view of human development.
In the case of Denmark, they could live up the responsibilities of the state in both protecting its citizens and being responsible for their misdeeds. Bringing not only the children home from Syria but their parents too is necessary to show the strength of the Danish nation. The decision over their crimes against the state should be decided by the judiciary, not politicians looking to win over racially and culturally nervous voters. The children, innocent of crimes, deserve protection from their state.
Ultimately, it isn't up to politicians like Messerschmidt to decide who is and who isn't really Danish. It's a decision made in concert between the legal apparatus of the state and democratic society. Individual politicians have role in shaping public opinion but so too do other cultural figures on television, radio, in church services, and in classrooms. A country like Denmark already has strong values, it's time for people to put their foot down and declare that those matter more than ethnicity, religious background, race, or color.
