Alternatives to the nation state?

[Justin Pickard]

In reading around the subjects of nationalism and the current geopolitical system in preparation for the start of study for an International Relations degree in October, a query presented itself to me.

Doesn't the 'modern' system of nation states existing in a within a condition of international anarchy seem somewhat arbitrary? Of all possible worlds, can you lot come up with any viable alternative geopolitical units? How about timelines in which the nation state is the exception rather than the rule? Points of divergence? Future histories in which nation states give way to something else?

Any input is more than welcome.

 

[Leo Caesius]

Justin - Are you familiar with the theories of Jane Jacobs? They might provide a good starting point.

 

[Faeelin]

She stretches a few points; England does have lots of resourcesnecessary for Industrialization, and Japan exported copper and silver for centuries. Interesting, but I'm not convinced.

I can't help but wonder, though, if we could have seen a Europe based on city states arising in the middle ages. Imagine Europe as a patchwork of small states, like in Italy.

Or perhaps the Staufens get lucky, and manage to form a continent spanning empire.

Europe, perversely, seems to be heading in both directs; a continent wide entity with a patchwork of states. Look at seperatist movements in Northern Italy, Scotland, and even France.

 

[Kit]

And Wales.

Although our nationalists are more of the throw red paint at the English and burn down their holiday homes (after making sure no-one's inside of course), rather than the blowing up train stations variety found in Spain or Ireland.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

In reading around the subjects of nationalism and the current geopolitical system in preparation for the start of study for an International Relations degree in October, a query presented itself to me.

Doesn't the 'modern' system of nation states existing in a within a condition of international anarchy seem somewhat arbitrary? Of all possible worlds, can you lot come up with any viable alternative geopolitical units? How about timelines in which the nation state is the exception rather than the rule? Points of divergence? Future histories in which nation states give way to something else?

Any input is more than welcome.

Well, cosmopolitan multi-ethnic and multi-sectarian empires did quite well - nationalist states tend to be a bit murderous.

 

[Midgard]

IMO what propagated (although not created) the idea of "nation-state" that shaped modern times in Europe was the structure of the Roman Empire. Unlike the Greek or Phoenician city-states, the Romans took the concept of the empire building to the extreme, superimposing their society, laws, and culture on its subjects. On the other hand, if the empire that shaped the cradle of western civilization, the Mediterranean spread through colonization as opposed to conquest - or, rather, had more of the former than of the latter, uniting in times of extreme need (akin to the Greeks uniting to fight off a Persian invasion), but otherwise thousands of independent city states where the only method of controlling population growth is simply to create an impetus to colonize, then it may be possible to have a polis as a primary kind of civilization, where the concept of a "nation" is more of a loose confederation of statelets that are somewhat connected by language, ethnicity, or religion - or even by the level of civilization, i.e. if the state is considered by the others to be "civilized", it is in, versus a state that may be considered "barbaric", regardless of what the ethnicity or religion of its people may be.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

But the Roman Empire was a State, not a Nation - it comprised scores of nations.

I'm thinking of a national state as one defined by a common ethnicity, culture, and or language, but particularly the latter.

IMO what propagated (although not created) the idea of "nation-state" that shaped modern times in Europe was the structure of the Roman Empire. Unlike the Greek or Phoenician city-states, the Romans took the concept of the empire building to the extreme, superimposing their society, laws, and culture on its subjects. On the other hand, if the empire that shaped the cradle of western civilization, the Mediterranean spread through colonization as opposed to conquest - or, rather, had more of the former than of the latter, uniting in times of extreme need (akin to the Greeks uniting to fight off a Persian invasion), but otherwise thousands of independent city states where the only method of controlling population growth is simply to create an impetus to colonize, then it may be possible to have a polis as a primary kind of civilization, where the concept of a "nation" is more of a loose confederation of statelets that are somewhat connected by language, ethnicity, or religion - or even by the level of civilization, i.e. if the state is considered by the others to be "civilized", it is in, versus a state that may be considered "barbaric", regardless of what the ethnicity or religion of its people may be.

 

[fortyseven]

The nation-state is an abomination.

 

[Midgard]

But the Roman Empire was a State, not a Nation - it comprised scores of nations.

I'm thinking of a national state as one defined by a common ethnicity, culture, and or language, but particularly the latter.

It was indeed, but its greatest contribution to the idea of nation-state was the idea that most perceived benefits of the small city-state (such as relatively decent level of living for most citizens, republican - in theory, and sometimes even in practice government, etc) could be obtained by a much more numerous multitude of the citizens of continent-spanning empire, as long as they are "citizens", which in Rome of 222 AD meant completely different thing than in Rome of 100 BC, as in the IIIrd century the Romans did try to transform from the "state" into "nation-state" - unsuccessfully, however, it created the idea and the precedent; the idea did work with smaller, less diverse populations.

The one thing the Romans did permeate is the idea of the "Empire" as a trans-national, trans-ethnic institution to where instead of thinking of themselves as being "of Rome", "of London", "of Athens" many in the cities' population begun to think of themselves as "Roman", which transcended the idea of belonging to one's city first, and to a greater empire second. When Rome dissolved in the West, and the barbarian successor kingdoms tried to emulate the majesty of the empire they helped to destroy, they used the Roman ideas on centralizing the power - even if it did take many centuries to fully realize them. The Romans provided the concept of an empire - their successors applied it to their own tribal loyalties and clan rivalries, resulting in proto-nations of medieval Europe that became the states of today.

 

[Grey Wolf]

In reading around the subjects of nationalism and the current geopolitical system in preparation for the start of study for an International Relations degree in October, a query presented itself to me.

Doesn't the 'modern' system of nation states existing in a within a condition of international anarchy seem somewhat arbitrary? Of all possible worlds, can you lot come up with any viable alternative geopolitical units? How about timelines in which the nation state is the exception rather than the rule? Points of divergence? Future histories in which nation states give way to something else?

Any input is more than welcome.

Hmmm, you could argue (and I would if it was a finals paper, coz I always liked turning questions on their head) that the so-called nation states referred to in the example are not really that.

Even if we don't take the UK as a whole but say England, we are really looking at many different independent states eventually coalescing into one - Wessex, Mercia, East Anglia (especially as the Danelaw) and Northumbria being the major ones. Its not so much a natural evolution as a geo-political development where the different states gain an over-arcing sense of nationality

For France look at Brittany, Normandy, Burgundy, Aquitaine, Provence - only now do we see them as PARTS OF FRANCE. Beforehand they were separate entities with their own special rights, languages and histories and were bound in a multi-ethnic state (the Kingdom of France) which eventually developed a homogenising ethnicity

The same with Germany and Sweden (think Scania) and especially places like Russia

Grey Wolf

 

[sunsurf]

In "For Want of a Nail" Kramer Industries becomes a corporate political state. How much earlier could that have happened? Maybe the Hanseatic League has its own citizenship not tied to a specific geographic locale, except for its headquarters. Then the British East India Company might become another corporate state independent of the British Empire. The Dutch East India Company follows, then the Virginia Tobacco and Cotton Commonwealth, the Carolinas Tobacco Cooperative.
The New England Fisheries and the Boston Tea Company are on the verge of war in the 1770s but they settle their dispute when the British East India Company threatens to step in.
Is that too far-fetched?

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I don't get the comparison. Rome aspired to universal statehood, but there was never an attempt to impose Roman culture on the empire, just Roman rule. The fact that it lasted so long caused gradual Latinization, especially where veterans were settled, but I don't think this is comparable to the intrusiveness of the state into say, France after the Revolution, or the brtal ethnic cleansing conducted in the Balkans in the 19th c.

It was indeed, but its greatest contribution to the idea of nation-state was the idea that most perceived benefits of the small city-state (such as relatively decent level of living for most citizens, republican - in theory, and sometimes even in practice government, etc) could be obtained by a much more numerous multitude of the citizens of continent-spanning empire, as long as they are "citizens", which in Rome of 222 AD meant completely different thing than in Rome of 100 BC, as in the IIIrd century the Romans did try to transform from the "state" into "nation-state" - unsuccessfully, however, it created the idea and the precedent; the idea did work with smaller, less diverse populations.

The one thing the Romans did permeate is the idea of the "Empire" as a trans-national, trans-ethnic institution to where instead of thinking of themselves as being "of Rome", "of London", "of Athens" many in the cities' population begun to think of themselves as "Roman", which transcended the idea of belonging to one's city first, and to a greater empire second. When Rome dissolved in the West, and the barbarian successor kingdoms tried to emulate the majesty of the empire they helped to destroy, they used the Roman ideas on centralizing the power - even if it did take many centuries to fully realize them. The Romans provided the concept of an empire - their successors applied it to their own tribal loyalties and clan rivalries, resulting in proto-nations of medieval Europe that became the states of today.

 

[Chrispi]

If the Greeks prevailed instead of the Romans, we could have seen a much looser political system form, an Ecumene rather than an Empire.

 

[Midgard]

I don't get the comparison. Rome aspired to universal statehood, but there was never an attempt to impose Roman culture on the empire, just Roman rule. The fact that it lasted so long caused gradual Latinization, especially where veterans were settled, but I don't think this is comparable to the intrusiveness of the state into say, France after the Revolution, or the brtal ethnic cleansing conducted in the Balkans in the 19th c.

My main point is that the intrusiveness of the state in early modern times would not be possible if not for the concepts originating with the Romans. The Romans did not necessarily make everyone Latinize, but rather, they IMO made Latinization the only way to long-term personal success. In a way, it would be similar to the Ottoman assimilation of the Christian peoples of the Balkans in XVth century through about the XVIIIth century or so - while non-Muslims would not be physically forced to convert, there would be many incentives for them to do so. With the Romans, there would be no harm coming to one from not wanting to Latinize, but anyone who aspired to any sort of political or economic success had to, and wanted to Latinize. The invention of the modern times is forcible imposition of the state's dominant culture upon the other cultures within it. The idea of imposing the culture through "strong persuasion" (if this is the proper term) is something that started with the Romans, and prevailed until the nations doing that became a large majority within their territories, as opposed to being a conquering minority.

 

[Tyr]

Modern system of nation states?
The age of nation states ended back in the 30s and gave way to the age of idelogy. Now we are getting into the corporate age.
WW2 leading onto the cold war was all about idelogies, democracies vs. fascists vs. communists. It didn't really matter which nation was rich that much- what little there was was just hanging over from the time before.
Now companies cross international borders no problems, international law is becoming quite standardised. How rich you are is much more important then what nationality you are.

 

[Rick Robinson]

Europe, perversely, seems to be heading in both directs; a continent wide entity with a patchwork of states. Look at seperatist movements in Northern Italy, Scotland, and even France.

What's perverse about it?

The implications of this have been discussed in the literature on international relations, the term used being "neofeudalism." In the case of Europe, you could see elements of sovereignty distributed among three levels, so someone is a Welshman, a Briton, or a European, depending on context. Possibly a 4th level; the UN might be revitalized in an environment in which it deals not just with a handful of Great Powers, but a multilevel patchquilt of quasi-states.

I've also speculated on a future re-emergence of the city-state (though I haven't tried to work out a future history that produces that outcome). Consider that any major metropolitan city would have the resources to provide itself with a nuclear deterrent.

Generally, in fact, nuclear weapons potentially eliminate the historical advantage of bigness. In the pre-nuclear world, 20 battleships were overwhelmingly superior to 5 battleships, 20 armored divisions to 5 armored divisions, etc. It is far less clear that 1000 nuclear warheads convey any real advantage over 250 nuclear weapons, or even 50 - since even a dozen nukes are enough to visit catastrophic devastation upon anyone.

-- Rick --

 

[Justin Pickard]

>bump<

Think I might do an AH challenge for this. Come up with a international system in which the nation-state ends up as the exception rather than the rule. Bonus points for late PODs, realism, imagination, and lack of armageddon.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Multi-level states work best when they devolve authority downwards, and in the case of nation states where they join a multi-national entity, it has a great efect if the component parts of the nation are given greater power from joining the larger entity - eg Andalucia has gained immensely from Spain joining the EU

Grey Wolf

 

[wkwillis]

The size of the state depends on the difference between the costs of defensive versus offensive weapons. Defensive weapons give an edge to small groups fighting for their city or clan against large groups of people fighting for an empire.
You want a city state world instead of a nation state world, kill all the horses. Say, there is an island off the Americas that the natives haven't got to, and horses on it. Those horses will be from when horses evolved in the Americas and before they dispersed to the rest of the world. They will have disease that will wipe out the horses that spread to the rest of the world.
No horses, no cavalry, no empires or knights.

 

[Darkest]

What about elephants, camels, or oxen?