Nationalism and Globalization: East and West

13. Conclusion: Nation, Nationalism and Globalization

344 Leo Suryadinata© 2000 Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore In this concluding chapter, I would like to highlight some interesting points mentioned in the preceding chapters and occasionally offer my own interpretation. I will also draw some brief comparisons between the countries in order to show similarities and differences in the process of nationalism and globalization. As I see it, “nation/nation state” is the product of modern history. In the past, there was a concept of “dynasty” or kingdom rather than the “nation/nation state”. It is also true that “ethnic group” emerged long before “nation”, if one defines “ethnic group” in terms of common ancestry. Nevertheless, it seems that “ethnic group” can also develop into a nation, the so-called “ethno-nation” or “ethnic-nation”. Japan is one example. Nevertheless, the majority of nations in the world are multiethnic nations, also known as “social nations”. Whether it is an ethnic nation or a social nation, there are similarities in terms of their components. A common history, a common heritage (including a common language) and common values often constitute the basis of national belonging. The political élite promoted this sense of national belonging, which is often called nationalism. It was the élite who defined nation and nationalism. Some writers, for instance, Ernest Gellner, even maintain that nationalism is a creation of the élite in order to achieve certain political goals. It is a political construct. To a large degree, this is certainly true but one should not ignore the “foundations” (components) 344 m n Conclusion: Nation, Nationalism and Globalization LEO SURYADINATA 13 ISEAS DOCUMENT DELIVERY SERVICE. No reproduction without permission of the publisher: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 30 Heng Mui Keng Terrace, SINGAPORE 119614. FAX: (65)7756259; TEL: (65) 8702447; E-MAIL: publish@iseas.edu.sg Conclusion: Nation, Nationalism and Globalization 345© 2000 Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore of a “nation” that other writers mention. Without these “foundations” it is hard to recognize that there is indeed a “creature” called “nation”. The twelve countries under study, with the possible exception of Japan, are “nations” at different stages of development. Some have just completed state building, while others have been “nations” for different lengths of time, but their components continue to develop. Even the United Kingdom, which is considered to be one of the first modern nations, is actually a “multinational state” rather than a “nation state”. Because of the difficulty in building a nation with a common culture, common language, and common heritage, many countries have abandoned nationbuilding efforts and concentrate instead on citizenship. They have abandoned the building of a national culture or a national identity but accept multiple cultures and multiple identities. Citizenship, it would seem, can be developed into nationhood, but citizenship is not identical with nationhood. One can change citizenship relatively easily but it is more difficult, if not impossible, to change his/her nationhood. Unlike citizenship, which is a legal concept, nationhood is socio-cultural, emotional, and political. Nevertheless, in the West, nationhood and citizenship have been used interchangeably. I would argue that nationhood and citizenship should be differentiated, as the former is a politico-cultural concept while citizenship is a legal concept. Nevertheless, some chapters in this volume have occasionally used these two concepts interchangeably, and hence have weakened, if not confused, the arguments. Im m igrant States Australia Australia is an immigrant nation rather than an indigenous nation. The immigrants, mainly European, defined Australia as a White man country, using English and Anglo-Celtic culture as a model. Initially, it took neither non-European nor Asian components. However, with the increase of Asian immigrants to Australia, the state began to take in some Asian elements, and professed cultural pluralism as a state policy. The impact of Asian immigrants on the Australian nation is significant, as Australia is no longer defined as a European nation. Economic needs required Australia to be oriented towards Asia but a minority, represented by the One Nation Party led by Pauline Hanson, continues to perpetuate the White Australia concept. During the era of globalization, the narrow concept of “One Nation” (that is, European Nation) appears to be anachronistic but this sort of nationalism dies hard. 346 Leo Suryadinata© 2000 Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore Although Australia is still in the process of building a nation based on “multiculturalism”, the basic foundation of this nation in terms of language and values is still...