Why is there a global revival of nativist nationalism?

Some consider nationalism itself to be a byproduct of the French Revolution, but this is only when the concept of nationalism came to our attention. ‘To be proud of where you come from’ would be an oversimplification of the notion, but captures the essence of the idea. Nationalism is complicated; it has many different roots and manifests in many different forms. To understand why nativist nationalism specifically has experienced such a global revival recently, we must first understand two things: what separates it from other facets of nationalism, and why the concept of a ‘nation’ is so crucial to the foundations of almost all forms of nationalism. This essay will analyze these postulations within the setting of the United States. As this essay will demonstrate, the United States is not the most obvious example of a place riddled with the extreme violence that is associated with extreme forms of nationalism, but there are staunch notions of nationalism woven within its culture that show just how commonplace it can be.

The word nationalism itself does not convey much about the vast spectrum of ideologies it can describe. The most common forms of nationalism come in opposing sets: secular or religious, ethnic or civic, non-territorial or territorial. Some people may hold beliefs that are supported by more than one of these ideologies, so they can at times be difficult to differentiate. All of them, however, represent beliefs of how the world should operate.

Secular nationalism is perhaps the most widespread in the Western world as it was popularized by Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke and Jean-Jacque Rousseau. They believed people naturally associated with the community, culture, and place of their ancestral birth (or, in the case of the United States and other colonized territories, an adopted homeland) within an economic or political structure that is tied to a secular nation state. Secular nationalism can be, and often is, tied to religion in some way, but the idea itself is considered secular because it focuses on the role of a free and enlightened man, not on the role of man as prescribed by any god or theology. Religious nationalism, on the other hand, completely subscribes to the ideologies of one religion and aims to build a nation around it. Secular nationalism is considered the driving force behind much of the world’s colonization, despite the fact that religion was spread with it. This is because countries were conquered and colonized in the name of spreading the enlightened views of the state and religion was only a small piece of those views. The focus on making indgenious people across the world more European in style and culture is what makes this so. 

Ethnic nationalism, or nativist nationalism, supports the idea that identity of a nation is defined in terms of a shared faith, heritage, or ethnic ancestry. Although the descendants of colonizers may not be native to the land, these beliefs can still be rampant among them as they define their country based on a shared idea of ancestry. On the contrary, civic nationalism focuses on the political structures within a country to define its members. In this case, the common ground is not heritage, but citizenship. Ernest Renan argues that in this way, nations are defined just as much by what people forget as by what they jointly remember. Every country is built on violence, and even if it led to what we have in the modern day, citizens of a nation will bond over their perceived suffering and use this communal alleviation of grief as a foundation for unity among them.

Non-territorial nationalism is a direct product of globalisation. As the world becomes smaller and more interconnected, people are less bound to land and borders than ever before. We are now experiencing a time where the shared identity of language, heritage, faith, and culture is not always tied to a geographic location. With the advent of mass publication as well as the internet, communication and identity can transcend these traditional boundaries. Jihadist movements, for example, use religion as a common ground and are able to radicalize people all over the world over the internet because their identity is not explicitly tied to any one territory. Territorial nationalism, as one can imagine, is unable to spread in this way because its identity is fixed in a specific physical place.

The difference between the two, as well as between the other types of nationalism, is largely influenced by the differing views on what defines a nation. Nations themselves are defined by the people within them, and the spreading of nationalist ideas depends on this definition. Colonies were once vehicles for spreading these ideas because the driving force behind colonization was spreading a specific ideology, often unique to the homeland of the colonizers. Nations are traditionally defined by these physical borders because they also serve as the dividing margins between units in a global economy, but that is not necessarily always the case. The most well documented instances of religious violence stem from nationalist ideologies in places where the definition of nation is not concrete or unanimously acknowledged.

In places like Somalia, Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan, there is an incredible amount of uncertainty regarding what the state should be and what elements of society should lead it. It is in these places of uncertainty that extreme groups find foothold because they create a foundation of unity that the state is unable to provide.

While some, like Anthony Smith (1995), consider the popularity of modern nationalist movements to be evidence of the consistent need or desire for a national identity, others consider these nationalist movements to be something constructed in direct response to globalisation. In other words, nationalism exists because groups and individuals consciously choose to be nationalists. To be successful, a nationalist ideology has to appeal to public sentiment through cultural or political symbols to create a passion within its following. If passionate enough, subscribers to an ideology may even be willing to die in the name of their views. This provided an excellent mindset to enable the mobilized and global wars of the last three centuries. In that time period, wars between federal states became the primary form of warfare. To fuel these battles, governments relied on conscription, elevated taxes, and the increased reach of its administration. By tightening the grip on its citizens, governments could successfully convey and endorse the idea of ‘nation’ and the idea of ‘other.’ 

The rise of nativist nationalism relies on this distinction. Whether it was a natural byproduct of the human spirit or a detailed construction through global warfare and domination, nativist nationalism persists because of both. Its rise in popularity can be attributed to a new necessity of individuals to consider what exactly marks their identities, which was brought on by the violent warfare that divided the world and the subsequent ease of movement around it. Globalisation has forced communities to mix and merge and nationalist movements could be considered a mere struggle to find an identity amidst it all. However, globalisation itself relied on the passion of nationalist movements for fuel. 

It is my opinion that nationalism has always existed in some form, and that the earliest players in European domination justified their violent actions with nationalist ideals. These people were members of the highest social classes and sought pride in their native identity because they were faced with the new concept of ‘other’. Today, people of every social class can experience the effects of globalisation. From what food is available in the supermarket to how many houses in a neighborhood are owned by people that grew up outside of it, globalisation has been able to affect every single person in the United States in some way.

Native nationalism thrives on the negative consequences of this global migration. It tells its listeners that there is a difference between us and them, and that our way of life is worth fighting to defend. Its rise in popularity across the world and specifically in the United States can be contributed to the fact that governments used its ideology for wartime support among the general public, not just a few members of the elite. This was especially true during the first and second World Wars, but the recent rise of far-right narratives has much later beginnings. 

According to Owen Worth (2019), the seeds of the current wave of nativist nationalism in the United States were planted in the global discontent with the order of the post-cold war era and fertilized by George W. Bush’s ‘War on Terror’ in the aftermath of the terrorist attack in New York City in September 2001. Anti-Islamic sentiment was ripe in the United States and remains a unifying factor for many members of the far-right. The attacks on 11 September were a catalyst for large-scale reactionary populism, and that can be seen in the number of Americans that joined their army in the months following. The global financial crisis of 2008 created an environment where these sentiments were able to flourish and spread into the mainstream as well as Congress. 

The financial crisis created a situation with a further imbalance of power; there were more people affected by poverty, and there were far more instances of inequality and social fallout. Right wing narratives successfully exploited any problems with immigration and globalism to consolidate their following. There were certainly problems in the United States before his election, but the rise of Donald Trump in 2016 turned up the heat and brought the simmering tensions to a boil. 

The most recent American presidential election was memorable, to say the least. It stood out to me personally because it was the first time I was able to vote. My final year of high school was chronicled by the scandals Trump faced, yet somehow avoided, along his campaign trail.  I admittedly remember little of the details of the election prior, yet I knew that this one was different. Americans generally consider it rude to discuss politics openly, but an election year seems to be the one exception. Social media was a battlefield, and discovering that a friend or relative supported Trump felt like the equivalent of losing them. Every last thing he said pushed us further away from each other, almost like we had heard entirely different things. I heard him start his campaign by stating Mexico was sending ‘drug dealers and rapists’ to cross the border, my classmates heard him taking a stand on illegal immigration. I heard him bragging about committing sexual assault, my neighbors heard him refuse to bow down to the strict and unneccessary demands of political correctness. I heard him vow to ban people from entering our country on the basis of their presumed religion, my aunt heard him promise to protect our religious freedom. I heard him openly lie to the world, and my peers heard that the media had wrongfully twisted his words.

I grew up in the Bible Belt, a section of the southeastern United States that is known for staunch conservatism and Christianity. We call them red states too, due to the fact that people in this area almost always vote for Republican politicians. The cities, if large enough, are like pockets of blue in a red sea. I lived in suburban developments on the outer outskirts of these cities, straddling or amidst the countryside. I mention this to address my own bias when reflecting on the political tension, because I want to discuss my own experience of it. The Trump supporters I have met are typically either very poor or very rich, and are almost always white. If I think back to high school, none of the stereotypically ‘smart’ kids ever liked him. His ideas thrived among those who believed in the American dream, those who felt uncomfortable around gay people, those who carried their Bibles to school, those who had no real interest or understanding of politics, those that shot animals for sport, and those that had rarely or never encountered someone from another country. 

The culture of the United States is both everything and nothing like you would see in the movies, and I believe understanding it is crucial to understanding why and how Trump got elected despite having no prior political experience. Over time I have come to believe that the mentality of his supporters, at least a fraction of them, stems from a place of ignorance because our culture cultivates it. We learn about ourselves as a country, but learn little of our place in the world. It is easier than I can express to live in complete ignorance of what is happening beyond our borders. We see ourselves as the whole world and are taught that our lives in the States are coveted by those who do not live among us. We were raised to believe that freedom is earned and that our federal troops have so bravely fought and died for ours.

This proud American identity and ignorance to anything different explains why movements like Trump’s have been so successful. It also explains why they have been so divisive: the United States that Trump supporters have experienced is not the same for every person across the country. He appeals to a specific group of people, and he speaks to their passion and nostalgia for their perceived American experience to obtain his power. 

This is what makes the rise of Trump so indicative of nativist nationalism despite its proponents holding a common European ethnic ancestry. His supporters see the United States as their refuge turned homeland, and as they have incubated in this isolation for centuries, they have emerged to defend it from its growing threat: the outside world. Fear of the consequences of immigration and globalisation combined with ignorance of its reality have led to the perfect medium for Trump to gain power. 

The effects of his election were immediate. November 2016, the month he was elected, witnessed no less than 758 reported hate crimes, the highest number in a single month since September 2001. Hateful speech may not have been altogether shunned from the American mainstream prior to his election, but he still emboldened those with hateful views. The number of hate crimes committed in the United States has only risen, with the motives of gunmen and other criminals often echoing the views of the president. A study from the University of North Texas found that counties that had hosted one of his campaign rallies had a 226% increase in reported hate crimes compared to counties that did not host him. There was an instance in New York City where a man wearing one of Trump’s infamous red ‘Make America Great Again’ hats pushed a Mexican immigrant onto the subway tracks while screaming anti-Hispanic slurs. There was another instance where a man opened fire in a Walmart parking lot in El Paso, Texas, killing twenty-two people and citing it as his response to the “Hispanic invasion of Texas”. The word ‘invasion’ specifically has direct ties to both political advertisements from the Trump campaign as well as Trump’s own language. There is a correlation because he was able to successfully invoke passionate support.

The reactionary populism that defined the first years of the twenty-first century America set the tone, while the global financial crisis at the end of the first decade stirred the pot. Conservative voices carried more legitimacy than previously and Trump used this to consolidate power. Globalisation has been perceived as a threat to the ‘American’ way of life and has left many Americans wondering what it really means to be ‘American.’ The struggle to define what unites us has allowed movements with qualities characteristic of nativist nationalism to persevere with their own ideas and definitions. The nostalgia and unity they try to evoke among followers has allowed them to become and remain popular. Until we learn to preach respect rather than protection and inclusion instead of exclusivity, proponents of nativist nationalism, like Donald Trump, will remain in power.

Nativist nationalism has reached such global proportions because of the changing world to which it is tied. Globalisation has touched every corner of the world and simply put, there are those who would rather exist in the unchanged environment of their childhood. This passion for homeland is unifying and has been exploited for violent purposes, such as mobilisation during the World Wars. The internet, as well as other new mediums of communication, have allowed ideas to spread and become more accessible, creating a blended community that leave many wondering how to distinguish themselves among it. In a digital world where we are more likely to be judged on merit rather than appearance, some find that their only defining feature is where they come from. This is not problematic in and of itself, but the ardour that stems from it can and has been harnessed to defend non-inclusive policies and ideologies, sometimes through violence. We are experiencing this type of nationalism at a whole new rate both because it is a natural byproduct of a globalising world and because our nations have aided its construction for political motives, and the United States, glamorous as it may appear to some, is no exception.

Bibliography

Britt, Laurence W. “Fascism Anyone?” Free Inquiry, vol. 23, no. 2, 2003.

Feinberg, Ayal, et al. The Trump Effect: How 2016 Campaign Rallies Explain Spikes in Hate . University of North Texas, 2019.

Juergensmeyer, Mark. “The Global Rise of Religious Nationalism.” Australian Journal of International Affairs, vol. 64, no. 3, 2010, pp. 262–273.

Kaldor, Mary. “Nationalism and Globalisation.” Nations and Nationalism, vol. 10, 2004, pp. 161–177.

Kunzelman, Michael. “Trump Words Linked to More Hate Crime? Some Experts Think So.” AP NEWS, Associated Press, 7 Aug. 2019, apnews.com/7d0949974b1648a2bb592cab1f85aa16.

Renan, Ernest. “What Is a Nation?” 1882.

Smith, Anthony. Nations and Nationalism in a Global Era. Cambridge, 1995.

Worth, Owen. Morbid Symptoms: The Global Rise of the Far-Right. Zed Books, 2019.