Ideas and Politics in Modern Britain pp 53-86 | Cite as
In Defence of the Nation
- 12 Citations
- 2 Mentions
- 18 Downloads
Abstract
Over the last decade it has ceased to be either polite or politic for British subjects to defend the ‘national idea’ as the foundation of political order. Or rather, you can defend that idea on behalf of others — at least if they are engaged in some ‘struggle for national liberation’ — but not on behalf of your own community and kind. Indeed, you should be careful not to use words like ‘kind’, ‘race’, or ‘kin’. Loyalties, if they are not universalist, must be expressed surreptitiously, in the self-deprecating language of one confessing to a private fault. In a recent publication, Professor Bikhu Parekh shows why there is a need for caution. Parekh summarises a nationalist view (which he attributes to various people, including myself), in ‘four basic premises’:
Keywords
Modern World National Idea Liberal Theory Political Order Liberal StatePreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
- 1.Bikhu Parekh, The “New Right” and the Politics of Nationhood’, in N. Deakin (ed.), The New Right: Image and Reality (London, The Runnymede Trust, 1986).Google Scholar
- 2.J. G. Herder, J. G. Herder on Social and Political Culture (Cambridge, 1969).Google Scholar
- J. G. Fichte, Addresses to the German Nation (London and Chicago, 1922).Google Scholar
- 3.Ernest Renan, Qu’est ce qu’une nation? (Paris, 1882).Google Scholar
- Lord Acton, ‘Nationality’ in The History of Freedom and Other Essays, ed. J. N. Figgis and R. V. Laurence (London, 1907).Google Scholar
- 5.See B. Parekh, Contemporary Political Thinkers (Oxford, 1982).Google Scholar
- 6.Henry Sidgwick, The Elements of Politics (London, 1891).Google Scholar
- J. S. Mill, On Liberty (London, 1859).Google Scholar
- 7.John Gray, The Politics of Culture Diversity’, The Salisbury Review, 7 (September 1988): 38–44.Google Scholar
- 8.Michael Walzer, Exodus and Revolution (New York, 1985).Google Scholar
- Michael Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (Cambridge, 1982).Google Scholar
- Charles Taylor, Philosophy and the Human Sciences (Cambridge, 1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.So argues, for example, Sir Isaiah Berlin, in ‘Nationalism: Past Neglect and Present Power’, in Against the Current (New York, 1980).Google Scholar
- 11.See Elie Kedourie, Nationalism (London, 1960).Google Scholar
- 12.See R. A. D. Grant, ‘Shakespeare as a Conservative Thinker’, in R. Scruton (ed.), Conservative Thinkers (London, 1988).Google Scholar
- 13.See the commentary by H. T. Buckle, History of Civilization in England (London, 1864): 491.Google Scholar
- 14.See the painstaking demolition by Jacques Barzun, Race: A Study in Modern Superstition (London, 1938).Google Scholar
- 17.The dilemma that this poses for the contemporary Jew is interestingly unfolded in Alan Montefiore, ‘The Jewish Religion —Universal Truth and Particular Tradition’, Tel Aviv Review, 1 (1988): 166–86.Google Scholar
- 20.Sir Henry Maine, Ancient Law (London, 1890).Google Scholar
- 21.See note 7 above, and also Ronald Dworkin, Law’s Empire (London, 1986).Google Scholar
- 22.Kenneth Minogue, Nationalism (New York, 1967): 154.Google Scholar
- 24.Régis Debray, Critique de la Raison Politique (Paris, 1981): 178.Google Scholar
- 26.J. Stalin, Marxism and the National Question (1913)Google Scholar
- 27.Albert Hourani, Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age (Oxford, 1962).Google Scholar
- 28.Alexander Solzhenitsyn, ‘Repentance and Self-Limitation in the Life of Nations’, in From Under the Rubble (London, 1976).Google Scholar
- 29.John H. Scharr, ‘The Case for Patriotism’, American Review, 17 (May 1973): 62–3.Google Scholar
- 31.See Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews (London, 1987): 238.Google Scholar
- 32.See Antoine Fattal, he statut légal des non-musulmanes en pays d’Islam (Beirut, Imprimerie Catholique, 1958).Google Scholar
- 34.Alain Finkielkraut, La défaite de la pensée (Paris, 1987).Google Scholar