Lesson Report:
Okay, here is the lesson report based on the provided transcript:
## Lesson Report: Nationalism vs. Multiculturalism – Theory and Tension
**Synopsis:** This session began with a student presentation comparing theories of nationalization and nationalism (Marcelo de Barça, Cornel Walkley/Lorenzo Marcilli). The class then discussed the relationship between globalization and multiculturalism before delving into a review of Walker Connor’s concepts, particularly the distinction between patriotism and nationalism and the irrational, emotional basis of the latter. Students reflected on and discussed the inherent tensions between ethnonationalism and multiculturalism, exploring different perspectives and potential solutions, before the final assignment (a literature review) was briefly introduced and explained.
**Attendance:**
* 0 students mentioned absent.
**Topics Covered:**
1. **Student Presentation: Theories of Nationalization (Okorik)**
* **Core Idea:** Differentiating nationalization (influencing nationalism) from nationalism itself (shared culture/nation/history deserving a state).
* **Marcelo de Barça:**
* Quote: Nation as a “common home where unity, familiarity and a sense of shared purpose can be revealed.”
* Contribution: Nationalization shaped by local powers (e.g., China, EU, US), not just the West. Examples: China’s power/land focus vs. West’s democracy/solidarity focus.
* **Cornel Walkley (via Lorenzo Marcilli):**
* Source: Article by Lorenzo Marcilli on Walkley’s ideas.
* Distinction: Nationalism (emotional/psychological group based on history) vs. Nationalization (governance).
* Quote (Walkley): “subconscious belief in the group’s secret origin and evolution is an important ingredient of national psychology.”
* Marcilli’s Addition: Nationalism shaped by history, emotions, world politics; international politics can reinforce national identity.
* **Comparison (Agreement):**
* Both see nationalism as a stronger force than nationalization (or patriotism implied later).
* Walkley: Ethnic/customary goals are more potent than state loyalty.
* Marcilli: Nationalism adapts and grows in response to global change.
* **Comparison (Disagreement):**
* Walkley: Nationalism based on deep emotional/psychological connection, separate from the national system.
* Marcilli: Nationalism also influenced by world events, globalization, international conditions.
* **Presenter’s Synthesis:** Cultural identity from family/history/land context. Marcilli argues nationalization challenges ethnic identity but may become dominant globally; nationalism evolves with local tradition and global change.
* **Conclusion:** Nationalism is shaped by thought, history, and global interactions; it’s constantly changing.
2. **Opening Discussion: Globalization and Multiculturalism**
* **Instructor Prompt:** Connecting the presentation’s mention of globalization to the day’s topic. Question: Define globalization.
* **Student Definition (Afrid):** Economic interdependence (e.g., auto industry supply chains reducing war likelihood) and cultural mixing/impact (e.g., fear of US cultural dominance via brands like McDonald’s/KFC replacing local development).
* **Instructor Summary:** Highlighted both economic interdependence and the cultural aspect of globalization.
* **Connecting Question:** What is the relationship between globalization and multiculturalism? Does participating in globalization require reducing cultural sovereignty for a “global multiculturalism”?
3. **Review: Walker Connor on Patriotism vs. Nationalism**
* **Objective:** Use Connor’s framework to analyze the tension between nationalism and multiculturalism.
* **Core Distinction (Review from previous lesson):**
* **Patriotism:** Loyalty to the *State* (its institutions, government).
* **Nationalism:** Loyalty to the *Nation* or *Ethnic Group* (the people, the group identity).
* **Example (Kyrgyzstan):** A patriot supports the Kyrgyz state and institutions. A Kyrgyz nationalist supports the Kyrgyz *people* (ethnic group); state support is conditional on aligning with ethnic interests.
* **Connor’s Argument:** In conflicts between state loyalty (patriotism) and group loyalty (nationalism), nationalism almost always wins.
4. **Review: Walker Connor on the Power of Nationalism**
* **Key Characteristic:** Nationalism is *irrational* (not illogical, but non-rational/emotional). It’s not based on cost-benefit analysis. (Reference to chapter title: “Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding”).
* **Basis:** Driven by deep-rooted emotional and psychological desire to belong to a group/kinship.
* **Evidence:** People make ultimate sacrifices (death in war) for the nation/group, driven by passion, not economic calculation.
* **Metaphor:** The persistent idea of shared “blood.”
* **Territoriality:** Addressed student question – nationalism is *often* tied to territory, but not always strictly defined by borders (Examples: Catalan aspirations beyond Spain, Kurds across multiple states, historical Jewish diaspora).
5. **Reflection Activity: Tension between Multiculturalism and Ethnonationalism**
* **Task:** Students spent ~3 minutes reflecting in notebooks.
* **Questions:**
* Why is there an inherent tension/incompatibility between multiculturalism and ethnonationalism?
* Can this tension be resolved, or is conflict inevitable?
6. **Discussion: Sharing Reflection Responses & Defining Ideologies**
* **Sources of Tension Identified by Students:**
* Uncertainty in multicultural settings (defining “us” vs. “them,” potential dominance struggles).
* Ethno-nationalism perceived as preserving ancestral culture against external influence.
* Ethno-nationalism’s inherent “will to dominate” conflicts with multiculturalism’s power-sharing goal.
* Ethno-nationalism seeks homogeneity, while multiculturalism embraces diversity (seen as better fit for large/diverse states).
* **Instructor Point on Ideology:** Both ethno-nationalism *and* multiculturalism are ideologies.
* **Multiculturalism as Ideology:** Identifies problem (ethnic conflict, lack of harmony/power-sharing); proposes solution (harmony, integration, potentially “melting pot” or distinct groups coexisting); suggests methods (policies like holidays, education).
* **Tension Source:** Ideologies often define themselves in opposition (Dominance vs. Power Sharing).
* **Perspective Matters:** Acknowledged that while the class might see ethno-nationalism as the “problem,” ethno-nationalists view multiculturalism as a threat (to language, culture, territory, rights).
* **Potential Solutions Suggested:** Finding a balance; creating a strong *state* culture/patriotic identity (e.g., shared holidays) to supersede ethno-national identities. Instructor noted this is a common but difficult state project.
* **Nationalism vs. Culture/Practice (Bira):** Student argued nationalism is a “state of being” without specific practices (political acts = patriotism; cultural acts = tied to specific cultures like Islam), making it inherently conflictual as it borrows from other ideologies. Instructor challenged this using the Yugoslavia example (Bosnian Serbs fighting for an ethnic state outside existing Serbian state structures, implying national actions/culture beyond formal state patriotism).
7. **Clarification: Ethnicity vs. Nation**
* **Student Question:** Role of culture, language in ethnicity vs. nation.
* **Instructor Explanation (using Lacour/Connor):**
* **Ethnicity:** Group sharing cultural/ancestral traits (language, customs, etc.) but *not necessarily* politicized. Example: Polish-Americans share traits but identify primarily as American, lacking political mobilization for autonomy.
* **Nation (Ethno-nation):** An ethnic group that has become politicized, defined collective interests (often autonomy/statehood), and mobilized to achieve them.
8. **Clarification: Tribe vs. Nation/Ethnicity**
* **Student Question:** Status of African tribes unaware of their state.
* **Instructor Explanation:** Line between tribe, ethnicity, and nation is blurry and debated.
* Examples: Tutsis/Hutus (tribes classified as ethnicities); Kyrgyz (tribes forming a nation); Pashtuns (tribes forming an ethnic group across borders).
* Politicization/Mobilization is key: Pashtuns exist as an ethnic group (shared culture). Pashtun *nationalists* are mobilized with political goals (Pashtunistan).
* Uncertainty about groups completely unaware of state structures.
9. **Administrative: Final Assignment – Literature Review**
* **Task:** Analyze the dialogue between 2+ scholars on ethnicity/nationalism, showing how theories connect and build upon each other.
* **Foundation:** Students can use their presentation research as a starting point and add sources.
* **Due Date:** Mid-May (approx. May 19th).
* **Citation Style:** APSA (American Political Science Association) style required. Instructor suggested online guides or tools like ChatGPT for formatting help.
* **Future Plan:** Instructor intends to create a visual chart mapping course theories in the coming weeks.
10. **Lecture: Revisiting Connor – Emotional Core and Perceived Primordiality**
* **Recap:** Nationalism’s power stems from its emotional core, making ethnic loyalty often stronger than state loyalty.
* **Connor & Primordialism:** While acknowledging modern construction (Gellner), Connor argues the *perception* or *feeling* that the nation is ancient and primordial is crucial to its power, regardless of historical fact. It connects generations emotionally.
* **Reiteration of Irrationality:** This perceived ancientness fuels the non-rational, emotional commitment driving sacrifices beyond logical self-interest.
11. **Activity/Discussion: Examples of National Sacrifice**
* **Prompt:** Examples where national loyalty defied rational individual interest.
* **Student Examples:**
* Chernobyl Liquidators (Soviet national identity).
* Japanese Kamikaze Pilots (WWII – Japanese national identity).
* Soviet Soldier blocking machine gun fire (WWII – Soviet national identity).
* **Instructor Analysis:** These acts likely driven by loyalty to the *nation* (an idea, a people) rather than just the *state* (institutions). Underscores Connor’s point about nationalism’s power and the state’s need to cultivate a compelling national identity, not just patriotism.
12. **Defining Multiculturalism (Normative Focus)**
* **Descriptive:** Simple existence of multiple cultures in one place.
* **Normative (Political Science):** An ideology and set of policies aiming to actively recognize, accommodate, integrate, and harmonize diverse ethnic/cultural groups within the state framework. (Skipped alternative state responses due to time).
13. **Points of Conflict: Why Ethno-nationalists Oppose Multiculturalism**
* **Threat to Group Identity:** Fear that accommodating others dilutes or erases their own group’s culture, purity, or dominance.
* **Weakens Cohesion:** Belief that multiculturalism creates a less unified, less emotionally resonant state compared to one based on a single ethno-national identity.
* **Unfairness:** Perception that the dominant/”original” group is forced to share power and resources unjustly with “outsiders.”
* **Undermines Claim to Territory/State:** Multicultural policies challenge the ethno-nationalist belief in their group’s exclusive right to the land and state.
14. **Conclusion and Next Steps**
* A planned workshop activity was postponed until the next lesson (Monday).
* **Assigned Reading for Monday:** “Myth of the Ethnic War” – challenges purely ethnic explanations for conflict, suggesting underlying material factors.
* A student requested a documentary recommendation on Yugoslavia post-class.
**Actionable Items:**
* **For Next Lesson (Monday):**
* Integrate the postponed workshop activity into the lesson plan.
* Connect the workshop and discussion to the upcoming Yugoslavia case study.
* **Course Planning:**
* Prepare the promised chart visually connecting the course’s theories on nationalism/ethnicity.
* **Student Support:**
* Respond to the student’s request (pending email reminder) with recommendations for a Yugoslavia documentary.
* **Administrative:**
* Note the final Literature Review deadline (approx. May 19th) for grading planning.
* Ensure students are aware of and can access resources for APSA citation style.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Final Literature Review
This is the final assignment for the course, designed to help you synthesize the various theories and scholarly conversations we have explored regarding nationalism, ethnicity, and related concepts. You will practice identifying and analyzing the dialogue between different scholars, examining how they build upon, critique, or diverge from one another’s work, much like you began doing in your class presentations. The goal is to demonstrate your understanding of how academic knowledge in this field develops through ongoing scholarly debate.
Instructions:
1. Select a specific debate, theme, or theoretical lineage within the study of nationalism and ethnicity that we have covered (e.g., primordialism vs. modernism, the nature of patriotism vs. nationalism as discussed by Connor, the relationship between ethnonationalism and multiculturalism, the role of emotion vs. rationality).
2. Choose at least two key scholarly works (articles, book chapters) relevant to your chosen theme. You are strongly encouraged to use the primary article from your class presentation as a foundation.
3. Write a literature review that analyzes the “dialogue” between your selected authors. Clearly articulate the main argument(s) of each scholar.
4. Explain how these scholars’ works relate to each other. Do they build directly on previous ideas? Offer critiques? Address the same core questions from different angles? Use specific examples from the texts and our class discussions (like Connor’s emphasis on the perceived primordiality and irrationality of nationalism) to illustrate their connections and divergences.
5. Discuss the common threads and overarching themes that emerge from this scholarly conversation. How do these authors, collectively, contribute to a deeper understanding of the complexities of nationalism and ethnicity?
6. You may need to incorporate additional relevant scholarly sources beyond your initial two to fully trace the intellectual conversation and support your analysis.
7. Format your paper and all citations according to APSA (American Political Science Association) style guidelines. As mentioned in class, online guides and resources are available to assist with this formatting.
8. The deadline for this assignment is in mid-May (tentatively mentioned as May 19th in class). Please confirm the exact due date on the course page.
ASSIGNMENT #2: Reading for Next Class on “The Myth of Ethnic War”
For our next class session, you need to complete the assigned reading, which critically examines the concept of “ethnic war.” This reading challenges the perspective that deep-seated ethnic hatreds are the sole or primary cause of such conflicts, often suggesting that other material, political, or strategic factors are at play. Engaging with this text will help you develop a more nuanced understanding of ethno-national conflict, providing a counterargument to perspectives like Connor’s that emphasize the potent, emotional force of ethnic identity, and will prepare you for our upcoming discussions, potentially including the case of Yugoslavia.
Instructions:
1. Locate and access the assigned reading on the “myth of ethnic war” provided on the course page.
2. Read the article/chapter carefully before our next class meeting on Monday.
3. Identify the author’s central thesis regarding the causes and nature of conflicts commonly labelled as “ethnic wars.”
4. Consider how this argument contrasts with or complements the theories of nationalism and ethnicity we have discussed so far, particularly those emphasizing identity and emotion (like Connor’s).
5. Come to class prepared to discuss the reading’s main points, its strengths and weaknesses, and its implications for understanding real-world conflicts.