RAH - Nationalism taps into powerful emotions associated with group identity

The powerful emotions that are, or can be, stirred by nationalism evolved over millions of years when Homo sapiens and his predecessors lived in extended family groups in the "natural environment". An individual was utterly dependent on their "group" with which we were hard-wired to identify intensely, especially in times of rivalry or conflict with "other" groups, even to the extend of being prepared to sacrifice one's own life for it.

Human behaviour being very plastic, these emotions are capable of being moved from one group to another, or projected onto other objects (real or abstract), with which we then intensely identify and for which, under some circumstances, we are prepared to make great sacrifices: e.g. "our" football team, "our" company, "our" nation, "our" religion, "our" political party, "our" ideology, etc.

At its root it is all about personal and group identity.

An individual Homo sapiens on his own is lost and helpless - it is only through collaboration, in groups, with other individuals (forced or voluntary), and hugely facilitated by the invention of money, that he becomes powerful.

After the 2nd World War it wasn't just the importance of nationalism which was denied, because of the pathological extremes to which the Nazis took it, but also (similarly, because of the Nazi's insane and criminal racial doctrines) the importance of race and ethnicity for personal and group (national) identity.

2nd Post

Following on from my first post, above:

Although loath to recognise or admit it, we are not just influenced, but still very much dominated by our animal nature and behaviour, which the power structures of the nation state and free-market capitalism both developed - naturally enough - to serve and exploit, not rationally, humanely or democratically, as we like to kid ourselves (and never mind "sustainably!"), but in the collective, uncoordinated, narrow, dumb-animal self-interests of the most powerful or influential individuals, in the continuing Darwinian struggle for survival and advantage, no longer in the family group and natural environment, for which human nature and behaviour evolved, but in the artificial "socio-economic environment" which has effectively combined and replaced them both.

I'm sorry that last sentence is so long; it might need to be read more than once.

Anyway, it used to be the aristocracy and the church, now it's our political, intellectual and economic elites, with the media playing an especially important role.

3rd Post

[emilbus], the "artificial socio-economic environment" is where we ALL live, work and play, not just the elites. We all depend on it, but the elites are formed by those most successful, one way or the other, at exploiting it. Free-market capitalism developed to facilitate the process and works so well because it taps into motivations and behaviour patters that, quite literally, come naturally to us.

The elites are no longer predominantly hereditary, but are readily accessed by anyone with the necessary talent and opportunities. So long as we are dominated by our animal nature and behaviour they will continue to form naturally. One elite may replace another, and certainly some are preferable to others, but essentially the situation will remain the same, until enough people wake up to what is going on, choose to rise above their animal nature, and change it. For sustainability's sake (on which human survival now depends) we have no choice but to do so very soon. Otherwise it will be left to a ruthless Mother Nature (who is already "warming up" for the job) to put us in our place.

[elpero]: "The complexities of nationalism cannot be explained simply by referring to 'our animal nature and behaviour'".

I'd put it this way: the complexities of nationalism (along with every other aspect of human society) cannot be explained WITHOUT referring to our animal nature and behaviour, which evolved over millions of year to serve our survival and advantage in circumstances totally (and I do mean "totally"!) different to those we find ourselves in today.

No one, as you say [elpero], is hard-wired to support a particular party, but we ARE hard-wired (notwithstanding the plasticity of human behaviour patterns, which can readily be projected onto objects other than those they evolved for) to identify strongly (even passionately or fanatically) with our "own" group - whatever it might be and see things in terms of "them and us". And there might be (usually are) more than one group that we identify with.

I, for example, do not identify with any football team (except occasionally out of solidarity with a friend or my brother-in-law, who are passionate supporters of different teams), or with Britain (which I've come to realize is just a con that supports power structures to the advantage of our elites), but passionately identify with being a "native European". If I bother to watch the Olympics it will be native Europeans that I will be hoping to win, rather than any black or Asian Brits - not because I'm racist (which I'm certainly not), but because I do not identify with multi-racial/multicultural Britain.

http://www.spaceship-earth.org

To: Guardian CiF Re: Nationalism taps into the powerful emotions associated with group identity Date: Wednesday 2 May 07

In response to the Guardian article, "A sword and shield against globalisation's dark riders" by Simon Jenkins on the importance of nationalism Link to article and thread at The Guardian. The powerful emotions that are, or can be, stirred by nationalism evolved over millions of years when Homo sapiens and his predecessors lived in extended family groups in the "natural environment". An individual was utterly dependent on their "group" with which we were hard-wired to identify intensely, especially in times of rivalry or conflict with "other" groups, even to the extend of being prepared to sacrifice one's own life for it. Human behaviour being very plastic, these emotions are capable of being moved from one group to another, or projected onto other objects (real or abstract), with which we then intensely identify and for which, under some circumstances, we are prepared to make great sacrifices: e.g. "our" football team, "our" company, "our" nation, "our" religion, "our" political party, "our" ideology, etc. At its root it is all about personal and group identity. An individual Homo sapiens on his own is lost and helpless - it is only through collaboration, in groups, with other individuals (forced or voluntary), and hugely facilitated by the invention of money, that he becomes powerful. After the 2nd World War it wasn't just the importance of nationalism which was denied, because of the pathological extremes to which the Nazis took it, but also (similarly, because of the Nazi's insane and criminal racial doctrines) the importance of race and ethnicity for personal and group (national) identity. 2nd Post Following on from my first post, above: Although loath to recognise or admit it, we are not just influenced, but still very much dominated by our animal nature and behaviour, which the power structures of the nation state and free-market capitalism both developed - naturally enough - to serve and exploit, not rationally, humanely or democratically, as we like to kid ourselves (and never mind "sustainably!"), but in the collective, uncoordinated, narrow, dumb-animal self-interests of the most powerful or influential individuals, in the continuing Darwinian struggle for survival and advantage, no longer in the family group and natural environment, for which human nature and behaviour evolved, but in the artificial "socio-economic environment" which has effectively combined and replaced them both. I'm sorry that last sentence is so long; it might need to be read more than once. Anyway, it used to be the aristocracy and the church, now it's our political, intellectual and economic elites, with the media playing an especially important role. 3rd Post [emilbus], the "artificial socio-economic environment" is where we ALL live, work and play, not just the elites. We all depend on it, but the elites are formed by those most successful, one way or the other, at exploiting it. Free-market capitalism developed to facilitate the process and works so well because it taps into motivations and behaviour patters that, quite literally, come naturally to us. The elites are no longer predominantly hereditary, but are readily accessed by anyone with the necessary talent and opportunities. So long as we are dominated by our animal nature and behaviour they will continue to form naturally. One elite may replace another, and certainly some are preferable to others, but essentially the situation will remain the same, until enough people wake up to what is going on, choose to rise above their animal nature, and change it. For sustainability's sake (on which human survival now depends) we have no choice but to do so very soon. Otherwise it will be left to a ruthless Mother Nature (who is already "warming up" for the job) to put us in our place. [elpero]: "The complexities of nationalism cannot be explained simply by referring to 'our animal nature and behaviour'". I'd put it this way: the complexities of nationalism (along with every other aspect of human society) cannot be explained WITHOUT referring to our animal nature and behaviour, which evolved over millions of year to serve our survival and advantage in circumstances totally (and I do mean "totally"!) different to those we find ourselves in today. No one, as you say [elpero], is hard-wired to support a particular party, but we ARE hard-wired (notwithstanding the plasticity of human behaviour patterns, which can readily be projected onto objects other than those they evolved for) to identify strongly (even passionately or fanatically) with our "own" group - whatever it might be and see things in terms of "them and us". And there might be (usually are) more than one group that we identify with. I, for example, do not identify with any football team (except occasionally out of solidarity with a friend or my brother-in-law, who are passionate supporters of different teams), or with Britain (which I've come to realize is just a con that supports power structures to the advantage of our elites), but passionately identify with being a "native European". If I bother to watch the Olympics it will be native Europeans that I will be hoping to win, rather than any black or Asian Brits - not because I'm racist (which I'm certainly not), but because I do not identify with multi-racial/multicultural Britain. http://www.spaceship-earth.org